CAR_Public/120820.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 20, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 164

                             Headlines

AIG INC: 2nd Cir. Vacates Class Cert. Denial in Securities Suit
AMVAC CHEMICAL: Motion to Dismiss DBCP Suit in Delaware Junked
ANSCHUTZ CORP: 2nd Circuit Upholds ARS Class Action Dismissal
ARCAPITA BANK: Depositors Preparing Class Action
ARGENTINA: Appeals Court Remands Bond Class Action

ATLAS AIR: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Antitrust Suit
BAXTER INT'L: 7th Circuit Denies Bid to Certify Appeal
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Suits Over Plasma Therapies
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Oral Arguments in Tenn. Suit This Month
BLOUNT FINE: Recalls 4,100 Lbs. of Meat & Poultry Soup Products

BUMBO INT'L: Recalls 4 Million Baby Seats Due to Fall Hazard
CANADA: Veterans Concerned Over Military Pension Suit Settlement
CANADA: Judge Dismisses Tobacco Farmers' Class Action
COMSCORE INC: Still Defends Privacy Class Suit in Illinois
DALE T. SMITH: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

DIGNITY HEALTH: California Court Remands Labor Class Action
ENSIGN GROUP: Awaits Approval of Staffing Class Suit Settlement
FELTEX: Directors Want Identity of Class Action Backer Revealed
FIFTH THIRD: Spangenberg Shibley & Liber Files Class Action
GENERAL REINSURANCE: Sends Settlement Back to District Court

GNC CORP: Sued Over Heart Symbol on CoEnzyme Q-10 Products
GOOGLE INC: No Hearing Date Yet on Class Action Appeal
HEADWATERS INC: Appeal in "Adtech" Class Suit Still Pending
HEADWATERS INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Archstone" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for False Splenda Essentials Claims

JOHNSONVILLE SAUSAGE: Recalls 48,000 Pounds of Turkey Sausage
LERNER SAMPSON: Faces Class Action Over Altered Mortgage Papers
LAKE COUNTY, IN: Settles Inmates' Class Action for $7.2 Million
NANETTE APPEL-BLOOM: Sued by Trustee to Reform Trust Provision
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Jersey

RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Faces Class Action Over Speed Camera Tickets
SONY MUSIC: Roy Thomas Baker Files Suit Over Digital Royalties
SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Court Direction in ERISA-Violations Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Reconsideration Bid Ruling in TRUPs Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Lehman-Related Suits Pending

SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Suits Over Overdraft Fees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Classic Mutual Funds
SUNTRUST BANKS: To Seek Dismissal of Captive Reinsurance Suit
TACO BELL: Workers File Overtime Class Action

UBS FINANCIAL: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action
WAL-MART: 3rd. Cir. Affirms Class Decertification in Labor Suit
WESTERN HEALTH: May Face Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
WYNNPHARM INC: Faces Suit Over Sale of Dona Glucosamine Product


                          *********

AIG INC: 2nd Cir. Vacates Class Cert. Denial in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action case IN RE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit faced a rare joint appeal from a district court order.
After the parties arrived at a settlement agreement, the district
court (Deborah A. Batts, J.) denied plaintiffs' motion to certify
a settlement class.  The district court held that the class could
not satisfy the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) because the fraud-on-the-market presumption
does not apply to the class' securities fraud claims.

The AIG Securities Litigation is a consolidated securities fraud
action against AIG and other defendants, including General
Reinsurance Corporation and its officers Ronald E. Ferguson,
Richard Napier, and John Houldsworth.  The present appeal arises
from the efforts of the Lead Plaintiffs and the Gen Re Defendants
to obtain approval of a proposed class settlement.

Upon review, the Second Circuit, in an August 13, 2012 decision,
held that, under Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591,
620 (1997), a securities fraud class' failure to satisfy the
fraud-on-the-market presumption primarily threatens class
certification by creating "intractable management problems" at
trial.  Because settlement eliminates the need for trial, a
settlement class ordinarily need not demonstrate that the fraud-
on-the-market presumption applies to its claims in order to
satisfy the predominance requirement. "We therefore vacate the
district court's class certification ruling, its grant of judgment
on the pleadings, and its grant of partial final judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and remand this case to the
district court," the Second Circuit ordered.

The appeals case is captioned OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, OHIO POLICE AND
FIRE PENSION FUND, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL REINSURANCE
CORPORATION, RONALD E. FERGUSON, RICHARD NAPIER, JOHN HOULDSWORTH,
Defendants-Appellees, Docket No. 10-4401-cv, (2nd Cir.).

The appeals court panel is composed of Circuit Judges Gerard E.
Lynch, Ralph K. Winter, Jr., and Robert Katzmann.

A copy of the Second Circuit's August 13, 2012 decision is
available at http://is.gd/58I2Qufrom Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- of LABATON SUCHAROW
LLP in New York represent the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

George M. Garvey, Esq. at MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, in Los
Angeles, California, represent Defendant-Appellee General
Reinsurance Corporation.  Frank J. Silvestri, Jr., Esq. of LEVETT
ROCKWOOD P.C., in Westport, Connecticut, represents Defendant-
Appellee Richard Napier.  Douglas Koff, Esq., of PAUL, HASTINGS,
JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP, in New York, represent Defendant-Appellee
Ronald E. Ferguson.


AMVAC CHEMICAL: Motion to Dismiss DBCP Suit in Delaware Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned JOSE RUFINO CANALES BLANCO,
Plaintiff, v. AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; AMVAC, INC.; THE DOW
CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; DOLE FOOD
COMPANY, INC.; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY;
STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Defendants, C.A. No. N11C-
07-149 (Del. Superior Ct.), Judge Jerome Herlihy denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss and/or motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

Mr. Blanco filed his lawsuit in the Superior Court of Delaware,
New Castle County, in July 2011, asserting personal injury claims
over exposure to a now banned toxic pesticide known as
dibromochloropropane (DBCP).  The Defendants are alleged to have
manufactured, sold, distributed, used and placed DBCP into the
stream of commerce, thereby exposing banana plantation workers to
it.

In its August 8, 2012 decision, Judge Herlihy held that the
Delaware statute of limitations was tolled even though the
original filing was in another jurisdiction and thus, dismissed
the Defendants' motions in the Blanco-led lawsuit.  "The doctrine
of cross-jurisdictional class action tolling applies in Delaware.
The consequence in this case is that plaintiff's claim is not
dismissed," Judge Herlihy stated.

Mr. Blanco was a member of the putative class that filed the
original complaint on the DBCP exposure in a Texas state court in
August 1993 captioned Jorge Carcamo v. Shell Oil Co., No. 93C-2290
(Brazoria County, Texas)

A copy of the Delaware Superior Court's August 8, 2012, decision
is available at http://is.gd/bAOffMfrom Leagle.com.

John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq. -- jcp@pgslaw.com -- of PHILLIPS,
GOLDMAN & SPENCE, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, represents
Defendant AMVAC Chemical Corporation.

Michael L. Sensor, Esq. -- msensor@perry-sensor.com  -- of PERRY &
SENSOR, in Wilmington, Delaware; Jonathan S. Massey, Esq. --
jmassey@masseygail.com -- of MASSEY & GAIL LLP, in Washington,
D.C.; and Scott M. Hendler, Esq. -- shendler@hendlerlaw.com -- of
HENDLERLAW, P.C. represent the Plaintiff.


ANSCHUTZ CORP: 2nd Circuit Upholds ARS Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that the Second
Circuit on Aug. 14 upheld a New York federal court's dismissal of
a putative class action filed by The Anschutz Corp. accusing
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and credit rating agencies, including
Moody's Investors Service Inc., of misleading investors in the
sale of risky auction rate securities.

In reaching its conclusion, a three-judge panel relied heavily on
a decision it issued in 2011 in a similar suit, Wilson v. Merrill
Lynch.


ARCAPITA BANK: Depositors Preparing Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Mandeep Singh at Gulf Daily News reports that 25 claimants --
including private investors and businesses -- are seeking a class
action against Bahrain-based Arcapita Bank to get their deposited
funds back, which have been frozen since it filed for bankruptcy.

The report says the group has already submitted powers of attorney
to Bahraini law firm Almoayed Chambers to file a suit in the U.S.

"We are expecting several more people, possibly as many as 200, to
come forward and issue their POAs," the report quotes Almoayed
Chambers chairman Aymen Almoayed as saying.

The report, citing court documents, says Arcapita has at least
$3,001,070,457 in claims against it based on the publicly
available bankruptcy docket.  This includes a $255,194,405 claimed
by the Central Bank of Bahrain.

The report adds the documents showed the potential claims in
Bahrain ranged from $1,544 (BD583) to $661,315 (BD249,977).  The
money deposited is believed to include personal savings and
inheritances.

                         About Arcapita Bank

Arcapita Bank B.S.C., also known as First Islamic Investment Bank
B.S.C., along with affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 12-11076) in Manhattan on March
19, 2012.  The Debtors said they do not have the liquidity
necessary to repay a US$1.1 billion syndicated unsecured facility
when it comes due on March 28, 2012.

Falcon Gas Storage Company, Inc., later filed a Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-11790) on April 30, 2012.
Falcon Gas is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Arcapita
that previously owned the natural gas storage business NorTex Gas
Storage Company LLC.  In early 2010, Alinda Natural Gas Storage
I, L.P. (n/k/a Tide Natural Gas Storage I, L.P.), Alinda Natural
Gas Storage II, L.P. (n/k/a Tide Natural Gas Storage II, L.P.)
acquired the stock of NorTex from Falcon Gas for $515 million.
Arcapita guaranteed certain of Falcon Gas' obligations under the
NorTex Purchase Agreement.

The Debtors tapped Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as bankruptcy
counsel, Linklaters LLP as corporate counsel, Towers & Hamlins
LLP as international counsel on Bahrain matters, Hatim S Zu'bi &
Partners as Bahrain counsel, KPMG LLP as accountants, Rothschild
Inc. and financial advisor, and GCG Inc. as notice and claims
agent.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP represents the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc.,
serves as its financial advisor and investment banker.

Founded in 1996, Arcapita is a global manager of Shari'ah-
compliant alternative investments and operates as an investment
bank.  Arcapita is not a domestic bank licensed in the United
States.  Arcapita is headquartered in Bahrain and is regulated
under an Islamic wholesale banking license issued by the Central
Bank of Bahrain.  The Arcapita Group employs 268 people and has
offices in Atlanta, London, Hong Kong and Singapore in addition
to its Bahrain headquarters.  The Arcapita Group's principal
activities include investing on its own account and providing
investment opportunities to third-party investors in conformity
with Islamic Shari'ah rules and principles.

The Arcapita Group has roughly US$7 billion in assets under
management.  On a consolidated basis, the Arcapita Group owns
assets valued at roughly US$3.06 billion and has liabilities of
roughly US$2.55 billion.  The Debtors owe US$96.7 million under
two secured facilities made available by Standard Chartered Bank.

Arcapita explored out-of-court restructuring scenarios but was
unable to achieve 100% lender consent required to effectuate the
terms of an out-of-court restructuring.

Subsequent to the Chapter 11 filing, Arcapita Investment Holdings
Limited, a wholly owned Debtor subsidiary of Arcapita in the
Cayman Islands, issued a summons seeking ancillary relief from
the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands with a view to facilitating
the Chapter 11 cases.  AIHL sought the appointment of Zolfo
Cooper as provisional liquidator.


ARGENTINA: Appeals Court Remands Bond Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a U.S.
appeals court in New York directed that a class-action suit
brought against the Republic of Argentina by Hickory Securities
Ltd. be sent back to a lower court for further consideration to
calculate the amount bondholders can collect.

Argentina defaulted on $95 billion in debt in late 2001, the
biggest default in history.  In 2005, then-President Nestor
Kirchner offered holders of defaulted debt 30 cents on the dollar.
Holders of about $20 billion in bonds rejected that deal.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in New York issued eight
judgments in January 2009 ordering Argentina to make payments
between $95 million and $543 million to the noteholders, including
interest that has accumulated since 2001.  The awards at the time
added up to $2.2 billion.  Judge Griesa also granted class-
action, or group, status in each action and aggregate classwide
relief.

Judge Griesa concluded the class consisted of bondholders who
purchased Argentine bonds prior to the filing of the suit for each
respective bond series and who held such bonds continuously until
entry of judgment by the district court.

Argentina challenged class certification and aggregate relief,
arguing the amounts were improperly based on estimates of the
total amount each class might recover, without accounting for
bondholders who might not have held bonds continuously during the
class period.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York upheld Judge Griesa, ruling
in May 2010 that he had properly granted class status to the
plaintiffs.  The court also reversed Judge Griesa, saying he had
erred in basing judgments on estimates of Argentina's liability
that resulted in classwide awards that were "likely inflated."

The appeals court remanded the case back to Judge Griesa on
aggregate-wide class relief and to consider alternative approaches
to calculating damages.

After the case was initially sent back to Judge Griesa, he ruled
in May 2011 that the bond series in three of the eight actions
that hadn't yet matured were deemed accelerated.  Argentina again
challenged the calculation, arguing the lower court had erred in
granting aggregate class-wide relief and that he'd failed to
account for bonds purchased in the secondary market after the
start of the class period.

The appeals court ruled on Aug. 14 that Judge Griesa erred in
granting aggregate classwide judgments without sufficiently
accounting for non-continuous bondholders.

The court also directed Judge Griesa to conduct a hearing to
consider evidence with respect to the volume of bonds purchased in
the secondary market after the start of the class period that
weren't tendered in the debt exchange offers or are currently held
by opt-out parties or litigants in other proceedings.

The circuit also directed Judge Griesa to make findings as to a
"reasonably accurate non-speculative estimate" of that volume
based on the evidence provided by the parties and account for such
volume in any damage award would "roughly reflect" the loss of
each class.

If no reasonably accurate non-speculative estimate can be made,
then Judge Griesa was directed to determine how to proceed with
the awarding of damages on an individual basis.

The appeals court also rejected Argentina's arguments against
class certification as being "without merit" and "disingenuous"
noting Argentina defaulted on these bonds and conceded before
Judge Griesa that "it had no intention of resuming payments."

"As Argentina acknowledges, it ceased servicing this debt in
2001," the panel said on Aug. 14.

Carmine Boccuzzi, a lawyer with Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP representing Argentina, and Howard Sirota, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs, didn't immediately return calls seeking comment on the
ruling.

The case is Hickory Securities Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 04-
cv-936, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Manhattan); the appeals case is 11- cv-3317, 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals (New York).


ATLAS AIR: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated
lawsuit over manipulation of fuel surcharges pending in the U.S.,
according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., is the parent company of its
principal operating subsidiary, Atlas Air, Inc., and of Polar Air
Cargo LLC -- Old Polar.

In 2010, Old Polar entered into a plea agreement with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") relating to the
previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged
manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate
components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation").
Under the terms of the agreement, approved by the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, Old Polar will pay a
fine of $17.4 million, payable in five annual installments, of
which the first two payments have been made.  The fine relates to
an alleged agreement by Old Polar with respect to fuel surcharges
on cargo shipped from the United States to Australia during the
time period from January 2000 through April 2003.

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws.  The lawsuit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged
from bankruptcy.  In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the
injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an
order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising
prior to 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions.  Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011.  There was
substantial pre-trial written discovery and document production,
and a number of depositions were taken.  The case is currently in
the class certification phase, with additional depositions
occurring.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
filed on October 28, 2011, and the Company filed its response on
May 25, 2012.  The Company says it is unable to reasonably predict
the court's ruling on the motion or the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.

The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have
also been named as defendants in civil class action lawsuits in
the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada,
that are substantially similar to the class action lawsuits in the
United States.  The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have
indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the
Company and Old Polar.  The Company says it is unable to
reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and
Quebec.

If the Company or Old Polar were to incur an unfavorable outcome
in connection with one or more of these matters, such outcome is
not expected to materially affect the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations, and/or cash flows.


BAXTER INT'L: 7th Circuit Denies Bid to Certify Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Baxter
International Inc.'s motion to certify an appeal from a ruling
denying its motion to dismiss claims in class action lawsuits
seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock, according
to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging that
certain of the Company's current and former executive officers and
its board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations
of the Company and issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's plasma-based therapies
business, the Company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion
pumps, its heparin product, and other quality issues.  Plaintiffs
allege this action damaged the Company and its shareholders by
resulting in a decline in stock price in the second quarter of
2010, payment of excess compensation to the board of directors and
certain of the Company's current and former executive officers,
and other damage to the Company.  A consolidated derivative
lawsuit is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of
Illinois and another has been stayed from advancement in the
Circuit Court of Lake County.  In October 2011, Baxter filed a
motion to dismiss the federal actions.

In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover
the lost value of investors' stock.  In January 2012, the court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims
related to the class action lawsuits.  In April 2012, the court
granted the Company's motion to certify an appeal of that decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, however,
that motion was denied by the appellate court in June 2012.

Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare
company that applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.  The Company is based in
Deerfield, Illinois.


BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Suits Over Plasma Therapies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
lawsuit relating to plasma-derived therapies, according to the
Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The Company is a defendant, along with others, in a number of
lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain
of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially
increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003.  The
complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief and in
some cases demand treble damages.  In February 2011, the court
denied the company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims and
the parties are proceeding with discovery.  In January 2012, the
court granted the company's motion to dismiss certain federal
claims brought by indirect purchasers.

Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare
company that applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.  The Company is based in
Deerfield, Illinois.


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Oral Arguments in Tenn. Suit This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in
Tennessee are scheduled for this month, according to the Company's
August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In July 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court, Middle District of Tennessee, against the Company and
certain of its officers on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.  The complaint alleges that the Company
and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, management, future business
prospects and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock,
the safety and efficacy of Augment, its prospects for U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval and inadequacies in
Augment's clinical trials.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  In February 2012, the Company
and the other defendants in the case filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in
June 2012 and oral arguments are scheduled for August 2012.

If the Company is not successful in its defense of the class
action litigation, the Company could be forced to make significant
payments to, or enter into other settlements with, its
stockholders and their lawyers, and such payments or settlement
arrangements could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, operating results and financial condition.  Additional
lawsuits with similar claims may be filed by other parties against
the Company and its officers and directors.  Even if such claims
are not successful, these lawsuits or other future similar
actions, or other regulatory inquiries or investigations, may
result in substantial costs and have a significant adverse impact
on the Company's reputation and divert management's attention and
resources, which could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, operating results or financial condition.

The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims in the
class action litigation.  The outcome of these matters is
uncertain, however, and the Company cannot currently predict the
manner and timing of the resolution of the lawsuits, or an
estimate of a meaningful range of possible losses or any minimum
loss that could result in the event of an adverse verdict in the
lawsuits.  In connection with these claims, as of June 30, 2012,
the Company cumulatively recorded $308,899 for legal defense
expenses under its applicable insurance policies.

BioMimetic Therapeutics (NASDAQ: BMTI) is a biotechnology company
specializing in the development and commercialization of
clinically proven products to promote the healing of
musculoskeletal injuries and diseases, including therapies for
orthopedics, sports medicine and spine applications.  All Augment
branded products are based upon recombinant human platelet-derived
growth factor (rhPDGF-BB), which is an engineered form of PDGF,
one of the body's principal agents to stimulate and direct healing
and regeneration.


BLOUNT FINE: Recalls 4,100 Lbs. of Meat & Poultry Soup Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blount Fine Foods, a Fall River, Massachusetts establishment, is
recalling approximately 4,100 pounds of meat and poultry soup
products that may contain fragments of plastic, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Chicken and Dumpling
     Soup," with a "use by" date of August 24, 2012, and "Keep
     Refrigerated" on the label.

   * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Italian Wedding Style
     Soup with Meatballs," with a "use by" date of September 3,
     2012, and "Keep Refrigerated" on the label.

The cases can be identified by establishment number "EST. 19449A"
or "P-19449A" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The soup
products were packaged on June 5, 2012, and sent to distribution
centers in Pennsylvania and New York.  From there, the products
were sent to retail establishments in Massachusetts, Maryland, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

In addition to the FSIS regulated products, the firm is also
recalling the following products, packaged on June 4, 2012, which
are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration:

   * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Gazpacho Soup," with a
     "use by" date of September 2, 2012

   * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Tomato Basil with Orzo
     Soup," with a "use by" date of September 3, 2012

   * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Caribbean Black Bean
     Soup," with a "use by" date of September 3, 2012

   * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Lobster Bisque," with a
     "use by" date of September 3, 2012

The problem was discovered after consumers complained to the firm
about finding plastic fragments in various Wegmans brand soup
products.  The problem likely occurred during the production of
the soup containers.  FSIS and the Company have not received
reports of injury due to consumption of this product.  Anyone
concerned about an injury should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and news reporters with questions about the recall
should contact Timothy Burns, Director of Quality Assurance for
Blount Fine Foods, at (800) 274-2526.

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


BUMBO INT'L: Recalls 4 Million Baby Seats Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bumbo International Trust, of South Africa, announced a voluntary
recall of about four million Bumbo Baby Seats in the United States
of America.  In October 2007, one million Bumbo seats were
voluntarily recalled to provide additional warnings against use on
raised surfaces.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Babies can maneuver out of or fall from the Bumbo seat, posing a
risk of serious injuries.

CPSC and Bumbo International know of at least 50 incidents after
the October 2007 voluntary recall in which babies fell from a
Bumbo seat while it was being used on a raised surface.  Nineteen
of those incidents included reports of skull fractures.  CPSC and
Bumbo International are aware of an additional 34 post-recall
reports of infants who fell out or maneuvered out of a Bumbo seat
used on the floor or at an unknown elevation, resulting in injury.
Two of these incidents involved reports of skull fractures, while
others reported bumps, bruises and other minor injuries.

The bottom of the Bumbo seat is round and flat with a diameter of
about 15 inches.  It is constructed of a single piece of molded
foam and comes in various colors.  The seat has leg holes and the
seat back wraps completely around the child.  On the front of the
seat in raised lettering is the word "Bumbo" with the image of an
elephant on top.  The bottom of the seat has the following words:
"Manufactured by Bumbo South Africa Material: Polyurethane World
Patent No. PCT: ZA/1999/00030."  The back of the seat has several
warnings and seats manufactured since 2008 have an additional
label on the front of the seat warning against use on raised
surfaces.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12247.html

The recalled products were manufactured in South Africa and sold
by Sears, Target, Toys R Us (including Babies R Us), USA Babies,
Walmart, and various other toy and children's stores nationwide,
and various online sellers, from August 2003 through August 2012
for between $30 and $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product until they
order and install a free repair kit, which includes: a restraint
belt with a warning label, installation instructions, safe use
instructions and a new warning sticker.  The belt should always be
used when a child is placed in the seat.  Even with the belt, the
seat should never be used on any raised surface.  Consumers should
also immediately stop using Bumbo seat covers that interfere with
the installation and use of the belt.  A video demonstrating
proper installation of the restraint belt and proper use of the
Bumbo seat are available at http://www.BumboUSA.com/ Order the
free repair kit by visiting http://www.recall.BumboUSA.com/or
calling (866) 898-4999 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Thursday and between 8:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.
Central Time on Friday.  Do not return the Bumbo seat to retailers
as they will not be able to provide the repair kit.


CANADA: Veterans Concerned Over Military Pension Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
there's growing concern among veterans that a big chunk of a
planned multi-million settlement over the clawback of military
pensions could be gobbled up by legal fees.

One member of a class-action lawsuit has written to Defence
Minister Peter MacKay, asking that the federal government pay the
cost of lawyers over and above any out-of-court compensation that
arises from upcoming negotiations.

"I hope that you make a separate reasonable payment to lawyers in
accordance with the reasonable fees set by precedent in the
courts," wrote Louise Gagnon, a retired major.

"This payment should not come from the monies contractually and
honorably owed us."

The federal government announced in June it would not appeal a
Federal Court of Canada ruling that rejected clawbacks from the
pensions of disabled veterans.  Defence Minister Peter MacKay
ordered a stop to the practice on July 1.

A class-action lawsuit was filed in March 2007 on behalf of Dennis
Manuge and 4,500 other disabled veterans whose long-term
disability benefits were reduced by the amount of the monthly
Veterans Affairs disability pension they receive.

He argued it was unfair and unjust to treat pain and suffering
awards as income.

The federal government recently appointed Stephen Toope, the
president of the University of British Columbia, to lead the
discussions with Mr. Manuge's legal team to arrive at a
settlement, including retroactive payments.

Internal government estimates have suggested that the settlement
could run as high as C$600 million, depending upon how many years
back the federal compensation plan will go.

Ms. Gagnon told Mr. MacKay that settlement scheme was proposed by
the government and "it would seem reasonable that you repair this
tort out of your own funds."

Information from Veterans Affairs Canada suggests legal fees could
be included in whatever final agreement is made.

"By agreement with the representative plaintiffs, counsel fees may
be calculated at 30 per cent of any amounts recovered," said the
department's Web site.

"If a settlement, judgment, voluntary payment or execution or
other benefit is obtained, the lawyers will apply to court for
approval of a fee that is consistent with the terms of this
agreement, or some lesser amount.  The court will decide what
amount is fair."

In the case of a C$600-million settlement, Ms. Gagnon said lawyers
could net up to C$180 million, if the 30 per cent formula is
upheld.

"This has caused growing alarm with myself and many disabled
veterans who could hypothetically be required to pay 30 per cent
or more of our (long-term disability) monies for legal costs," she
wrote.

"Having the class members foot any bill for legal fees would be
tantamount to subjecting them to a second clawback."

Heather Domereckyj, a spokeswoman for Mr. MacKay, said the federal
government has set in motion a process that has checks and
balances.

"Any settlement of the class action reached between the parties
will need the Federal Court's approval," Ms. Domereckyj said in an
email.

"The government is committed to working towards a positive
resolution in this matter. It would be inappropriate to comment
further."

Mr. Manuge was not immediately available for comment.

Even though the clawbacks ended in July, there are still some
veterans who still face the deduction.  Ex-soldiers whose
additional rewards and payments exceed the limit of 75 per cent of
their military salary -- often those who were most severely
injured -- say they're still not being treated fairly.

Those veterans with the most grievous injuries are entitled to
receive the maximum benefit, particularly since many can't work,
advocates have said.


CANADA: Judge Dismisses Tobacco Farmers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Tom Blackwell, writing for National Post, reports that an unusual,
C$500-million class-action lawsuit by tobacco farmers that accuses
the federal and Ontario governments of turning a blind eye to
contraband tobacco, seriously undermining the legal cigarette
industry in the process, has hit a brick wall.

The farmers allege tax authorities chose to let the trade in
unlicensed, untaxed tobacco flourish to avoid angering First
Nations' communities where the cigarettes are made and sold.  It
is a charge often levelled by anti-smoking and industry critics,
too.

But Justice Duncan Grace has ruled even if the government did act
to appease First Nations, it was a decision made for economic,
social and political reasons, and cannot be challenged legally.

If governments had a duty to private individuals like the farmers
in such cases, as opposed to the public, they would be vulnerable
to unlimited lawsuits, said the Ontario Superior Court judge.

"Many industries are regulated.  Most products are taxed," he
wrote in his decision, released this month.

"If a private law duty of care exists in this case, where does it
end? It seems to me that the government [would be] exposed to the
risk of suit by anyone disadvantaged by any decision made under a
regulatory or taxing statute."

The judge accepted an application by the provincial and federal
governments to strike down the statement of claim that launched
the class-action suit.

The tobacco producers have yet to decide whether to appeal the
ruling, said John McDonald, one of their lawyers.

But he stressed the lack of enforcement action by federal and
provincial officials has had dramatic effects, pointing to a 32-
kilometre stretch of highway near the Six Nations' community in
southern Ontario that is lined with makeshift stores selling
unlicensed tobacco.

"There are so many, you can't even do an accurate count as you
drive through," he said.  "If [governments] are doing something,
it's just sort of surface painting."

Ronald Slaght, who represented the Department of National Revenue
in the case, argued governments cannot be expected to universally
enforce every aspect of every law.

"There aren't unlimited resources to do everything in government,
so there has to be a balance," he said.  "There is no policy of
abandonment of [tobacco-tax] enforcement, but it is a difficult
issue."

The suit alleged Ottawa and Ontario allowed aboriginal tobacco
producers and retailers to make and sell cigarettes without
government licensing or paying excise taxes.

Many cigarettes are smuggled in from factories on the U.S. side of
the Akwesasne reserve near Cornwall, Ont., but police say plants
are also operating on at least three reserves in Canada.

Evidence suggests some of the raw tobacco they use is supplied
illicitly by accredited Ontario tobacco farmers.

Contraband tobacco products have flooded the Canadian market,
accounting for as many as 32% of cigarettes smoked nationally in
2008, though estimates for recent years have dropped somewhat,
says the group Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada.

The federal government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have
tried to combat the contraband problem, primarily through police
action against smugglers, but critics say more could be done.
That includes cracking down on the sale of raw tobacco, papers,
filters and other ingredients to the contraband producers, and
trying to close the unlicensed factories.

First Nations' tobacco entrepreneurs and some leaders in their
communities contend they have a sovereign right to produce and
sell cigarettes outside the tax system.  Any attempt to raid the
facilities would be met with anger and stiff opposition, they say.

Regardless, the two Ontario tobacco farms named in the suit allege
the declining market for legally produced tobacco has had a
devastating effect.  They say they sold less than 20,000 pounds of
tobacco in 2008, down from 117,000 lbs. in 2001.


COMSCORE INC: Still Defends Privacy Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
On August 23, 2011, comScore, Inc. received notice that Mike
Harris and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other
things, violations by the Company of the Stored Communications
Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act as well as unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the
plaintiffs.  Based on review of these claims, the Company believes
that they are without merit, and it intends to vigorously protect
and defend itself.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


DALE T. SMITH: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in Utah received beef
products that have been recalled by Dale T. Smith and Sons Meat
Packing.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/jXmO3W,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Retailer Name                   City and State
    -------------                   --------------
    Dale T. Smith's Retail Store    Draper, Utah
    Carnecia                        Ogden, Utah
    Don's Meats                     Sunset, Utah
    Don's Meats                     Syracuse, Utah


DIGNITY HEALTH: California Court Remands Labor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Coe, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
court on Aug. 13 remanded a proposed class action alleging
hospital network Dignity Health had failed to provide nurses meal
and rest breaks, finding the plaintiffs' claims were based on
state-law rights and wouldn't require any interpretation of their
collective bargaining agreement.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson denied Dignity Health's summary
judgment motion and rejected its argument that the plaintiffs'
state law claims for unpaid wages were preempted under Section 301
of the Labor Management Relations Act.


ENSIGN GROUP: Awaits Approval of Staffing Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ensign Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a staffing class action lawsuit filed in California,
according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In July 2012, Ensign reached a tentative settlement with class
counsel in a staffing class-action claim filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court.  Costs and fees associated with the settlement
were $5,000,000, of which $2,596,000 of this amount was recorded
in the quarter ended June 30, 2012, with the balance having been
expensed in prior periods.  The amount of the one-time settlement
charge was excluded from non-GAAP results.  Management has
affirmed that, assuming that the settlement is executed and
approved by the court, the settlement will not have a material
ongoing adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations.


FELTEX: Directors Want Identity of Class Action Backer Revealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Zealand Herald reports that directors of Feltex, which
collapsed in 2006, are seeking the identity of the funder behind a
class action lawsuit being taken against them.

The directors for failed carpet maker Feltex want to know the
identity of a British backer for the looming class action, and are
seeking to oust Tony Gavigan, the driving force behind the
proceedings, the Court of Appeal heard on Aug. 15.

The directors of the company at the time of its 2004 float don't
have enough assurance their costs will be covered if they
successfully defend the class suit being brought by Feltex
shareholder Eric Houghton on behalf of some 3,000 other investors,
their counsel David Cooper told Justices Mark O'Regan, Anthony
Randerson and Rhys Harrison in Wellington.

The directors at the time were Tim Saunders, Sam Magill, John
Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter David and Joan
Withers.

Mr. Cooper's concern is that UK-based Harbour Litigation Funding
isn't directly involved, rather an unnamed associate is funding
the action with an undisclosed level of insurance cover for costs,
via Mr. Gavigan's wholly-controlled New Zealand entity, Joint
Action Funding Ltd.

The directors are seeking details of the funding arrangement,
including the identity of the actual British entity as well as the
level of insurance cover, Mr. Cooper said.

Counsel for Houghton, Austin Forbes, said Harbour didn't disclose
the terms of its commercial arrangements, but said the level of
insurance was sufficient to cover costs.  There were also tax
issues for the UK entity directly funding the action.

Justice Harrison tried to convince counsel to come to an agreement
over the disclosing certain terms of the funding arrangements,
saying this case didn't need any further necessary delays.

Mr. Cooper also questioned the suitability of Mr. Gavigan as an
appropriate court-approved funder, saying he had breached court
orders and made misleading statements that their acquittal in a
2010 action taken by the Registrar of Companies for alleged
breaches of the Financial Reporting Act was based on a technical
argument.

"If a responsible funder is put in the position of funding with
control in the same way (as in Australia), there's nothing for us
to complain about," Mr. Cooper told the court.  "The complaints we
have made are with particular entities."

The other parties to the class suit include broking firms Credit
Suisse, First NZ Capital, and Forsyth Barr, who sold and promoted
the offer.

Counsel for Credit Suisse, Adrian Olmey, told the court the
procedural process was flawed, with one proceeding filed with all
3,000 participating shareholders included as joint plaintiffs
rather than a representative claim.  Because of that process, many
of those joining shareholders would not be able to participate
because it would have exceeded the statutory limitation of six
years to file a claim.

When it finally gets to court, the Feltex action will be divided
into two stages.  The first will hear Houghton's entire case, with
the second using the first for binding rulings on common claims.

The hearing is set down for two days, and is proceeding.

Feltex collapsed in 2006, owing creditors between NZD30 million
and NZD40 million, and destroying some NZD254 million in
shareholder value.


FIFTH THIRD: Spangenberg Shibley & Liber Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Ohio
(Case # 1:12-cv-2007, Northern District of Ohio, US District
Court) alleges that "payday" loans offered by Cincinnati, Ohio-
based Fifth Third Bank were usurious, provided false interest rate
disclosures and violated Ohio law.  According to court documents,
plaintiffs William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney brought the
lawsuit on behalf of a class of all individuals who received
"Early Access" loans from Fifth Third and repaid those loans
within 30 days.  The individual plaintiffs and the class are
represented by Cleveland, Ohio-based Spangenberg Shibley & Liber,
Tycko & Zavareei in Washington, DC, and Barnow and Associates of
Chicago, IL.  All three firms have previously been involved in
consumer class action lawsuits against banks, including the
successful prosecution and settlement of claims related to
fraudulent overdraft fees charged by banks.

In recent years, Ohio has passed law protecting consumers from
predatory payday loans.

"Because the problem of payday lending was primarily associated
with small storefront operations in economically disadvantaged
areas, the law was not made applicable to large state-chartered
banks like Fifth Third," said Daniel Frech, an attorney for the
Plaintiffs.  "Fifth Third, however, seized upon the fact the new
laws put most small payday lenders out of business and slid in to
fill the void."

Many federal bank accrediting and auditing entities, including the
FDIC, who is "deeply concerned" about the practice, have spoken
out against consumer banks engaging in payday lending.  In fact,
The Officer of the Comptroller of Currency, who regulated Fifth
Third at the time, ordered banks to "stay the hell away" from
payday loans in 2003.

Fifth Third discloses an Annualized Percentage Rate (APR) of 120
percent, based on the loan's maximum possible duration of 30 days.
However, unlike short term loans from traditional payday lenders,
the amount owed to the bank is automatically deducted from a
customer's account once a direct deposit sufficient to cover the
amount owed occurs.  As such, a vast majority of the loans are
paid back far more quickly.  This resulted in Klopfenstein paying
an APR over 1000 percent on several occasions and McKinney paying,
in one instance, an APR over 3000 percent.  The plaintiff's
complaint alleges that these excessive interest rates are usurious
and breached the loan terms the consumers agreed to.

Ohio law restricts the maximum interest rate that banks can charge
on loans to 25 percent.  Fifth Third claims that all interest paid
on Early Access loans is actually a "transaction fee," which the
bank believes allows it to comply with Ohio law while charging
APRs, in some cases, 100 times higher than that allowed by the
statute.  The complaint alleges that the "fees" charged by Fifth
Third are, in fact, finance charges and that the interest rate the
bank charges is therefore far in excess of the statutory maximum
rate of 25 percent.

The complaint asks that all excessive interest charges be
disgorged from Fifth Third and paid back to the customers.

                About Spangenberg Shibley & Liber

Spangenberg Shibley & Liber handles a broad range of business
litigation, dangerous drug, personal injury, medical malpractice,
nursing home and elder abuse and civil rights cases.  The firm
also litigates a variety of property damage and insurance coverage
cases.


GENERAL REINSURANCE: Sends Settlement Back to District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hemenway, writing for PropertyCasualty360.com, reports that a
federal court of appeals is sending back to district court a $72
million settlement General Reinsurance Corp. had with investors to
resolve a securities class-action lawsuit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed District
Court Judge Deborah Batts' 2010 refusal to certify the settlement
class because it could not satisfy a certain "predominance
requirement" used to test common versus individual issues in order
to determine if the class is cohesive, and whether a class-action
is the best way to proceed with a dispute.

In this case, each plaintiff would need to prove that each was
aware of and relied on AIG's false financial statements.

But a trio of appeals judges says a failure to satisfy this
requirement only presents problems at trial. In this case, the
"settlement eliminates the need for trial" so the class does not
need to satisfy the requirement.

"With a settlement class, the manageability concerns posed by
numerous individual questions of reliance disappear," says the
ruling.

The case was originally filed in 2007, led by several Ohio public
pension funds alleging a sham $500 million finite reinsurance
transaction between Berkshire Hathaway's Gen Re and American
International Group Inc. (AIG) in the early 2000s was intended to
inflate AIG's loss reserves.

The judges say their reversal "should not be taken as an
endorsement of the fairness of the proposed settlement -- and
issue we leave to the district court to address" if it certifies
the class.

Judge Batts last October also preliminarily approved a separate
$725 million settlement agreement to resolve a securities class-
action lawsuit between AIG and Ohio and Florida public pension
plan funds.


GNC CORP: Sued Over Heart Symbol on CoEnzyme Q-10 Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. GNC Corporation, Case No. L-005974-12 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Bergen Cty., August 7, 2012) alleges that in connection with
the marketing, advertisement and sale of CoEnzyme Q-10, GNC
affirmatively labeled each bottle of its product with a prominent
red heart.

According to the guidelines, rules and regulations of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, labeling a product with a heart
symbol implies a disease treatment or prevention claim, Mr.
Hoffman asserts.  He contends that the FDA does not permit a
disease treatment or prevention claim, or heart symbol, of any
sort, for CoEnzyme Q-10 supplements.  Hence, he insists that the
affirmative promises and representations made by the Defendant
through the prominent placement of the heart symbol on product
bottles that its product is suitable for disease treatment and
prevention, is false and violative of FDA rules and guidelines.

Mr. Hoffman is a resident of Bergen, New Jersey.

GNC is a Delaware corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
GNC is a nationwide retailer of vitamins and nutritional
supplements.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit:

          Harold H. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net


GOOGLE INC: No Hearing Date Yet on Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Google has won
the right to appeal the granting of class status to thousands of
authors suing the search engine company over its ambitious plan to
create the world's largest digital books library.

In a brief order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York granted Google permission to challenge a May 31 decision by
U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin letting authors sue as a group
rather than individually.

Billions of dollars are at stake in the seven-year-old lawsuit.
Google has already scanned more than 20 million books, and the
Authors Guild, a group representing authors, has said Google
should pay $750 for each book copied.

It is unclear when the 2nd Circuit will hear the appeal.
Decertifying the class could make it harder for authors to win a
large award against Google, either at trial or in a settlement.

Judge Chin had said it would be unjust to force Authors Guild
members to sue individually, likely resulting in disparate results
and much higher legal costs, "given the sweeping and
undiscriminating nature of Google's unauthorized copying."
But Google countered in a court filing that many class members,
perhaps even a majority, benefited economically, and that case-by-
case determinations were needed to show whether it was making
"fair use" of the plaintiffs' works.

Citing a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision favoring Wal-Mart that
made it harder to pursue class-action cases, Google said that even
if "droves" of authors raised common issues, there was no "common
answer" to address them.

"Plaintiffs seek to shut down a significant part of Google Books
and to recover potentially billions of dollars," Google said.
"With so much at stake, Google should not be forced to litigate
without the full benefit of its principal defense."

Michael Boni, a lawyer for the Authors Guild, was not immediately
available for comment.  That group has argued that there is enough
in common among the claims to let the class-action to go ahead and
defeat the fair use defense.

Google began creating the library after the Mountain View-based
company agreed in 2004 with several major research libraries to
digitize current and out-of-print works.

Libraries whose works have been scanned include Harvard
University, Oxford University, Stanford University, the University
of California, the University of Michigan and the New York Public
Library.

In March 2011, Judge Chin rejected a $125 million settlement of
the case, saying it gave Google a "de facto monopoly" to copy
books en masse without permission.

Among the individual plaintiffs in the case is former New York
Yankees baseball pitcher Jim Bouton, the author of "Ball Four."
Groups of photographers and graphic artists are also suing Google
over its digitization of the works.

Judge Chin began handling the case as a trial judge and kept
jurisdiction after he was elevated to the 2nd Circuit.  The
Aug. 14 order was issued by a two-judge panel of the appeals
court.


HEADWATERS INC: Appeal in "Adtech" Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, Headwaters Incorporated entered into a technology
purchase agreement with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc.  The
transaction transferred certain patent and royalty rights to
Headwaters related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by
Davidson.  In 2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint
from the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee filed by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among
other things, fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion,
patent infringement and interference with contract arising out of
the 1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between
Davidson and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other.
All claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial
proceedings except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust.
The District Court certified a class comprised of substantially
all purported stockholders of Adtech, Inc.  The plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of
$43.0 million plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages.  In
June 2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of
$8.7 million for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion
of the class members.  In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict
after a trial for the remaining 46 members of the class in the
amount of $7.3 million.  In April 2011, the trial court entered an
order for a constructive trust in the amount of approximately
$16.0 million (the same amount as the sum of the previous jury
verdicts), denied all other outstanding motions, and entered
judgment against Headwaters in the total approximate amount of
$16.0 million, in accordance with the verdicts and order on
constructive trust.  The $16.0 million is fully accrued.  The
court denied all post-judgment motions by the parties.  Headwaters
filed a supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from the judgment
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Plaintiffs also filed notice of an appeal.  The Federal Circuit
has transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit on the basis of jurisdiction.  Because the
resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and
management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if
any, of Headwaters' liability.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


HEADWATERS INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Archstone" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York.
Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope
and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began
to rot and grow mold.  In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and
began repairing the 21 apartment buildings.  Also in 2008,
Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of
the State of New York against the prime contractor and its
performance bond surety, the designer, and Headwaters
Incorporated's subsidiary, Eldorado Stone, LLC, which supplied
architectural stone that was installed by others during
construction.  The prime contractor then sued over a dozen
subcontractors who in turn sued others.  Archstone claims as
damages approximately $36.0 million in repair costs, $15.0 million
in lost lease payments, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued
Archstone, and $7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus
prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.  Eldorado Stone answered
denying liability and tendered the matter to its insurers who are
paying for the defense of the case.  The court has dismissed all
claims against Eldorado Stone, except the claim of negligence, and
the parties are pursuing an interlocutory appeal of the order of
dismissal.  Meanwhile, discovery is underway.  Because the
resolution of the action is uncertain, legal counsel and
management cannot express an opinion concerning the likely outcome
of this matter, the liability of Eldorado Stone, if any, or the
insurers' obligation to indemnify Eldorado Stone against loss, if
any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for False Splenda Essentials Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Bronson, Michael Fishman, and Alvin Kupperman on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson
Inc. and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Case No. 4:12-cv-04184 (N.D.
Calif., August 9, 2012) is a proposed class action on behalf of
California residents seeking redress for the Defendants' deceptive
practices in misrepresenting the health benefits of varieties of
the Defendants' fortified no-calorie sweeteners -- Splenda
Essentials -- in violation of California's consumer protection
laws.

The Defendants command a premium price for Splenda Essentials by
distinguishing it from regular Splenda and other no-calorie sugar
substitutes, and by "marketing" it as a sweetener that "gives you
a small boost of healthy nutrients," the Plaintiffs allege.  They
argue that the Defendants' marketing campaign for Splenda
Essentials deceptively promotes the three varieties as healthful,
no-calorie sweeteners that are fortified with antioxidants, B
vitamins, or fiber.

Messrs. Fishman and Kupperman are residents of Palm Springs,
California.  Ms. Bronson is a resident of San Rafael, California.
They purchased Splenda Essentials with B vitamins, Splenda
Essentials with Antioxidants, and Splenda Essentials with Fiber
during the Class Period.  They assert that they relied on written
misrepresentations present on all varieties of the Splenda
Essentials packaging.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.  Johnson & Johnson is an American
multinational consumer packaged goods manufacturer.  McNeil
Nutritionals is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson,
and sells the sucralose branded sweeteners Splenda and Splenda
Essentials.  McNeil Nutritionals is headquartered in Fort
Washington, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Mills, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          THE MILLS LAW FIRM
          880 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite 2
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Telephone: (415) 455-1326
          Facsimile: (415) 455-1327
          E-mail: rwm@millslawfirm.com
                  josh@millslawfirm.com
                  corey@millslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen Gardner (pending pro hac vice)
          Amanda Howell (pending pro hac vice)
          CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          5646 Milton Street, Suite 211
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 827-2774
          Facsimile: (214) 827-2787
          E-mail: sgardner@cspinet.org
                  ahowell@cspinet.org


JOHNSONVILLE SAUSAGE: Recalls 48,000 Pounds of Turkey Sausage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnsonville Sausage, LLC, a Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
establishment, is recalling approximately 48,000 pounds of "Turkey
Sausage with Cheddar Cheese" products because they may contain
pieces of gloves, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * 13.5-oz. vacuum packages of "Johnsonville Turkey Sausage
     with Cheddar Cheese"

The packages can be identified by establishment number "EST. P-
34224" inside the USDA mark of inspection and the best by date
"08/20/2012 2."  The "Turkey Sausage with Cheddar Cheese" was
produced on May 22, 2012, and was distributed to retail
establishments nationwide.  A picture of the label of the recalled
products is available at http://is.gd/wSjVwY

The Company alerted FSIS of the problem after receiving two
consumer complaints.  FSIS and the Company have not received
reports of injury due to consumption of this product.  Anyone
concerned about an injury should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact
Johnsonville Consumer Relations at 1-800-270-4662.  Media with
questions about the recall should contact Christie Moore,
Communications Manager, at (920) 453-7422.

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


LERNER SAMPSON: Faces Class Action Over Altered Mortgage Papers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Neil, writing for ABA Journal, reports that six law firms
are coordinating to represent seven Ohio homeowners in what they
say could be a class action benefiting thousands of individuals
harmed by falsified and fraudulent paperwork filed in foreclosure
cases by mortgage servicers and those working for them.

The Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court suit, which names three law firms
among the eight defendants, seeks class action status, the
Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages including lost down payments, lost equity and compensation
for the damage to their credit ratings.

The suit alleges that the defendants prepared, executed and
notarized fraudulent documents included in court filings to make
it appear that the requirements for filing a foreclosure action
were met, the newspaper reports.  It also alleges that the
defendants violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, which
sets standards for documentation required to transfer a mortgage.

The article doesn't include any comment from any of the
defendants.  The defendant law firms, all of which are based in
Ohio, are Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss; Manley Deas Kochalski; and
Reimer Arnovitz Chernek & Jeffrey.

None of the defendant law firms could be reached for comment by
the ABA Journal late in the day on Aug. 14.


LAKE COUNTY, IN: Settles Inmates' Class Action for $7.2 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kwiatkowski, writing for nwitimes, reports that Lake County
has agreed to pay $7.2 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
filed by inmates who complained about jail conditions, court
records show.

U.S. District Court Judge Philip Simon on Aug. 14 gave preliminary
approval to the settlement agreement and will hold a final
approval hearing at 9:30 a.m. Dec. 14.

Inmates who were confined for 24 hours or longer in a holding cell
at the Lake County Jail between May 13, 2006, and Feb. 1 will be
eligible to submit a claim for payment from the settlement,
according to the agreement.  Thousands of people are believed to
be eligible.

Attorney Samantha Liskow said letters will be sent to people who
have been identified as meeting that criteria.  The claim
information also will be published in various newspapers.

"We are very happy with the settlement because many individuals
will be compensated, and also because we are hopeful that the jail
is moving toward improved conditions for the detainees," Ms.
Liskow said.

She works for Loevy & Loevy, a Chicago-based civil rights firm
that is representing all the inmates involved in the class-action
suit.

The amount each person will be compensated depends on the number
of inmates and the length of time he or she spent in a jail
holding cell.

Gerald Bishop, who represented county officials in the lawsuit,
could not be reached Tuesday for comment.

Richard Flood, Roberto Cantu, Terrance Smith, Patrick Flood,
Jacqueline Drankus, Edward Walker and David Kurcz sued the county,
former Lake County Sheriff Roy Dominguez, former jail Warden Caren
Jones, former Warden Benny Freeman and unknown jail supervisors in
2008, arguing the jail conditions were "inhumane."

They claimed inmates were held for weeks or months in overcrowded
holding cells after their arrival and had to sleep directly on
concrete.  They also claimed medical care was "nearly nonexistent"
and the floor of the jail had human waste on it, according to the
initial complaint.


NANETTE APPEL-BLOOM: Sued by Trustee to Reform Trust Provision
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald S. Kaufman and Gerald S. Kaufman Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation v. Nanette Appel-Bloom, Anthony V. Barbiero, and Alan
S. Jacobs on behalf of themselves and a Class Similarly Situated,
Case No. 2012-CH-30537 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 9, 2012)
is a lawsuit seeking reformation of a provision of a trust
agreement entered into in 1959 for a trust administered in
Illinois, and for permission for the trustee-plaintiffs to deviate
from the provision.

The relief sought in the lawsuit is necessary because without it,
the provision in question will result in the Trust beneficiaries
losing the Trust property, which is a large office and commercial
building of substantial value located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, the Plaintiffs contend.  The Trust provision to be
reformed and deviated from denies the Trustee power to mortgage or
sell the Trust Property, except upon written approval of every
beneficiary.  However, the Plaintiffs assert, it is impossible to
obtain the written approval of every beneficiary because there are
more than 600 of them, who reside in Illinois and numerous other
states and several foreign countries.

Mr. Kaufman became the successor and assignee of the original
trustees nearly 30 years ago and has served as Trustee ever since.
Kaufman Corp. has been an assignee and served with Mr. Kaufman
since 1999.  He is a resident of Chicago, Illinois.  Kaufman Corp.
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago.

The Defendants are beneficiaries of the Trust.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger B. Harris
          Robin L. Wolkoff
          FOX, HEFTER, SWIBEL & CARROLL, LLP
          200 West Madison Street, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 224-1200
          E-mail: rharris@fhslc.com
                  rwolkoff@fhslc.com


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Par
Pharmaceutical Cos. are selling the company too cheaply to TPG
Capital, for $1.8 billion or $50 a share, shareholders claim in
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Duvall v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 15770 in Case
No. 33-av-00001 on Aug. 14, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/15/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Stein, Esq.
          John T. Whipple, Esq.
          Sean Mack, Esq.
          PASHMAN STEIN, P.C.
          Court Plaza South
          21 Main Street, Suite 100
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 488-8200
          E-mail: mstein@pashmanstein.com
                  jwhipple@pashmanstein.com
                  smack@pashmanstein.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  cbarrett@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB LLP
          2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214/583-2233
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbllp.com


RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Faces Class Action Over Speed Camera Tickets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Zapotosky, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
Riverdale Park is facing a class-action lawsuit claiming that tens
of thousands of speed camera tickets should be invalidated because
they were not properly approved by a police officer -- a case that
could cost the small town in Prince George's County millions of
dollars.

The suit, filed in Prince George's County Circuit Court last week
and first reported by Fox 5, claims that two civilian employees
used a Riverdale Park police corporal's computer login to approve
thousands of tickets, including some when the corporal was away on
leave.  The practice is a violation of Maryland law -- which
requires that tickets be authorized by a police officer -- and one
that the corporal, Clayton Alford, and the civilian employees
objected to with their supervisors, said Timothy P. Leahy, the
Bowie lawyer who filed the suit.


SONY MUSIC: Roy Thomas Baker Files Suit Over Digital Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Morris, writing for Variety, reports that producer Roy
Thomas Baker has filed a wide-ranging breach of contract suit
against Sony Music Entertainment, alleging underpayment of nearly
half a million dollars in royalties for two bestselling Journey
albums of the '70s and the band's greatest hits package.
Among Mr. Baker's allegations, he claims that he was shortchanged
on royalties for digital downloads and ringtones.  More than a
dozen class actions and individual suits have mounted similar
claims in the wake of a 2010 appellate court ruling mandating
higher payments for digital music sales.

Mr. Baker opted out of a class action filed against Sony by Cheap
Trick, the Allman Brothers and others that was settled earlier
this year.  Present suit claims the settlement was "wholly
insufficient."

Mr. Baker is being represented by Nashville litigator Richard
Busch, who is also acting on behalf of such artists as Kenny
Rogers, Toto, "Weird Al" Yankovic and Peter Frampton in their
individual digital royalties claims against their labels.

A top '70s producer best known for his work on Queen's 1975 album
"A Night at the Opera" and its hit "Bohemian Rhapsody," Mr. Baker
helmed Journey's breakthrough albums "Infinity" (1978) and
"Evolution" (1979) under a 1977 agreement with Sony's predecessor
CBS Records.  Those Columbia releases have both been certified
triple platinum for sales of more than 3 million by the RIAA.

Some of the hits on those two collections found their way onto
Journey's "Greatest Hits" compilation.  The suit claims that
package has sold more than 80 million copies and has spent more
than 887 weeks on the national album chart.  Royalties from a
"Greatest Hits" DVD are also at issue.

Mr. Baker's suit is the product of an audit of Sony's books
regarding the company's payments from January 2007-June 2010.
Action claims underpayments plus interest of $475,000 for the
period, while Sony has claimed underpayment of just $68,000 for
the period.

In one of its main claims, the suit specifically cites the
appellate decision in F.B.T. Productions vs. Aftermath Records --
the so-called "Eminem case" -- which ruled royalties for digital
downloads and ringtones should be calculated at the far higher
contractual rate (usually 50% of net receipts) for third-party
licenses, and not as sales.

The difference between what Sony paid and what Mr. Baker says he
is due amounts to more than $200,000, according to the action.

Mr. Baker additionally claims he was shorted on royalties from
domestic and foreign physical sales, and that several specious or
non-existent deductions were applied.  He alleges he was paid no
royalties whatsoever for the "Greatest Hits" DVD.

A Sony spokesman had no comment.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Court Direction in ERISA-Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that it awaits further direction from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit with respect its
interlocutory appeal filed in an ERISA class action suit.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company, officers and directors of the
Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a
putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by offering the Company's common stock as an investment
option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan").  The
plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts
from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses
these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.  On
December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for
the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for
immediate interlocutory appeal.  On January 3, 2011, the District
Court granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court").  On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals.  The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these
appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home
Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented.

On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of
The Home Depot.  The Company awaits further direction from the
Circuit Court.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Reconsideration Bid Ruling in TRUPs Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for
reconsideration in the consolidated lawsuit over its sale of
SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities, according
to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Beginning in May 2009, the Company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. ("STRH"), SunTrust Capital IX, officers and directors of the
Company, and others were named in three putative class actions
arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of
SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities ("TRUPs") of
SunTrust Banks, Inc.  The complaints alleged, among other things,
that the relevant registration statement and accompanying
prospectus misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the
Company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, the
Company's capital position, and its internal risk controls.
Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their
investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the
TRUPs.  These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont
Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and on November 30, 2009, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed.  On January 29, 2010, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  This motion
was granted, with leave to amend, on September 10, 2010.  On
October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
an attempt to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the
Court's dismissal decision.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on
March 21, 2011.  The District Court denied the motion to dismiss
as to Plaintiff's claims that the Company misrepresented the
adequacy of its loan loss reserves for 2007 but dismissed all
other claims against the Company and limited discovery in the
initial stages of the case to the question of SunTrust's
subjective belief as to the adequacy of those reserves at the time
of the offering.

SunTrust subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of this
decision and a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of that
motion.  The Court granted the motion to stay and the parties are
awaiting a decision on the motion for reconsideration.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Lehman-Related Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss small class action lawsuits involving a
subsidiary of SunTrust Banks, Inc., related to Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc.'s stock offerings remain pending, according to the
Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.
("STRH"), along with other underwriters and individuals, were
named as defendants in several individual and putative class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington.  Plaintiffs allege
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for
allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with
various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and seek unspecified damages.
All cases have now been transferred for coordination to the multi-
district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt
Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted in the class action.  On July 27,
2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss the class claims against STRH and the other
underwriter defendants.  A settlement with the class plaintiffs
was approved by the Court on December 15, 2011.  The class notice
and opt-out process is complete and the class settlement approval
process has been completed.  A number of individual lawsuits and
smaller putative class actions remain pending and will move
forward, each on its own schedule.  Motions to dismiss are pending
in each of these cases.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"),
the full-service corporate and investment banking arm of SunTrust
Banks, Inc., certain other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup,
Inc. ("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of
Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern District entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  The complaint was brought by purchasers of
certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks
unspecified damages.  Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and
misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and
prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,
mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality.  On August
28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy.  The
defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the
Court subsequently has ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  This amended complaint has been filed and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Suits Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. is currently defending three class action
lawsuits relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer
accounts, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class
actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer
accounts.  The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on
May 6, 2009.  This action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on
June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District
Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009.  Plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and
unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result
of the method of posting order used by the Company, which
allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint
checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a
putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred
an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient
balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been
submitted to the bank for payment," as well as "all SunTrust
account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based
on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges."  Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and
other relief deemed equitable by the Court.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both
motions were denied.  The denial of the motion to compel
arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District
Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior
ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion.  The District Court then denied SunTrust's
motion to compel arbitration for different reasons.  SunTrust
appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit and, on March 1,
2012, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision
and ordered that SunTrust's Motion to Compel Arbitration be
granted.  Plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Rehearing or
Rehearing En Banc, which was denied.

The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed
in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff asserts that all
overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card
and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore
subject to the usury laws of Georgia.  Plaintiff has brought
claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws,
conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the
action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such
overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee
resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury
rate.  SunTrust has filed a motion to compel arbitration.  On
March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could proceed with the
case as a class rather than as an individual action.  SunTrust has
filed an appeal of this decision.

The third of these cases, Byrd v. SunTrust Bank, was filed on
April 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.  This case is substantially similar
to the Bickerstaff matter.  SunTrust has filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Classic Mutual Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. disclosed in its August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it has filed a motion to dismiss
remaining claims in a class action lawsuit over its Classic Mutual
Funds.

On March 11, 2011, the Company, officers and directors of the
Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a
putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan").  The plaintiff purports to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and
seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds.

The Affiliated Funds Class Action is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the
"District Court").  On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 12, 2012, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The
Company believes that based on the Court's Order, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's remaining claims
and has filed a motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on
this ground.


SUNTRUST BANKS: To Seek Dismissal of Captive Reinsurance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss the class
action lawsuit captioned Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al.
v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., according to
the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. ("STM") and Twin Rivers Insurance Company
("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative
class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal
"captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of
private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to
them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks"
in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers.
Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust
enrichment to the detriment of borrowers.  The first of these
cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et
al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  This case was stayed by the
Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial
Corporation, a captive reinsurance case currently pending before
the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.  The second of these cases,
Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in December 2011.  This case
was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also.  The U.S.
Supreme Court recently withdrew its grant of cert. in Edwards and,
as a result, the Company expects that the stays in these cases
will be lifted.  A motion to dismiss already has been filed in
Thurmond and the Company intends to file a similar motion in
Acosta.


TACO BELL: Workers File Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Taco Bell deleted workers'
hours from time cards to cheat them of overtime, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


UBS FINANCIAL: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against UBS
Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico and certain officers,
subsidiaries, affiliates and divisions of UBS PR.  The lawsuit was
filed on behalf of purchasers of the following UBS PR-affiliated
closed-end funds during the time period between January 1, 2008 to
May 1, 2012, inclusive:

Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund IV, Inc.;
Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund III, Inc.;
Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund V, Inc.;
Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund I, Inc.;
Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Bond Fund, Inc.; and
Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Bond Fund II, Inc.
The putative class action seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), the Puerto Rico
Securities Act and common law.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding UBS PR CEFs.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants promoted UBS PR CEFs' extraordinary market returns, low
risk and low volatility, while simultaneously not disclosing that
CEFs' prices and liquidity were manipulated by UBS PR's support of
the market.  The complaint also alleges that Defendants
misrepresented and/or did not disclose in the CEFs' offering
documents and related communications that: (a) CEF prices were set
solely at the discretion of Defendants and not based on market
forces such as supply and demand; (b) as the dominant CEF broker-
dealer, UBS PR controlled the secondary market for CEFs, and that
any secondary market sales investors wanted to make depended
largely on UBS PR's ability to solicit additional customers or its
own willingness to purchase shares into its inventory; (c) UBS PR
was purchasing millions of dollars of CEF shares into its own
inventory while promoting the appearance of a liquid market, and
thereby artificially propping up prices and creating the
appearance of liquidity; and (d) UBS PR's corporate parent was
pressuring UBS PR to reduce its inventory of CEF shares as its
inventory rose well beyond internal limits.  According to the
complaint, in selling 75% of its inventory and ceasing to use its
inventory to support the CEF secondary market, UBS PR caused
prices to decline, thereby harming class members.

If you purchased UBS PR CEFs during the Class Period and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court
no later than October 15, 2012.  Any member of the investor class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have questions
concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Michael
Burnett, Esq. at Scott+Scott (mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-
7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more
information:

Scott+Scott is a class action law firm, with offices in New York,
Connecticut, Ohio and California.


WAL-MART: 3rd. Cir. Affirms Class Decertification in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that Wal-Mart has prevailed in
nearly decade-long class action litigation over its use of
contract janitorial services that hire immigrant labor.  The Third
Circuit has affirmed decertification of the class, ruling the
"similarities among the proposed plaintiffs are too few, and the
differences among the proposed plaintiffs are too many."

WESTERN HEALTH: May Face Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM reports that a Corner Brook area lawyer is planning to launch
a class action lawsuit against Western Health for patients whose
private personal medical files were accessed.  Western Health
revealed this summer that someone had been accessing, without an
authorized purpose, the files of up to one thousand patients.
That employee was later dismissed.  On VOCM Backtalk with Paddy
Daly, Joyce called to say she was shocked and angered to learn
that her files and those of close family members, were viewed.


WYNNPHARM INC: Faces Suit Over Sale of Dona Glucosamine Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. WynnPharm, Inc., Case No. L-005972-12 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Bergen Cty., August 7, 2012) is brought on behalf of a
putative class that comprises all nationwide purchasers of Dona
Glucosamine for the six year period preceding the filing of the
lawsuit.

The Defendant, on a nationwide basis, advertised, promoted,
marketed and distributed a purportedly pure, unadulterated, high
quality dietary supplement, in caplet form, known as Dona Maximum
Strength Crystalline Glucosamine Sulfate, used by consumers to
slow the progression of osteoarthritis and to reduce joint pain
associated therewith, Mr. Hoffman asserts.  However, he contends,
the Defendant's promises and representations concerning the purity
and quality of its product were false.  He explains that based
upon sophisticated, independent laboratory analysis, the
Defendant's product contained Eudragit RL, a polymer that is
combined with a drug or other active agent to release the drug or
other active agent, here Glucosamine Sulfate, in a pre-designed
manner.  Eudragit RL is not approved by the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration for use in dietary supplements, such as the product
sold by the Defendant.

Mr. Hoffman is a resident of Bergen, New Jersey.

WynnPharm is a New Jersey corporation based in Eatontown, New
Jersey.  The Defendant advertised, marketed, distributed and sold
Dona Glucosamine in commerce throughout the United States of
America.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit:

          Harold H. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net



                           *********

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  * * *