CAR_Public/120828.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 28, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 170

                             Headlines

ALLIANT ENERGY: Awaits Court's Judgment in Pension Suit
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Suits for $850,000
AMERIGROUP CORP: Awaits Final OK of Ex-Employees' Suit Settlement
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: D.C. Court Certified Class in Suit vs. BNSF
CANYON COUNTY, ID: Ex-Deputy Sheriff Files Class Action

CHAMBERLAIN FARM: Recalls Cantaloupes Due to Possible Health Risk
CIGNA CORP: Court Certifies ABA Therapy Insurance Class Action
DOLE FRESH: Recalls 1,039 Cases of Italian Blend Bagged Salads
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit vs. Unit
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Hearings on "Freudenberg" Suit Deal on Oct. 11

EBAY INC: Updates User Agreement to Avert Class Actions
GENERAL NUTRITION: Judge Grants Conditional Class Certification
HANOVER INSURANCE: Files Summary Judgment Bid in "Durand" Suit
HANOVER INSURANCE: La. To Pursue Claims for 1,000 Properties
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sued for Breach of Warranty of Wireless Card

HULU: Judge Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed
IDM GROUP: Recalls 119T CareBears Pacifiers Due to Choking Risk
ILLINOIS: State Employees Sue Over Health Insurance Premiums
KEYCORP: Ohio Court Lifts Stay in "Metyk" Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Orchid Cellmark Litigation Still Inactive

LABORATORY CORP: Faces "Jansky" Class Action Suit in California
LABORATORY CORP: Faces "Pepe" DNA-Related Suit in Massachusetts
LABORATORY CORP: "Rivera" Suit Dismissed in July
LABORATORY CORP: Settles Class Suits Over MEDTOX Acquisition
MANSFIELD PLUMBING: Recalls 100 Tubs, Whirlpools & Massage Tubs

MARYLAND: Class Action Over Use of Speed Cameras Can't Proceed
MERRILL LYNCH: Settles Brokers' Deferred Pay Class Action
MERSCORP HOLDINGS: Mortgage Registration Fee Class Action Nixed
NBCUNIVERSAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Compensate Workers
OKLAHOMA GAS: Bid to Dismiss Units From "Price I" Suit Pending

REX VENTURE: Nearly 100 Zeek Affiliates File Class Action
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
SIRIUS XM: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
SPENCE & CO: Recalls Trim & Wellsley Farms Brand Smoked Salmon
ST. LOUIS, MO: Police Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Arrests

SUNOCO INC: Bid to Consolidate Eight Merger-related Suits Pending
VISA INC: Attorneys Tussle Over Access to Settlement Documents
VOLUME SERVICES: Misappropriated Servers' Gratuities, Suit Says
WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Budget Cuts
ZEST GARDEN: Recalls 22,500 Wilson & Fisher Bistro Sets


                          *********

ALLIANT ENERGY: Awaits Court's Judgment in Pension Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Parties have filed separate proposed judgments, and are awaiting
the court's final judgment, in the class action lawsuit involving
the Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan, according to Alliant
Energy Corporation's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

In February 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the
Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court).  The
complaint alleged that certain Plan participants who received
distributions prior to their normal retirement age did not receive
the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") because
the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project
the cash balance account to their normal retirement age.  These
Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal
retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an annuity
payment.  The Court originally certified two subclasses of
plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or
partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from
January 1, 1998, to August 17, 2006, including: (1) persons who
received distributions from January 1, 1998, through
February 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from
March 1, 2002, to August 17, 2006.

In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted
the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability in the
lawsuit and decided with respect to damages that prejudgment
interest on damages would be allowed.  In December 2010, the Court
issued an opinion and order that decided the interest crediting
rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance accounts of
the plaintiffs during the class period should have been 8.2% and
that a pre-retirement mortality discount would not be applied to
the damages calculation.  In March 2011, the Court issued an
opinion and order that prejudgment interest on damages would be
calculated using the average prime rate from the date that the
Plan failed to make the total payment to a particular participant
through the date of the final judgment (which has not yet been
issued).  In May 2011, the Plan was amended and the Plan
subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments
in 2011 to certain former participants in the Plan.  This
amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy
reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination
letter for the Plan in 2011.  In September 2011, plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert that
the 2011 amendment to the Plan was itself an ERISA violation.  In
November 2011, the Court allowed the filing of the plaintiffs'
supplemental complaint and denied a separate motion for
reconsideration filed by the Plan arguing that certain of
plaintiffs' claims were time-barred.  Following the November 2011
ruling, plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint and the Plan
filed an answer and an amended answer.

In March 2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs each filed motions for
summary judgment related to the supplemental complaint, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to
amend the class definition and for reappointment of class
representatives and class counsel.  In April 2012, both the Plan
and the plaintiffs filed briefs opposing the other party's motion
for summary judgment.  The Plan also filed a brief opposing the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On July 2, 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but only as to the
interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount
claims of lump-sum recipients.  As a result of the opinion and
order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior
subclass certification.  Subclass A involves persons who received
a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998, and August 17,
2006, and who received an interest crediting rate of less than
8.2% under the Plan as amended in May 2011.  Subclass B involves
persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1,
1998, and August 17, 2006, and who would have received a larger
benefit under the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement
mortality discount had not been applied.  In the opinion and order
the Court then granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as
to the two subclasses, and denied as moot the parties' motions for
summary judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses.
The Court ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing if
additional notice is due the two certified subclasses and to
submit draft judgment orders.  The parties have filed briefs and
are in agreement that no additional prejudgment notice is
necessary.  Plaintiffs have filed their proposed judgment alleging
the Plan is liable to subclasses A and B in the amount of $18.7
million.  The Plan has filed its proposed judgment alleging that
if the opinion and order is affirmed, the Plan would be liable to
subclasses A and B in the amount of $17.9 million.  Both proposed
judgment amounts include pre-judgment interest through July 2012
and take into account the approximate $10 million of additional
benefits paid by the Plan following the plan amendment in 2011.
The proposed judgment amounts do not include any award for
plaintiffs' attorney's fees or costs.  A motion for payment of
plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs is expected to be filed
post-judgment.  The Plan expects to appeal the trial court
judgment on liability and damages to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.  Alliant Energy, Interstate Power and Light Company and
Wisconsin Power and Light Company have not recognized any material
loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of
June 30, 2012.  A material loss contingency will not be recognized
unless a final unappealable ruling is received, or a settlement is
reached, which results in an amendment to the Plan and payment to
Plan participants.

Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently unable to predict the
final outcome of the class-action lawsuit or the ultimate impact
on their financial condition or results of operations but believe
an adverse outcome could have a material effect on their
retirement plan funding and expense.

Alliant Energy Corporation -- http://www.alliantenergy.com/-- a
utility holding company, provides regulated electricity and
natural gas services to residential, commercial, and industrial
customers in the Midwest region of the United States.  The
company, through its subsidiary, Interstate Power and Light
Company (IPL), engages in the generation and distribution of
electricity, and distribution and transportation of natural gas in
Iowa and southern Minnesota; and generation and distribution of
steam in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  Alliant Energy Corporation, through
its subsidiary, Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WPL), is also
involved in the generation and distribution of electricity, and
distribution and transportation of natural gas in southern and
central Wisconsin.  The company was founded in 1917 and is
headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Suits for $850,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics, Inc. in May 2012 entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle all merger-related lawsuits for an amount
not exceeding $850,000, according to the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

              AMAG Merger Transaction Class Actions

On July 19, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization, or AMAG Merger Agreement, with AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or AMAG, and Alamo Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
as amended on August 8, 2011.  On October 21, 2011, the AMAG
Merger Agreement was terminated.  In July 2011, two lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the proposed
merger between Allos and AMAG, which two cases were later
consolidated as In Re Allos Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6714-VCN.  Following
announcement of the proposed merger between Allos and Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the consolidated case became one of the
Spectrum Transaction Class Action Lawsuits and part of the
settlement memorialized in the memorandum of understanding dated
May 7, 2012.

               Spectrum Transaction Class Actions

On April 4, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, or the Spectrum Merger Agreement, with Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Spectrum, and Sapphire Acquisition Sub,
Inc., or Spectrum Merger Sub.  Pursuant to the Spectrum Merger
Agreement and upon the terms and subject to the conditions
thereof, Spectrum Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, or the
Offer, pursuant to an Offer to Purchase, dated April 13, 2012, to
acquire all of the Company's issued and outstanding shares of
common stock, or the Shares.

On April 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Radmore, et al. v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-
00948-PAB, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, or the Radmore Complaint.  The Radmore
Complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of its
board of directors, as well as Spectrum.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
its stockholders in connection with the proposed merger between
the Company and Spectrum, and were aided and abetted by the
Company and Spectrum.  The Radmore Complaint alleges that the
Merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process,
unreasonable deal protection devices, and that the defendants
entered into the transaction to benefit themselves personally.
The Radmore Complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin
the Merger, attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief.

On April 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Keucher v. Berns, et al., C.A. No. 7419, was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, or the Keucher Complaint.  The Keucher
Complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of its
board of directors, as well as Spectrum and Spectrum Merger Sub.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to its stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger between the Company and Spectrum, and were aided
and abetted by Spectrum and Spectrum Merger Sub.  The Keucher
Complaint alleges that the Merger involves an unfair price, an
inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal protection devices and
that the defendants entered into the transaction to benefit
themselves personally.  The Keucher Complaint seeks injunctive
relief, including to enjoin the Merger, attorneys' and other fees
and costs and other relief.

On April 20, 2012, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery in the matter captioned Keucher v.
Berns, et al., C.A. No. 7419-VCN, adding allegations that the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, or the
Schedule 14D-9, filed by the Company with the SEC on April 13,
2012, contains inadequate, incomplete and/or misleading
disclosures.

On April 20, 2012, a Verified Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, or the In re Allos
Complaint, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in the
matter captioned In re Allos Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6714-VCN.  The In re Allos
Complaint replaces the Verified Amended Class Action Complaint
that had alleged that the Company and the members of its board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger with AMAG.  The In re Allos Complaint names as
defendants the Company, the members of its Board, as well as
Spectrum and Spectrum Merger Sub.  The plaintiffs allege that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to its
stockholders in connection with the proposed merger between Allos
and Spectrum, and were aided and abetted by the Company, Spectrum
and Spectrum Merger Sub.  The In re Allos Complaint alleges that
the merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process,
unreasonable deal protection devices, that defendants entered into
the transaction to benefit themselves personally, and that the
Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company with the SEC on April 13,
2012, contains inadequate, incomplete and/or misleading
disclosures.  The In re Allos Complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the merger, attorneys' and other fees and
costs, and other relief.

On April 30, 2012, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in
the matter captioned Radmore v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:12-cv-00948-PAB-CBS, adding allegations that the Schedule
14D-9 filed by the Company with the SEC on April 13, 2012, as
amended, contains inadequate, incomplete and/or misleading
disclosures in violation of the Company's directors' fiduciary
duties and section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 7, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, the parties to the actions pending in the Delaware
Court of Chancery and United States District Court for the
District of Colorado signed a memorandum of understanding, or the
MOU, regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted in the
actions related to the Offer and the Merger.  In connection with
the MOU, the Company agreed to further amend the Schedule 14D-9,
previously filed with the SEC, to include certain supplemental
disclosures.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the
expected settlement award would not exceed $850,000, of which the
Company expects a portion to be paid by its insurance carriers and
Spectrum.  The settlement is contingent upon, among other items,
the execution of a formal stipulation of settlement and court
approval, as well as the Merger becoming effective under
applicable law.  The Company will record its portion of the
settlement upon the Merger becoming effective.  Subject to
satisfaction of the conditions set forth in the MOU, the
defendants will be released by the plaintiffs and all members of
the relevant class of Company stockholders from all claims arising
out of the Offer and the Merger, upon which occurrence defendants
will seek termination of any and all continuing shareholder
actions in which the released claims are asserted.  In the event
the settlement is not approved or such conditions are not
satisfied, the Company will continue to vigorously defend all the
actions related to the Offer and the Merger.

Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALTH) -- http://www.allos.com--
is a biopharmaceutical company committed to the development and
commercialization of innovative anti-cancer therapeutics.  Allos
is currently focused on the development and commercialization of
FOLOTYN(R) (pralatrexate injection), a folate analogue metabolic
inhibitor.  FOLOTYN is approved in the U.S. for the treatment of
patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Awaits Final OK of Ex-Employees' Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIGROUP Corporation is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of the class action lawsuit initiated by Hamel Toure,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On November 22, 2010, Hamel Toure, a former AMERIGROUP New York,
LLC marketing representative, filed a putative collective and
class action complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation and
AMERIGROUP New York, LLC in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York.  Subsequently, another lawsuit,
styled Andrea Burch, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New
York, LLC, was consolidated with the Toure case.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint with respect to these
consolidated cases alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiffs and
certain other employees should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA") and
during the course of their employment should have received
overtime and other compensation under the FLSA from October 22,
2007, until the entry of judgment and under the New York Labor Law
("the NYLL") from October 22, 2004, until the entry of judgment.
The Complaint requested certification of the NYLL claims as a
class action under Rule 23, designation of the FLSA claims as a
collective action, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid overtime compensation, an award of liquidated
damages under the FLSA and the NYLL, pre-judgment interest, as
well as costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief.

On February 2, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation and on April 20,
2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.
The proposed settlement, which is reflected in the audited
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2011, did not have a material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  A fairness hearing
regarding the terms of the proposed settlement was scheduled to
occur on August 6, 2012.  The terms of the final settlement are
subject to final court approval and there can be no assurance that
the court will approve such settlement.


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: D.C. Court Certified Class in Suit vs. BNSF
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia certified in
June 2012 a class in the antitrust multidistrict litigation
involving a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., according to
the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

BNSF Railway Company and other Class I railroads have been subject
since May 2007, to some 30 similar class action complaints
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws.  The complaints seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages.  These cases were
consolidated in the federal district court of the District of
Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (In
re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1869).  Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed
against BNSF Railway Company and three other Class I railroads in
April 2008.

On June 21, 2012, the court certified the class sought by the
plaintiffs.  As a result, with some exceptions, rail customers who
paid a fuel surcharge on non-Surface Transportation Board
regulated traffic between July 2003 and December 2008 are part of
a class that, subject to appeal, can be tried jointly in a single
case.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.  The
Company does not currently believe that the outcome of these
proceedings will have a material effect on its consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.


CANYON COUNTY, ID: Ex-Deputy Sheriff Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Dutton, writing for Idaho Statesman, reports that a former
deputy sheriff has filed a class action lawsuit against Canyon
County, alleging the county made him use vacation time to fulfill
his Idaho Army National Guard service duties.

James E. Richards filed the lawsuit in federal court on Aug. 17.
The county prosecutor said on Aug. 21 that the county does not
comment on pending litigation.

According to Mr. Richards, the county policy was that employees
use vacation time or other paid leave for their service-related
absences, or that they compensate for time off by working more
hours.  Federal law says employees cannot be forced to use
vacation leave to perform service duties.

Mr. Richards worked for Canyon County as a deputy sheriff between
Feb. 28, 2008 and May 30, 2012 and has served in the military for
about 27 years, the lawsuit said.  Most of Mr. Richards' military
service has been in the Idaho Army National Guard.

The county deducted about 190 hours of Mr. Richards' usual paid
time off while he fulfilled his Guard service hours, he said in
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that more than 25 people had a similar
requirement to use vacation time and other paid leave to fulfill
their military duties.

"They were required to use [vacation time] or they would not be
considered full-time employees, which meant they lost all their
benefits," said William Thomas, a lawyer for Mr. Richards.  "They
were penalized either way."

Mr. Richards' lawsuit said that by losing paid time that was due
to him, he lost wages and the benefits that went along with his
work hours, including pension benefits.

Mr. Richards now works for the state, Mr. Thomas said.  Mr.
Richards declined through his lawyer to be interviewed.  He is
asking for a jury trial.


CHAMBERLAIN FARM: Recalls Cantaloupes Due to Possible Health Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chamberlain Farm Produce, Inc., of Owensville, Indiana, is
voluntarily recalling all of its cantaloupes from the 2012 growing
season that may remain in the marketplace.  This recall is
occurring because of concern some cantaloupes may be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

This voluntary recall follows a prior voluntary market withdrawal
of all Chamberlain Farm Produce, Inc. cantaloupes that occurred
August 16 and 17, 2012.

During the period June 21, 2012, to August 16, 2012, Chamberlain
Farm Produce, Inc., marketed cantaloupes to four retail grocery
stores with grocery store retail outlets in Vanderburgh, Warrick,
Gibson, and Dubois County, Indiana, and Wabash County, Illinois;
and also to four wholesale purchasers located in Owensboro,
Kentucky, St. Louis, Missouri, Peru, Illinois, and Durant, Iowa,
respectively.  As a part of the voluntary market withdrawal,
Chamberlain Farm Produce, Inc. notified all of the purchasers of
its cantaloupes to take immediate action to remove all Chamberlain
Farm Produce, Inc. cantaloupes from the marketplace, and all of
the purchasers confirmed compliance with that request.

The CDC reports that for the period July 7, 2012, through
August 22, 2012, there have been reports of some 178 persons
nationwide who may have become sick in connection with consumption
of cantaloupes.  The FDA investigation is ongoing and incomplete
at this time.  After discussion with the FDA, Chamberlain Farm
Produce, Inc., decided to conduct the recall as a precautionary
measure.

Consumers should inquire about the source of cantaloupes before
purchasing additional cantaloupes or using cantaloupes already
purchased.  To be absolutely certain, consumers should destroy any
cantaloupes currently in their possession the origin of which
cannot be identified.


CIGNA CORP: Court Certifies ABA Therapy Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson disclosed that a federal
court in Philadelphia on Aug. 21 granted class action status to a
lawsuit brought by the parents of an autistic child against CIGNA
Corporation and related CIGNA entities for their policy of denying
insurance coverage for an autism treatment known as Applied
Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy.  In their lawsuit, the plaintiff,
Kristopher Churchill and Luis Rolando, allege that the CIGNA
companies have a nationwide policy of classifying ABA as
experimental, and therefore they do not provide insurance coverage
for this therapy.  The plaintiffs claim that the classification of
ABA as experimental and the denial of insurance coverage for ABA
violates federal laws governing insurance plans.  The court's
order today means that the case will proceed as a nationwide class
action on behalf of all families having children with autism who
were denied coverage by CIGNA for ABA therapy.

According to the lawsuit, ABA is a well recognized and
scientifically valid form of autism treatment for children.
Numerous authorities and organizations have supported using ABA to
treat autism.  For example, the use of ABA for treating autism has
been endorsed by the U.S. Surgeon General and the National
Institute of Mental Health.  The American Academy of Pediatrics
has said that the effectiveness of ABA "has been well documented
through 5 decades of research."  Currently, 31 states mandate
insurance coverage for ABA-type autism treatments.

In the Court's Order entered on Aug. 21, Judge Juan R. Sanchez
held that the following subclass shall be certified pursuant to
FRCP 23(b)(3):

All individuals who, on or after November 24, 2006, (1) were
enrolled in a plan administered by a CIGNA Defendant, or insured
under health insurance coverage offered by CIGNA Defendant in
connection with a plan, and (2) are currently enrolled in a CIGNA-
affiliated plan, and (3) who, on or after November 24, 2006, made
a claim or make a claim for Applied Behavior Analysis and/or Early
Intensive behavioral Treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder which
was denied on the grounds that such treatment is deemed by a CIGNA
Defendant to be investigative or experimental.

Churchill and Rolando are represented by Gerard Mantese, Brian
Saxe, and John J. Conway of Michigan.  Mantese and Conway are
counsel in several cases seeking insurance coverage for ABA
therapy.  In 2010, Mantese and Conway obtained final approval of a
class action against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan requiring
payment of $1 million in claims for ABA.  They are also currently
counsel for several military beneficiaries seeking coverage of ABA
from the military's Tricare insurer.  On July 26, 2012, a federal
court in Washington D.C. granted summary judgment ordering that
ABA Therapy be provided to military beneficiaries in that case.

Contact information for Churchill's attorneys follows:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          Brian Saxe, Esq.
          Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083 248-457-9200
          Office 248-515-6419 Cell

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          John J. Conway, P.C.
          26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225
          Royal Oak, MI 48067 313-961-6525
          Office 313-574-2148 Cell


DOLE FRESH: Recalls 1,039 Cases of Italian Blend Bagged Salads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Fresh Vegetables is voluntarily recalling 1,039 cases of
bagged salad.  The product being recalled is 10 oz. Dole Italian
Blend coded 0049N2202008, with a Use-By date of August 20 and UPC
7143000819 due to a possible health risk from Listeria
monocytogenes.  Dole Fresh Vegetables is coordinating closely with
regulatory officials.  No illnesses have been reported in
association with the recall.

The product code and Use-By date are in the upper right-hand
corner of the package; the UPC code is on the back of the package,
below the barcode.  The salads were distributed in eight U.S.
states (Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Mississippi and Virginia).  No illnesses
have been reported in association with the recall.  This recall
notification is being issued due to an isolated instance in which
a sample of Dole Italian Blend salad yielded a positive result for
Listeria monocytogenes in a random sample test conducted by the
North Carolina Department of Agriculture.  A picture of the label
of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316712.htm

No other salads are included in the recall.  Only the specific
product codes, UPC codes and August 20, 2012 Use-By date
identified above are included in the recall.  Consumers who have
any remaining product with this Product Code should not consume
it, but rather discard it.  Retailers and consumers with questions
may call the Dole Food Company Consumer Response Center at (800)
356-3111, which is open 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Pacific Time)
Monday-Friday.

Although the product is 2 days past its Use-By date and it is
highly unlikely that any product is still available at retail,
retailers should check their inventories and store shelves to
confirm that none of the product is mistakenly present or
available for purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories.
Dole Fresh Vegetables customer service representatives are already
contacting retailers and are in the process of confirming that the
recalled product is not in the stream of commerce.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause foodborne
illness in a person who eats a food item contaminated with it.
Symptoms of infection may include fever, muscle aches,
gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea.  The illness
primarily impacts pregnant women and adults with weakened immune
systems.  Most healthy adults and children rarely become seriously
ill.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against E*TRADE Financial Corporation's subsidiary,
E*TRADE Securities LLC, by Joseph Roling on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.  The lead plaintiff
alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully charged and
collected certain account activity fees from its customers.
Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class, asserts
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California
Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and injunctive relief
for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent practices under
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.  The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, certification of the class action on behalf of
alleged similarly situated plaintiffs, unspecified damages and
restitution of amounts allegedly wrongfully collected by E*TRADE
Securities LLC, attorneys' fees and expenses and injunctive
relief.  The Company moved to transfer venue on the case to the
Southern District of New York; that motion was denied.  The Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part and denied the
motion to dismiss in part.  The Court bifurcated discovery to
permit initial discovery on individual claims and class
certification.  Following preliminary discovery, Plaintiffs moved
to amend their verified complaint for a second time, to assert new
allegations and to add a plaintiff.  The Company filed its
opposition to this motion on December 27, 2011.

On March 27, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment and granted the Company's motion to dismiss.
However, the Court allowed plaintiffs to seek a new class
representative and permitted limited discovery on a narrow issue
as to when the fee increase was posted on the Company's Web site
in 2005.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
the remaining claims in this action.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Hearings on "Freudenberg" Suit Deal on Oct. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final hearings of E*TRADE Financial Corporation's settlement of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit are scheduled for
October 11, 2012, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
E*TRADE Financial Corporation and its then Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J.
Simmons, respectively, by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and
on behalf of others similarly situated (the "Freudenberg Action").
On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this action with
four other purported class actions, all of which were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and which were based on the same facts and circumstances.  On
January 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended
class action complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the
Company's former Capital Markets Division President, as a
defendant.  Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value
of the Company's stock between
April 19, 2006, and November 9, 2007, was artificially inflated
because the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that the Company was
experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and home
equity portfolios; failed to timely record an impairment on its
mortgage and home equity portfolios; materially overvalued its
securities portfolio, which included assets backed by mortgages;
and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for the
positive statements made about the Company's earnings and
prospects.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") on
December 17, 2011, to settle these consolidated actions.  On
May 17, 2012, the parties submitted a Stipulation of Settlement
and other supporting documents to the court for review.  Under the
terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company and its
insurance carriers will pay $79.0 million in return for full
releases.  Approximately $10.8 million of the total settlement
figure will be paid by the Company, and was expensed in the year
ended December 31, 2011.  This settlement was preliminarily
approved by the court on June 12, 2012.  Final settlement hearings
are scheduled for October 11, 2012.

On August 15, 2008, Ronald M. Tate as trustee of the Ronald M.
Tate Trust Dtd 4/13/88, and George Avakian filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons
based on the same facts and circumstances, and containing the same
claims, as the Freudenberg consolidated actions.  By agreement of
the parties and approval of the court, the Tate action was
consolidated with the Freudenberg consolidated actions for the
purpose of pre-trial discovery.  Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
attorneys' and expert fees and costs.  The plaintiffs in this
action currently are included as part of the settlement class for
the consolidated actions.


EBAY INC: Updates User Agreement to Avert Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that eBay has
faced its share of class action lawsuits, but it's now trying to
prohibit its users from filing such lawsuits.  eBay updated its
User Agreement and Privacy Policy, which are effective immediately
for new users and take effect on October 10, 2012 for current
users.  And in the new agreement that users must adhere to in
order to continue using the site, eBay requires them to submit to
arbitration and only allows users to pursue claims and seek relief
on an individual basis.

In a post on the eBay Announcement board, eBay outlined the key
updates to the eBay User Agreement, including provisions relating
to eBay's contacts with its members; cross border trade and fees;
as well as updates to the Limitations of Liability Section.

eBay also updated provisions governing how disputes between eBay
and its users are resolved.

The User Agreement contains an Agreement to Arbitrate, which will,
with limited exception, require you and eBay to submit claims to
binding and final arbitration, unless you opt-out of the Agreement
to Arbitrate by the deadline stated in the User Agreement.  Unless
you opt-out: (1) you will only be permitted to pursue claims
against eBay on an individual basis, not as part of any class or
representative action or proceeding and (2) you will only be
permitted to seek relief (including monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief) on an individual basis.

The laws of the state of Utah will govern the User Agreement and
any claim or dispute between you and eBay, unless otherwise stated
in the User Agreement.  If you opt-out of the Agreement to
Arbitrate or it is found not to apply to you or a particular claim
or dispute, any claim between you and eBay must be resolved
exclusively by a state or federal court located in Salt Lake
County, Utah.

An eBay seller reacting to the changes wrote, "We sellers are
"agreeing" to not participate in a class action lawsuit against
eBay and any legal claims (They say) must be presented in a Utah
court.  This cannot be legal! To continue to use eBay we have to
agree to this?!"

Other sellers wondered why eBay said the laws of Utah governed the
User Agreement, given that eBay is based in California and was
incorporated in Delaware.

Another seller wrote, "Oh, this is the funny part: "You don't need
to take any further action to accept the updated eBay User
Agreement.  If you choose not to accept the new terms, visit this
help page for further direction."  If you click on the "help
page," it takes you to How to Close Your Ebay Account."

eBay also made key updates to its Privacy Policy, including
updated provisions regarding how you can choose to interact and
share your social media accounts with eBay; new links in the
Privacy Policy to the eBay Privacy Center; updated provisions
describing eBay's collection and use of users' personal
information; and updated provisions concerning eBay's protection
and retention of users' personal information.

In the post, Senior Counsel Braden Dong and Privacy Counsel Marcus
Morissette wrote, "We encourage you to review the updated User
Agreement and Privacy Policy to familiarize yourself with the
updates."


GENERAL NUTRITION: Judge Grants Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge pared down but nevertheless granted conditional class
certification to GNC managers suing the chain for unpaid overtime.

Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok sued General Nutrition Centers Inc.
and General Nutrition Corp. for violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act in June 2010.

GNC allegedly practiced an unwritten, de facto policy of
encouraging store managers to manipulate their hours in the
centralized computer system so that it appeared they had only
worked 40 hours per week.

Though Mr. Vargas and Ms. Hickok served as retail store managers
outside Pittsburgh, Pa., and Greensboro, N.C., respectively, they
sought to certify a class of GNC managers, assistant managers, and
other nonexempt employees nationwide.  GNC operates roughly 2,800
stores in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry in Pittsburgh partly granted
conditional certification last week.

"Plaintiffs have produced evidence sufficient for their showing at
this stage to demonstrate defendants' efforts to document overtime
expenses, to individually identify those who accrue overtime
expenses, to demand explanations for each use of overtime, to cast
the use of overtime pejoratively with terms like 'abuse' or
'costing' the company money, and to impose consequences for being
over the allotted budget in the form of either written warnings or
possible termination of employment for managers without regard to
the question of whether overtime was necessary or not," Judge
McVerry wrote.  "Coupled with this is the evidence that
supervisors are able to note the time entries for managers and
other employees that are subsequently adjusted, and those
occasions discovered by plaintiffs that RSDs [regional sales
directors] were made aware of off-the-clock work with no action
being taken to correct it."

To secure conditional certification, Vargas and Hickok
sufficiently demonstrated that GNC's handling of overtime "had the
effect of encouraging off-the-clock work through a tone of
resistance to reported overtime (authorized or not), and that such
an approach was ultimately translated to store managers in the
form of a prohibition of overtime in and of itself notwithstanding
the written policies set forth in the employee handbook and
elsewhere," according to the 19-page opinion.

Judge McVerry limited the class to store managers, eliminating
assistant store managers and other nonexempt employees from the
collective action.

"According to the evidentiary showing proffered by plaintiffs, it
was the limitation imposed on store managers to curtail overtime
that collided with the other requirements of operating and
maintaining each store and allegedly put the managers in the
untenable position of having to complete necessary duties off the
clock," the order states.

Judge McVerry further restricted the class to those store managers
from the two divisions encompassing Pennsylvania and North
Carolina, the areas where Vargas and Hickok worked for GNC and
from which they derived their evidence.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court in Vargas, et
al. v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-
00867 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/23/GNC.pdf


HANOVER INSURANCE: Files Summary Judgment Bid in "Durand" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. has filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit commenced by Jennifer A. Durand, 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.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., The
Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
The named plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum
distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at
or about the time of her termination, claims that she and others
similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum
distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company
understated the accrued benefit in the calculation.  The plaintiff
claims that the Plan understated her distributions and those of
similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional
so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an
estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum
distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65 discounted
by applicable IRS rates.

The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010.  In addition to the pending claim challenging the
calculation of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint
includes: (a) a claim that the Plan failed to calculate
participants' account balances and lump sum payments properly
because interest credits were based solely upon the performance of
each participant's selection from among various hypothetical
investment options (as the Plan provided) rather than crediting
the greater of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b)
a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest
crediting for all participants from the performance of
participant's investment selections to the 30 year Treasury rate,
reduced benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for participants who had account
balances as of the amendment date by not continuing to provide
them performance-based interest crediting on those balances; and
(c) claims for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice
requirements arising from the various interest crediting and lump
sum distribution matters of which Plaintiffs complain.  The
District Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the
additional claims on statute of limitations grounds by a
Memorandum Opinion dated March 31, 2011, leaving the claims
substantially as set forth in the original March 12, 2007
complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
District Court's decision to dismiss the additional claims, which
was denied with respect to the claims set forth in (a) and (b)
above; however, the Court did allow the fiduciary duty claims to
stand.

On June 22, 2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment to dismiss the claims of one of the plaintiffs
who received his lump sum distribution after December 31, 2003, on
the basis that certain amendments to the Plan effective January 1,
2004, eliminated any basis for payment of an additional "whipsaw"
amount to participants who received lump sum distributions after
December 31, 2003.

At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the lawsuit is unfavorable.  This matter is still in
the early stages of litigation.  The extent to which any of the
Plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are
overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are
accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's
or the Company's potential liability.  It is not clear whether a
class will be certified or, if certified, how many former or
current Plan participants, if any, will be included.  The statute
of limitations applicable to the alleged class has not yet been
finally determined and the extent of potential liability, if any,
will depend on this final determination.  In addition, assuming
for these purposes that the Plaintiffs prevail with respect to
claims that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan were
understated, then there are numerous possible theories and other
variables upon which any revised calculation of benefits as
requested under Plaintiffs' claims could be based.  It is likely
that any adverse judgment in this case would be against the Plan.
Such a judgment would be expected to create a liability for the
Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay
benefits.  The Company's future required funding of the Plan could
also be impacted by such a liability.


HANOVER INSURANCE: La. To Pursue Claims for 1,000 Properties
------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2012, the state of Louisiana furnished a spreadsheet
identifying approximately 1,000 properties with respect to which
the state apparently intends to pursue claims against The Hanover
Insurance Group, Inc., 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 August 2007, the state of Louisiana filed a putative class
action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana, individually and
on behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C.
Foti, Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana,
individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients of
funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of funds
through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 07-
8970.  The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and
domestic insurance carriers, including the Company, and asserts a
right to benefit payments from insurers on behalf of current and
former Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or
will receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program.  The
case was thereafter removed to the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

On March 5, 2009, the court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants.  The
court dismissed all claims for bad faith and breach of fiduciary
duty and all claims for flood damages under policies with flood
exclusions or asserted under Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, but
rejected the insurers' arguments that the purported assignments
from individual claimants to the state were barred by anti-
assignment provisions in the insurers' policies.  On April 30,
2009, Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth
Circuit"), which was granted.  On July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit
certified the anti-assignment issue to the Louisiana Supreme
Court.  On May 10, 2011, the Supreme Court of Louisiana issued a
decision holding that the anti-assignment provisions were not
violative of public policy.  The court also indicated, however,
that such provisions would only serve to bar post-loss assignments
if they clearly and unambiguously expressed that they apply to
post-loss assignments.  On June 28, 2011, the Fifth Circuit
remanded the case to the Federal District Court for further
proceedings consistent with the Louisiana's Supreme Court's
opinion.  On April 9, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing
the state's class action allegations; however, this order does not
affect the state's ability to pursue policyholder claims pursuant
to alleged assignments obtained from the policyholders.

On April 13, 2012, the court entered a Case Management Order
requiring the state to disclose to the defendants specified
information regarding the nature of the state's claims.  In June
2012, the state furnished a spreadsheet in response to the Case
Management Order.  The spreadsheet identifies approximately 1,000
properties with respect to which the state apparently intends to
pursue claims against the Company.

The Company has reviewed the data provided by the state with
respect to these claims and has concluded that it is insufficient
to allow the Company to make a reasonable estimate of the
potential range of ultimate liability arising from this
litigation.  The data does not appear to provide credible support
for an assertion that the Company paid less than it was legally
required to pay with respect to any of the listed claims and, if
so, in what amounts.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sued for Breach of Warranty of Wireless Card
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nad Karim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 1-12-CV-230910 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty., August 22, 2012) accuses HP of breach of
warranty by description and violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he purchased a computer card that HP's
technicians recommended and followed HP's steps to install it, but
it did not work.  He says that HP never resolved his complaint
that his wireless card was not dual-band and that his computer
could not support a dual-band card.  He argues that he would have
paid less for the computer or would not have purchased it had he
known that neither it nor the wireless card with which it would be
equipped could operate on both the 2.4GHz and 5.0GHz frequencies,
and that he would not have purchased a replacement dual-band
capable card had he known that his computer would not permit the
card to function.

Mr. Karim is a resident of Palo Alto, California.  He customized
and purchased an HP dvTt-4100 CTO Select Edition Entertainment
Notebook PC from HP's Web site in November 2010.

HP is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in Palo Alto, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rob Bramson, Esq.
          Jenelle Welling, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: RBramson@bramsonplutzik.com


HULU: Judge Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------
Nick Mccann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
magistrate judge refused to dismiss class claims that Hulu
illegally discloses viewer data to third parties.

In their amended class action complaint, six Hulu subscribers said
the video site "repurposed" its browser cache so that the
KISSmetrics marketing analyst service could store their private
data.

The class claimed Hulu also shared their private viewing choices
with Facebook, Google Analytics, and other online market research
and advertising companies.

"Hulu's online privacy policy is misleading in that it does not
disclose its use of aggressive, rogue exploits of plaintiffs' and
class members' computer software to engage in widespread tracking
and information sharing," the complaint states.

Hulu's actions "are so outside the boundaries of reasonable
expectations that even industry experts had not previously
observed these exploits 'in the wild,' that is, in actual use on
Web sites available to the public," the class added.

Claiming that their personal information has economic value, the
class members say illegal data exploitation amounts to loss.

In a May filing, Hulu claimed that the class had abandoned six of
its seven claims dealing with privacy, computer fraud and
negligence, and that the Northern District of California should
dismiss those claims with prejudice.

As for the final claim under the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act (VPPA), Hulu said that the class could not prove injury to
establish standing since that would require a recitation of
watched videos, and how third parties received this information.

The VPPA permits disclosure to third parties as an "ordinary
course of business," according to Hulu's brief authored by
O'Melveny & Myers attorney Randall Edwards.

Though U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of San Francisco
largely dismissed the case in June, she deferred ruling on the
VPPA claim pending a determination of standing.

Returning to the issue in August, the magistrate said that
Congress intended the VPPA to cover new audio-video technologies.

"The question is whether the mechanism of delivery here --
streaming versus bricks-and-mortar delivery -- ends this case at
the pleading stage," Judge Beeler wrote.  "Hulu's remaining
argument is only that it is not a 'video tape service provider'
because the VPPA does not expressly cover digital distribution (a
term that did not exist when Congress enacted the statute)."

"Given Congress's concern with protecting consumers' privacy in an
evolving technological world, the court rejects the argument," she
added.

Judge Beeler refused to dismiss the claim that Hulu collected data
outside of the "ordinary course of business."

She also rejected Hulu's argument that the class members are not
"consumers" under the VPPA because they did not pay money to watch
videos.

"If Congress wanted to limit the word 'subscriber' to 'paid
subscriber,' it would have said so," Judge Beeler wrote.

Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988 after a Washington, D.C.,
newspaper published the video rental history of Supreme Court
nominee Robert Bork.

A copy of the Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in
In re Hulu Privacy Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-03764 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/23/hulu.pdf


IDM GROUP: Recalls 119T CareBears Pacifiers Due to Choking Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, IDM Group LLC, of New York, and manufacturer, Yi Wu
Jiangyi Plastic Co., of China, announced a voluntary recall of
about 119,000 CareBears(TM) Pacifiers.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards.  The nipples
can separate from the base, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The pacifiers and the clip attachment have CareBear figures and a
"TCFC" copyright mark on them.  The nipple is made of silicone.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12254.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
various discount and dollar stores, Walmart Puerto Rico,
children's apparel stores and Consolidated Stores nationwide from
October 2009 through June 2012 for about $1.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away from
infants and contact IDM Group LLC for instructions on returning
the product for a full refund.  For additional information,
contact IDM collect at (212) 686-5221 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the company's
recall Web site at http://www.pacifierrecall.net/


ILLINOIS: State Employees Sue Over Health Insurance Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------
Jayette Bolinski, writing for Illinois Watchdog, reports that a
group of state employees are seeking class-action status for a
lawsuit they recently filed against the state of Illinois,
alleging a new law that changes health care premiums for retirees
violates the Illinois Constitution.

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 14 in Randolph County Circuit Court in
southern Illinois.  Menard Correctional Center is among the state
facilities in that area of Illinois.  The suit has 11 plaintiffs,
but they are seeking class-action status that would include all
state workers and retirees.

The suit challenges Senate Bill 1313, which had bipartisan support
in both houses of the Legislature and was signed into law by Gov.
Pat Quinn in June.  The law requires retired state workers,
university workers, lawmakers and judges to pay their own premiums
for health insurance, and the director of the state's Central
Management Services is charged with establishing a schedule of
premiums for retirees.

Previously, the state picked up the tab for the premiums for state
and university employees who retired after 1998 and worked for the
state for at least 20 years, as well as premiums for those who
retired before 1998 and had eight years of service.  The retirees
had to foot their own deductibles and co-payments.

The suit says the law violates the Illinois Constitution and union
contracts that are in place.

Several unions representing state workers are backing the lawsuit,
including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees Council 31; the Illinois Federation of Teachers; the
Illinois Nurses Association; and Troopers Lodge 41 of the
Fraternal Order of Police.

A similar suit is pending in Sangamon County, where retired
appellate judge Gordon Maag has asked that the law be declared
unconstitutional, as well.  He, too, is asking that the lawsuit be
given class-action designation.


KEYCORP: Ohio Court Lifts Stay in "Metyk" Suit
----------------------------------------------
An Ohio court lifted in June 2012 the stay in the consolidated
class action lawsuit captioned Thomas Metyk, et al. v. KeyCorp, et
al., 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.

KeyCorp and certain of its directors and employees were named as
defendants in two putative class actions filed in Ohio federal
court styled Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., and Wildes v. KeyCorp, et
al.  The plaintiffs in these cases sought to represent a class of
all participants in the Company's 401(k) Savings Plan and alleged
that the defendants in the lawsuit breached fiduciary duties owed
to them under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  These cases were substantively consolidated with each
other and proceeded styled Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al. ("Taylor").
Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint continued to name certain
employees as defendants but no longer named any outside directors.
On May 25, 2012, the federal court of appeals affirmed the trial
court's decision dismissing Taylor for lack of standing.  The
court of appeals did not address Key's cross-appeal.

Following the trial court's dismissal of Taylor on August 12,
2010, two putative class actions with similar allegations and
causes of action were filed, on September 21, 2010, in Ohio
federal court.  These two putative class action lawsuits were
substantively consolidated with each other and are proceeding
styled Thomas Metyk, et al. v. KeyCorp, et al. ("Metyk").  Metyk
had been stayed due to the pendency of the appeals in Taylor.  On
June 25, 2012, the court lifted the stay.

The Company strongly disagrees with the allegations asserted
against it and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Based in Cleveland, Ohio, KeyCorp is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  KeyCorp is the parent holding company
of KeyBank National Association.  Through KeyBank and certain
other subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of retail and
commercial banking, commercial leasing, investment management,
consumer finance and investment banking products and services to
individual, corporate and institutional clients, through two
business groups: Community Banking and National Banking.


LABORATORY CORP: Orchid Cellmark Litigation Still Inactive
----------------------------------------------------------
Three shareholder class actions, Silverberg v. Bologna, et al.,
Nannetti v. Bologna, and Locke v. Orchid Cellmark, Inc., et al.,
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
subsequently consolidated into one action, In re Orchid Cellmark
Shareholder Litig.  The consolidated action challenges Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings' acquisition of Orchid on grounds
of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of
state law.  On May 4, 2011, the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
the transaction.  On May 12, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied
the motion for preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs' motion for
an expedited appeal was subsequently denied on May 16, 2011.
Since that time, there has been no substantive activity in the
Delaware litigation.

Three similar putative class action lawsuits filed against Orchid
in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division, Mercer
County and another similar case filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey were voluntarily
dismissed.

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.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces "Jansky" Class Action Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is facing a class
action lawsuit filed by Yvonne Jansky in California, 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.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts.  The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses.  The
Company says it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces "Pepe" DNA-Related Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is facing a class
action lawsuit commenced by Ann Baker Pepe in Massachusetts,
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.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to preserve DNA samples
allegedly entrusted to the defendants and thereby breached a
written agreement with plaintiff and violated state laws.  The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double and treble
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal
expenses.  The Company says it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: "Rivera" Suit Dismissed in July
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Debra Rivera v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings was dismissed in July 2012,
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 in two putative class actions related
to overtime pay.  In September 2011, a putative class action,
Peggy Bryant v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia, alleging on behalf of
employees similarly situated that the Company violated the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state wage laws by failing
to pay overtime.  The complaint seeks monetary damages, liquidated
damages equal to the alleged amount owed, costs, injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees.  In April 2012, a putative class
action, Beverly C. Plaza v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, was filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging on
behalf of employees similarly situated that the Company violated
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state wage
laws by failing to pay overtime. The complaint seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages equal to the alleged amount owed,
costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company intends
to vigorously contest these cases.

In December 2011, a putative class action, Debra Rivera v.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging on behalf of employees similarly
situated that the Company violated the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime.  The complaint sought
monetary damages, liquidated damages equal to the alleged amount
owed, costs, and attorney's fees.  The case was dismissed with
prejudice in July 2012.


LABORATORY CORP: Settles Class Suits Over MEDTOX Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle shareholder class action
lawsuits arising from its acquisition of MEDTOX Scientific, Inc.,
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.

Three shareholder class actions, Carol A. Kiel v. Braun, et al,
Louise Perlman v. MEDTOX Scientific, et al., and John Siciliano v.
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., were filed in connection with the
Company's acquisition of MEDTOX in the County of Ramsey, Second
Judicial District for the State of Minnesota.  The lawsuits
challenged the MEDTOX acquisition on grounds of alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state law.  The
Company and its merger subsidiary were named only in the Kiel and
Perlman cases.  On July 20, 2012, the parties, through their
counsel, executed a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth
their agreement in principle to settle all three of the putative
shareholder class actions.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, all claims asserted against all defendants will be
dismissed with prejudice.  The proposed settlement is subject to
court approval.  The Company also anticipates that counsel for the
plaintiffs will seek an award of attorney's fees and expenses in
an amount to be determined by the court.


MANSFIELD PLUMBING: Recalls 100 Tubs, Whirlpools & Massage Tubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 units of acrylic bathtubs, whirlpools and air massage
bathtubs were voluntarily recalled by Mansfield Plumbing Products
LLC, of Perrysville, Ohio, in cooperation with the CPSC.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The grab bars used on the products can loosen and break, posing a
fall hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 11 reports of grab bars breaking including
one report of a consumer who fell and suffered a bruised tailbone.

This recall involves acrylic bathtubs, whirlpools and air massage
baths sold in various colors and under ten product names: Avalon,
Barrett, Baywood, Brentwood, Camden, Castille, Covington, Hampton,
Montclair and Reo.  The acrylic grab bars are affixed to the
interior of the tubs about shoulder height from a seated position.
The grab bars were sold in various styles and colors including
white, brushed nickel, oil rubbed bronze, a polished brass finish
and chrome.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12746.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold exclusively by Mansfield Plumbing Products
nationwide from May 2011 through July 2011 for between $1,800 and
$5,000, depending on the product.

Consumers should immediately contact Mansfield Plumbing to request
a free grab bar repair kit.  For more information, contact
Mansfield Plumbing Products at (800) 999-1459 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday.  Consumers can
also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.mansfieldplumbing.com/


MARYLAND: Class Action Over Use of Speed Cameras Can't Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports that the highest court in Maryland sent
speed camera opponents back to the drawing board on Aug. 21.  The
Maryland Court of Appeals (the equivalent of the state supreme
court) found a class action lawsuit could not be filed to force
county governments to follow state law governing the use of speed
cameras.

Timothy Leahy, the attorney representing ticketed drivers, had
filed the suit in 2008 as a class action arguing Montgomery County
and other jurisdictions violate a specific statute banning
contingent-fee contracts.  The county pays Affiliated Computer
Services (ACS, now owned by Xerox) $16.25 per citation.  Mr. Leahy
insisted this was flat-out unlawful.

"If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of
Montgomery County, the contractor's fee may not be contingent on
the number of citations issued or paid," state code section 21-809
states.

Montgomery County was first given authorization to use cameras
over the veto of then-Governor Robert L. Ehrlich (R) in 2006 and
the grant was later extended to all other jurisdictions in 2009.
The motorists argued they have the right as private citizens to
pursue a claim against the state government to remedy an illegal
act and that the General Assembly took no action to bar such
suits.  The high court insisted otherwise.

"Section 21-809 does not provide an express or implied private
cause of action in tort, for the following reasons," Judge Glenn
T. Harrell wrote for the court.  "First, Section 21-809 is a
general welfare statute that does not benefit a particular class
of persons, let alone petitioners.  Second, the statute provides a
remedy in the district court for challenging speed monitoring
system citations . . . Accordingly, we shall not address their
argument that the local governments' contracts with ACS violate
Section 21-809(j)."

This essentially eliminated the record developed over four years,
leaving camera opponents to start again from scratch fighting
their own $40 tickets on an individual basis.  The high court
pointed out that one of the motorists who was party to the suit
had properly filed her claim in district court, but she failed to
pay the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees required to
bring her cause before the Court of Appeals.

"She did not prevail in the district court and appealed to the
circuit court for Montgomery County," Judge Harrell wrote. "The
circuit court concluded ultimately that Montgomery County was the
operator of its speed monitoring system and affirmed.  Appellate
review was not sought."

The court did rule that those who paid their speed cameras have
not waived their right to file such a claim in district court,
striking down a key argument advanced by the camera industry.  The
judges also hinted they found Montgomery County's assertion that
inserting a line into its contract with ACS stating the firm was
not operating the cameras was "dubious."  Nonetheless, the court
did not go any further into the merits and struck down the class
action attempt on the procedural grounds.

"In the face of these concessions and our opinion as to the
private cause of action issue, we conclude that petitioners have
no basis to obtain equitable or declaratory relief," Judge Harrell
wrote.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/mi-insult.pdf


MERRILL LYNCH: Settles Brokers' Deferred Pay Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Christian Berthelsen and Caitlin Nish, writing for Dow Jones
Newswires, report that Merrill Lynch has reached a legal
settlement in a putative class action lawsuit over deferred pay
with potentially thousands of disaffected brokers who left the
firm in the wake of its acquisition by Bank of America (BAC).

Lawyers for the brokers and Merrill were scheduled to appear in
New York federal court on Aug. 24.  The parties reached an
"agreement in principle" on Aug. 10 to settle the case, Merrill
said in its quarterly financial filing earlier this month. The
agreement is subject to approval by the court.

In a prepared statement, Merrill spokesman William Halldin said
the firm "agreed to a resolution to avoid the cost and distraction
of what would likely be continued, lengthy litigation."  He
declined further comment on the details because terms of the
settlement had not yet been presented to the court. News of the
settlement was first reported by Reuters.

The case stems from a dispute between Merrill and as many as 3,000
former brokers, who say the firm's September 2008 sale to Bank of
America constituted a "change in control" that nullified
strictures governing their deferred compensation.

Often, much of the money piling up in brokers' deferred-
compensation accounts vests only if they remain with the firm for
some time. But lawyers for the brokers have argued that the terms
for several Merrill Lynch deferred-compensation programs gave
brokers the right to the money if they leave the firm with "good
reason."

In an April ruling, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
arbitration panel sided with two of the brokers and awarded them
$10 million in back pay, finding Merrill and its senior management
"intentionally, willfully and deliberately engaged in a systematic
and systemic fraudulent scheme to deprive claimants of their
rights and benefits" under its deferred compensation plan after
the firm's sale.


MERSCORP HOLDINGS: Mortgage Registration Fee Class Action Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darin Raymond, writing for Sioux City Journal, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit that claimed a
national electronic mortgage registry company was enabling banks
to avoid paying Iowa mortgage registration fees.

U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett said in his ruling, filed on
Aug. 21, that Iowa law does not support the claims raised by
Plymouth County Attorney Darin Raymond, who in March filed the
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Sioux City on behalf of all 99
Iowa counties against MERSCORP Holdings Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems Inc., known as MERS, and several large banks
and mortgage companies.

Mr. Raymond had contended that MERS has allowed banks subscribing
to the company's service to skirt Iowa's public information and
recording laws by trading mortgages through an electronic registry
that lists MERS as the mortgage holder, even though the banks are
buying and selling the mortgages.  The MERS electronic system
tracks changes in ownership so that each buyer doesn't have to
record the transaction.

Mr. Raymond cited Iowa law that requires a document called an
assignment of mortgage to be filed in the county recorder's office
when a mortgage is sold.  The MERS system enables banks to avoid
that practice and the payment of accompanying filing fees, the
lawsuit said.

Judge Bennett ruled that none of the Iowa statues cited in the
lawsuit imposes a requirement on the party assigning a mortgage or
receiving an assignment to record the transaction.

"What the county seeks, on its own behalf and of the putative
class of Iowa counties, under the guise of construction of
recording statutes, is an extension of those statutes that
completely changes the meaning of the statutes, but the courts
have no power to grant such an extension," Judge Bennett wrote in
his ruling.

Janis L. Smith, vice president of corporate communications for
MERSCORP Holdings, welcomed Judge Bennett's ruling.

"We have consistently held that there is no basis for these suits,
and the Iowa court has affirmed this by pointing clearly to the
absence of any statutory requirement to record mortgage
assignments.  Iowa is the third state to rule on a claim like
this, and all have granted our motions to dismiss," Ms. Smith said
in a news release.

Mr. Raymond did not immediately return a phone message on Aug. 22.

In the suit, Plymouth County asserted claims of unjust enrichment
and civil conspiracy and asked the defendants to record all past
mortgage transactions that were not recorded from Jan. 1, 1998,
through the present.  The suit sought damages but did not specify
an amount.  Iowa recording fees for the assignment of mortgage
documents are $7 for the first page and $5 for each subsequent
page.  Nationwide, the lawsuit said, it's estimated that MERS has
saved the mortgage industry $8.4 billion or more in filing fees.

MERS has gained national headlines in stories about foreclosure
abuses.  In February, the federal government and 49 state
attorneys general, including Iowa's Tom Miller, reached a $25
billion agreement with the nation's five largest mortgage
servicers to address mortgage servicing and foreclosure abuses.


NBCUNIVERSAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Compensate Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Leonhardt, writing for Law360, reports that a former
dishwasher at Universal Studios Hollywood theme park sued
Universal Studios Inc. on Aug. 21, claiming in the putative class
action that the park president and parent company NBCUniversal
Media LLC had systematically failed to properly compensate
workers.

In a broad complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, lead
plaintiff Uriel Luna alleges that Universal Studios and its
subsidiaries, NBCUniversal owner Comcast Corp., and NBC Universal
affiliate Vivendi Universal Entertainment LLP had unlawful payroll
policies and procedures in place and had failed to properly
compensate workers.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Bid to Dismiss Units From "Price I" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company's
subsidiaries from the class action lawsuit captioned Will Price,
et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price I) is pending,
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.

On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corp.,
including Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E), were served
with a class action petition filed in the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas, by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands.  On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order
denying class certification.  On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now
Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper
Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty
interest owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended class
action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28,
2003.  In its amended petition, OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted
from the case but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary entities
remained as defendants.  The plaintiffs' amended petition seeks
class certification and alleges that 60 defendants, including two
of OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the
volume of natural gas.  The amended petition asserts theories of
civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust
enrichment.  In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also
reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.  On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing.  On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and OGE Energy Resources
LLC (OER), wholly-owned subsidiary of Enogex LLC (subsequent to
June 30, 2012, the legal name has been changed to Enogex Energy
Resources LLC) filed motions for summary judgment.

On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for
summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs'
claims regarding civil conspiracy.  In an order dated January 23,
2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform
discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary
judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims.  On
February 7, 2012, Enogex LLC and OER filed an application in the
Kansas Court of Appeals seeking appeal of the trial court's denial
of their motions for summary judgment.  On February 23, 2012, the
Kansas Court of Appeals denied this application.  On March 23,
2012, Enogex LLC and OER filed an application with the Kansas
Supreme Court seeking appeal of the Kansas Court of Appeals'
decision.  On July 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss Enogex LLC and OER from the action.

At this time, based on currently available information, OGE Energy
does not believe it is reasonably possible that it will incur a
material loss related to these proceedings and, therefore, OGE
Energy does not believe the outcome will have a material impact on
its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


REX VENTURE: Nearly 100 Zeek Affiliates File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Nash Dunn, writing for GoUpstate.com, reports that nearly 100 Zeek
affiliates have filed a class-action lawsuit against Rex Venture
Group, Zeek Rewards and chief executive officer Paul Burks,
claiming damages from the company's "fraudulent, unfair, deceptive
and illegal acts."

The state court action, filed in Davidson County Superior Court
about 4:00 p.m. on Aug. 22, seeks damages for all affiliates and
demands a jury trial.

The lawsuit is being brought by about 82 named affiliates.
Numerous other unnamed individuals could be inserted into the
lawsuit at a later date, the filing said.

Most of the affiliates included in the lawsuit are from North
Carolina, including numerous individuals from Davidson County.
Affiliates claim to have lost amounts ranging from $1,000 to
$10,000.

The lawsuit targets Rex Venture Group and Zeek Rewards, which was
shut down by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission after an
investigation that alleges the company was operating a $600
million Ponzi scheme.  It also targets Mr. Burks, the company's
top executive who allegedly personally took and siphoned off
millions of investor funds.

The lawsuit is also aimed at upper-level affiliates who, over
time, solicited others to join the program, knowing it was a Ponzi
scheme all along, according to the filing.  Those upper-level
affiliates, who were not named in the lawsuit, allegedly received
significant sums of cash from Zeek Rewards in the weeks and months
leading up to the SEC action.

The SEC put a halt to Zeek's assets on Aug. 24, in fear that the
company would soon collapse.


SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Aug. 20 preliminarily approved a $1.1 million
settlement meant to resolve a proposed employee class action
alleging that a Schneider Electric SA unit committed several wage
and hour violations, including failures to pay wages and provide
required breaks.

U.S. District Judge James V. Selna granted a motion for
preliminary approval of the deal, under which American Power
Conversion Corp. would be released from claims that it broke
California's state labor laws.


SIRIUS XM: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Liberty Media CEO John Malone
is leading a "creeping takeover" of Sirius SM Radio, at an unfair
price, a pension fund claims in a shareholder class action in
Chancery Court.

A copy of the City of Miami Police Relief and Pension Fund, et al.
v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 7800 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is
available at:

          http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/23/Creeping.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Amy Miller, Esq.
          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
                  amym@blbglaw.com
                  JeremyF@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Calder, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
                  ccalder@gelaw.com


SPENCE & CO: Recalls Trim & Wellsley Farms Brand Smoked Salmon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spence & Co Ltd, of Brockton, Massachusetts, a smoked salmon
company is recalling Wellsley Farms brand 16oz Nova Lot: 6704701
and Spence & Co brand 8oz Smoked Trim Lot: 6704701 due to an
abundance of caution because of possible contamination by Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
woman.

The recalled product is identified and distributed as follows:

   * BJ'S Wholesale Club, Wellsley Farms brand 16oz Nova in
     Florida, N. Carolina, Georgia, Delaware, Pennsylvania,
     Maryland, New Jersey, New York & Ohio on 6.13.12.

   * Spence & Co Ltd brand 8oz Smoked Salmon Trim distributed to
     Krogers and King Soopers in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana,
     Colorado, Wyoming & Utah between 6.22.12 and 6.29.12.

The recall affects 576 packs of Wellsley Farms 16oz  Nova batch
6704701 and 119 packs of Spence & Co Ltd  8oz Smoked Salmon Trim.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316668.htm

No illnesses have been reported.  The bacterium was discovered
during routine sampling.

Consumers who have purchased either product should get in touch
with the place of purchase for a full refund or contact the
consumer number: 508-427-5577, Monday thru Friday between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


ST. LOUIS, MO: Police Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Arrests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick and Jennifer Mann, writing for St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, reports that a lawyer representing two men mistakenly
arrested and held for months announced plans on Aug. 22 for a
federal class-action lawsuit to seek damages for them and an
unknown number of others he believes suffered the same injustice.

In January, the Post-Dispatch revealed the cases of four men who
had been wrongly arrested in St. Louis.  They included Cedric M.
Wright, held for two months on charges against a man named Corey
D. Leonard even though Mr. Leonard was already locked up; and
Dwayne A. Jackson, who spent about three months in jail on two
arrests intended for another man of the same name.

Mr. Wright sued in federal court at the time.  His attorney, James
Hacking III, filed a federal civil rights suit on behalf of Mr.
Jackson as well.  In a court filing on Aug. 22, Mr. Hacking
revealed that he had been contacted by four others who allege they
were wrongfully arrested and kept in jail.

His filing says the class would include all those jailed by
officials' mistakes since April 2010.  It names as defendants the
police, sheriff's office, corrections and city officials.

Mr. Hacking also cites the case of Travis Jones, 28, of St. Louis,
who alleged in a lawsuit filed by other lawyers that a "massive
failure" by a series of agencies led to his spending nearly three
months behind bars under another man's name.

Another likely candidate, not named in the filing, is Terrell
Anderson, whose case was reported by the Post-Dispatch in March.
He was jailed for two days on a warrant against his brother, until
a relative contacted the public defender's office, which called
City Hall, where officials ordered his release.

Mr. Hacking's filing says officials in all cases had the means to
identify the correct person but failed to do so.

Meanwhile, Public Safety Director Eddie Roth has revealed that the
Prisoner Identification Verification and Optimization Team, formed
in February to involve judges, court staff and attorneys in
finding a fix, has been dismantled.  Mr. Roth said he was instead
focusing efforts on the two agencies he sees as primarily
responsible for avoiding these mistakes: the Police Department,
which is not under his authority, and the city Division of
Corrections, which is.

Mr. Roth said a meeting in July focused on three areas of
improvement in the processing of more than 30,000 inmates who move
through the city system each year:

    * Include more information on arrest warrants, such as
physical characteristics.

    * Adopt technology to permit fingerprint comparisons and other
identity tracking at police substations -- not just at
headquarters.

    * Communicate quickly between agencies if someone claims to be
misidentified.

Mr. Roth said that since the brainstorming session, at least two
mistaken arrests were caught by police within 24 hours.  Both
involved someone using a sibling's name.

Mr. Roth said there had been misunderstanding among the separately
run police, corrections division and sheriff's department about
who had authority to act on inmates' claims of mistaken arrest.

Once jailed, he said, "A person complaining of misidentification
had no easy way to get their complaint heard."  He said legal
custody ended up with the sheriff, but "the sheriff's department
has not shown the same high level of interest in these cases."

Sheriff's spokesman Mike Guzy, however, said the department could
only rely on the records and identification provided by police.
As for the lawsuits, Mr. Guzy said, "We turned the whole thing
over to the city counselor's office, who asked that any inquiries
be directed to them."

The police department declined to comment separately.

Mr. Roth said he now received all complaints of mistaken arrest.

                       Errors and Immunity

Mr. Anderson's family had learned about an erroneous warrant in
his name and tried to get it sorted out.  But relatives said they
were instructed by multiple agencies to wait until the arrest to
get it fixed.

Mr. Anderson said he complained repeatedly while in jail.  Records
show that police raised concerns based on a fingerprint comparison
that showed a mistake, but that the sheriff's department wanted a
court order before freeing him.  He was released within hours once
the issue reached City Hall.

Mr. Jones' suit, filed against police, the sheriff's office and
Division of Corrections, says he was arrested Nov. 7, 2009, but
booked under another man's name.  That man, Mark Crumble, now 29,
of St. Louis, was already behind bars for allegedly violating his
probation in a forgery case.  Despite repeated protests that he
was not Mr. Crumble, Mr. Jones remained in jail until Jan. 22,
2010.

His suit alleges negligence and civil rights violations, and asks
for unspecified compensatory, punitive and aggravated damages and
an order to force reform in arrest and prisoner-processing
procedures.

Attorneys for the sheriff and city denied those claims in a July
31 court filing, saying that they were immune from the suit and
that Mr. Jones shared fault.

On Aug. 14, attorneys for the police asked a judge for a
dismissal, saying, in part, that the department had "qualified
immunity" and that the suit acknowledged that they had believed
Mr. Jones was Mr. Crumble.

The lawyers also said the suit failed to allege "a pattern of
similar constitutional violations."

Mr. Jackson spent five weeks behind bars after police arrested him
in a traffic stop in August 2010.  The warrant was really for a
different Dwayne Jackson, who was charged with illegally obtaining
unemployment benefits.  A judge released the wrongly accused
Jackson when his attorney pointed out the error.

A year later, Mr. Jackson was picked up again on the same warrant.
This time, he was held for two months, despite his attorney's
objections.

Mr. Jackson's suit, filed Aug. 14, claims constitutional
violations of his rights to due process and protection against
unreasonable search and seizure.

It also argues that corrections officials subjected Mr. Jackson to
cruel and unusual punishment by initially denying him medication
despite records showing he has epilepsy.  Mr. Jackson suffered
multiple seizures during his two wrongful stays in jail, his
lawyers said.

Police have noted that the Mr. Jackson they arrested had listings
for 22 aliases, nine Social Security numbers and three birthdates.
They also point out the state agency that issued the warrant did
not include fingerprints or other identifying information.

But Mr. Jackson's attorneys fault police and the sheriff's
department for ignoring the simplest solution -- checking
Mr. Jackson against his own police records, which would show he
was who he claimed to be.  He has a different date of birth and
weighs about 40 pounds less than the Mr. Jackson who was wanted.

"They used no diligence, much less due diligence," said one of the
attorneys, James Dowd.  "The most cursory investigation in Dwayne
Jackson's case would have revealed he was the wrong person."

After the Post-Dispatch revealed Mr. Jackson's mistaken arrests,
prosecutors moved to dismiss the case that caused him trouble, but
it wasn't processed until June 20, the suit says.  Susan Ryan, a
spokeswoman for St. Louis Circuit Attorney's office, declined to
explain the delay or reason for the dismissal, citing the office's
policy to not talk about closed cases.


SUNOCO INC: Bid to Consolidate Eight Merger-related Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motions
to consolidate eight merger-related cases and appoint lead
plaintiffs' counsel, 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.

On April 30, 2012, Sunoco announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement ("Merger Agreement") to be acquired by
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP").  Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, which has been unanimously approved by the
boards of directors of both companies, Sunoco shareholders can
elect to receive, for each Sunoco common share they own, either
$50.00 in cash, 1.0490 ETP common units or a combination of $25.00
in cash and 0.5245 ETP common units.

Following the announcement of the merger on April 30, 2012, eight
putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in
connection with the merger in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: Himmel v. MacDonald et al., No.
12-0403894, filed May 2, 2012; Shapiro v. Britt et al., No. 12-
0404276, filed May 3, 2012; Laborers' Local 235 Benefit Funds v.
MacDonald et al., No. 12-0404282, filed May 3, 2012; Bicho v.
Britt et al., No. 12-0500016, filed May 4, 2012; Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Britt et al., No.
12-0500300, filed May 8, 2012; Smith v. Britt et al., No. 12-
0500537, filed May 9, 2012; Connealy v. Britt et al., No. 12-
0501383, filed May 15, 2012; and Coppock v. Britt et al., No. 12-
0501478, filed May 16, 2012.  Another complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, captioned Turberg v. Sunoco, Inc., et al., No. 2:12-
cv-3831.  Each complaint names as defendants the members of
Sunoco's board of directors and alleges that they breached their
fiduciary duties by negotiating and executing, through an unfair
and conflicted process, a merger agreement that provides
inadequate consideration and that contains impermissible terms
designed to deter alternative bids.  Each complaint also names as
defendants Sunoco and certain ETP affiliates related to the
merger, alleging that they aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties by Sunoco's directors.  In addition, the Turberg
lawsuit alleges that Sunoco and its directors violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and that ETP and the
directors of ETP GP violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act.  The lawsuits seek an injunction barring completion of the
merger and, in some instances, damages.  The defendants believe
that the lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend
vigorously against them.

Sunoco's board of directors formed a special litigation committee
comprised of three directors and retained outside counsel for the
purpose of investigating the allegations made in the derivative
demand letters.  Upon completing its investigation, the special
litigation committee will determine if it is in the best interests
of Sunoco to pursue the claims against the defendants.  In
addition, plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate the eight
cases and appoint lead plaintiffs' counsel.


VISA INC: Attorneys Tussle Over Access to Settlement Documents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
attorneys involved in a class-action settlement over Visa Inc. (V)
and MasterCard Inc. (MA) transaction-processing fees are tussling
over whether merchants who oppose the deal should have access to
certain court documents.

Jeff Shinder, a managing partner with law firm Constantine Cannon
LLP, said during a status conference in U.S. District Court in
Brooklyn on Wednesday that merchant trade groups, whom he
represents and who oppose the settlement, have been shut out of
discussions with other attorneys involved in structuring the deal.

"We have not had any access to the record," Mr. Shinder told
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, adding that he does not have
access to expert reports and other documents that could help
support his clients' arguments.

Attorneys for some parties, including Visa, have raised concerns
about allowing access to certain documents given Mr. Shinder's
clients oppose the deal, according to a court filing.

Mr. Orenstein said Mr. Shinder should make a formal filing with
the court outlining his arguments in order to determine whether
his access has been blocked.

The spat stems from a $7.25 billion settlement Visa, MasterCard
and numerous banks announced in July that would put to bed
litigation filed in 2005 in which retailers accused the card
networks and banks of conspiring to set the fees charged on each
credit-card transaction at unfairly high levels.

As part of the deal, the defendants agreed to pay more than $6
billion and temporarily reduce the fees, called interchange fees,
by an amount equal to $1.2 billion.  Visa and MasterCard also
agreed to drop rules prohibiting merchants from surcharging
customers who pay with credit cards.

Critics of the deal include some large merchants, including Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and Target Corp. (TGT), and several trade
groups, including four that were among 19 proposed class
plaintiffs.  They argue it doesn't address problems they see in
how interchange fees are set.  They also call too broad the
releases that the deal would grant defendants from future
litigation.

The settlement includes a provision allowing Visa and MasterCard
to cancel the deal if a certain number of merchants formally opt
out, though analysts have said they don't expect that to happen.
Attorneys for the proposed class of merchants and those
representing the payments networks and banks have said the
settlement represents a good deal for all parties involved.

"We continue to believe that this is an outstanding settlement to
a big and difficult case," Craig Wildfang -- kcwildfang@rkmc.com
-- a partner with law firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP who
is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in an interview after
the status conference on Aug. 22.  "The opposition that we've
heard" to the settlement has been driven by a "serious
misunderstanding of some of the aspects of the settlement."

Mr. Shinder represents the National Association of Convenience
Stores, National Grocers Association, National Community
Pharmacists Association and National Cooperative Grocers
Association, which previously were represented by Mr. Wildfang and
other co-lead counsel.  Mr. Shinder said he plans to raise issues
regarding the "fundamental unfairness about the way" the
settlement "is structured" in a formal objection to the deal.

The timing for potential objections has also been a sticking point
for attorneys.  Mr. Orenstein has set an Oct. 12 deadline for
attorneys to file a motion seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement.

Mr. Shinder had wanted 90 days following the filing of that motion
to file an objection, though Mr. Orenstein said he would give him
30 days to do so.


VOLUME SERVICES: Misappropriated Servers' Gratuities, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Ryan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volume Services America, Inc. d/b/a Centerplate, and
Volume Services, Inc., Case No. 652970/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August
23, 2012) is brought on behalf of a class of persons formerly
employed as MVP Servers and Runners at Yankee Stadium in New York.

The action arises out of the Defendants' failure to pay her and
the MVPs the percentage service charge they routinely charged
patrons or customers for all in-seat food and beverage service
provided in the field level at Yankee Stadium from May 9, 2005, to
December 31, 2008, Ms. Ryan contends.  She argues that the
Defendants misappropriated gratuities from her and the members of
the class by retaining mandatory service charges paid by patrons,
while simultaneously leading their customers to believe that these
charges were gratuities to be paid in their entirety to the
Plaintiff and the class.

Ms. Ryan is a resident of New York.  She was employed by the
Defendants as an MVP server at Yankee Stadium from 1999 to 2008.

Centerplate is a Delaware limited liability company, while Volume
Services Inc. is a Delaware corporation.  The Defendants, which
are based in Spartanburg, South Carolina, are part of a single
integrated enterprise that jointly employed the Plaintiff and the
class members at all times relevant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333


WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Budget Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that hundreds of
developmentally disabled people could lose their homes "and the
services that maintain them there" because of Wisconsin's
discriminatory budget cuts, according to a federal class action.

The class claims the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is
reducing its daily rates paid to Wisconsin's Family Care program
-- which pays Managed Care Organizations to care for the
developmentally disabled -- because expenses for these disabled
people are higher than average.

But the cuts will be more expensive in the long run, as they will
exacerbate problems of the developmentally disabled and force them
into institutions, lead plaintiff Michael Amundson and his
guardians says.

The problem with residential care rates is "most acute" for people
with developmental disabilities because of the high level of care
they require, the class claims.  Many need extensive assistance
with day-to-day activities, or round-the-clock care, which costs
more than other disability groups require.

"This has resulted in a coordinated effort by DHS and all of the
managed care organizations to reduce payment rates and the level
of services provided to individuals with these disabilities," the
complaint states.  "DHS has been making and intends to make
further cuts in payments to the MCOs, but the reductions are not
being imposed equally across the various disability groups.  With
DHS's approval, the MCOs [Managed Care Organizations] have been
reducing payments to providers that serve individuals with DD
[developmental disabilities] below the level necessary to safely
maintain these individuals in the community."

The class claims it is in immediate danger.

"Hundreds of individuals with disabilities across Wisconsin are in
immediate jeopardy of losing their homes and the services that
maintain them there.  Thousands more will follow as DHS and the
Family Care MCOs continue to reduce payments for residential
services below sustainable levels."

The threat of reduced service rates is not new.  A class action
filed in 2004, Bzdawka v. Milwaukee County Case, was settled, and
the DHS "increased the level of funding to the Milwaukee County
MCOs and residential providers were able to negotiate acceptable
daily rates," the complaint states.

But today's problem is more widespread than in 2004.  Three large
Managed Care Organizations in Wisconsin -- defendants Community
Health Partnership, the Northwest Long-Term Care District
(operating as Northern Bridges), and Care Wisconsin -- have
already made or announced "drastic cuts" to providers' daily
rates.

"Other managed care organizations have submitted business plans to
DHS which target individuals with developmental disabilities and
other similar disabilities instead of imposing equitable rate
reductions on all Family Care members," according to the
complaint.

The class claims the discriminatory and inequitable targeting of
the developmentally disabled violates the integration requirements
of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act; violates the Due Process
clause of the 14th Amendment by failing "to provide notice of any
internal financial decisions that affect the level or quality of
the services provided to individual Family Care members;" and
violates the First Amendment rights by denying people the right to
choose where and with whom to live.

The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the
DHS and the Managed Care Organizations "to utilize accurate and
non-discriminatory rate-setting methods that will safeguard these
vulnerable individuals."

It is represented by Robert Pledl and Victoria Davis, with Pledl &
Cohn.

Similar class actions have been filed in states around the
country.  The classes frequently claim that cutting costs now will
cost the states and federal government more in the long run,
because of the expensiveness of institutional, as opposed to home
care.


ZEST GARDEN: Recalls 22,500 Wilson & Fisher Bistro Sets
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
retailer, Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, and importer, Zest Garden,
of Ontario, California, announced a voluntary recall of about
22,500 units of Wilson & Fisher White Cast Bistro Table and Chairs
Set.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chairs can break during normal use, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

Zest Garden has received five reports of chairs breaking,
including three reports of injuries.

This recall involves three-piece patio sets sold in a white, cut-
out rose pattern.  The set consists of a table and two chairs made
of cast iron and aluminum.  The table is about 26 inches high and
measures about 24 inches in diameter.  Each chair is about 33
inches high with an oval-shaped seat that measures about 19 inches
long and about 16 inches wide.  The item number is XG-1015-23.
The product measurements, the item number and "Wilson & Fisher
White Cast Bistro Set" and "Made in China" are printed on labels
located on the product's packaging.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12255.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from November 2011 to
May 2012 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the set and return it to
any Big Lots store for a full refund.  For more information,
contact Zest Garden at (800) 893-3006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or send an e-mail to
info@zestgarden.com, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.biglots.com/


                           *********

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  * * *