/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120905.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 5, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 176 Headlines AMAZON.COM INC: Faces N.Y. Class Suit for Copyright Infringement ANTO PEKIC: Accused of Not Paying Interest on Tenants' Deposits APPLEILLINOIS LLC: Must Compensate Servers for Non-Tipped Work APRIA HEALTHCARE: Judge Broadens Class in FLSA Suit ASSURANT INC: Field Staff Adjusters File Overtime Class Action AU OPTRONICS: Kansans Eligible for Reimbursement in LCD Settlement BI-LO: Recalls Daniella Brand Mangoes Due to Possible Health Risk BROWN-FORMAN: Louisville Residents Sue Over Whiskey Fungus CANADA: Class Suit Over Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak Mulled CANADA: Quebec Students Launch Class Action Over Strikes CANADA: Prisoners File Class Action v. AG Over T-Shirt Ban CAPITAL ONE: AGs Can Use Private Attorneys to Pursue Claims CHECKSMART FINANCIAL: Sued Over Illegal Recording of Phone Calls CLOROX CO: Judge Partially Grants Bid to Dismiss Fresh Step Suit COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages EQUINIX INC: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing on Sept. 21 EVERGREEN ULTRA: December 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set F&S PRODUCE: Recalls Expired Products With Fresh-cut Mango GLADSTONE PORTS: Sick Fish Class Action Likely to Drag On INTERNET INITIATIVE: Appeals From Class Deal Approval Dismissed JAMAICA PUBLIC: To Dispute $24-MM Payment Sought in Class Suit KABA ILCO: Faces Class Action Over Pushbutton Combination Locks LITHIA MOTORS: Oct. 11 Final Hearing on "McClintic" Suit Deal Set LITHIA MOTORS: "Neese" Opt-Out Claimants' Suit Pending in Alaska LKQ CORP: Class Suit vs. 2 Product Suppliers Still Pending MANNA ORGANICS: Recalls Soybean Sprouts and Tofu Products MANPOWER INC: Awaits Final Okay of Vacation Pay Suit Settlement MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: App. Court Reinstates Civil Suit v. Sheriff NATIONAL PENN: "Reyes" Suit Dismissed in First Quarter NEW ORIENTAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Continues to Face RESPA Violations Suits OLD REPUBLIC: Second "Campion" Class Suit Dismissed in July PACIFIC COAST: Recalls 6-8-Lb. Bags of Deli Styled Fruits Salads PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "NECA-IBEW" Suit PPG INDUSTRIES: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Overtime Class Action QUALITY FEED: Recalls Milk Replacer Due to Salmonella Health Risk RAMTRON INT'L: Faces "Dent" Stockholder Class Suit in Colorado READY PAC: Recalls Fresh Cut Fruit Products Containing Mangoes REAL FOODS: Recalls Products Containing Daniella Brand Mangos SMART METERS: Tribunal Allows Claimants to Amend Complaint SOMERSAULT SNACK: Recalls 6 oz. Packages of Pacific Sea Salt ST. JOE CO: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending ST. JOE CO: Hearing on Settlement of Oil Spill Claims on Nov. 8 STOP & SHOP: Stops Sale of Daniella Mangos Due to Recall SYNGENTA CROP: Kaua'i County Dep't. of Water Joins Settlement TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Products Containing Daniella Brand Mangoes TREX COMPANY: Mold Claims in Defective Products Suit Pending TREX COMPANY: Defends Defective Products Suits in 4 States WINN-DIXIE: Recalls Cut Fruit Produced By Renaissance Food WORLD FOODS: Recalls Cut Fruit and Salsa Products With Mangoes YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ********* AMAZON.COM INC: Faces N.Y. Class Suit for Copyright Infringement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action complaint was commenced by Norman Blagman against Amazon.com Inc. in July 2012 for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company sells digital music in its Amazon MP3 Store obtained from defendant Orchard Enterprises and other unnamed "digital music aggregators" without obtaining mechanical licenses for the compositions embodied in that music. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself in the matter. Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://wwww.amazon.com/-- operates as an online retailer in North America and internationally. It operates retail Websites, such as amazon.com and amazon.ca. The Company serves consumers through its retail Web sites and focuses on selection, price, and convenience. It also offers programs that enable sellers to sell their products on Company's Web sites, and their own branded Websites. The Company manufactures and sells the Kindle e-reader. It was founded in 1004. ANTO PEKIC: Accused of Not Paying Interest on Tenants' Deposits --------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Olubode, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Anto Pekic, Case No. 2012-CH- 32978 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 30, 2012) is brought on behalf of all tenants in Chicago of buildings owned by Anto Pekic. The lawsuit seeks redress for violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance by Anto Pekic. Ms. Olubode contends that the Defendant violates the Ordinance by failing to pay interest on the security deposits of tenants. Ms. Olubode is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. She entered into a rental agreement for a dwelling unit in a multiple-unit residential apartment building owned by the Defendant and located at 1025 W. Hollywood Ave., #419, in Chicago, Illinois. The Defendant is the owner and "landlord" of Hollywood building in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Spinak, Esq. SPINAK & BABCOCK, P.C. 134 N. LaSalle, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-1337 APPLEILLINOIS LLC: Must Compensate Servers for Non-Tipped Work -------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that an Applebee's franchise must compensate servers and bartenders for services like dishwashing that they had to perform outside of their normal tipped work, a federal judge ruled. AppleIllinois LLC operates 34 Applebee's Neighborhood Bar & Grill restaurants in Illinois. It faces a federal class action from servers, bartenders and hostesses who claim that they often had to perform non-tipped work, such as dishwashing and cleaning. Though these activities sometimes accounted for 20 percent of a shift, AppleIllinois did not pay the workers minimum wage for the time spent on these duties. The workers also claimed they had to contribute 2.5 percent of sales per shift to a tip pool, which often exceeded 15 percent of total tips actually received. U.S. District Judge Geraldine Brown certified the class in March 2010, and reaffirmed certification after the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, finding that the class met the new standard for commonality. Judge Brown sided with the Applebee's workers again on Aug. 27 in a ruling for partial summary judgment. "The evidence demonstrates that AppleIllinois employees working at tip credit rates did those duties for much longer periods of time than can be fairly characterized as occasional, incidental or insignificant," the 50-page decision states. "Rather, employees working at tip credit rates were regularly used instead of minimum wage workers to do those tasks." "AppleIllinois' executives themselves recognize that some tasks are plainly outside a tipped occupation," Judge Brown added. "For example, both [Curtis] Smith, the president of AppleIllinois, and [Scott] Cortner, its vice-president of human relations, stated that tipped employees should 'never' mop floors or clean bathrooms." However, "it is striking how often the current employees (in declarations that were submitted by AppleIllinois) describe their regular duties as including the very things that the executives state should not be done by tipped employees: cleaning bathrooms including toilets, sinks, mirrors and urinals; wiping down walls; polishing paneling with Pledge or lemon oil; mopping or scrubbing floors; and loading the dishwasher," the decision states. "In addition, they report doing other tasks that are so far removed from a tipped occupation that they cannot be reasonably regarded as 'related' duties as that term is used in the dual jobs regulation, for example: washing windows; cleaning chandeliers; picking up trash in the parking lot; taking out garbage; restocking bathrooms; and dumping and refilling the 'sani' bucket," Judge Brown wrote. "The court concludes that plaintiffs have demonstrated that, as a regular practice, AppleIllinois employed its tipped workers in 'dual jobs,' that is, in both tipped and non-tipped occupations," she added. "Contrary to AppleIllinois' fears, enforcing the dual jobs regulation does not prohibit 'a team-oriented approach to serving customers.' It simply requires that when tipped employees are also required to perform the work of minimum wage workers, they get paid the minimum wage." A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Driver, et al. v. AppleIllinois, LLC d/b/a Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar, et al., Case No. 06-cv-06149 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/29/applebees.pdf APRIA HEALTHCARE: Judge Broadens Class in FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------- Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania federal judge on Aug. 30 broadened a conditionally certified class in a lawsuit over off-the-clock work against Apria Healthcare Inc., allowing workers with six more different job titles to be part of the class. U.S. District Judge Jan Dubois determined the six additional positions were substantially similar to that of plaintiff Connie Titchenell, a customer service specialist who worked for the home health care provider until 2010. The judge issued conditional certification to a class of customer service specialists in November 2011. ASSURANT INC: Field Staff Adjusters File Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Assurant stiffed field staff adjusters for overtime for 3 years, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Locke v. Assurant, Inc., Case No. 12- at-00574 (E.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/31/Assurant.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Valerie Kincaid, Esq. Arnab Banerjee, Esq. INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC 1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5637 E-mail: mgrant@initiativelegal.com vkincaid@initiativelegal.com abanerjee@initiativelegal.com AU OPTRONICS: Kansans Eligible for Reimbursement in LCD Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt on Aug. 27 disclosed that Kansans who purchased flat panel televisions or computer monitors may be eligible for reimbursement from a class-action settlement. Kansas consumers who purchased liquid-crystal display (LCD) panels incorporated in televisions, monitors and/or laptop computers between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2006, are among those who may be eligible. Although the State of Kansas was not a party to the litigation, Mr. Schmidt's office closely monitored the case to ensure that Kansas consumers would be eligible to apply for reimbursement as part of any settlement. The case was brought in 2011 by eight other states as well as private class counsel. The settlement resolves allegations of an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of LCD flat panels, resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought these products. Schmidt said Kansas consumers can find more information on the settlement and how to file a claim by visiting the Attorney General's Web site at http://www.ag.ks.govor by calling the Consumer Protection Division at 1-800-432-2310. BI-LO: Recalls Daniella Brand Mangoes Due to Possible Health Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- BI-LO announced an immediate voluntary recall on whole Daniella brand mangoes sold with a universal product code (UPC) of 0-00000- 04051 in stores between July 12 and August 27, 2012. The recalled mangoes, a product of Mexico, were sold as individual fruit and can be identified by the Daniella brand sticker. The product is being recalled in the states of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee due to a potential health risk from possible contamination with Salmonella Braenderup. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm317868.htm 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. Out of an abundance of caution for customer safety and as a service to the general consuming public at large, the Daniella brand mangoes are being recalled in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Company has received no reports of illness associated with product consumption. "We encourage consumers in possession of the recalled item to immediately discard the product or bring it back to their local BI-LO," said Brian Wright, BI-LO's senior director of communications. "As part of the company's Satisfaction Guarantee, customers who have purchased the product may visit their neighborhood store to request a full refund." Consumers are advised not to eat the mangoes and to either discard or return them to BI-LO for a refund. To receive the refund, individuals must present proof of purchase through a receipt. Customers with questions about the recalled mangoes may contact BI-LO's consumer relations department at 1-800-862-9293. Hours of operation are Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Consumers who may have purchased mangoes without sticker information are urged to consult the store for sourcing information. About BI-LO Headquartered in Mauldin, South Carolina, BI-LO operates 206 supermarkets in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee, employing approximately 16,995 people. Founded in 1961, the Company provides shoppers substantial savings without sacrificing quality or freshness through its BI-LO BONUSCARD(R) and other exclusive programs. A committed corporate citizen, BI- LO has raised more than $63 million through its BI-LO Charities efforts to organizations across the Company's footprint since 1984. For more information, visit http://www.bi-lo.com/ BROWN-FORMAN: Louisville Residents Sue Over Whiskey Fungus ---------------------------------------------------------- The Huffington Post reports that a black, sooty gunk is at the heart of a new class-action lawsuit filed against five major bourbon whiskey distilleries by residents and business owners in and around Louisville, Kentucky. Baudoinia, a type of fungus recently identified by scientists, is everywhere in Louisville. Although the stuff has had a ubiquitous presence for decades, plaintiffs recently filed a suit in June claiming the distilleries -- Brown-Forman (Jack Daniels), Diageo (Bulleit), Heaven Hill, Buffalo Trace and Jim Beam -- were negligent and are responsible for significant property damage throughout the area. The New York Times reports that the naturally-occurring Baudoinia thrives on ethanol, a clear alcohol that can evaporate during fermentation, "making the area around whiskey-aging warehouses a prime breeding ground." Distillers call the ethanol released into the environment the "angel's share," but plaintiffs says the stuff coats cars, houses and everything in between and is expensive and difficult to remove. William F. McMurry, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in Louisville, plans to file a similar suit in Scotland, where Baudoinia is also a common problem. Mr. McMurry told the Times that he wants the distillers ordered to "stop off-gasing ethanol," adding, "This is not going to affect their bottom line and the flavor of whiskey." In a joint statement, Brown-Forman, Diageo and Heaven Hill countered that they're not responsible for a natural growth: "While we are sympathetic to the concerns of the plaintiffs, the blackening of some buildings and other structures is due to a naturally occurring common mold that is found widely throughout the environment, including in areas unrelated to the production of whiskey . . . The companies involved do not believe that they have caused any harm to the plaintiffs or their property, and we will vigorously contest these claims." The remaining two distilleries did not comment. The 2007 study identifying the fungus revealed that Baudoinia was "reported originally from the walls of buildings near brandy maturation warehouses in Cognac, France" and are the result of "large diurnal temperature shifts, episodic high relative humidity and wetting, and ambient airborne ethanol." CANADA: Class Suit Over Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak Mulled ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that the Quebec government has ordered a public inquiry into an outbreak of legionnaires' disease that has killed nine people. The Aug. 30 announcement came hours before public health officials announced the number of overall cases of the disease in Quebec City had jumped to 151 from 141. Cooling systems in two building towers are believed to be the source of the current outbreak. Local authorities have disinfected the cooling systems in more than 100 buildings. Inspectors are currently revisiting about 30 of them to look at the water and to make sure building owners have complied with clean-up directives. A grieving relative held a news conference on Aug. 30 with her lawyer, with whom she has discussed the possibility of a class- action lawsuit. Lawyer Jean-Pierre Menard, an expert on class actions in the health field, says legal action is not being considered yet but that he wants to know more about what happened. Mr. Menard was accompanied at the news conference by Solange Allen, whose husband Claude Desjardins died of the illness on Aug. 19. The woman said her husband was dead less than a week after the first symptoms showed up. "My husband fell ill and had the shivers and a fever during the night Monday and we thought it was just a regular flu," she said. "He went to work. But then on Wednesday (Aug. 15) his condition worsened." Ms. Allen said Mr. Desjardins went to a local clinic Thursday and was rushed to hospital, where blood samples were taken. "What I don't understand is that the doctor never talked to us about legionnaires' disease," she said. Mr. Desjardins returned home but then had to be rushed to the emergency room of a local hospital where he died on the Sunday, just before noon. "It was fast and during all that time, I never heard anyone talk about legionnaires' disease -- never, ever," she said. "My husband was the fourth death and there was really criminal negligence there." Mr. Menard said he has plenty of questions about what went wrong. "We can't help wondering what happened -- was there a failure somewhere in the system?" he told the news conference. "We are dealing with public health. The public has a right to expect, and expects, a very high degree of attention, competence and action when necessary, from the public authorities who handle these issues." Public Security Minister Robert Dutil said he consulted Quebec coroners who agreed with him that it was necessary to go further than just holding a coroner's inquest. "Under the circumstances, we want a public inquiry because there's an obligation to testify and it allows us to get deeper into things to avoid it happening in the future," he said in an interview. Mr. Dutil said he will let public health officials do their work and try to find out the cause of the illness so that the epidemic stops. "We don't know the cause, but it's not up to me to get involved." The deadly bacteria grow in the stagnant water of cooling systems, spreading in little droplets through air conditioning. Heavy smokers and people with weak immune systems are most at risk of catching the disease, which is not contagious. Symptoms include persistent fever, coughing and difficulty breathing. It can be treated with antibiotics. There has never been a documented case of drug-resistant legionella. CANADA: Quebec Students Launch Class Action Over Strikes --------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a class-action lawsuit is being organized by young Quebecers frustrated because they say they were hurt by the province's student strikes. The motion to sue 25 universities and junior colleges, as well as the Quebec government, was announced on Aug. 30 by students and their lawyers. The plaintiffs say not enough was done to let them have access to their classrooms and complete their courses. One says she will get her nursing diploma six months late, which will cost her financially. "I incurred losses and I'm just asking for a reimbursement," said the nursing student, Kim Laganiere. "This will delay my entry into the job market by six to 12 months." The group's lawyer is not setting a figure on the amount requested, saying the financial impact varies from one person to the next. The damage includes loss of salary, lost work experience, lost tuition fees and lost summer jobs, according to lawyer Michel Savonitto. "These amounts aren't necessarily very big in some cases but if you add them up it becomes astronomical . . . A court will evaluate the amount of the damages at the appropriate moment." The case may wind up determining whether the right to strike, as laid out in the Labour Code, applies to students. Mr. Savonitto said he will argue that there must be some distinction made between the rights of workers and those of students. The Charest government's Bill 78 was designed to force classrooms to be reopened and, in most cases, classes are indeed carrying on. But students in a minority of faculties are continuing to strike, and the law is being ignored in some cases. The issue was expected to dominate the current provincial election, but has played only a minor role. The Coalition party's Francois Legault pushed it closer to the forefront during a radio interview on Aug. 30, where he referred to some of the protesters as "thugs." CANADA: Prisoners File Class Action v. AG Over T-Shirt Ban ---------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Rush, writing for The Record.com, reports that with so many of their rights restricted, Canadian prisoners are fighting to hang on to one: they want to wear T-shirts with an upside down maple leaf. Some 150 inmates have filed a C$1.25 million class-action lawsuit against the Attorney General of Canada to wear the T-shirts on Prisoners Justice Day. The shirt also shows two hands grasping jail bars. The prisoners in Joyceville Institution, 20 kilometers northeast of Kingston, brought the shirts into the prison two years ago, but they were banned shortly after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews condemned the "misuse" of Canada's national symbol. Mr. Toews said the design "dishonours those who have upheld Canadian laws in the line of duty and fought in support of Canadian values at home and abroad." Inmates wore the shirts on Prisoners Justice Day, Aug. 10, 2010, to demonstrate that Canada is in a state of "political and social distress," the lawsuit states. Their lawyers, Shane Martinez and Davin Charney, say the government's ban violates the inmates' freedom of expression, among other abuses. "It's critical for people who aren't incarcerated to know and remember that people do not -- and should not -- automatically lose all their rights simply because they are incarcerated," Mr. Martinez said. "Those rights can only be restricted in a way that is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society. People's ability to engage in free expression is very important." The lawyers filed the class-action lawsuit Aug. 17 and served the papers to the office of the Attorney General of Canada in downtown Toronto on Aug. 30. Mr. Charney is well known in Waterloo Region. He had numerous run-ins with police while leading public protests over issues including poverty, homelessness and youth harassment. He then went back to school to become a lawyer and has since launched numerous lawsuits, both here and in Toronto, alleging police misconduct. Mr. Martinez said turning the maple leaf upside down has symbolic importance. For instance, it indicates distress at sea. However, Mr. Toews has said the inmates have no excuse for their action. "Any distress felt by inmates at Joyceville Institution pales in comparison to the real trauma felt by law-abiding Canadians who have been victimized by those incarcerated there," he said in a 2010 published report. Mr. Martinez argues prisoners wanted to express their opposition to the federal government's law-and-order agenda, specifically Bill C-10 which is expected to put more people in prison. The lawyers say prisoners deserve the same rights as anyone else, and suggest that a more informal means to resolve the issue has been met with roadblocks. "This (class action) promotes access to justice," Mr. Martinez said. "What we're dealing with is a vulnerable group of people who are incarcerated and have difficulties accessing lawyers as easily as the rest of us." Each federal prison's T-shirt design has an approval process, but just where the process broke down remains unclear. Prisoners Justice Day has been celebrated by federal inmates since 1976 to remember those who have died in penitentiaries and other penal institutions. The lawsuit's representative plaintiffs are serving life terms on murder convictions: Jason Lauzon, 41, for second-degree murder in 1997 and John Chaif, 57, for first-degree murder in 1983. The lawsuit's claims have not been proven in court. The Attorney General of Canada has 20 days to file a statement of defense. CAPITAL ONE: AGs Can Use Private Attorneys to Pursue Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge has ruled that the attorneys general of Mississippi and Hawaii can pursue their claims against Capital One Bank and use private attorneys to do so. Capital One had challenged the contingency fee agreements between Golomb & Holnik of Philadelphia and the two AGs -- Mississippi's Jim Hood and Hawaii's David Louie. The firm was involved in a private class action settlement reached by Capital One in 2010, then was hired by the AGs to pursue state claims. U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington ruled Aug. 22 against Capital One, which asked her to enter an injunction against the state lawsuits and sanction the law firm. She called the requests "inappropriate." "The court's order approving the settlement and closing this case did not bind the states of Mississippi and Hawaii," she wrote. "The attorneys general of Mississippi and Hawaii were not defined as class members and did not have an opportunity to participate in the litigation or opt out of the class." Judge Covington wrote that granting the injunctions would usurp the claims of two sovereign states. Capital One wrote that it did not matter if the attorneys general weren't parties to the settlement because the customers they are representing were. It also said plaintiffs' attorney Richard Golomb agreed to effectuate the settlement agreement. "The settlement agreement and final approval order expressly released any claims under 'the unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes of any of the states,'" the company wrote Aug. 3. "Golomb was certainly aware that this included claims under (Hawaii's and Mississippi's consumer protection laws). Additionally, Golomb collected nearly a quarter million dollars in attorneys' fees for its efforts in securing the settlement. "Now, despite agreeing not to 'attempt to void this Agreement in any way,' Golomb has represented parties in two different suits against Capital One for the same claims released in the Spinelli settlement. Golomb's actions exhibit willful disobedience of the order approving settlement and should be penalized." The lawsuits against Capital One concern its payment-protection products that carry monthly fees. West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw settled a similar case in January. He did not use the Golomb firm, but hired it for a case against nine other companies. CHECKSMART FINANCIAL: Sued Over Illegal Recording of Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Grays individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated individuals v. Checksmart Financial, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in the State of California; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. MSC12-01830 (Calif. Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty., July 30, 2012) arises out of the Defendants' unlawful practice of recording calls to Checksmart's customer service line without first obtaining consent of the customers and employees. The Defendants' policy and practice of recording telephone conversations without caller consent violates the California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Mr. Grays contends. As a result of the Defendants' violations, he argues, all individuals that engaged in a conversation with Checksmart employees through the 1-800 number or through direct branch contact in California and all employees of Checksmart who participated in the recorded calls are entitled to an award of statutory damages and injunctive relief. Mr. Grays is a resident of the City of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, California. Checksmart is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dublin. Ohio. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. Checksmart removed the lawsuit on August 29, 2012, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company argues that the removal is proper because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:12-cv-04532 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Miller, Esq. Bonnie Fong, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. MILLER A Professional Corporation 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 645 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 788-8081 E-mail: SMiller@CaliforniaWageLawAttorney.com - and - Kelly Ann Buschman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. MILLER A Professional Corporation 1300 Autumn Hills Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (818) 605-2759 The Defendants are represented by: H. Sinclair Kerr, Jr., Esq. Michael von Loewenfeldt, Esq. KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP 100 Spear Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1528 Telephone: (415) 371-8500 Facsimile: (415) 371-0500 E-mail: kerr@kerrwagstaffe.com mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com CLOROX CO: Judge Partially Grants Bid to Dismiss Fresh Step Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Clorox survived a challenge to its claim that cats "like" its Fresh Step litter, but a federal judge said the commercials could be misleading in other ways. The consolidated class action in San Francisco stems from a series of consumer complaints filed since January 2012. Though a Clorox competitor, Church & Dwight, won an injunction against the Fresh Step commercials around that time, it quickly dismissed its claims with prejudice after settling privately with Clorox. Consumers say that Fresh Step commercials make misleading claims about how well the product removes litter-box odors. Clorox moved to dismiss the complaint, but U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti upheld most claims. "The complaint clearly alleges that the challenged representations are false," Judge Conti wrote on Aug. 24. "The plaintiffs do more than allege that there is no competent scientific evidence to support Clorox's claims; they allege that the competent scientific evidence shows that Clorox's claims are objectively false." Clorox did thwart claims concerning supposed cat preferences in litter, with Conti finding that some of its promotion amounted to nonactionable puffery. Though consumers said the commercials gave the impression of scientific testing, Conti found that dramatizations of cats stepping into boxes do not meet the grade. "Contrary to plaintiffs' assertion, the depiction of four or five cats choosing to playfully jump into a litter box of Fresh Step rather than a litter box of the competitor's brand does not give the impression of scientific testing -- especially since this demonstration follows several videos of cats playing with boxes," the 23-page decision states. "The overall message of the commercials is that cats prefer Fresh Step because they are 'smart enough to choose the litter with less odors,'" Judge Conti added. "No reasonable consumer would consider such a message to be a statement of fact." As such, the consumers cannot advance claims over statements that cats "like" or "are smart enough to choose Fresh Step," the court found. Though Judge Conti dismissed that claim with prejudice, he said the consumers could amend a breach of warranty claim that failed for vagueness. Some of the lead plaintiffs in this action live out of state, but Judge Conti found that it would be premature to strike the nationwide class and subclass allegations. "Since the parties have yet to develop a factual record it is unclear whether applying different state consumer protection statutes could have a material impact on the viability of plaintiffs' claims," the decision states. Precedent holds that out-of-state parties can invoke California statutory remedies when they are harmed by wrongful conduct occurring in California. "Here, plaintiffs have alleged that Clorox conducts substantial business in California and has its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in the state, decisions regarding the challenged representations were made in California, Clorox's marketing activities were coordinated at its California headquarters, and a significant number of class members reside in California," Judge Conti wrote. "Thus, plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that Clorox's conduct originated in or had strong connections to California." A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss in In Re Clorox Consumer Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-00280 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/29/clorox.pdf COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Coca-Cola bombards customers' cell phones with spam text messages "long after they have opted out" from its so-called "rewards" program, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Missaghi v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 12-cv-07472 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/31/CocaCola.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean P. Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com EQUINIX INC: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing on Sept. 21 -------------------------------------------------------------- A California federal court is set to convene a hearing on September 21, 2012, to hear Equinix Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended securities class action complaint, according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV- 11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of its officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 29, 2010 and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 7, 2011. On March 2, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and gave plaintiffs 30 days in which to amend their complaint. Pursuant to stipulation and order of the court entered on March 16, 2012, the parties agreed that plaintiffs would have up to and through May 2, 2012 to file a Second Amended Complaint. On May 2, 2012 plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting the same basic allegations as in the prior complaint. On June 15, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is currently scheduled for September 21, 2012. EVERGREEN ULTRA: December 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Placitella & Roth, PC, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, and Evangelista & Associates LLC, on Aug. 31 disclosed that a hearing will be held on December 5, 2012, at 3:30 p.m., before the Honorable Nathaniel M. Gorton, at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, One Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of In Re Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund Securities Litigation for the sum of $25,000,000.00 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of June 22, 2012; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation, together with interest thereon and the award to Lead Plaintiffs for representing the Class. ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF EVERGREEN ULTRA SHORT OPPORTUNITIES FUND ("FUND") BETWEEN OCTOBER 28, 2005 AND JUNE 18, 2008, INCLUSIVE. If you purchased shares of the Fund between October 28, 2005 and June 18, 2008, inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Litigation and the settlement thereof. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Claim Information Form, you may obtain copies by writing to Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Heffler Claims Administration, P.O. Box 59000, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9000, or by downloading this information at http://www.evergreenultrashortlitigation.com If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Information Form no later than November 21, 2012, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any Judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the above address, postmarked by November 5, 2012. Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than November 5, 2012, and received by the following no later than November 5, 2012: Jack Reise, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Stuart J. Guber, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Thomas L. Allen, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Robert G. Jones, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02199-3600 Counsel for Defendants PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. F&S PRODUCE: Recalls Expired Products With Fresh-cut Mango ---------------------------------------------------------- F&S Produce Co., Inc. of Rosenhayn, New Jersey, is initiating a voluntary recall of a limited quantity of expired products that contain fresh-cut mangoes, with a code date that is on or before August 28, 2012, as a result of a FDA recall by Splendid Products because Daniella brand mangoes distributed by this firm may be contaminated with Salmonella. Products containing fresh-cut mango products that were affected by this recall were distributed to grocery and convenience store customers in the Northeast. Products were processed between 8/9/2012 to 8/19/2012, and utilized mangoes sourced from Mexico that are associated with this current outbreak. Products produced with Use-by or Sell-By dates of August 29 or later, have been processed using mangoes sourced from Brazil, and are not associated with this recall. 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. There have been no reported illnesses attributed to the items listed in this recall. F&S Produce is issuing this voluntary recall linked to Splendid Product's Daniella Brand Mangoes to minimize risk to the public health. A list of the items with corresponding brands and code dates associated with the recall are provided in the table below. F&S Produce has directly notified its customers who received the recalled product and requested removal from store shelves. Consumers who have purchased any of these fresh-cut mango products, that have a code date that is on or before August 28, should not consume the mangoes and should discard them. The code date can be found on the label on the top or the bottom of the plastic bowls, cups, or trays. Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 1-856-391-7100, Monday through Friday, except on holidays, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. ------------------------------------------------------------ Brand: Delish! Plant code P-006 ------------------------------------------------------------ Pack Included Product Size Code Date Range States ------- ---- --------------- -------- Mango Spears 5 oz Enjoy: 8/28/12 NY, NJ UPC: 0.49022-53700.2 & before Cantaloupe, Mango, 5 oz Enjoy: 8/28/12 NY, NJ Pineapple Spears & before UPC: 0.49022-53701.9 Fruit Burst 10 oz Enjoy: 8/28/12 NY, NJ UPC: 0.49022-55862.5 & before Tropical Medley 10 oz Enjoy: 8/28/12 NY, NJ UPC: 0.49022-53699.9 & before Mango and Berry Mix 10 oz Enjoy: 8/28/12 NY, NJ UPC: 0.49022-63779.5 & before Mango Spears 1 lb Enjoy: 8/28/12 NY, NJ UPC: 0.49022-58823.3 & before ------------------------------------------------------------ Brand: Garden Highway Plant code P-006 ------------------------------------------------------------ Pack Included Product Size Code Date Range States ------- ---- --------------- -------- Mango Medley 1 lb Best if Sold by: PA UPC: 8.26766-21437.2 8/28/12 & before Tropical Mango 7 oz Best if Sold by: NH Spinach Salad 8/28/12 & before UPC: 8.26766-80185.5 ------------------------------------------------------------ Brand: Garden Pure ------------------------------------------------------------ Pack Included Product Size Code Date Range States ------- ---- --------------- -------- Mango Chunks 5 lb Best by: 8/28/12 DE, MA, UPC: NONE & before MD, ME, NH, NJ, PA Mango 9 oz Best by: 8/28/12 DE, MA, UPC: 6.01172-20149.5 & before MD, ME, NH, NJ, PA Fruit Medley 3 lb Best by: 8/28/12 MA, ME, UPC: 6.01172-00248.1 & before NH Seasonal Fruit Bowl 4 lb Best by: 8/28/12 MA, ME, UPC: 6.01172-00264.1 & before NH ------------------------------------------------------------ Brand: Signature Cafe Sold at Safeway, Genuardi's ------------------------------------------------------------ Pack Included Product Size Code Date Range States ------- ---- --------------- -------- Fruit Basket Medley 30 oz Use by: 08/28/12 DC, DE, UPC: 21130-06918 & Before MD, NJ, PA, VA ------------------------------------------------------------ Brand: Trader Joe's ------------------------------------------------------------ Pack Included Product Size Code Date Range States ------- ---- --------------- -------- Tropical Fruit Medley 1 lb Best by: 8/28/12 CT, DE, UPC: 0094-9361 & before MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI, DC, Northern VA ------------------------------------------------------------ Brand: Generic Label Sold at Wal-Mart Stores ------------------------------------------------------------ Pack Included Product Size Code Date Range States ------- ---- --------------- -------- Mango Spears 1 lb Best if Sold by: FL UPC: 8.26766-25561.0 8/25/12 & before GLADSTONE PORTS: Sick Fish Class Action Likely to Drag On --------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reports that the independent Member for Gladstone says a compensation claim against the Gladstone Ports Corporation over diseased fish is likely to drag on, after the Planning and Environment Court refused an application to hear the case. About 60 people in Gladstone's seafood industry launched the class action, blaming dredging for the outbreak of sick fish. The seafood industry says wholesalers and processors should be paid out but the court found they do not fit the definition of a "commercial fishing operator". MP Liz Cunningham says she cannot see the issue going away. "It's been a jurisdictional ruling, it hasn't thrown the issue out altogether," she said. "I'm sure for those families that have been struggling financially it's just not something they wanted to hear. "This whole issue has been dragging on now for two years or more." Ms. Cunningham says it is a blow for the industry. "Since all this occurred we've had one retail outlet closed, then the wholesalers they closed," she said. "Now that's a multi-million dollar processing plant, huge facility being built up over a decade. "The families involved in that business have suffered as far as their health is concerned, as well as economically." The Gladstone Ports Corporation says there is no evidence to suggest dredging caused the outbreak. INTERNET INITIATIVE: Appeals From Class Deal Approval Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- All appeals from a final court approval of a settlement resolving a securities class action complaint against Internet Initiative Japan Inc. has either been dismissed or settled, according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012. In December 2001, a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws in the United States of America was filed against IIJ, naming IIJ, certain of its officers and directors and underwriters of IIJ's initial public offering as defendants. Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and such actions have been included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New York. An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2002 alleging, among other things, that the underwriters of IIJ's initial public offering violated the securities laws (i) by failing to disclose in the offering's registration statement certain alleged compensation arrangements entered into with the underwriters' clients, such as undisclosed commissions or tie in agreements to purchase stock in the aftermarket, and (ii) by engaging in manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of IIJ's stock in the aftermarket subsequent to the initial public offering. On July 15, 2002, IIJ joined in an 'omnibus' motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the issuers and individuals named in the various coordinated cases. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss. The Court granted IIJ's motion to dismiss the claims against it under Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act due to the insufficiency of the allegations against IIJ. The motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act were denied for virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases, including IIJ. In June 2003, IIJ conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. IIJ, along with the settling issuer defendants, filed a motion seeking the court's preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement would have provided, among other things, a release of IIJ and of the individual officer and director defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the amended complaint in exchange for a guarantee from IIJ's insurers regarding recovery from the underwriter defendants and other non-monetary consideration from IIJ. While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The District Court directed that the litigation proceed with a number of "focus cases" rather than all of the 310 cases that had been consolidated. IIJ's case is not one of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the District Court certified the focus cases as class actions in the ongoing litigation. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, and on May 18, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, liaison counsel for all issuer defendants, including IIJ, informed the District Court that the settlement could not be approved, because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not be certified. On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended complaints against the six focus cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved for class certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the motions to dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. The motion for class certification was withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008. On February 25, 2009, liaison counsel for the plaintiffs informed the District Court that a settlement had been agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties, and preliminary and final approval by the District Court. On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval. This global settlement requires no financial contribution from IIJ. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement which required no financial obligation from the Company and directing that the Clerk of the Court close the cases. Appeals of the opinion granting final approval were filed, all of which have been dismissed or settled by January 2012. Consequently, there is not a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred for the class action lawsuit. JAMAICA PUBLIC: To Dispute $24-MM Payment Sought in Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Gayle, writing for Go-Jamaica, reports that the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) says it will be disputing a $24 million payment being sought by the claimants who brought a class action suit challenging the company's exclusive license. In July, in making his ruling in favor of the claimants, Supreme Court judge Bryan Sykes had also awarded legal costs to the claimants. The JPS has since filed an appeal against the Supreme Court ruling that its exclusive license is invalid and on Aug. 30, the respondents: Dennis Meadows, Betty Ann Blaine and Cyrus Rousseau filed a counter-notice of appeal. In its counter appeal, the claimants state that Justice Sykes correctly held that the minister had no power under the Electric Lighting Act to grant an exclusive license to the JPS for the supply of electricity but failed to hold that the said license was illegal, null and void. The respondents who are being represented by attorneys-at-law Hugh Wildman and Marvalyn Taylor-Wright are asking the Court of Appeal to find that the judge erred in holding that the minister was empowered under the Act, to grant a license to the JPS for the supply of electricity over the entire island. No date has been set for the appeal. In the meantime, JPS president & CEO, Kelly Tomblin, says the light and power company will continue discussions with the Government and other stakeholders on the best way forward for the energy sector. She says the JPS recognizes that the energy landscape is evolving, and it is prepared to play its part in facilitating structured changes that are in the best interest of all. KABA ILCO: Faces Class Action Over Pushbutton Combination Locks --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that federal class actions in three states claim Kaba pushbutton combination locks can be opened with a magnet. Lead plaintiff Yosef Davis in Chicago sued Kaba and seven affiliates, including its Swiss corporate parent. Similar class actions were filed in Greenbelt, Md., and in Ohio. Kaba makes pushbutton combination locks that do not require keys, and "is the leader in the mechanical pushbutton lock segment of the access control market," Mr. Davis said in his complaint. "Over a period of forty years, pushbutton locks have evolved to become the industry standard for 'keyless entry' in standalone locks." The company advertises its locks as "'durable,' 'reliable,' 'dependable,' providing 'security,' being a 'tried and true way to protect assets' and providing 'unparalleled strength,'" the complaint states. But Mr. Davis says, "The locks contain a serious design flaw. In particular, the locks can be opened by affixing a magnet to the outside of the locks, which manipulates the lock's internal mechanism -- the combination chamber -- and allows the lock to be opened with ease and, most importantly, without inputting the necessary or correct combination." Mr. Davis adds: "The size of the requisite magnet is small enough to fit in the palm of the hand, thus allowing any petty criminal or other interested person easy access to any area whose access is supposed to be restricted by the locks." Mr. Davis claims Kaba has been aware of the defect since 2010, but "took no action to inform suppliers or end-users of the locks, or of the risk of unwanted entry by use of a magnet, until being sued and having numerous related actions consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the Northern District of Ohio." Mr. Davis seeks class damages for breach of implied warranty. A copy of the Complaint in Davis v. KABA Ilco Corp., et al., Case No. 12-cv-06962 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/31/Locks.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK 350 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 267-3700 E-mail: hunter@napolibern.com - and - Steven M. Aroesty, Esq. NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK 241 North Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 364-8176 E-mail: saroesty@napolibern.com LITHIA MOTORS: Oct. 11 Final Hearing on "McClintic" Suit Deal Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Washington court is set to convene a hearing on October 11, 2012, to consider final approval of a settlement resolving a consumer class action complaint asserting text messaging claims against Lithia Motors, Inc., according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In April 2011, a third party vendor assisted the Company in promoting a targeted "0% financing on used vehicles" advertising campaign during a limited sale period. The marketing included sending a "Short Message Service" communication to cell phones (a "text message") of the Company's previous customers. The message was sent to over 50,000 cell phones in 14 states. The message indicated that the recipients could "Opt-Out" of receiving any further messages by replying "STOP," but, due to a technical error, some recipients who responded requesting to be unsubscribed nonetheless may have received a follow-on message. On or about April 21, 2011, a Complaint for Damages, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief was filed against the Company (Kevin McClintic vs. Lithia Motors, 11-2-14632-4 SEA, Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County) alleging the text messaging activity violated State of Washington anti-texting and consumer protection laws and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and seeking statutory damages of $500 for each violation, trebled, plus injunctive relief and attorney fees. The suit seeks class action designation for all similarly situated entities and individuals. The suit has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. On July 5, 2011, the Company participated in a mediation of the McClintic case and subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which is subject to final court approval. Under the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of $2.5 million, all of which such amounts will be reimbursed by the vendor pursuant to contractual indemnification. On June 11, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. The court set a final approval hearing for October 11, 2012. No assurances can be given that the court will grant final approval of the settlement. On July 5, 2011, a complaint was filed alleging nearly identical claims, also seeking class action designation (Dan McLaren vs. Lithia Motors, Civil # 11-810, U.S. District Court of Oregon, Portland Division). Subsequently, the complaint was amended to include claims against the vendor. The class representative in the McLaren case attempted to intervene in the McClintic case. This intervention motion was denied on October 19, 2011. The McLaren case was stayed pending the outcome of the McClintic matter by order of the court on or about October 11, 2011; the stay was lifted on or about June 19, 2012, following the preliminary settlement approval in the McClintic case. Now that McClintic has been granted preliminary approval, the defendants have moved the court to dismiss the McLaren case. No assurances can be given that the court will dismiss the McLaren case. LITHIA MOTORS: "Neese" Opt-Out Claimants' Suit Pending in Alaska ---------------------------------------------------------------- In December 2006, a suit was filed against the Company (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI, and in April 2007, a second case (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) (now consolidated)), in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage. In the suits, plaintiffs alleged that the Company, through its Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception, misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing from third parties without disclosing that the Company receives a fee or discount for placing that loan (a "dealer reserve"). The suit seeks statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or three times plaintiff's actual damages, whichever is greater), and attorney fees and costs and the plaintiffs sought class action certification. Before and during the pendency of these suits, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with the State of Alaska through its Office of Attorney General with respect to the first two practices enumerated above. As a result of those discussions, the Company entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court approval and permitted potential class members to "opt-out" of the proposed settlement. Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to intervene and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to the state Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final. Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking certification of a class (i) for the 339 customers who "opted-out" of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly eligible for recovery under the Plaintiffs' broader interpretation of the applicable statutes, and (iii) arguing that since the State's suit against the Company's dealerships did not address the loan fee/discount (dealer reserve) claim, for those customers who arranged their vehicle financing through the Company. On June 14, 2011, the Trial Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class without addressing either the merits of the claims or the size of the classes. The Company intends to defend the claims vigorously and do not believe the novel "dealer reserve" claim has merit. The ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of any of the matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. LKQ CORP: Class Suit vs. 2 Product Suppliers Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- LKQ Corporation's lawsuit against two aftermarket product suppliers remains pending, according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company is a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against several aftermarket product suppliers. In January 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with certain of the defendants, under which it recognized a gain of $8.3 million. Additionally, in April 2012, the class action lawsuit against certain other defendants was settled, under which the Company recognized a gain of $8.4 million. These gains were recorded as a reduction of Cost of Goods Sold during the six months ended June 30, 2012. The class action is still pending against two defendants, the results of which are not expected to be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows. If there is a class settlement with (or a favorable judgment entered against) each of the remaining defendants, the Company will recognize the gains from such settlement or judgment when substantially all uncertainties regarding their timing and amount are resolved and realization is assured. MANNA ORGANICS: Recalls Soybean Sprouts and Tofu Products --------------------------------------------------------- Manna Organics, Inc. of Newark, New Jersey, is recalling various soybean sprouts and tofu products listed in the table below because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The recalled products were distributed to various restaurants, retailers, and distributors in NY, NJ, PA, MA, VA, MD, CT, GA, IL, and TX on or after July 17, 2012. The Jinga Firm and Soft, SooNyeoWon Firm and Soft Tofu are packaged in a square 16-ounce white plastic container with the label sealed on top with UPC Codes: 0 28346 09112 4, 0 28346 09111 7, 0 28346 07812 5 and 0 28346 07814 9. Expiration date of September 9, 2012, or later is printed in black on top of the label. The 5 pieces and 10 pieces tofu are packaged in a white plastic bucket. The 5 pieces and 10 pieces are lidded and labeled in Korean "Healthy Tofu" with UPC Codes 0 28346 09125 4 and 0 28346 09129 2. Affected products have an expiration date of July 25, 2012, or later. The Soy Milk is packaged in a 1.3 gallon white plastic pail. The Large Tofu Bucket(30 pieces), Soon tofu, and Small Tofu are packaged in a large, white plastic pail enclosed in a plastic bag labeled TOFU with the Company name, address, and nutritional information listed directly below. Affected products have an expiration date of July 25, 2012, or later. SooNyeoWon Silken Tofu is packaged in a small 14-ounce square plastic container with the label sealed on top. It has a UPC Code of 0 28346 09113 1. There is an expiration date printed in black on top of the label. Affected products have an expiration date of September 9, 2012, or later. The Soybean Sprouts 16-ounce products come in a clear plastic sealed bag colored in red or green with the labels SOONYEOWON SOYBEAN SPROUTS or SOONYEOWON HEALTHY SOYBEAN SPROUTS with UPC Codes 0 28346 07121 8 and 0 28346 07140 9. The Soybean Sprouts 10lbs. and 5 lbs. bags come in a clear hand tied plastic poly bag labeled SPROUTS with the Company info directly beneath it. Package Expiration Name Size UPC Code Date ---- ------- -------- ---------- Soonyeowon Soybean 16 oz. 0 28346 07121 8 N/A Sprouts Soybean Sprouts 10 lbs. N/A N/A Soybean Sprouts 5 lbs. N/A N/A Soonyeowon Healthy 16 oz. 0 28346 07140 9 N/A Soybean Sprouts Jinga Firm Tofu 16 oz. 0 28346 09112 4 09/09/2012 or Later Jinga Soft Tofu 16 oz. 0 28346 09111 7 09/09/2012 or Later Soonyeowon Firm Tofu 16 oz. 0 28346 07812 5 09/09/2012 or Later Soonyeowon Soft Tofu 16 oz. 0 28346 07814 9 09/09/2012 or Later Soonyeowon Silken 14 oz. 0 28346 09113 1 09/09/2012 Tofu or Later Tofu Large Bucket 5 gal. N/A 07/25/2012 (30 pcs.) or Later 10 pcs. Tofu 1.3 gal. 0 28346 09129 2 07/25/2012 or Later 5 pcs. Tofu 2.5 l 0 28346 09125 4 07/25/2012 or Later Soon Tofu 5 gal. N/A 07/25/2012 or Later Soy Milk 1.3 gal. N/A N/A Small Tofu 5 gal. N/A 07/25/2012 or Later No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The potential for contamination was noted after random testing by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in a 16-ounce package of SOONYEOWON SOYBEAN SPROUTS. As a PRECAUTION, a product wide recall is being initiated. The production has been suspended while FDA and the Company continue to investigate the source of the problem. Consumers who have purchased any of the items listed are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 1-862-267-3400. Hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. MANPOWER INC: Awaits Final Okay of Vacation Pay Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Manpower Inc. is awaiting final court approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit regarding its vacation pay policies in Illinois, 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. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company recorded legal costs of $10.0 million in the U.S. for various legal matters, the majority of which was related to the Company's entry into a settlement agreement in connection with a purported class action lawsuit involving allegations regarding its vacation pay policies in Illinois. Under the settlement agreement, which is still subject to final court approval, the Company agreed to pay $8.0 million plus certain related taxes and administrative fees. The Company maintains that its vacation pay policies were appropriate and it admits no liability or wrongdoing, but it believes that settlement is in its best interest to avoid the costs and disruption of ongoing litigation. MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: App. Court Reinstates Civil Suit v. Sheriff ---------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Israel, writing for ThinkProgress, reports that Joe Arpaio, the infamous Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, is facing more legal trouble. Already facing a class action lawsuit and a U.S. Department of Justice legal complaint, he can again add "federal civil rights and conspiracy lawsuit" to his docket, after a federal appeals court reinstated a suit against him. A three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit filed by Phoenix New Times owners Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin against Sheriff Arpaio, rejecting his claims of immunity. Messrs. Lacey and Larkin were arrested after the paper published information about extensive subpoenas they received following a story in which they published Sheriff Arpaio's home address. In July, federal trial began, focused on allegations of racial profiling by Sheriff Arpaio's police force. The judge is still considering the class action complaint. Last December, the U.S. Department of Justice released the findings of a three-year investigation into Sheriff Arpaio's practices. In May, the DOJ filed a formal legal complaint against Sheriff Arpaio for "a pattern or practice of unlawful discriminatory police conduct directed at Latinos in Maricopa County and jail practices that unlawfully discriminate against Latino prisoners with limited English language skills." The complaint included accusations that Sheriff Arpaio and his staff forced women to sleep in their own menstrual blood, assaulted pregnant women, ignored rape, and criminalized being a Latino. When not busy dealing with these legal actions, Sheriff Arpaio uses taxpayer funds to pursue a "birther" investigation against President Obama. An honorary chairman for Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign, Sheriff Arpaio declined Mr. Romney's request for a primary endorsement in the 2012 race. Sheriff Arpaio is seeking re-election this November against former Phoenix police sergeant Paul Penzone. NATIONAL PENN: "Reyes" Suit Dismissed in First Quarter ------------------------------------------------------ During the first quarter of 2012, all claims against National Penn Bancshares, Inc. were dismissed in the putative class action lawsuit filed by Reynaldo Reyes against multiple defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345), alleging the defendants were part of a fraudulent telemarketing scheme, 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. NEW ORIENTAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:12-cv-6619-JGK, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc. American Depository Shares ("ADSs") and/or purchased or sold EDU options contracts between July 21, 2009 and July 23, 2012, inclusive and suffered damages as a result. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here: http://www.faruqilaw.com/EDU There is no cost or obligation to you. EDU and its executives are charged with violations of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly failed to inform investors that: (1) the Company improperly consolidated the earnings of a variable interest entity into its financial statements; (2) a significant number of the Company's schools and learning centers were not company-owned, but were instead operated by independent franchisees; (3) upfront franchise and other fees had artificially inflated the Company's cash balances; and (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls and as a result of the foregoing, EDU's financial statements were materially false and misleading. On July 17, 2012, the Company disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission "had issued a formal order of investigation" as to whether the Company appropriately consolidated the earnings of Beijing New Oriental Education & Technology (Group) Co., Ltd., a variable interest entity of the Company, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. On this news, the price of EDU's ADSs plummeted by $7.64 or more than 34%, to close at $14.62 on July 17, 2012. On July 18, 2012, independent securities research firm Muddy Waters, LLC issued an analyst report predicting that the Company "will have a significant restatement, and that its auditor will resign." On this news, the price of EDU's ADSs declined by an additional $5.12 or more than 35%, to close at $9.50 on July 18, 2012. Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other individual and institutional investors who purchased or otherwise acquired EDU ADSs and/or purchased or sold EDU options contracts between July 21, 2009 and July 23, 2012, excluding defendants and their affiliates, and were damaged thereby. Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions and actions involving corporate fraud. If you purchased or sold EDU option contracts and/or purchased or otherwise acquired EDU ADSs during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you may, not later than September 21, 2012, move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to discuss this action, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: ATTN: Richard Gonnello, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com fmcconville@faruqilaw.com Toll Free: (877) 247-4292 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Continues to Face RESPA Violations Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation's subsidiaries continue to face class action lawsuits 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. Eight purported class action lawsuits alleging RESPA violations have been filed in the Federal District Courts, one in the Central District of California, one in the Eastern District of California, four in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two in the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively, between December 9, 2011, and May 31, 2012. The lawsuits target J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. as successor to National City Bank, N.A., Citibank, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Flagstar Bank, FSB, and First Tennessee Bank, N.A., each of their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries and most or all of the mortgage guaranty insurance companies, including the Company's mortgage insurance subsidiaries, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together "RMIC"). The lawsuits are (Samp, Komarchuk, Whitaker v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.; White, Hightower v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al.; Menichino v. Citibank, N.A., et al.; McCarn v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.; Riddle v. Bank of America, et al.; Manners v. Fifth Third Bank, et al.; Hill, et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB. et al.; and Barlee v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al.) The lawsuits, filed by the same law firms, are substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Each of the lawsuits seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in any of the lawsuits. 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: Second "Campion" Class Suit Dismissed in July ----------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation 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 a second national class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiaries was dismissed in July 2012. On March 6, 2009, a national class action lawsuit was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection ("ORHP"), in the California Superior Court, San Diego, (Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection) on behalf of all persons who had made a claim under an ORHP home warranty contract since March 6, 2003. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, breach of the implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of certain California consumer protection laws, and misrepresentation arising out of ORHP's alleged failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims under its home warranty contracts. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages consisting of the rescission of the class members' contracts, restitution of all sums paid by the class members, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. ORHP removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 13, 2009. On January 6, 2011, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and on June 25, 2012, it denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. Plaintiff has not appealed either decision. Barring a successful appeal, this case has become an immaterial, single plaintiff claim dispute. On January 27, 2012, a second purported national class action lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division by the same plaintiff and the same law firm. This second lawsuit named as defendants the Company and five of its subsidiaries (Campion v. Old Republic International Corporation, Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc., Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Company, American Guaranty Title Insurance Company, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The lawsuit alleged unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of California's Business & Professions Code -- substantially similar to the allegations in plaintiff's lawsuit against ORHP -- and the payment of commissions and kickbacks in violation of the California Insurance Code and RESPA. The lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution and treble damages in unspecified amounts, and costs and fees. On July 10, 2012, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice as to all claims other than those under the California Business & Professional Code against ORHP, which were dismissed without prejudice. 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. PACIFIC COAST: Recalls 6-8-Lb. Bags of Deli Styled Fruits Salads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Coast Fruit Company, of Portland, Oregon, is voluntarily recalling multiple types of fresh cut processed items based on the potential contamination of Salmonella Braenderup, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes life-threatening for infants, older people, pregnant woman and people with weakened immune systems. The most common symptoms of Salmonella are diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever, which develop within eight to 72 hours of eating contaminated food. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days and most people recover without treatment. Pacific Coast Fruit utilized a portion of the mangoes that were recalled by Splendid Products LLC marked with the Daniella Label in some of the Company's fresh cut processed items. Pacific Coast Fruit recalled products were distributed to various retailer groceries in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska. The recalled deli styled items is packed in 6 lbs - 8 lbs salads bags. There have been NO reported illnesses associated with this recall. This voluntary recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S Food and Drug Administration. Consumers who have purchased this product should not consume it and are urged to return it to the place of purchase or destroy the product. Consumer with questions can contact Pacific Coast Fruit at 503-234-6411 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time Monday through Friday. UPC Code Item # Description ----------- ------ ------------------------------------ 20728 70006 70006 VA Kit New Gourmet Fruit Salad 7.75#, Best if Used By July 26 to August 30 20728 71784 71784 Mango & Cucumber Salsa, Best if Used By July 30 to September 3 PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "NECA-IBEW" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pitney Bowes Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit initiated by NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund, 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 2009, the Company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the company during the period between July 30, 2007, and October 29, 2007, alleging that the company, in essence, missed two financial projections. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2010. After briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed, the plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint on February 17, 2012. The Company has moved to dismiss this new amended complaint. Based upon the Company's current understanding of the facts and applicable laws, it does not believe there is a reasonable possibility that any loss has been incurred. The Company expects to prevail in this legal action; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. PPG INDUSTRIES: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania federal judge refused on Aug. 30 to dismiss a class action brought by PPG Industries Inc. sales staff against the paint and chemical company, after ruling that PPG's settlement offer in the overtime pay case was not greater than the maximum amount the class could potentially recover. QUALITY FEED: Recalls Milk Replacer Due to Salmonella Health Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quality Feed, Inc. of Dousman, Wisconsin, is recalling milk replacer that was shipped between January 31, 2012, and March 31, 2012, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated milk replacer, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Animals with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some animals will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy animals can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your animals have consumed the recalled product and have these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. Quality Feed, Inc. was just notified late this week by one of its suppliers, that six 40lb. bags out of 1,026 bags purchased back in January 2012 were suspect for salmonella contamination. As a precaution, Quality Feed, Inc. has immediately put on recall notice all feed that had any of this load of raw material in its formulation. To date there have been no known illnesses associated with any of the milk replacer in question. The milk replacer was distributed throughout Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York under the name Quality Feed, Inc., Dairy Princess, Peachey's or Yo-momma. The recalled feed can be identified by the last four digits in the lot number on the bag ending in 0131 through 0323. Customers who have purchased any of this milk replacer are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Customers with questions may contact Quality Feed, Inc. at 262- 965-5400 between 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday Central Time. RAMTRON INT'L: Faces "Dent" Stockholder Class Suit in Colorado -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramtron International Corporation is facing a stockholder class action lawsuit commenced by Paul Dent, 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 June 2012, Paul Dent ("Plaintiff"), a purported Ramtron stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants" or, collectively with the Company, the "Defendants"), in the District Court for El Paso County, Colorado, captioned Dent v. Ramtron International Corporation, et al., Docket No. 44906737. Plaintiff purports to bring this action as a class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Ramtron stockholders. The complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the June 12, 2012 proposal by Cypress Semiconductor Corporation ("Cypress"), pursuant to which Cypress would acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company for $2.48 in cash. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by rejecting all approaches by Cypress and refusing to engage in any negotiations with Cypress or by failing to seek any higher offer that could be achieved through negotiations. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief as follows: an order declaring the action to be properly maintainable as a class action, a declaration that Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff and the class, an order directing Defendants to consider and respond in good faith to acquisition offers that would maximize value to the Plaintiff and the class, an order permanently enjoining the Defendants from initiating any further defensive measures that may render the acquisition of the company unduly burdensome or expensive for a potential acquirer, an order directing the Individual Defendants to account to the Plaintiff and the class for all damages suffered as a result of the Individual Defendants' wrongdoing, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. READY PAC: Recalls Fresh Cut Fruit Products Containing Mangoes -------------------------------------------------------------- Ready Pac Foods, Inc. of Irwindale, California, is voluntarily recalling, out of an abundance of caution, packaged fruit products containing mangoes, distributed through August 30th 2012, with Use-by Dates as listed below since they contain Daniella Brand mangoes, which have been recalled by supplier Splendid Products, due to potential contamination 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, infections 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. No illnesses have been reported specific to the Ready Pac products that are the subject of this voluntary, precautionary recall. The voluntary recall extends only to the products with the Use-by Dates listed below and sold in the following states: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Canada. No other Ready Pac products, other than those listed below, are included in the recall. Consumers who may have purchased the affected product are asked to record the Use -by Date and/or UPC code number, immediately dispose of the product, and contact the Ready Pac Consumer Affairs Department, toll-free at (800) 800-7822, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) to obtain a full refund. Please visit the Company's Web site at http://www.readypac.com/for a copy of this release. Retailers should check their inventories and store shelves to confirm that none of the products are present or available for purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories. Ready Pac Foods, Inc. has earned an outstanding safety record for over 40 years and has taken immediate precautionary measures to protect public health by issuing this voluntary recall. Ready Pac customer service representatives have already contacted all customers impacted and are in the process of confirming that the recalled products are not in the stream of commerce. Consumers with questions may contact Ready Pac directly at 1-800-800-7822 Mondays - Friday 8:00 a.m. - p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. Pack Affected Brand Product Size Use-by Date States ----- ------- ---- ----------- -------- Dining In(R) Super FruitMedley 10.5oz 9/06/2012 CA UPC: 11225-08396 Dining In(R) Mango 10.5oz 9/07/2012 CA UPC: 11225-08640 Ready Pac(R) Super Fruit Blend 6 oz 9/08/2012 CT, MA, MD UPC: 77745-23076 or earlier MN, NJ, NY OH, VA Ready Pac(R) Super Fruit Blend 6 oz 9/06/2012 CA, CO, UPC: 77745-23076 & 9/7/2012 OR, WA Ready Pac(R) Fruit Tray Bien(R) 907 g 9/08/2012 Canada UPC: 77745-23415 Ready Pac(R) Fruit Tray Bien(R) 32 oz 9/8/2012 DE, MD, NJ UPC: 77745-21606 or earlier PA, VA Ready Pac(R) Fruit & 40 oz 9/6/2012 AZ, CA, HI ChocolatePlatter & 9/7/2012 NV, OR UPC: 77745-23673 Ready Pac(R) Super FruitMedley 10.5oz 9/8/2012 DE, MD, NJ UPC: 77745-23746 or earlier PA, VA Ready Pac(R) Super FruitMedley 10.5oz 9/6/2012 AZ, CA, HI UPC: 77745-23746 & 9/7/2012 NV, OR Ready Pac(R) Sliced Mango 10.5oz 9/8/2012 DE, MD, NJ UPC: 77745-23751 or earlier PA, VA Ready Pac(R) Sliced Mango 10.5oz 9/6/2012 AZ, CA, HI UPC: 77745-23751 & 9/7/2012 NV, OR Ready Pac(R) Super FruitMedley 298 g 9/8/2012 Canada UPC: 77745-24023 or earlier Ready Pac(R) Super FruitMedley 298 g 9/8/2012 Canada UPC: 77745-24023 Ready Pac(R) Sliced Mango 32 oz 9/6/2012 AZ, CA, CO UPC: 00000-88356 & 9/7/2012 MT, NM, NV UT Ready Pac(R) Sliced Mango 32 oz 9/8/2012 DE, MD, NJ UPC: 77745-22859 or earlier PA, VA Ready Pac(R) Sliced Mango 32 oz 9/6/2012 AZ, HI, NV UPC: 77745-22859 & 9/7/2012 OR, CA Ready Pac(R) MangoFandango(TM) 32 oz 9/8/2012 NJ, PA, DE UPC: 77745-24099 or earlier MD, VA Ready Pac(R) MangoFandango(TM) 32 oz 9/6/2012 AZ, HI, NV UPC: 77745-24099 & 9/7/2012 OR, CA Ready Pac(R) Gourmet FruitBowl 64 oz 9/9/2012 CT, DE, MA UPC: 77745-22620 or earlier MN, NH, NJ OH, IA, IL, IN, KS, MI MO, NE, NY, VT, WI Ready Pac(R) Gourmet FruitBowl 64 oz 9/7/2012 AZ, CA, CO UPC: 77745-22620 & 9/8/2012 MT, NM, NV UT Ready Pac(R) Sweet Sunshine(TM) 37 oz 9/8/2012 DE, MD, NJ Platter or earlier PA, VA UPC: 77745-24204 Ready Pac(R) Sweet Sunshine(TM) 37 oz 9/6/2012 AZ, CA, HI Platter & 9/7/2012 NV, OR UPC: 77745-24204 Ready Pac(R) Seasons Choice(TM) 32 oz 9/8/2012 DE, MD, NJ UPC: 77745-24276 or earlier PA, VA Ready Pac(R) Seasons Choice(TM) 32 oz 9/7/2012 AZ, CA, HI UPC: 77745-24276 & 9/8/2012 NV, OR Starbucks(R) Seasonal 6 oz 8/22/2012 AL, CT, DC HarvestFruit Blend - 9/7/2012 DE, FL, GA UPC: 62111-71390 IA, IL, IN KY, KS, LA, NA, MD, ME MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI SC, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV Starbucks(R) Seasonal 6 oz 9/4/2012 AK, AZ, AR HarvestFruit Blend & 9/5/2012 CA, CO, ID UPC: 62111-71390 MT, ND, NM, NV, OK, OR SD, TX, UT, WA, WY Walmart(R) Super Fruit Blend 10 oz 9/6/2012 AZ, CA, CO & 9/7/2012 HI, ID, MT UPC: 77745-23327 NM, NV, TX, UT, WY Walmart(R) Seasonal Blend 16 oz 9/6/2012 AZ, CA, CO UPC: 77745-23761 & 9/7/2012 HI, ID, MT NM, NV, TX UT, WY Walmart(R) Seasonal Blend 32 oz 9/6/2012 AZ, CA, CO UPC: 77745-23765 & 9/7/2012 HI, ID, MT NM, NV, TX, UT, WY Wawa(R) Mango 8 oz 9/6/2012 DE, MD, NJ UPC: 26191-06437 or earlier PA, VA Wawa(R) Chicken & 9.7 oz 9/1/2012 DE, MD, NJ MangoSalsa Salad or earlier PA, VA UPC: 26191-02827 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm317953.htm REAL FOODS: Recalls Products Containing Daniella Brand Mangos ------------------------------------------------------------- Triple B Corporation of Seattle, Washington, dba Real Foods Kent WA. and Charlie's Produce of Anchorage, Alaska, is recalling 1336 cases of the products listed below because they contain Daniella brand mango that were recalled 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. This product was used in retail stores and Deli in Washington and Alaska. Shelf life of the product is 5-7 days Real Foods Product Use by Date 7/12/2012 to 8/29/2012 Item # Label Item Description Size Container Type ------ ----- ---------------- ---- -------------- 027-01480 Haggen CUT, TROPICAL 8 oz Rigid Plastic MIXED FRUIT(T/H) Cup 027-06055 Costco FRUIT TRAY,MANGO/ 5 lbs Rigid Plastic CUT PEARS (COSTCO) Tray 028-00165 Metro- CUT,MANGO/PAPAYA 10 oz Rigid Plastic Politan W/LIME (MET MKT) Cup Market 028-00172 Metro- CUT, SEASONAL 20 oz Rigid Plastic Politan MIX (MET MKT) Cup Market 028-00173 Metro- CUT, SEASONAL 10 oz Rigid Plastic Politan MIX (MET MKT) Cup Market 028-06037 Charlie's CUT, SEASONAL 10 oz Rigid Plastic FRUIT MIX Cup 028-06454 Charlie's CUT, SEASONAL 20 oz Rigid Plastic FRUIT MIX Cup 028-07323 Charlie's CUT,MIXED 8 oz Rigid Plastic FRUIT TROPICAL (NL) Cup -------------------------------------------------------------- Location Item # UPC Use-By Date Range of UB Date ------ --- ----------------- ---------- 027-01480 045009014801 7/21/12 - 8/29/12 Center of product label 027-06055 045009060556 7/21/12 - 8/29/12 Outer case label 028-00165 045009001658 7/21/12 - 8/29/12 Bottom of product cup 028-00172 045009001726 7/21/12 - 8/29/12 Bottom of product Cup 028-00173 045009001733 7/21/12 - 8/29/12 Bottom of product cup 028-06037 045009060372 7/23/12 - 8/31/12 Bottom of product cup 028-06454 045009064547 7/23/12 - 8/31/12 Bottom of product cup 028-07323 045009073235 7/23/12 - 8/31/12 Bottom of product cup Charlie's Alaska Product Anchorage Use By Date 7/21/2012 Location Label Item Description Size Use-By Date Range of UB Date ----- ---------------- ---- ----------------- ---------- Alaska Seasonal Berries 8 oz 7/21/12 - 8/31/12 Bottom of Carrot (Walmart) product Container: Rigid Plastic Cup cup UPC: 045009020178 Alaska Seasonal Berries 16oz 7/21/12 - 8/31/12 Bottom of Carrot (Walmart) product Container: Rigid plastic Cup cup UPC: 045009020635 Alaska Seasonal Fruit 40oz 7/21/12 - 8/31/12 Bottom of Carrot Bowl(Walmart) product Container: Rigid Plastic Bowl Bowl UPC: 045009064806 Alaska Gourmet Fruit 64oz 7/21/12 - 09/05/12 Bottom of Carrot Blow (Costco) Product Container: Rigid Plastic Bowl UPC: 697327066934 Alaska Fruit Cup 4oz 8/22/12 - 9/01/12 Outside Carrot Mango/Red Grape case Box Container: Rigid Plastic Tray UPC: 045009071408 The recall was initiated after it was discovered by Triple B Corp. that Daniella brand mangos were used in some of the product that is being recalled by the supplier due to the potential contamination with Salmonella braenderup. Out of an abundance of caution, as a service to the general consuming public at large, all products are being recalled in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Consumers who have purchased any product with Daniella brand mangos in them are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 206-625-1412 SMART METERS: Tribunal Allows Claimants to Amend Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mui, writing for 24 Hours, reports that B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has asked an anti-Smart Meters group to come back with an amended "class action" style complaint after ruling the group's submission as overly broad on Aug. 28. Citizens for Safe Technology Society represents a number of individuals who claim doctors have advised them to stay away from the digital devices because of potential harms. The tribunal will only hear cases of those "allegedly diagnosed" with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which BC Hydro said isn't accepted as a disability in B.C., or elsewhere, according to the tribunal decision. The society, meanwhile, describes EHS as an "environmental sensitivity resulting in an inability to be well while residing in a residence . . . in which a wireless smart meter has been installed." SOMERSAULT SNACK: Recalls 6 oz. Packages of Pacific Sea Salt ------------------------------------------------------------ Somersault Snack Co., LLC, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is voluntarily recalling a limited number of packages of Somersaults Pacific Sea Salt 6oz. that were inadvertently mispackaged -- limited quantities of Somersaults Santa Fe Salsa flavored product were inadvertently commingled with Somersaults Pacific Sea Salt flavored product in packages labeled as Somersaults Pacific Sea Salt 6oz. The inadvertent commingling of these two products introduced another allergen (milk) to the Somersaults Pacific Sea Salt 6oz. packages, and that allergen (milk) is not listed on the packaging as either an ingredient or an allergen. Somersaults Pacific Sea Salt 6oz. Sell By Date: MAR1113 G6 / UPC Product Code: 8-98403-00201-7 (Sell By Date is located on the back of the package, in the middle, above the sunflower graphics, and the UPC Product Code is located below the UPC bar code.) People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of an allergic reaction if they consume the affected product. The product was distributed to retail stores nationwide. No allergic reactions have been reported. Somersault Snack Co. has taken the precautionary measure of notifying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is voluntarily recalling approximately 418 cases of the product shown. Somersault Snack Co. will work with retail customers to ensure that the recalled products are removed from store shelves. In the event that consumers believe they have purchased products affected by this voluntary recall, they should return the product to the store where it was purchased for a full refund. Consumers or customers with questions may call 415-275-1247 for more information. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm317993.htm ST. JOE CO: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action lawsuit against The St. Joe Company remains pending, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On November 3, 2010, and December 7, 2010, two securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the Northern District of Florida. These cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and are captioned as Meyer v. The St. Joe Company et al. (No. 5:11-cv- 00027). A consolidated class action complaint was filed in the case on February 24, 2011. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's securities between February 19, 2008, and October 12, 2010, and alleged that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among others, violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") by making false and/or misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose that, as the Florida real estate market was in decline, the Company failed to take adequate and required impairments and accounting write-downs on many of the Company's Florida-based properties and as a result, the Company's financial statements materially overvalued the Company's property developments. The plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls, and as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. The complaint sought an unspecified amount in damages. On April 5, 2011, at the request of the plaintiff, the court dismissed the claims under the Securities Act and dismissed the current and former director defendants from the case. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on April 6, 2011. On January 12, 2012, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the individual defendants. On February 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the Court denied on February 14, 2012. On March 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and that appeal is currently pending. The St. Joe Company -- http://www/joe.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, operates as a real estate development company in Florida. The company operates in four segments: Residential Real Estate, Commercial Real Estate, Rural Land Sales, and Forestry. The Company owns approximately 573,000 acres of land concentrated primarily in northwest Florida. It has a strategic alliance with Southwest Airlines Co. to facilitate the commencement of low-fare air service to the northwest Florida Beaches International Airport. It was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in WaterSound, Florida. ST. JOE CO: Hearing on Settlement of Oil Spill Claims on Nov. 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- A final approval hearing of a settlement resolving certain of The St. Joe Company's oil spill-related claims is scheduled for November 8, 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. As a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Company has incurred significant expenses and the Company's properties, results of operations and stock price have been negatively impacted. The Company pursued certain claims and is currently exploring funds that may be available through the Gulf Coast Claims Facility to reimburse the Company for some of these losses and have received interim compensation without releasing the Company's claims. In addition, the Company has filed claims against those parties it believes are responsible for its damages in the consolidated Multi-District Litigation (MDL) actions presently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. That court has preliminarily approved a proposed class settlement that includes portions of the Company's claims. A final approval hearing is scheduled for November 8, 2012. St. Joe retains additional damages claims in the MDL that are not included in that settlement, which the Company is continuing to pursue. The St. Joe Company -- http://www/joe.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, operates as a real estate development company in Florida. The company operates in four segments: Residential Real Estate, Commercial Real Estate, Rural Land Sales, and Forestry. The Company owns approximately 573,000 acres of land concentrated primarily in northwest Florida. It has a strategic alliance with Southwest Airlines Co. to facilitate the commencement of low-fare air service to the northwest Florida Beaches International Airport. It was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in WaterSound, Florida. STOP & SHOP: Stops Sale of Daniella Mangos Due to Recall -------------------------------------------------------- The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, following a voluntary recall by Splendid Products, announced it removed from sale Daniella mangos due to possible salmonella contamination. The following product, purchased between July 12 and August 24, 2012, is included in this recall: * Daniella mangos, PLU 4959 Stop & Shop is aware of illnesses reported in Canada and associated with this recall. Customers who have purchased the product should discard any unused portions and bring their purchase receipt to Stop & Shop for a full refund. Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. Salmonella infections can be life-threatening, especially to those with weak immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy. The most common manifestations of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within eight to 72 hours. Additional symptoms may be chills, headache, nausea and vomiting that can last up to seven days. Customers may call Stop & Shop Customer Service at (800) 767-7772 Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for more information. Customers can also visit the Stop & Shop Web site at http://www.stopandshop.com/. About Stop & Shop The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company employs approximately 62,000 associates and operates more than 400 stores throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey. The Company helps support local communities fight hunger, combat childhood cancer and promote general health and wellness -- with emphasis on children's educational and support programs. In its commitment to be a sustainable company, Stop & Shop is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council and EPA's Smart Way program; has been awarded LEED (EB) certifications for 50 of its existing stores; and has been recognized by the EPA for the superior energy management of its stores. Stop & Shop is an Ahold company. To learn more about Stop & Shop, visit http://www.stopandshop.com/ SYNGENTA CROP: Kaua'i County Dep't. of Water Joins Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Laurent Canalejas, writing for The Garden Island, reports that Kaua'i County Department of Water convened on Aug. 28 to discuss a board approval to join as a class member in the class action case City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc and Syngenta AG. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege "Syngenta manufactured atrazine and sold it to farmers knowing it had a great potential to run off of crop land and into bodies of water." Atrazine is a powerful, economical chemical compound used to eradicate weeds. It is also used on agricultural sites that grow corn, sugarcane, guava, hay, macadamia nuts and pasture and can enter and contaminate drinking water sources. The five board members present voted in favor of a settlement with Syngenta rather than pursue a lawsuit against the Swiss-based company. The settlement was between $5,000 and $10,000, according to Department of Water's Attorney Andrea Suzuki. The lawsuit money goes back to the department to recoup the losses incurred from water testing. The class action was brought about after atrazine was detected in the county water. The claim states that any trace amount calls for a class action and qualifies for settlement. Secretary Randall Nishimura expressed concerns as to how the council will be able to act in the future by settling now. "I'm most concerned by the limitations of future actions," he said. "It looks like the action is in favor of Syngenta." Chemist Andy Canavan, who works for Kaua'i County Department of Water, was asked to state his findings about atrazine in public water. "Atrazine was found is very small quantities, only trace amounts that are not harmful to humans and were well below EPA standards," Mr. Canavan said. The EPA standard is 3.2 parts per billion. "Atrazine is used worldwide,"" Mr. Canavan added. TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Products Containing Daniella Brand Mangoes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Farms New Jersey is voluntarily recalling specific code dates of the following products due to containing Daniella Brand mangoes or potentially being processed on common equipment with the Daniella Brand mangoes. Daniella Brand mangoes were identified by the CFIA as having the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella Braenderup, and are subject to a prior recall posted by CFIA and FDA. All products are packaged in rigid plastic trays and can be identified with the following information: The only products affected by this action have BOTH the following Julian codes and sell by dates: Product Name Julian Code Sell By Date ------------ ----------- ------------ Wawa Mango 8oz. 237 or earlier 8/30/12 or earlier Wawa Pineapple, 237 or earlier 8/30/12 or earlier Strawberries, Mango 9oz Wawa Pineapple Snack 7oz 237 or earlier 8/30/12 or earlier Wawa Melon Mix 11oz 237 or earlier 8/30/12 or earlier Wawa Large Mixed Fruit 237 or earlier 8/30/12 or earlier 12oz Wawa Watermelon 8 oz 237 or earlier 8/30/12 or earlier Wawa Small Mixed Fruit 237 or earlier 8/30/12 or earlier 7.5oz Wawa Mixed fruit 237 or earlier 8/30/12 or earlier with kiwi 9.7oz Wawa Mango and Yogurt 236 or earlier 9/03/12 or earlier Parfait 7.5oz **Product not bearing a Julian code is not affected by this action and is manufactured by another supplier These products were distributed to Wawa retail stores in the following states: * New Jersey * Maryland * Delaware * Pennsylvania 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. Consumers are advised not to consume these specific products with the Julian code & code dates listed, and may return them to the place of purchase for refund or discard them. TREX COMPANY: Mold Claims in Defective Products Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Trex Company, Inc. continues to defend itself against pending class actions asserting mold claims in California, according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs. These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. On February 13, 2009, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On January 21, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of Mark Okano and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case. On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement. On April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final. On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original complaint. In its Final Order approving the surface flaking settlement, the District Court consolidated these pending actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. TREX COMPANY: Defends Defective Products Suits in 4 States ---------------------------------------------------------- Trex Company, Inc. continues to defend itself against class action complaints alleging defective products filed in Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan and New Jersey, according to the Company's July 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated plaintiffs. On June 28, 2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana. On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the 50th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa, Michigan on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated plaintiffs. On August 26, 2011, the Company removed the Peffers case to the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan. On April 4, 2012, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County on behalf of Caryn Borger, M.D. and similarly situated plaintiffs. On May 1, 2012, the Company removed the Borger case to the United States District Court, District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs in these purported class actions generally allege certain defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend these lawsuits. WINN-DIXIE: Recalls Cut Fruit Produced By Renaissance Food ---------------------------------------------------------- Winn-Dixie announced an immediate voluntary recall of select cut fruit produced by Renaissance Food Group. The products are being recalled as a precaution because they contain a mango ingredient that has the potential of being contaminated with Salmonella braenderup. This recall is associated with Daniella Brand Mangoes distributed by Splendid Products. 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. Specific products recalled include Garden Highway-brand Tropical Salsa, and Fruit Burst and Island Medley varieties of cut fruit sold under the Winn-Dixie name. The recalled products will have a plant number of P-009 on the product label that will be located to the left of the universal product code (UPC). Winn-Dixie has received no reports of any issues associated with consumption of the cut fruit products. Out of an abundance of caution for its customers, Winn-Dixie is immediately recalling this cut fruit produced by Renaissance Food Group from the shelves of select Florida stores. The recall is not companywide, but only for product sold in central and south Florida stores from the following counties: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Flagler, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lake, Lee, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Saint Lucie, Sarasota, Seminole, Sumter and Volusia. Recalled Item UPC Size Sell-By Dates ------------- ----------- ---- --------------------- Garden Highway 82676642210 11 oz 08/31/12 and 09/10/12 Tropical Salsa Cut Fruit Fruit Burst 2114001701 16 oz 08/30/12 and 08/31/12 Cut Fruit Fruit Burst 2114001707 24 oz 08/30/12 and 08/31/12 Cut Fruit Island Medley 2114001696 16 oz 08/30/12 and 08/31/12 Cut Fruit "We encourage guests in possession of any of the recalled items to immediately discard the product or bring it back to their store," said Brian Wright, Winn-Dixie's senior director of communications. "Guests who have purchased the products may visit their neighborhood Winn-Dixie to request a full refund, no questions asked." To receive the refund, guests may present proof of purchase through a receipt or the product packaging label. Consumers with questions about the recalled product may contact the Winn-Dixie Guest Service Center toll free at 1.866.WINN-DIXIE (866.946.6349), Mon - Fri, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time; Sat, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. About Winn-Dixie Winn-Dixie is a subsidiary of BI-LO Holding, which is the ninth- largest traditional supermarket chain in the United States. Under the banner names of BI-LO and Winn-Dixie, the Company employs 63,000 team members who serve customers in 687 grocery stores and 493 in-store pharmacies throughout the eight southeastern states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. BI-LO and Winn-Dixie are well-known and well-respected regional brands with deep heritages, strong neighborhood ties, proud histories of giving back, talented and loyal team members, and strong commitments to providing the best possible quality and value to customers. For more information, please visit http://www.bi-lo.com/and http://www.winn-dixie.com/ WORLD FOODS: Recalls Cut Fruit and Salsa Products With Mangoes -------------------------------------------------------------- World Foods, LLC is initiating a voluntary, precautionary recall on various products it distributes to retail supermarkets that contain mangoes associated with the Splendid Products recall of Daniella Brand Mangoes with the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. 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. There have been no reported illnesses attributed to the recalled items. World Foods, LLC, Florida is issuing this voluntary recall linked to Daniella Brands Mangoes to minimize risk to the public health. A list of the brands, products, pack sizes and affected area of distribution is provided in the table below. Affected Brand Product Code Date Area ----- ------- --------- --------- Garden Tropical Salsa, 11 oz 8/31/2012 Central & Highway UPC 8.26766-42210.4 South FL Garden Tropical Salsa, 11 oz 9/01/2012 Central & Highway UPC: 8.26766-42210.4 South FL Generic/ Fresh Island Medley, 1 lb 8/30/2012 Central & Winn-Dixie UPC: 0.21140-01696.6 South FL Stores Generic/ Fresh Island Medley, 1 lb 8/31/2012 Central & Winn-Dixie UPC: 0.21140-01696.6 South FL Stores Generic/ Fresh Fruit Burst Bowl, 1 lb 8/30/2012 Central & Winn-Dixie UPC: 0.21140-01701.7 South FL Stores Generic/ Fresh Fruit Burst Bowl, 1 lb 8/31/2012 Central & Winn-Dixie UPC: 0.21140-01701.7 South FL Stores Generic/ Fresh Fruit Burst Bowl, 1.5 lb 8/30/2012 Central & Winn-Dixie UPC: 0.21140-01707.9 South FL Stores Generic/ Fresh Fruit Burst Bowl, 1.5 lb 8/31/2012 Central & Winn-Dixie UPC: 0.21140-01707.9 South FL Stores Affected products contain a plant code P-009 on the label adjacent to the UPC bar code. No other World Foods, LLC, Florida products or code dates are affected by this recall. The Company is cooperating with the FDA. The Company has directly notified all customers who received the recalled product and requested removal from store shelves. Anyone who has the recalled product in their possession should not consume it and should destroy or discard it. Consumer with questions may contact the Company at 1-407-851-4504, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- YRC Worldwide Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint of a securities class action lawsuit remains pending, 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 February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant Holdings LLC in the U. S. District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 24, 2008, and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company and certain of its current and former officers failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' statements were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and overstated the financial condition of the Company and caused shares of the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period. Bryant Holdings LLC seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the Class Period. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims. On April 8, 2011, an individual (Stan Better) and a group of investors (including Bryant Holdings LLC) filed competing motions seeking to be named the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Court appointed them as co-lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on August 22, 2011. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 21, 2011, which contains allegations consistent with the original complaint. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is pending before the Court. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. The Company says the ultimate outcome of this case is not determinable. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any liability for this matter. Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, YRC Worldwide Inc. -- http://www.yrcw.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides various transportation services worldwide. The Company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. ********* 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 * * *