CAR_Public/120813.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 13, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 159

                             Headlines

ACCOUNTNOW: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Business Practices
APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From Settlement Approval Remain Pending
BELL MOBILITY: Class Action Over 911 Fees in Discovery Phase
BMW: 3rd Cir. Decertifies Subclass of Run-Flat Tire Customers
BRITISH AIRWAYS: To Pay $89.5 Mil. Under Class Action Settlement

DEL WEBB: Insurers Won't Cover Defense Costs in Class Action
DENTSPLY INT'L: Bid to Dismiss "Hildebrand" Suit Still Pending
DENTSPLY INT'L: Cavitron Suit Remains Pending in San Francisco
EATON CORP: Retirement Fund Balks at Effort to Influence Judge
EDISON INT'L: Appeal From Dismissal of Mississippi Suit Pending

EDISON INT'L: Awaits Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Next Move
EDISON INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Two Suits in Illinois Pending
FANNIE MAE: Henderson County Files Class Action Over Excise Tax
GARDEN FRESH: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
HCR MANORCARE: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California

J.B. HUNT: To File Summary Judgment Motions in California Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance Policies
KELLYMITCHELL GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Overtime Pay Policy
KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Psychological Testing for Kids Underway
MENNO BEACHY: Recalls Grape Tomatoes Due to Possible Health Risk

OXY BEVERAGES: Sued Over Bogus Claims on "Oxygizer" Water
REICHEL FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
REVLON INC: Class Suits Over 2009 Exchange Offer Still Pending
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Sued Over Bogus "Passenger Usage Fee"
TARGET STORES: Consumers Advised Not to Eat Certain Food Products

TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Firms Seek to Overturn Fee Award Ruling
TOYOTA MOTOR: Pension Fund Files Renewed Class Cert. Bid
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: ADT Continues to Defend TCPA-Violations Suit
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Final OK of Colorado Suit Settlement
VIBRANT MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Safari Hack

VISA: Texas Food & Fuel Assoc. Opposes Credit Card Settlement
WACKENHUT CORP: Judge Decertifies Security Guards' Class Suit
WEATHER CHANNEL: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Text Messages
WILLIAM KOEPPEL: Judge Grants Class Action Status to Tenants' Suit


                          *********

ACCOUNTNOW: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class
action for the Internet age, a deaf man claims a prepaid debit
card company refused to communicate with him by e-mail, but kept
telling him to call it on the phone -- leaving him without a way
to pay his medical bills.

Richard Halavais accuses AccountNow of a "systematic pattern of
discrimination," unfair business practices and civil rights
violations.  Mr. Halavias, disabled by a stroke, says the company
refused to accommodate his requests by e-mail to secure a new card
so he could pay for a stay at a rehabilitation center in National
City.

In his federal complaint, Mr. Halavais says he is "unable to
effectively communicate verbally" on the phone because of a
stroke.  He says his disability checks, his only source of income,
were paid on an AccountNow prepaid card.  He contacted the company
to order a new card because his old one was due to expire.

AccountNow, based in San Ramon, provides financial services for
people "who do not have established banking relationships,"
according to the company Web site.  It calls itself the "only
online financial resource center for unbanked consumers."

Mr. Halavais claims that without access to his disability checks,
he "could not survive outside the facility," and had to hire an
attorney to help him get a new card.

Even then, Mr. Halavais says, AccountNow asked his attorney "to
fax a power of attorney and photo identification to their office
before discussing the account or simple issue of a replacement
card."

When he did get a new card, Mr. Halavais says, he couldn't use an
ATM with his old PIN number or a new temporary PIN, and his
account was locked after several failed attempts to get money.

By that time Mr. Halavais was in a rest home and needed access to
his money to pay for his medicine, he says.

He says he first contacted AccountNow by e-mail on May 21 and it
didn't resolve the issue until July.

"On July 10, 2012 plaintiff was finally able to access the money
deposited into his account, but only after numerous phone calls by
plaintiff's counsel, because defendant refused to aid plaintiff by
e-mail," the complaint states.

"Throughout this entire course of events, even after the risk
management department was involved and informed of the situation,
defendant did not present any alternative methods of communication
by which plaintiff could have resolved the issues with defendant."

Mr. Halavais says that he had to pay the rehab facility more than
$11,600 for "food and necessities" after prolonging his stay.

He seeks damages for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and unfair business practices.

AccountNow did not immediately respond to an e-mailed request for
comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Halavais v. AccountNow, Inc., Case No.
12-cv-01921 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/07/AccountNow.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Jessica R.K. Dorman, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  jessica@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2700 N. Main Street, Suite 1000
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From Settlement Approval Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation acquired JNI Corporation
("JNI") in October 2003.  In November 2001, a class action lawsuit
was filed against JNI and the underwriters of its initial and
secondary public offerings of common stock in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, case no. 01 Civ 10740
(SAS).  The complaint alleged that defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
in connection with JNI's public offerings.  This lawsuit was among
more than 300 class action lawsuits pending in this District Court
that have come to be known as the "IPO laddering cases."  Pursuant
to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC
92 (SAS), in mid-2009, a settlement was reached in all of the
cases.  In October 2009, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the case.  The
settlement did not have a material impact on the Company.  The
Court subsequently issued a final judgment.  Several appeals of
the settlement and judgment were filed between October 29 and
November 4, 2009.  Should the settlement be overturned on appeal
and the final judgment vacated, the Company could be exposed to
additional liabilities and such liability, if any, could not be
reasonably estimated at this time.

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.

Applied Micro Circuits Corporation -- http://www.apm.com--
provides semiconductor solutions for data center, enterprise,
telecom, and consumer/small medium business markets.  The Company
designs, develops, markets, and supports integrated circuits used
for processing, transporting, and storing information.  It offers
physical layer products that convert high-speed serial formats to
low-speed parallel formats and vice versa; framer and mapper
products, which transmit and receive signals to and from the
physical layer in a parallel format and are used in high-speed
optical network infrastructure equipment; and embedded computing
products that are deployed in various critical applications.  The
Company also provides server processor products for computing and
networking applications; packet processing products, which are
programmable processors that receive and transmit signals to and
from the framing layer and perform the processing of packet and
cell headers; and cell switching products that switch information
in the proper priority and to the proper destinations.  Its
products are used in wireline and wireless communications
equipment, such as wireless access points, wireless base stations,
multi-function printers, enterprise and edge switches, blade
servers, storage systems, residential and smart energy gateways,
core switches, routers, and transport platforms.  The Company
offers its solutions in the United States, Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Europe, China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and other Asian
countries.  Applied Micro Circuits Corporation was founded in 1979
and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


BELL MOBILITY: Class Action Over 911 Fees in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------------
HQ Yellowknife reports that the class action lawsuit brought on by
two residents of Yellowknife against Bell Mobility has progressed
to the point of discovery.

James and Samuel Anderson are leading the charge, saying that
residents of the three territories, not including Whitehorse
shouldn't be required to pay the monthly 911 fee of 75 cents.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Samuel Marr, said they had some mixed
results last month when the judge ruled on some questions.

"There were questions that were not agreed upon and so the judge
has to make a decision.  And if you read the recent decision the
judge agreed on some of them with us and some of them with Bell,
and the ones he agreed on with us Bell is required to provide
those answers."

The answers to those questions, as well as a discovery hearing,
will take place later this month followed by the trial on March
4th, which Mr. Marr said they feel good about.

"We are confident that the judge is going to see it our way, but
ultimately you know each side has their argument to make and the
court will make its decision if these charges are proper or not."

If the judge rules in the plaintiffs' favor, Mr. Marr said it's
possible that the money awarded could go towards establishing a
911 call center in Yellowknife.


BMW: 3rd Cir. Decertifies Subclass of Run-Flat Tire Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that the Third Circuit
on Aug. 7 decertified a subclass of BMW customers whose car models
had so-called run-flat tires, saying that even if there are enough
members for a nationwide class, that might not show there are
enough for a state-specific subclass.

In a precedential opinion, an appeals court panel remanded a
proposed class action by plaintiff Jeffrey Marcus, who claimed
that run-flat tires in certain BMW models are defective and fail
frequently.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: To Pay $89.5 Mil. Under Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Barnard, Special Correspondent for The Journal of Commerce
Online, reports that British Airways and Chile's LAN Cargo were
among eight airlines that got final court approval for a
settlement in a six-year-long class action lawsuit by shippers
over the carriers' involvement in a cartel that fixed fuel
surcharges for air cargo.

Under the agreement, approved by a court in New York, British
Airways will pay $89.5 million and LAN $66 million.

Air Canada, El Al, Emirates, Saudi Arabian Airlines, South African
Airways and Malaysia Airlines will pay a combined $27.5 million.
This is the third settlement in the lawsuit and brings total
payments so far to $485 million.

The lawsuit followed criminal investigations in the U.S., the
European Union, Canada, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand
into an alleged global price-fixing cartel in 2000-2006 involving
more than 24 airlines.

The EU fined 11 airlines, including BA, Air France-KLM and
Cargolux, $1.1 billion in 2010 for their role in the cartel.
The U.S. so far has fined more than 20 airlines more than $1.7
billion.


DEL WEBB: Insurers Won't Cover Defense Costs in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that St. Paul
Fire and Marine Insurance Co. on Aug. 7 asked a judge to find it
has no duty to cover the defense costs of two developers in an
underlying class action that alleges the builders failed to
address seismic engineering requirements for some homes in Nevada.

The insurer said Del Webb Communities Inc. and Terravita Home
Construction Co. aren't entitled to coverage because the class
action claims are for "damage that results from the performance of
or failure to perform architect, engineer or surveyor professional
services."


DENTSPLY INT'L: Bid to Dismiss "Hildebrand" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 12, 2006, a complaint against DENTSPLY International
Inc. was filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently
added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative).  The
case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case
in California.  The Complaint asserts putative class action claims
on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The
Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of
contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the
potential uses of the product because it cannot assure the
delivery of potable or sterile water.  Plaintiffs have filed their
motion for class certification to which the Company has filed its
response.  The Company also filed other motions, including a
motion to dismiss the claims of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin for
lack of standing.  The Court granted this motion for lack of
standing of the individuals and did not allow the plaintiffs to
amend the complaint to substitute their corporate practices,
leaving Dr. Goldman as the only putative class representative,
raising a question of jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court.
Subsequently, the Court issued an Order dismissing this case on
the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter.
The plaintiffs filed a second complaint (under the name "Center
City Periodontists") after the Court granted the initial Motion
for lack of standing, in which they named the corporate practices
of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin as class representatives.  The
Company has moved to dismiss this complaint and the Court has not
yet ruled on this Motion.

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.

The Company does not believe a loss is probable related to the
litigation. Further a reasonable estimate of a possible range of
loss cannot be made.  In the event that one or more of these
matters is unfavorably resolved, it is possible the Company's
results from operations could be materially impacted.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Cavitron Suit Remains Pending in San Francisco
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco County, California,
alleging that DENTSPLY International Inc. misrepresented that its
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral
surgical procedures.

The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund of its
purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral
surgery.  The Court certified the case as a class action in June
2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business
practices claims.  The class that was certified is defined as
California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral
surgical procedures.  The case is pending in the San Francisco
County Court.  As the result of several hearings, the Judge has
held that the class period will be from June 2000 to the present.
The Class Notice, once approved by the Court, will be mailed to
dentists licensed to practice in California during the class
period from June 2000 to the present.

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.


EATON CORP: Retirement Fund Balks at Effort to Influence Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida union
retirement fund on Aug. 2 hit Eaton Corp. with a putative
securities fraud class action claiming the Ohio-based builder of
power systems duped investors when it denied unduly trying to
influence a Mississippi judge presiding over a now-dismissed trade
secrets case.

On May 31, when Eaton was forced to admit it had in fact attempted
to influence Judge Bobby DeLaughter -- who recently was released
from prison in an unrelated corruption case -- the company's
shares plunged by 7 percent.


EDISON INT'L: Appeal From Dismissal of Mississippi Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against
Edison International's subsidiaries 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 Southern California Edison Company ("SCE"),
Edison Mission Energy ("EME") and other Edison International
subsidiaries, 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.


EDISON INT'L: Awaits Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Next Move
-------------------------------------------------------
Edison International does not know whether plaintiffs from a
dismissed class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania will file a
complaint in state court, 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.

Midwest Generation, LLC owns, leases and operates the Midwest
Generation plants in Illinois, which are Edison Mission Group
Inc.'s largest power plants.  EMG is the power generation segment
of Edison International and is the holding company for its
principal wholly owned subsidiary, Edison Mission Energy ("EME").
EME is the parent of EME Homer City Generation L.P. ("Homer
City"), a Pennsylvania limited partnership that leases and
operates three coal-fired electric generating units and related
facilities located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.

In January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the Western
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against Homer City, the sale-leaseback owner
participants of the Homer City plant, two prior owners of the
Homer City plant, EME, and Edison International, claiming that
emissions from the Homer City plant had adversely affected their
health and property values.  The plaintiffs sought to have their
lawsuit certified as a class action and requested injunctive
relief, the funding of a health assessment study and medical
monitoring, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.  In
October 2011, the claims in the purported class action lawsuit
that were based on the federal Clean Air Act were dismissed with
prejudice, while state law statutory and common law claims were
dismissed without prejudice to re-file in state court should the
plaintiffs choose to do so.  EME does not know whether the
plaintiffs will file a complaint in state court.

Adverse decisions in these cases could involve penalties, remedial
actions and damages that could have a material impact on the
financial condition and results of operations of Homer City and
EME.  EME cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate
the impact on the Homer City plant, or its and Homer City's
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.  EME has
not recorded a liability for these matters.


EDISON INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Two Suits in Illinois Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Edison International's subsidiary's motion to dismiss two class
action lawsuits in Illinois is 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.

Midwest Generation, LLC owns, leases and operates the Midwest
Generation plants in Illinois, which are Edison Mission Group
Inc.'s largest power plants.  EMG is the power generation segment
of Edison International and is the holding company for its
principal wholly owned subsidiary, Edison Mission Energy ("EME").

In January 2012, two complaints were filed against Midwest
Generation in Illinois state court by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk Stations on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance, negligence,
trespass, and strict liability.  The plaintiffs seek to have their
lawsuits certified as a class action and request injunctive
relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.  The
complaints are similar to two complaints previously filed in the
Northern District of Illinois, which were dismissed in October
2011 for lack of federal jurisdiction.  In March 2012, Midwest
Generation filed motions to dismiss the cases, which are pending.

Adverse decisions in these cases could involve penalties, remedial
actions and damages that could have a material impact on the
financial condition and results of operations of Midwest
Generation and EME.  EME cannot predict the outcome of these
matters or estimate the impact on the Midwest Generation plants,
or its and Midwest Generation's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.  EME has not recorded a liability for
these matters.


FANNIE MAE: Henderson County Files Class Action Over Excise Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
BlueRidgeNow.com reports that Henderson County filed a class-
action lawsuit challenging Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's refusal
to pay real estate excise taxes in Henderson County, Commissioner
Chair Tommy Thompson and County Manager Steve Wyatt said on Aug.
8.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, once federal agencies, are now
publicly traded private corporations.  They are not entitled to
any excise tax exemption granted to governmental agencies,
according to the lawsuit.

Article 8E of Chapter 105 of the N.C. General Statutes imposes an
excise tax on the recordation of land conveyance instruments of $1
per $500 of value of land conveyed.

The "deed stamps" on instruments of land conveyance are familiar
to anyone who has reviewed a North Carolina deed, the county said
in a news release.

"By not paying the excise tax imposed on the recordation of real
estate transfers, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are effectively
shifting costs from themselves and onto the citizens of Henderson
County.  As private corporations, they are not entitled to these
subsidies," the release says.

This lawsuit follows a recent opinion by the Eastern District of
Michigan granting summary judgment to Michigan counties seeking
unpaid transfer taxes from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHFA.

Henderson County's lawsuit was filed in the Asheville Division of
the Federal Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
Henderson County is represented by the Van Winkle Law Firm of
Hendersonville and Asheville, by Hausfeld LLP, of Washington,
D.C., and the County Attorney's office.


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 or poultry 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                        Arlington Heights, Illinois
    Woodman's                    Aurora, Illinois
    Edmar Foods Grocery Store    Bensenville, Illinois
    Woodman's                    Carpenterville, Illinois
    A & G                        Chicago, Illinois
    Family Fruit Market          Chicago, Illinois
    L & P Provisions             Chicago, Illinois
    Pete's Produce               W 87th St., Chicago, Illinois
    Pete's Produce               E 87th St., 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
    The Meat Shop                Mundelein, Illinois
    H Mart                       Naperville, Illinois
    Fresh Farms Int'l Market     Niles, Illinois
    H Mart                       Niles, Illinois
    Produce World                Norridge, Illinois
    Tischler Market              Plainfield, Illinois
    Woodman's                    Rockford, Illinois
    Main Street Meat Company     Roscoe, Illinois
    Village Market Place         Skokie, Illinois
    Westbrook Grocery Store      Westmont, Illinois
    Wisted's Supermarket         Woodstock, Illinois
    O'Malia                      Bloomington, Indiana
    O'Malia                      Carmel, Indiana
    Fresh County Market          Gary, Indiana
    O'Malia                      Indianapolis, Indiana
    O'Malia                      Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN
    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 W 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, Minnesota
    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
    Woodman's                    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Athens IGA                   Athens, Wisconsin
    Viking Express Market        Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                    Beloit, Wisconsin
    Church Street Market         Berlin, Wisconsin
    Burnstad's                   BI River Falls, Wisconsin
    Grasch Foods Inc-Deli Dept   Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Murf's Frozen Custard        Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Sendiks Market               West Capital, Brookfield, WI
    Sendiks Market               North 124th, Brookfield, WI
    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
    Woodman's                    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
    Woodman's                    Janesville, Wisconsin
    Frank's County Market        Jefferson, Wisconsin
    Haen Meat Packing Inc        Kaukauna, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Ojibwe Market                Lac Du Flambeau, Wisconsin
    Stodolas IGA                 Luxemburg, Wisconsin
    Cub Foods                    Nakoosa Trail, Madison, WI
    Cub Foods                    Mineral Point, Madison, WI
    Woodman's                    Milwaukee, Madison, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                    S. Gammon, Madison, Wisconsin
    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
    Woodman's                    Men Falls, Wisconsin
    Snows Family Market IGA      Mercer, Wisconsin
    Dave's County Market         Merrill, Wisconsin
    Mancl's IGA                  Milladore, Wisconsin
    Kaul's Mini Store            Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Sendiks Market               North Downer, Milwaukee, WI
    Sendiks Market               W. Brown Deer, Milwaukee, WI
    Save More IGA Foods          Minocqua, Wisconsin
    Trigs                        Minocqua, Wisconsin
    Hansen's IGA                 Neillsville, Wisconsin
    Wheatland Convenience Center Munster, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                    Oak Creek, Wisconsin
    Thompson County Market       Oconto, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                    Onalaska, 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            Rib Mtn Dr., Wausau, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA            E Wausau Ave., Wausau, Wisconsin
    Trigs                        Wausau, Wisconsin
    Kd's IGA                     Weyawega, Wisconsin
    Zinke Village Market         Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA            W Grand, Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Quality Foods IGA            Baker Dr., Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Dick's Family Foods          Wrightstown, Wisconsin


HCR MANORCARE: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elsy Garcia De Mira, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HCR Manorcare; HCR Manorcare Medical
Services of Florida, LLC; Manor Care, Inc.; and Does 1 through 10,
Case 5:12-cv-04092 (N.D. Calif., August 3, 2012) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of employees and former employees of the
Defendants for violations of California law governing wages, hours
and working conditions.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to authorize the
employees to take any rest period unless they have more than four
hours in a workday.  The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants failed
to provide timely and uninterrupted meal periods to their
employees.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants in Santa Clara
County, California, as an hourly, non-exempt employee for a period
of time within the past four years.

HCR Manorcare is a business entity based in Ohio and is not a
citizen of California.  HCR Manorcare Medical is a Florida limited
liability company based in Ohio.  Manor Care is incorporated is
California and is based in Ohio.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the
true names of the Doe Defendants.  The Defendants own and operate
one of the largest chains of care facilities in the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira Spiro, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Connor, Esq.
          Denise L. Diaz, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          SPIRO MOORE LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 235-2456
          E-mail: ira@spiromoore.com
                  jennifer@spiromoore.com
                  deniseldiaz@spiromoore.com
                  justin@spiromoore.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


J.B. HUNT: To File Summary Judgment Motions in California Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. disclosed in its July 31, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it will file motions for
summary judgment in the class action lawsuit pending in
California.

The Company is a defendant in certain class-action allegations in
which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based
drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and other items.  Further proceedings have
been stayed in these matters pending the California Supreme
Court's decision in a case unrelated to the Company's involving
similar issues.  In May 2012, the California Supreme Court issued
its decision in this unrelated case.  The Company says it intends
to file motions for summary judgment prior to allowing the case to
proceed.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these
lawsuits.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Piterniak and Laura Piterniak, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 652692/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 3, 2012) is brought on
behalf of those that currently have or formerly had mortgage loans
secured by their real property serviced by the Defendant and were
forced by the Defendant to pay for excessive amounts of flood
insurance coverage as a result of its unlawful, abusive and unfair
practices with respect to force-placed flood insurance.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant's unlawful practices
include:

   (a) imposing improper flood insurance requirements upon the
       Plaintiffs and Class members forcing them to pay for and
       maintain excess insurance;

   (b) demanding excessive and unnecessary additional flood
       insurance in breach of Plaintiffs' and Class members'
       mortgage contracts;

   (c) falsely representing the amounts of flood insurance that
       Plaintiffs and Class members were required to obtain; and

   (d) backdating and charging Plaintiffs and Class members for
       worthless force-placed flood insurance policies that
       covered past periods during which no liability arose.

The Plaintiff, who are husband and wife, are residents of Suffolk
County, New York, and own a property there.  The Plaintiffs'
mortgage is owned by Freddie Mac and serviced by the Defendant.

JPMorgan, a subsidiary or division of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a
national banking association that conducts business throughout the
United States of America and includes a unit formerly known as
Chase Home Finance, LLC, now merged into JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
as the surviving entity.  Chase services mortgage loans, including
that of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          Kevin S. Landau, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
          E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com
                  klandau@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net

               - and -

          Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Amanda R. Trask, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: plevan@ktmc.com
                  ecioko@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com


KELLYMITCHELL GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Overtime Pay Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that a KellyMitchell Group
Inc. project manager filed a putative class action in Pennsylvania
federal court on Aug. 6 alleging the information technology
consulting firm has failed to pay proper overtime wages.

Rebecca Pietracatello claims KellyMitchell only paid its employees
straight time for hours worked in excess of 40 hours instead of
time-and-a-half, in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.


KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Psychological Testing for Kids Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Jan Hefler, writing for Philly.com, reports that soon after
Garrett Cuffy began a long day of psychological testing to learn
whether his exposure to mercury at a day-care center had lingering
effects, he bolted.

The 9-year-old found his grandmother in an adjoining room and
demanded to know why the tester was asking whether he ever had
suicidal thoughts and whether he believed he was normal.

Garrett "marched into the room two or three times and asked, 'What
kind of question is this, and what does this have to do with
mercury?" said the grandmother, AnnLynne Benson.

Garrett is one of about 35 children who has been evaluated this
summer, six years after the contaminated Kiddie Kollege day care
in Gloucester County was shut down and 18 months after a judge
ordered the testing.

Ms. Benson gently told her grandson to cooperate with the testing
a few weeks ago because the family, concerned about his well-
being, wants answers.

More than 100 infants and children were exposed to mercury vapors
in the Franklin Township day care for a year or more after it
opened inside a closed thermometer factory that harbored dangerous
levels of toxins.

James J. Pettit, lead counsel for a class-action lawsuit seeking
medical monitoring for the Kiddie Kollege children, said he was
"very disappointed" with the number of children who had signed up
to participate.  The firm mailed letters to parents and advertised
"free testing" in two newspapers.

Parents had until Aug. 10 to sign up their children with his
office or one of the two neuropsychologists assigned to the task.

The children take a battery of cognitive tests of attention,
memory, hand-eye coordination, personality, and ability to
organize information, said neuropsychologist Jonathan Wall of
Hunterdon County, N.J.

Testing began in late April, Mr. Petit said, and is expected to
finish by the end of August.  It is expected to be repeated
annually, depending on the children's needs.

Mr. Pettit and four other law firms sued the state, county, town,
the owners of the building and the day care, claiming their
negligence exposed children to mercury, which can cause brain,
nervous system, and kidney problems.

All levels of government had oversight over the day care, yet they
failed to prevent the day care from opening without a proper
cleanup, a judge decided in January 2011.  The owners of the
building also were liable, the court said, because they had failed
to verify that the cleanup was done.

Ms. Benson, who regularly babysits Garrett at her Clementon home,
thought the full day of testing was a bit intense for a child.  It
started at 9:00 a.m. and ended a little after 6:00 p.m., she said.
Also, she was surprised it focused on psychological issues, rather
than potential "central nervous system" problems that mercury
exposure can cause.

Still, Ms. Benson said, she was grateful for the opportunity to
have her grandson, who attended Kiddie Kollege from age 18 months
to 3 years, seen by the specialists.

"I'm concerned about my grandson's welfare and I want to get all
the help for him that's forthcoming from this funding," she said,
referring to a $1.5 million fund the court established for the
testing.  "I want to find out what his status is compared to a
child who was not exposed to contamination, and, if they find out
there's something, what they can do for him."

Garrett's mother, Catherine, said she was "relieved they started
the testing" and was anxiously awaiting the results.

Tina DiSilvio, whose two toddlers attended Kiddie Kollege, has not
decided whether to get them evaluated.

After waiting four years for the Kiddie Kollege trial to be
scheduled, and then hearing all the parties deny blame for what
happened, Ms. DiSilvio said she had become discouraged.

"I think the window of opportunity has been missed," Ms. DiSilvio
said.  "Five or six years ago, I would have been more apt to do
this."

Ms. DiSilvio also said she was upset that Superior Court Judge
James Rafferty's ruling wasn't implemented for more than a year
while various legal arguments were heard.

Even now, the township's lawyers are planning an appeal of
Rafferty's negligence finding, and the children's lawyers are
considering an appeal over their legal fees.

Ms. DiSilvio said that she supported the class-action lawsuit and
monitoring because she wanted a database to be established to
detect whether the Kiddie Kollege children were developing more
medical problems than children not exposed to mercury.

But now, Ms. DiSilvio said, too many years had gone by to get a
good picture and to set up a database. Soon after Kiddie Kollege
was closed, she took one of her daughters to a psychologist at
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia because she thought the girl's
aggressive behavior might have come from her exposure to mercury.
The findings were not definitive, she said.  Still, Ms. DiSilvio
said she wanted to do her part.  "I'm still wrestling with it . .
. I feel it's kind of moot, but then the guilt comes in."


MENNO BEACHY: Recalls Grape Tomatoes Due to Possible Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menno Beachy of Cresco, Iowa, is recalling one pint containers of
Certified Organic Grape Tomatoes because they have the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail,
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal
pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e. infected
aneurysms), endocarditis, and arthritis.

A food distributor in Minnesota distributed 15 cases containing 12
one-pint containers of the affected grape tomatoes to retail
stores located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan between
7/26/12 - 8/6/12.

The grape tomatoes are packaged in square-shaped clear plastic
clamshell containers labeled as Menno Beachy Certified Organic
Grape Tomato, UPC number 044419310176, with a net weight of one
pint.  There are no lot numbers or expiration dates on the
clamshell label.  The clamshell packages are distributed in cases
that are printed with a lot number.  The case lot numbers affected
by the recall are MB725GT3, MB725GT8, and MB725GT0.

No illnesses have been associated with the product.

Menno Beachy became aware of the contamination after the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture collected a sample of the grape tomatoes
located at the Minnesota distributor.  The sample of lot number
MB725GT0 found the grape tomatoes to be contaminated with
Salmonella.  Menno Beachy is investigating the source of the
contamination.

Consumers who have the affected product should either discard it
in the trash or return it to the point of purchase.  Consumers
with questions can leave a message on Menno Beachy's voice mailbox
at 563-203-4671 and he will return your call.


OXY BEVERAGES: Sued Over Bogus Claims on "Oxygizer" Water
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Oxy Beverages sells
"Oxygizer" water for up to $3.25 a pint with the bogus claim that
it "increases the level of oxygen in the human body," a class
action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


REICHEL FOODS: 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
Ready-To-Eat Meat and Poultry Products that have been recalled by
Reichel 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/HHIa55,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name      Location
    -------------      --------
    Wal-Mart           Nationwide

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name      City and State
    -------------      --------------
    Shop N Save        Adams Parkway, Alton, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Berkshire Blvd., Alton, Illinois
    Shop N Save        N Belt W, Belleville, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Carlyle Ave., Belleville, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Bethalto, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Cahokia, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Collinsville, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Vandalia St., Collinsville, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Edwardsville, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Granite City, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Jerseyville, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Peoria, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Wabash Ave., Springfield, Illinois
    Shop N Save        N Grand Ave., Springfield, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Dirksen Parkway Springfield, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Wood River, Illinois
    Shop N Save        Affton, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Arnold, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Ballwin, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Dardenne Prairie, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Ellisville, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Fenton, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Old Halls Ferry, Ferguson, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Florissant, Ferguson, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Festus, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Flower Valley, Florissant, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Mayfair Plaza, Florissant, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Charbonier Rd., Florissant, Missouri
    Shop N Save        High Ridge, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Kirkwood, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Lemay, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Maplewood, Missouri
    Shop N Save        O Fallon, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Saint Ann, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Monticello Plaza, St. Charles, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Harvester Square, St. Charles, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Saint John, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Chippewa St., Saint Louis, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Gravois Ave., Saint Louis, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Lewis & Clark Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Watson Rd., Saint Louis, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Natural Bridge, Saint Louis, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Saint Peters, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Shrewsbury, Missouri
    Shop N Save        Union, Missouri


REVLON INC: Class Suits Over 2009 Exchange Offer Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. disclosed in its July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012, that class action lawsuits arising from its 2009
exchange offer remain pending.

On October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange
offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to
stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews
& Forbes Holdings Inc.) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in
exchange for the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A
Common Stock tendered in the Exchange Offer (the "Exchange
Offer").  On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009, and May 12,
2009, respectively, four purported class actions were filed by
each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T.
Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Chancery Court").  On May 4, 2009, a purported class action
was filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York,
New York County.  Each such lawsuit was brought against Revlon,
Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and
challenged a merger proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on April
13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and
certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s
outstanding Common Stock (in lieu of consummating such merger
proposal, the Company consummated the aforementioned Exchange
Offer).  Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed merger transaction.  On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court
consolidated the four Delaware actions (the "Initial Consolidated
Action"), and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs.  As announced
on August 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to
settle the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in a
Memorandum of Understanding (as amended in September 2009, the
"Settlement Agreement").

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants
should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange for the
Exchange Offer information regarding the Company's financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.  On
January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in
the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint.  Revlon initially
believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the
Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement
Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, certain of
Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews
& Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action
filed in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman.  Also on December
21, 2009, a second purported class action was filed in the
Chancery Court against certain of Revlon, Inc.'s current directors
and a former director by Lawrence Corneck.  The Gutman and Corneck
actions make allegations similar to those in the amended
complaints in the Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated
Action.  On January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the
Gutman and Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action
(the Initial Consolidated Action, as consolidated with the Gutman
and Corneck actions, is hereafter referred to as the "Consolidated
Action").  A briefing schedule was then set to determine the
leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.  Thereafter, newly
appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits
discovery would proceed.  Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of
the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part
of the Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have
disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009.

On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for class
certification.  Briefing on that motion is not yet complete.
Merits discovery is proceeding in the Consolidated Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., certain of Revlon, Inc.'s current directors,
a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. alleging
federal and state law claims stemming from the alleged failure to
disclose in the Offer to Exchange certain information relating to
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009.  On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff in this
action filed an amended complaint.

On January 31, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint in the Garofalo action.  On March 2, 2012, the
plaintiff in the Garofalo action filed a response opposing
defendants' motions to dismiss, and a motion alternatively seeking
leave to amend and file a second amended complaint.  Briefing is
now complete on the motions to dismiss and motion to amend and
defendants have requested oral argument.  Defendants previously
reached an agreement with the plaintiff in the Garofalo action to
permit the plaintiff to participate in merits discovery in the
Consolidated Action, and have agreed to permit the plaintiff to
continue to participate in the merits discovery while the motions
to dismiss are pending.  An agreement has also been reached with
the plaintiff in the Sullivan action to stay proceedings in that
action, including any response to the amended complaint, until
December 21, 2012, so that the plaintiff can participate in the
merits discovery in the Consolidated Action.

On May 11, 2010, a purported derivative action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by Richard
Smutek, derivatively and on behalf of Revlon, Inc. against Revlon,
Inc.'s then current directors and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging
breach of fiduciary duty in allowing the Exchange Offer to proceed
and failing to disclose in the Offer to Exchange certain
information related to the Company's financial results for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.  On August 16, 2010,
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  Briefing on
defendants' motions to dismiss was completed on December 10, 2010.
Thereafter, the parties requested oral argument on the motions to
dismiss. The motions to dismiss are currently pending.  On
September 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery.
In response, defendants moved to strike plaintiff's motion to
compel discovery or, in the alternative, for an extension of time
for defendants to respond to plaintiff's motion.  On October 17,
2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied
plaintiff's motion to compel and granted defendants' motion to
strike.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions are seeking, among other
things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of
such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of each such plaintiff's attorneys and experts.  Because
the Smutek action is styled as a derivative action on behalf of
the Company, any award of damages, costs and disbursements would
be made to and for the benefit of the Company.

Although the Company continues to dispute the allegations in the
pending actions and believes them to be without merit, on
June 21, 2012, without admitting any liability, Revlon, Inc.,
Revlon, Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes
(collectively, the "Defendants") entered into a binding Memorandum
of Understanding ("MOU") with Fidelity Management & Research
Company ("FMR Co.") and its investment advisory affiliates, all of
which are direct or indirect subsidiaries of FMR LLC
(collectively, "Fidelity"), which through various funds and
management agreements controlled the largest block of shares to
participate in the Exchange Offer, to settle potential claims
Fidelity could have as a potential member of the classes that
plaintiffs seek to certify in the pending actions.  The Company
publicly disclosed the material terms of the MOU by filing a
Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC on June 21, 2012.

Fidelity executed the MOU on behalf of 6,111,879 shares (the
"Fidelity Controlled Shares") out of the 6,933,526 shares (the
"Fidelity Shares") of the Company's Class A Common Stock that
Fidelity exchanged in the Exchange Offer, and pursuant to the
terms of the MOU, the remaining 821,647 shares agreed on July 12,
2012, to participate in the settlement.  As part of the
settlement, Fidelity agreed, among other things, to accept a cash
payment from Defendants of $22.5 million (the "Fidelity Settlement
Amount"), which amount will be paid from insurance proceeds, in
exchange for Fidelity's opting out with respect to the Fidelity
Shares of any purported class action related to the Exchange Offer
and Fidelity's release of all related potential claims.  On July
20, 2012, Fidelity and the Defendants executed a final Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement (the "Stipulation") the terms of which
are substantively identical to the terms of the MOU.  The
Stipulation supersedes the MOU.  In addition, on July 17, 2012,
the Defendants entered into a binding MOU with two additional
stockholders who collectively exchanged 310,690 shares in the
Exchange Offer, the terms of which are substantively identical to
the settlement with Fidelity and call for the payment of $1
million, in the aggregate, to the two stockholders.  The $1
million payment will also be paid from insurance proceeds.

The Company has recorded a charge and corresponding income from
insurance proceeds related to the Company's estimated allocable
portion of the Fidelity Settlement Amount and the additional $1
million payment, which resulted in no impact to the Company's
Statement of Income for the period.  There can be no assurance as
to the amount, if any, of additional insurance proceeds that the
Company may receive in connection with its defense or resolution
of the pending actions.  In any event, at least $5 million of
future payments by the Defendants relating to these matters,
including expenses, will not be covered by insurance.

The Defendants have also agreed with Fidelity and the two
additional stockholders that, in the event a settlement is reached
with the purported class plaintiffs, or an award of damages is
issued following a trial in any of the pending actions, and that
settlement amount or damage award exceeds the existing settlement
amounts on a per share basis, the settling parties would each
receive additional consideration subject to certain parameters.

The Company continues to believe the allegations in the pending
actions are without merit but is engaged in discussions regarding
settlement of the pending actions.  The Company has recorded an
additional charge of $6.7 million in the second quarter of 2012
with respect to the Company's estimated costs of resolving the
pending litigations with the purported class plaintiffs, including
the Company's estimate of any additional payment by it to the
settling stockholders.  This additional charge is included within
selling, general and administrative expenses in the Company's
Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2012.

The settlements with Fidelity and the two additional stockholders
have no effect on the pending actions other than to eliminate them
from any future certified class.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Sued Over Bogus "Passenger Usage Fee"
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Spirit Airlines charges a
bogus "passenger usage fee" for online ticket purchases, provides
nothing for it, and hides it among government-imposed fees and
taxes, a customer claims in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No.
12-cv-61528 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/08/Bogus.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Josefsrg, Esq.
          Katherine Ezell, Esq.
          John Gravante III, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          E-mail: rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
                  kezell@podhurst.com
                  jgravante@podhurst.com


TARGET STORES: Consumers Advised Not to Eat Certain Food Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rhode Island Department of Health (HEALTH) advises consumers
that they should not eat certain foods from the Market Pantry and
Archer Farms Deli Salad lines.  The products are sold at Target
stores, and are being voluntarily recalled because they may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Consumers who have purchased the following items should discard
them immediately:

Target Item Number (DPCI):

   * 216-24-0207, Archer Farms Four Bean Salad 14-oz
   * 216-24-0102, Market Pantry American Potato Salad 3#
   * 216-24-0107, Market Pantry American Potato Salad 16 oz
   * 216-24-0103, Market Pantry Chicken Salad 12-oz
   * 216-24-0106, Market Pantry Cole Slaw, 15-oz
   * 216-24-0114, Market Pantry Cole Slaw, 44-oz
   * 216-24-0109, Market Pantry Egg Salad, 12-oz
   * 216-24-0101, Market Pantry Macaroni Salad 3#
   * 216-24-0105, Market Pantry Macaroni Salad 16-oz
   * 216-24-0104, Market Pantry Mustard Potato Salad 16-oz
   * 216-24-0100, Market Pantry Mustard Potato Salad 3#
   * 216-24-0116, Market Pantry Reduced Fat Mustard Potato
     Salad 16-oz
   * 216-24-0108, Market Pantry Tuna Salad 12-oz
   * 216-24-0119, Market Pantry Italian Pasta Salad 14-oz
   * 878-02-0051/0151 Layered Taco Dip

There are several date codes for each item.  Consumers should
refer to the item list at Garden-Fresh Foods-Market Pantry and
Archer Farms Deli Salad items for specific date and code
information.

Not all Target stores carried the recalled items or the recalled
date codes.

Specific questions regarding this recall should be directed to
Garden-Fresh Foods, which manufactured the products.  Consumers
may call (800) 645-3367.  Consumers can also contact Target Guest
Relations for in-store purchases at (800)-440-0680 and Target.com
Guest Services for online purchases at (800) 591-3869.

Symptoms of listeriosis can include high fever, severe headache,
stiffness and nausea, or abdominal pain and diarrhea.  Anyone who
has eaten these products and experiences these symptoms should
contact their healthcare provider.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with these products
at this time.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Firms Seek to Overturn Fee Award Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that five plaintiffs firms that obtained a class action settlement
over alleged headlight defects in the Toyota Prius have petitioned
a federal appeals court to overturn a trial judge's rejection of
$4.7 million in attorney fees as "highly unreasonable."

Girard Gibbs -- ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- which took the lead in the
case, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a
July 30 brief that U.S. District Judge Manuel Real had abused his
discretion in arbitrarily cutting the fees in the case, which
resolved claims by consumers against Toyota Motor Corp.

In particular, partner Eric Gibbs wrote, Judge Real failed to take
into account the lodestar calculation, which is the actual amount
billed.

"We think our papers convey our views that the district court
erred, and look forward to having the Ninth Circuit hear our
appeal," Mr. Gibbs said in an e-mailed statement.  "In the end, we
simply seek a process that weighs the evidence and ultimately pays
us a reasonable fee for the legal services we delivered to the
class members."

Three additional plaintiffs firms joined the appeal.  A fifth
firm, Initiative Legal Group of Los Angeles, filed a separate
appeal.

The case represents the latest attempt by plaintiffs attorneys to
persuade the Ninth Circuit of the reasonableness of a class action
fee award.  On Aug. 19, the appeals court tossed out a class
action settlement involving Motorola Bluetooth headsets after
finding that U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer had failed to double
check the lodestar amount against what plaintiffs attorneys would
have received as a percentage of the deal's value.  That In re
Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation ruling has been
cited multiple times since then.

The Prius class alleged that the model's high-intensity discharge,
or HID, headlights were prone to intermittently turning on and
off.  The settlement, which resolved the claims of about 300,000
customers who bought or leased 2006 through 2009 model year
Priuses, provides cash reimbursements for bulb replacements made
in the past five years or 50,000 miles, and extended the
warranties for those who had yet to repair their cars.

The cases, which were coordinated as multidistrict litigation,
were unrelated to the 300 lawsuits pending against Toyota over
defects associated with sudden acceleration.

Judge Real approved the Prius settlement on Oct. 17. In
determining attorney fees, however, he repeatedly noted the
simplicity of the case, concluding that the legal work amounted to
"just a few short months of discovery, settlement negotiations,
and a one day mediation."

He noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
had dropped its investigation into potential headlight defects in
Prius automobiles, giving Toyota a distinct advantage in the case,
and that the records of that investigation were public.

Judge Real, in determining that the fee request should be reduced,
referred to the plaintiffs attorneys as "negotiation agents," who
typically take a 20 percent cut for their work.  As a result, he
calculated the fees at about $760,000, or 20 percent of the total
value of the settlement, which he estimated at $3.8 million.  He
awarded 65 percent of that amount to Girard Gibbs, which was to
distribute the remaining 35 percent to the other firms.

In his brief, Mr. Gibbs argued the value of the settlement was
"hypothetical" and that, at any rate, Judge Real should have at
least considered the lodestar amount in double checking his fee
calculation.

Mr. Gibbs noted that his firm spent 2,900 hours on the case, for a
lodestar amount of $1.25 million.  The other four firms --
Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten of Tarzana, Calif.; Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll in Washington; Initiative Legal Group; and
Los Angeles-based Arias Ozzello & Gignac -- reported $1.85 million
in billings.

Defense attorney Michael Mallow of Loeb & Loeb --
mmallow@loeb.com -- had argued that the plaintiffs attorneys
should have been awarded between $1 million and $1.4 million --
less than the $1.5 million Toyota spent to defend the litigation.

Furthermore, Mr. Gibbs wrote, because the case involved the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the state's private
attorney general statute, Judge Real should have relied on more
than a percentage analysis of the fees.

"The District Court's decision to award a percentage-based fee
rather than a lodestar-based fee undermines the state policy
behind California's fee-shifting statutes, which is to incentivize
attorneys to take on consumer protection and other public interest
litigation even where the total expected recovery is relatively
small," Mr. Gibbs wrote.

He disagreed with Judge Real's valuation of the settlement and the
percentage assessed against it for fees.  "The percentage paid to
sports and entertainment agents is not an appropriate
consideration for an award of attorney fees in a class action
case," he wrote.

He took issue with Judge Real's characterization of the case as a
"simple breach of warranty" action based on a "boilerplate class
action complaint" that relied on NHTSA's investigation.  "Where
NHTSA was unable or unwilling to act, Plaintiffs achieved a
settlement that addressed a problem that had bemused and alarmed
thousands of Prius owners," Mr. Gibbs wrote.

In a separate brief, also filed on July 30, Glenn Danas of
Initiative Legal Group characterized the litigation as complex,
noting that the case had been transferred to New York at one point
and involved contentious discovery.  Settlement negotiations
occurred over several weeks, not one day, he added.

He also insisted that Judge Real should not have left the Girard
Gibbs firm in charge of dispersing the award.  "By doing so, the
district court abdicated its responsibility to supervise and
ensure the fairness of all aspects of this class action
settlement," Mr. Danas wrote.

In his order, Judge Real specifically pointed to the Initiative
Legal Group and two other firms whose work had "very little to do
with the litigation of this matter."  But Mr. Danas defended his
firm's work.  In all, it spent more than 1,600 hours on the case,
with more than 20 attorneys billing $815,876, Mr. Danas wrote.  He
asked that the Ninth Circuit strike portions of Judge Real's order
that attacked Initiative Legal Group's "competence and veracity."

In the Girard Gibbs brief, Mr. Gibbs indicated there was some
dispute over Initiative Legal Group's fee request.  He noted that
while the firm prepared numerous briefs, almost none were used in
the case.

Mr. Danas did not return a call for comment.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Pension Fund Files Renewed Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a Maryland pension fund, reeling from a ruling last year that
wiped out much of its case, is trying to certify a renewed class
of thousands of Toyota shareholders who allege the automaker made
false and misleading statements regarding what it knew about
sudden acceleration defects in its vehicles.

U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer dismissed much of the case on
July 7, 2011, ruling that shareholders of Toyota's common stock,
which is traded primarily on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, could not
pursue their claims in U.S. courts.  Judge Fischer cited Morrison
v. National Australia Bank, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that investors who purchase a foreign company's stock on a foreign
exchange lack standing to sue in U.S. courts.  She allowed the
plaintiffs to amend their claims, however.

In a motion filed on February 17, an attorney for the Maryland
State Retirement and Pension System, the lead plaintiff, argued
for certification of a class of people who held American
depository shares, which are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange.

Toyota's attorney filed papers on June 7 opposing that motion on
the ground that the market for those shares was not "efficient" --
in other words, that the price reflected all the information
available about Toyota at the time.  The fund's attorney, Blair
Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- a partner in the San Diego
office of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, was expected to
file a reply to Toyota's filing on August 2, and a hearing on
class certification was scheduled for October 15.

Mr. Nicholas declined to comment.  Toyota spokeswoman Celeste
Migliore issued a formal statement: "Toyota believes that
plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to justify class
certification. In their attempt to meet a required element for
class certification, plaintiffs rely on the fraud-on-the-market
presumption and so must prove that the Toyota American depositary
shares at issue traded in an efficient market.  We believe they
have failed to do so."

The consolidated proceeding originally was brought on behalf of
investors who alleged that the price of their shares dropped after
Toyota recalled more than 10 million vehicles due to defects
associated with sudden acceleration.

The complaint -- naming Toyota, two of its U.S. subsidiaries and
seven directors and officers -- alleged that Toyota's value was
artificially inflated because it had issued false and misleading
statements during conference calls with investors, in filings with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and in interviews with
the press.  The case originally was brought on behalf of a class
of holders of American depository shares under the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, plus a class of shareholders who bought
common stock under Japan's Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.

In her dismissal order last year, Judge Fischer also rejected
claims associated with more than half of the 33 allegedly
misleading and false statements outlined in the complaint,
concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that Toyota's
executives intentionally misled investors about the company's
legal and regulatory compliance.  She dismissed additional claims
related to financial disclosures.

But she refused to dismiss claims arising from seven statements
that might indicate that Toyota knew the scope of the vehicles'
problems.

On December 9, Toyota attorney Stuart Baskin, a partner at New
York's Shearman & Sterling, moved for judgment as to three denials
by Toyota spokesman Bill Kwong in various news articles of the
existence of defects in the Tacoma.  Judge Fischer rejected that
motion on February 21.

Meanwhile, the fund moved for certification on behalf of a revised
class of people who held American depository shares from April 7,
2008, to February 2, 2010.  In support of that motion, Nicholas
insisted that the market for those shares was efficient.

Toyota's common stock and American depository shares, he wrote,
"are owned extensively by large, institutional investors and the
Company is covered by dozens of securities analysts and virtually
every news outlet.  In short, the market for Toyota securities is
the paradigm of market efficiency."

Mr. Baskin, Toyota's attorney, insisted that the American
depository shares market suffered numerous "anomalies" that
rendered it inefficient.  Among them was that those shares
represented a small fraction of Toyota's total outstanding shares
and that the market for them has had trouble absorbing large
trades, making it prone to "pricing disturbances."


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: ADT Continues to Defend TCPA-Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 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 29, 2012.

The ADT Corporation has been named as a defendant in two putative
class actions that were filed on behalf of purported classes of
persons who claim to have received unsolicited "robocalls" in
contravention of the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  These lawsuits were brought by plaintiffs seeking class
action status and monetary damages on behalf of all plaintiffs who
allegedly received such unsolicited calls, claiming that millions
of calls were made by third party entities on ADT's behalf.  ADT
asserts that such entities were not retained by, nor authorized to
make calls on behalf of, ADT.  These matters have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois into one civil action.  Each violation under
the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a
willful violation is shown).  ADT believes that it has meritorious
defenses to these claims and, accordingly, intends to vigorously
defend against these actions.  The Company has made no provision
for this contingency as a reasonable estimate of loss cannot be
made at this time.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Final OK of Colorado Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a dealer litigation in Colorado involving its
subsidiary, 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 29, 2012.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that The ADT Corporation had charged to its
authorized dealers upon purchasing customer accounts.  The
investigation related to accounting practices employed by the
Company's former management, which were discontinued in 2003.
Although the Company settled with the SEC in 2006, a number of
former dealers and related parties have filed lawsuits against the
Company in the United States and in other countries, including a
class action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Arapahoe
County, Colorado, alleging breach of contract and other claims
related to ADT's decision to terminate certain authorized dealers
in 2002 and 2003. In February 2010, the Court granted a directed
verdict in ADT's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key
claims.  Upon appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the
verdict in ADT's favor in October 2011.  The parties agreed to
settle this matter in April 2012 with no cash consideration being
paid by either side, which is subject to final court approval.

Although the Company has favorably resolved the class action
lawsuit in Colorado, a number of claims related to the 2002 and
2003 decision to terminate certain authorized dealers outside the
United States remain outstanding.  During the second quarter of
fiscal 2012, the Company recorded its best estimate of probable
loss related to these claims.  While it is not possible at this
time to predict the final outcome of these lawsuits, the Company
does not believe these claims will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


VIBRANT MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Safari Hack
---------------------------------------------------------------
MediaPost reports that Vibrant Media will argue that a privacy
lawsuit stemming from the alleged Safari hack should be dismissed
on the grounds that consumers weren't harmed, the company said in
a recent letter to the judge presiding over the case.

"Fatal to all plaintiffs' claims, there are no allegations that
plaintiffs suffered any cognizable injuries," attorneys for
Vibrant wrote to U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis in
the Eastern District of New York.

Vibrant sent the letter in response to a potential class-action
lawsuit filed in May by Web users Daniel Mazzone and Michelle
Kusanto.  They alleged that the company circumvented Safari's
privacy settings, which block third-party tracking cookies by
default.

The litigation stems from a report by Stanford grad student
Jonathan Mayer that Vibrant -- along with Google, PointRoll and
the WPP's Media Innovation Group -- used a workaround to bypass
the Safari browser's settings by setting tracking cookies.  All of
the companies were then able to serve ads to Web users based on
their Internet activity.

Google, Vibrant Media and PointRoll confirmed Mr. Mayer's report
when it came out in February, and said they had stopped tracking
Safari users or would soon do so. WPP has never commented.  None
of the companies were accused of connecting the cookie-based data
they allegedly obtained to users' names or other personally
identifiable information.

The consumers who sued Vibrant allege that their browsing data was
valuable in itself.  As evidence, they referred to Google's
decision to allow pay users who allow the company to track them
with up to $25 in gift cards.  They also say that the tracking
cookies caused emotional distress.

Vibrant counters in its letter to the presiding judge that those
allegations aren't sufficient to warrant further proceedings. The
company told Judge Garaufis that it plans to soon file papers
seeking dismissal of the case, and asked him to delay other
deadlines in the lawsuit while that motion is pending.  Judge
Garaufis granted that request late last month.

Vibrant isn't the only company to land in court, due to the Safari
hack.  PointRoll, WPP and Google also were hit with potential
class-action lawsuits over the matter.

Google additionally appears to be facing a Federal Trade
Commission enforcement action.  Reports surfaced recently that
Google agreed to a $22.5 million settlement with the FTC, but
nothing has yet been publicly announced.

The FTC has more ammunition against Google than the other
companies, because Google explicitly instructed users that the
Safari browser blocked tracking cookies.  By making that
representation, and then circumventing Safari's privacy settings,
the search giant allegedly violated a 2011 consent decree
prohibiting the company from misrepresenting its privacy
practices.


VISA: Texas Food & Fuel Assoc. Opposes Credit Card Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
CSP Daily News reports that The Texas Food & Fuel Association's
board has announced that it is opposed to the recently announced
settlement of the Visa/MasterCard antitrust litigation.  The $7.25
billion settlement stems from a 2005 class-action lawsuit brought
by a class of seven million merchants over interchange or "swipe"
fees.

It joins the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS),
the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA),
other retail groups, as well as convenience retailers Thorntons
and Ricker Oil and Wal-Mart Stores and Target in opposing the
proposal.  And U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said that
merchants should "think hard" before signing the deal.

"The relief proposed by the settlement . . . fails to address
significant issues regarding the relationship between merchants
and credit-card companies," said Jim Kolkhorst, chairman of the
association's board.  "A one-time payment and temporary reduction
in interchange rates cannot cure the fundamental inequities of the
current system and provides no pathway for addressing these issues
in the future."

In particular, the group's board was concerned about the
settlement's requirement that all future claims against Visa and
MasterCard be waived by those accepting the settlement's terms as
well as the absence of any meaningful reforms on the part of the
credit-card companies.

Like SIGMA, the Texas Food & Fuel Association was not a party to
the litigation.  The board's statement in no way impacts the
rights of its members to file a claim on their own behalf if they
choose to in order to receive a share of the proposed settlement's
monetary damages, the group said.

The Texas Food & Fuel Association's membership represents 700 of
the state's petroleum marketing, grocery distribution and
convenience/grocery retail companies.  The group was created in
2012 through the merger of the Texas Petroleum Marketers &
Convenience Store Association and the Texas Grocery & Convenience
Association.

Meanwhile, Mr. Durbin, who won federal limits on debit-card swipe
fees, said merchants should seriously consider the deal, reported
Bloomberg.

"This is a stunning giveaway to Visa and MasterCard," Mr. Durbin
said in remarks last week, according to the Congressional Record.
"This is a bad deal, but it is not a done deal.  The merchant
plaintiffs still have to decide if they will support it."

Visa and MasterCard, the world's biggest payment networks, and
some of the largest banks agreed to the settlement last month
after a seven-year legal battle.  The accord, which requires a
judge's consent, also includes a temporary reduction in so-called
credit-card swipe fees, or interchange, and allows retailers to
impose surcharges on such transactions.  The fees average about 2%
of the purchase price and generate more than $40 billion a year
for U.S. banks.

"It gives Visa and MasterCard free rein to carry on their anti-
competitive swipe-fee system with no real constraints and no legal
accountability," said Mr. Durbin.  "This is not a settlement I
would agree to.  I hope that the remaining merchant plaintiffs
will review the proposed settlement carefully and think hard about
whether it will be good for the future of our credit- and debit-
card systems."

The settlement may be nullified if enough merchants refuse to
join, said the news agency. Visa, MasterCard and the banks can
terminate the accord if the retailers who opt out account for more
than 25% of the U.S. credit-card spending processed by the two
networks from Jan. 1, 2004, through the month the accord is
approved by the court, according to a memorandum of understanding.

"It's highly possible Senator Durbin will introduce credit
interchange legislation in next year's Congress, though it will be
very challenging to gain broad-based support," Jason Kupferberg, a
Jefferies & Co. analyst who covers Visa and MasterCard, said in a
July 20 research note cited by Bloomberg.  "Some of the class
plaintiffs could opt out of the settlement and initiate new
lawsuits."

Peter Larkin, chief executive officer of the National Grocers
Association, which opposes the settlement, said his group plans to
push for more legislation.

"It's hard to predict what Congress will do and won't do,"
Mr. Larkin said in a July 27 interview with the news agency.  "It
would be our intention to continue to talk to Congress because we
think we need to achieve further reforms."

"The long business-to-business conflict over these fees is finally
over and settled by the legal process," said Trish Wexler, a
spokesperson for the Electronic Payments Coalition, a trade group
that represents payment networks and banks.  "The legal system was
and is the appropriate system to resolve a large and complex
dispute between companies, not Washington."

Visa's share of the settlement filed in federal court in Brooklyn,
New York, is about $4.4 billion and MasterCard is responsible for
$790 million, the firms have said.  Bank of America Corp., the
second-biggest U.S. credit-card lender, said that it will
contribute $738 million, most of which already had been deposited
into Visa's litigation escrow fund.

The dispute began in 2005.  Merchants alleged the companies
violated antitrust law by fixing the swipe fees.  The case had
been set for trial in September before U.S. District Judge John
Gleeson in Brooklyn.  The parties have until September 21 to agree
on the details of the settlement and merchants will have 180 days
after the accord is approved to decide whether to opt out.

"We are very confident that the court is going to approve this
settlement," Josh Floum, Visa's legal chief, said in a July 25
conference call after the company reported fiscal third-quarter
results.  "This case has been pending for seven years, and during
a great deal of that time, there has been a court-ordered
mediation process with two mediators and the involvement of the
court."

The settlement includes cash payments of $6.05 billion and $525
million.  The larger amount would be reduced if some plaintiffs
don't agree to participate.  The accord also provides for a 10-
basis-point reduction in interchange fees for eight months, valued
at about $1.2 billion if all merchants in the proposed class
approve, according to plaintiffs' law firms including Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP.

The case is In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, 05-md-01720, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of New York (Brooklyn).


WACKENHUT CORP: Judge Decertifies Security Guards' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a California
state judge on Aug. 1 decertified a class of more than 13,000
current and former Wackenhut Corp. security guards who claim they
weren't provided meal and rest breaks, saying the U.S. Supreme
Court's landmark Dukes decision ruled out class certification.

Judge William F. Highberger said that determining whether
Wackenhut permitted its employees, who worked at hundreds of
different sites across the state, would require "unmanageable"
individualized inquiries.


WEATHER CHANNEL: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rossell, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. The Weather Channel, LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 3:12-cv-04098 (N.D.
Calif., August 2, 2012) is brought to stop the Defendant's alleged
practice of making unsolicited text message calls to cellular
telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

In an effort to promote its weather reporting services, Weather
Channel engaged in an especially pernicious form of solicitation:
the transmission of unauthorized calls in the form of text
messages to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the
nation, Mr. Rossell alleges.  He contends that by effectuating
these unauthorized text message calls, the Defendant has caused
consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected
to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies wireless spam, but
also because consumers frequently have to pay their cell phone
service providers for the receipt of such wireless spam.

Mr. Rossell is a citizen of Illinois.

Weather Channel, a Georgia corporation, is a provider of weather
information that markets and sells various weather reporting
products and services to consumers throughout the United States of
America.

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
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com


WILLIAM KOEPPEL: Judge Grants Class Action Status to Tenants' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Jones, writing for The Real Deal, reports that a New York
State Supreme Court judge on Aug. 6 granted class action status to
a suit by tenants who claim that their landlord illegally
deregulated 72 apartments in a luxury Turtle Bay rental.

Nine tenants at the 137-unit Whitehouse, at 350 East 52nd Street,
alleged that landlord William Koeppel charged tenants market rate
rents for 20 years, even though he received J-51 tax breaks from
the city.  The court in the landmark 2009 Stuyvesant Town/Peter
Cooper Village case ruled that landlords could not deregulate
units while receiving those benefits.

Class action status means that the final ruling would apply not
only to existing tenants, but also to those who have moved out of
the building and future tenants, too.  "The named plaintiffs and
the putative class members share a common goal -- namely, ensuring
that the landlord charges tenants of the apartment building no
more than the maximum legal rent," Judge Ajay Singh wrote in his
opinion.  ". . . That they be afforded the protections of the
[Rent Stabilization Law and Rent Control Law] and that they
receive compensation for past overcharges."

Tenants at the 11,000-plus-unit Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper
Village complex won a landmark ruling requiring landlords to give
back hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds to tenants after
they charged market rent to tenants when the landlord received J-
51 benefits.  That ruling required landlords to reduce existing
rent and to refund rent to previous tenants.  Since then,
allegations have been made against landlords across the city,
including at London Terrace Gardens, in Chelsea.

"Landlords are not uniformly changing all apartments back to rent
stabilization," Matthew Brinkerhoff, co-counsel for the tenants,
told The Real Deal.  "Landlords are either resisting or trying to
interpret the ruling from a couple of years ago to try to minimize
the amount of overcharge."

However, Mr. Koeppel downplayed the impact of the decision,
telling The Real Deal that the judge's ruling was merely a
procedural decision that would help make the case easier to
manage.  "It's just that the judge is looking for judicial
efficiency," he said.  "The case is meritless."

He said the building is fully rented, and that the units, which
include studios and one-bedrooms, are rapidly turning over, and
generating starting rents between $3,500 and $4,000 a month.
The building has been the subject of protest by tenants and
employees, including a 2011 strike by doormen and porters over a
dispute with Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International
Union.

                           *********

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  * * *