CAR_Public/120904.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, September 4, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 175

                             Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Students Sue Over "Checkmate II" Scheme
ASSISTED LIVING: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Wisconsin
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Got Prelim. OK of Overdraft Fees Suit Deal
AT&T INC: Awaits Approval of Wage and Hour Suit Settlement
AT&T INC: No Appeal Pending in NSA-Related Suits

AT&T INC: Writ of Certiorari Petition Pending in "Stoffels" Suit
AT&T INC: Unit Still Defends "MBA Surety" Suit in Missouri
BATTERIESPLUS LLC: Recalls 65.3T Battery Packs for Cordless Tools
BRAND NEW: Recalls All Lot Codes of Dietary Supplement EphBurn 25
CAMCAR TOWING: Two Drivers File Suit Over Excessive Towing Charges

CITIGROUP INC: Issues Statement on Class Action Settlement
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Face LIBOR-Related Suits in New York
CITIGROUP INC: Interchange Fee Suit Deal Documents Due on Oct. 19
CITIGROUP INC: Writ of Certiorari Sought in One ERISA Suit
COMCAST CORP: Appeal May Delay Class Action Settlement

CORNERSTONE WEALTH: Investors Sue Over Junk Mortgage Fund
COST PLUS: Recalls 17,000 Silk Floor Mats Due to Laceration Risk
DEVILBISS AIR: Recalls Air 460T Air Compressors Due to Fire Risk
DNC PARKS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Late This Month

EVANS TIRE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Summary Judgment in Class Action Affirmed
GOOGLE INC: Judge Refuses to Delay Class Action Proceedings
ITT CORP: Continues to Litigate Suit vs. Travelers Casualty
JAMAICA PUBLIC: Class Action Plaintiffs to Counter-Appeal Ruling

JUDICIAL CORRECTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Probation System
KLEMENT SAUSAGE: Recalls 2,920 Lbs. of Frozen Bratwurst Patties
M/I HOMES: Claims of Two Plaintiffs Remain in Drywall Suit
MAHINDRA SATYAM: $125-Million Class Action Settlement Taxable
MEIJER INC: Recalls 68,000 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard

MF GLOBAL: Objects to Trustee's Bid to Cooperate on Class Claims
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Defends Suits Over Polyurethane Foam Products
NEVADA PROPERTY: Arbitrations Ongoing in The Cosmopolitan Suits
NEVADA PROPERTY: Faces Two Wage and Hour Class Action Suits
NEVADA PROPERTY: Sued Over Unlawful Taping/Recording of Calls

NEW BALANCE: Settles Toning Shoes Class Action for $2.3 Million
OLD NATIONAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Checking Acct. Suit
OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Defend "Barker" Class Suit vs. ORHP
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC's Appeal From Class Cert. Order Pending
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Texas

SHIMANO AMERICAN: Recalls 67 PRO VIBE Carbon Bicycle Handlebars
SNOWPULSE SA: Recalls 3,800 Avalanche Airbags Due to Injury Risk
SP AUSNET: Victorians May Bear Cost of Bushfire Class Action
SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 100 Bicycle Brake Levers
SPOKANE PRODUCE: Recalls Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo Product

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Recalls 600,700 Mr. Coffee Single Cup Brewers
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Recalls 10,900 Inflatable Recreational Tubes
US BANCORP: Discloses $65-Mil. Liability in Visa Litigation
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over False Advertising on Drink Mixes
WPX ENERGY: Royalty Interest Owners Suit Pending in New Mexico

WPX ENERGY: Still Defends Suits Related to Gas Price Indices
WPX ENERGY: To Litigate Royalty Interest Suit's 2nd Claim in 2013


                          *********


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Students Sue Over "Checkmate II" Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that three student
loan lenders and servicers schemed to keep borrowers in debt by
improperly crediting payments "to extract more interest," a class
action claims in Federal Court.

Named plaintiff Cindy Breitman sued Affiliated Computer Services
(ACS), a student loan servicer; NextStudent, a student loan
lender; and U.S. Bank.

Ms. Breitman claims the defendants "kept borrowers trapped in
student loan debt that borrowers were actively seeking to repay as
fast as possible to lower the total cost of borrowing."

Ms. Breitman claims the defendants applied student loan payments
received "in excess of the stated monthly amount due
('prepayments'), not to reduce principal, but to keep borrowers in
debt, ignoring borrowers' express instructions as to how
prepayments should [be] applied to borrowers' loans."

Ms. Breitman says she enrolled in ACS' program "Checkmate II,"
which ACS said would be used to deduct loan payments from her bank
"as of the assigned due date each month."

ACS "represented to borrowers that Checkmate II was the most
convenient way to make their student loan account payments. ACS
said 'You will save time and money, as well as eliminate the
hassle of writing checks,'" the complaint states.

But Ms. Breitman claims the Checkmate II terms and conditions
falsely claim: "Please note that prepayments, defined as
additional payments received on your loan(s) greater than the
regular installment or the amount due, will not satisfy
installments or prevent the next month's debit."

The terms are misleading because they hide from borrowers "the
manner in which prepayments would be applied to their loans,"
according to the complaint.  It claims prepayment would not be
applied immediately to reduce the principal of borrowers' loans in
addition to their monthly Checkmate II payment -- instead, ACS
"misapplied prepayment specifically to keep borrowers in debt to
maximize the amount of interest paid over the life of the loans."

ACS applies prepayments "to satisfy future installments, to
prevent the next month's debt, but often do not reduce principal,"
the class claims.

Ms. Breitman says the defendants also falsely claimed that if
borrowers made 36 consecutive loan payments they would qualify for
an "On-Time Payment Benefit," which included a 1 percent rate
reduction.

She seeks class certification and treble damages for breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Eagel, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone:  (212) 308-5858
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com


ASSISTED LIVING: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on Aug. 29 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of investors
who purchased Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. Class A common stock
during the period between March 12, 2011 and August 6, 2012.

If you purchased ALC stock during the Class Period, and wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60
days from August 29, 2012.  If you wish to discuss this action, or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, J. Elazar Fruchter, at 866-582-8140
or 845-425-4658, or via e-mail at jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com

If you are a member of the Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint, or join this class action online at:
http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/alc

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges ALC and its former Chief Executive Officer
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements, and omitted material
information concerning ALC's compliance with its obligations under
a lease covering eight assisted living facilities operated by ALC.
Under the terms of the lease, ALC was obligated to maintain
specified occupancy rates and insure all regulatory licenses
remained in good standing.  In its quarterly and annual SEC
filings, ALC confirmed its compliance with these obligations.

Undisclosed to investors, however, there is substantial evidence
that during the Class Period, ALC failed to maintain the specified
occupancy rates and concealed this fact by treating units leased
to employees as bona fide rentals.  Also undisclosed to investors
until revealed in a lawsuit filed by the landlord, state
regulators in Georgia and Alabama served notices in February and
March 2012 of their intent to revoke licenses for three of the
facilities, further violating the lease.

In early May 2012, the audit committee of ALC's board of directors
launched an investigation after receiving an internal
whistleblower complaint concerning "possible irregularities in
connection with" the lease, and on June 21, 2012, ALC settled with
the landlord, causing ALC to incur a net loss of $19.5 million for
the first six months of 2012 -- an amount close to ALC's entire
net income in 2011.

On August 7, 2012, ALC announced that it was the subject of an SEC
investigation concerning a number of topics, including "compliance
with occupancy covenants" under the lease and the "leasing of
units for employee use."

Upon this news, ALC shares fell over 26 percent to close at $7.89
per share on August 7, 2012, representing a loss of shareholder
value of over $51 million.

The plaintiff is represented by Wohl & Fruchter LLP, an
experienced securities litigation firm representing plaintiffs in
class actions arising from fraud and other fiduciary breaches by
corporate managers, as well as other complex litigation matters.


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Got Prelim. OK of Overdraft Fees Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $13 million settlement of claims brought against a subsidiary of
Associated Banc-Corp was preliminarily approved in July 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.

A lawsuit, Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin in April 2010.  The lawsuit alleges that the Bank
unfairly assesses and collects overdraft fees and seeks
restitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages, and costs.  The lawsuit asserts claims for a
multi-year period and is styled as a putative class action lawsuit
on behalf of consumer banking customers of the Bank with the
certification of the class pending.  In April 2010, a Multi
District Judicial Panel issued a conditional transfer order to
consolidate this case into the Multi District Litigation ("MDL"),
In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation MDL No. 2036 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The Bank is a member, along with many other banking institutions,
of the Fourth Tranche of defendants in this case.  A settlement
agreement which requires payment by the Bank of $13 million for a
full and complete release of all claims brought against the Bank
received preliminary approval from the court on July 26, 2012.  In
the second quarter of 2012, the Bank settled with an insurer for
$2.5 million as contribution to the settlement amount and received
approximately $1.5 million as partial reimbursement for defense
costs.  By entering into such an agreement, the Company has not
admitted any liability with respect to the lawsuit.  The
settlement is a result of the Company's evaluation of the cost of
fully litigating the matter and the time and expense of resources
needed to administer the litigation.  The settlement amount was
previously accrued for in the financial statements.

Founded in 1964 and headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
Associated Banc-Corp -- http://www.associatedbank.com-- a bank
holding company, offers various banking and financial services to
individuals and businesses primarily in Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Minnesota.


AT&T INC: Awaits Approval of Wage and Hour Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of wage and
hour class action lawsuits, 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.

Two wage and hour cases were filed in federal court in December
2009 each asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(Luque et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., U.S. District Court in the
Northern District of California) (Lawson et al. v. BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc., U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Georgia).  Luque also alleges violations of a
California wage and hour law, which varies from the federal law.
In each case, plaintiffs allege that certain groups of wireline
supervisory managers were entitled to paid overtime and seek class
action status as well as damages, attorneys' fees and/or
penalties. Plaintiffs have been granted conditional collective
action status for their federal claims and also are expected to
seek class action status for their state law claims.  The Company
has contested the collective and class action treatment of the
claims, the merits of the claims and the method of calculating
damages for the claims.  A jury verdict was entered in favor of
the Company in October 2011 in the U.S. District Court in
Connecticut on similar FLSA claims.

In April 2012, the Company settled these cases, subject to court
approval, on terms that will not have a material effect on the
Company's financial statements.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


AT&T INC: No Appeal Pending in NSA-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012, that there are no more appeals pending in the
lawsuits alleging it provided assistance to the National Security
Agency in connection with intelligence activities.

Twenty-four lawsuits were filed alleging that the Company and
other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance
to the National Security Agency in connection with intelligence
activities that were initiated following the events of
September 11, 2001.  In the first filed case, Hepting et al v.
AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc. and Does 1-20, a purported class action
filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
California, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants disclosed and
are currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call
records concerning communications to which Plaintiffs were a
party.  Plaintiffs sought damages, a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief for violations of the First and Fourth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
and other federal and California statutes.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The United States asserted the
"state secrets privilege" and related statutory privileges and
also filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint.
The court denied the motions, and the Company and the United
States appealed.  In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court without
deciding the issue in light of the passage of the FISA Amendments
Act, a provision of which addresses the allegations in these
pending lawsuits (immunity provision).  The immunity provision
requires the pending lawsuits to be dismissed if the Attorney
General certifies to the court either that the alleged assistance
was undertaken by court order, certification, directive or written
request or that the telecom entity did not provide the alleged
assistance.

In September 2008, the Attorney General filed his certification
and asked the district court to dismiss all of the lawsuits
pending against the AT&T Inc. telecommunications companies.  The
court granted the Government's motion to dismiss and entered final
judgments in July 2009.  In addition, a lawsuit seeking to enjoin
the immunity provision's application on grounds that it is
unconstitutional was filed.  In March 2009, the Company and the
Government filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit.  The court
granted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment in July
2009.  All cases brought against the AT&T entities have been
dismissed.  In August 2009, plaintiffs in all cases filed an
appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In December 2011,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals in all
cases.

In March 2012, the Plaintiffs in all but three cases filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court.  The plaintiffs in two of the three cases filed petitions
for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of
which have been denied.  The plaintiffs in the third case did not
file a petition in either court.

Management believes that any further appeal is without merit and
intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


AT&T INC: Writ of Certiorari Petition Pending in "Stoffels" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Stoffels v. SBC
Communications Inc. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the U.S. Supreme Court in July 2012, according to AT&T Inc.'s
August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In May 2005, the Company was served with a purported class action
in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Stoffels v. SBC
Communications Inc.), in which the plaintiffs, who are retirees of
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell and Ameritech,
contend that the cash reimbursement formerly paid to retirees
living outside their company's local service area, for telephone
service they purchased from another provider, is a "defined
benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).  In October 2006, the
court certified two classes.  In May 2008, the court ruled that
the concession was an ERISA pension plan.  In May 2009, the
Company filed a motion for reconsideration with the trial court.
That motion was granted in January 2011, and a final judgment was
entered in the Company's favor.  Plaintiffs appealed the judgment
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and in April 2012, the Fifth
Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment in the Company's favor
dismissing the case.

On July 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


AT&T INC: Unit Still Defends "MBA Surety" Suit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
In October 2010, AT&T Inc.'s wireless subsidiary was served with a
purported class action in Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri
(MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC), in which the
plaintiffs contend that the Company violated the Federal
Communications Commission's rules by collecting Universal Service
Fees on certain services not subject to such fees, including
Internet access service provided over wireless handsets commonly
called "smartphones" and wireless data cards, as well as
collecting certain other state and local fees.  Plaintiffs define
the class as all persons who from April 1, 2003, until the present
had a contractual relationship with the Company for Internet
access through a smartphone or a wireless data card.  Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages as well as injunctive
relief.  The Company believes that an adverse outcome having a
material effect on its financial statements in this case is
unlikely.

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.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


BATTERIESPLUS LLC: Recalls 65.3T Battery Packs for Cordless Tools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BatteriesPlus LLC, of Hartland, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary
recall of about 65,300 units of Rayovac NI-CD and Rayovac NI-MH
Cordless Tool Battery Packs.  About 111,800 units were recalled in
December 2011.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The replacement battery pack can explode unexpectedly, posing a
risk of injury to consumers.

BatteriesPlus has received three additional reports since the
previous recall of exploding batteries, including one report of an
injury to a consumer's finger.

This recall involves all RAYOVAC-branded replacement battery packs
used with cordless power tools and have part numbers beginning
with "CTL."  "RAYOVAC," "NI-CD" or "RAYOVAC," "NI-MH" and a part
number beginning with "CTL" are printed in white lettering on the
product.  The battery packs were sold in voltages ranging between
2.4 and 18 volts in various sizes and shapes.  They were sold as
replacement batteries to the following brand tools: Black and
Decker, Bosch, DeWalt, Makita, Lincoln, Milwaukee, Panasonic,
Ryobi and Skil.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12267.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at BatteriesPlus retail stores nationwide and online
at www.batteriesplus.com between June 2008 and July 2012 for
between $60 and $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using and remove the battery
packs from cordless tools.  Consumers can contact BatteriesPlus
for instructions on how to return the product for a store credit.
For more information, contact BatteriesPlus toll-free at (877)
856-3232 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.batteriesplus.com/and click on Recall
Notices/Bulletins at the bottom of the page.


BRAND NEW: Recalls All Lot Codes of Dietary Supplement EphBurn 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brand New Energy ("BNE"), dietary supplement re-sale distributor,
is recalling all lot codes of EphBurn 25.  The recall was
initiated on August 28, 2012, after notification by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to a third-party retailer which
purchased EphBurn 25 that one lot of EphBurn 25 was sampled by the
FDA and found to contain ephedrine alkaloids, making it an
unapproved drug.

Ephedrine is commonly used as a stimulant, appetite suppressant,
concentration aid, and decongestant, and it has been used to help
aid in weight loss.  The ephedrine alkaloids work mainly by
increasing the activity of noradrenaline on adrenergic receptors.
A number of adverse effects associated with ephedrine alkaloid-
containing dietary supplements have been reported to the FDA.
These include elevated blood pressure, rapid heartbeat, nerve
damage, muscle injury, and psychosis and memory loss.  More
serious effects have also been reported, including heart attack,
stroke, seizure and death.  There have been no reports of adverse
events associated with this recalled product.

This recall affects all lot codes and use by dates of EphBurn 25.
The product is a 90-count bottle with red capsules and prominently
displays the product name "ephBURN 25" in white letters on the
front of a red label.  There is no UPC code.  EphBurn 25 was
previously discontinued on or about May of 2012.

BNE is a reseller of nationally-known diet and energy supplements
such as Zantrex 3, Trim Spa, Hydroxy Cut and others.  The product
subject to recall, EphBurn 25, was distributed to various retail
stores nationwide, and the product was sold via the Internet from
the period of time of approximately April 2010 through August
2012.  No other products distributed by BNE are subject to recall.

Consumers who may have purchased EphBurn 25 should immediately
discontinue using the product and contact their health care
professional if they have experienced any adverse effects.
Consumers can contact the distributor of the product at
info@brandnewenergy.com or call 1-888-234-2595 (8:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. Pacific Standard Time) to receive further instructions for
returning the product or with any questions.

The Company says it sincerely regrets any inconvenience to
consumers.  This recall has been taken voluntarily out of concern
for the health and safety of consumers.

This recall is being made in cooperation with the US Food and Drug
Administration.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program online, by regular mail, or by fax:

   * Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm/

   * Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
     available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm/
     Mail to address on the pre-addressed form.

   * Facsimile: 1-800-FDA-0178


CAMCAR TOWING: Two Drivers File Suit Over Excessive Towing Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
10TV.com reports that two drivers filed a class action suit on
Aug. 29 against towing companies that they said had illegally
billed them.

Bill McCartney said that he is suing after Camcar Towing charged
more than what the state allows.

Mr. McCartney said that he was charged a $30 administrative fee on
top of the $490 towing fee and $12 storage fee that the state
allows.

"Unfortunately, I was over a barrel," Mr. McCartney said.  "I had
no choice but to pay them."

10 Investigates first exposed that both Shamrock and Camcar towing
companies allegedly charged customers more than the $102 max in
2009.

Mr. McCartney said that he felt compelled to sue the companies
after a number of people faced the same issue.

"I knew they had to be stopped, and the only way to stop them was
to hit them in the pocket book again," Mr. McCartney said.

Camcar officials did not immediately return 10 Investigates' phone
calls.  Shamrock officials told 10 Investigates to speak to the
company's lawyer, who said that he was not available.

In the past, a Camcar manager said the company was "not ripping
anyone off."  Shamrock officials told 10 Investigates that the
company needs to charge administrative fees to cover expenses.

"It is definitely illegal," said Fred Gittes, Mr. McCartney's
attorney.  He filed the class-action suit on Aug. 29 and said that
he did not buy the towing companies' defense.

"Well, self-help is illegal, in most cases," Mr. Gittes said.  "If
they really had a problem, there's a legislature downtown they
could go to."

Mr. Gittes said his main challenge was to include all of the
alleged victims.  Mr. Gittes needs significantly more plaintiffs
to continue the law suit as a class action.  He told 10
Investigates he hoped victims contact his office.


CITIGROUP INC: Issues Statement on Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. on Aug. 29 announced it has agreed, subject to
court approval, to settle a class action lawsuit brought on behalf
of investors who purchased Citigroup common stock during the
period February 26, 2007 through April 18, 2008.  Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, Citi would pay a total of $590
million.  Plaintiffs in the class action had contended, among
other things, that they were fraudulently misled by misstatements
and omissions in the company's disclosures during this period.
Citigroup denies the allegations and is entering into this
settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and
expense of further protracted litigation.  The amount to be paid
under the proposed settlement is covered by Citi's existing
litigation reserves.

The company released the following statement:

"Citi will be pleased to put this matter behind us.  This
settlement is a significant step toward resolving our exposure to
claims arising from the period of the financial crisis.

"Citi is fundamentally a different company today than at the
beginning of the financial crisis.  Citi has overhauled risk
management, reduced risk exposures and through our core businesses
in Citicorp, we are focused on the basics of banking, leveraging
our unique presence throughout the emerging and developed markets
to serve our clients and the real economy."

The proposed settlement will be reviewed by the Hon. Sidney Stein
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, where the class action is pending.  Further information
concerning the details of the settlement are available from the
court's docket, In Re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, 07
Civ. 9901, or from plaintiffs' lead counsel, Kirby McInerney LLP,
at http://www.kmllp.comor 212-371-6600.  Additional information
may also be obtained at
http://www.citigroupsecuritiessettlement.comor by calling 877-
600-6533.

Citi, a global bank, has approximately 200 million customer
accounts and does business in more than 160 countries and
jurisdictions.  Citi provides consumers, corporations, governments
and institutions with a broad range of financial products and
services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and
investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services,
and wealth management.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Face LIBOR-Related Suits in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits and inquiries regarding submissions made by panel banks
to bodies that publish various interbank offered rates, 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.

Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of
Justice, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as agencies in other
jurisdictions, including the European Commission, the U.K.
Financial Services Authority, the Japanese Financial Services
Agency (JFSA) and the Canadian Competition Bureau, are conducting
investigations or making inquiries regarding submissions made by
panel banks to bodies that publish various interbank offered
rates.  As members of a number of such panels, Citigroup Inc.
subsidiaries have received requests for information and documents
from various U.S. and non-U.S. governmental agencies, including
the offices of the New York and Connecticut Attorneys General.
Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries and
is responding to the requests.

On December 16, 2011, the JFSA took administrative action against
Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. (CGMJ) for, among other
things, certain communications made by two CGMJ traders about the
Euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate (TIBOR) and the yen London
interbank offered rate (LIBOR).  The JFSA issued a business
improvement order and suspended CGMJ's trading in derivatives
related to yen LIBOR and Euroyen and yen TIBOR from January 10 to
January 23, 2012.  On the same day, the JFSA also took
administrative action against Citibank Japan Ltd. (CJL) for
conduct arising out of CJL's retail business and also noted that
the communications made by the CGMJ traders to employees of CJL
about Euroyen TIBOR had not been properly reported to CJL's
management team.  The inquiries by government agencies into
various interbank offered rates are ongoing.

Beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class actions and
other private civil lawsuits were filed in various courts against
banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their affiliates,
including certain Citigroup subsidiaries.  The actions, which
assert various federal and state law claims relating to the
setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the Southern
District of New York.  Additional information relating to these
actions is publicly available in court filings under docket number
1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

A number of additional putative class actions were filed in the
Southern District of New York against banks that served on certain
interbank offered rates panels and certain of those banks'
affiliates, including Citigroup affiliates.  Additional
information relating to these actions is publicly available in
court filings under docket numbers 1:12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Daniels, J.), 12-cv-4205 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-5280
(S.D.N.Y.) (Kaplan, J.), 12-cv-5723 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), and
12-cv-5822 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Interchange Fee Suit Deal Documents Due on Oct. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the consolidated lawsuit over card interchange fees
have until October 19, 2012, to file for preliminary approval
definitive documentation of their settlement, according to
Citigroup Inc.'s August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries and
current and former officers, directors and employees, collectively
referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts.  These actions were consolidated with
other related cases in the Eastern District of New York and
captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT
ANTITRUST LITIGATION.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action are merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded
payment cards, as well as membership associations that claim to
represent certain groups of merchants.  The pending complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants have engaged in
conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount
fees on credit and debit card transactions in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act.  The complaint also alleges additional
Sherman Act and California law violations, including alleged
unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and alleged unlawful
contracts in restraint of trade pertaining to various Visa and
MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct (including rules
allegedly affecting merchants' ability, at the point of sale, to
surcharge payment card transactions or steer customers to
particular payment cards).  In addition, supplemental complaints
filed against defendants in the class action allege that Visa's
and MasterCard's respective initial public offerings were
anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and
that MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulent
conveyance.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as joint and several
liability for treble their damages, including all interchange fees
paid to all Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and
MasterCard transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1,
2004.  Certain publicly available documents estimate that Visa-
and MasterCard-branded cards generated approximately $40 billion
in interchange fees industry wide in 2009.  Defendants dispute
that the manner in which interchange and merchant discount fees
are set, or the rules governing merchant conduct, are
anticompetitive.  Fact and expert discovery has closed.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the pending class action complaint
and the supplemental complaints are pending.  Also pending are
plaintiffs' motion to certify nationwide classes consisting of all
U.S. merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment
cards and motions by both plaintiffs and defendants for summary
judgment.  The parties have been engaged in mediation for several
years, including recent settlement conferences held at the
direction of the court.  Additional information relating to these
consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under
the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.).

On July 13, 2012, all parties to the putative class actions,
including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) setting forth the material terms of a class
settlement.  The settlement described in the MOU is subject to a
number of conditions, including agreement on definitive
documentation of the settlement, any necessary approvals by the
boards of directors of the parties, defendants' entry into
settlement agreements with certain merchants that have filed
separate individual actions against the Visa and MasterCard
networks, and preliminary and final approval by the court.  The
class settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for, among other
things, a total payment by all defendants to the class of $6.05
billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the class
settlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a
period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks;
changes to certain network rules that would permit merchants to
surcharge some payment card transactions subject to certain
limitations and conditions, including disclosure to consumers at
the point of sale; and broad releases in favor of the defendants.
The Boards of Directors of Citigroup and Citibank have approved
the settlement.  The court has ordered the parties to file
definitive documentation of the settlement with the court for
preliminary approval no later than October 19, 2012.


CITIGROUP INC: Writ of Certiorari Sought in One ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-appellants  in the lawsuit captioned GRAY v. CITIGROUP
INC. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of an appeals court decision
affirming the dismissal of their complaint, 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.

Beginning in November 2007, numerous putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York by current or former Citigroup Inc. employees
asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) against Citigroup and its affiliates and subsidiaries and
current and former officers, directors and employees alleged to
have served as ERISA plan fiduciaries.  On August 31, 2009, the
district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint, captioned IN RE CITIGROUP
ERISA LITIGATION.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and, on
October 19, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the
case.  Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 07 Civ. 9790
(S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.) and 09-3804 (2d Cir.) and 11A1045 (S. Ct.).

Beginning on October 28, 2011, several putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York by current or former Citigroup employees
asserting claims under ERISA against Citigroup and Related Parties
alleged to have served as ERISA plan fiduciaries from 2008 to
2009.  Additional information relating to these actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11
Civ. 7672, 7943, 8982, 8990 and 8999 (S.D.N.Y.) (Koeltl, J.).

On June 22, 2012, plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit's decision affirming the district court's dismissal of
plaintiffs' complaint in GRAY v. CITIGROUP INC.


COMCAST CORP: Appeal May Delay Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Bob Fernandez, writing for Philly.com, reports that Comcast Corp.
reached a "tentative settlement" in early June with lawyers
representing about two million Philadelphia-area Comcast cable-TV
customers in an $875 million class-action lawsuit.

But Comcast says the deal was not final and has declined to follow
it because two weeks later the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
an appeal of the case.

Details of the settlement --- including cash payments, service
discounts or credits for Comcast cable-TV customers -- are now
under a court-approved seal order.

It is the latest development in the long-running antitrust suit,
filed in 2003, that claims Comcast clustered cable systems in the
Philadelphia area through a series of swaps with other cable
companies in the late 1990s, enabling it to control and raise
cable prices.

The Supreme Court's willingness to hear the potentially precedent-
setting case was viewed by legal experts as a blow to the
plaintiffs.  The threat of a September trial date made Comcast
amenable to settling because of the potential for painful damages,
they said.

A ruling by the nation's highest court in Comcast's favor could
make the plaintiffs' case substantially more difficult.

Federal Judge John R. Padova held a hearing on the settlement
dispute here on Aug. 28.  The online legal-affairs site Law360
quoted lawyer Michael Carroll, of Davis Polk & Wardell L.L.P, who
represents Comcast, saying in court, "Our understanding of the
term sheet is that the term sheet was a starting point for us."
He added, "Both sides hedged a little bit in this case.  Both
sides left room to negotiate a little more. Both sides were
leaving a little window."

Carroll and lead plaintiff attorney Barry Barnett, of Susman
Godfrey L.L.P., described the agreement in a jointly signed June
13 letter to Judge Padova.  The letter is part of the court file.

"The parties are pleased to inform the court that they have
reached a tentative agreement to resolve the above-mentioned
actions," the letter said.  "As noted, the parties plan to file
preliminary approval papers shortly after final settlement papers
are completed on June 30," it continued.

The Supreme Court announced its decision on June 25 to hear
Comcast v. Behrend this fall.  It will be the first time a Comcast
case will be decided at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will consider whether the Philadelphia judge
properly certified the Comcast cable TV customers as a damaged
class for the purposes of the suit.  A key issue is whether there
is evidence that the Comcast customers were uniformly harmed by
the company, and how to calculate the damages.

Comcast spokeswoman Jenni Moyer said Comcast was not disclosing
the amount of the discussed settlement.  Mr. Barnett did not
respond to an e-mail or phone call seeking comment.

Kenneth A. Jacobson, a professor at Temple University's law
school, called the situation unusual because the Supreme Court
does not typically decide to hear a case "during the settlement
negotiation and approval process."


CORNERSTONE WEALTH: Investors Sue Over Junk Mortgage Fund
---------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that San Diego-
based Cornerstone Wealth Management lost nearly $7 million of its
clients' money in a junk mortgage fund that went belly-up when the
housing market collapsed, a class action claims.

Lead plaintiff Sean Berton, of Pennsylvania, sued Cornerstone
Wealth Management LLC; its owner-operator Chris L. Meacham; Romero
Park P.S., a law firm; and H. Troy Romero, an attorney and partner
in the firm.

In his Superior Court complaint, Mr. Berton claims Cornerstone
lied to investors, telling them the Scripps Investment Mortgage
Fund I was safe because it invested solely in first trust real
estate deeds, that investors would be "first in line to recover
their investment principal in the event of default by borrowers."

But Mr. Berton claims Cornerstone knew or should have known that
the Scripps fund was a junk mortgage fund consisting of second,
third and fourth trust deeds and high-risk construction loans.

"Investors had virtually no chance of recovering their investment
in the event of default.  Cornerstone further concealed the fact
that the Scripps Fund was highly susceptible to downturns in the
economy and there was a very high risk of default.  In 2008, the
Scripps Fund began to fail and, as of today, the fund is
worthless.  Investors lost their entire investment," Mr. Berton
says in the complaint.

He claims that when the Scripps fund began tanking, Cornerstone
and Meacham tried to take investors' money out of the fund, and
when that failed, concocted a scheme to place the blame on
Scripps.

Scripps is not a party to the complaint.

Mr. Berton claims that Mr. Meacham "falsely reported to investors
in 2008 that Cornerstone had only just discovered that the Scripps
Fund had invested in high risk junior trust deeds.  He accused the
Scripps Fund of misleading investors and Cornerstone."

The complaint continues: "After telling investors that the Scripps
Fund had misled them, Meacham knew that investors would likely sue
the Scripps Fund to recover their losses.  But Meacham had to
control the litigation in order to hide the fact that he had known
all along that the Scripps Fund was investing primarily in second,
third and fourth trust deeds, as well as high-risk construction
loans. If investors learned of Meacham's knowledge, he most
certainly would expose himself and Cornerstone to liability."

So, Mr. Berton claims, Mr. Meacham enlisted defendants H. Troy
Romero and Romero Park to persuade the investors to give
Cornerstone limited power of attorney to settle their claims
against the Scripps Fund.

Mr. Berton claims 47 investors retained Romero and agreed to pay a
33 percent contingency fee.

Cornerstone sued the Scripps fund in November 2009, in San Diego
Superior Court.  But Mr. Berton claims: "Romero did not name any
of the investors as plaintiffs in the case.  Instead, Cornerstone,
Meacham and Romero erroneously claimed that the investors had
'assigned' their claims against the Scripps Fund to Cornerstone,
despite an express anti-assignment clause each investor signed
when they invested in the Scripps Fund.

"In November of 2011, the Scripps Fund filed a motion for summary
judgment challenging the 'assignments' as invalid and ineffective.
Two days before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment,
Cornerstone agreed to settle the case for pennies on the dollar,
well below the funds available from the Scripps Fund's insurance
policy.  Romero received $500,000 in contingency attorneys' fees."

Mr. Berton claims Mr. Meacham lied to investors to persuade them
to accept the settlement.

"For example, he falsely represented to them that, if they did not
settle, they would have to pay up to $680,000 in attorneys' fees
and costs relating to depositions, even if they were not
successful at trial," the complaint states.  "In addition, because
they were not named as parties in the lawsuit, there was a risk
that investors would recover nothing if they did not accept the
settlement.  The case ultimately settled."

Mr. Berton says that this year he began to question Cornerstone
about the low value of its settlement with the Scripps Fund, and
investigated why Cornerstone settled for a small percentage of its
investors' losses.  He says he got transcripts of Meacham's
depositions from Cornerstone's litigation against the Scripps Fund
and discovered what both Meacham and Romero knew.

"The transcript revealed that Cornerstone knew all along that the
Scripps Fund had been investing in second, third and fourth trust
deeds.  Although Romero was at Meacham's deposition, he never
informed investors of Cornerstone's knowledge or potential
liability. He did not withdraw as the investors' attorney.
Instead, he continued to ostensibly represent the investors,"
Mr. Berton says in the complaint.

Even though the Scripps Fund prospectuses that Cornerstone gave
its clients indicated that the fund invested only in first trust
deeds, which are considered safer in the event of a foreclosure,
Mr. Berton claims Cornerstone knew better.

"On several occasions, the Scripps Fund notified Cornerstone that
it was investing in 'junior deeds of trust,' industry jargon
meaning second, third or fourth trustees," the complaint states.
"For example, in his deposition taken in the Scripps action,
Meacham admitted that the Scripps Fund regularly reported to him
that it had invested in junior deeds of trust.  In fact, the
Scripps Fund's quarterly newsletter regularly delivered to
Cornerstone disclosed that the Scripps Fund held junior deeds of
trust.  When asked about it at his deposition, Meacham admitted
that 'we noticed that it said junior deed on the . . . quarterly
newsletter."

Mr. Berton claims that Romero "turned a blind eye to the facts
that clearly gave rise to a claim by investors against
Cornerstone" when he learned that Meacham knew about the junior
deeds of trust.

"Romero did not advise investors that they had potential against
Cornerstone or Meacham," the complaint states.  "Romero did not
advise investors about the fact that Romero would represent the
investors and Cornerstone jointly in the same matter, despite
actual or potential conflicts of interest.  Romero did not obtain
written consent from investors to proceed with the representation
despite likely conflicts of interest between the investors and
Cornerstone."

When the Scripps Fund asked for summary judgment because
Cornerstone had no standing and failed to get valid assignments
from Mr. Berton and the other investors -- which Scripps expressly
prohibited in its documents anyway -- Cornerstone had no choice
but to settle for 20 cents on the dollar, Mr. Berton says in the
complaint.

"Just three days before the hearing on the motion for summary
judgment, scheduled for Feb. 10, 2012, Cornerstone agreed to
settle with the Scripps Fund for $1.5 million or twenty cents on
the dollar despite the fact that the Scripps Fund had a $5 million
insurance policy.  Romero received $500,000 in attorneys' fees,
leaving $1 million to distribute to investors.  Cornerstone and
Romero dismissed the case on Feb. 8, 2012," the complaint states.

Mr. Berton adds: "A key reason for Cornerstone's and Romero's
decision to settle was the Scripps Fund's argument that the so-
called 'assignments' were not valid.  If the Scripps Fund's motion
for summary judgment were successful, Romero and Cornerstone faced
additional liability for their carelessness in improperly bringing
suit.  But even more importantly, Cornerstone knew that, if the
case went to trial, it would expose its own knowledge that the
Scripps Fund was investing in junior trust deeds and high-risk
construction loans."

Mr. Berton seeks class damages from Cornerstone and Meacham for
fraud by intentional misrepresentation and concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages.

He seeks class damages from Romero and Romero Park for legal
malpractice and professional negligence.

Mr. Berton demands at least $5.8 million in actual damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Berton v. Cornerstone Wealth
Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00103097 (Calif. Super.
Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/30/Cornerstone.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent D. Slavens, Esq.
          Eric J. Benink, Esq.
          Mary K. Wyman, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          E-mail: vslavens@kkbs-law.com
                  ebenink@kkbs-law.com
                  mwyman@kkbs-law.com


COST PLUS: Recalls 17,000 Silk Floor Mats Due to Laceration Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Inc., of Oakland, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 17,000 recycled silk floor mats.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The recalled silk mats can have a tack or staple woven into the
fabric strips.  The tack or staple can cut consumers, posing a
laceration hazard.

Cost Plus is aware of one incident in which a tack was discovered
in a mat by a consumer.  No injuries have been reported.

The recycled silk floor mats measure 2 ft. by 3 ft.  They were
sold in a variety of color stripe combinations.  "World Market"
and "SKU 441536" are printed on the mat's white care label sewn
into the bottom of the mat.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12270.html

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold
exclusively at Cost Plus World Market stores nationwide from June
2011 through May 2012 for about $17.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled floor mats
and return them to any Cost Plus World Market store for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Cost Plus toll-free
at (877) 967-5362 between 7:00 a.m. through 12:00 p.m. Pacific
Time any day, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.worldmarket.com/and click on Product Recalls under
Customer Service.


DEVILBISS AIR: Recalls Air 460T Air Compressors Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
DeVilbiss Air Power Co. of Jackson, Tennessee, announced a
voluntary recall of about 460,000 air compressors.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The air compressor motor can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

DeVilbiss has received 10 reports of motors overheating.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled compressors were sold under the Craftsman, EX-CELL,
Porter-Cable and Pro-Air II brand names.  Recalled models have air
slots at the end of the motor that form a horizontal and vertical
grid.  The model number on each unit is located on the unit name
plate on the tank.  The recalled model numbers, tank size, color
and manufactured date are shown below:

  -----------------------------------------------------------
              Brand: Craftsman; Tank Color: Red
  -----------------------------------------------------------
                                            Manufactured On
                                           or After Mfg Date
  Model Number            Tank               or Yr-Week-xx
  ------------     ------------------     -------------------
  919-165531       30 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-165541       30 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-165550       30 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-165560       33 gal. horizontal     37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-167280       26 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-167281       26 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-167311       30 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-167312       30 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-167320       33 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-167321       33 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-167341       33 gal. horizontal     37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-167342       33 gal. horizontal     37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-168700       33 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-168710       33 gal. horizontal     37827 or 2003-30-xx
  919-237540       30 gal. vertical       37827 or 2003-30-xx

  -----------------------------------------------------------
              Brand: EX-CELL; Tank Color: Black
  -----------------------------------------------------------
                                            Manufactured On
                                           or After Mfg Date
  Model Number            Tank               or Yr-Week-xx
  ------------     ------------------     -------------------
  EXFBC6025-1      25 gal. horizontal     39489 or 2008-07-xx

  -----------------------------------------------------------
              Brand: Porter-Cable; Tank Color: Red
  -----------------------------------------------------------
                                            Manufactured On
                                           or After Mfg Date
  Model Number            Tank               or Yr-Week-xx
  ------------     ------------------     -------------------
  C3101-2          4.3 gal. side stack    39489 or 2008-07-xx
  C3151-2          4.5 gal. horizontal    39489 or 2008-07-xx
  C6110-1          25 gal. vertical       39489 or 2008-07-xx
  C6110-2          25 gal. vertical       39489 or 2008-07-xx

  -----------------------------------------------------------
              Brand: Pro-Air II; Tank Color: Black
  -----------------------------------------------------------
                                            Manufactured On
                                           or After Mfg Date
  Model Number            Tank               or Yr-Week-xx
  ------------     ------------------     -------------------
  PAFBC6025VP-1    25 gal. vertical       39489 or 2008-07-xx

Consumers with a compressor manufactured before the dates shown,
but had a motor replaced after July 25, 2003, should also check
the end cap.  The end cap is visible from underneath the motor
cover.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12269.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America. EX-CELL, Porter-Cable and Pro-Air II-brand compressors
were sold by industrial and construction distributors from July
2003 through December 2008 for between $259 and $299.  Craftsman-
brand compressors were sold at Sears stores nationwide from July
2003 through December 2008 for between $279 and $329.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalled
compressors and call DeVilbiss Air Power Co. or Sears for a free
repair kit.  For additional information, consumers with EX-CELL,
Porter-Cable and , Pro-Air II compressors should contact DeVilbiss
toll-free at (866) 885-1877 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.porter-cable.com/or http://www.devap.com/. Consumers
with Craftsman-brand compressors should call Sears toll-free at
(888) 710-9282 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday or between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time
Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.sears.com/


DNC PARKS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2012, the San Diego employment law firm Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action wage claim against DNC
Parks & Resorts At Tenaya, Inc. alleging Delaware North
miscalculated their employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of
calculating and paying their correct overtime rate.  Vrab, et al.
vs. DNC Parks & Resorts At Tenaya, Inc., Case No. 37-2012-
00101735-CU-OE-CTL is currently pending in the San Diego County
Superior Court for the State of California.

The Class Action Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs receive
compensation at an hourly rate plus non-discretionary bonus or
incentive pay based on elements of their individual performance.
Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that Delaware North "failed and
continues to fail to include the bonus or incentive compensation
as part of the employee's 'regular rate of pay' for purposes of
calculating overtime pay."  California law mandates that employers
include non-discretionary incentive pay when calculating non-
exempt employees' regular and overtime rate of pay.

Additionally, as to some members of the putative Plaintiff class,
the Complaint alleges that Delaware North did not pay these
employees for all hours worked.  Specifically, it alleges that
these particular employees were 'on-call' for significant hours of
their work shifts and these hours were neither being recorded nor
compensated for.

Managing partner, Norman B. Blumenthal, stated "Failing to
correctly include employees' bonus and incentive pay in their
overtime rate is a sneaky way for employers to save a few bucks.
Unfortunately, these monies belong to the employees and it's our
job to see that they get it."

The San Diego employment law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
represent many employees of large companies in various wage and
hour class actions.  If you seek free legal advice or need to
recover unpaid overtime wages call one of their experienced
California labor attorneys today at (866) 771-7099.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Late This Month
------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that the court will hear plaintiffs'
motion to approve a settlement of their antitrust class action
lawsuit in late September 2012.

In June 2008, Geoffrey Pecover filed an antitrust class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that EA obtained an illegal monopoly in a
discreet antitrust market that consists of "league-branded
football simulation video games" by bidding for, and winning,
exclusive licenses with the National Football League, Collegiate
Licensing Company and Arena Football League.  In December 2010,
the district court granted the plaintiffs' request to certify a
class of plaintiffs consisting of all consumers who purchased EA's
Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video games after
2005.

In May 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve all claims related to this action.  As a result, the
Company recognized a $27 million accrual in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2012 associated with the potential settlement.  In July
2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to approve the
settlement.  The court will hear that motion in late September
2012.


EVANS TIRE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Evans Tire & Service Centers
stiff workers for overtime and violate other labor laws, a class
action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Escoto-Miranda, et al. v. Evans Tire &
Service Centers Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2012-00103102 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/30/EvansTires.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
          Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
          GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
          3555 Fifth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-0800


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Summary Judgment in Class Action Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that a split panel of the Fifth District Appellate Court
affirmed a Madison County order that attempted to close the book
on a decade-old class action lawsuit seeking damages against
Federal Express for late deliveries.

The unpublished ruling of the appeals panel, however, includes a
dissent that could give the plaintiffs some ammunition for an
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

In March 2011, Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge granted
summary judgment to FedEx in a class action complaint Stephen
Fleisher brought against the company in 2001.

The suit was amended in 2003 to add Inland Marketing Services as a
plaintiff.  Inland claimed that on at least one occasion, FedEx
charged it for an expedited delivery, but did not fulfill its
promised delivery date.

The plaintiffs' suit included counts for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

FedEx in 2010 filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that
Inland did not provide notice of the late delivery as required by
its money-back guarantee policy laid out in the company's service
guide.

In opposition to FedEx's motion, Inland pointed to the billing
section of the service guide to argue that a late delivery could
be characterized as an "overcharge," which would entitle it to the
difference between the price it paid for expedited delivery
service and the fee applicable to when its packages were actually
delivered.

Now-retired Circuit Judge Daniel Stack denied FedEx's request for
summary judgment in November 2010, spurring FedEx to file a motion
to reconsider.

Judge Mudge, who took over the case following Judge Stack's
retirement, granted the company's motion to reconsider in March
2011.

He determined that the parties had agreed to a contract that
limited the remedy for a late delivery to FedEx's money-back
guarantee.  Judge Mudge also found that the plaintiffs did not
send notice of the late delivery within the required 30 days.

"There is no dispute that the complaint was filed long after the
30 day notice period," Judge Mudge wrote in his March 2011 order.
"The Court finds the language of the contract to be clear and
unambiguous and provides that a money-back guarantee was
Plaintiff's exclusive remedy if FedEx breached its contract."

The plaintiffs appealed in April 2011 and last week, a split panel
of the appellate court affirmed Judge Mudge's order in an
unpublished order written by Justice Stephen Spomer.  Justice
James Donovan concurred and Justice Melissa Chapman dissented.

The majority of the panel used the Fifth District's 2006 ruling in
Moody v. Federal Express Corp. to bolster its reasoning.

Justice Spomer wrote for the appeals panel that the Moody court
examined FedEx's service guide "in the context of a lawsuit for a
breach of contract for delayed shipment."

In Moody, Justice Spomer wrote, the court determined that "the
money-back guarantee provision of the contract, which expressly
limited FedEx's liability for a delayed shipment to the actual
damages to the item shipped or a full refund of shipping charges,
was the exclusive remedy available to a FedEx customer for delayed
shipment."

The Moody court further found that the contract required a
customer to provide a request for a refund within 30 days of
shipment and that allowing a partial refund after that deadline
"would render the limitation of liability and notice requirements
meaningless," Justice Spomer wrote.

As such, the appeals panel in Moody affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiff's complaint because the remedy she sought in her breach
of contract claim was excluded under the contract.

Inland, however, argued on appeal that the ruling in Moody was
inapplicable to its case because the court didn't consider the
"overcharge" section of FedEx's service guide in its analysis.

Inland claimed that the "overcharge" section allows for a partial
refund for a late delivery because a delayed shipment could be
considered a billing that results in an incorrect charge.

On behalf of the majority of the appeals panel, Justice Spomer
wrote that reading the company's money-back guarantee policy in
conjunction with the service guide's "overcharge" section "makes
it clear that delayed shipments were intended to be excluded under
the "Overcharge" section and limited to the provisions under
"Money-Back Guarantee."

Justice Chapman, however, wrote in her dissent that she "would
reverse the trial court's order granting a summary judgment for
FedEx."

"The majority reads the Moody case to limit plaintiff's remedy to
the 'Money-Back Guarantee' section of the service guide," Justice
Chapman wrote.  "I disagree."

Justice Chapman said she agrees with the previous rulings of
Judges Stack and Barbara Crowder, who also briefly presided over
the case, that "nothing in Moody precludes a plaintiff from
pursuing a remedy under a different provision of the contract not
raised and considered by the Moody court," such as the
"overcharge" provision.

Justice Chapman wrote that "overcharge" is defined by the service
guide as "a charge based on an incorrect rate; an incorrect
special handling fee; billing for the wrong type of service; or
billing based on incorrect package or shipment weight; or account
numbers."

She also noted in her dissent that the "invoice
adjustments/overcharge" section of the service guide expands the
definition of "overcharge" to include "any billing that results in
an incorrect charge."

Reading these two sections together, Justice Chapman wrote,
"certainly creates a question as to whether this provision can be
used as an alternative remedy to seek a price-difference refund
rather than a full money-back guarantee for late delivery."

"Because I believe there remain genuine issues of material fact,
FedEx is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law," Justice
Chapman wrote in her dissent.

At the trial level, Edwardsville attorney Mark Goldenberg
represented the plaintiffs and Robert Shultz, formerly of Heyl
Royster in Edwardsvile who now works for State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, represented FedEx.

The citation for the appellate court order in this case is Stephen
Fleischer and Inland Marketing Services Inc. v. Federal Express
Corp., 2012 IL App (5th) 110156-U.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Refuses to Delay Class Action Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the federal judge presiding over
challenges to Google Inc.'s plans to create the world's largest
digital library has refused to delay the 7-year-old case while
Google appeals his decision to grant authors class certification.

U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin's order was put in the court file on
Aug. 29 in Manhattan, where he ruled in May that class action was
"more efficient and effective" than requiring thousands of authors
to sue individually.  His order was dated on Aug. 28.

The Mountain View-Calif.-based Google appealed the class-
certification ruling and asked to delay all proceedings until the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules.

Judge Chin said a delay was unwarranted, especially since it would
hold the case up for a year or more.

"The merits would have to be reached at some point in any event,
and there simply is no good reason to delay matters further," the
judge wrote.

He also said he found it surprising that Google argued it would be
unfair to decide the merits of the case while authors were
deciding whether to opt out of the class, especially "in light of
Google's fervent opposition to class certification."

Judge Chin has scheduled oral argument for October on requests by
lawyers that he decide issues without a jury.

Google already has scanned more than 20 million books for the
project.  The Authors Guild had requested class certification,
saying it was impractical and expensive for each author to sue
Google over similar claims.

The Authors Guild has asked in court papers that the class be
awarded $750 in damages for each copyrighted book Google copied.
It has argued that Google was not making "fair use" of copyright
material by offering snippets of works in its online library.

Lawyers for Google did not immediately respond to a message for
comment.  The company that operates the world's largest Internet
search engine has defended its online library plans, saying it is
fully compliant with copyright law.


ITT CORP: Continues to Litigate Suit vs. Travelers Casualty
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation continues to litigate a class action lawsuit it
filed against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 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.

In January 2012, ITT and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., filed
a putative class action against Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company (ITT Corporation and Goulds Pumps, Inc., v. Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna Casualty and Surety
Company)), alleging that Travelers is unilaterally reinterpreting
language contained in older Aetna policies so as to avoid paying
on asbestos claims.  The Company says it continues to negotiate
settlement agreements with other insurers, where appropriate.

ITT Corporation -- http://www.itt.com/-- designs and manufactures
engineered critical components and customized technology solutions
for energy infrastructure, electronics, aerospace, and
transportation industries.  The Company operates in four segments:
Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions,
and Control Technologies.  ITT Corporation was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in White Plains, New York.


JAMAICA PUBLIC: Class Action Plaintiffs to Counter-Appeal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The attorney representing claimants in the class action suit
against the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) was expected to
head to the Court of Appeal on Aug. 30 to file a counter notice of
appeal.

This follows the filing by JPS on Aug. 29 of an appeal of the
judges' ruling in the suit.

Justice Bryan Sykes ruled that the exclusive license granted to
JPS is invalid.

However, JPS is arguing that the judge erred and as such his
ruling should be thrown out.

JPS, which is being represented by attorney-at-law Michael Hylton,
is also challenging the judge's ruling that section 3 of the
Electric Lighting Act does not permit the minister to grant a
license on an exclusive basis.

However, Richard Crawford, one of the co-founders of Citizens
United to Reduce Electricity (CURE), which had brought the lawsuit
against the JPS says the group's lawyer was set to file a counter
claim on Aug. 30.

He said attorney, Hugh Wildman, was expected among other things be
asking the appeals court to find that Justice Sykes was correct
when he ruled that the minister had no power to grant an all-
island exclusive license to JPS.

No date has been set for the appeal.

Meanwhile, attorney-at-law Marvalyn Taylor-Wright who is also
representing the claimants, on Aug. 29 filed a bill of costs
against JPS amounting to $24 million in the Supreme Court.


JUDICIAL CORRECTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Probation System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that an Alabama
city illegally privatized its probation system, allowing Judicial
Corrections Services to hike probation fees and arrest people for
not paying them, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Gina Kay Ray, sued Judicial Corrections Services,
its successor Correctional Healthcare Companies, the city of
Childersburg, and its Mayor B.J. Meeks, alleging constitutional
violations.

Judicial Corrections Services runs an "offender paid system" for
Childersburg, which allows it to collect fines and fees on behalf
of the city, according to the complaint.

Childersburg is a town of 5,200 about 40 miles southeast of
Birmingham.

The plaintiffs claim the city allows Judicial Corrections Services
to collect probation fees based on documents that are not actual
court orders, and lets the private company intimidate people by
threatening to throw them in jail if they don't pay.

"Defendants have imposed a system whereby the clerical and quasi-
judicial functions of the municipal court have been unlawfully
contracted to a private business, using the color of state law for
the collection of private fees and allowing public money to be
collected and kept by the private business, in violation of
Alabama law and of the Constitution," the complaint states.

"Defendants have operated the court by clothing JCS with the
appearances of state authority allowing JCS employees to
intimidate persons and referring to them as 'probation officers'
though none have such authority under Alabama statutes.  JCS
employees are also allowed to construct documents which appear to
be court orders, holding such out as having the force and effect
of court orders, when they were not lawful orders of probation.
Defendants have known of this fraudulent activity, but have
fashioned a system of allowing JCS a free reign in collecting
fines, to threaten plaintiffs' class with incarceration, and by
incarcerating persons who have not paid.  Members of plaintiffs'
class have been placed on 'probation' by defendants in virtually
all cases, especially where there is no jail sentence possible or
where it would never be imposed, and this 'probation' is a means
of coercing payment of fines, costs and the fees of JCS.

"This public ruse is maintained by the defendants in order to
impose and collect fines and costs from citizens, and is
accomplished by allowing JCS to determine how much each municipal
court defendant will be charged for the collection 'services' of
JCS each month, how much of the public money paid will be kept by
JCS and how much it will rebate to Childersburg.  Plaintiffs aver
that Childersburg has unlawfully entered into the business
arrangement with JCS whereby the private entity has been given
control and access over public funds and the ability to take such
funds.  This is in violation of state law and of the Alabama
Constitution.  Further, defendants have allowed JCS to increase
its monthly probation fee from the $35.00 once imposed and listed
on the printed probation sheets to $45.00 per month, doing so
without legal authority of proper basis or authorization."

Ms. Ray and two named co-plaintiffs say they have been jailed
several times by JCS for not being able to pay probation fees
relating to traffic and misdemeanor offenses, and were held and
released at the whim of JCS.

They say the defendants did not hold probation revocation hearings
and failed to consider their inability to pay.

The city and Judicial Corrections Services "have followed a
practice of maintaining persons on probation for far longer than
the two-year limit imposed by Alabama law, keeping some persons on
for years, adding fines, costs and the JCS fees when there is no
authority for such," the complaint states.

They claim the defendants established "a profit-making scheme to
fund the cost of the court system upon those least able to pay,"
and allow no substitute for heavy fines and probation fees, such
as community service, and impose fines that exceed the legal
limit.

They claim the defendants arbitrarily grant early release to some
people, while denying it to others under similar circumstances,
and have no logical review system.

They seek class certification and damages for civil rights
violations, false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution
and violations of state laws, and want the defendants enjoined
from further violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Ray, et al. v. Judicial Corrections
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-02819 (N.D. Ala.), is
available at:

          http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/30/PrivateLaw.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William M. Dawson, Esq.
          2229 Morris Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 323-6170
          E-mail: bill@billdawsonlaw.com

               - and -

          G. Daniel Evans, Esq.
          THE EVANS LAW FIRM
          1736 Oxmoor Road, Ste. 101
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 870-1970
          E-mail: gdevans@evanslawpc.com

               - and -

          Alexandria Parris, Esq.
          THE EVANS LAW FIRM
          1736 Oxmoor Road, Ste. 101
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 870-1970
          E-mail: ap@evanslawpc.com


KLEMENT SAUSAGE: Recalls 2,920 Lbs. of Frozen Bratwurst Patties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klement Sausage Company Inc., a Milwaukee, Wisconsin
establishment, is recalling approximately 2,920 pounds of frozen
bratwurst patties because they may contain foreign materials --
pieces of a plastic pen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 10-lb. cases containing 4-ounce patties of KLEMENT SAUSAGE
     CO. BRATWURST PATTY.

All products were produced on July 6, 2012.  The packages bear the
establishment number "EST. 2426B" in the USDA mark of inspection
and the batch number "21097" on the case label.  The products were
distributed for foodservice use in Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota and
Wisconsin.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by the firm after the company
received complaints from distributors who were made aware by food
preparation personnel who discovered the foreign matter while
preparing to cook the product.  FSIS and the company have received
no reports of injury or illnesses associated with consumption of
this product.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Jeff
Klement, the company's vice president of special projects, at
(414) 744-2330 x244.  Media with questions about the recall should
contact Rebecca Quella, the company's director of marketing, at
(414) 744-2330 ext 273.

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


M/I HOMES: Claims of Two Plaintiffs Remain in Drywall Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Claims over defective drywall asserted by two plaintiffs remain
pending, according to M/I Homes, Inc.'s August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
Company's homes filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the
United States or alternatively in Florida, against the Company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties (the "Initial
Action").  The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his home
with defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of
the defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds
capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging
property.  The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages and
sought legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and
attorney's fees.  The Company filed a responsive pleading on or
about April 30, 2009.  The Initial Action was consolidated with
other similar actions not involving the Company and transferred to
the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings (collectively, the "In Re:
Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation").  In
connection with the administration of the In Re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the same
homeowner and nine other homeowners were named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints filed in and after December 2009
against certain identified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company), including one homeowner named as a
plaintiff in an omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010
against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company) (collectively, the "MDL Omnibus Actions").
As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and the MDL
Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek
substantially the same relief.

The Company has entered into agreements with several of the
homeowners named as plaintiffs pursuant to which the Company
agreed to make repairs to their homes consistent with repairs made
to the homes of other homeowners.  As a result of these
agreements, the Initial Action has been resolved and dismissed,
and seven of the nine other homeowners named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints have dismissed their claims
against the Company.  One of the two remaining plaintiffs has also
filed a complaint in Florida state court asserting essentially the
same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as asserted
in the MDL Omnibus Action.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
claims of the remaining plaintiffs.  Given the inherent
uncertainties in this litigation, there can be no assurance that
the ultimate resolution of the MDL Omnibus Actions, or any other
actions or claims relating to defective drywall that may be
asserted in the future, will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's results of operations, financial condition, and cash
flows.

M/I Homes, Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/-- and its subsidiaries
are builders of single-family homes.  The Company was
incorporated, through predecessor entities, in 1973 and commenced
homebuilding activities in 1976.  Since that time, the Company has
delivered over 78,000 homes.


MAHINDRA SATYAM: $125-Million Class Action Settlement Taxable
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hindu reports that the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) has
ruled that the $125-million class-action suit settlement done by
Mahindra Satyam (formerly Satyam Computer Services LTD.) is
taxable.

According to the AAR ruling, the Indian IT firm has to deduct 30
per cent tax on $125 million and the balance amount will go to the
class-action settlement.

The U.S. investors, who held American Depository Receipts or ADR
of Satyam Computer Services, filed a class action suit against the
company after Ramalinga Raju, former chairman of the company,
admitted to a fraud in January, 2009.

". . . the settlement amount will be regarded as sum chargeable
under the provisions of the Act as required under Sec.195 of the
Income-Tax Act . . . the time to deduct the tax is when the amount
is moved from the segregated account in India to the initial
escrow account in the U.S. . . .," the AAR ruling dated August 27
said.

". . . the rate at which the tax is to be deducted is at 30 per
cent," the ruling said.

When contacted Mahindra Satyam officials refused to comment.

Tech Mahindra, which took over Satyam in 2009, had to settle all
pending litigations with several investors who had claimed losses
due to the shares of the firm plunging on bourses, including the
New York Stock Exchange where Satyam ADRs were listed.

In February, 2011, Mahindra Satyam had said it reached a
settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the class-action filed
against Satyam in the United States District Court, Southern
District Court of New York.

Mahindra Satyam had said it has agreed to pay $125 million subject
to the approval of the Reserve Bank of India and other statutory
bodies.

The settlement amount included taxes, compliance costs, attorney's
fees and expenses, it had added.


MEIJER INC: Recalls 68,000 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Meijer Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, announced a voluntary
recall of about 68,000 units of various models of Huffy, Iron
Horse, Mongoose, Northwoods, Pacific, Razor and Schwinn bicycles.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Pedals on the bicycles can loosen or detach during use, posing a
fall hazard to the rider.

There are 29 reports of pedals detaching or coming loose during
use, including 16 reports of minor injuries.

This recall involves two-wheeled youth and adult Huffy, Iron
Horse, Mongoose, Northwoods, Pacific, Razor, and Schwinn bicycles
measuring 20" or more.  They were assembled on-site at Meijer
stores by Serv-U-Success of Grandville, Michigan.  The bicycles
were sold between March 2012 and August 2012 and have a Serv-U-
Success assembly sticker attached.  This recall does not include
bicycles with Serv-U-Success assembly stickers written in green
marker.  The Serv-U-Success assembly sticker is located on the
bottom of the bicycle frame between the pedals or on the back of
the frame facing the rear tire.  A full list of affected models
can be found on Meijer's Web site at
http://www4.meijer.com/recall/bikebooklet.pdf/. Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12272.html

The recalled products were sold exclusively at Meijer stores in
Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky from March 2012
through August 2012 for between $60 and $300.  Bicycles sold at
Michigan Meijer stores in Cadillac, Gaylord, Petosky and Traverse
City are not included in this recall.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
return them to any Meijer store for a full refund or a replacement
bicycle of the same type and value.  Consumers will also receive a
$10 store coupon.  For additional information, contact Meijer at
(800) 927-8699 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.meijer.com/where a link to recalls can be found at the
bottom of the homepage.


MF GLOBAL: Objects to Trustee's Bid to Cooperate on Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Kary, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that MF Global
Holdings Ltd.'s trustee, Louis Freeh, said the rights to any
winnings from lawsuits against the failed brokerage's officers and
directors including Jon Corzine shouldn't be given to customers,
and should go to the general estate instead.

Representatives for customers have already started class-action,
or group, lawsuits against former directors and officers of the
company, and a trustee for customers has said he plans to
cooperate, sharing documents in exchange for any recoveries.

Because the agreement calls for general estate creditors to be
paid only if the customers are paid in full first, the customers
"are clearly not properly incentivized to litigate fully," Mr.
Freeh said in an objection filed in Manhattan bankruptcy court on
Aug. 29.

He said that while some lawsuit proceeds may belong to customers,
it is up to the general estate to manage them.  Mr. Freeh has been
unwinding the parent company under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code to repay creditors.

A separate trustee, James Giddens, is overseeing the brokerage
unit, MF Global Inc., which is liquidating under the Securities
Investor Protection Act to repay customers.  Both trustees have
made their own probes into how the company failed and have been at
odds over whether certain sums belong to creditors or customers.

"To assign general estate causes of action to a party other than
the Chapter 11 Trustee -- and worse yet to customer
representatives that are not incentivized to look out for the
interests of general estate creditors -- would appear not only to
be a poor exercise of business judgment but also could jeopardize
the Chapter 11 Trustee's own causes of action," lawyers for Mr.
Freeh wrote.

MF Global Holdings, run by former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)
Co-Chairman Mr. Corzine until his Nov. 4 resignation, filed the
eighth-largest U.S. bankruptcy in October after a $6.3 billion
trade on its own behalf on bonds of some of Europe's most indebted
nations led to margin calls.

Separately, Mr. Corzine and other officers, a group of lenders and
a group of creditors also objected in papers filed in court. Mr.
Corzine and 23 other individuals at the company said that as
potential defendants, they object to Mr. Giddens' plan to give the
plaintiffs whatever materials he wants.

Mr. Giddens' agreement with the class-action lawsuits would also
limit their right to get information and make them pay for some of
it, they added.

Creditors called Mr. Giddens' attempt to manage the class-action
recoveries "simply another back-handed attempt" to "allocate
general estate assets to customers."   The lenders, who say they
are an ad-hoc group owning more than $1.4 billion in customer
claims, said there are no provisions that assure the claims will
be "fully prosecuted or fairly settled for the benefit" of all
creditors.

"We disagree with the objections" said Kent Jarrell, a spokesman
for Mr. Giddens.  Mr. Jarrell said in a statement that Mr. Freeh
has "some inherent conflicts in opposing this motion because
individuals currently employed" by him are defendants in the
litigation.

Mr. Giddens' cooperation with the class-action plaintiffs is the
best way to recover assets and is "free from any possible
conflicts with employees or creditors," Mr. Jarrell said, noting
that Mr. Freeh is tasked with returning funds to large banks such
as JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), and hedge funds.

A hearing on Mr. Giddens' request to cooperate with class-action
plaintiffs is scheduled for Sept. 5, according to court records.

Mr. Freeh has predicted that MF Global's customers, facing a $1.6
billion gap in funds, will eventually recoup all of their money,
while Mr. Giddens has said distributions should be "in the 90
percent range."

Mr. Giddens may also sue former Chief Financial Officer Henri
Steenkamp and former assistant treasurer Edith O'Brien, among
others, as a way to recover more money, he has said.

The brokerage case is Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. MF
Global Inc., 11-02790, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan). The parent's bankruptcy case is MF Global
Holdings Ltd. (MFGLQ), 11-bk-15059, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Defends Suits Over Polyurethane Foam Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits related to polyurethane foam products, 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.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws.  Mohawk has been named as a
defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on
August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class
action complaints, the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf
of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,
and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers.  All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against
future violations.  In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct purchasers,
and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought
by the indirect purchasers.  On July 19, 2011, the Court issued a
written opinion denying all defendants' motions to dismiss.  In
December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian
Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory
Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Court
of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v.
Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of
Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims
against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek
unspecified damages and punitive damages.  The Company denies all
of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously defend
itself.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of
all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made
for probable losses and that the ultimate outcome of these actions
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition
but could have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations in a given quarter or year.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. -- http://www.mohawkind.com/-- is a
supplier of flooring for both residential and commercial
applications.  Mohawk offers a complete selection of carpet,
ceramic tile, laminate, wood, stone, vinyl, and rugs.  These
products are marketed under the premier brands in the industry,
which include Mohawk, Karastan, Lees, Bigelow, Dal-Tile, American
Olean, Unilin and Quick Step.  Mohawk's unique merchandising and
marketing assist the Company's customers in creating the
consumers' dream.  Mohawk provides a premium level of service with
its own trucking fleet and local distribution.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Arbitrations Ongoing in The Cosmopolitan Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that 14 condominium hotel units at
The Cosmopolitan remain subject to ongoing arbitrations.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware, (the "Company") owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced
operations on December 15, 2010.  Prior to December 15, 2010, the
Property was in its construction and pre-opening stage.

The entity that previously owned the Property was Cosmo Senior
Borrower LLC, a limited liability company organized in Delaware
("CSB"), which acquired the Property from its affiliate, 3700
Associates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the
"Previous Owner"), in December 2005.

During the period from 2005 to 2007, the Previous Owner and CSB
entered into binding purchase and sale contracts (the "Purchase
Contracts") for the purchase and sale of 1,821 condominium-hotel
units during the development and construction stage of the
Property.  These Purchase Contracts were acquired by the Company
in connection with acquisition of the Property at the foreclosure
sale on September 3, 2008.  The total sales proceeds associated
with the Purchase Contracts, if all of the Purchase Contracts were
to close pursuant to their terms, would be approximately $1.4
billion.  Upon or shortly after signing the Purchase Contracts,
the purchasers deposited into escrow 20% of the applicable
purchase price as a non-refundable earnest money deposit, which
totaled approximately $307 million at December 31, 2008, including
interest accrued thereon.  Beginning in late 2008, certain
purchasers, both individually and as part of several large-scale
class actions, filed legal actions and arbitrations against the
Company seeking to rescind the Purchase Contracts and receive a
return of their earnest money deposits.  The purchasers claimed,
among other things, that the opening of The Cosmopolitan had been
unreasonably delayed, which was alleged to be a breach by the
Company of the Purchase Contracts.

The Company was a named defendant in a number of lawsuits and
arbitrations concerning the purchase and sale of condominium units
located within the East and West Towers of the Property.  The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that delays in the
completion of the Property and changes to the design of the
Property constituted material breaches by the Company, thus
permitting the plaintiffs/purchasers to rescind their contract and
receive a full refund of their earnest money deposit, plus
interest thereon.  The Company was represented in each of these
matters by outside legal counsel.  Virtually all of the original
claims have been settled (through either a series of class action
or individual settlements) or litigated to completion.

As of August 3, 2012, there were 14 condominium hotel units that
remain the subject of ongoing arbitrations.  The Company is
actively engaged in various arbitrations and other dispute
resolution proceedings with respect to all of those units.  Those
proceedings are in varying stages and the Company disputes the
allegations made by the buyers in those proceedings.  For each of
these claims, the Company believes that it has strong legal
defenses, and intends to vigorously defend its position.
Management does not believe that these claims will have a material
adverse impact on the condensed consolidated financial position,
cash flows, or the results of operations of the Company.  The
Company expects that some of the units that are the subject of
ongoing arbitrations may be settled under similar terms to those
of prior settlements, while others may be litigated to completion.

In the third quarter of 2012, a buyer agreed to settle and release
their claim against the Company arising under their agreement to
purchase a condominium hotel unit.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the buyer received a refund of 48% of their principal
earnest money deposit.  The Company retained 52% of the principal
deposit, plus 100% of all interest, under the purchase contract,
resulting in a net gain of $0.1 million which the Company will
recognize as net settlement income in the 2012 consolidated
statement of operations.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Faces Two Wage and Hour Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC is facing two wage and hour class action
lawsuits, 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.

The Company has been put on notice and or served with two separate
class action lawsuits related to alleged unpaid compensation for
time incurred by employees while on property for donning and
doffing of the employees' required uniform, alleged improper
rounding of time for hours worked and various other claims related
to alleged unpaid compensation.  The Company says it is in the
process of evaluating the lawsuits and cannot at this time
determine the potential impact of the lawsuits on the condensed
consolidated financial position, cash flows, or the results of
operations of the Company.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Sued Over Unlawful Taping/Recording of Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC is facing a class action lawsuit in
California alleging unlawful taping and recording of calls,
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.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court in the
State of California against the Company, alleging violation of the
California Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording
of calls.  The Company says it is in the process of evaluating the
lawsuit and cannot at this time determine the potential impact of
the lawsuit on the condensed consolidated financial position, cash
flows, or the results of operations of the Company.


NEW BALANCE: Settles Toning Shoes Class Action for $2.3 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Hines, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that people
who didn't get that tight butt they were promised from New
Balance's "toning" shoes are now at least getting a check.

On Aug. 20, a Massachusetts judge agreed to let New Balance pay
$2.3 million to settle false advertising claims filed against the
company by three women in 2011.  The women, Kimberly Carey,
Victoria Molinarolo and Shannon Dilbeck will get up to $5,000
each, according to court documents.  Others who join the class
action will receive a $100 refund for each pair of toning shoes
they purchased.

New Balance's shoes, which originally retailed for around $100,
were introduced in 2010 and advertised as stylish toning shoes
that looked like regular sneakers.  New Balance claimed its
TrueBalance and Rock&Tone lines "activated" certain lower body
muscles with soles that made it hard to stay balanced, as if the
wearer was running on sand, according to the original class-action
complaint.  In ads, New Balance called its shoes a "hidden beauty
secret," promising that they helped the wearer burn 8 percent more
calories than regular sneakers.

In their complaint, filed in Massachusetts, where New Balance is
headquartered, the plaintiffs called the company's advertising
deceptive.  "Wearing the Toning Shoes provides no additional
activation to the gluteus, hamstring or calf muscles, and does not
burn any additional calories," lawyers wrote.  "Moreover,
scientists are concerned that wearing the Toning Shoes may lead to
injury, a fact which New Balance deceptively omits from its
advertising."

While all the talk of simulating balancing on sand was shaky to
begin with, thousands of people bought into the marketing over the
past few years -- the toning shoe industry sold $252 million worth
of shoes in the first four months of 2010, up from $17 million in
2008, according to the complaint.  At the height of the toning
shoe craze, a FitFlop pair was spotted on actress Julianne Moore,
and Skechers hired Kim Kardashian to push its Shape-ups.

Both Skechers and Reebok have recently been ordered by the Federal
Trade Commission to pay settlements to duped consumers.  In May of
this year, Skechers agreed to pay $40 million in consumer refunds;
in September of 2011, Reebok agreed to pay $25 million over its
EasyTone shoes.  Those companies can no longer claim that science
backs up their shoes' weight loss claims without hard evidence.
(According to the Federal Trade Commission, one of the doctors
that Skechers used to advertise its Shape-ups was paid by the
company and also married to a Skechers marketing executive, a fact
the company did not disclose in advertisements.)

New Balance has not faced Federal Trade Commission sanctions so
far, though the class-action settlement also prevents the company
from claiming its shoes do anything to promote health without
proof from clinical studies.


OLD NATIONAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Checking Acct. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit related to its checking account
practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees,
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.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
challenging Old National Bank's checking account practices
associated with the assessment of overdraft fees.  On May 1, 2012,
the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First Amended
Complaint which names additional plaintiffs and amends certain
claims.  The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief, including
restitution.  Old National believes it has meritorious defenses to
the claims brought by the plaintiffs.  At this phase of the
litigation, it is not possible for management of Old National to
determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount of any loss.  No class has yet been
certified and discovery is ongoing.  On June 13, 2012, Old
National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint,
which has not yet been ruled upon.

Old National Bancorp -- http://www.oldnational.com/-- operates as
a holding company for Old National Bank, which provides financial
services to individuals and commercial customers primarily in
Indiana, eastern and southeastern Illinois, and central and
western Kentucky.  The company was founded in 1834 and is
headquartered in Evansville, Indiana.


OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Defend "Barker" Class Suit vs. ORHP
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation continues to defend its
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit pending in Alabama
alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
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 May 22, 2009, a purported national class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama (Barker v.
Old Republic Home Protection Company) alleging that ORHP paid fees
to real estate brokers to market its home warranty contracts and
that the payment of such fees was in violation of Sections 8(a)
and 8(b) of RESPA.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
including treble damages under RESPA.  No class has been
certified, and the action is not expected to result in any
material liability to the Company.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largest
publicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interest
in major segments of the industry.  The Company is primarily a
commercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leading
industrial and financial services companies as valued customers.
The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC's Appeal From Class Cert. Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary's appeal from an order granting class certification
in the lawsuit captioned Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC remains pending,
according to Old Republic International Corporation's August 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states --
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas
(Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District,
Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008).  The plaintiffs
allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or
refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance
covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate
schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the
state insurance regulatory authorities.  The Pennsylvania lawsuit
also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA").  The Court in the Texas lawsuit
dismissed similar RESPA allegations.  Classes have been certified
in both actions, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted
ORNTIC's motion appealing the Texas class certification.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largest
publicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interest
in major segments of the industry.  The Company is primarily a
commercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leading
industrial and financial services companies as valued customers.
The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that mirroring an earlier suit, a
class claims that hotel operators and travel Web sites conspired
to fix the price for room reservations.

A copy of the Complaint in Smith v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-03515 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/30/travelocity.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          2926 Maple Avenue, Suite 200
          Dallas, Texas 75201

               - and -

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          GILMAN LAW LLP
          Beachway Professional Center Tower
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 307
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 221-8301
          E-mail: kgilman@gilmanpastor.com


SHIMANO AMERICAN: Recalls 67 PRO VIBE Carbon Bicycle Handlebars
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Shimano American Corporation, of Irvine, California, and
manufacturer, Great Go Cycles Inc., of Taiwan, announced a
voluntary recall of about 67 PRO VIBE Carbon bicycle handlebars.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled handlebars can break during riding, posing a fall
hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled bicycle handlebars, intended for high-end road racing
bikes, are compact and drop-shaped.  The handlebars are sold
separately and they have two labels with "Pro Vibe" logo directly
printed on them.  The model number appears on the bar code sticker
on the packaging and serial numbers are printed on a label inside
the tube of the handlebar.  The recalled model numbers are:
PRHA0099, PRHA0102, PRHA0103, PRHA0105 and PRHA0106.  The affected
serial codes are: JE028ZG, JE101ZG, JE106ZG, JF081ZG, JF102ZG,
JG048ZG, JH006ZG and JH077ZG.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12264.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold by
bicycle specialty stores and dealers nationwide from June 2011
through April 2012 for about $370.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles with the recalled
handlebars and contact Shimano for information about obtaining a
free replacement from an authorized retailer in their area.  For
additional information, contact Shimano American Corporation at
(800) 353-4719 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.shimano.com/


SNOWPULSE SA: Recalls 3,800 Avalanche Airbags Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Mammut Sports Group Inc., of Shelburne,
Vermont; manufacturer, Snowpulse SA, of Martigny, Switzerland; and
distributor, Mountain Sports Distribution, of Golden British
Columbia, Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,200
Snowpulse Avalanche Airbags in the United States of America and
2,600 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A leak in the airbag's cartridge can result in the airbag not
deploying, posing a risk of death and injury in the event of an
avalanche.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Snowpulse Avalanche airbags with inflation-
system 1.0 air cartridges.  The airbags are used for skiing,
snowmobiling and mountain climbing to help keep the user above the
surface if an avalanche occurs.  Model year 2008 to 2010 airbag
cartridges are included in this recall.  The packs are between 15
and 45 liters and have the "Snowpulse" logo printed on them.  The
metal cartridge is inside the pack and unscrews from the airbag.
Cartridges using inflation system 1.0 gauges can be identified by
the pin inside the threaded fitting on the side of the cartridge.
If this gauge does not have an "A" or a "B" on the dial then it is
included in the recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12268.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Switzerland and sold by
Specialty outdoor and motorsports stores nationwide from September
2008 through April 2012 for between $900 and $1,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled airbags and
contact Snowpulse for a replacement cartridge.  For additional
information, contact Snowpulse at (800) 451-5127 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.snowpulse.com/


SP AUSNET: Victorians May Bear Cost of Bushfire Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Heffernan, Reid Sexton and Vince Chadwick, writing for
The Age, report that Victorians may pay the cost of class actions
against electricity company SP AusNet for its alleged role in
sparking the Black Saturday bushfires -- via higher electricity
prices.

SP AusNet is facing two class actions over its role in two deadly
bushfires in February 2009: Kilmore East, which killed 119 people,
and Murrindindi, which killed 40 people.

The Singapore-backed company, which is worth AUD3.5 billion, has
already agreed to pay AUD19.7 million in response to a class
action over the Beechworth bushfire earlier this year.

A draft ruling by the Australian Energy Regulator this week opened
the way for SP AusNet to pass on excess costs to its customers
from the Kilmore East and Murrindindi fires -- which would mean
any costs related to the class actions not covered by its
insurance.

State Energy Minister Michael O'Brien said the government was
awaiting the regulator's advice on the potential implications of
its draft decision.

"As a matter of principle, the Victorian government would not
support any regulatory action that resulted in bushfire victims
paying for damage caused by their electricity network.  The
government will consider all its options to stand up for the
interests of Victorian consumers through the regulatory process,"
Mr. O'Brien said.

Opposition energy spokeswoman Lily D'Ambrosio said it would
consider making a submission to the regulator about its decision.

Gerard Brody, policy director at Consumer Action Law Centre, said:
"These decisions are meant to be made with the long-term interests
of consumers in mind -- that's the legislative obligation -- and
I'd say at first blush this sounds like it's definitely got the
interests of SP AusNet and their shareholders in mind, not
consumers."

In instances such as catastrophic events beyond their control,
electricity networks can request to pass on associated costs to
their customers, to keep their insurance costs under control.
This week's draft ruling backdates the period for which SP AusNet
can apply to "pass through" associated costs in the period 2006-
10, therefore taking in Black Saturday.

SP AusNet told shareholders last week that under the draft ruling,
there "may be circumstances in which liability which exceeds
insurance may be recovered by SP AusNet as regulated revenue."

Shareholders liked the news, pushing SP AusNet's shares up 4 per
cent on Aug. 30, but Lyn Gunter, the former mayor of fire-ravaged
Murrindindi was "stunned" by the decision.

"There will be a backlash in Victoria, if not around Australia,"
she said.

The regulator and SP AusNet have stressed it is early days yet:
the draft ruling has yet to be formalized and consultations will
continue until September 12.  Any request from SP AusNet to push
through price increases can be rejected if the company is found at
fault for the bushfires.

The decision follows a Victoria Police report to the state coroner
that found SP AusNet's electricity assets were likely to blame for
the Murrindindi fire, which was originally considered suspicious
and therefore not investigated by the Victorian Bushfires Royal
Commission.

SP AusNet has denied responsibility for the blazes.  It says it's
not yet clear whether its insurance is sufficient.

The Black Saturday bushfires raged through Victoria on Saturday,
February 7, 2009, killing 173 people, injuring 414 and destroying
2030 homes.


SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 100 Bicycle Brake Levers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., Morgan Hill, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 100 Bicycle Brake Levers.
About 600 of the 2010 and 2011 Shiv Modules and 2012 Shiv TT
modules were recalled in April 2012.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The adjuster cap and brake cable can slide out of position and
make the brakes non-operational.  This can cause a rider to lose
control of the bicycle and crash.

Specialized Bicycle is aware of one incident worldwide in which
the rider lost the function of both brakes.  The firm has received
no reports of injury or property damage.

This recall includes Tektro TL-83 brake levers sold on 2012 S-
Works Shiv bicycle frame modules, 2012 S-Works Shiv TT bicycle
frame modules, and sold as aftermarket service parts for these
modules.  The TL-83 is a version of the TL-720 brake lever,
modified with a quick release slot at the top of the lever arm and
designed exclusively for use with aerodynamic handlebars
(aerobars) sold as original equipment on these modules.  They are
black aluminum and model number "TL-720" can be read on the side
of the lever arm when braking action is applied.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12271.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized Specialized Bicycle Components retailers from May 2011
to June 2012.  The bicycle frame modules sold for between $5,500
and $6,100.  The brake levers sold for about $80 as service parts.

Consumers should immediately stop riding modules equipped with TL-
83 brake levers and return the levers or modules to an authorized
Specialized Bicycle Components retailer for free replacement brake
levers.  For more information and to find the nearest authorized
Specialized Bicycle Components retailer, contact Specialized
customer service between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time
Monday through Friday at (877) 808-8154 or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.specialized.com/


SPOKANE PRODUCE: Recalls Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spokane Produce, Inc., is voluntarily recalling a small lot run of
Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella braenderup.

Salmonella is 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.

The recall only includes 128/16ounce plastic containers of the
refrigerated Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo with the UPC code
"8869483987" under the brand labels Garden Patch or Yoke's.

The product was distributed to 11 inland northwest supermarkets in
Washington, Idaho and Montana.

The Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo includes mangoes of the Daniella
brand that is being recalled by the supplier due to the potential
contamination with Salmonella.

Out of an abundance of caution, as a service to the general
consuming public at large, all product is being recalled in
consultation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  No
illnesses have been reported.

Consumers who purchased the recalled Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo
are advised not to eat any product with a date for use on or
before 9/10/12 and destroy or return the product to the place of
purchase.

Consumers with questions should call Spokane Produce, Inc., at
509-710-8301.


SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Recalls 600,700 Mr. Coffee Single Cup Brewers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Sunbeam Products Inc., d/b/a Jarden Consumer
Solutions ("JCS"), of Boca Raton, Florida, announced a voluntary
recall of about 520,000 units of Mr. Coffee(R) Single Cup Brewing
System in the United States of America and 80,700 units in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

A build-up of steam in the water reservoir can force the brewing
chamber open and expel hot coffee grounds and water, posing a burn
hazard.

JCS has received 164 reports of the brewing chamber opening due to
steam pressure, including approximately 59 reports in the U.S. and
two in Canada of burn injuries to consumers' face, upper torso and
hands.

The recalled coffeemaker comes in black with silver, red or white
trim.  It stands about 11 inches tall and has a Brew Now /Off
button and a removable drip tray.  The water tank is located on
top of the unit towards the back.  The model number is printed on
the bottom of the brewer.  Recalled model numbers are:

   BVMC-KG1        BVMC-KG1A-001     BVMC-KG1-WM-001
   BVMC-KG1-001    BVMC-KG1-BEA      BVMC-KG1R-001
   BVMC-KG1-044    BVMC-KG1BP-PAL    BVMC-KG1R-006
   BVMC-KG1A       BVMC-KG1-WM       BVMC-KG1W-001

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12263.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by mass
merchandisers nationwide, including Bed Bath & Beyond, Brandsmart,
JC Penney, Kmart, Lowe's, Target and Walmart, and online at
www.mrcoffee.com from September 2010 through August 2012 for
between $60 and $80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled coffee brewer
and contact JCS to receive instructions on how to obtain a free
replacement unit.  For additional information, contact JCS at
(800) 993-8609 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.mrcoffeerecall.com/


TRACTOR SUPPLY: Recalls 10,900 Inflatable Recreational Tubes
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tractor Supply Company, of Brentwood, Tennessee, announced a
voluntary recall of about 10,900 Traveller Recreational Tubes.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Contact with the inflatable tube can result in severe skin
irritation or burns.

Tractor Supply has received 21 reports of consumers receiving
severe skin irritation or burns while using the tubes.  Seven
people sought medical attention for their injuries.

The recalled tubes are made of gray rubber and measure 47 inches
in diameter.  Model number "1026192" can be found on the box along
with UPC code 4939403118 and the words "Traveller Recreational
Tube."  Product number "11.00R22" can be found molded into the
tube itself.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12266.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Tractor Supply Stores nationwide from May 2012
through June 2012 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and return it
to any Tractor Supply Store for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Tractor Supply toll free at (877) 872-7721
between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time any day, or visit the
firm's Web site at
http://www.tractorsupply.com/TravellerTireRecall/


US BANCORP: Discloses $65-Mil. Liability in Visa Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bancorp disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that the carrying amount of its liability
related to the Visa Litigation matters was $65 million and
includes its estimate of its share of the temporary reduction in
interchange rates specified in the memorandum of understanding
agreement related to the litigation.

The Company's payment services business issues and acquires credit
and debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. card
association or its affiliates (collectively "Visa").  In 2007,
Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc.
common stock to its financial institution members in contemplation
of its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in the first
quarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization").  As a part of the
Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate number
of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently
converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares").  Visa
U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International
(collectively, the "Card Associations"), are defendants in
antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card
Associations (the "Visa Litigation").  Visa U.S.A. member banks
have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa
U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the
restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from
the Visa Litigation.  The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A.
member banks has no specific maximum amount.

Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the
conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa
U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for
the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.
The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in
other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa
Litigation contingent liability.

On July 13, 2012, Visa signed a memorandum of understanding to
enter into a settlement agreement to resolve class action claims
associated with the multi-district interchange litigation (the
"MOU agreement"), the largest of the remaining Visa Litigation
matters.  At June 30, 2012, the carrying amount of the Company's
liability related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share
of the escrow fundings, was $65 million and includes the Company's
estimate of its share of the temporary reduction in interchange
rates specified in the MOU agreement.  The remaining Class B
shares held by the Company will be eligible for conversion to
Class A shares, and thereby become marketable, upon settlement of
the Visa Litigation.


WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over False Advertising on Drink Mixes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart falsely advertises
its "Great Value Immunity" powdered drink mixes as natural, with
real fruit, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Paolone v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case
No. 12-cv-01333 (N.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/30/WalMartCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Susan M. Coler, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  coler@halunenlaw.com


WPX ENERGY: Royalty Interest Owners Suit Pending in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit brought on behalf
of a potential class of royalty interest owners in New Mexico and
Colorado, 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.

In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against the Company in
the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico.  The complaint alleges
failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate,
fraud and misstatement of the value of gas and affiliated sales,
breach of duty to market hydrocarbons, violation of the New Mexico
Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, bad faith breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and a
declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to production,
payments and future reporting.  This matter has been removed to
the United States District Court for New Mexico.

At this time, the Company believes that its royalty calculations
have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate
contractual arrangements and applicable laws.  The Company does
not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range of
exposure related to these claims.


WPX ENERGY: Still Defends Suits Related to Gas Price Indices
------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging manipulation of published gas price indices, 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.

Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the Company and others,
seeking unspecified amounts of damages.  The Company is currently
a defendant in class action litigation and other litigation
originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
natural gas in those states.  These cases were transferred to the
federal court in Nevada.  In 2008, the court granted summary
judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the Company and most of
the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing.  On
January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in
the Company's favor.  When a final order is entered against the
one remaining defendant, the Colorado plaintiffs may appeal the
order.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted the Company's joint motions for summary judgment to
preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal
Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
("FERC") exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues.  The
court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as
moot.  The plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Because of the uncertainty around pending unresolved issues,
including an insufficient description of the purported classes and
other related matters, the Company says it cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposures at this time.  However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items
could result in future charges that may be material to the
Company's results of operations.


WPX ENERGY: To Litigate Royalty Interest Suit's 2nd Claim in 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that the second reserved claim in the class
action lawsuit pending in Colorado will be litigated next year.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action lawsuit in the District Court,
Garfield County, Colorado, alleging the Company improperly
calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for
proceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extracted
products, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund
amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.
Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners,
recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments
resulting from calculation errors.  The Company entered into a
final, partial settlement agreement.  The partial settlement
agreement defined the class for certification, resolved claims
relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding royalty
payments, established certain rules to govern future royalty and
overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related to past
withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a procedure
for refunds of any such excess withholding in the future, and
reserved two claims for court resolution.  The Company has
prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the first
reserved claim regarding whether it is allowed to deduct mainline
pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease
agreements.  The remaining claim is whether the Company is
required to have proportionately increased the value of natural
gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and,
if required, whether it did so and are entitled to deduct a
proportionate share of transportation costs in calculating royalty
payments.

The Company anticipates litigating the second reserved claim in
2013.  The Company believes its royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and Colorado law.  At this time, the plaintiffs have
not provided the Company a sufficient framework to calculate an
estimated range of exposure related to their claims.


                           *********

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  * * *