---

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

             Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 160

                             Headlines

ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal in Claim Handling Suit in Montana Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Remains Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Judgment Proceedings to Occur in 2nd Half of 2012
ALLSTATE CORP: More Time to Appeal Employee Suit Ruling Sought
CANADA: KAFN Seeks to Relaunch Fish Farm Class Action vs. Gov't.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Received Final OK of Illinois Suit Settlement
DUPONT: Gilman Files Class Action Over Imprelis Tree Damage
EDISON MISSION: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Pending
EDISON MISSION: Bids to Dismiss Suits vs. Midwest Remain Pending
EDISON MISSION: Does Not Know If Plaintiffs Will Re-File Suit

FELTEX: High Court Issues Ruling on Class Action Process
GE APPLIANCES: Recalls 1.3-Mil. Dishwashers Due to Fire Hazard
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Meal Break Class Action in California
INTERMUNE INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Actimmune
INTERSECTIONS INC: Appeal in Insurance Suit Remains Pending

ISTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
M*MODAL: Enters MoU to Settle Acquisition-Related Suit
METROPOLITAN WATER: Court Certifies Employee Class Action
MICHIGAN: Court Rules on Prisoner Abuse Settlement
MISSOURI: ACLU Files Class Action Over Amendment Two

MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Discovery in "Williams" Suit Ongoing
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Certify Class
PALATINE VILLAGE: Appeals Court Reinstates Privacy Class Action
QUEST SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Merger-related Suit
REEBOK: Settles Class Action Over Toning Collection for C$2.2MM

SHAW GROUP: Being Sold to CBI for Too Little, Suit Claims
SMITH MICRO: Securities Fraud Class Suit Dismissed in May
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina Suit Pending
SP AUSNET: Says Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action Premature
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Crock Pot Injuries

SUNSET PARKING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
TIERONE CORP: October 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TNUVA FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Milk
TOMALES BAY: Recalls Two Cheeses Due to Possible Health Risk
TWO MOMS: Recalls Pesto Sea Crackers Due to Undeclared Peanuts

WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Black Workers Lose Class Action Status
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Settles Ex-Drivers' Wage & Hour Class Action


                          *********

ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal in Claim Handling Suit in Montana Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's appeal from the order certifying a
class in the class action lawsuit challenging aspects of its claim
handling practices in Montana 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.

Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in Montana
state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.  In January 2012, the court certified a
class of Montana claimants who were not represented by attorneys
with respect to the resolution of auto accident claims.  The court
certified the class to cover an indefinite period that commences
in the mid-1990s.  The certified claims include claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.  Injunctive relief may include a claim process
by which unrepresented claimants could request that their claims
be readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of
the class.  To date no discovery has occurred related to the
potential value of the class members' claims.  The Company has
asserted various defenses with respect to the plaintiff's claims
which have not been finally resolved, and has appealed the order
certifying the class.  The proposed injunctive relief claim
process would be subject to defenses and offsets ordinarily
associated with the adjustment of claims.  Any differences in
amounts paid to class members compared to what class members might
be paid under a different process would be speculative and subject
to individual variation and determination dependent upon the
individual circumstances presented by each class claimant.  In the
Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Attorney General in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina remains pending, according to The Allstate
Corporation's July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Allstate is vigorously defending a lawsuit filed in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina and currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").  This matter was filed by the Louisiana Attorney General
against Allstate and every other homeowner insurer doing business
in the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, as
assignee, and on behalf of certain Road Home fund recipients.
Although this lawsuit was originally filed as a class action, the
Louisiana Attorney General moved to dismiss the class in 2011 and
that motion was granted.  In this matter the State alleged that
the insurers failed to pay all damages owed under their policies.
The claims currently pending in this matter are for breach of
contract and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of
claims by the insurers.  All other claims, including extra-
contractual claims, have been dismissed.  The Company had moved to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the State had no
standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because
of anti-assignment language in the underlying insurance policies.
Now, however, due to a ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court, the
Company will not pursue a motion to dismiss, but will preserve the
anti-assignment issue in a defense.

The State has not yet identified the specific details by property
supporting its allegations of breach of contract or the alleged
deficiencies in adjusting those claims.  There are many potential
individual claims at issue in this matter, each of which will
require individual analysis and a number of which may be subject
to individual defenses, including release, accord and
satisfaction, prescription, waiver, and estoppel.  The Company has
filed a motion seeking to force the State to provide more
specificity as to its claims in this matter.  The Company believes
that its adjusting practices in connection with Katrina homeowners
claims were sound and in accordance with industry standards and
state law.  There remain significant questions of Louisiana law
that have yet to be decided.  In the Company's judgment, given the
issues, a loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Judgment Proceedings to Occur in 2nd Half of 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment proceedings in lawsuits relating to The Allstate
Corporation's agency program reorganization are expected to occur
in the second half of 2012, according to the Company's July 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  Although these
cases have been pending for many years, they currently are in the
early stages of litigation because of appellate court proceedings
and threshold procedural issues.

These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation
under federal civil rights laws ("EEOC I") and a class action
filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), breach of contract and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") violations ("Romero I").  In 2004,
in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial
court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things,
certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents
who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's
declaratory judgment that the release was voidable at the option
of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who
voided the release must return to Allstate "any and all benefits
received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release."  The
court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there
is no basis for claims of age discrimination."  The EEOC and
plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its
memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied their
request.  In June 2007, the court reversed its prior ruling that
the release was voidable and granted the Company's motions for
summary judgment, ruling that the asserted claims were barred by
the release signed by most plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
("Third Circuit").

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in the Company's favor and remanded the cases to
the trial court for additional discovery, including additional
discovery related to the validity of the release and waiver.  In
its opinion, the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver
is held to be valid, then all of the claims in Romero I and EEOC I
are barred.  Thus, if the waiver and release is upheld, then only
the claims in Romero I asserted by the small group of employee
agents who did not sign the release and waiver would remain for
adjudication.  In January 2010, following the remand, the cases
were assigned to a new judge for further proceedings in the trial
court.  Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on July
28, 2010.  Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole
relief," including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages,
liquidated damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and
costs, and equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee
agent status with all attendant benefits for up to approximately
6,500 former employee agents.  Despite the length of time that
these matters have been pending, to date only limited discovery
has occurred related to the damages claimed by individual
plaintiffs, and no damages discovery has occurred related to the
claims of the putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any
calculations of the putative class's alleged back pay or the
alleged liquidated, compensatory or punitive damages, instead
asserting that such calculations will be provided at a later stage
during expert discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction
by amounts and benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class
members subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
approximately 6,500 putative class members also are subject to
individual variation and determination dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service.  Discovery limited to the validity of the waiver and
release is in process.  At present, no class is certified.
Summary judgment proceedings on the validity of the waiver and
release are expected to occur in the second half of 2012.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue ("Romero II").  These plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are
seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as
employees for benefit purposes.  Romero II was dismissed with
prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further
proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial
court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
case be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In its opinion,
the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to
be valid, then one of plaintiffs' three claims asserted in Romero
II is barred.  The Third Circuit directed the district court to
consider on remand whether the other two claims asserted in Romero
II are barred by the release and waiver.  In January 2010,
following the remand, the case was assigned to a new judge (the
same judge for the Romero I and EEOC I cases) for further
proceedings in the trial court.

On April 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole" or other
equitable relief, including losses of income and benefits as a
result of their decision to retire from the Company between
November 1, 1999, and December 31, 2000.  They also seek repeal of
the challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all
attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands of
former employee agents, and attorney's fees and costs.  Despite
the length of time that this matter has been pending, to date only
limited discovery has occurred related to the damages claimed by
individual plaintiffs, and no damages discovery has occurred
related to the claims of the putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs
provided any calculations of the putative class's alleged losses,
instead asserting that such calculations will be provided at a
later stage during expert discovery.  Damage claims are subject to
reduction by amounts and benefits received by plaintiffs and
putative class members subsequent to their employment termination.
Little to no discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned
or received by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation
of their alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits
of the putative class members also are subject to individual
variation and determination dependent upon retirement dates,
participation in employee benefit programs, and years of service.
As in Romero I and EEOC I, discovery at this time is limited to
issues relating to the validity of the waiver and release.  Class
certification has not been decided.  Summary judgment proceedings
on the validity of the waiver and release are expected to occur in
the second half of 2012.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be decided and, if decided in favor of the Company, would
preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I and EEOC I and may
also preclude damages from being awarded in Romero II.  In the
Company's judgment a loss is not probable.  Allstate has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: More Time to Appeal Employee Suit Ruling Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation 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 plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit over worker classification have requested an extension of
time to file an appeal from an apellate court decision affirming a
trial court's ruling in favor of the Company.

Allstate has been vigorously defending a lawsuit in regards to
certain claims employees involving worker classification issues.
This lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law.  In this case, plaintiffs sought actual damages in
an amount to be proven at trial, liquidated damages in an amount
equal to an unspecified percentage of the aggregate underpayment
of wages to be proven at trial, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  Plaintiffs have not made a settlement demand nor have they
alleged the amount of damages with any specificity.  The case was
bifurcated between liability and damages and is currently focused
only on liability issues.  No discovery has taken place regarding
plaintiffs' alleged damages.  In December 2009, the liability
phase of the case was tried, and, on July 6, 2010, the court
issued its decision finding in favor of Allstate on all claims.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision in favor of Allstate to the
first level appellate court.

In May 2012, the court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision.  To date, the
plaintiffs have not appealed the appellate court's decision but
have requested an extension of time to file their motion to file
an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  Only liability issues
are being addressed on appeal and no damages may be awarded at
this stage of the proceedings.  In the event the trial court's
order were to be overturned, however, the parties would need to
conduct damages discovery, and a trial on damages would have to
take place, before any damages could be awarded.  In the Company's
judgment, a loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


CANADA: KAFN Seeks to Relaunch Fish Farm Class Action vs. Gov't.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael V'inkin Lee, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a
B.C. First Nation revealed on Aug. 8 at a press conference that it
seeks to re-launch a class-action lawsuit against the B.C. and
federal governments to ultimately force the closure of commercial
open net-pen fish farms in Broughton Archipelago.

The Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation (KAFN) announced its
plan to push ahead with renewed legal action to protect its
territorial wild salmon stocks from sea lice allegedly caused by
nearby salmon farms after a prior attempt at a class action
proceeding was stymied by a legal loophole.  KAFN Chief Robert
Chamberlin condemned the provincial and federal governments for
jeopardizing the wild salmon population in B.C. and expressed
disappointment in Victoria and Ottawa for continuing to support
the aquaculture industry in spite of the environmental impacts.

"I am so disappointed in Canada.  I'm disappointed in the province
of B.C.," Mr. Chamberlin said.  "They've lost sight of the
importance of healthy, abundant wild salmon stocks and what an
economic engine it represents for British Columbia."

A class action proceeding is a form of lawsuit where a group or
groups of people collectively submit a claim to court.

The KAFN seeks three outcomes, according to the group's counsel,
Reidar Mogerman.  The KAFN wants a declaration on the exact legal
nature of the rights and titles asserted by the nations, damages
for those whose rights were infringed, and the fishery's
rebuilding by those who destroyed it, Mr. Mogerman explained.

"There's nothing more central to the territories of our people
than wild salmon," said Mr. Chamberlin.  "We have built an
incredible culture based on feasting, based on extracting
resources from our waters to provide for our peoples.  And the
governments have decided to take a course of action that
completely puts wild salmon at risk."

But before any of that can happen the KAFN must again overcome a
legal hurdle that bars aboriginal groups or "collectives" from
joining together in a class proceeding.  An earlier ruling in
Dec. 2010 by the Supreme Court of British Columbia seemingly
cleared the path for action, but the decision was subsequently
overturned in May 2012 by the British Columbia Court of Appeal
after the provincial and federal governments appealed the first
judgment.

The KAFN revealed at the conference that it has now applied to the
Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the 2012 decision.  If
leave is granted, the Supreme Court will consider if the KAFN --
and all subsequent aboriginal "collectives" -- will be allowed to
file class action proceedings.  The final ruling will take at
least a year to reach, Mr. Mogerman said.  The whole process could
take, at the minimum, two years to conclude, he added.

Mr. Chamberlin said the initial focus was just on the wild salmon
issue, but the wording used by the Court of Appeal decision in May
demanded the KAFN take a broader approach on the issue of First
Nations rights.

"We looked [at the BC Court of Appeal ruling] and realized that
the courts have taken a backward step [on First Nations rights]
and that's not consistent with what the governments say," he said.

He also suggested that other social, political, and economic
issues faced by First Nations across Canada -- like the legacies
left by residential schools -- would benefit greatly from being
able to file class actions as a more effective means to pursue
legal remedies.

Assembly of First Nations national chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo
praised Mr. Chamberlin and the KAFN for asserting their rights and
agreed that expanding the number of legal options available to
First Nations claimants to include class proceedings would be a
move in the right direction.

"While First Nations can pursue claims of aboriginal rights and
titles in the courts, class actions would be far more expedient
than requiring each and every [First Nations person] to file their
own individual claim," said Mr. Atleo in a statement.

Although open net-pen fish farms remain the KAFN's focal point in
the coming legal struggles, Mr. Mogerman insisted that giving
Canada's indigenous nations access to the same legal tools
available to other Canadians is an important step to correct a
historical issue of institutionalized inequality that early
governments created and are still taking advantage of.  Greater
clarity on the precise legal status of First Nations is required
before the problem can be corrected, he added.

"The First Nations of this country were historically put in a
vague box and stripped of their rights," said Mr. Mogerman.  "It's
time to put some legal clarity around the nature of the First
Nations so that they can enjoy the same rights everybody else
has."


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Received Final OK of Illinois Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services Inc. received in June 2012 final
approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated in
Illinois, 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.

The Company is named as defendant in a putative class action
brought in federal district court in Chicago, Illinois.  In June
2012 the court gave final approval to a settlement agreed to
between the Company and the plaintiffs, pursuant to which (i) a
class was certified for settlement purposes only, and (ii) the
Company agreed to pay a fixed amount of plaintiff attorney fees
and also make payments against claims made by members of the
class, the amount of which would depend on class members'
responses to the Company's notice of the settlement.  The
Company's legal contingency accrual at June 30, 2012, includes its
estimate for the amount that is probable.


DUPONT: Gilman Files Class Action Over Imprelis Tree Damage
-----------------------------------------------------------
The national consumer protection lawyers at Gilman Law LLP have
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a Minnesota property
owner and a class of property owners throughout the United States
who sustained damage to multiple trees on his property following
application of DuPont's Imprelis herbicide to his lawn.  The
Imprelis lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, seeks class action status on behalf of
purchasers and other users of DuPont's Imprelis herbicide in
Minnesota and across the entire U.S. (Case No. 12-4343).

According to the complaint, Imprelis was conditionally registered
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in August 2010,
and is the brand name for aminocyclopyrachlor, a selective
herbicide intended to kill unwanted broad leaf weeds, including
dandelions, clovers, ground ivy and wild violets, without damaging
other desirable, non-target vegetation.  Imprelis has been
advertised, marketed, and sold to lawn-product consumers as being
both highly effective and environmentally friendly.  However, by
May 2011, property owners and lawn care professionals began to
notice damage to trees shortly after the application of Imprelis.
Symptoms included yellowing, browning, curling, and/or dieback of
current-season growth.  In the most severe cases, entire trees
turned brown and began to loose their needles.  On August 4, 2011,
the EPA issued a Stop Sale and Removal Order for Imprelis, after
investigating hundred of reports of dead, damaged and dying trees
in Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Wisconsin, West Virginia and other
states, including in the Northeast.  Imprelis was registered in
all states in the United States except for New York and
California. By that time, DuPont had submitted more than 7,000
adverse incident reports to the EPA involving Imprelis.

The complaint alleges that trees can absorb Imprelis through
distant, unexposed roots.  As such, exposure and damage cannot be
prevented by avoiding direct contact between Imprelis and the
trunk and/or leaves.  Among other things, the complaint points out
that the label and instructions for Imprelis omit the facts that
trees and other non-target vegetation are susceptible to harm from
the herbicide, and that if Imprelis is applied as directed, non-
target vegetation will be killed or damaged by Imprelis.  The
complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class Members have
suffered the loss of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
mature trees, including, but not limited to, Norway Spruce, white
pine, white spruce, Colorado blue spruce, and other conifer and
broadleaf plants.  The lawsuit seeks to recover amounts paid for
lawn care services, the loss of trees, the injury to trees, and
the injury to the aesthetics of Plaintiff's property as a result
of DuPont's actions and the damage caused by its product Imprelis.

Gilman Law LLP is providing free legal consultations to victims of
Imprelis tree damage, including tree farms, farms, residential
property owners, tree nurseries and forests, golf courses,
composting sites, turf managers and professional landscapers,
parks, schools, and college campuses.  The firm urges any property
owner or business that suffered tree damage following application
of Imprelis to seek legal counsel immediately, before they accept
any compensation offer from DuPont.  Statues of limitations for
filing Imprelis lawsuits may soon expire in some states, and could
jeopardize Plaintiffs' ability to recover any compensation from
DuPont if they do not act soon.  For a free Imprelis lawsuit
consultation, please contact the consumer protection lawyers at
Gilman Law LLP by visiting http://Gilmanlawllp.comor call Toll
Free at 1-888-252-0048.

Gilman Law LLP is a national law firm with offices in Florida and
Massachusetts.


EDISON MISSION: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit arising
from the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina remains pending,
according to Edison Mission Energy'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 EME and three of its wholly owned
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 Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


EDISON MISSION: Bids to Dismiss Suits vs. Midwest Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss two class action lawsuits against a subsidiary
of Edison Mission Energy 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 January 2012, two complaints were filed against the Company's
subsidiary, Midwest Generation, LLC, 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.

The Company says 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.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


EDISON MISSION: Does Not Know If Plaintiffs Will Re-File Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Energy said 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 does not know whether the plaintiffs
in a dismissed class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania will file a
complaint in state court.

In January 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a
complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania against the
Company's subsidiary, EME Homer City Generation L.P., the sale-
leaseback owner participants of the Homer City plant, and two
prior owners of the Homer City plant.  The complaint alleged
violations of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Title V provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as a result of
projects in the 1990s performed by prior owners without PSD
permits and the subsequent failure to incorporate emissions
limitations that meet best available control technology (BACT)
into the station's Title V operating permit.  In addition to
seeking penalties ranging from $32,500 to $37,500 per violation,
per day, the complaint called for an injunction ordering Homer
City to install controls sufficient to meet BACT emission rates at
all units subject to the complaint and for other remedies.  The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), the
State of New York and the State of New Jersey intervened in the
lawsuit.  In October 2011, all of the claims in the US EPA's
lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice.  An appeal of the dismissal
is pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Also 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 CAA 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.

In February 2012, Homer City received a 60-day Notice of Intent to
Sue indicating the Sierra Club's intent to file a citizen lawsuit
alleging violations of emissions standards and limitations under
the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act.

The Company says 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 Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


FELTEX: High Court Issues Ruling on Class Action Process
--------------------------------------------------------
Marta Steeman, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that the High
Court will hear the entire case of plaintiff Eric Houghton over an
alleged untrue and misleading Feltex prospectus before hearing a
second stage of the class action.

Mr. Houghton is taking a "representative case" against the
directors of the failed carpet maker and the sellers and promoters
of the Feltex shares in mid 2004.

About 3000 former Feltex shareholders have joined his action since
he filed it in February 2008.

Shareholders who bought Feltex shares at the public offering of
shares in May 2004 lost their combined investment of just over
NZD250 million.

Justice Christine French has ruled that there will be a stage one
hearing at which Mr. Houghton's claim will be heard entirely.

Rulings on the 20 common issues between Mr. Houghton and other
members of the class action will be binding on the members of the
class action and the defendants.

Justice French declined the application of the plaintiff, Mr.
Houghton, represented by senior counsel Austin Forbes, to include
some additional issues at stage one.

The court has given the plaintiff leave to apply for directions
over establishing a sub-group or subgroups within the class
action.  Any party may also apply to vary the scope of the stage
one hearing, the judgment said.

The parties will have a conference call over a timetable for the
stage one hearing.

But that will not happen until after the Court of Appeal had
delivered its decision on another aspect of the class action.

The second stage will hear the individual aspects of the claims of
other Feltex shareholders that were different from Mr. Houghton's.

Justice French said it is common ground between parties that the
only effective way to process the litigation is in two stages.

The defendants include the seven directors of Feltex at the time:
former chairman Tim Saunders, Sam Magill, John Feeney, Craig
Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers.

Other defendants include Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant
Partners, the sellers of the Feltex shares, First New Zealand
Capital Securities and Forsyth Barr.


GE APPLIANCES: Recalls 1.3-Mil. Dishwashers Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GE Appliances, of Louisville, Kentucky, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.3 million units of GE, GE Adora(TM), GE
Eterna(TM), GE Profile(TM) and Hotpoint(R) Dishwashers in the
United States of America.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

An electrical failure in the dishwasher's heating element can pose
a fire hazard.

GE has received 15 reports of dishwasher heating element failures,
including seven reports of fires, three of which caused extensive
property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves GE, GE Adora, GE Eterna, GE Profile and
Hotpoint brand dishwashers.  They were sold in black, white,
bisque, stainless steel and CleanSteel(TM) exterior colors and
finishes.  The model and serial numbers can be found on a metallic
plate located on the left tub wall visible when the door is
opened.  Model and serial numbers will start with one of the
following sequences:

                 Model Number              Serial  Number
   Brand         Begins With:               Begins With:
   -----         ------------              --------------
   GE            GLC4, GLD4, GLD5, GLD6,   FL, GL, HL, LL, ML,
   GE Adora      GSD61, GSD62, GSD63,      VL, ZL, AM, DM, FM,
   GE Eterna     GSD66, GSD67, GSD69,      GM, HM, LM, MM, RM,
   GE Profile    GLDL, PDW7, PDWF7, EDW4,  SM, TM, VM, ZM, AR,
                 EDW5, EDW6,GHD4, GHD5,    DR, FR, GR
                 GHD6, GHDA4, GHDA6

   Hotpoint      HLD4                      FL, GL, HL, LL, ML,
                                           VL, ZL, AM, DM, FM,
                                           GM, HM, LM, MM, RM,
                                           SM, TM, VM, ZM, AR,
                                           DR, FR, GR

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12244.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at appliance dealers, authorized builder
distributors and other stores nationwide from March 2006 through
August 2009 for between $350 and $850.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dishwashers,
disconnect the electric supply by shutting off the fuse or circuit
breaker controlling it and inform all users of the dishwasher
about the risk of fire.  For all dishwashers, contact GE for a
free in-home repair or to receive a GE rebate of $75 towards the
purchase of a new GE front-control plastic tub dishwasher, or a
rebate of $100 towards the purchase of a new GE front-control
stainless tub dishwasher or GE Profile top control dishwasher.
Consumers should not return the recalled dishwashers to the
retailer where they purchased as retailers are not prepared to
take the units back.  For additional information, contact GE toll-
free at (866) 918-8760 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.geappliances.com/recall/


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Meal Break Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hilton and several of its
partners failed to give uninterrupted meal and rest periods to
food and beverage workers, and the employers also should pay
workers for time spent changing into and out of uniform, a class
claims in San Francisco County Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Romund, et al. v. Hilton Worldwide,
Inc., et al, Case No. CGC 12-523027 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/09/hilton.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua G. Konecky, Esq.
          Lisa M. Bowman, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                  lbowman@schneiderwallace.com


INTERMUNE INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Actimmune
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed
a consolidated class action lawsuit against InterMune, Inc.,
relating to its product, Actimmune, according to the Company's
May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

In May 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah
Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v.
InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No.
C-08-02376. Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered
Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of
consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged
that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits
of Actimmune for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
and promoted Actimmune for IPF.  The complaint asserted various
claims against the Company, including civil Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, unfair competition, violation of
various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.
The complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount,
including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs'
legal fees and costs, as well as equitable relief. Between June
2008 and September 2008, three additional complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging similar facts. In February 2009, the Court
consolidated the four complaints for pretrial purposes.

On September 1, 2010, after two rounds of motions to dismiss, the
Court granted defendants' third motions to dismiss, dismissing all
remaining claims in all consolidated cases with prejudice and
entered judgment accordingly. On October 1, 2010, the remaining
plaintiffs in all cases filed notices of appeal, appealing the
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument in the appeals on November 29, 2011 and, on
December 30, 2011, issued a memorandum disposition affirming the
judgment of the district court dismissing the complaints. The
Court of Appeals' mandate was issued on January 23, 2012. The time
for plaintiffs to seek rehearing of the Court of Appeals' ruling
and the time for plaintiffs to file a petition for certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court have both expired.

As a result, the Company no longer has any obligations to continue
to defend the actions and therefore does not expect to incur a
loss associated with these lawsuits.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Appeal in Insurance Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order dismissing a putative class action lawsuit
against Intersections Inc. relating to its accidental death and
disability insurance programs remain pending, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

On July 19, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections Inc., Intersections Insurance Services Inc.
and Bank of America Corporation in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging various claims based on the sale of an accidental death
and disability program. The case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, and an amended
complaint was filed. On January 30, 2012, the District Court
dismissed all claims against the Company and Bank of America
Corporation. On February 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal of the District Court's order.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial Inc. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers as defendants and alleging violations of
federal securities laws. Both suits were purportedly filed on
behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased
Common Stock in the Company's December 13, 2007 public offering
(the "Company's Offering"). The two complaints were consolidated
in a single proceeding (the "Citiline Action") on April 30, 2008.

On November 17, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. were appointed Lead Plaintiffs to pursue
the Citiline Action. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on February 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between December 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008 (the "Complaint"). The
Complaint named as defendants the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers, and certain investment banks who
served as underwriters in the Company's Offering. The Complaint
reasserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act, and added claims for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs allege the defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to the Company's continuing
operations, including the value of the Company's loan portfolio
and certain debt securities held by the Company. The Complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorney's fees, and rescission of the
public offering. No class has been certified. The Company and its
current and former officers filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint on April 27, 2009 and, on March 26, 2010, the Court
issued its order granting, in part, the dismissal of certain
Securities Act claims against certain of the Company's current and
former officers, but denying the motion as to all claims asserted
against the Company. Accordingly, the discovery process has
commenced and is ongoing. The Company believes the Citiline Action
has no merit and intends to continue defending itself vigorously
against it.


M*MODAL: Enters MoU to Settle Acquisition-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------
M*Modal and One Equity Partners, the private investment arm of JP
Morgan Chase on Aug. 8 disclosed that in connection with the
previously announced merger agreement, Legend Acquisition Sub,
Inc. (an affiliate of OEP) has extended the expiration of its
tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of M*Modal for $14.00 per share, net to the seller thereof
in cash, without interest thereon and less any applicable
withholding taxes, to 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on August
14, 2012, unless further extended in accordance with the terms of
the merger agreement.

The tender offer was previously scheduled to expire at 11:59 p.m.,
New York City time, on August 13, 2012.  All other terms and
conditions of the tender offer remain unchanged.

The depositary for the tender offer has indicated that as of the
close of business on August 7, 2012, 18,676,844 shares of common
stock of M*Modal had been validly tendered and not withdrawn
pursuant to the tender offer.

On August 8, 2012, M*Modal and OEP also announced that M*Modal,
OEP and the other named defendants have entered into a memorandum
of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the
previously consolidated putative class action lawsuits filed in
Delaware state court in connection with the proposed acquisition
of M*Modal by affiliates of OEP.


METROPOLITAN WATER: Court Certifies Employee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
A Cook County Circuit Court Judge on Aug. 8 certified a class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of 1,150 non-union employees of the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking
to restore $38 million in deferred compensation benefits illegally
eliminated by a November, 2010 action of the MWRD Board of
Commissioners.

This class action lawsuit was filed in December, 2010 by 27
current MWRD employees seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
against the District, which had eliminated vested and accrued
termination and sick leave pay for all non-union employees,
effective January 1, 2011.  In December 2010, these plaintiffs
obtained temporary restraining orders preventing the application
of the policy adopted in November 2010, to those plaintiffs forced
to retire early without their full pensions by December 31, 2010,
or lose tens of thousands of dollars in these deferred benefits.

On January 25, 2012, Judge Billik's ruling granted the named
plaintiffs partial summary judgment, holding that the MWRD
employment handbooks and policies created a right to these vested
and accrued benefits.  The Court also found that plaintiffs hired
prior to November 1994 had the right to future accrual of these
termination and sick leave pay benefits that could not be
unilaterally eliminated by the District because these Plaintiffs
were hired prior to the date when the District's Employee Handbook
first contained clear language disclaiming that the policies could
not constitute an enforceable contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Hogan Marren,
Ltd.  Patrick E. Deady, one of the partners of the firm, said the
termination and sick pay benefits accrued through December 31,
2010 for all 1,150 employees, were estimated to be $25 million and
projected future benefits for the 400 pre-November, 1994 employees
were estimated to be $13 million.


MICHIGAN: Court Rules on Prisoner Abuse Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Gus Burns, writing for MLive.com, reports that the victims should
be paid first, according to a ruling from The Michigan Court of
Appeals regarding disbursement of a class-action lawsuit
settlement to women prisoners who said they were abused in
Michigan Department of Correction custody.

Women involved in the lawsuit were awarded $100 million to be paid
in installments to an escrow account over a six-year period,
according to the court summary.

Members of the lawsuit will receive a payment from the state only
after restitution to the prisoners' crime victims is paid, child
support obligations are met and court costs and fines are
alleviated, the ruling orders.

"We agree . . . that there are constitutional and statutory
provisions that support victims' rights to recover restitution, as
well as the government's right to recover fines, costs and fees
imposed as part of a judgment of sentence.  And we also agree
that, to the extent that the settlement agreement between the
parties is inconsistent with applicable statutes, those provisions
are unenforceable," the Court of Appeals said.  "Accordingly, we
conclude that the MDOC may not disburse any funds to any
particular plaintiff class member until there has been 'full
payment of all pending restitution orders, costs, and fees . . ."

Over 500 women said in lawsuits related to prisoner abuse that
they had been raped or molested by guards while imprisoned with
the Michigan Department of Corrections.


MISSOURI: ACLU Files Class Action Over Amendment Two
----------------------------------------------------
Tim Lloyd, writing for KBIA, reports that the American Civil
Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit on Aug. 8 that takes
issue with part of Amendment Two, which deals with prayer and
religious expression in Missouri.

Amendment Two specifically protects public prayer and lets
students avoid assignments that violate their religious beliefs.

Tony Rothert, legal director for the ACLU's eastern Missouri
division, said the lawsuit is focused on this specific phrase:

This section shall not be construed to expand the rights of
prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the
laws of the United States.

But he said Missouri's constitution provides greater religious
protection than federal law, and that line would remove those
extra freedoms for prisoners.

"Some have hair restrictions or diet restrictions; these are all
rights that could be in jeopardy," Mr. Rothert said.

And Mr. Rothert expects this case to open the door to other legal
challenges.

"I think there are likely to be quite a few challenges to
Amendment Two, either challenges to the law or instances in which
Amendment Two is used for a defense where for activity that
violates the First Amendment or the separation of state and
church," Mr. Rothert said.

A spokesperson for the Missouri Attorney General's Offices said
they haven't seen the lawsuit yet, and they have no comment.

The Missouri Department of Corrections did not respond for a
request for comment.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Discovery in "Williams" Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit filed by Dollie Williams, et
al., currently are engaged in discovery related to class
certification issues, Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said
in its July 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, against the Company and others.  The plaintiffs, who
claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that the Company
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and seek recovery of the
monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs
in the six months prior to the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-
150(A).  The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the
action as a class action.  On March 16, 2012, Walter Bussey and
two other named plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed.  The
parties currently are engaged in discovery related to class
certification issues.

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend this matter,
however, given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, the
Company is unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate
outcome.  A finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal
in Alabama during the pertinent time frame could have adverse
regulatory consequences to the Company in other jurisdictions.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama.  On June 3, 2010, Multimedia Games Holding
Company, Inc. and other manufacturers were added.  The plaintiffs,
who claim to have been patrons of White Hall, allege that the
Company participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama
state law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful
electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the complaint based
on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A).  The plaintiffs have requested that
the court certify the action as a class action.  On July 2, 2010,
the defendants removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.  The
court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The Company continues to vigorously defend this
matter, however given the inherent uncertainties in this
litigation, the Company is unable to make any prediction as to the
ultimate outcome.  A finding in this case that electronic bingo
was illegal in Alabama during the pertinent time frame could have
adverse regulatory consequences to the Company in other
jurisdictions.

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.


PALATINE VILLAGE: Appeals Court Reinstates Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Kravetse, writing for Wired.com, reports that a federal
appeals court is reinstating a class-action privacy suit, ruling
that police departments who put too much private data on parking
citations are violating U.S. privacy law.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided against the police
department of Palatine Village, a Chicago suburb.  When issuing
electronically produced parking citations, the department lists
the vehicle owner's name, address, driver's license number, date
of birth, sex, height and weight.  That ticket and accompanying
information is usually left underneath a vehicle's windshield-
wiper blade.

The case dates to 2010, when a cited motorist sued Palatine
Village, alleging the disclosure of his identity was a breach of
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994.  Congress adopted the
privacy legislation in response to the death of actress Rebecca
Schaeffer.  She was killed by a stalker who had obtained her
unlisted home address through the California DMV.

The appeals court, ruling 7-4 on Aug. 6, said it didn't matter
whether passersby even looked at the ticket to acquire personal
data.  The majority opinion, by Judge Kenneth Ripple, added that
the citations could be a boon for stalkers.

"There are very real safety and security concerns at stake here.
For example, an individual seeking to stalk or rape can go down a
street where overnight parking is banned and collect the home
address and personal information of women whose vehicles have been
tagged.  He can ascertain the name, exact address including the
apartment number and even other information such as sex, age,
height and weight pertinent to his nefarious intent," Judge Ripple
wrote.

In a blistering dissent, Judge Richard Posner of the Chicago-based
appellate court mocked the majority.

Palatine's printing of drivers' names and addresses on parking
tickets that are then placed on violators' windshields does not
encourage or facilitate stalking.  Only with difficulty can one
imagine a stalker who, noticing a woman he'd like to stalk, get
into her car and drive off, follows her and when she parks lurks
behind her car in the hope that it will be ticketed and that if
that happens he'll be able without being observed to peek at the
ticket and discover the owner's name and address.  Has this ever
happened? Stalkers are not the only invaders of privacy, but who
are the non-stalkers who peek at tickets on windshields and write
down the information they find there? Are there any such?

The court's decision, Jude Posner said, could be costly for the
city.  He noted that the law allows for damages of up to $2,500
per violation.  At 32,000 citations issued the past four years,
that equals $80 million the city might be on the hook for, he
said.

Before the case reached the appellate court, U.S. District Judge
Matthew Kennelly ruled that the parking ticket did not constitute
a disclosure under federal law.  "What the statute is talking
about is what people would commonly call a disclosure, which is
turning something over to somebody else," Mr. Kennelly said.

The appeals court covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.


QUEST SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Merger-related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit challenging its merger with
Expedition Holding Company, Inc., and Expedition Merger Sub, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012.

Following the March 9, 2012 announcement that the Company had
entered into the Merger Agreement with Expedition Holding Company,
Inc., ("Parent"), and Expedition Merger Sub, Inc., purported
stockholder class actions were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange (the "California Actions") and the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Actions"). In each case, the plaintiff alleges that members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Quest's stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger and
that Quest and the Insight Entities aided and abetted the
directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints claim that
the proposed Merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales
process, and unreasonable deal protection devices. Following the
April 12, 2012 filing of a preliminary proxy statement on Schedule
14A (the "Proxy Statement") related to the proposed Merger,
certain plaintiffs added claims that the Company's disclosures
regarding the proposed Merger in the Proxy Statement were
inadequate.

In the Delaware Actions, on April 2, April 12, April 17, and April
19, 2012, plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings and filed
competing motions to consolidate the Delaware Actions and for
appointment of lead counsel. Defendants opposed expedited
proceedings as premature, but did not take a position with regard
to the competing motions for consolidation and appointment of lead
counsel. On April 25, 2012, the Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Actions into a single action captioned, In re Quest
Software, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 7357-VCG,
but declined to grant expedited discovery. A further status
conference occurred on May 9, 2012.

In the California Actions, on April 2 and April 18, 2012,
respectively, plaintiffs filed a motion for consolidation and
appointment of co-lead counsel and a motion for limited expedited
discovery. On April 20, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to stay
the California Actions in favor of the Delaware Actions.
Defendants did not oppose plaintiffs' motion for consolidation,
and on May 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the California Actions
into a single action captioned In re Quest Software, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 30-2012-00552957-CU-BT-CXC.
Defendants' motion to stay and Plaintiffs' motion for limited
expedited discovery are scheduled for hearings on May 17 and
May 24, 2012, respectively.

Although the Company cannot know or predict with certainty the
outcome of any claim or proceeding or the effect such outcomes may
have on the Company, it believes that any liability resulting from
the resolution of any of these matters, individually, or in the
aggregate, to the extent not otherwise provided for or covered by
insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


REEBOK: Settles Class Action Over Toning Collection for C$2.2MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bostelaar, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
Canadians who didn't get the firmer buttocks and leg muscles they
had hoped from a line of Reebok "toning" garments can get their
money back as part of a C$2.2-million class-action settlement.

Refunds of up to C$100 for running and walking shoes and $80 for
clothing that includes capri pants, bras and sleeveless shirts
will be offered under the settlement, which received final court
approval last month.

The agreement follows a C$25-million settlement in the United
States after the Federal Trade Commission sued Reebok for
deceptive advertising.  According to the FTC, the manufacturer
claimed its sole technology featuring pockets of moving air
creates "micro instability" that could lead to 28 per cent more
strength and tone in buttock muscles and 11 per cent more strength
in hamstring and calf muscles, compared with other shoes.

Regulators in both Canada and the U.S. are giving increasing
scrutiny to the claims of health and beauty products.

Last September, the Canadian distributor of Nivea products agreed
to repay customers for misleading claims suggesting the use of its
creams leads to a more slender and toned body.  As part of the
settlement with the federal Competition Bureau, the company also
paid a C$300,000 fine.

Reebok could not be reached for comment on Au. 8, but on its U.S.
Web site the company said it disagreed with the Federal Trade
Commission's allegations and settled that case only to avoid
protracted litigation.

"We fully stand behind our EasyTone technology -- the first shoe
in the toning category inspired by balance-ball training," Reebok
said.

The company, a division of German manufacturer Adidas, said it has
received thousands of testimonials from customers and has two
separate studies underway to test its EasyTone footwear and
apparel.

Jeff Orenstein, a Montreal lawyer who helped lead the class
action, said he expects many Canadians to apply for payments
because of the strong sales of the toning products and because of
the attention the U.S. case has received.  More than 3,000 claims
submitted by Canadians in the U.S. case will be referred to
administrators of the Canadian agreement, he said.

As well, claimants are not required to provide proof of purchase
for claims under C$200, a provision Mr. Orenstein said should add
to the participation rate.  Details are available at
http://www.reebokcanadasettlement.ca

The settlement provides for Reebok Canada to pay out a maximum of
C$2.2 million.  Mr. Orenstein said he expects all claimants will
be reimbursed after administration costs and legal fees -- lawyers
have applied for 25 per cent of the settlement, which is standard
in class actions -- are subtracted.


SHAW GROUP: Being Sold to CBI for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Shaw Group is selling
itself too cheaply to Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., for $3 billion,
or $41 and $5 in CBI equity per share, shareholders claim in East
Baton Rouge Parish Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Osten v. The Shaw Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 614399 (La. Dist. Ct., East Baton Rouge Parish), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/09/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
          O'BELL, L.L.C.
          3500 N. Hullen Street
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 456-8677
          E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Brannon, Esq.
          BRANNON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          3500 North Hullen Street
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 456-8696
          E-mail: pmb@brannonlawfirm.com


SMITH MICRO: Securities Fraud Class Suit Dismissed in May
----------------------------------------------------------
Smith Micro Software, Inc. issued a press release regarding the
dismissal of the federal securities fraud class action that had
been filed against it in 2011, according to the Company's
July 31, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Smith Micro Software, Inc. announced that on May 21, 2012, the
court granted Smith Micro's motion to dismiss the federal
securities fraud class action that had been filed against the
company shortly after the Q1 2011 guidance.  The plaintiffs
subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice
rather than amend their complaint.  Also plaintiffs in the state
and federal derivative actions have agreed to voluntarily dismiss
their cases.  No payments were made to any plaintiffs in
connection with any of these dismissals.

"Smith Micro is pleased that all the shareholder litigation
related to the guidance retracted in Q1 2011 is now over," said
William W. Smith, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of
Smith Micro Software.  "With this resolution, we can turn our
attention and resources toward the business of developing and
delivering critical wireless solutions to market."

                        About Smith Micro

Smith Micro Software provides solutions that simplify, secure and
enhance the mobile experience.  The Company's product and services
portfolio spans Connectivity, Policy Management, Network Control,
Communications and Hosting solutions.  With 30 years of experience
developing world-class client and server software applications,
Smith Micro helps the leading mobile network operators, device
manufacturers and enterprises increase efficiency and develop
high-value relationships with their customers.  For more
information, visit http://www.smithmicro.com/


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to
Hurricane Katrina remains pending, according to Southern
California Edison 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 the Company 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.


SP AUSNET: Says Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action Premature
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Mezrani, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that new
evidence has prompted Maurice Blackburn to launch a class action
on behalf of victims of the 2009 Murrindindi Black Saturday
bushfire, but the defendant has claimed the firm's action is
premature.

Hundreds are expected to be part of the class action against
Victorian electricity company SP AusNet, which was launched by
Maurice Blackburn in the supreme court on Tuesday, August 7.  The
claim is based on new evidence revealed in a coronial brief that
indicates the blaze, which killed 40 people and destroyed 538
houses, may have been started by a poorly constructed electricity
line.

Andrew Watson, class actions principal at Maurice Blackburn, said
the writ alleges that SP AusNet failed to properly inspect and
maintain the infrastructure that is now believed to have started
the fire.

He said the new evidence suggests there was insufficient clearance
between a live conductor and an earthed and incorrectly insulated
stay wire.  The bushfire was sparked when the live conductor came
into contact with the stay wire, causing the conductor to break
and fall on a fence, the firm alleges.

"Problems should have been detected during the course of cyclical
inspections of the network and rectified long before the conductor
broke," Mr. Watson said.

"We think [the plaintiffs] have a strong claim for compensation
given what has now come to light."

In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange, SP AusNet said it
rejected any assertion of negligence and would "vigorously defend
any claim made against it in relation to its inspection of SP
Ausnet's assets".  SP AusNet added that Maurice Blackburn's class
action is "premature and based on incomplete information".

A spokesperson for Maurice Blackburn confirmed to Lawyers Weekly
that the firm was only granted partial access to the coroner's
report a few weeks ago in the course of its duties acting on
behalf of Rod Liesfield, the lead plaintiff.  Mr. Liesfield lost
his wife and two sons in the fire.

The report, which has yet to be publically released, was delayed
by a police investigation into whether the fire was caused by
arson, Maurice Blackburn revealed.  The firm told Lawyers Weekly
the arson theory has been disproved.

Maurice Blackburn filed a separate class action against SP AusNet
last month on behalf of more than 1,500 victims of Black
Saturday's Kilmore East -- Kinglake fire, which killed 119 people
and destroyed 1,242 houses.  That class action is scheduled to
begin in January 2013.

Earlier this year, SP AusNet agreed to pay AUD19.7 million in
response to another class action over the Beechworth bushfire.


SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Crock Pot Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the external surface of
Sunbeam Products dba Jarden Consumer Solutions' stainless steel
crock pot gets as hot as 270 degrees, injuring consumers, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


SUNSET PARKING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego unpaid overtime wages attorneys at Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action Complaint against Sunset
Parking Services and LAZ Parking California on August 2, 2012,
alleging that the company violated the California Labor Code by
failing to pay their non-exempt valet employees for all hours
worked.  Bowden, et al. v. Sunset Parking Services, LLC and LAZ
Parking California, LLC, Case No. 37-2012-00101751 is currently
pending in the San Diego County Superior Court.

The Sunset employees allege in the wage and hour class action
Complaint that they were forced to first clock out of Sunset's
timekeeping system and then report to a location specified by
Sunset in order to drop off money collected during their regularly
scheduled shifts.  According to the Complaint, "[the money drop
process] often adds 20 minutes or more of unpaid work per shift
for Plaintiffs and other California Class Members."

Founding partner Norman B. Blumenthal stated, "When employees are
forced to report to a location to drop of money, they are still
under their employer's control, and should be compensated for that
work time."

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Diego employment law
attorneys who manage various types of wage and hour claims on
behalf of California employees.


TIERONE CORP: October 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Aug. 9 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of Nebraska has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of TierOne
Corporation:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF TIERONE
CORPORATION DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 9, 2007, THROUGH MAY 14,
2010, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska, that a hearing will
be held on October 25, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3 before the
Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge of the
District of Nebraska, District of Nebraska, 111 South 18th Plaza,
Suite 1152, Omaha, NE 68102 for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of
$3,100,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application for an award of attorneys' fees of one-third of
the Settlement amount and reimbursement of expenses of not more
than $100,000, should be approved; (4) whether the application for
an award to each Lead Plaintiff of $2,500 should be approved; and
(5) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased common stock of TierOne Corporation during the
Class Period, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of
this action.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by contacting the
Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services, at the address
listed below, or going to the Web site,
http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release no later than September 14, 2012,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  The Proof of
Claim and Release must be submitted to the Claims Administrator
at: TierOne Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic
Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3,
Media, PA 19063.  Unless you submit a written exclusion request,
you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether
or not you make a claim.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you
must submit a Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator in
the manner detailed in the Notice, and postmarked no later than
September 14, 2012.

If you acquired TierOne stock during the Class Period through the
TierOne Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and/or the
TierOne Bank Savings Plan, you may be entitled to compensation in
this litigation, if you submit a valid and timely claim form.  For
details about terms of settlement and release, please consult the
Notice and the Stipulation of Settlement available from the Claims
Administrator, listed above.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Award to Lead
Plaintiffs, or the Lead Counsel's request for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be submitted in
the manner detailed in the Notice and mailed or delivered such
that it is received by each of the following no later than October
11, 2012:

Clerk of the Court           Phillip Kim, Esq.
United States District Court      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
District of Nebraska           275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
111 South 18th Plaza, Suite 1152  New York, NY 10016
Omaha, NE 68102                 Telephone: (212) 686-1060
                                  Lead Counsel

Any document you send to the court, including any letter or
document expressing your desire to be excluded from the class and
any objection to the proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or
compromise, will be filed electronically by the clerk of the court
and therefore will be available for public review.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel at:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: JULY 12, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA


TNUVA FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Milk
-----------------------------------------------------
Nadav Neuman, writing for Globes, reports that Tnuva Food
Industries Ltd. on Aug. 8 announced that it was recalling cartons
of 3% milk due to contamination by cleaning liquids.  The recall
covers one-liter cartons of homogenized milk with the expiration
of August 22, 2012, certified by Rabbi Weitman.

The cartons, marked with the Hebrew letter "Bet", were marketed in
central Israel between Binyamina in the north, Rishon LeZion in
the south, and Lod in the east.  Tnuva notified the Ministry of
Health of the incident and is cooperating with it.

On Aug. 9, a class action suit for NIS71 million was filed in the
Tel Aviv District Court over the contaminated milk.

Tnuva said, "Tnuva is committed to the public's health, the
quality of its products, and is operating with full transparency
vis-a-vis consumers.  Out of caution, we are recalling the
products from stores and notifying consumers via the media. We
apologize to consumers and we will continue to act to ensure the
quality and safety of its products."


TOMALES BAY: Recalls Two Cheeses Due to Possible Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Tomales Bay Foods, Inc., of Petaluma, California, a cheese
distribution company, is recalling all partial wheels of two
cheeses it distributed due to an abundance of caution because of
possible contamination by Listeria monocytogenes, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled cheese was distributed to restaurants and retail
stores in California, North Carolina, and Florida, between June
25th and July 27, 2012.  The following products are being recalled
in full cooperation with the US FDA.  This recall only involves a
total of 133 lbs. of cheese which was distributed as partial
wheels from Tomales Bay.

Tomales Bay distributed PARTIAL WHEELS of:

   * Shepherd's Way; Big Woods Blue, make date: 7/19/2011 -
     7/27/2011

   * Tumalo Farms; Pondhopper pack date 6-28-2012

Pictures of the labels of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm314906.htm

No illnesses have been reported.  The bacteria were discovered
during the company's routine testing and as a result of a sampling
program by the State of California Department of Food and
Agriculture.  Only the partial wheels sold through the Tomales Bay
Foods Inc. facility are affected.

Customers who have purchased either cheese should get in touch
with the place of purchase for a full refund.  But all should know
that there is a very limited scope of distribution of these
partial wheels by Tomales Bay.

Please feel free to call with questions. Contact Tomales Bay Foods
Inc. at (866) 249-7833, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time and
mention "August Cheese Recall."


TWO MOMS: Recalls Pesto Sea Crackers Due to Undeclared Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Moms in the Raw of Lafayette, Colorado, is voluntarily
recalling a limited number of 4 oz packages of Pesto Sea Crackers
which were distributed from 7/2/2012 to 8/6/2012 because they may
contain undeclared peanuts.  People who have allergies to peanuts
run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

The recalled product is identified as Two Moms in the Raw, Gluten-
Free Pesto Sea Crackers enclosed in brown semi-synthetic packaging
with a transparent section displaying the contents.  Labeling on
the product is green, white, and blue with blue, green, and red
print writing.  The lot numbers included in this recall are 1008,
1016, 1027, 1055, and 1067.  The lot number and expiration date
are printed in black ink on the lower portion of the reverse side
of the 4 oz package.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm315038.htm

This product was distributed to retailers and distributors located
nationwide.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The voluntary recall was initiated after Two Moms in the Raw was
notified by their raw ingredient supplier that the pine nuts used
in the manufacture of the affected lots may have been contaminated
with peanuts.  NO other Two Moms in the Raw products, lots, pack
sizes, flavors or "Best By" date codes are affected.

Consumers who have purchased affected lots of the Pesto Sea
Crackers are urged to return them to the place of purchase or
discard them immediately.  Consumers with any questions should
contact Two Moms in the Raw at 720-221-8555 (9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Mountain Standard Time) or (info@twomomsintheraw.com)


WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Black Workers Lose Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
JDJournal reports that on Aug. 8, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a lower court decision
and denied class-action status to a lawsuit filed against one of
the nation's largest builders by twelve black construction
workers.  In their lawsuit, the African-American workers alleged
that the Walsh Construction Company discriminated against black
construction workers in its employment practices.  In March, U.S.
District Judge Joan Lefkow allowed the case to proceed as a class
action, however, the 7th Circuit held that in the instant case,
the thousands of black employees sought to be represented had too
many differences to justify grouping them together in a single
suit.

The lawsuit, on behalf of thousands of black employees who had
worked at the company's construction sites in the Chicago area,
accused the company of creating a hostile work environment where
supervisors regularly used racial epithets and tolerated
derogatory graffiti and hangman's nooses that other workers left
in the rest areas.  The lawsuit also alleged that the company
systematically denied overtime and other work opportunities to
black construction workers.

The 7th Circuit decided that just being black construction workers
and working for the same employer and being exposed to the same
types of discretion did not justify clubbing them together as a
class.  There were too many differences.

However, the lower court distinguished the case from the precedent
of the women's discrimination case against Wal-Mart, because in
her evaluation, in the Wal-Mart case there were actually too many
differences to reconcile and recognize a class of 1.5 million
workers.  But in the instant case, things were more manageable
since it involved only 262 construction sites and not the
thousands of stores as in the case of Wal-Mart.  The lower court
judge took into account a previous 7th Circuit decision
recognizing a class of 700 black brokers as a class discriminated
against by America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch Unit.  In that case, the
7th Circuit distinguished from the Wal-Mart case because it held
that the class of black brokers was more manageable than the
millions of female workers in Wal-Mart.

The 7th Circuit observed that the lower court had misread its
interpretation of the law and the question was not one of
manageability as a class, but whether the workers had enough in
common.  Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the unanimous
three-judge panel, "Wal-Mart tells us that local discretion cannot
support a company-wide class no matter how cleverly lawyers may
try to repackage local variability as uniformity."


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Settles Ex-Drivers' Wage & Hour Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Kell-Holland, writing for Land Line, reports that pending
the court's final approval, Werner Enterprises of Omaha, NE, has
agreed to pay $575,000 to settle a wage and hour class action
lawsuit with former drivers who attended new hire orientation at
its Fontana, CA, terminal.

According to court documents, Werner provided the names and
addresses of more than 7,500 drivers who attended orientation at
its Fontana terminal from Jan. 18, 2007, through May 18, 2012.
Drivers who attended, but did not complete, orientation are
eligible for approximately $20, if the class settlement is
approved, while drivers who attended and completed orientation are
eligible for approximately $29.67.  More than $352,000 of the
proposed amount will go to pay attorney's fees, litigation fees,
claims administrator fees and to compensate Simona Montalvo, the
class representative plaintiff.

In January 2011, former Werner driver Ms. Montalvo filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in Los Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, against Werner.  The lawsuit alleges the
company violated California law by failing to pay drivers minimum
wage for all of the hours they worked while attending the three-
day orientation.

If approved by the court, the settlement payments will be sent out
approximately 60 to 90 days later.  All inquiries by class members
are directed to call the settlement administrator, Rust
Consulting, Inc., at 877-477-0959.

                           *********

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  * * *