CAR_Public/120801.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 151

                             Headlines

AMAZON: Court's Denial of Penguin's Arbitration Bid Challenged
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Paint
ANASAZI GROUP: Accused of Offering Illegal Loans in Illinois
APPLE INC: iPod and iTunes-Related Class Suits Pending in Calif.
AURORA LOAN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over LIBOR Fraud
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Gets Favorable Ruling in Class Action
BIG LOTS: Two Law Firms Commence Securities Class Action
BOEING CO: Appeals in Securities Class Suit Remain Pending

BOEING CO: Still Awaits Rulings on Summary Judgment Bids
BOEING CO: Still Defends Two ERISA-Violation Suits in Kansas
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Inflated AWP
BRISTOL-MYERS: Defends Class Suit Over Abilify* Co-Pay Program
CELANESE CORP: Settlement of Plumbing Suits in Canada Pending

DOLLAR TREE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
DYNEX CAPITAL: Faces Allegheny Cty. Real Estate Owners' Suit
ENSLIN & SON: Recalls 314 Pounds of Sausage Products
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
HIGHMARK INC: Inks MoU with Royal Mile to Settle Class Action

HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls 5,610 Lbs. of BBQ Chicken Salads
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Still Defends Suit Over 401(k) Plans in Illinois
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Still Defends Securities Suit in New York
LSG SKY: Recalls 735 Pounds of Chicken Wrap Products
MATTEL INC: Appeal From $170-Mil. Damages Award Remains Pending

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Appeals in "Silverman" Suit Remain Pending
MSLGROUP: Plaintiffs in Discrimination Suit to Send Notices
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Sup. Ct. Review in "Skinner" Suit Not Sought
OMNICARE INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
OMNICARE INC: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

PANERA BREAD: Awaits Final Okay of $5MM Settlement of Two Suits
PANERA BREAD: Ex-Employees' Suit Settled and Dismissed in June
PICCADILLY FINE: FSIS Lists Stores That Got Recalled Products
RADIOSHACK CORP: Mediation Sessions in Illinois Suit Unsuccessful
RADIOSHACK CORP: "Brookler" Suit Remanded to Calif. Appeals Court

RADIOSHACK CORP: Song-Beverly Act Violations Suits Still Pending
RADIOSHACK CORP: Mulls Effect of "Brinker" Decision on "Ordonez"
RETAIL PROPERTIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Illinois
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Collora" Suit Remains Stayed in Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Decision on "Sateriale" Suit Appeal

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Six Class Suits vs. Unit Pending in Canada
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Aug. Hearing on Fee Issues in "Scott" Suit Set
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Lights" Class Suits vs. Unit Still Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Ill.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit vs. Units Remains Pending in Mo.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Indemnification Bid Remains Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Minn. Court Dismissed "Thompson" Suit in June
SUPERVALU INC: Independent Grocers Lose Class-Action Status Bid
SYNGENTA CROP: Officials Mum on Proposed Class Action Settlement
TICKETMASTER: Wheel Chair Users File Discrimination Class Action

TONY DOWNS: Recalls 70,500 Lbs. of Canned Chicken Products
VISA INC: Vermont Retail Association Opposes Fee Settlement
WALGREEN CO: Wins Bid to Dismiss Generic Drug Class Action
XCEED FINANCIAL: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action

                          *********

AMAZON: Court's Denial of Penguin's Arbitration Bid Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that
lawyers for Penguin on July 25 filed a petition with the U.S.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals challenging district Judge Denise
Cote's June 27 decision denying Penguin's motion to compel
arbitration for Amazon and Barnes & Noble e-book customers in the
consumer class action case derived from an alleged e-book price-
fixing scheme.  In a separate development, the federal government
said it will file its motion seeking final judgment against the
three settling publishers in its federal antitrust suit by
August 3.

In its original motion, filed March 2, Penguin sought to stay the
consumer class action case against them, arguing that Amazon and
B&N e-book purchasers expressly agreed in their license agreements
to "arbitrate any claims arising from their purchases of e-books."
Judge Cote, however, denied the motion, finding that even though
the agreements might be "otherwise enforceable," it was invalid in
this matter, because it would prevent e-book customers from
"vindicating their rights under the Sherman Act."  Judge Cote also
found that class action was preferable in the case, because it
would be "economically irrational" to force the vast number
individual e-book purchasers to litigate claims of a pricing
conspiracy individually in arbitration proceedings.

Meanwhile, the settlement involving three of the five alleged
conspirators in the federal governments price-fixing case (Simon &
Schuster, HarperCollins, and Hachette) is entering its next phase,
following the DoJ's filing its response to public comments on the
proposed settlement.  A DoJ spokesperon told PW they will file a
motion asking the court to approve the proposed final judgment by
August 3.  It is unclear, however, how quickly the final
settlement terms will go into effect.  After the government files
its motion, there will be more rounds of filings, including
responses from the publishers, although deadlines and dates for
those subsequent filings were unclear at this time.


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Paint
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Honda 2003-07 Accords and
Civics have defective paint that delaminates, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Nguyen, et al. v. American Honda Motor
Company, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-06426 (C.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/27/HondaCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 W. Pico Blvd., Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


ANASAZI GROUP: Accused of Offering Illegal Loans in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Khalilah Starks and Tiffany White and the class members described
below v. Tim Coppinger, doing business as Anasazi Group and
Anasazi Services, Case No. 2012-CH-28887 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., July 27, 2012) is brought to secure redress from usurious
loans made by the Defendants to Illinois residents over the
Internet.

The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Coppinger offered and made illegal
loans to Illinois residents and collected the loans by debiting
bank accounts located in Cook County and the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Illinois.

Mr. Coppinger is a resident of Kansas City, Missouri, and does
business as Anasazi Group and Anasazi Services.  He is in the
business of soliciting and making high-interest loans to persons
residing in Illinois and elsewhere.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


APPLE INC: iPod and iTunes-Related Class Suits Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust class action lawsuits over Apple Inc.'s iPod and
iTunes remains pending, according to the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The related cases in The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation
(formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple
Computer, Inc.); and Somers v. Apple Inc. have been filed on
January 3, 2005, July 21, 2006, and December 31, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect
purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various
claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and video
purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and
unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act,
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California monopolization law.  Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys fees.  Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights
management free versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an
order requiring the Company to license its digital rights
management to all competing music players.  The cases are
currently pending.


AURORA LOAN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aurora Loan Services,
Nationstar Mortgage, and Quality Loan Service Corp. illegally
foreclose on homes by falsifying mortgage documents, robosigning
and overstating the amount due and fees, a class action claims in
Los Angeles Superior Court.

  
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over LIBOR Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a plaintiff class composed of
all lending institutions either headquartered or with a majority
of their operations in New York State, claim they suffered damages
as a result of Bank of America Corp.'s allegedly fraudulent
conduct related to the United States Dollar London Interbank
Offered Rate.

The case is Berkshire Bank v. Bank of America Corp.; Bank of
America N.A. filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

  
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Sanford at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of
America customers won preliminary court approval of a $20 million
settlement over claims the bank signed up and charged credit card
customers for a useless credit-protection service.

Credit card customers had filed a class action accusing the bank
of signing them up for its Credit Protection Plus service without
their permission or through deceptive marketing and giving them
nothing meaningful in return for the monthly fees they were
charged.

Bank of America admitted to no wrongdoing in the proposed
settlement, but agreed to wind down the service.

In the meantime, the bank agreed to waive or eliminate several
restrictions it had imposed before enrollees could receive
benefits, including employer verification of involuntary
unemployment or disability and waiting periods before the
service's benefits kicks in.

The $20 million will be put into a fund administered by lawyers
who brought the action.

Customers who say they were enrolled in the program without their
consent or through deceptive advertising will be eligible for up
to $50 from the fund, while those who say they were denied the
benefits they expected can get up to $100.

Customers will have until Feb. 26, 2013, to submit claim forms to
receive a distribution from the fund.

The proposed settlement, which was preliminarily approved by U.S.
District Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco, limits
attorneys' fees to $6.6 million.

The final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for Jan. 14,
2013.

A copy of the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement,
Conditionally Certifying Class for Settlement Purposes, Approving
Form and Manner of Class Notice, and Setting Date for Final
Approval of Settlement in In Re Bank of America Credit Protection
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 11-md-02269
(N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/27/BoA%20Approval.pdf


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Gets Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court ruled in a private securities fraud class
action last week that the evidence was "insufficient" to support a
finding of loss causation, an essential element of such a lawsuit.

On July 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida in favor of defendant BankAtlantic Bancorp
Inc.

State-Boston Retirement System, a shareholder and lead plaintiff
in the case, brought a private securities fraud class action
against Bancorp.

At trial, State-Boston sought to prove that Bancorp had
misrepresented the level of risk associated with commercial real
estate loans held by its subsidiary, BankAtlantic.

BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc. is a publicly traded bank holding
company incorporated and headquartered in Florida.  BankAtlantic
is a federally chartered bank that offers consumer and commercial
banking and lending services throughout Florida.

From Oct. 19, 2006 to Oct. 25, 2007, State-Boston alleged Bancorp
fraudulently misled the public about the deteriorating credit
quality of BankAtlantic's commercial real estate portfolio.

That portfolio included land acquisition and development loans;
land acquisition, development and construction loans; and builder
land bank, or BLB, loans.

Each of these categories comprised loans to investors to buy land
for initial development followed by sale for further development.

The BLB loans were made to investors after they had sold options
to purchase lots to homebuilders. Non-BLB loans involved no such
pre-disbursement option contracts.

After the trial, the district court submitted the case to the jury
on a verdict form seeking general verdicts and answers to special
interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b).

When the jury returned a verdict partially in favor of State-
Boston, Bancorp moved for judgment as a matter of law under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50.

Perceiving an inconsistency between two of the jury's
interrogatory answers, the district court discarded one of them
and granted the motion on the basis of the remaining findings.

Eleventh Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat wrote that this was
done in error.

"When a court considers a motion for judgment as a matter of law
-- even after the jury has rendered a verdict -- only the
sufficiency of the evidence matters," he wrote.  "The jury's
findings are irrelevant."

However, the Eleventh Circuit noted that despite the error, it can
affirm the lower court's decision "for any reason supported by the
record."

"In this case, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to
support a finding of loss causation, an element required to make
out a securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5," Judge Tjoflat
wrote in the court's 35-page ruling.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that to support a finding that
Bancorp's misstatements were a "substantial factor" in bringing
about its losses, State-Boston had to present evidence that would
give a jury some indication -- "however rough" -- of how much of
the decline in Bancorp's stock price resulted not from the fraud
but from the general downturn in the Florida real estate market.

"None of its evidence excluded the possibility that class members'
losses resulted not from anything specific about BankAtlantic's
commercial real estate portfolio that Bancorp hid from the public,
but from market forces that it had warned of -- and that would
likely have caused significant losses for an investor in any bank
with a significant credit portfolio in commercial real estate in
Florida in 2007," Judge Tjoflat wrote.

"Bancorp is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law."


BIG LOTS: Two Law Firms Commence Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Leon Worden, writing for SCVNews.com, reports that two law firms,
one in New York and one in Atlanta, announced last week they have
commenced securities class-action proceedings against Big Lots,
joining other firms that took similar steps earlier this month.

The firms accuse Big Lots, an Ohio-based discount retailer with
approximately 1,500 store locations including one in Canyon
Country, of misleading investors by allegedly making false claims
about its business outlook.

A statement from Morgan & Morgan of New York City claims the false
statements violate the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

It says Big Lots "knew but concealed from the investing public
that: (a) Big Lots's consumables line -- which represented a third
of Big Lots's business -- was deteriorating; and (b) the Company's
electronic products business was being adversely affected as
shoppers were increasingly seeking online deals for big ticket
products, thus adversely affecting the Company's margins and
prospects."

Another law firm, headed by former SEC attorney Willie Briscoe,
claims that Big Lots directors personally profited when the
allegedly unloaded shares at inflated prices.

"As a result of defendants' alleged false statements,"
Mr. Briscoe's firm said, "Big Lots stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $46.81
per share on March 27, 2012.  Several of Big Lots' executives took
advantage of these inflated prices and unloaded hundreds of
thousands of shares of Big Lots stock for millions of dollars of
personal gain."

Morgan & Morgan mentions an April 23 press release from Big Lots
in which the retailer announced that its first quarter same-store
sales to come in lower than previously projected.

"On this news, Big Lots's stock fell $11 per share to close at
$34.71 per share the following day," Morgan & Morgan said.

On the same news, Zacks Equity Research downgraded Big Lots stock
to "underperform."

Big Lots hasn't commented.


BOEING CO: Appeals in Securities Class Suit Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal and a cross-appeal relating to the dismissal of a
securities class action lawsuit commenced in Illinois remain
pending, according to The Boeing Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On November 13, 2009, plaintiff shareholders filed a putative
securities fraud class action against The Boeing Company and two
of the Company's senior executives in federal district court in
Chicago.  This lawsuit arose from the Company's June 2009
announcement that the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be
postponed due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-
body section of the aircraft.  Plaintiffs contended that the
Company was aware before June 2009 that the first flight could not
take place as scheduled due to issues with the side-of-body
section of the aircraft, and that the Company's determination not
to announce this delay earlier resulted in an artificial inflation
of the Company's stock price for a multi-week period in May and
June 2009.  On March 7, 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint
with prejudice.

On March 19, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to
reconsider that order.  On April 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal, and on April 25, 2012, Boeing filed a Notice of
Cross-Appeal based on the district court's failure to award
sanctions against the plaintiffs.  No briefing schedule has been
set yet.

In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar
shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for
the 787 Dreamliner that closely track the allegations in the
putative class action lawsuit.  Two of the lawsuits were filed in
Illinois state court and have been consolidated.  The remaining
derivative lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Chicago.
Following the March 2012 decision confirming the dismissal of the
class action complaint, the plaintiffs in these derivative
lawsuits agreed to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuits without
prejudice.  Plaintiff in the federal case filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal on June 26, 2012, and the court dismissed the
case on June 28, 2012.  Plaintiffs in the consolidated state case
filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 3, 2012, and the
Company expects that case to be dismissed shortly.


BOEING CO: Still Awaits Rulings on Summary Judgment Bids
--------------------------------------------------------
On October 13, 2006, The Boeing Company was named as a defendant
in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in The Boeing
Company Voluntary Investment Plan (the VIP), alleged that fees and
expenses incurred by the VIP were and are unreasonable and
excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the VIP and its
participants, and were undisclosed to participants.  The
plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and sought
injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section 502(a)(3) of
ERISA.  During the first quarter of 2010, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals granted a stay of trial proceedings in the
district court pending resolution of an appeal made by Boeing in
2008 to the case's class certification order.  On January 21,
2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's class
certification order and decertified the class.  The Seventh
Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.  On March 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended motion
for class certification and a supplemental motion on August 7,
2011.  Boeing's opposition to class certification was filed on
September 6, 2011.  Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of class
certification was filed on September 27, 2011.  This issue is
fully briefed and awaits district court determination.

Boeing's motions for summary judgment based on ERISA's statute of
repose and for summary judgment on the merits were both filed on
December 21, 2011.  Plaintiffs' oppositions to the merits and
statute of limitations motions were filed on February 6, 2012.
Boeing reply briefs were filed on March 7, 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter given the current
procedural status of the litigation.


BOEING CO: Still Defends Two ERISA-Violation Suits in Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company continues to defend two class action lawsuits
in Kansas, according to the Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two pending class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas, each related to the 2005 sale of the Company's former
Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit).  The first
action involves allegations that Spirit's hiring decisions
following the sale were tainted by age discrimination, violated
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"),
violated the Company's collective bargaining agreements, and
constituted retaliation.  The case was brought in 2006 as a class
action on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit.  During the
second quarter of 2010, the court granted summary judgment in
favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims.  Following
certain procedural motions, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 10, 2011, and are
seeking to stay all remaining individual claims in the district
court pending resolution of the appeal.  Plaintiffs' appellate
brief was filed on November 14, 2011.  Boeing's appellate brief
was filed on January 20, 2012.  Oral argument was held on May 10,
2012.

The second action, initiated in 2007, alleges collective
bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection
with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former
employees of the Wichita facility.  Written discovery closed by
joint stipulation of the parties on June 6, 2011.  Depositions
concluded on August 18, 2011.  Plaintiffs' partial motion for
summary judgment was filed on December 9, 2011.  Boeing's
opposition and dispositive motions were filed on February 10,
2012.  All briefing was completed on June 4, 2012.  Spirit has
agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the first
action, with the exception of claims arising from employment
actions prior to January 1, 2005.

While Spirit has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation
in the second action, the Company believes that Spirit is
obligated to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the second
action.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter given the current
procedural status of the litigation.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Inflated AWP
----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company continues to defend itself from
lawsuits alleging inflated average wholesale prices of its
products, according to the Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.  The Company is a defendant in four state attorneys general
lawsuits pending in state courts around the country.  Beginning in
August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  In September 2010, the jury
issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not
liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the
Commonwealth Court judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania
consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the
Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from
contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs.

The Company has moved to vacate the decision and the Commonwealth
has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the
Commonwealth Court denied.  The Company and the Commonwealth have
appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The
Company is currently scheduled to proceed to trial in Mississippi
in mid-2013.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Defends Class Suit Over Abilify* Co-Pay Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is defending a class action lawsuit
challenging the legality of its Abilify* co-pay assistance
program, according to the Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company and its partner Otsuka Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd., were named as co-defendants in a private class action
lawsuit filed by union health and welfare funds in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the Abilify* co-pay
assistance program under the Federal Antitrust and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws, and seeking damages.

The Company has a worldwide commercialization agreement with
Otsuka to codevelop and copromote ABILIFY* for the treatment of
schizophrenia, bipolar mania disorder and major depressive
disorder.

The Company says it is not possible at this time to reasonably
assess the outcome of this litigation or its potential impact on
the Company.


CELANESE CORP: Settlement of Plumbing Suits in Canada Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Holdings LLC ("CNA Holdings"), a U.S. subsidiary of Celanese
Corporation, which included the U.S. business now conducted by the
Ticona business that is included in the Advanced Engineered
Materials segment, along with Shell Oil Company ("Shell"), E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and others, has been a
defendant in a series of lawsuits, including a number of class
actions, alleging that plastic resins manufactured by these
companies that were utilized by others in the production of
plumbing systems for residential property were defective for this
use and/or contributed to the failure of such plumbing.  Based on,
among other things, the findings of outside experts and the
successful use of Ticona's acetal copolymer in similar
applications, CNA Holdings does not believe Ticona's acetal
copolymer was defective for this use or contributed to the failure
of the plumbing.  In addition, in many cases, CNA Holdings'
potential future exposure may be limited by, among other things,
statutes of limitations and repose.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements in the Cox, et al. v. Hoechst
Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion
County, Tennessee) matter.  The time to file claims against the
class has expired and the entity established by the court to
administer the claims was dissolved in September 2010.  In
addition between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a
defendant in various putative class actions.  The majority of
these actions have now been dismissed.  As a result the Company
recorded $59 million in reserve reductions and recoveries from
associated insurance indemnifications during 2010.  The reserve
was further reduced by $4 million during the year ended
December 31, 2011, following the dismissal of the remaining U.S.
case (St. Croix, Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company d/b/a Shell
Chemical Company, Case No. XC-97-CR-467, Virgin Islands Superior
Court) which was appealed during the three months ended
September 30, 2011.

As of June 30, 2012, the class actions in Canada are subject to a
pending class settlement that would result in a dismissal of those
cases.  The Company does not believe the Possible Loss associated
with the remaining matters is material.  The Company recorded
recoveries and reductions in legal reserves related to plumbing
actions to Other (charges) gains, net in the unaudited interim
consolidated statements of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


DOLLAR TREE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2012, the class action employment law firm Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a wage and hour lawsuit against Dollar
Tree Stores, Inc. alleging they misclassified the Plaintiffs, who
worked as Store Managers, as exempt from overtime and consequently
failed to pay them for all hours worked.  Oscar Molina and Sylvia
Garcia, et al. vs. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 30-2012-
00585338-CU-OE-CJC is currently pending in the Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of Orange.

The wage and hour Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs, who
worked as Store Managers, mostly engaged in non-exempt tasks
through the day, including working the retail register, taking
inventory, and handling customer service requests.  The Complaint
further alleges that the Store Managers had only a minor role
supervising employees, alleging that they had no authority to
hire, fire, or promote employees, train employees, or discipline
employees.  Moreover, the Complaint alleges that "the Plaintiffs
were 'Store Managers' in name only, because they did not have
managerial duties or authority."

Managing partner, Norman B. Blumenthal, stated "large corporations
will often use misclassification schemes to get the benefit of all
their employees' work while only paying them for some it."

The California overtime law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
represents employees of large corporations in various wage and
hour lawsuits.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Faces Allegheny Cty. Real Estate Owners' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc. is facing a lawsuit brought on behalf of a
proposed class of certain real estate owners in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, according to the Company's July 25, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company, its subsidiary GLS Capital, Inc. ("GLS"), and the
County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania ("Allegheny County"), are named
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in June 2012
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed class in this action consists of owners of real
estate in Allegheny County whose property is or has been subject
to a tax lien filed by Allegheny County that Allegheny County
either retained or sold to GLS and who were billed by Allegheny
County or GLS for attorneys' fees, interest, or prothonotary fees
and who sustained economic damages on and after August 14, 2003,
in connection with attempts to collect delinquent real estate
taxes.  The putative class allegations are that Allegheny County,
GLS, and the Company violated the class's constitutional due
process rights in connection with delinquent tax collection
efforts.  There are also allegations that amounts recovered from
the class by GLS and /or Allegheny County are an unconstitutional
taking of private property.  The claims against the Company are
based solely upon its ownership of GLS.  The complaint requests
that the Court order GLS to account for the amounts alleged to
have been collected in violation of the putative class members'
constitutional rights and create a constructive trust for the
return of such amounts to members of the purported class.  The
same class previously filed substantially the same lawsuit in 2004
against GLS and Allegheny County, and GLS's Motion for Summary
Judgment is pending in that action.  The Company believes the
claims are without merit and it intends to defend against them
vigorously.


ENSLIN & SON: Recalls 314 Pounds of Sausage Products
----------------------------------------------------

   * Possible Listeria Monocytogenes Contamination Cited

Enslin & Son Packing Company, a Hattiesburg, Mississippi
establishment, is recalling approximately 314 pounds of sausage
products due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The product subject to recall is:

   * 1.5-lb. and 2-lb. packages of "Cedar Grove Red Hots."

Each package bears the number "P-31806" inside the USDA mark of
inspection and contains a use or freeze by date of "09/24/2012" or
"09/28/2012."  The product was produced on July 16, 2012, and
distributed to retail establishments in Meridian and Philadelphia,
Mississippi.  When available, the retail distribution list will be
posted on FSIS' Web site at:

   http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

The problem occurred as a result of the products testing positive
for Listeria monocytogenes and being shipped prior to the company
receiving test results.  FSIS and the company have received no
reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this product.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Company's President, Augustus Enslin, at (601) 582-9300.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
ground beef products that have been recalled by Enslin & Son
Packing Company.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at the recall notice, in addition to the list of retail
stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Retailer Name                   City and State
    -------------                   --------------
    Save-A-Lot                      Meridian, Mississippi
    Cash Saver                      Meridian, Mississippi
    William Brothers                Philadelphia, Mississippi


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Strom, writing for The New York Times, reports that two
California mothers are suing General Mills, claiming the giant
food company has deceptively marketed its Nature Valley products
as natural when they contain highly processed ingredients.

The wholesome look of Nature Valley's snack packaging is part of
its appeal.  But a suit says it misleads consumers.

The women are seeking to turn the suit into a class action that
would win the profits the company has made selling Nature Valley
products that contain such ingredients.

But Amy McKendrick, one of the mothers, said she really only
wanted to make other parents aware that products they were buying
to avoid dyes and processed ingredients for health reasons may not
be as pure as they thought based on what they read on packaging.

"I've figured out now that something can say it's 100 percent
natural on the outside and not be 100 percent natural,"
Ms. McKendrick said.  "I want to make sure other people making
purchases understand that, too."

Kirstie Foster, a spokeswoman for General Mills, said in an e-mail
that the company had not seen the lawsuit.  "We are aware of the
press release, but to our knowledge, we have not been served with
a lawsuit," she said, referring to a news release sent out by the
plaintiffs' lawyers.

Various surveys have found that consumers prefer foods described
as "natural" to those labeled "organic," and both segments are
growing and profitable.  Ironically, food labeled "organic" must
meet verifiable standards set by the federal government, while
that labeled "natural" has no such requirements.

The words "natural" and "nature" are used on Nature Valley
packaging, and the brand's social media presence is dominated by
images of nature and wildlife.  "General Mills seeks to capitalize
on consumers' preference for all-natural foods and the association
between such foods and a wholesome way of life," according to the
lawsuit.  "Consumers are willing to pay more for natural foods
because of this association, as well as the perceived higher
quality, health and safety benefits and low impact on the
environment associated with products labeled as 'natural.'"

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, charges General Mills with false
advertising and anticompetitiveness under California law. It is
the latest in a series of lawsuits against General Mills over
labeling.

At issue are three ingredients -- the sweeteners high fructose
corn syrup and high maltose corn syrup, and maltodextrin, a
thickener that can also impart a slight sweetness to food.

"High maltose corn syrup and maltodextrin are highly processed, do
not exist in nature and not even under the most elastic possible
definition could they be considered 'natural,'" said Michael F.
Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, an advocacy group that works on public health
issues and is serving as co-counsel in the lawsuit.

The center said it had previously raised concerns about the
"natural" claims on Nature Valley products with General Mills in
2010 and that the company had taken high fructose corn syrup out
of most of them, but had not removed the other two ingredients.

The Food and Drug Administration recently denied an application by
the Corn Refiners Association to change the name of high fructose
corn syrup to corn sugar on nutrition labels.  Consumer groups had
opposed the request because some consumers have adverse reactions
to the substance and might be confused by the less specific
identification.

Early onset bipolar disease, attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety were diagnosed
in Ms. McKendrick's daughter at age 6, and she was prescribed
three medications.

After doing some research, Ms. McKendrick, who teaches agriculture
in Kern County, Calif., decided to eliminate all foods with dyes
and processed ingredients from her daughter's diet to try to
control her condition. "Everything we eat is organic or all
natural," she said.  "I've cut out all additives, preservatives,
dye, everything, and after two years of doing that, she's been
released from all those diagnoses, all of them."

Ms. McKendrick had been feeding her daughter what she thought was
a wholly natural diet for some time but some lingering anxiety
persisted, she said.

During that time, she had purchased Nature Valley Chewy Trail Mix
Fruit & Nut Granola Bars, Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Cashew
Granola Bars and Nature Valley Dark Chocolate and Peanut Butter
Granola Thins for her daughter believing that the "100% Natural"
on the box meant they had no processed ingredients in them.

Finally, after more research and scouring her Feingold Program
Foodlist, a guidebook for people treating mental disorders with
diets, she realized the Nature Valley products had processed
ingredients in them.  "I was shocked," Ms. McKendrick said.  "It's
false advertising."


HIGHMARK INC: Inks MoU with Royal Mile to Settle Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Toland, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
attorneys litigating a class action conspiracy lawsuit led by real
estate firm Royal Mile Co. against UPMC and Highmark Inc. have
reached a tentative settlement with Highmark -- but not yet with
UPMC.

Royal Mile and health insurer Highmark have reached an agreement
in principal, and signed a "memorandum of understanding" last
week.  The actual settlement paperwork is to be filed within 30
days.

The agreement was not unexpected, as Royal Mile had filed a motion
at the beginning of July telling the U.S. District Court that it
was in settlement talks with Highmark.

The Whitehall-based real estate firm filed a federal lawsuit in
2010 alleging that a "conspiracy" between Highmark and UPMC had
raised the firm's health insurance premiums.

Royal Mile said that UPMC, back then, had refused to contract with
major, national health insurance companies, while Highmark, "in
exchange," had eliminated a low-cost insurance product.

The alleged result was higher premiums that cost Royal Mile and
other area businesses millions of dollars.

The Royal Mile suit had been filed in conjunction with an earlier
federal suit, initiated by West Penn Allegheny Health System,
which had likewise argued that Highmark and UPMC conspired to
squeeze WPAHS out of the local health care market.

But Highmark and WPAHS are now business partners; Highmark and
UPMC have arrived at a contract extension that runs through 2014;
and UPMC has since entered contracts with a variety of national
health insurance companies.

Royal Mile and the rest of the class will receive "prospective
injunctive relief," but not financial damages -- Highmark has
agreed that WPAHS "will not enter into any contract with any
health care insurer that requires the insurer to treat West Penn
more favorably than any other provider of health care services"
through 2014.

In other words, no more "favored nation" contracts in which one
party gets more favorable rates than the rest.

In addition, Highmark has agreed to "cooperate reasonably in the
continued litigation" of the Royal Mile suit against the non-
settling defendants, meaning UPMC.

As a result, Highmark will furnish Royal Mile and the plaintiffs
with certain documents relating to the alleged antitrust
conspiracy between Highmark and UPMC.

The memo also says that Highmark, within 20 days of the approval
of the settlement, will provide Royal Mile and plaintiffs' counsel
"with copies of all economic studies in its possession that may
support an antitrust claim against" UPMC.

The settlement, after it is filed, would still have to be approved
by the court.  On July 26, Highmark said that as "there is no
final settlement agreement between Highmark and Royal Mile, [we]
have no statement at this time."


HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls 5,610 Lbs. of BBQ Chicken Salads
------------------------------------------------------------

   * Possible Listeria Monocytogenes Contamination Cited

Huxtable's Kitchen, a Vernon, California establishment, is
recalling approximately 5,610 pounds of barbeque chicken salads.
The salads contain diced onions that are the subject of a Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) recall due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The product subject to recall is:

   * 14.5-oz trays of "TRADER JOE'S BBQ CHICKEN SALAD."

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "P-
11079" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Each package also has
a sticker with use-by dates through July 30, 2012.  The product
was produced between July 20, 2012, and July 24, 2012, and was
distributed to retail establishments in Arizona, New Mexico,
Southern California, Southern Nevada and Texas.  When available,
the retail distribution list will be posted on FSIS' Web site at:

  http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

FSIS was alerted to the problem by Huxtable's Kitchen.  The
company was informed by a supplier that diced onions used in the
product are subject to an FDA recall.  FSIS and the company have
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
this product.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
company's Director of Quality Assurance, Juan Castro, at (323)
923-2885.  News reporters with questions about the recall should
contact the company's President, Jason Knight, at (323) 923-2905.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that Trader Joe's Stores in Arizona, Southern
California, Southern Nevada, New Mexico and Texas received ground
beef products that have been recalled by Huxtable's Kitchen.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at the recall notice, in addition to the list of retail
stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Still Defends Suit Over 401(k) Plans in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 11, 2006, Lockheed Martin Corporation and Lockheed
Martin Investment Management Company (LMIMCo), a subsidiary, were
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, seeking to represent a
class of purportedly similarly situated participants and
beneficiaries in two of its 401(k) plans.  Plaintiffs allege that
the Company or LMIMCo caused its plans to pay expenses that were
higher than reasonable by, among other actions, permitting service
providers of the plans to engage in revenue sharing, paying
investment management fees for the company stock funds, and
causing the company stock funds to hold cash for liquidity, thus
reducing the return on those funds.  Plaintiffs also allege that
the Company failed to disclose information appropriately relating
to the fees associated with managing the plans.  In August 2008,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding allegations that the
Company breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by providing inadequate
disclosures with respect to the Stable Value Fund offered under
the Company's 401(k) plans.

On March 31, 2009, the Judge dismissed a number of plaintiffs'
claims, leaving three claims for trial, specifically plaintiffs'
claims involving the company stock funds, the Stable Value Fund,
and overall fees.  The Court also granted class certification on
two of plaintiffs' claims.  The Company appealed the class
certification.  On March 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit vacated the District Court's class
certification order and remanded the case to the District Court.
The complaint does not allege a specific calculation of damages,
and the Company reasonably cannot estimate the possible loss, or
range of loss, which could be incurred if plaintiffs were to
prevail in the allegations, but believes that the Company has
substantial defenses.  The Company disputes the allegations and is
defending against them.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 24, 2012.

Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global security company and
engages in the research, design, development, manufacture,
integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems and
products.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Still Defends Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2011, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit against Lockheed
Martin Corporation and three of its executive officers (Robert J.
Stevens, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Bruce L. Tanner,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Linda R.
Gooden, Executive Vice President, Information Systems & Global
Solutions (IS&GS)) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 21, 2009,
through July 21, 2009, and alleges that the Company violated
certain sections of the federal securities laws by allegedly
making statements, primarily about the then-expected performance
of its IS&GS business segment, that contained either false
statements of material facts or omitted material facts necessary
to make the statements made not misleading, or engaged in other
acts that operated as an alleged fraud upon class members who
purchased the Company's common stock during that period.  The
complaint further alleges that the statutory safe harbor provided
for forward-looking statements does not apply to any of the
allegedly false statements.  The complaint does not allege a
specific amount of monetary damages.  The Company believes that
the allegations are without merit and are defending against them.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 24, 2012.

Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global security company and
engages in the research, design, development, manufacture,
integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems and
products.


LSG SKY: Recalls 735 Pounds of Chicken Wrap Products
----------------------------------------------------

   * Possible Listeria Monocytogenes Contamination Cited

LSG Sky Chefs, an Orlando, Florida establishment, is recalling
approximately 735 pounds of ready-to-eat chipotle chicken wrap
products.  The products contain diced onions that are the subject
of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 6.9-ounce packages of "RaceTrac Chipotle Chicken Wrap."

Each package has a "Sell Thru" date of July 27 to July 31, 2012,
and bears the establishment number "P-19682" inside the USDA mark
of inspection.  The products were produced at the company's
Orlando, FL facility and are the only LSG Sky Chefs product that
is affected by this recall.  The products were produced from
July 22 to July 26, 2012, and shipped for distribution to retail
establishments in Florida.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by LSG Sky Chefs.  The Company
informed the agency that diced onions subject to an FDA recall
were contained in the pico de gallo used in the chicken wraps
produced on the dates listed.  FSIS, FDA and the Company have
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:

   http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.  However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea.
Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well
as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened
immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV
infection or undergoing chemotherapy.  Individuals concerned about
an illness should contact a health care provider.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Sherrie
Scott, a company compliance officer, at (770) 331-7600, ext. 1402.
Media with questions about the recall should contact David
Margulies, the company's spokesperson, at (214) 914-1275.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that Racetrac stores in Florida received ground
beef products that have been recalled by LSG Sky Chefs.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at the recall notice, in addition to the list of retail
stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.


MATTEL INC: Appeal From $170-Mil. Damages Award Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc.'s appeal from a monetary award, including $170
million in damages and $140 million in attorney's fees and costs,
in favor of MGA Entertainment, Inc., remains pending, according to
the Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel
design employee.  The lawsuit alleges that Bryant aided and
assisted a Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"),
during the time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his
contractual and other duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Bryant
asserted counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in
which Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Bryant also removed
Mattel's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened
as a party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting
that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the
litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed a lawsuit against Mattel in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
MGA's action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade
dress dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition,
and unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television
commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon
products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for
various MGA product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also
asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to
unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged
MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations,
purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's lawsuit
alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach
or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive
damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its CEO Isaac Larian,
certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.  The RICO claim
alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by recruiting and hiring
key Mattel employees and directing them to bring with them Mattel
confidential and proprietary information, unfairly competed
against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets, confidential
information, and key employees to build their business.  On
January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to file these
claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases, which Mattel
did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation.  In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed
that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future
Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement,
including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008, in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their
own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian,
and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights
in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded
Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against the
defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if
not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter.  After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.  Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several
new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing lawsuit.  The Court granted that motion as to
the wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice,
and as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck.
The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret
misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010.  Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011.  During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.  The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages.  The jury
ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets.  The jury
found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.

In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions.  The
Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected
Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade
secrets claim.  The Court reduced the jury's damages award of
$88.5 million to $85.0 million.  The Court awarded MGA an
additional $85.0 million in punitive damages and approximately
$140 million in attorney's fees and costs.  The Court entered a
judgment which totals approximately $310 million in favor of MGA.

Mattel has appealed the judgment and the appeal is now fully
briefed.  Mattel's appeal challenges the entirety of the district
court's monetary award in favor of MGA, including both the award
of $170 million in damages for alleged trade secret
misappropriation and approximately $140 million in attorney's fees
and costs.

Mattel does not believe that it is probable that any of the
damages awarded to MGA will be sustained based on the evidence
presented at trial and, accordingly, a liability has not been
accrued for this matter.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Appeals in "Silverman" Suit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two appeals from the final approval of Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s
$200 million settlement of a class action lawsuit remain pending,
according to the Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006, and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The operative amended complaint primarily alleges
that the defendants knowingly made incorrect statements concerning
Motorola's projected revenues for the third and fourth quarter of
2006.  The complaint also challenges Motorola's accounting and
disclosures for certain transactions entered into in the third
quarter of 2006.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and
other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of
Motorola shares during the class period.  On August 25, 2009, the
district court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On February 1, 2012, the parties in the Silverman litigation
signed a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in that case
for $200 million, $150 million of which is being paid by the
Company's insurance carriers.  The district court approved the
settlement agreement on May 9, 2012.

Two appeals have been filed from the judgment entered pursuant to
the settlement -- one challenging the court's approval of certain
terms of the settlement, and the other challenging the fee award
to the attorneys for the class.  Those appeals are pending and no
hearing has been scheduled.


MSLGROUP: Plaintiffs in Discrimination Suit to Send Notices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brittaney Kiefer, writing for PRWeek, reports that the plaintiffs
in the class action lawsuit against MSLGroup and parent Publicis
Groupe are expected to send notices inviting other women to join
the action in the next few weeks.

Both sides met in a court conference on July 20 to review the
proposed content of the notice.  The court selected the language
to be included in the letter, so now the plaintiffs will revise it
and finalize a list of recipients provided by the defendants.  A
US District Court judge ruled June 29 that the plaintiffs had
presented enough evidence of widespread gender pay discrimination
to invite other women to join the class action suit.

Once other potential plaintiffs are notified of the class action,
they will have up to 60 days to opt into it.  MSL and Publicis can
still try to decertify the suit by arguing there was no widespread
discrimination.

Monique da Silva, a former healthcare director at MSL, filed the
$100 million class action suit in February 2011 seeking to
represent women who worked at the agency from 2008 until the date
of judgment.  It alleged MSL and the holding company paid female
professionals less; did not promote women at the same rate as male
counterparts; and conducted discriminatory demotions,
terminations, and reassignments for female staffers during the
agency's 2009 reorganization.

In April, MaryEllen O'Donohue, Laurie Mayers, Heather Pierce, and
Katherine Wilkins were added as plaintiffs to the suit.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Sup. Ct. Review in "Skinner" Suit Not Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation disclosed in its July 25, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that Skinner, et al., did not ask
the U.S. Supreme Court to review a summary judgment in their class
action lawsuit.

On June 22, 2007, a putative class action, Skinner et al. v.
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al., was filed against the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement
Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
putative class representatives alleged violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and breaches of
fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the Northrop
Grumman Retirement Plan B.  The modification relates to the
employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available during a
five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008.  The
plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and in
2008, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all
remaining defendants on all claims.  The plaintiffs appealed, and
in May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the
matter back to the District Court for further proceedings, finding
that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan description
related to the employer-funded component of the pension benefit.
After the remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class.  The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On January 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Plan and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  The District Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and struck the trial date of March 23,
2010, as unnecessary given the District Court's grant of summary
judgment for the Plan.  The plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's order to the Ninth Circuit.

On March 16, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court.
On March 30, 2012, the plaintiffs moved for rehearing or rehearing
en banc, which the Ninth Circuit denied on April 30, 2012.  The
plaintiffs did not seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.


OMNICARE INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit over Omnicare, Inc.'s December 2005 public offering
remains pending, according to the Company's July 25, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled
Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension &
Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005, through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in
December 2005.  The complaint contained claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought,
among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its
earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements)
by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper
revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the court dismissed the
case.  On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On
October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally
affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  However, the appellate court
reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On December 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion in the district
court requesting permission to file a third amended complaint.  On
February 4, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
sole remaining claim in plaintiff's second amended complaint.  On
July 14, 2011, the court granted both motions and deemed the third
amended complaint filed.  This complaint asserts a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all
purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public
offering.  The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration
statement contained false and misleading statements regarding
Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation
of the federal anti-kickback law in connection with three of
Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its
suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services.  On
August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012, the
court dismissed the case and struck the case from the docket.

On March 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


OMNICARE INC: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. is seeking dismissal of a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in Kentucky, according to the
Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10,
2007, through August 5, 2010, against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of
federal securities law in connection with alleged false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's compliance
with federal and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations.
On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is
referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Plaintiffs allege
substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are
alleged in the Ansfield complaint.  Both complaints seek
unspecified money damages.

The Court has appointed lead counsel and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 11, 2012.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss on July 16, 2012.

The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit
and intends to defend against them vigorously.


PANERA BREAD: Awaits Final Okay of $5MM Settlement of Two Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company awaits the final approval of its settlement
of two class action lawsuits for $5 million, according to the
Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2012.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick
Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread
Company.  The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court,
County of Contra Costa.  On April 22, 2011, the complaint was
amended to add another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a
plaintiff.  The complaint alleged, among other things, violations
of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and
violations of California's Business and Professions Code.  The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find
just and proper.  On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported
class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed
by David Carter.  Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement,
the parties have agreed to settle this matter for a maximum
aggregate amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to
purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of
administering the settlement.  The Memorandum of Agreement
contains no admission of wrongdoing.  The terms and conditions of
the settlement were preliminarily approved by the Court on
June 8, 2012.  The aggregate settlement amount of $5.0 million is
included in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of June 26, 2012, and December 27, 2011.

                         Carter Lawsuit

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David
Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company,
and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the
Company's franchisees.  The lawsuit was filed in the California
Superior Court, County of San Bernardino.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, violations of the California Labor Code,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods
and termination compensation and violations of California's
Business and Professions Code.  The complaint seeks, among other
relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and
proper.  This matter was consolidated with the lawsuit filed by
Nick Sotoudeh, and is the subject of a Memorandum of Agreement.


PANERA BREAD: Ex-Employees' Suit Settled and Dismissed in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by former employees of Panera
Bread Company was dismissed with prejudice following court
approval of the parties' settlement, according to the Company's
July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2012.

On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by
Denarius Lewis, Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of
a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company.  The lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida.
The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective, and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.  On February
29, 2012, the parties agreed to settle this matter for an amount
up to an aggregate of $1.5 million for settlement payments to
purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of
administering the settlement. The agreement includes no admission
of wrongdoing.  The terms and conditions of the settlement were
approved by the Court on
June 26, 2012, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice.  The
settlement amount of $1.5 million is included in accrued expenses
in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 26, 2012,
and December 27, 2011.


PICCADILLY FINE: FSIS Lists Stores That Got Recalled Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
ground beef products that have been recalled by Piccadilly Fine
Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/qaoPGM,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Retailer Name                   City and State
    -------------                   --------------
    Campbell Farmers Market         Campbell, California
    Mountain View Farmers Market    Mountain View, California
    Palo Alto Farmers Market        Palo Alto, California
    Top Nosh Cafe                   San Jose, California


RADIOSHACK CORP: Mediation Sessions in Illinois Suit Unsuccessful
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation sessions held in March and June in a consolidated class
action lawsuit pending in Illinois were unsuccessful and did not
result to a settlement, RadioShack Corporation said in its July
25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On September 26, 2011, Scott D.H. Redman filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Redman v.
RadioShack Corporation.  Mr. Redman claims that the Company
violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), which amended the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, by displaying the expiration dates of the Company's
customers' credit or debit cards on electronically printed
transaction receipts.  Mr. Redman filed a motion seeking to
certify a class that includes all persons to whom the Company
provided an electronically printed transaction receipt, in
transactions occurring after June 3, 2008, that displayed the
expiration date of the person's credit or debit card.

On November 3, 2011, Mario Aliano and Vitoria Radavicuite filed a
similar putative class action lawsuit against the Company, also in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging similar violations of FACTA.  Mr. Aliano and
Ms. Radavicuite initially filed a motion seeking to certify a
class that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an
electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions
occurring in Illinois after June 3, 2008, that displayed the
expiration date of the person's credit or debit card.  On December
28, 2011, Mr. Aliano and Ms. Radavicuite filed an amended
complaint and an amended motion seeking to certify a class that
was not limited to transactions occurring in Illinois.

On January 11, 2012, the Aliano lawsuit was reassigned to the
judge presiding over the Redman lawsuit on the basis of
relatedness, and the two cases were consolidated for all purposes.
On January 25, 2012, the presiding judge referred the matter to
the magistrate judge assigned to the consolidated cases for
mediation, extending the time by which the Company must respond to
the pending complaints to such time as the magistrate judge shall
order, and is holding the motions for class certification in
abeyance.

Mediation sessions were held in March and June of 2012.  Neither
resulted in a settlement, and the Company continues to vigorously
defend these cases.  The outcome of these cases is uncertain and
the ultimate resolution of them could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the
period in which the resolutions are recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: "Brookler" Suit Remanded to Calif. Appeals Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court remanded the class action lawsuit
styled Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation to the California Court
of Appeals, according to the Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On April 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Los
Angeles Superior Court, Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation,
claiming that the Company violated California's wage and hour laws
relating to meal and rest periods.  The meal period portion of the
case was originally certified as a class action in February 2006.
The Company's first Motion for Decertification of the class was
denied in August 2007.  After a favorable decision at the
California Court of Appeals in the similar case of Brinker
Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the Company filed a
second motion for decertification, and in October 2008 the trial
court granted the Company's motion.  The plaintiffs in Brookler
appealed this ruling.  Due to the unsettled nature of California
law regarding the obligations of employers in respect of meal
periods, the Company and the Brookler plaintiffs requested that
the California Court of Appeals stay its ruling on the plaintiffs'
appeal of the class decertification ruling pending the California
Supreme Court's decision in Brinker.  The appellate court denied
this joint motion and then heard oral arguments in the case on
August 5, 2010.  On August 26, 2010, the California Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's decertification of the class,
and the Company's Petition for Rehearing was denied on September
14, 2010.  On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Petition for
Review with the California Supreme Court, which granted review and
placed the case on hold pending its decision in Brinker.

On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its
decision in Brinker.

On June 20, 2012, the California Supreme Court remanded the
Brookler case to the California Court of Appeals instructing it to
vacate its prior order and reconsider its ruling in light of its
ruling in Brinker.

The Company says the outcome of this case is uncertain and the
ultimate resolution of it could have a material adverse effect on
its consolidated financial statements in the period in which the
resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Song-Beverly Act Violations Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, RadioShack Corporation received service of
process with respect to the first of four putative class action
lawsuits filed in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los Angeles
Superior Court; Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District Court,
Central District of California; Moreno v. RadioShack, Federal
District Court, Southern District of California; and Grant v.
RadioShack, San Francisco Superior Court).  The plaintiffs in all
of these cases seek damages under California's Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act (the "Act").  Plaintiffs claim that under one section of
the Act, retailers are prohibited from recording certain personal
identification information regarding their customers while
processing credit card transactions unless certain statutory
exceptions are applicable.  The Act provides that any person who
violates this section is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$250 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent
violation.  In each of the cases, plaintiffs allege that the
Company violated the Act by asking them for personal
identification information while processing a credit card
transaction and then recording it.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company says the outcomes of these cases are uncertain and the
ultimate resolution of these cases could have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial statements in the period in
which the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Mulls Effect of "Brinker" Decision on "Ordonez"
----------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation is still evaluating the potential effect of
the decision in the "Brinker" case on the class action lawsuit
filed by Daniel Ordonez, the Company disclosed in its July 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In May 2010, Daniel Ordonez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees, filed a Complaint
against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court, captioned
Ordonez v. RadioShack Corporation.  In July 2010, Mr. Ordonez
filed an Amended Complaint alleging, among other things, that the
Company failed to provide required meal periods, provide required
rest breaks, pay overtime compensation, pay minimum wages, and
maintain required records.  In September 2010, the Company removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The proposed putative class in Ordonez
consists of all current and former non-exempt employees for a
period within the four (4) years preceding the filing of the case.
The meal period claims raised in Ordonez are similar to the claims
raised in Brookler case.  Pursuant to a motion filed by the
Ordonez parties, the court recently granted a Stipulation and
Order to Stay Proceedings pending the decision of the California
Supreme Court in Brinker.

On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its
decision in Brinker.

The Company says it is still evaluating the potential effect of
this decision on Ordonez.  The outcome of this case is uncertain
and the ultimate resolution of it could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the
period in which the resolution is recorded.


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Properties of America, Inc. on July 27 disclosed that a
purported stockholder of the Company has filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company and the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties when the Company listed its stock on the New York
Stock Exchange and made a concurrent equity offering.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.  Based on
its initial review of the complaint, the Company believes the
lawsuit to be without merit and intends to defend the action
vigorously.

                          About RPAI

Retail Properties of America, Inc. -- http://www.rpai.com -- is a
fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate
investment trust that owns and operates shopping centers across 35
states.  The company is one of the largest owners and operators of
shopping centers in the United States.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Collora" Suit Remains Stayed in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of Reynolds
American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W") in
Missouri.  In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge
in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.  In April 2007,
the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and
the following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip
Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.  In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.  A nominal
trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not
proceed at that time.  There is currently no activity in the case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

RAI says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Decision on "Sateriale" Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. is awaiting a decision on the appeal from
the dismissal of the class action lawsuit styled Sateriale v. R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege
that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue
redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the
plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise
and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to
exchange for Camel Cash.  The plaintiffs allege unfair business
practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory
estoppel.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages,
costs and expenses.  In January 2010, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint in February 2010.  The class definition changed
to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and
tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from
October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel
Cash program), or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31,
2007.  The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a
proposed California subclass, consisting of all California
residents meeting the same criteria.  In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction
over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure to state a
claim was granted with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  In July 2010,
RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September
2010.  In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss with prejudice.  Final judgment was entered by the court
and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011.  Oral
argument occurred on May 7, 2012.  A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Six Class Suits vs. Unit Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. continues to defend six class action
lawsuits filed against its subsidiary in Canada, according to the
Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The six putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company ("RJR Tobacco") and one of its affiliates, in courts in
the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
and Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been
actively pursuing only the action pending in Saskatchewan at this
time:

   * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for
     Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian
     tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of
     its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of
     all individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who
     have suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic
     obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or
     cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
     designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by
     the defendants.

   * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants.

   * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, and their dependents and family
     members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by
     the defendants.

   * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period of
     January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as set
     by the court.

   * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
     and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
     respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of
     25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
     marketed, or distributed by the defendants.

   * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
     and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart
     disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
     designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed
     by the defendants.

In each of these six cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; the right to waive the torts and claim
disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the defendants
received from the sale of tobacco products to putative class
members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act and
other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems just.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these six actions to Japan Tobacco Inc.  Subject to a
reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco
and its current or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Aug. Hearing on Fee Issues in "Scott" Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider pending motions over fees and expenses in
the class action lawsuit captioned Scott v. American Tobacco Co.
is currently set for August 22, 2012, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On November 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case
filed in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.
The case was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), seeking to recover an unspecified amount
of damages to pay for medical monitoring and smoking cessation
programs.  In July 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
the defendants on the plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring and
found that cigarettes were not defectively designed.  However, the
jury also made certain findings against the defendants on claims
relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking
cessation.  Notwithstanding these findings, this portion of the
trial did not determine liability as to any class member or class
representative.  What primarily remained in the case was a class-
wide claim that the defendants pay for a program to help people
stop smoking.

In May 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program.  In
September 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuant
to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million
collectively for Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA") signatories,
and noticed their appeal.  RJR Tobacco posted $25 million (the
portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W) towards the bond.  In February
2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the class
certification and found the defendants responsible for funding
smoking cessation for eligible class members.  The appellate court
also ruled, however, that the defendants were not liable for any
post-1988 claims, rejected the award of prejudgment interest,
struck eight of the 12 components of the smoking cessation program
and remanded the case for further proceedings.  In particular, the
appellate court ruled that no class member, who began smoking
after September 1, 1988, could receive any relief, and that only
those smokers, whose claims accrued on or before September 1,
1988, would be eligible for the smoking cessation program.  The
plaintiffs had previously expressly represented to the trial court
that none of their claims accrued before 1988 and that the class
claims did not accrue until around 1996, when the case was filed.
The defendants' application for writ of certiorari with the
Louisiana Supreme Court was denied in January 2008.  The
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court was denied in June 2008.  In July 2008, the trial court
entered an amended judgment in the case, finding that the
defendants are jointly and severally liable for funding the cost
of a court-supervised smoking cessation program and ordered the
defendants to deposit approximately $263 million together with
interest from June 30, 2004, into a trust for the funding of the
program.  The court also stated that it would favorably consider a
motion to return to defendants a portion of unused funds at the
close of each program year in the event the monies allocated for
the preceding program year were not fully expended because of a
reduction in class size or underutilization by the remaining
plaintiffs.

In December 2008, the trial court judge signed an order granting
the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.  In April
2010, the court of appeals amended but largely affirmed the trial
court's July 2008 judgment and ordered the defendants to deposit
with the court $242 million with judicial interest from July 21,
2008, until paid.  The defendants' motion for rehearing was
denied.  In September 2010, the defendants' application for writ
of certiorari or review and their emergency motion to stay
execution of judgment with the Louisiana Supreme Court were
denied.  In September 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the
defendant's motion to stay the judgment pending applicants' timely
filing, and the Court's disposition, of a petition for writ of
certiorari.  The defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2010. The court
denied the petition in June 2011.  RJR Tobacco accrued $139
million, the portions of the judgment allocated to RJR Tobacco and
B&W, in the second quarter of 2011.  RJR Tobacco paid the judgment
in August 2011.

In December 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for assessment of
attorneys' fees and costs for the prosecution of the case.  The
plaintiffs asserted a right to recover fees from the fund, but
they claimed fees should be assessed against the defendants,
instead of the fund.  On January 6, 2012, the defendants filed
exceptions and motion to strike seeking to dismiss any claim for
fees from the defendants, as opposed to the fund, which were
denied by the trial court.  On April 4, 2012, the defendants filed
an application for supervisory writs with the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeal.

In May 2012, the parties entered into an agreement that all fees
and expenses will come from the fund and that no additional monies
will come from the defendants.  The agreement specifically
provides that it is binding on class counsel and is not contingent
on any further action or ruling by the court.  Thus, the
defendants contend that even if the court ultimately decides not
to make an award from the fund or awards an amount far less than
class counsel seeks, class counsel are still bound to seek fees
solely from the fund and never from the defendants.  The parties
also agreed that all appeal bonds in the case could be released,
and the trial court did in fact later release the appeal bonds in
June 2012.  The defendants alerted the Louisiana Fourth Circuit
that the issue of whether fees could be awarded against the
defendants, as opposed to the fund, had been resolved by
agreement.  The writ application nonetheless remains pending and
has not been formally withdrawn given subsequent events.

Specifically, on May 31, 2012, it was disclosed that the court had
set up a trust with three trustees to oversee the funds deposited
and to oversee implementation of the cessation program.  The three
trustees filed an ex parte motion on May 31, 2012, to intervene in
the action for the purpose of potentially opposing any award of
fees and expenses from the fund.  The trial court granted the
motion to intervene without providing the parties an advance
opportunity to object.  The plaintiffs and the defendants moved to
vacate that order, and those motions are pending, with a hearing
set for August 22, 2012.  The plaintiffs' counsel and the trustees
are in discussions to see if they can agree on an award of fees
from the fund prior to the August 22, 2012 hearing.  As noted,
even if class counsel and the trust are not able to reach an
agreement and the trustees ultimately oppose any award from the
fund, the defendants contend that class counsel are bound by their
May 2012 agreement to seek fees only from the fund and they are
barred from enforcing any award of fees from any other source.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Lights" Class Suits vs. Unit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Lights" class action lawsuits involving Reynolds American Inc.'s
subsidiary remain pending, according to the Company's July 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The "lights" class-action cases are pending against Reynolds
American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W") in
Illinois (2), Missouri (2), California (1) and Arizona (1).  The
classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs
allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims
that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or
were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The
cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection
and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.  Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003.  In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages.  Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.
Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12
billion bond requirement.  On December 15, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case.  On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment.
The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day.  In December
2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment,
stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal.  The trial court
granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition
for relief from judgment in February 2009.  In March 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate
Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the
February 2009 order and remand to the circuit court.  On February
24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order, concluding that
the two-year time limit for filing a petition for relief from a
final judgment began to run when the trial court dismissed the
plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006.  The appellate court
therefore found that the petition was timely, reversed the order
of the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court.  On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court
denied Philip Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.  The
plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from the judgment in
February 2012.  A hearing is scheduled for August 21, 2012.

RAI says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in December 2001.  In June 2003, the trial judge
issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case.  The plaintiffs appealed this
stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.  There is
currently no activity in the case.

No further updates were reported in Reynolds American Inc.'s
July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

RAI says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit vs. Units Remains Pending in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December
1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri in February 1999.  The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds
American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), by tobacco product users
and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri
consumers.  The plaintiffs allege that their use of the
defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to
nicotine.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.  The case was remanded to the
Circuit Court in February 1999.  There has been limited activity
in this case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Indemnification Bid Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A request for indemnification in a class action lawsuit filed
against a subsidiary of the purchaser of Reynolds American Inc.'s
former international tobacco business remains pending, according
to the Company's July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

By purchase agreement dated May 12, 1999, referred to as the 1999
Purchase Agreement, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR")
and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") sold the
international tobacco business to Japan Tobacco Inc. ("JTI").
Under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco retained
certain liabilities relating to the international tobacco business
sold to JTI.  Under its reading of the indemnification provisions
of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, JTI has requested indemnification
for damages allegedly arising out of these retained liabilities.
As previously reported, a number of the indemnification claims
between the parties relating to the activities of Northern Brands
in Canada have been resolved.  The other matters for which JTI has
requested indemnification for damages under the indemnification
provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement are:

   * In a letter dated March 31, 2006, counsel for JTI stated
     that JTI would be seeking indemnification under the 1999
     Purchase Agreement for any damages it may incur or may have
     incurred arising out of a Southern District of New York
     grand jury investigation, a now-terminated Eastern District
     of North Carolina grand jury investigation, and various
     actions filed by the European Community and others in the
     U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
     referred to as the EDNY, against RJR Tobacco and certain of
     its affiliates on November 3, 2000, August 6, 2001, and
     October 30, 2002, and against JTI on January 11, 2002.

   * JTI also has sought indemnification relating to a Statement
     of Claim filed on April 23, 2010, against JTI Macdonald
     Corp., referred to as JTI-MC, by the Ontario Flue-Cured
     Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, referred to as the Board,
     Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler, and Aprad
     Dobrenty, proceeding on their own behalf and on behalf of a
     putative class of Ontario tobacco producers that sold
     tobacco to JTI-MC during the period between January 1, 1986,
     and December 31, 1996, referred to as the Class Period,
     through the Board pursuant to certain agreements.  The
     Statement of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly
     incurred by the class representatives and the putative class
     for tobacco sales during the Class Period made at the
     contract price for duty free or export cigarettes with
     respect to cigarettes that, rather than being sold duty free
     or for export, purportedly were sold in Canada, which
     allegedly breached one or more of a series of contracts
     dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996.  A motion to
     dismiss has been filed.

   * Finally, JTI has advised RJR and RJR Tobacco of its view
     that, under the terms of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR
     and RJR Tobacco are liable for a roughly $1.7 million
     judgment entered in 1998, plus interest and costs, in an
     action filed in Brazil by Lutz Hanneman, a former employee
     of a former RJR Tobacco subsidiary.  RJR and RJR Tobacco
     deny that they are liable for this judgment under the terms
     of the 1999 Purchase Agreement.

Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain
circumstances, they may have these and other unresolved
indemnification obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase
Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree with JTI as to (1) what
circumstances relating to any such matters may give rise to
indemnification obligations by RJR and RJR Tobacco, and (2) the
nature and extent of any such obligation.  RJR and RJR Tobacco
have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed
to resolve their differences at a later time.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Minn. Court Dismissed "Thompson" Suit in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed in
June 2012 the class action lawsuit captioned Thompson v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in
February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company ("RJR Tobacco") removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  In October 2007, the U.S.
District Court remanded the case to state district court.  In May
2009, the court entered an agreed scheduling order that bifurcates
merits and class certification discovery.  The parties were
engaged in class certification discovery.  In July 2009, the
plaintiffs in this case and in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
filed a motion to consolidate for discovery and trial.  In October
2009, the court companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling
on the motion to consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as
discovery progresses.  In February 2010, a stipulation and order
was entered to stay proceedings in this case and in Dahl until
completion of all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc.
In June 2012, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

RAI says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


SUPERVALU INC: Independent Grocers Lose Class-Action Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Browning, writing for Star Tribune, reports that a group of
independent grocers will not get class-action status to press
their antitrust cases against Supervalu Inc. and C&S Wholesale
Grocers Inc. over a deal to divide up markets in the Midwest and
New England.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery said in an order made public on
July 26 that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a case that an
agreement between Eden Prairie-based Supervalu and C&S, based in
Keene, N.H., had caused a common injury to the myriad potential
plaintiffs in the class.

Supervalu spokesman Mike Siemienas said the ruling puts the ball
in the plaintiffs' court.

"We believe the court reached the right conclusion and are pleased
with the outcome," he said.  "This ruling means the case cannot
proceed as a class action."

Plaintiffs attorney Joe Bruckner said his clients disagree with
the ruling and are devising a strategy to move forward.

"Clearly, it's not the ruling we had hoped for," Mr. Bruckner
said.  "By no means is it over.  . . . An agreement to divide
markets among the country's two largest grocery wholesalers, we
think, is clearly a violation of the antitrust laws and we're
confident of the underlying merits of our claim."

The plaintiffs are retail grocers who allege that Supervalu and
C&S, two of the nation's largest grocery product wholesalers by
sales volume, agreed to split up territory and customers to reduce
competition.  They filed two separate lawsuits alleging that the
agreement drove up prices, and they seek unspecified treble
damages and attorney's fees under the Clayton Antitrust Act.

The controversy dates to 2003 when Supervalu was looking to divest
itself of underperforming retail stores, customer agreements and
operating warehouses in New England.  It began negotiations with
C&S, according to a sworn statement by David Boehnen, a Supervalu
executive involved in the discussions.

Supervalu dubbed the divestiture project "Operation Salmon."  But
in April 2003 another major wholesaler, Fleming Cos. Inc. of
Lewisville, Texas, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Supervalu sought to acquire much of Fleming's wholesale business
operations, Mr. Boehnen said.  But negotiations faltered, and C&S
stepped in.

Supervalu and C&S negotiated an agreement in September 2003 in
which C&S assigned to Supervalu certain Fleming assets for its
Midwest wholesale operations, and Supervalu assigned to C&S its
New England wholesale assets and certain retail assets, Mr.
Boehnen said.

The "assets exchange agreement" included a non-compete provision
that barred Supervalu and C&S from supplying former customers
served from a certain distribution center for two years, and each
agreed not to solicit those customers for five years.

Both sides presented experts to argue that the agreement either
did, or did not, harm the independent grocers.  Judge Montgomery
analyzed the arguments separately for New England and for the
Midwest in an exhaustive, 34-page opinion and order.  She noted
that the price negotiations between the wholesalers and individual
retailers varied widely.  Although that by itself doesn't bar a
class-action, Judge Montgomery found that the plaintiffs had
failed to establish that they suffered a common harm.


SYNGENTA CROP: Officials Mum on Proposed Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that although plaintiffs in a Madison County class action
lawsuit that led to federal litigation over the weed killer
atrazine will be included in the $105 million proposed settlement,
it appears they don't want to talk about it -- or at least not
yet.

A message left last week for Richard Hayes, president of Holiday
Shores Sanitary District, at the district's office was returned by
an employee, who referred media questions to Korein Tillery, the
law firm that filed the class action lawsuit against Syngenta Crop
Protection and Syngenta AG on the sanitary district's behalf in
Madison County in 2004.

A message left at Mr. Hayes' home, as well as at the law office of
the district's attorney, Bob Perica, went unreturned.  And the
same goes for messages left last week for officials for some of
the plaintiff municipalities involved in the federal lawsuit,
including the Village of Coulterville and the City of Gillespie.

David Willey, the city manager for the City of Greenville, the
lead plaintiff in the federal suit, returned a message left for
the city's attorney, Patrick Schuafelberger, and declined comment
on behalf of the city, noting the pending nature of the
settlement.

These messages sought comment from the officials of the plaintiff
municipalities as to their involvement and impression of the
proposed settlement, as well as how it would directly impact their
village or city.

In addition, a message left on July 25 with Stephen Tillery's
secretary seeking comment from the attorney who spearheaded the
lawsuits was not immediately returned.

In 2004, Mr. Tillery filed six separate class action suits in
Madison County Circuit Court against various manufacturers of
atrazine, a commonly used agricultural herbicide.  The plaintiffs
claimed that atrazine ran off farm field and into their drinking
water supplies.

Six years later, Mr. Tillery filed a class action lawsuit in
federal court on behalf of the City of Greenville and several
other water providers in six Midwestern states. In May, the
Syngenta defendants agreed to pay $105 million to settle the suit.

If approved, the proposed settlement would resolve all pending
litigation over these claims, including matters in Madison County
that include other companies besides Syngenta, such as Dow
AgroSciences and Drexel, according to a transcript of the May 30
hearing on a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

Mr. Tillery said during the May hearing that the proposed
settlement provides community water systems the chance to test
their water systems for atrazine and if appropriate, file claims
up until late August.

If approved, claimants would receive a fixed payment of $5,000 to
help cover the cost of testing for atrazine (two tests per year at
$250 each for 10 years) and a pro-rata share of the remaining
balance of the settlement fund.

The proposed settlement also provides plaintiff attorneys about
$34.9 million in fees to share.

Mr. Tillery and Michael Pope, the attorney representing the
Syngenta defendants, said at the May hearing that the settlement
will resolve the claims of more than 1,800 water providers.

Mr. Tillery also noted that a formula will be used to determine
exactly how much each claimant will receive under the settlement.

If the settlement is approved, Mr. Tillery said in May that 157
claimants would get between $20,000 and $50,000, 96 would receive
between $50,000 and $100,000, 151 would be eligible for between
$100,000 and $500,000, 14 systems would get $500,000 and one
system would receive $1 million.

According to the Holiday Shores Sanitary District's Web site,
which provides minutes of its board meetings, trustees went into
closed executive session in May to discuss updates of litigation.
They also went into a closed session in June to discuss employee
salary review and litigation, which is allowed under provisions of
the state's Open Meeting Act.

The minutes of the June meeting, however, did make one mention to
Syngenta.  During a discussion on possible decreases in expenses
for the district's 2012-2013 budget, officials noted that "since
the sale of the water plant and the Syngenta settlement are
uncertain for this fiscal period, a budget amendment will be
considered at the time they occur."

Jim McCann, president of the Holiday Shores Association, said he
wasn't surprised by the lack of response to media calls on the
Syngenta settlement. His association is not included in the
litigation.

He said the board discussed it in 2004 and 2005 after Mr. Tillery
inquired about whether it would like to be a party to the suit and
decided not to do so.

Mr. McCann said the sanitary district does not keep the board
updated on the litigation, but emphasized that the board has not
asked for it do so either.  He said he follows the proposed
settlement through media reports.

As someone who has been drinking water provided by the district
for about two decades, Mr. McCann said he does not have any
concerns over the safety of the water.  When the litigation first
began, he said he was worried over negative publicity that might
be created by the fact the association and district share a
similar name.

On the bright side, Mr. McCann said the litigation hasn't created
a mass exodus of residents, inquiries from potential residents or
fears over the safety of the drinking water.

"Our water is really good," he said.  "It's not a concern."

The proposed settlement is set to face a final fairness hearing
Oct. 22 in Benton before U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert.


TICKETMASTER: Wheel Chair Users File Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 2012, John Whitbread, a music fan who uses a
wheelchair, filed a Class Action Lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior
Court against Ticketmaster, Los Angeles County, and Los Angeles
Philharmonic Association.  Mr. Whitbread alleges that Ticketmaster
does not allow wheelchair users to purchase wheelchair accessible
tickets directly online.  Instead, a wheelchair user must go
through the elaborate process of sending in a request for tickets
and then wait for a telephone call in order to purchase tickets.
The lawsuit alleges that this is precisely what happened when
Mr. Whitbread attempted to purchase Journey tickets for the
Hollywood Bowl.

Mr. Whitbread is not seeking damages.  Instead, the lawsuit is
designed to require Ticketmaster to allow wheelchair users to
purchase tickets directly online like any other concert goer.

The lawsuit, Case No. BC489093, alleges that each of the
defendants are in violation of California State law, including
California's Disabled Persons Act.  These laws follow the
requirement of the Americans with Disability Act which mandates:
"A public accommodation that sells tickets for a single event or
series of events shall modify its policies, practices, or
procedures to ensure that individuals with disabilities have an
equal opportunity to purchase tickets for accessible seating
through the same methods of distribution [as other patrons]" [See
28 C.F.R. Sec. 36.302(f)(ii)].

The Action seeks certification of a plaintiff class of wheelchair
users and an order from the Court to compel Defendants to permit
wheelchair users to purchase tickets for venues directly online.
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants discriminatory actions
include: "The denial of access to the same methods of ticket
purchases to individuals on account of their disability --
specifically, wheelchair users often cannot purchase wheelchair
accessible tickets directly online through Ticketmaster's Web site
-- however, individuals who purchase non-accessible seats enjoy
the amenity of purchasing tickets directly online."


TONY DOWNS: Recalls 70,500 Lbs. of Canned Chicken Products
----------------------------------------------------------

   * Mislabeling and Undeclared Allergen Cited

Tony Downs Foods Company, a Madelia, Minnesota establishment is
recalling approximately 70,500 pounds of premium chunk chicken due
to mislabeling and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products may actually contain 'Beef with Gravy.' The canned
beef product contains wheat, an allergen not declared on the
canned chicken label.

The product subject to recall is:

   * 12.5-oz. cans of "Tyson Premium Chunk Chicken."

The incorrectly labeled products subject to recall bear the code
date of "8965 248A 12139" and "Best by May 18, 2015" ink-jetted on
the bottom of each can.  Each label bears the number P-65 inside
the USDA mark of inspection.  Correctly labeled cans are inkjetted
with the code "1392TDM4600" and "P65" beneath a "Use By May 18
2015" date and are not subject to recall.

These products were produced on May 18, 2012, and were distributed
to retail establishments nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the firm received customer
complaints that the product was incorrectly labeled.  FSIS and the
company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
company's Tyson Consumer Hotline at 866-328-3156.  Media with
questions about the recall should contact Tyson Public Relations
Manager, Worth Sparkman, at 479-290-6358.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-
888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


VISA INC: Vermont Retail Association Opposes Fee Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jane Lindholm, writing for Vermont Public Radio, reports that the
Vermont Retail Association is speaking out against a proposed
lawsuit settlement regarding credit card swipe fees.

The class action lawsuit, representing 7 million merchants
nationwide, claimed Visa and Mastercard colluded in a price fixing
scheme.

In the proposed settlement to the case, Visa and Mastercard would
pay about $6 billion and reduce swipe fees for eight months.

But Tasha Wallis of the Vermont Retail Association says this
settlement would actually hurt local businesses.  "Six billion
sounds like a great deal of money, but looking at the fact that
retailers pay $30 billion a year in credit card swipe fees,
billions more in debit card swipe fees, that's really not a lot of
cash at the end of the day."

Ms. Wallis says the proposed solution is a temporary one and would
not address the permanent issue of how much credit card companies
can charge merchants.

"There has been a lot of congressional attention to this issue and
we're hopeful at some point that Congress or the regulators will
take action to require a reduction in these fees, which are so
high.  And there's some concern out there that an agreement in
that suit would be game over, end of story, and we don't want to
be in that position," Ms. Wallis explained.

Ms. Wallis says that swipe fees are the third biggest cost of
doing business for many local retailers, after paying rent and
salaries.  The Vermont Retail Association joins WalMart, Target,
and the National Association of Convenience Stores in opposing the
settlement, which has not yet been finalized.


WALGREEN CO: Wins Bid to Dismiss Generic Drug Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Walgreen Co. and generic drug maker Par
Pharmaceutical Cos. Inc. won dismissal on July 26 of a proposed
class-action lawsuit accusing the companies of overcharging for
various generic drugs in an effort to increase profits.

The lawsuit, filed in January by a union benefits fund, had
accused Walgreen and Par of violating federal racketeering laws.
But U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in Chicago concluded
the fund's claims were based on violations of state and federal
laws that don't create a right for private lawsuits.

"Since the Fund's complaint relies on regulatory violations to
support its RICO claims, the Fund has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted," Judge Der-Yeghiayan wrote.

Kenneth Wexler, a lawyer for the plaintiff United Food and
Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health and Pension
Fund, said he was studying the opinion and "didn't expect it."

"We're considering our options," he said.

The complaint alleged that from 1999 through 2006, Walgreen and
Par conspired to boost profits by illegally filling prescriptions
with Par's more expensive drugs rather than specific ones doctors
prescribed.

The drugs included generic versions of the antidepressant Prozac
and anti-acid medication Zantac.

The lawsuit was filed following the unsealing of a whistleblower
lawsuit against Par in July 2011, according to the complaint.
That case remains pending.

"We agree completely with the court's decision," Rob Andalman, a
lawyer for Walgreen, said in an e-mail.  A spokeswoman and lawyer
for Par did not respond to requests for comment.

In 2008, Walgreen agreed to a $35 million settlement to resolve
claims by the federal government and 42 states and Puerto Rico
that it had overcharged state Medicaid funds through filling
prescriptions with more expensive generic versions of Zantac and
Prozac.

Par earlier said it had agreed to be acquired by TPG for $1.9
billion.

The case is In re: United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund vs. Walgreen Co., U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Illinois, No. 12-CV-00204.


XCEED FINANCIAL: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Peter Strozniak, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that
Xceed Financial Federal Credit Union has agreed to a confidential
out-of-court settlement with a member who filed a class action
lawsuit against the El-Segundo, Calif., credit union for unfair
business practices by allegedly re-sequencing debit charge
transactions to maximize overdraft fees.

"The parties have entered into a confidential settlement agreement
to avoid time and expense of litigation and without admitting
fault or liability of any kind," according to court documents that
officially dismissed the case.  The agreement was reached July 20
in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Cuthbert Shillingford, who joined the $751 million Xceed Financial
in 2006, filed the lawsuit in April after noticing he was charged
repeated overdraft fees of $29 each.  He claimed some of the
overdraft fees were not proper and resulted from Xceed's re-
sequencing of his transactions.

Calls to attorneys representing Xceed Financial Federal CU and
Mr. Shillingford about the settlement were not returned.  A call
to Xceed Financial Federal CU also was not returned.

The Xceed Financial lawsuit represented the first against credit
unions claiming the re-sequencing of debit card transactions to
make more overdraft fee revenue.

In June, a San Jose, Calif.-based attorney filed seven class
action lawsuits against credit unions in California, Illinois and
Alabama alleging they committed deceptive business practices that
involved "the systematic manipulation and re-ordering of
electronic debit transactions from the highest dollar amount to
the lowest dollar amount . . . to maximize the amount of overdraft
fees collected."

The lawsuit names $9.4 billion SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union
of Santa Ana, Calif.; the $6 billion Star One Credit Union of
Sunnyvale, Calif.; the $1.3 billion Kern Schools Federal Credit
Union of Bakersfield, Calif.; the $2 billion Educational Employees
Credit Union of Fresno, Calif., the $8.4 billion Alliant Credit
Union of Chicago; the $590 million Alabama Telco Credit Union of
Hoover, Ala.; and the $1.25 billion America's First Federal Credit
Union of Birmingham, Ala.

If the accused credit unions are maximizing overdraft income, it
doesn't show in their financial performance reports.  All but two
reported fee and operating income to average assets below peer
averages during first-quarter 2012. Star One reported only 0.16%
fee income to average assets, compared to the peer average of
1.38%.  Alliant's fee income was only 0.19% of average assets.

Kern Schools was the lone exception, reporting 2.39% fee income to
average assets.  According to 5300 reports published on the NCUA's
Web site, Kern Schools collected $4.78 million from fees and $2.8
million in other noninterest income, which includes CUSO revenue.

Rick Heldebrant, president/CEO of Star One, told Credit Union
Times last month his institution does not reorder transactions nor
does it order them largest transaction to smallest during
processing.  He said the allegations in the suit are false.

Kern Schools President/CEO Steve Renock told Credit Union Times in
June that he "believes the allegations are not correct at this
time."

The lawsuits come as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is
researching overdraft practices and collecting information from
financial service providers and the public.

In 2011, class action lawsuit Closson v. Bank of America resulted
in a $410 million settlement.  According to the settlement
Web site, Bank of America was forced to pay up to $78 to customers
who could prove they had an account at BofA, had account
accessibility through a debit card, check card or another other
card used for debit purchases, and paid at least one insufficient
funds fee, overdraft fee, returned item fee, over-limit fee or
similar fee related to a debit card transaction between 2000 and
2007.

On June 26, the Boston-based Citizens Bank settled its overdraft
class action lawsuit for $137.5 million.  The $30 billion Citizens
settlement was part of a broader class action suit that reportedly
involves more than 30 banks.


                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *