/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111213.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 246


ANDATEE CHINA: Faces Class Action Over Fengbin Takeover Bid
BANK OF AMERICA: Attorneys Seek Slice of Overdraft Settlement
BLISS COLLECTION: Recalls 2,300 Children's Henley Pima Pajamas
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Transfer Balance Program
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Court Favors Subscribers in Class Action

CONAGRA FOODS: Class Action Over Cooking Oil Label Dismissed
CREDIT BUREAU: Faces Class Action Over Illegal "Collection Fee"
LLOYDS BANKING: Fishman Haygood Files Securities Class Action
MF GLOBAL: Commodity Traders File Class Action in Illinois
MICROSOFT: Updates Xbox 360 Service Terms to Block Class Actions

MIDWEST SALT: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
PETARMOR: Faces Class Action Over "Spot-On" Flea & Tick Products
WACKENHUT SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime


ANDATEE CHINA: Faces Class Action Over Fengbin Takeover Bid
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders object to
Andatee China Marine Fuel Services CEO An Fengbin's going-private
takeover bid of $41.3 million, or $4.21 a share; they say the book
value is $5.50 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Marin, et al. v. Andatee China Marine
Fuel Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 7089 (Del. Ch. Ct.),
is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

BANK OF AMERICA: Attorneys Seek Slice of Overdraft Settlement
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a major
battle is shaping up over some $123 million in attorney's fees in
the massive Bank of America overdraft class action.  An
Argentinian law firm is asking a federal judge to allow it to
intervene in the case, while plaintiffs attorneys want their bid
for fees to be decided in Florida state court.

BLISS COLLECTION: Recalls 2,300 Children's Henley Pima Pajamas
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bliss Collection LLC, doing business as Bella Bliss of Lexington,
Kentucky, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,300 Children's
Henley Pima Cotton Pajamas.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear posing a risk of burn injury to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The pajamas are a two-piece, cotton sleepwear set sold in sizes 2
to 12.  The pajamas are white, blue, pink or red.  "Bella Bliss"
is written on the neck tag.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Peru and sold at Bella
Bliss catalog and Web site, and specialty clothing retailers and
online stores from January 2008 to June 2011 for about $48 to $58.

Children should stop wearing the recalled sleepwear immediately
and consumers should return it to the retailer where the product
was purchased for a refund, exchange or store credit.  For
additional information, contact Bella Bliss toll-free at (866)
846-5295 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Transfer Balance Program
A group of consumers have filed a class-action lawsuit against
credit-card giant Capital One claiming the company lures consumers
into transferring large balances with promises of interest-free
money, but engineer the offer's details to allow the company to
charge interest rates exceeding 13%.

The case alleges that Capital One deceived cardholders by claiming
that a cash advance obtained through the company's transfer
balance program would include a zero percent annual percentage
rate, or APR, for one year.  At the same time, the company
allegedly promised that consumers' credit balances through credit
cards and other lines of credit covering regular purchases would
not gain interest as long as the balance was paid within 25 days.

However, according to the complaint, cardholders who took
advantage of the transfer balance program were charged interest
rates exceeding 13% for purchases made through credit cards and
other lines of credit, even if the balance was paid on time.

The lawsuit claims that Capital One strategically and improperly
applied payments to the transfer balance rather than to consumers'
credit, also known as the purchase balance.  This caused many
consumers to be charged for the remaining balance at interest
rates exceeding 13%, even if they paid off their purchase balance
on time.

Consumers who used Capital One's program are part of a proposed
class identified by the lawsuit filed by consumer protection law
firm Hagens Berman.

The firm wishes to speak with consumers who were forced to pay
high interest rates on credit lines, despite paying the owed
amount back on time.

You can contact the Hagens Berman legal team via e-mail at

Consumers can also contact the firm by calling (206) 623-7292.
Additional information is available at

The case, filed on June 9, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, asks the court to
declare Capital One's acts a breach of contract and award
plaintiffs damages for losses incurred because of the program.

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm with offices
in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles, Minneapolis,
New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.  Founded in
1993, the firm represents plaintiffs in class actions and multi-
state, large-scale litigation that seek to protect the rights of
investors, consumers, workers and whistleblowers.

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Court Favors Subscribers in Class Action
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Dec. 8 disclosed that a purported class
action filed against the Company in March 2008, in the District
Court of Central Region was decided against the Company.  The
lawsuit was approved as class action in August 2009, in relation
to the allegation that the Company breached the agreements with
its subscribers by charging them for a call details records
service, previously provided free of charge, without obtaining
their consent.  The total amount claimed was estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS440 million.  The Court accepted
the allegation and ordered the Company to repay its customers the
sum charged for the service in the amount of approximately NIS22
million plus interest and linkage differences from the date of
each payment made by the subscribers, an amount of NIS200,000 to
be paid to the plaintiffs and a fee for the plaintiffs' attorney
equal to 10% of the sum to be repaid plus VAT.

The Company believes the decision to be mistaken and intends to
appeal the decision and request to stay proceedings until the
appeal is decided.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million
subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.  As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides
landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition
to data communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are
traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (CEL).

CONAGRA FOODS: Class Action Over Cooking Oil Label Dismissed
Sean Wajert at Dechert LLP reports that a federal court recently
dismissed a proposed class action accusing a food company of
misleadingly labeling cooking oils as 100% natural when they
allegedly were made from genetically modified plants.  Robert
Briseno, et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., No. 2:11-cv-05379 (C.D.

Quick research reveals that 88-94% of the nation's crops of corn,
soy and canola are grown from seeds that are the product of
bioengineering.  There is no credible science that there are
serious health issues with these products, and multiple peer
reviewed studies on "GM" crops worldwide show farmers in
underdeveloped countries have seen an increase in yield of
about 29% from using them, along with decreased use of insecticide

Plaintiff alleged that he regularly purchased Wesson Canola Oil,
bearing labels that state the product is "100% Natural."
Plaintiff contended that contrary to these representations,
ConAgra used plants grown from genetically modified organism seeds
that have been engineered to allow for greater yield, and to be
pest-resistant, to make Wesson-branded oils.  He asserted
that the genetically modified organisms are somehow not "100%
natural," and thus the labels and advertising are deceptive.
Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to represent a class of all
persons in the United States who have purchased Wesson Oils from
2007 on.  As is typical, he alleged violation of California's
false advertising law ("FAL"), California's unfair competition law
("UCL"), and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").

Defendant moved to dismiss.  The first issue was preemption of the
state law causes of action, based on FDA guidance regarding food
labels.  Federal preemption occurs, generally, when:

(1) Congress enacts a statute that explicitly pre-empts state law;

(2) state law actually conflicts with federal law; or

(3) federal law occupies a legislative field to such an extent
that it is reasonable to conclude that Congress left no room for
state regulation in that field.  Specifically, ConAgra argued that
Briseno's claims were preempted because the FDA has repeatedly
concluded that bioengineered foods are not meaningfully different
from foods developed by traditional plant breeding, and thus that
the fact that a food product is derived from bioengineered plants
need not be reflected on a product's label.  Plaintiff responded
that he was not arguing that ConAgra was required to state whether
its products were made from genetically modified plants.  Rather,
he contended that the decision to label its products "100%
Natural" was misleading.

Courts have split on food preemption issues. Compare Dvora v.
General Mills, Inc., 2011 WL 1897349 (C.D. Cal. May 16,
2011)(cereal-yes); Turek v. General Mills, Inc., 754 F.Supp.2d
956 (N.D. Ill. 2010)(snack bars-yes); Yumul v. Smart Balance,
Inc., 2011 WL 1045555 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2011)(yes), with
Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 597 F.Supp.2d 1028 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 3, 2009)(pasta-no); Wright v. General Mills, Inc., 2009 WL
3247148 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2009)(granola bars-no).

Here, the court found no preemption on most of the complaint.  The
bulk of the complaint, said the court, alleged that use of the
phrase "100% Natural" is misleading, and did not contend that
additional information must be added to Wesson Oil labels.
Regulations requiring that each product list its ingredients by
their "common or usual name," together with the regulations
requiring that vegetable oils be denominated "oil," were
inapplicable since plaintiff's central argument was not that
ConAgra cannot use the common or usual names of canola oil,
vegetable oil or corn oil.

The FDA has expressed that it has no basis for concluding that
bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or
uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new
techniques present any different or greater safety concern than
foods developed by traditional plant breeding.  So, plaintiff, in
essence, sought to create a distinction -- between "natural" oils
and those made from bioengineered plants when the FDA has
determined that no such distinction exists.  The court rejected
this argument, refusing to read the FDA guidance as
formal enough or clear enough on the issue.

Plaintiff did also seek an order requiring defendant to adopt and
enforce a policy that requires appropriate disclosure of GM
ingredients.  Entering an order of this type would impose a
requirement that is not identical to federal law, and thus this
particular prayer for such relief was preempted.

Rule 9(b) requires that in all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with
particularity.  The pleading must identify the circumstances
constituting fraud so that a defendant can prepare an adequate
answer to the allegations.  While statements of the time, place
and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities are often
sufficient, mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.
Even if fraud is not a necessary element of a claim under the CLRA
and UCL, when a plaintiff alleges fraudulent conduct then the
claim can be said to be grounded in fraud or to sound in fraud.

Plaintiff alleged that he regularly purchased Wesson Canola Oil
for his own and his family's consumption.  But his complaint
contained no allegations as to whether he became aware of the
representation through advertising, or labeling, or otherwise.  He
provided no information about how often he was exposed to the
allegedly misleading statement.  He did not allege how frequently
he purchased the product and over what period of time, whether he
relied on statements on canola oil labels, on a Web site, in
advertisements, or all of the above, whether the statements
remained the same throughout the class period, or, if they did
not, on which label(s), advertisement(s) or statement(s) he

Thus, this complaint did not afford ConAgra adequate opportunity
to respond.  Consequently, defendant's motion to dismiss was
granted (without prejudice).

CREDIT BUREAU: Faces Class Action Over Illegal "Collection Fee"
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed
in Manhattan claims Credit Bureau Collection Services, of
Columbus, Ohio, sent letters demanding an illegal "collection fee"
of $195.15 for collecting debts allegedly owed to (nonparty) AT&T

LLOYDS BANKING: Fishman Haygood Files Securities Class Action
Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, LLP on Dec. 8
disclosed that a class action lawsuit was filed on November 23,
2011, against Lloyds Banking Group, plc (formerly Lloyds TSB,
plc); Sir Victor Blank; and Eric Daniels in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased Lloyds American Depositary
Receipts ("ADRs") during the period October 1, 2008 through
February 27, 2009, inclusive.

If you purchased Lloyds ADRs during the Class Period and sustained
damages, you may, no later than 60 days from Dec. 8, file a motion
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York requesting that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing litigation.  In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may serve
together as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  If you wish to discuss your
rights, please contact:

        Joseph Peiffer, Esq.
        Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, LLP
        Telephone: (504) 586-5252
        E-mail: jpeiffer@fishmanhaygood.com

You may retain Fishman Haygood or other counsel of your choice to
serve as your counsel in this action.  You may also contact the
Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York at (212) 805-0136 to learn the
procedures for filing a motion requesting that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.

The complaint charges Lloyds and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Lloyds, the largest retail bank in the United Kingdom, has its
ordinary shares traded on the London Stock Exchange.  Its ordinary
shares are also traded in the United States through a sponsored
ADR facility with The Bank of New York Mellon serving as the
depositary.  The ADRs are traded on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol LYG.  The CUSIP number is 539439109 and the ratio
of ADRs to ordinary shares is 1:4. Sir Victor Blank was, at all
times relevant to the lawsuit, Chairman of Lloyds.  Eric Daniels
was, at all times relevant to the lawsuit, Chief Executive of

On September 18, 2008, Lloyds announced that it had reached an
agreement to acquire the Halifax Bank of Scotland ("HBoS").
Unbeknownst to the public, however, beginning on October 1, 2008,
HBoS was insolvent, and received Emergency Liquidity Assistance
("ELA") from the Bank of England.  HBoS further received
assistance from the United States Federal Reserve Bank ("U.S. Fed.
Assistance") beginning on September 16, 2008.  Neither the ELA nor
the U.S. Fed. Assistance was publicly disclosed.  In a report
published by the Bank of England in 2010, the Governor of the Bank
of England stated "Without that assistance, [HBoS] would not have

On October 13, 2008, Lloyds and HBoS announced revised terms to
the acquisition, which terms were reported in a 6-K filed with the
SEC.  The 6-K failed to disclose that HBoS had received ELA and
the U.S. Fed. Assistance.

On November 3, 2008, Lloyds filed with the SEC its shareholder
circular recommending the acquisition of HBoS.  The Circular
omitted to state or explain in unambiguous language or at all
that: (1) HBoS was receiving ELA from the Bank of England in its
capacity as lender of last resort and/or that the GBP60 billion
near cash assets which HBoS would contribute to the merger had
been dissipated or that those assets were not available or
acceptable for the granting of other liquidity assistance or
existing liquidity assistance from the Bank of England; (2) At the
time of publication of the Circular, HBoS had been using the ELA
for more than one month, and it was anticipated that it would
continue to rely on such a facility at least in the short term;
and (3) HBoS was reliant on such ELA to continue trading, and
without it HBoS would be insolvent.  In addition, the Circular
affirmatively stated that there had been no significant change in
the financial or trading position of the HBoS since June 30, 2008,
the date of its last published financial statements.  Furthermore,
the Circular states that, as to HBoS, all material contracts, or
contracts which might be material, had been disclosed.

On November 19, 2008, the acquisition was approved by the Lloyds
shareholders.  A similar vote of HBoS shareholders on December 12,
2008 resulted in approval of the takeover.

On or about November 24, 2009, the Bank of England revealed the
ELA that it had extended to HBoS.  Although the existence of the
ELA, and the state of Lloyds' knowledge of it, was not disclosed
until November 24, 2009, the market did begin to understand the
true nature of HBoS's finances shortly after the merger was

On February 13, 2009, Lloyds reported that the newly-acquired HBoS
had suffered a worse-than-expected GBP 10 billion loss in 2008,
causing the price of Lloyds ADRs to plummet from a closing price
on 2/12/09 of $5.33 to $3.80 on 2/13/09 and $2.99 on 2/17/09, a
total decline of 44%.  Then, on February 27, 2009, Lloyds
confirmed that HBoS sustained a pre-tax loss of GBP 10.8 billion
in 2008, and that it had been plagued by GBP9.9 billion of bad
loans.  This announcement caused the price of Lloyds ADRs to
decline from a close on 2/26/09 of $4.01 to $3.25 on 2/27/09,
$2.79 on 3/2/09, $2.51 on 3/3/09, $2.68 on 3/4/09 and $2.22 on
3/5/09, a total decline of 44%.  In total, the news released from
February 13 to February 27 resulted in a decline in the price of
Lloyd's ADRs from $5.33 to $2.22, a decline of 58%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from Lloyds
misrepresentations and omissions on behalf of all purchasers of
Lloyds ADRs during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is represented
by Fishman Haygood, which has extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

The lawsuit, captioned Ross v. Lloyds Banking Group, plc, et al.
No. 11-cv-08530, is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York before Judge Kevin Castel
and Magistrate Theodore Katz.  Excluded from the Class are the
defendants and members of their immediate families, any entity in
which a defendant has a controlling interest and the heirs of any
such excluded party.  A full copy of the lawsuit can be obtained
by contacting Fishman Haygood or the Clerk of Court for the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York at
(212) 805-0136.

Fishman Haygood -- http://www.cfhlaw.com/-- is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers.

MF GLOBAL: Commodity Traders File Class Action in Illinois
Linda Sandler, writing for Bloomberg News reports that Jon Corzine
and other former MF Global Holdings Ltd. executives were sued for
damages by a group of commodity traders.

Henning-Carey Proprietary Trading LLC, a clearing firm and member
of CME Group Inc. (CME), joined with eight traders in a suit in
federal court in Chicago saying that $1.2 billion in missing
money, or much of it, won't be returned to brokerage customers.
They seek to recover losses they and other traders had on their MF
Global Inc. brokerage accounts as a result of the parent's Oct. 31

The suit is one of several filed by brokerage customers and former
employees against Mr. Corzine, MF Global executives or the company
itself since the bankruptcy.  Mr. Corzine told the House
Agriculture Committee at a Washington hearing on Dec. 8 that he
"would never have intended" transfers from segregated accounts and
had teams in place at the firm to ensure they didn't occur.

He wouldn't say if he and other executives were willing to share
customers' losses.  Mr. Corzine and his executives were
responsible for looking after customers' segregated accounts, yet
the money went missing as the company tried to salvage its
business after "engaging in highly leveraged and speculative
trading in foreign sovereign bonds," the traders alleged.

                         Frozen Accounts

The plaintiffs' accounts were frozen along with about 38,000
others on Oct. 31, after "apparent segregation violations," making
it impossible for customers to access their accounts or the assets
in them, they said.

MF Global trustee James Giddens, who is liquidating the brokerage,
has transferred about 38,000 commodity accounts to other firms,
and plans to sell 330 securities accounts, he said.  Three
transfers of collateral made and pending will give commodity
customers about $4 billion of their assets, according to court

The parent company's Oct. 31 bankruptcy filing, the eighth-
largest in U.S. history, listed assets of $41 billion.
Mr. Corzine, the former co-chief executive officer of Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., quit as MF Global's CEO on Nov. 4.

Andrew Levander, a lawyer for Mr. Corzine, didn't immediately
respond to an e-mail seeking comment on the lawsuit.

The traders also are seeking punitive damages and legal costs
after a jury trial.

The case is Henning-Carey v. Corzine, 11-cv-08717, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

MICROSOFT: Updates Xbox 360 Service Terms to Block Class Actions
Eric Caoili, writing for Gamasutra, reports that mimicking Sony's
move to block class action lawsuits from PlayStation Network
users, Microsoft updated its Xbox 360 terms of services to prevent
U.S. owners from taking the company to court.

In its major dashboard update rolled out for Xbox 360 on Dec. 6,
Microsoft amended the TOS that all owners must agree to before
using the console, adding new language purporting that they are
giving up their right to file lawsuits against the platform

The new TOS section reads:

"If you live in the United States, you and Microsoft agree that if
you and Microsoft do not resolve any dispute by informal
negotiation . . . any effort to resolve the dispute will be
conducted exclusively by binding arbitration in accordance with
the arbitration procedures in Section 18.1.7.

You understand and acknowledge that by agreeing to binding
arbitration, you are giving up the right to litigate (or
participate as a party or class member) all disputes in court
before a judge or jury.

Instead, you understand and agree that all disputes will be
resolved before a neutral arbitrator, whose award (Decision) will
be binding and final, except for a limited right of appeal under
the federal arbitration act."

It also includes a clause claiming that users are waiving their
rights to join an Xbox 360 class action lawsuit targeting
Microsoft.  The company has suffered several class action suits
over the years, most recently over alleged double-billing on Xbox

By limiting consumers' ability to join class action lawsuits,
Microsoft could potentially save itself a significant amount of
money, as it would pay only a fraction of individual users
affected by a particular issue, instead of the millions who could
opt into a class action.

Sony instituted similar language into its PSN terms three months
ago with a new "Binding Individual Arbitration" section, though it
also offered an option allowing users to opt-out of the clause by
sending a physical letter to the company.

It pointed to a recent controversial Supreme Court ruling --
allowing AT&T to block employees from filing class action suits
against the carrier -- to explain its decision: "The Supreme Court
recently ruled in the AT&T case that language like this is

"The updated language in the TOS is designed to benefit both the
consumer and the company by ensuring that there is adequate time
and procedures to resolve disputes."

Sony notably updated the terms five months after a federal class
action suit was brought against the company for a security breach
exposing users' personal information to hackers that attacked the
company's online services, including PSN, earlier this year.

Several state governments aren't comfortable with these kind of
clauses, though, as Kotaku points out.  Illinois has ruled that
consumers must always have the right to pursue legal action, and
Ohio and New Mexico are both currently investigating the issue.

MIDWEST SALT: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
Quality Management and Consulting Services, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Midwest Salt, LLC, Anthony E.
Johnson and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2011-CH-41313 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., December 2, 2011) challenges the Defendants' practice
of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that unsolicited faxes damage their
recipients because a junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax
machine, paper and ink toner.  The Plaintiff adds that an
unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would
have been spent on something else.

Quality Management is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Rolling Meadows, in Cook County, Illinois.

Midwest Salt is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Batavia, Illinois.  Mr. Johnson is a manager, member,
and control person of Midwest Salt.  The Doe Defendants will be
identified in discovery but are not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500

PETARMOR: Faces Class Action Over "Spot-On" Flea & Tick Products
Yet another class action was filed last week in federal court in
Newark, New Jersey, in the District of New Jersey, against a
manufacturer of "Spot-On" Flea and Tick products, neurotoxin
pesticides placed directly on the skin of millions of household
dogs and cats across the United States.

There is a growing sense of moral outrage and alarming statistics
from consumers and pet advocates alike after over 75,000
complaints about the products have been reported to the EPA and
nothing has been done to change the advertising, marketing or
labeling of the products to alert pet owners of the possible
serious side-effects.  What's chilling is that those numbers only
reflect what has been reported, the actual number of incidents may
be much, much higher.

"Spot-On" products generally do not say in their advertising or
marketing or even EPA mandated labeling that the products may
cause death or other serious side-effects, including paralysis,
seizures and ulcerated skin lesions.  Consumers are largely
unaware of these possibilities when applying the products to their
dogs and cats.

Michael Green of Green & Associates, LLC, one of the attorneys
that filed the New Jersey class actions, stated, "I've received a
number of phone calls from pet owners in the middle of the night,
where they are traumatized after their dog or cat has just died in
their arms after they placed these pesticides on them.  These are
innocent pets who were trusting their owner to do the right thing
for them.  The owners are horrified to think that they gave their
pet something that killed them, often in an excruciatingly painful
way.  Most tragic are those stories where the owner had one pet
die only to put it on another pet after being assured there was no
connection to the product and have that pet die also.  I've gotten
a few of those calls too.  Unfortunately, the law treats our dogs
and cats as just chattel, but if you ask any of these pet owners
whose pet died, their dog or cat was a member of their family."

            Sold By Major Retailers and Veterinarians

The "Spot-On" tick and flea business is estimated to be an $8
billion a year industry with the products primarily sold by
veterinarians and pet store retailers such as PetCo and PetSmart.

Last week, PetArmor, a new "Spot-On" flea and tick product for
dogs and cats, is being served with the complaint filed against
it.  PetArmor was launched on April 20, 2011 in a press conference
with the ASPCA.  The product has been featured in television ads
and is sold in major retailer WalMart.  It is described by the
manufacturer, FidoPharm, as containing the same active ingredients
as Frontline, a well-known veterinarian recommended product.

Other "Spot-On" products sued in the class actions in New Jersey,
beginning in January 2010, include Frontline, manufactured by
Merial Limited, and those manufactured and sold by the other major
animal pharmaceutical corporations Sergeant's Pet Care Products,
Inc., Hartz Mountain Corporation, Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Farnum
Companies, Wellmark International, Inc. and Summit VetPharm, LLC.

"Spot-On" Flea and Tick products are now recommended for virtually
all dogs and cats, no matter the locale or specific risk.  The
Spot-On industry and vets who profit in the billions of dollars
have not been called to account as to whether the risk vs.
benefits really necessitate that common household pets across this
country, and the children and other humans in these households,
need to be exposed to these pesticides and neurotoxins 24/7.
Studies have shown that the pesticides are detectible on the hands
after petting.

                         EPA Complaints

Over 75,000 complaints to the EPA have been made since 2008
regarding these products including complaints of death and other
serious side-effects even without a centralized poison reporting
center, something the Humane Society is now calling for.  In April
of 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an
advisory and reported that there was a noticeable increase in the
number of adverse pet reactions involving the "Spot-On" pesticides
which act as neurotoxins.

            Nexus Between ASPCA and "Spot-On" Industry

FidoPharm enlisted the aid of the ASPCA in launching an awareness
of their "Spot-On" product PetArmor.  However, the class action
complaint alleges a nexus of relationships between executives of
the "Spot-On" product manufacturers and the ASPCA, heretofore
known to the public as a non-profit entity established to prevent
cruelty to animals.

The ASPCA has selected FidoPharm as its official tick and flea
sponsor in its adoption centers and clinics.  FidoPharm in turn
has donated product and $100,000 to the ASPCA.  John Preston, the
current chairman of FidoPharm's parent, was the founding executive
of Merial, the maker of Frontline.

Dr. Steven R. Hanson, the Senior Vice President and head of the
ASPCA's Poison Control Center, where adverse reports of "Spot-On"
products may be made, is a former director of Wellmark.  Hartz is
a corporate donor to the ASPCA and named Dr. Hanson "Veterinarian
of the Year."  The complaint alleges that calls into the Poison
Control Center regarding Hartz "Spot-On" products are redirected
to Hartz, allowing Hartz to directly manage any of these adverse

In addition, the ASPCA has a for-profit arm, APCC Consulting
Services, that provides professional services to animal
pharmaceutical corporations, including consultation on product
liability.  Hartz has been a client of the APCC.

Finally, the ASPCA in a press release, in response to the 2009 EPA
advisory regarding "Spot-On" products, quoted Dr. Hanson as
stating the products should continue to be used.

The plaintiffs of the class actions allege that the pesticides in
the "Spot-On" products cause death, paralysis, seizures and skin
lesions to their pets and that these adverse affects are not
stated in the advertising or marketing to pet owners.

More information regarding the class action lawsuits filed against
FidoPharm and others may be obtained at

Contact: Michael S. Green, Esq.
         Green & Associates, LLC
         Telephone: (732) 390-0480
         E-mail: green@msgreenlaw.com

WACKENHUT SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, 28 firefighters say Wackenhut, KBR and Halliburton
forced them to work around the clock in Afghanistan and Iraq but
paid them for only half their time, and responded to requests for
fair pay with "shorthand threats to fire" them, such as "'chicken
or beef,' which referred to the dining choices one had on the
flight home from Iraq."

The firefighters sued the contractors for fraud, conspiracy and
breach of contract.

"This complaint alleges actions and omissions of defendants, in
conspiracy with each other, and individually, done to defeat the
right of American citizens to receive their lawful wages required
by government contracts -- including in-country pay, danger pay,
on-call pay, up-lift pay, overtime, and other benefits and
compensation," the complaint states.

The workers claim that more than 2,000 firefighters were duped
into signing contracts that promised overtime and on-call pay "in
order to induce them to leave their families in the United States
and work under harsh conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The firefighters say they were on call day and night, were unable
to sleep and were forced to accept pay for only 12 hours.  They
claim they were forced to perform assignments above their pay
grades and keep walkie-talkies next to their ears while they

"When plaintiffs complained that they were being shorted pay, that
they were being required by KBR to work on-call hours without pay,
that KBR was commanding them around, WSI [Wackenhut Services
International] informed them that they were lucky to have jobs,
that they would be fired and sent back to America, and that many
were waiting in line for their jobs," the firefighters say.
"Various phrases were used as shorthand threats to fire if the
Plaintiffs continued to complain, such as 'chicken or beef,' which
referred to the dining choices one had on the flight home from

The firefighters claim that KBR, Wackenhut and Halliburton were
paid by the government for their extra work, but "defendants
refuse to pay plaintiffs, but instead pocket the money."

They seek class certification and compensatory and punitive
damages of $100 million for fraud, breach of contract, conspiracy
and failure to pay overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Hill, et al. v. Wackenhut Services
International, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02158 (D.D.C.) (Boasberg,
J.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott J. Bloch, Esq.
          1050 17th St., N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 496-1290
          E-mail: sbloch@bcounsel.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Trevelline, Esq.
          1823 Jefferson Place, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-2504
          Telephone: (202) 737-1139
          E-mail: mjt@mjtlegal.com


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., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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 $575 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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *