CAR_Public/120809.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 9, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 157

                             Headlines

AIR CARGO SHIPPING: Judge Awards $54.4MM to Plaintiffs' Counsel
ALEXIS WHOLESALE: Recalls 6,210 Pounds of Chorizo Sausage
AQUATECH LOGISTICS: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Chemical Cloud
BEEBE MEDICAL: Settles Bradley Class Action for $100 Million
CAREER EDUCATION: "Amador" Suit Settlement Got Final OK in April

CAREER EDUCATION: Appeal in "Lilley" Class Suit Remains Pending
CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Filing of 3rd Amended "Houck" Complaint
CAREER EDUCATION: Final Hearing on TPCA Suit Deal on Oct. 23
CAREER EDUCATION: Arbitration Bid in "Vasquez" Suit Pending
CAREER EDUCATION: Reply Brief in "Ross" Suit Due on August 13

CAREER EDUCATION: Trial in "Surrett" Suit Set for January 2013
CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Plaintiff Appeals Suit Dismissal
CLECO CORP: Oral Arguments on Customer Suit Appeals on Sept. 7
EATON CORP: Scott+Scott LLP Files Shareholder Class Action
EME HOMER: Appeal From Hurricane Katrina Suit Dismissal Pending

FACEBOOK INC: Judge Concerned Over Sponsored Stories Suit Deal
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit in Hawaii Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Class Cert. Denial in Calif. Suit Upheld in Mar.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Remains Pending
GARDEN FRESH: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

GOLD'S GYM: Trainers File Overtime Class Action in Texas
GOOGLE INC: Gets Favorable Ruling in Nexus One Class Action
HUFFINGTON POST: Sued in Illinois Over Unsolicited Text Messages
KAISER FOUNDATION: Workers File Overtime Class Action in Calif.
NEWARK, NJ: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Red-Light Cameras

PELLA CORP: Lexington Denies Liability in C$285MM Class Action
PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Diaper Genie Ads
RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
REICHEL FOODS: Recalls 15,880 Lbs. of Ready-To-Eat Meat Products
REICHEL FOODS: Recalls Dippin' Stix and Cheese Pizza Lunch Kits

STRAYER EDUCATION: Appeal From "Kinnett" Suit Dismissal Pending
TENAHA COUNTY, TX: Settles Class Action Over Racial Profiling
TOSHIBA: Can't Sideline Retailers' LCD Price-Fixing Claims
UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over Suave Hair Care Product
UNITED STATES: Drought Hastens Keepseagle Settlement Payments

VISA INC: NCGA Opposes Class Action Settlement Over Card Fees
WEATHER CHANNEL: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
WELLMARK INC: Gets Favorable Ruling in Chiropractors' Class Action
XEROX CORP: Awaits Ruling in Consolidated Securities Litigation

                          *********

AIR CARGO SHIPPING: Judge Awards $54.4MM to Plaintiffs' Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a Brooklyn federal
judge has awarded $54.4 million to plaintiffs' counsel in a class
action over air cargo shipping rates, bringing the fees awarded in
the antitrust case to $92.9 million.

The award, the third to date in the ongoing case, was approved by
U.S. District Judge John Gleeson on Aug. 2.

The money will be paid to 73 firms involved in the litigation and
allocated by four lead plaintiff firms -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer,
Labaton Sucharow, Hausfeld and Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman.
Between December 2006 and December 2011, the 73 firms spent
199,510 hours litigating the antitrust action, according to court
filings.

The class action was brought in 2006 on behalf of companies that
purchased air cargo freight shipping services from dozens of
airlines.  The plaintiffs accused the airlines of participating in
a global conspiracy to artificially inflate shipping prices.

On Aug. 2 Judge Gleeson approved $224.4 million in new settlement
payments, which included the $54.4 million fee award.  That brings
the total to be paid by 17 airlines to $485 million.

Unlike some class actions, in which plaintiffs' counsel submit fee
applications when the case is nearing a final resolution, the air
cargo case has been proceeding in a piecemeal manner.

The case remains ongoing against 11 other airlines.  Depending on
the outcome, plaintiffs and their lawyers could see the settlement
funds and accompanying fee awards increase.

Judge Gleeson cautioned plaintiffs' firms that if the settlement
fund balloons, they may need to revisit their method for computing
fees in relation to the size of the settlement fund.

"In megafund cases such as this one, courts typically decrease the
percentage of the fee as the size of the fund increases to avoid
an unjust windfall," Judge Gleeson wrote in the Aug. 2order.

Hollis Salzman, co-lead class counsel from Labaton Sucharow,
called Judge Gleeson's comments "fair and sound" and based on the
law and jurisdiction.

Judge Gleeson is presiding over another closely watched antitrust
class action -- Visa Inc and Mastercard Inc's proposed $7.2
billion settlement with retailers.  The proposed settlement has
already drawn objections, but, if approved, could potentially
result in a fee award to plaintiffs' counsel worth hundreds of
millions of dollars.

The case is In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, No. 06-1775.

For the plaintiffs: Robert Kaplan, Gary Specks and Gregory Arenson
of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; Hollis Salzman, Jay Himes and Gregory
Asciolla of Labaton Sucharow; Michael Hausfeld, William
Butterfield and Brent Landau of Hausfeld; and Howard Sedran,
Austin Cohen and Keith Verrier of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman.


ALEXIS WHOLESALE: Recalls 6,210 Pounds of Chorizo Sausage
---------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Wholesale, Inc., a Gardena, California establishment, is
recalling approximately 6,210 pounds of chorizo sausage because it
is misbranded in that it contains monosodium glutamate (MSG),
which is not declared on the label, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * 10-lb. boxes of "Salvadorian Brand Chorizo"

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "EST.
44823" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  This product was
produced July 2-27, 2012, and was sold to a distributor in Los
Angeles.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a routine
label review.  MSG is a sub-ingredient in the chorizo spice blend
and was not listed on the final product label.  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 (including at
restaurants) 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 and media with questions about the recall should contact
the company's owner, Yesenia Lopez, at (310) 538-5020.

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.


AQUATECH LOGISTICS: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Chemical Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------
CityNews.ca reports that a $10 million class-action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of people at or near Lion Dunc Schooley Pool
in St. Catharines on July 12, 2012, between 1- 8 p.m., after a
chemical mix released a noxious cloud of chlorine gas.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 2 in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.

The representative plaintiffs are 7-year-old Vanessa MacLennan and
her uncle Donald MacLennan, of St. Catharines.

Both were swimming at the pool when the chemical cloud was
released.

Doug Elliot from the Toronto law firm Roy Elliott O'Connor is
representing the plaintiffs.

"The people of St. Catharines should not have to wait years for
this case to make its way through the courts, they should get
compensation now," Mr. Elliot said.  "Since liability is fairly
straightforward, we hope to settle this case quickly."

The lawsuit names the City of St. Catharines and Aquatech
Logistics Inc., the company that allegedly improperly mixed the
chemicals.

It is estimated that 200 people were in the area at the time.

"The gas hit me like a ton of bricks.  I couldn't breathe," said
representative plaintiff Donald MacLenna.  "My lungs felt like
they were burning.  I was so sacred for my life and the lives of
the children.  I am haunted by the look of sheer panic on the face
of one of the little girls."

"I'm mostly concerned about Vanessa and the other children.  The
gas may affect them for the rest of their lives.  It just isn't
right.  I had to do something about it."


BEEBE MEDICAL: Settles Bradley Class Action for $100 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Cris Barrish, writing for The News Journal, reports that Beebe
Medical Center, which once employed pedophile pediatrician Earl B.
Bradley, has quietly reached a massive monetary settlement in a
class action lawsuit brought by his former patients against the
hospital and others accused of failing to report the doctor's
atrocities.

Financial details of the agreement are currently confidential, but
sources familiar with the negotiations told The News Journal that
Beebe, mostly through its insurers, has agreed to pay more than
$100 million to settle claims against the Lewes hospital.

It could be more than a year, however, before trusts are
established and paid to Mr. Bradley's victims, sources said.

The deal will allow Beebe to avoid bankruptcy, its lead attorney
said.

The Medical Society of Delaware and a handful of Delaware doctors
are also defendants in the lawsuits, but have not settled with the
patients.

Once an agreement is reached with all defendants, monetary terms
will be disclosed publicly, said Bruce L. Hudson, a lawyer for the
child victims.

While plaintiffs' attorneys say the deal is done and was announced
in open court three weeks ago, Beebe's lead attorney, Michael M.
Mustokoff of Philadelphia, said non-financial matters he would not
discuss still need to be resolved.

"We are close but not over the goal line," Mr. Mustokoff said on
Aug. 3.  "Agreement has not been reached on essential terms."

Mr. Mustokoff said the financial deal was not in dispute.  "There
is an agreement as to monetary terms but not a final settlement."

Mr. Hudson, who represents dozens of Mr. Bradley's victims and
said the number of patients seeking to join the class-action suit
is in the hundreds, said the deal was announced during a July 13
status conference presided over by Superior Court Judge Joseph R.
Slights III.

Besides about two dozen attorneys representing the various
parties, Beebe President Jeffrey Fried and board chairman William
S. Lee, a former Superior Court judge and Republican gubernatorial
candidate, were also in attendance, Mr. Hudson said.

"There is a settlement and we have notified our clients," Mr.
Hudson said.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Amador" Suit Settlement Got Final OK in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in San Francisco entered a final
judgment in April 2012 approving a settlement resolving the class
action lawsuit styled Amador, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy and Career Education Corporation, according to the
Company's July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy ("CCA") filed a
complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco.
Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a putative class
action and allege four causes of action: fraud; constructive
fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process.  The
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the
admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon
graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA.

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action, captioned Adams, et al. v.
California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation, on
behalf of Jennifer Adams and several other unnamed members of the
Amador putative class.  The Adams action also was styled as a
class action and was based on the same allegations underlying the
Amador action and attempted to plead the same four causes of
action pled in the Amador action.  The Adams action was deemed
related to the Amador action and was being handled by the same
judge.

The parties executed a formal settlement agreement as of
November 1, 2010.  On April 18, 2012, the Court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement and on April 19, 2012,
the Court entered a final judgment on the settlement.

On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the
Amador action filed a separate complaint in the San Francisco
County Superior Court entitled Abarca v. California Culinary
Academy, Inc., et al, on behalf of 115 individuals who are opt
outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore
not subject to the Amador settlement.  On June 15, 2011, the same
attorneys filed another action in the San Francisco County
Superior Court entitled Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy, Inc., et al., on behalf of another 31 individuals who are
opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and
therefore not subject to the Amador settlement.  On August 12,
2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a third action on behalf of five
individuals who opted out of or were not parties to the Amador
settlement entitled Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy.  None of these three lawsuits are being prosecuted as a
class action.  They each allege the same claims as were previously
alleged in the Amador action, plus claims for breach of contract
and violations of the repealed California Education Code.  The
plaintiffs in these cases seek damages, including consequential
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company has
not responded to these three complaints, which have been deemed
related and transferred to the same judge who has been handling
the Amador case, because they have been stayed pending a ruling on
the class settlement in the Amador action.  Certain of the
plaintiffs in these cases filed claims or received notice of the
settlement and did not file claims, and therefore their individual
claims will be barred.  The Court held a status conference on
these cases on July 17, 2012, and ordered that the cases continue
to be stayed until a further status conference scheduled for
September 18, 2012.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise as
discovery and pre-trial proceedings progress, the outcome of the
Abarca, Andrade and Aprieto legal proceedings is uncertain at this
point.  Based on information available to the Company at present,
it cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any,
for these actions because these matters are in their early stages
and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law.  Accordingly,
the Company has not recognized any liability associated with these
actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Appeal in "Lilley" Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint, captioned Lilley,
et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming as defendants
Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008, and
September 24, 2010.  The five plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant
program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville,
Illinois.  The amended class action complaint asserts claims for
alleged violations of the Illinois Private Business and Vocational
Schools Act, for alleged unfair conduct and deceptive conduct
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, as well as common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation
and fraudulent omission.

In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the
plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements
contained false and misleading information regarding placement
statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions,
Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized
materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive
information.  Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a
standardized admissions test to determine program placement when
the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide
allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and
misrepresented the transferability of credits.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant
students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 20, 2010.  On October 27, 2010, the Court granted
defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission
claims.  The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory
claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class
consisting of all persons who attended Sanford-Brown College in
Collinsville, Illinois, and enrolled in the Medical Assisting
Program during the period from July 1, 2003, through November 29,
2010.  This class consists of approximately 2,300 members.
Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal the trial court's
class certification order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
On February 10, 2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted
defendants' petition for leave to appeal.  Oral argument was heard
on the appeal on October 4, 2011.  While that appeal is pending,
all proceedings in the Circuit Court are stayed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the
inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of
damages and the number of potential class members who might be
entitled to recover damages, if the Company were to be found
liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability
associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Filing of 3rd Amended "Houck" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is awaiting the filing of a third
amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned Kishia
Houck, et al v. Career Education Corporation and International
Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., according to the
Company's July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 23, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County,
Florida, captioned Kishia Houck, et al v. Career Education
Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design,
Inc.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action under Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and breach of
fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants made a variety
of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to salary and
employment prospects, instructor qualifications, transferability
of credits, career placement services, the reputation of the
International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., the value
and quality of the education, the overall cost to attend the
school and relevant student loan information.  The putative class
is defined as including all students who are or have enrolled in
defendants' degree programs at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida
campuses during an undetermined time period.  Plaintiffs seek to
recover damages and also seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

On July 5, 2012, the action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.  A third amended complaint was
scheduled to be filed by August 3, 2012, as stipulated by the
parties.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among
other things, the Company's potential liability depends on whether
a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any
such class as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure
of damages, if the Company were to be found liable.  Accordingly,
the Company has not recognized any liability associated with this
action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Final Hearing on TPCA Suit Deal on Oct. 23
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on final approval of a settlement resolving two class
action lawsuits -- Fahey, et al. v. Career Education Corporation,
and Rojas, et al. v. Career Education Corporation -- is scheduled
for October 23, 2012, according to the Company's July 31, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On August 4, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Sheila Fahey
alleging that she had received an unauthorized text message
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA").  On September 3, 2010, the Company removed this
case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  On November 22, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Fahey case.  That motion is still pending.  The Court
has stayed any further activity on the Fahey case until resolution
of an appeal in the Seventh Circuit of a case involving issues
similar to those raised in the Company's motion to dismiss.  The
appeal has been resolved but the proceedings in Fahey remain
stayed and are subject to a settlement.

On August 18, 2010, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in
the Fahey action filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Sergio
Rojas alleging similar violations of the TCPA based on the same
text messages.  Rojas, like Fahey, sought class certification of
his claims.  The alleged classes are defined to include all
persons who received unauthorized text message advertisements from
the Company as part of the International Academy of Design &
Technology ("IADT") test marketing campaign.  Rojas and Fahey each
sought an award trebling the statutory damages to the class
members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

On March 14, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs' counsel resolving the claims asserted in both
cases.  Plaintiffs' uncontested motion for preliminary approval of
this settlement was granted on June 26, 2012.  The Court's orders
also schedule October 23, 2012, as the date for final approval of
this settlement.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the
Company has agreed to pay $200 to each person who received the
subject text message who can be identified and returns a valid
claim form.  The parties did not reach an agreement regarding the
appropriate amount of legal fees to be paid to class counsel.  If
the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the amount of
these fees, this issue will be presented separately to the Court
for hearing and resolution in advance of the final approval of the
settlement.  Based upon the information available to the Company,
it recorded a charge of $6.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2011
which represents the Company's best estimate of the loss related
to these matters.


CAREER EDUCATION: Arbitration Bid in "Vasquez" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims in the
consolidated fraud class action lawsuit captioned Daniel Vasquez
and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc.
and Career Education Corporation are scheduled to be heard on
August 10, 2012, according to Career Education Corporation's July
31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation.  The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.  The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from California School of Culinary
Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the
limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action
(including, without limitation, the period following the filing of
the action)."  Defendants successfully demurred to the
constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it.
Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based
on alleged violations of California's former Educational Reform
Act.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the
Court on March 6, 2012.

Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related
"multiple plaintiff actions" entitled Banks, et al. v. California
School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 316
individuals); Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los
Angeles County Superior Court (by 373 individuals); Aguilar, et
al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County
Superior Court (by 88 individuals); Alday v. California School of
Culinary Arts, Los Angeles Superior Court (by 73 individuals);
Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los
Angeles County Superior Court (by 27 individuals); Arechiga, et
al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County
Superior Court (by 60 individuals); Anderson, et al., v.
California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior
Court (by 58 individuals); and Allen v. California School of
Culinary Arts, Los Angeles Superior Court (by 12 individuals).
All eight cases are being prosecuted on behalf of over one
thousand former students.  The allegations are the same as those
asserted in the Vasquez class action case.  The individual
plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies received,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.  All of these cases
have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action and therefore
are pending before the same judge who is presiding over the
Vasquez case.  Another case that has been deemed related is
Choueiri, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.  Choueiri is
unique among these cases as it involves a complaint by Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. against a former CSCA student and a co-signor, as well
as a cross-complaint by those defendants and another cross-
complainant against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., that also names the
school defendants as cross-defendants.

On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez
action consolidating all nine of the separate actions.
Defendants' response to the consolidated complaint was filed on
July 13, 2012.  The Court has lifted the stay on actions that were
consolidated and the parties are now engaged in discovery.
Defendants have also filed motions to compel arbitration of
plaintiffs' claims.  Those motions are scheduled to be heard on
August 10, 2012.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point.  Based on
information available to the Company at present, it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these
actions because the Company's possible liability depends on an
assessment of the appropriate measure of damages, if the Company
were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not
recognized any liability associated with these actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Reply Brief in "Ross" Suit Due on August 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation and other defendants' reply brief
with respect to their motion to dismiss a securities class action
lawsuit captioned Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et
al., is due August 13, 2012, according to the Company's
July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint captioned Ross, et
al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants
and claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making
material misstatements in and omitting material information from
the Company's public disclosures concerning its schools' job
placement rates and its compliance with accreditation policies.
The complaint further claimed that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their
positions as control persons of the Company.  Plaintiff asks for
unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as
ancillary relief.  On March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC
Asset Management NV, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement
Systems, and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, as
lead plaintiffs in the action.  On May 3, 2012, lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims
alleged in the initial complaint, and naming the Company and one
current and one former executive officer as defendants. Lead
plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between February 19, 2009, and November 21,
2011.  Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 4, 2012,
and plaintiffs' filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
July 23, 2012.  Defendants' reply brief is due on August 13, 2012.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the
inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of
damages and the number of potential class members who might be
entitled to recover damages, if the Company were to be found
liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability
associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Trial in "Surrett" Suit Set for January 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit titled Surrett, et al. v.
Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation
is scheduled for January 14, 2013, according to the Company's July
31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon, in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah
County naming defendants Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and
Career Education Corporation. Plaintiffs filed the complaint
individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims
for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for
money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege
that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they may earn after graduation.  WCI subsequently moved to dismiss
certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was
granted on September 12, 2008.  On February 5, 2010, the Court
entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of
plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions,
denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying
certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims.  The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI
between March 5, 2006, and March 1, 2010, excluding those who
dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic
reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Mr. Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011.  The class consists of approximately
2,330 members.  They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.
Defendants have filed a motion asking the Court to enforce its
prior order certifying a class that excludes individuals who were
academically ineligible to graduate from WCI, and which includes
approximately 300 additional individuals who do not belong in the
class because they were dismissed for violating WCI's attendance
policies.  Hearing on that motion was scheduled for August 3,
2012.

The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery.  WCI's
motion to compel arbitration of Surrett's claims, for summary
judgment and to decertify the class was denied by the Court.  WCI
also recently filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by
class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express
class action waiver provisions, and that motion is currently under
submission.  Trial is scheduled for January 14, 2013.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the
inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of
damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to
recover damages, if the Company were to be found liable.
Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability
associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Plaintiff Appeals Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned Wilson, et al.
v. Career Education Corporation has appealed the dismissal of his
case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, according to the Company's July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former Admissions
Representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment arising from the Company's decision to terminate
its Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation Plan.  In
addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent
a nationwide class of similarly situated Admissions
Representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan.
On October 6, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On November 25, 2011, Wilson moved for class
certification and appointment of class counsel, but briefing on
that issue and all discovery were stayed pending a decision on the
motion to dismiss.  On April 13, 2012, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed
plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.  The Court
dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012.

On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing
the final judgment of the trial court.  Plaintiffs' appellate
brief is due on August 30, 2012, the Company's response is due on
October 12, 2012, and plaintiffs' reply is due on October 30,
2012.  No hearing date for the appeal has been set.

Because plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal, the outcome of
this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on
information available to the Company at present, it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this
action.  Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability
associated with this action.


CLECO CORP: Oral Arguments on Customer Suit Appeals on Sept. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for
September 7, 2012, in connection with appeals in class action
lawsuits filed by customers against a subsidiary of Cleco
Corporation, according to the Company's July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf
of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The
complaint alleges that the Company's subsidiary, Cleco Power LLC,
overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to customers in Opelousas
the same retail rates as Cleco Power applies to all of its retail
customers.  The plaintiffs claim that Cleco Power owes customers
in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as a result of the alleged
overcharges.  The plaintiffs allege that Cleco Power should have
established, solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that
are separate and distinct from the retail rates that apply to
other customers of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not
collect from customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved
by the Louisiana Public Service Commission ("LPSC") following
hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Cleco Power currently operates in
Opelousas pursuant to a franchise granted to Cleco Power by the
City of Opelousas in 1986 and an operating and franchise agreement
dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own
electric facilities and leases and operates electric facilities
owned by the City of Opelousas.  In April 2010, Cleco Power filed
a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring
that the ratepayers of Opelousas have been properly charged the
rates that are applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and
that no overcharges have been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power
removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Opelousas electric customers from the state court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in April
2010, so that it could be properly addressed under the terms of
the Class Action Fairness Act.

On May 11, 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the
27th Judicial District Court for St. Landry Parish, State of
Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which
was submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents.  Cleco Power
has responded in the same manner as with the first class action
lawsuit.  In September 2010, the federal court remanded both cases
to the state court in which they were originally filed for further
proceedings.  In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state
court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class
actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued
by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff.  Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff
appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the
State of Louisiana (Third Circuit).  In September 2011, the Third
Circuit denied both appeals.  In October 2011, both Cleco and the
LPSC appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme
Court.  In November 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the
appeals and remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further
briefing, argument, and opinion.  In February 2011, the
administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that
the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class
action plaintiffs.  At its December 2011 Business and Executive
Session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ's recommendation that Cleco be
granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that
Cleco's ratepayers in the City of Opelousas have been served under
applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco's
Opelousas ratepayers have not been overcharged in connection with
LPSC rates or ratemaking.

On January 30, 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their
appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court
for Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana.  On February 15, 2012,
the Third Circuit ruled that the State Court, and not the LPSC,
has jurisdiction to hear the case.  On March 15, 2012, Cleco Power
appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court
asking that it overturn the Third Circuit decision and confirm the
LPSC's exclusive jurisdiction over this matter.  The LPSC also
appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court
in March 2012.  On May 18, 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court
granted the writ application of Cleco Power and the LPSC and set
the matter for further briefing on the merits of the jurisdiction
question raised in the writ application.  Cleco Power expects such
briefing to be completed during the third quarter of 2012 and the
Louisiana Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for September
7, 2012.

In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able
to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of
liability, if any, of these claims.  However, if it is found that
Cleco Power overcharged customers resulting in a refund, any such
refund could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.


EATON CORP: Scott+Scott LLP Files Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2012, Scott+Scott LLP filed a securities class action
complaint against Eaton Corporation, the Company's President and
Chief Executive Officer, and certain of its executives in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and was filed on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of
Eaton between August 9, 2009 and June 4, 2012, inclusive.

In general, the complaint alleges that Eaton issued false and
misleading statements concerning its executives' involvement in a
scheme to improperly influence a Mississippi state court judge in
litigation the Company had initiated against rival manufacturer
Frisby Aerospace, Inc. (the "Eaton-Frisby Litigation").  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that Eaton managers knew, but
repeatedly caused Eaton to deny, that Eaton had engaged
Mississippi attorney Ed Peters, a politically connected go-
between, to improperly influence Bobby DeLaughter, the presiding
judge in the Eaton-Frisby Litigation.  Judge DeLaughter later
recused himself from the Eaton case when he became embroiled in an
unrelated lawsuit involving high-powered Mississippi attorney
Richard Scruggs.  Judge DeLaughter was sentenced to 18 months in
prison after admitting he lied to FBI agents about conversations
he had with Peters in the Scruggs case.  Judge Swan Yerger, who
replaced Judge DeLaughter, subsequently dismissed Eaton's lawsuit
against Frisby after deciding there was "clear and convincing"
evidence that Eaton had hired Peters to secretly influence Judge
DeLaughter.

On May 31, 2012, Eaton's CEO and senior executives filed
affidavits with the court, which admitted that Eaton had failed to
turn over records showing that Eaton had improperly, and possibly
illegally, attempted to influence Judge DeLaughter.  On this news,
Eaton shares declined $3.10, or 7.2%, to close at $40.24 on June
1, 2012.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Eaton
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
October 2, 2012 to serve as lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact:

          Michael Burnett, Esq.
          Scott+Scott LLP
          E-mail: mburnett@scott-scott.com
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com

for more information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

Scott+Scott is a class action law firm in the United States, with
offices in New York, Connecticut, Ohio and California.  The firm
prosecutes major securities, antitrust and employee retirement
plan class action lawsuits.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


EME HOMER: Appeal From Hurricane Katrina Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to
Hurricane Katrina and involving the parent of EME Homer City
Generation L.P. remains pending, according to the Company's
July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In March 2012, the federal district court in Mississippi
dismissed, in its entirety, the purported class action complaint
filed by private citizens in May 2011, naming a large number of
defendants, including Homer City's parent company Edison Mission
Energy ("EME"), for damages allegedly arising from Hurricane
Katrina.  In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants' activities resulted in emissions of substantial
quantities of greenhouse gases that have contributed to climate
change and sea level rise, which in turn are alleged to have
increased the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina.  The lawsuit
alleges causes of action for negligence, public and private
nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  The claims in this lawsuit are nearly identical
to a subset of the claims that were raised against many of the
same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was filed in, and
dismissed by, the same federal district court where the current
case has been filed.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Concerned Over Sponsored Stories Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Peak, writing for VatorNews, reports that a U.S. District
Court judge still holds concerns regarding the settlement Facebook
created over privacy concerns with its "Sponsored Stories"
feature.

Judge Richard Seeborg on Aug. 2 listened to the details of a
settlement Facebook had penned with plaintiffs in a suit dealing
with the company's popular Sponsored Stories and how they are
displayed in a user's feed.

The five plaintiffs, which are trying to represent more than 100
million members in a class-action suit, believe that by displaying
their likeness and pages they had liked for the purpose of
Sponsored Stories advertisements, Facebook was violating their
privacy.

Sponsored Stories seemed to be the silver-lining in the dismal
Facebook Q2 earnings report last week, earning $1 million a day
and with great potential for growth.

Sponosored Stories essentially look at what you and your friends
are doing online (reading, posting, liking, checking into) and
uses those actions to offer very related and tailored ads.  One
example would be if 3 of your friends checked into a Starbucks and
that was in your news feed, an advertiser might take that feed
notification and package it as an ad so that it looked like a
friend update but also had verbiage or a coupon like an ad.

Back in May, when this case was last discussed the parties agreed
to a $20 million deal that would see Facebook give $10 million to
charity and pay $10 million for legal fees.

"That doesn't make any sense to me," Judge Seeborg said on Aug. 2
after hearing the details of the settlement, according to Reuters.

Judge Seeborg was unsure why Facebook was paying $20 million for
$123 million in value, and asked the parties why the social
network isn't providing the plaintiffs in the case with any
monetary damages.

Usually, plaintiffs would get a bulk of the settlement, and the
settlement would be far closer to the true value than this is.

With Judge Seeborg still expressing concern on the settlement, it
looks like a final decision won't occur for more months.

Under the deal, which settles a year-old lawsuit, Facebook is
agreeing to give its adult users the right to limit how the
social-networking site uses their faces in ads for its Sponsored
Stories product and minors can completely opt-out.

Michael Rhodes, Facebook's attorney, said it was a valuable
settlement to Facebook users.  He said Facebook doesn't have to
make any concession, but is settling after factoring in the
additional risks of litigation.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit in Hawaii Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries in a purported
class action in Hawaii.  On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action
without ties to Hawaii.  At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining
U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of
the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A final judgment
dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was
entered on July 28, 2010.  On
August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  The appeal
is fully briefed and remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 29, 2012.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Class Cert. Denial in Calif. Suit Upheld in Mar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denial of class certification in a consolidated class action
lawsuit commenced in California was upheld in March 2012, Fresh
Del Monte Produce Inc. disclosed in its July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2012.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against certain of the Company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of
consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R)
Extra Sweet pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996 to May 6,
2003.  The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On
February 18, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  On May 15, 2006, the court granted the
motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the state court of California on behalf of residents of California
who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra
Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  On
November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.  On
September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action.  On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification.
On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying class certification.  On February 29, 2012,
the oral argument hearing on the appeal was held.  On March 7,
2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of class
certification was upheld.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R)
Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.
The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000.  The
Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on
October 12, 2006.  On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a class action.  The Company's subsidiaries filed an
opposition on January 22, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply
on May 11, 2009.

On November 29, 2011, the court denied the motion to certify a
class action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 29, 2012.


GARDEN FRESH: 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
meat and poultry salad products that have been recalled by Garden
Fresh 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/KCamZO,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat and poultry salad products in the
consumers' possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name         Location
    -------------         --------
    Cermak Fresh Market   Stores in greater Chicago, IL area
    and Cermak Produce

    Coborn's              Stores throughout MN, ND, and SD
    Festival Foods        Stores throughout WI
    Jewel Foods           Stores throughout IL, IN, IA
    Marsh Supermarket     Stores throughout IN and OH
    Sentry                Stores throughout WI
    Super 1               Stores throughout MI, MN, ND, and WI
    SuperValu             Stores throughout MI, WI
    Target                All stores nationwide
    Weis                  Stores throughout MD, NJ, NY, PA & WV

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name                 City and State
    -------------                 --------------
    Valli Produce                 Arlington Heights, Illinois
    Edmar Foods Grocery Store     Bensenville, Illinois
    A & G                         Chicago, Illinois
    Family Fruit Market           Chicago, Illinois
    Pete's Produce                W 87th St., Chicago, Illinois
    Pete's Produce                E 87th Stt., Chicago, Illinois
    Crete County Market           Crete, Illinois
    Joseph's Marketplace          Crystal Lake, Illinois
    Dixmoor Fruit & Meat Market   Dixmoor, Illinois
    Elgin Fresh Market            Mcclean Blvd., Elgin, Illinois
    Elgin Fresh Market            Summit St., Elgin, Illinois
    Cub Foods                     Freeport, Illinois
    Valli Produce                 Glendale Heights, Illinois
    Valli Produce                 Hoffman Estates, Illinois
    Valli Produce                 Loves Park, Illinois
    Produce World                 Morton Grove, Illinois
    H Mart                        Naperville, Illinois
    Fresh Farms Int'l Market      Niles, Illinois
    H Mart                        Niles, Illinois
    Produce World                 Norridge, Illinois
    Main Street Meat Company      Roscoe, Illinois
    Village Market Place          Skokie, Illinois
    Westbrook Grocery Store       Westmont, Illinois
    Wisted's Supermarket          Woodstock, Illinois
    Pat's Foods                   Calumet, Michigan
    Jubilee IGA Foods             Crystal Falls, Michigan
    Elmer's County Market         Escanaba, Michigan
    Pat's Foods                   Hancock, Michigan
    Festival Foods                Houghton, Michigan
    Angeli's Central Market       Iron River, Michigan
    Jubilee IGA Foods             2nd St., Ishpeming, Michigan
    Jubilee IGA Foods             Hwy. 41, Ishpeming, Michigan
    Pat's Foods                   L'Anse, Michigan
    Angeli's County Market        Menominee, Michigan
    Bob's IGA                     Munising, Michigan
    Mac's Red Owl                 Newberry, Michigan
    Pat's Foods                   Ontonagon, Michigan
    U Save                        Ontonagon, Michigan
    Fazer Foods                   Spalding, Michigan
    Cub Foods                     Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
    Jerry's Foods                 Eden Prairie, Minnesota
    Woodland Marketplace Foods    International Falls, MN
    Teal's Market                 Milaca, Minnesota
    Village Market Deli           Prior Lake, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                     Rogers, Minnesota
    Schutz Family Foods Deli      Sleepy Eye, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                     St. Louis Park, Minnesota
    Dehmer's Meat Market          St. Michael, Minnesota
    Cashwise                      Bismarck, North Dakota
    Cashwise                      Fargo, North Dakota
    Marketplace Foods             Minot, North Dakota
    Kramers County Market         Abbotsford, Wisconsin
    A-F County Market             Adams, Wisconsin
    Niemuth's Southside Market    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Athens IGA                    Athens, Wisconsin
    Viking Express Market         Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Church Street Market          Berlin, Wisconsin
    Burnstad's                    BI River Falls, Wisconsin
    Murf's Frozen Custard         Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Sendiks Market                West Capital, Brookfield, WI
    Sendiks Market                North 124th, Brookfield, WI
    Grasch Foods Inc-Deli Dept.   Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Marchant's Foods Inc.         Brussels, Wisconsin
    Gooseberries Fresh Market     Burlington, Wisconsin
    Main Street Market            Denmark, Wisconsin
    Trigs                         Eagle River, Wisconsin
    Edgar IGA                     Edgar, Wisconsin
    Frank's County Market         Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Fish Creek General Store      Fish Creek, Wisconsin
    Austin's Original             Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Mason's Red Owl               Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Webster Avenue Market         Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Rueben's County Market        Hartford, Wisconsin
    Hillsboro County Market       Hillsboro, Wisconsin
    Gilbert's Foods               Hortonville, Wisconsin
    Iola IGA                      Iola, Wisconsin
    Piggly Wiggly                 Jackson, Wisconsin
    Frank's County Market         Jefferson, Wisconsin
    Haen Meat Packing Inc         Kaukauna, Wisconsin
    Ojibwe Market                 Lac Du Flambeau, Wisconsin
    Stodolas IGA                  Luxemburg, Wisconsin
    Cub Foods                     Nakoosa Trail, Madison, WI
    Cub Foods                     Mineral Point, Madison, WI
    La Portes Food Market         Manitowish Waters, Wisconsin
    Piggly Wiggly                 Manitowoc, Wisconsin
    Angeli's County Market        Marinette, Wisconsin
    Curry's IGA                   Marinette, Wisconsin
    Medford County Market         Medford, Wisconsin
    Snows Family Market IGA       Mercer, Wisconsin
    Dave's County Market          Merrill, Wisconsin
    Mancl's IGA                   Milladore, Wisconsin
    Sendiks Market                North Downer, Milwaukee, WI
    Sendiks Market                W Brown Deer, Milwaukee, WI
    Kaul's Mini Store             Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Save More IGA Foods           Minocqua, Wisconsin
    Trigs                         Minocqua, Wisconsin
    Hansen's IGA                  Neillsville, Wisconsin
    Wheatland Convenience Center  New Munster, Wisconsin
    Thompson County Market        Oconto, Wisconsin
    Lee's Family Foods            Peshtigo, Wisconsin
    Prentice IGA                  Prentice, Wisconsin
    Viking Village                Reedsburg, Wisconsin
    Trigs                         Rhinelander, Wisconsin
    Ed's IGA                      Rib Lake, Wisconsin
    Burnstad's                    Richland Center, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA             Schofield, Wisconsin
    Sharon Supermart              Sharon, Wisconsin
    Shawano Country Store         Shawano, Wisconsin
    Piggly Wiggly                 Slinger, Wisconsin
    Trigs                         Stevens Point, Wisconsin
    Foodland                      Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
    Burnstad's                    Tomah, Wisconsin
    Nelsons County Market         Tomahawk, Wisconsin
    Stoneridge Mart               Waukesha, Wisconsin
    Crossroads County Market      Wausau, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA             Wausau, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA             Wausau, Wisconsin
    Trigs                         Wausau, Wisconsin
    Kd's IGA                      Weyawega, Wisconsin
    Zinke Village Market          Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA             Grand, Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Quality Foods IGA             Baker, Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Dick's Family Foods           Wrightstown, Wisconsin


GOLD'S GYM: Trainers File Overtime Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gold's Gym International
stiffed trainers ("membership consultants") for overtime after
buying Spectrum Clubs, according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Lay, et al. v. Spectrum Clubs, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-00754 (W.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/06/Golds.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com


GOOGLE INC: Gets Favorable Ruling in Nexus One Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Google Inc. and HTC
Corp. on Aug. 2 once again escaped a pair of California-
consolidated breach of warranty class actions accusing the
companies of making promises about the Nexus One phone's high-
speed Internet capabilities that the phone could not deliver.

Judge Edward J. Davila granted Google and HTC's motion to dismiss
the suit -- which was previously tossed in August 2011.


HUFFINGTON POST: Sued in Illinois Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, a woman claims the Huffington Post bombards
people with text-message news alerts at all hours, despite their
repeated requests to stop it.

Lead plaintiff Alicia St. Leger sued TheHuffingtonPost.com.

Ms. St. Leger says she signed up for the Huffington Post's "Daily
Brief," expecting to receive one text message a day, with a
summary of breaking news.

Instead, she got multiple text messages a day, which were charged
to her wireless text plan.  She says Huffington Post ignored her
repeated requests to unsubscribe.

"In an effort to increase viewership and revenue, Huffington Post,
the proprietor of the well-known news Web site
www.huffingtonpost.com, encourages visitors to its Web site to
subscribe to receive 'daily' news alerts in the form of 'text
message' calls to their cellular phones.  Once subscribed,
defendant floods consumers' cellular phones with multiple text
message calls every day, frequently transmitting unwanted text
messages at all hours of the day and night," the complaint states.

"Frustrated with defendant's delivery of excessive automated text
message calls (hereinafter, 'wireless spam'), plaintiff and
members of the putative class opted out of receiving further
wireless spam from Huffington Post.  Despite this, defendant has
continued to transmit wireless spam to plaintiff and other
consumers throughout the nation long after they have opted out
from receiving any text message calls from Huffington Post."

She adds: "Unlike more conventional communications, unsolicited
telephone calls to cellular telephones frequently cost recipients
money because cell phone users like plaintiff must pay their
respective wireless service providers either for each text message
call they receive or else incur a usage allocation deduction to
their text plan for each call they receive, regardless of whether
or not the call is authorized."

Ms. St. Leger claims she made numerous efforts to remove herself
from the Daily Brief subscription list.

"Plaintiff repeatedly replied 'Stop' to the sender of the text
messages, to no avail.  Unable to discontinue the messages by
replying to the message, plaintiff resorted to attempting to
contact defendant through other channels to unsubscribe from
receiving the text messages," the complaint states.

She says she e-mailed several addresses listed on the Huffington
Post's Web site, and contacted AOL, the Huffington Post's parent
company.

"Despite having expressly informed defendant (and defendant's
parent company) on multiple occasions to discontinue the
transmission of text messages to her cellular phone, defendant
continues to send plaintiff multiple unsolicited text messages to
her phone at virtually all hours of the day," Ms. St. Leger says.

Ms. St. Leger seeks an injunction, costs and class damages for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the Complaint in St. Leger v. TheHuffingtonPost.com,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-06138 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/06/Huff%20Post.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley M. Baglien, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Bradley M. Baglien, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street
          13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          E-mail: emeyers@edelson.com
                  bbaglien@edelson.com
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370


KAISER FOUNDATION: Workers File Overtime Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
stiff hourly workers for overtime and make them work off the
clock, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


NEWARK, NJ: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Red-Light Cameras
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Milo, writing for NewarkPatch, reports that a Roseland law
firm is planning to file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of those
who have received tickets for running red lights at most of the
intersections in the state where there are red light cameras, one
of the firm's lawyers said last week.

"The statute that was promulgated requires that the cameras be
inspected and certified.  The state Department of Transportation
suspended intersections in 21 towns because they weren't doing
this," said David Paris of Paris, Ackerman and Schmierer.  "Here
we have the state basically saying these towns were not in
compliance."

In June, the state Department of Transportation ordered that the
issuance of tickets at 63 of the 85 intersections with red light
cameras be suspended because questions arose over whether the
timing of the lights had been properly calibrated and the results
properly certified.  The legislation governing red light cameras
requires municipalities to test the duration of yellow lights
every six months based on a formula incorporating the average
speed motorists travel when approaching a particular intersection.

In late July, the state deemed all cameras in compliance,
including all 19 in Newark, where the red light camera program
began in 2009.  Altogether, 21 of 25 communities with red light
cameras had been affected by the suspension.

The cameras have led to other lawsuits in New Jersey and elsewhere
in the country, often on constitutional grounds, Mr. Paris said.
His firm, however, plans to take a different tack, arguing that
since there had been doubt over whether violations had actually
occurred at the time tickets were being issued, those tickets
should never have been issued in the first place.

"If they want to right the ship now, more power to them," Mr.
Paris said.  "But you can't apply this retroactively."

The firm has already filed on behalf of individuals ticketed in
Newark, Edison and several other communities, and is seeking
plaintiffs in Roselle Park, Wayne, Jersey City and Springfield,
Paris said late last week.  The firm aims to have clients in every
town where cameras were suspended within the next few weeks, then
plans on asking a judge to certify a class.

"Our class is based on unjust enrichment.  The state and the
communities have unlawfully benefitted," Mr. Paris said, adding
that the firm will seek financial relief as well as remedies to
ensure that testing and certification be conducted appropriately.

The potential size of the class is huge: in Newark alone in 2010,
the city collected $3 million in fines, $85 at a time.

City officials did not respond to questions e-mailed last week,
but earlier this summer, when the suspensions were first
announced, traffic engineer Jack Nata told The Star Ledger that
Newark's cameras and intersections had been properly tested.
After getting certifications from Newark since 2008, the state had
only this year notified the city about problems in the way the
certifications had been worded, Mr. Nata also said.


PELLA CORP: Lexington Denies Liability in C$285MM Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that the
Lexington Insurance Co. on Aug. 2 said it has no responsibility to
defend or indemnify window and door maker Pella Corp. in the
company's fight against a C$285 million Canadian class action
alleging its products are susceptible to condensation, wood rot
and leaks.

According to its complaint, filed in Iowa federal district court,
Lexington said the types of violations alleged in the Canadian
lawsuit do not meet the definition of an "occurrence" under the
umbrella, excess and commercial general liability policies Pella
has with the insurer.


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Diaper Genie Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that Playtex Products LLC
was hit with a proposed class action on July 31 in California
federal court alleging it deceived consumers by falsely claiming
its Diaper Genie disposal products were proven to be the best at
controlling odor, in violation of unfair competition laws.

The suit follows rival diaper pail maker Munchkin Inc.'s win
against Playtex last month in a federal jury trial over the same
alleged false claims and deceptive advertising of Playtex's Diaper
Genie II and Diaper Genie II Elite products.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that RadioShack Corp.
was hit with a putative class action in New York federal court
alleging it lied to shareholders about the prospects for a new
smartphone-focused business model that sacrificed more profitable
consumer electronics sales.

The company and CEO James Gooch made a series of false statements
between July 2011 and July 2012 lauding the new strategy, which
focused on reselling Verizon Wireless phones at kiosks in Target
stores, according to the July 30 suit by shareholder David Fidel.


REICHEL FOODS: Recalls 15,880 Lbs. of Ready-To-Eat Meat Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reichel Foods, a Rochester, Minnesota establishment, is recalling
approximately 15,880 pounds of ready-to-eat meat and poultry
products due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 5.6 oz. packages of "Armour Active Packs Turkey & Cheese
     Wrap" Package Code 1026090112 or Case Code 27815-17994

   * 5.6 oz. packages of "Armour Active Packs Ham & Cheese Wrap"
     Package Code 1026090112 or Case Code 27815-17995

All the products were produced between July 23, 2012, and
July 26, 2012, and have a "sell by" date of September 1, 2012.
The packages bear the establishment number "P-19941" or "Est.
19941" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were
shipped to distribution centers in Indiana, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, 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

The problem was discovered by the establishment, through
microbiological testing by a third party.  FSIS and the Company
have not received reports of illnesses due to consumption of these
products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Karin Grzanek of Reichel Foods at (866) 372-2609.

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.


REICHEL FOODS: Recalls Dippin' Stix and Cheese Pizza Lunch Kits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reichel Foods, Inc. of Rochester, Minnesota, is voluntarily
recalling a limited amount of Dippin' Stix Sliced Apples & Caramel
with Peanuts and Armour Active Packs Cheese Pizza Lunch Kits
because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Product was distributed to retail and convenience stores
throughout the United States.

The products subject to recall are:

   * 2.75 oz. single serve trays of Dippin' Stix Apples & Caramel
     with Peanuts.  The affected case code dates are 09/01/12,
     09/02/12, and 09/03/12.  The affected single serve tray code
     dates are USE BY 01SEP2012, USE BY 02SEP2012, and USE BY
     03SEP2012.

   * 5.6 oz. packages of "Armour Active Packs Cheese Pizza"
     Package Code 1026090112 or Case Code 27815-17996.

The problem was discovered through microbiological testing by
Reichel Foods.  The company has not received reports of illnesses
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased any products with the code dates
listed above should dispose of this product immediately or return
it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact Reichel Foods at (866) 372-2609 (7:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Central Standard Time) or visit the Company Web site
at http://www.reichelfoods.com/


STRAYER EDUCATION: Appeal From "Kinnett" Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit styled
Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., remains pending,
according to the Company's July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On October 15, 2010, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.  On March 20, 2012, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and
an appeal of that decision is pending in the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.  A shareholder derivative action alleging
similar facts was filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County,
Virginia, which action was voluntarily dismissed by nonsuit on
June 12, 2012.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and will
contest them vigorously.  While the outcome of any legal
proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does
not expect these matters will have a material effect on its
financial condition or results of operations.


TENAHA COUNTY, TX: Settles Class Action Over Racial Profiling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Robbins, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
small East Texas town and the county where it's situated will
implement procedures aimed at stopping racial profiling to settle
a class action lawsuit that accuses former officials of shaking
down innocent motorists for cash, according to documents filed in
federal court late on Aug. 3.

Tenaha and Shelby County have agreed to an "impartial policing
policy" that will better document and monitor traffic stops to
settle the suit, which brought national attention to the town of
1,160 near the Louisiana border when it was filed four years ago.

The suit accuses former District Attorney Lynda Kaye Russell and
four other ex-law enforcement officials of forcing motorists, most
of them black, to forfeit their cash or face criminal charges.

The filings on Aug. 3 show that the defendants, including the city
and the county as well as the named individuals, also have agreed
to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees of $520,000.  The 2011 ruling by
U.S. District Judge T. John Ward granting class certification
limited the case to injunctive and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs' attorneys said they were pleased by the far-
reaching nature of the proposed settlement.

"I'm not aware of any law enforcement agencies that operate with
these types of safeguards," said Tim Garrigan, a Nacogdoches
attorney who worked on the case with the American Civil Liberties
Union.

The attorney representing Ms. Russell in the lawsuit didn't
immediately respond to messages from AP on Aug. 3.

The suit contends that a drug enforcement program established in
Tenaha in 2006 was actually a scheme to threaten innocent
motorists with money laundering charges if they didn't agree to
sign over their cash under civil asset forfeiture proceedings.
The traffic stops occurred on U.S. Highway 59, which runs from the
U.S.-Mexico border to Canada and is known as a major drug
trafficking route.

The AP reported last October that more than $800,000 was collected
from the stops in less than a year and that, in some instances,
motorists who fit the profile of drug traffickers received
leniency in exchange for agreeing to forfeit their cash.

The Aug. 3 filings state that the defendants deny violating the
plaintiffs' constitutional rights but agree to dozens of
procedures directed at making sure future traffic stops and
searches aren't impacted by racial profiling and other violations
or motorists' rights.

The documents detail a number of preventive measures, including
audio and video recordings of all traffic stops.  In addition, any
money collected through future asset forfeitures can only be used
for audio and video equipment, law enforcement training or
donations to nonprofits dedicated to mental health, rehabilitation
services or victims' rights, according to the filings.

The measures would apply to all law enforcement in Tenaha and
Shelby County except the sheriff's office, which isn't part of the
suit or the settlement, plaintiff attorneys said.

Shelby County Judge Rick Campbell said Friday that approving the
settlement was a "business decision" for the county, which is
bound by the agreement even though it wasn't named in the original
complaint.

"The county is between a rock and a hard place," he said.  "If you
fight this, it could cost $1 million. It was in our best interest,
because of the dollars, to settle the case."

The traffic stops remain under investigation by the Department of
Justice's civil rights division.  They are also part of an ongoing
probe in which federal authorities in Texas are investigating a
Tenaha constable who is alleged to have secretly bugged the
offices of other officials involved in the scheme.


TOSHIBA: Can't Sideline Retailers' LCD Price-Fixing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that Toshiba,
LG and other electronic giants cannot sideline a retailer's claims
over their admitted LCD price-fixing conspiracy, a federal judge
ruled, showing little sympathy for the companies that recently
settled a related consumer class action for a record $1.1 billion.

Toshiba, LG, AU Optronics and seven other manufacturers of liquid
crystal display screens settled the largest antitrust class action
in history for $1.1 billion last month.

Those settlement funds will be distributed among consumers who
bought laptops and flat screen televisions between January 1999
and December 2006.  But the deal does not cover electronics
retailers that have also accused the same defendants of a long-
running price-fixing conspiracy.

In refusing to decertify the class of electronics retailers, U.S.
District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco said that the
admitted conspiracy directly affected the U.S. economy.

The manufacturers tried to sideline claims from Massachusetts-
based Tweeter Home Entertainment Group, but Judge Illston upheld
most of its claims last week.

Though Massachusetts has a four-year statute of limitations for
antitrust claims, and Tweeter undisputedly filed its complaint
after that clock ran out, Judge Illston noted that Tweet had first
participated in the direct-purchaser class action before opting
out in January 2011.

Tweeter then pursued its claims through the indirect-purchaser
class action until the amended complaint excluded resellers like
Tweeter in 2008, the judge found.

These actions tolled the statute of limitations, according to the
court.

"Even assuming the IPPs intended to represent a class of only end-
users, this intention was not readily apparent to any other party
who may have relied upon the suit because the plain language of
the class definition clearly included 'all persons and entities'
who were indirect purchasers," Judge Illston wrote, abbreviating
indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

Since NEC Corp. and its subsidiaries were not defendants in the
indirect-purchaser class action, however, Tweeter cannot sue those
entities now, the judge found.

A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss;
Granting NEC's Motion to Dismiss in In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel)
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-md-01827 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/06/optronics.pdf


UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over Suave Hair Care Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, reports that a pair of
disgruntled consumers lodged a putative class action in Illinois
federal court on Aug. 1 against Unilever PLC over one of its Suave
brand hair care products, claiming the company misled consumers
regarding a treatment that they say causes unwanted significant
hair loss upon use.

Lead plaintiffs Sidney Reid and Angel Lake said they purchased
Unilever's Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing
Kit to help control the curl and frizz in their hair.


UNITED STATES: Drought Hastens Keepseagle Settlement Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Country reports that payments made under the Keepseagle
settlement will be sped up because of the drought gripping much of
the U.S., attorneys for the Keepseagle claimants announced on
Aug. 1.

The Keepseagle v. Vilsack class action lawsuit, brought by
American Indian farmers and ranchers against the U.S. Department
of Agriculture for discrimination in loan-program administration,
was settled in 2010 for $680 million in cash awards, plus an
additional $80 million in debt relief, for a total monetary relief
of $760 million.

The acceleration applies to the category of settlement payments
with a cap of $50,000, known as Track A, the attorneys' media
release stated.  Track B's limit was $250,000 per award but
required more documentation and processing time.  Now the Track A
payments will be expedited instead of having to wait for the Track
B claims to be processed, the release said.

Track A claim determinations will now be mailed out by August 29,
Keepseagle Settlement lead counsel Joseph Sellers, of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, said in the attorneys' statement.

In addition, successful claimants who owe outstanding debt to the
USDA farm loan program will also be entitled to debt relief, the
release said.  The Track B claim determinations and the debt-
relief details for Track A will be mailed out by October 2012.

"The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a
modification to the schedule for distributing relief after hearing
from the claimants in the $680 million Keepseagle Settlement and
the USDA," the media release stated.  "Both parties cited the
ongoing drought impacting many farmers and ranchers as cause for
expediting claims relief."

Two thirds of the U.S. is under drought, the worst and most
extreme since the 1950s, according to the USDA's Drought Monitor.
Ranchers and farmers alike are affected.

"We want to applaud the USDA for joining the plaintiffs in asking
the court to allow the early release of funds to many of the
Native American farmers and ranchers eligible to receive
settlement payments.  Given the hardship many face from the severe
and ongoing drought, earlier distribution of these funds is
particularly important," Mr. Sellers said in the statement.


VISA INC: NCGA Opposes Class Action Settlement Over Card Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Cooperative Grocers Association on Aug. 3 disclosed it
will reject the recently proposed $7.25 billion class action
settlement with Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc., and several major
banks.  The settlement was offered in response to antitrust
litigation alleging unfair practices by credit card and debit card
issuers, including charging billions in noncompetitive "swipe" or
"interchange" fees to retailers across the country.  NCGA is named
as one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

"When NCGA signed onto this action, we did so in the interest of
consumer fairness and in support of industry transparency," said
Robynn Shrader, chief executive officer of NCGA.  "This settlement
falls short of providing true reform in the system by continuing
to allow credit card issuers and credit card networks to exploit
retailers and consumers without risk of repercussion."

For years, retailers have been forced to pay non-competitive fees,
which average about 2 percent of the price of a purchase.  Over
the last seven years, credit card issuers have charged retailers
$350 billion in fees.  The proposed settlement includes a $6.05
billion payment for alleged past damages as well as a temporary
reduction in swipe fees for 8 months that is valued at 1.2
billion.

The proposed settlement would allow for individual retailers to
charge fees directly to consumers who wish to use credit cards or
debit cards, a scenario NCGA rejects as a way to pass the burden
to retailers of collecting non-competitive fees from consumers.
The practice of surcharging is an inadequate solution to the
broader problem of swipe fees.  The settlement also does not limit
credit card issuers and credit card networks from hiking related
fees in the future, and if accepted, would protect credit issuers
from future lawsuits.

NCGA urges other retailers to reject the proposed settlement and
push for a revised settlement that holds credit card issuers
accountable, ensures competition in the market and encourages
innovation in payment systems.

National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA), founded in 1999,
is a business services cooperative for retail food co-ops located
throughout the United States.


WEATHER CHANNEL: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Weather Channel bombards
people with spam text messages even after being asked to stop, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rossell v. The Weather Channel, LLC,
Case No. 12-cv-04098 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/06/WeatherChannel.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com


WELLMARK INC: Gets Favorable Ruling in Chiropractors' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Iowa Supreme Court mostly upheld a lower court's ruling in favor
of the state's largest health insurer.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, a group of chiropractors, alleged
that defendant Wellmark Inc. employed preferred provider
arrangements in an "unlawfully discriminatory and anticompetitive
manner" in violation of statutory insurance provisions and state
antitrust laws.

In its July 27 opinion, the state's high court affirmed in part,
reversed in part and remanded the decision of the Polk County
District Court.

In their putative class action, the chiropractors alleged they
have been "victimized" by Wellmark's "discriminatory practices."

In particular, they claimed Wellmark wrongfully imposes
restrictions and pays lower rates for chiropractic services than
for equivalent services offered by medical doctors or osteopathic
physicians.

They alleged that the insurer not only has violated various
insurance regulatory statutes, but also has engaged in unlawful
conspiracy and monopolization in violation of the Iowa Competition
Law.

Wellmark's business consists of selling health insurance plans to
employer groups and providing administrative services to assist
others who provide health insurance coverage, such as self-funded
governmental entity plans.

It is one of a dozen health insurers in the state, but retains the
largest market share.

In this case, the district court granted Wellmark's motion to
dismiss claims brought under Iowa's insurance regulatory statutes
because no private cause of action is provided therein.

In its ruling, the state Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.

"The proper forum for raising alleged violations of those
regulatory statutes is through administrative proceedings in the
Iowa Division of Insurance," Justice Thomas D. Waterman wrote in
the Court's 38-page opinion.

Second, the district court granted Wellmark's motion for summary
judgment on plaintiffs' antitrust claims based on the "state
action" exemption found in state code.

The Court reversed in part, saying the summary judgment record
fails to establish the challenged conduct falls within the
exception.

Third, the lower court granted summary judgment on claims alleging
Wellmark breached its obligations under a judicially approved
national class action settlement in Love v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association.

The settlement is the only alleged anticompetitive conduct not
approved by the state insurance commissioner.

The Court affirmed that decision, concluding the record "contains
no evidence" that the insurer's implementation of the Love
settlement violated the state's Competition Law.

The Court also affirmed summary judgment on several specific
antitrust claims, and remanded the remaining claims and defenses
for "further proceedings."

"Plaintiffs' resistance challenged only the admissibility and
competency of Wellmark's affidavits.  Plaintiffs conceded Wellmark
uses the statutory definition of 'chiropractic' in its provider
forms," Justice Waterman noted.

"Plaintiffs identified no evidence to avoid summary judgment on
these claims."


XEROX CORP: Awaits Ruling in Consolidated Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation is still awaiting a ruling on its motion for
summary judgment in a consolidated securities law action pending
in Connecticut, according to the Company's July 31, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The matter is captioned In re Xerox Corporation
Securities Litigation.  Defendants are the Company, Barry Romeril,
Paul Allaire and G. Richard Thoman.  The consolidated action is a
class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
Xerox Corporation common stock during the period October 22, 1998,
through October 7, 1999, inclusive ("Class Period") and who
suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations or omissions by
Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs (the "Class").  The Class
alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("1934 Act"), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the Company's operations and revenues.  The complaint further
alleges that the alleged scheme: (i) deceived the investing public
regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth,
operations and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;
(ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common
stock of the Company while in possession of materially adverse,
non-public information; and (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs
and the other members of the purported class to purchase common
stock of the Company at inflated prices.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and
the other members of the purported class against all defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.  In 2001, the
Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of the
complaint.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling.  In
February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No.
164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius ("Agius") and Georgia Stanley
to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs.

In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court
holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the
Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion.  After
that conference and Agius' withdrawal as lead plaintiff and
proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a
second renewed motion for class certification.  In April 2008,
defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg
LLP as a lead counsel.  On September 30, 2008, the Court entered
an order certifying the class and denying the appointment of
Milberg LLP as class counsel.  Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the
Court denied defendants' motion to disqualify Milberg LLP.  On
November 6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.  Briefing with respect to the motion is complete.  The
Court has not yet rendered a decision.  The parties also filed
motions to exclude the testimony of certain expert witnesses.  On
April 22, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude
the testimony of two of defendants' expert witnesses.  On
September 30, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to exclude
the testimony of another of defendants' expert witnesses.  The
Court also granted defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of
one of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, and granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of
plaintiffs' two remaining expert witnesses.

The Company and the individual defendants deny any wrongdoing and
are vigorously defending the action.  At this time, the Company
does not believe it is reasonably possible that it will incur
additional material losses in excess of the amount it has already
accrued for this matter.  In the course of litigation, the Company
periodically engages in discussions with plaintiffs' counsel for
possible resolution of this matter.  Should developments cause a
change in the Company's determination as to an unfavorable
outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or a settlement for
a significant amount, there could be a material adverse effect on
the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial
position in the period in which such change in determination,
judgment or settlement occurs.


                           *********

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  * * *