---

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

            Thursday, September 20, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 187

                             Headlines

AGRI-MARK: Faces Class Action Over "Fake" Greek Yogurt
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: "Silverstrand" Suit Appeal Under Advisement
AT&T: NSA Says It Has Immunity From Customers' Wiretapping Suit
BANCORPSOUTH INC: To Appeal Class Cert. in Overdraft Fee MDL
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Final Hearing on Tenn. Suit Deal on Oct. 31

BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Class Action Over Penalty Fees Faces Delay
BLUEGREEN CORP: Merger-Related Suits in Massachusetts Stayed
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Settles Class Action Over Storm Collapse
CVS CAREMARK: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
DIAGEO NORTH: Sends Unauthorized Text Messages, Suit Claims

EXPEDIA INC: Restrains Room Reservation Competition, Suit Says
FACEBOOK: Settles Class Action Over Friend Finder Ads
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Summary Judg. Bids Pending in "McGrogan" Suit
FLUSHMATE: Sued Over Defective Pressure Assisted Flushing System
HECLA MINING: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Idaho

ICAHN ENTERPRISES: "Silsby" Suit Still Stayed in New York Court
LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Toxic Spray-On Foam Installation
LIBRARY BOARD: Faces Class Action Over Library Card Fees
MERCK & CO: May be Reinstated as Defendant in AWP Suit in N.J.
MERCK & CO: Third Circuit Remanded K-DUR Antitrust Suits in July

MICRONETICS INC: Has Yet to File Merger-Related Suit Settlement
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wants to Delay Class-Certification Process
NATURE'S WAY: Sued Over False Claims on Homeopathic Products
NBTY INC: Awaits Final Approval of "Dirickson" Suit Settlement
NBTY INC: Awaits Okay of Settlement in "Hamilton" Suit vs. Unit

NBTY INC: Defends Suits Over Glucosamine-Based Food Supplements
NBTY INC: Discovery in "Hutchins" Class Action Suit Ongoing
NCO PORTFOLIO: Judge Certifies Debt Collection Class Action
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Class Action Goes Back to State Court
PETERSON CO: Recalls Ricotta Salata Frescolina Brand Cheese

POLK COUNTY, FL: Preliminary Hearing Held in Pepper Spray Suit
REACH MEDIA: Accused of Sending Unauthorized Text Messages
SEABRIGHT HOLDINGS: Being Sold to Enstar for Too Little
SNYDER'S-LANCE: S-L Continues to Defend "McPeak" Class Suit
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Discovery Ongoing in Minn. Securities Suit

ST. JUDE: Faces New Securities Class Action Suit in Minnesota
ST. JUDE: Time to Appeal in Silzone Suit Extended to Sept. 14
TOLEDO COUNTY, OH: Judge Denies Bid to Amend Housing Plan
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Calif.
WALTER ENERGY: Ontario Court Dismisses Proposed Class Action


                          *********

AGRI-MARK: Faces Class Action Over "Fake" Greek Yogurt
------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reports that
consumers in California and Florida are seeking class-action
status for their lawsuits that accuse a large New England dairy
cooperative of selling "fake" Greek yogurt.

Plaintiffs in the complaints -- Timothy Smith of Berkeley, Calif.,
and Cynthia Long of Tamarac, Fla. -- allege the Agri-Mark
cooperative and its Cabot Creamery subsidiary sold inauthentic
Greek yogurt.

Manufacturing Greek yogurt is a "relatively expensive" process
that involves straining the solids from fermented milk to create a
"thick protein-packed yogurt with the consistency like sour
cream," one complaint said.

Producing a gallon of Greek yogurt requires four times as much
milk as regular yogurt, the complaint said.

Plaintiffs allege that the cooperative doesn't filter excess
liquids from its "Cabot Greek" product but instead uses whey
protein concentrate and milk protein concentrate as thickeners.

"Just as the mineral pyrite resembles gold, Cabot Greek resembles
Greek yogurt," the complaint said.  "But fool's gold is not gold.
And Cabot Greek is not yogurt."

The complaint contends that the fillers are additives not approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which renders the
product adulterated and non-salable in the U.S.

Both lawsuits request certification as class actions, which means
other consumers of Cabot Greek yogurt would be included in the
litigation.

The complaints seek more than $5 million in compensation and
damages, with the exact amount to be determined in court.

Doug DiMento, spokesman for Agri-Mark and Cabot, said the
cooperative expects to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.

"We believe the complaint is entirely without merit," he said.
The company doesn't deny using whey protein concentrate and milk
protein concentrate in its product, but Mr. DiMento disputed that
these substances were cheap fillers.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," he said, noting that
they were actually fairly expensive ingredients.  "No one method
is correct and no one method is specified in federal regulations."

Corey Henry, spokesman for the National Yogurt Association, said
the FDA has proposed regulations for what constitutes yogurt and
what ingredients can be used in it, but these rules haven't yet
been finalized.

"At the moment, there is no standard of identity for the entire
yogurt category, including Greek yogurt," he said.

Manufacturers have differing opinions about what can be put in
yogurt, but whey protein concentrate and milk protein concentrate
are "generally recognized as safe" ingredients by the FDA, Mr.
Henry said.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: "Silverstrand" Suit Appeal Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit took
under advisement plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their
class action lawsuit entitled Silverstrand Investments et al. v.
AMAG Pharm., Inc., et al., according to AMAG Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.'s August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on
March 18, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et
al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-
NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010, and on December 17,
2010.  The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on
December 17, 2010, alleged that the Company and its former
President and Chief Executive Officer, former Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, its Board of Directors, and
certain underwriters in its January 2010 offering of common stock
violated certain federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11
and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that
the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer and
former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions in a
registration statement filed in January 2010.  The plaintiff
sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to its common
stock offering on or about January 21, 2010.  On
August 11, 2011, the Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing
the SAC in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. A separate Order of Dismissal was filed
on August 15, 2011.  On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, or the Court of Appeals.

After briefing was completed by all parties, the Court of Appeals
heard oral argument on May 11, 2012, and took the matter under
advisement.

The Company says it is currently unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with
this matter, if any, and have therefore not recorded any potential
estimated liability as the Company does not believe that such a
liability is probable nor does it believe that a range of loss is
currently estimable.


AT&T: NSA Says It Has Immunity From Customers' Wiretapping Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that the
National Security Agency says it has immunity from a class of AT&T
customers who claim that wiretapping violates their rights.

Carolyn Jewel, the lead plaintiff in the San Francisco federal
action, says that the U.S. government conducted illegal,
"indiscriminate" telephone surveillance of American citizens
following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.  The program,
approved by then President George W. Bush, was later referred to
as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP.

Ms. Jewel's lawsuit is one of many that were filed against
telecommunications carriers when it became public in 2005 that
AT&T had collaborated with the NSA to build a secret room at its
Folsom Street facility in San Francisco where the government could
intercept customers' communications.

In July 2008, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act Amendments Act, which cleared carriers of any
liability stemming from their cooperation with the government in
their wiretapping program.

Ms. Jewel claims that the NSA's actions violated the Constitution,
as well as the federal Wiretap Act and the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and that a waiver of sovereign
immunity applies.

In 2010, a federal judge dismissed Ms. Jewel's case for failure to
allege a personal injury.  The 9th Circuit reversed a year later,
however, and instructed the court to consider whether the
government's state secrets privilege bars the litigation.

Ms. Jewel filed for partial summary judgment in July, relying on
declarations from three former NSA analysts and a former AT&T
analyst about the surveillance.

The government moved to dismiss on Sept. 12, pointing to
declarations from Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James
Clapper and the NSA's Frances Fleisch about the state secrets
privilege.

"The government has amply demonstrated in the DNI and NSA public
and classified declarations that disclosure of the privileged
information reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally
grave damage to national security," a 48-page memorandum states.
"The disclosure of information concerning whether plaintiffs have
been subject to alleged NSA intelligence activity would
necessarily reveal NSA intelligence sources and methods, including
whether certain intelligence collection activities existed and the
nature of any such activity.  The disclosure of whether specific
individuals were targets of alleged NSA activities would also
reveal who is subject to investigative interest -- helping that
person to evade surveillance -- or who is not -- thereby revealing
the scope of intelligence activities as well as the existence of
secure channels for communication."

Mr. Clapper has also disputed the "indiscriminate" surveillance
allegation.

"The DNI explains that, as the government has previously
indicated, the NSA's collection of content of communications under
the now inoperative TSP was directed at international
communications in which a participant is reasonably believed to be
associated with al Qaeda or an affiliate terrorist organization,
and thus plaintiffs' allegation that the NSA has indiscriminately
collected the content of millions of communications sent or
received by people inside the United States after 9/11 under the
TSP is false," according to the government's filing.

U.S. District Judge Jeffery White will consider the motion to
dismiss and motion for summary judgment on Nov. 2.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery represents the NSA
along with Justice Department attorneys Anthony Coppolino and
Marcia Berman and others.

A copy of the Government Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion
to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment; Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Jewel, et al. v. National
Security Agency, et al., Case No. 08-cv-04373 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/17/Wiretap.pdf

The Government Defendants are represented by:

          Stuart F. Delery, Esq.
          Acting Assistant Attorney General
          Joseph H. Hunt, Esq.
          Director, Federal Programs Branch
          Vincent M. Garvey, Esq.
          Deputy Branch Director
          Anthony J. Coppolino, Esq.
          Special Litigation Counsel
          Marcia Berman, Esq.
          Senior Trial Counsel
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
          20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 6102
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 514-4782
          E-mail tony.coppolino@usdoj.gov


BANCORPSOUTH INC: To Appeal Class Cert. in Overdraft Fee MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its petition
for leave to appeal the class certification order in the
multidistrict litigation over overdraft fees, according to the
Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On May 18, 2010, BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of
the Company, was named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida.  The lawsuit
challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions.  The lawsuit also makes a claim under Arkansas'
consumer protection statute.  The plaintiff is seeking to recover
damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.  The case
was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  On May 4,
2012, the judge presiding over the multi-district litigation
entered an order certifying a class in this case.  The Company has
filed a petition for leave to appeal the class certification
order, which, if granted, would provide the Company with an
immediate right to appeal the class certification order.  At this
stage of the lawsuit, management of the Company cannot determine
the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company.  There
are significant uncertainties involved in any purported class
action litigation.  Although it is not possible to predict the
ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this
litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the
outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results
of operations.

                       About BancorpSouth

BancorpSouth Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in
Tupelo, Mississippi.  BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary
of BancorpSouth, Inc., operates 290 commercial banking, mortgage,
insurance, trust and broker dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas,
and an insurance location in Illinois.  BancorpSouth's common
stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
BXS.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Final Hearing on Tenn. Suit Deal on Oct. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on final approval of BancorpSouth, Inc.'s settlement
of a securities class action lawsuit in Tennessee is scheduled for
October 31, 2012, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 12, 2010, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chief Financial Officer were named in a class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  On September 17, 2010, an Executive Vice President
of the Company was added as a party to the lawsuit.  The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results.  In particular, the allegations relate to the
Company's recording and reporting of its unaudited financial
statements, including the allowance and provision for credit
losses, and its internal control over financial reporting leading
up to the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009.  The plaintiff sought class
certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of
costs and attorneys' fees and other equitable relief.

On May 24, 2012, the Company reached a settlement with the
plaintiff.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, subject to
final court approval, the Company's insurance carriers have funded
the settlement payment, other than an immaterial amount of
incidental expenses that the Company has covered.  On July 11,
2012, the court preliminarily approved the settlement on the terms
submitted by the parties and set a final settlement hearing for
October 31, 2012.  If settled on the terms preliminarily approved
by the court, the settlement will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position
or results of operations.

                       About BancorpSouth

BancorpSouth Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in
Tupelo, Mississippi.  BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary
of BancorpSouth, Inc., operates 290 commercial banking, mortgage,
insurance, trust and broker dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas,
and an insurance location in Illinois.  BancorpSouth's common
stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
BXS.


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Class Action Over Penalty Fees Faces Delay
--------------------------------------------------------------
BankingDay reports that four smaller banks may not have to respond
for some time to a mooted class action over the level of their
penalty fees.

The four are Bank of Queensland, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, HSBC
and Suncorp.

ANZ is the first defendant in a series of cases funded by IMF
(Australia) and managed by law firm Maurice Blackburn.

Proceedings are also underway against Citibank, Commonwealth Bank,
National Australia Bank and Westpac.

IMF, through its subsidiary Financial Redress, has been gathering
registrations for potential class actions against other banks as
well.


BLUEGREEN CORP: Merger-Related Suits in Massachusetts Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Three merger-related lawsuits in Massachusetts have been stayed
through January 2013 in favor of a consolidated merger-related
action proceeding in Florida, according to Bluegreen Corporation's
August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On November 11, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with BFC Financial Corporation ("BFC"), pursuant to
which, upon consummation of the merger contemplated by the
agreement and subject to the terms and conditions thereof, the
Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of BFC and the
Company's shareholders (other than BFC) will be entitled to
receive eight shares of BFC's Class A Common Stock for each share
of the Company's common stock that they hold at the effective time
of the merger (subject to adjustment in connection with the
reverse stock split expected to be effected by BFC prior to the
consummation of the merger).  The merger was approved by both the
Company's and BFC's shareholders on June 19, 2012.  BFC owns
approximately 54% of the Company's common stock as well as a
controlling interest in BBX Capital Corporation (formerly
Bancorp), Inc. ("BBX Capital") and a non-controlling interest in
Benihana, Inc. ("Benihana").

Between November 16, 2011, and February 13, 2012, seven purported
class action lawsuits related to the Company's proposed merger
with BFC were filed against Bluegreen, the members of Bluegreen's
board of directors, BFC and BFC's subsidiary formed for the
purpose of the merger.  Four of these lawsuits have been
consolidated into a single action in Florida.  The other three
lawsuits, which were filed in Massachusetts, have been stayed.
The lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger or, if it is completed, to
recover relief as determined by the applicable presiding court to
be appropriate.

The four Florida lawsuits have been consolidated into an action
styled In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder Litigation.  On
April 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint which alleges that the individual director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) agreeing to sell
Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and
maximum consideration, (ii) engineering a transaction to benefit
themselves and not the shareholders, and (iii) failing to protect
the interests of Bluegreen's minority shareholders.  In the
complaint, the plaintiffs also allege that BFC breached its
fiduciary duties to Bluegreen's minority shareholders and that the
merger subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by Bluegreen's directors and BFC.  In addition,
the complaint includes allegations relating to claimed violations
of Massachusetts law.  The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, along with damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The three Massachusetts lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
for Suffolk County in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and make
substantially the same allegations and claims as in the Florida
cases.  These three lawsuits are styled as follows: Gaetano
Bellavista Caltagirone, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Bluegreen Corporation, Alan B. Levan, John
E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Lawrence A. Cirillo, Mark A.
Nerenhausen, Arnold Sevell, James R. Allmand III, Orlando Sharpe,
BFC Financial Corporation and BXG Florida, LLC (filed on
November 16, 2011); Alan W. Weber and J.B. Capital Partners L.P.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Bluegreen Corporation, Alan B. Levan, John E. Abdo, Norman H.
Becker, Lawrence A. Cirillo, Mark A. Nerenhausen, Arnold Sevell,
James R. Allmand III, Orlando Sharpe, BFC Financial Corporation
and BXG Florida, LLC (filed on November 29, 2011); and Barry
Fieldman, as Trustee for the Barry & Amy Fieldman Family Trust, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Bluegreen Corporation, Alan B. Levan, John E. Abdo, Norman H.
Becker, Lawrence A. Cirillo, Mark A. Nerenhausen, Arnold Sevell,
James R. Allmand III, Orlando Sharpe, BFC Financial Corporation
and BXG Florida, LLC (filed on December 6, 2011).  The
Massachusetts court has stayed all three actions through January
2013 in favor of the consolidated action proceeding in Florida.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Settles Class Action Over Storm Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paddy Manning, writing for Stock & Land, reports that Australia's
biggest bank on Sept. 14 signed a last-minute deal with the
corporate regulator, agreeing to pay AUD136 million compensation
to 2,400 small investors in Storm Financial, which collapsed in
early 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis.

The collapse of Townsville-based Storm, founded by Emmanuel
Cassimatis and his wife, Julie, left as many as 13,000 investors
facing combined losses of AUD3 billion and led to a Senate inquiry
and reforms to the financial advice industry.

The Commonwealth Bank was the largest issuer of margin loans to
Storm clients, and the Sept. 14 compensation agreement settles a
case brought by the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission, for running an unregistered managed investment scheme,
which was due to begin in the Federal Court on Sept. 17.

CBA's compensation deal comes on top of AUD132 million already
paid by the bank to Storm victims under an earlier resolution
scheme. CBA has not admitted any liability.

ASIC's case against Storm, Macquarie Bank and the Bank of
Queensland -- which also issued margin loans to Storm clients -
will go ahead on Monday.

The chairman of ASIC, Greg Medcraft, hailed the compensation deal
as a victory on Sept. 15 and said CBA had "done the right thing"
but a Storm victim, Sean McArdle, lead applicant in the separate
Sherwood class action against CBA, told the Herald the deal was a
"disgrace".

Under the CBA deal, ASIC said, Storm investors would recover 55
per cent of their losses plus a write-off of any balance on a
Storm-related margin loan outstanding after the compensation, and
a write-off of any interest payments owing.

But Mr. McArdle said the initial AUD132 million paid under the
resolution scheme represented just 4› in the dollar compensation
and the extra AUD136 million meant the Commonwealth Bank was
washing its hands of Storm and its victims for less than 10› in
the dollar.

Mr. Medcraft said the CBA deal, one of ASIC's largest settlements,
was "timely and fair" and was preferable to drawn-out court
action, especially for Storm's many elderly investors who needed
certainty.  He said he hoped Macquarie and the Bank of Queensland
might also "do the right thing" and would be "happy to take their
call".


CVS CAREMARK: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark/CVS Pharmacy
stiffs hourly workers for overtime, a class action claims in
Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ortiz, et al. v. CVS Caremark
Corporation, et al., Case No. RG12647924 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/17/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Carey A. James, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1020
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 562-6800
          E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com
                  rwlm@asmlawyers.com
                  hvr@asmlawyers.com
                  caj@asmlawyers.com


DIAGEO NORTH: Sends Unauthorized Text Messages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Seaman, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Diageo North America, Inc., a Connecticut
corporation, Diageo-Guiness USA Inc., a/k/a Diageo-Guiness USA
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:12-cv-04755 (N.D. Calif.,
September 12, 2012) is brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, which prohibits sending of unsolicited voice and
text calls to cell phones.

Mr. Seaman filed the class action lawsuit to stop the Defendants'
practice of making unsolicited text message calls to cellular
telephones.  He alleges that Diageo transmits unauthorized calls
in the form of text messages to the cellular telephones of
consumers throughout the nation.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Illinois.

Diageo, a Connecticut corporation, is a producer and distributor
of alcoholic beverages throughout the country.  Diageo-Guiness, a
Delaware corporation, is also a producer and distributor of
alcoholic beverages throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com


EXPEDIA INC: Restrains Room Reservation Competition, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Wittenberg, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Expedia, Inc.; Hotels.com LP; Travelocity.com LP; Sabre
Holdings Corporation; Priceline.com Incorporated; Booking.com
B.V.; Booking.com (USA), Inc.; Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.; Hilton
Worldwide Inc.; Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.;
Marriott International, Inc.; Trump International Hotels
Management, LLC; Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC;
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc.; and John Does 1-
100, Case No. 3:12-cv-04754 (N.D. Calif., September 11, 2012) is
brought to seek damages and equitable relief from the Defendants
under the Sherman Antitrust Act and under the California Business
and Professions Code.

The lawsuit is a direct purchaser antitrust action challenging the
Online Retailer Defendants' conspiracy with the Hotel Defendants
to enter into, maintain and enforce minimum resale price
maintenance ("RPM") agreements.  Ms. Wittenberg alleges that the
Defendants conspired to impose an RPM scheme that would fix the
retail price for Room Reservations at the price the Hotel
Defendants were selling them and restrain competition for Room
Reservations in the market for online reservations.

Ms. Wittenberg is a resident and citizen of California.  She
purchased hotel room reservations online directly from one or more
of the Online Retailer Defendants in the United States.

Expedia is a Delaware corporation based in Bellevue, Washington.
Hotels.com, an affiliate of Expedia, is a Texas limited
partnership headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Travelocity.com , a
Delaware limited partnership based in Southlake, Texas, is owned
by Sabre.  Booking.com B.V., a company based in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, owns and operates Booking.com, the leading worldwide
online Room Reservations agency by room nights sold, attracting
over 30 million unique visitors each month via the Internet from
both leisure and business markets worldwide.  Booking.com B.V. is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Priceline.com.  Booking.com (USA) is
a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in New
York.  Booking.com (USA) is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Priceline.com.  Priceline.com is a Delaware corporation based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.

Orbitz Worldwide is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.  Sabre is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Southlake, Texas.  Intercontinental is a Delaware corporation
with its primary place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.  Starwood
is a Maryland corporation based in Stamford, Connecticut.
Starwood's hotels are primarily operated under the brand names St.
Regis(R), The Luxury Collection(R), Sheraton(R), Westin(R),
W(R),Le Meridien(R), Four Points(R) by Sheraton, Aloft(R)and
Element(R).  Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Bethesda, Maryland.  Trump International is a
Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New York.
Hilton is a Delaware company based in McLean, Virginia.  Kimpton
is a Delaware limited liability based in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Anthony Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Ruthanne Gordon, Esq.
          Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Candice J. Enders, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: rgordon@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  cenders@bm.net


FACEBOOK: Settles Class Action Over Friend Finder Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Facebook and a
group of consumers have reached a confidential settlement of a
dispute stemming from Friend Finder ads, according to papers filed
with a federal appeals court.

The settlement brings an end to a 2010 lawsuit alleging that ads
for Friend Finder misappropriate users' names and images.  That
litigation, filed by Robyn Cohen and four other California users,
is separate from a pending class-action lawsuit about Facebook's
"sponsored stories" program.

Cohen's lawsuit stemmed from allegations that Facebook wrongly
promoted Friend Finder by including users' names and faces in ads
to their friends.  Those ads said that the users had found other
friends via the Friend Finder tool.  Cohen and the other users
argued that those messages violated California law, which provides
that companies can't use the names or photos of individuals in ads
without their written consent.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District
of California dismissed the lawsuit last year on the theory that
Cohen and the other users hadn't shown they were injured by Friend
Finder.  Without economic harm, the users didn't have "standing"
to proceed in federal court, Judge Seeborg ruled.  He didn't pass
judgment on whether ads for the tool actually violate California's
misappropriation law.

Shortly after that ruling, Facebook asked Judge Seeborg to order
the users to pay the company more than $706,000 for its lawyers'
work on the case.  Winners in litigation typically aren't entitled
to reimbursement for their legal bills.  But the California
misappropriation statute at the center of the lawsuit says the
prevailing party is entitled to recover attorneys' fees.

Judge Seeborg denied Facebook's request for fee reimbursement
earlier this year.  He ruled that even though he dismissed the
potential class-action lawsuit, he hadn't decided whether Facebook
violated the California law.  Therefore, he wrote, Facebook didn't
prevail in a way that would entitle it to recoup its legal costs.

Facebook and the users appealed the decisions to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.  But both sides asked to withdraw their appeals
late last month, shortly after meeting with a mediator.  Court
records show the matters were closed.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Summary Judg. Bids Pending in "McGrogan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation is awaiting court
decisions with respect to motions for summary judgment in the
class action lawsuit involving its subsidiary, according to the
Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank is a class action that was
filed on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  The action alleges that First
Commonwealth Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum
interest rate of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as
long as the class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA
account.  The class asserts that the Bank committed fraud,
breached its modified contract with the class members, and
violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market
Rate Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a
roll-over IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate.  At that time,
there were 237 account holders with an average age of 64, and the
aggregate balances in the IRA Market Rate Savings accounts totaled
approximately $11.5 million.  Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for
the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for the alleged
fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
violations and attorney's fees.  On July 27, 2011, the court
granted class certification as to the breach of modified contract
claim and denied class certification as to the fraud and
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
claims.  The breach of contract claim is predicated upon a letter
sent to customers in 1998 which reversed an earlier decision by
the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the accounts.  The letter
stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as notification
that a decision has been made to re-establish the rate on your
account to eight percent (8%). This rate will be retroactive to
your most recent maturity date and will continue going forward on
deposits presently in the account and on annual additions."  In
granting class certification, the court found that the letter
could constitute a modification of the original IRA contract that
would obligate the Bank to pay a minimum rate of 8% until the
accounts are closed.  Plaintiffs and the Bank have filed motions
for summary judgment.  In support of its motion, the Bank has
asserted that the 1998 letter did not alter the Bank's right to
resign as custodian and close the accounts, which the Bank
exercised in 2008.

Oral argument on the motions for summary judgment was held on
April 4, 2012, and a decision is currently pending.  The amount of
the Bank's liability, if any, will depend upon information which
is not presently known to the Bank, including the court's
interpretation of the 1998 letter, each class member's life
expectancy and pace of distributions from the IRA account, and the
extent to which damages were or could have been mitigated through
alternative investments.  Accordingly, the Company is unable to
estimate the amount or range of a reasonably possible loss.


FLUSHMATE: Sued Over Defective Pressure Assisted Flushing System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Flushmate, a division of Sloan Valve Company, a
Delaware corporation, Gerber Plumbing Fixtures, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:12-cv-04757
(N.D. Calif., September 12, 2012) seeks damages and restitution on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who own or
owned a Gerber toilet with a Series 503 Flushmate(R) III Pressure-
Assist Flushing System manufactured between October 14, 1997, and
February 29, 2008, sold by Flushmate, which is now subject to a
nationwide product recall.

The Flushmate System poses a safety hazard and is unreasonably
dangerous to consumers in that the vessels in the toilet may
rupture, causing the toilet to explode, Ms. Williams contends.
She asserts that the Flushmate System is defective and the
failures can lead to substantial property damage as well as
serious physical injury to her and members of the proposed class.

Ms. Williams is a resident of South San Francisco, California.
She purchased a Gerber toilet containing a Series 503 Flushmate
III Pressures Assisted flushing system for her residence.

Gerber is a Delaware corporation based in Woodridge, Illinois.
Gerber manufactures, among other things, plumbing fixtures,
including toilets containing the Flushmate System.  Flushmate is a
division of the Sloan Valve Company, a Delaware corporation based
in Franklin Park, Illinois.  Flushmate manufactures, supplies and
distributes pressurized flushing devices, including the defective
Flushmate System used in the Gerber toilets.  The Plaintiff is
ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Birka-White, Esq.
          Mindy M. Wong, Esq.
          BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
          411 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200
          Danville, CA 94526
          Telephone: (925) 362-9999
          Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
          E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
                  mwong@birka-white.com


HECLA MINING: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Idaho
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company is defending a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit in Idaho, according to the Company's August 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of its officers, one
of whom is also a director.  The complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from
October 26, 2010, through and including January 11, 2012, asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among
other things, damages and costs and expenses.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of
the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading
statements and allegedly omitted certain material information
related to operational issues at the Lucky Friday mine.  The
complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus
purportedly harming investors who purchased shares during that
time.  A second lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2012, alleging
virtually identical claims.  These complaints have been
consolidated into a single case and a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel has been appointed by the Court (Bricklayers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v. Hecla Mining Company et al.,
Case No. 12-0042 (D. Idaho)).

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail.  The Company
believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend
them vigorously.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: "Silsby" Suit Still Stayed in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2012, an action was filed in N.Y. Supreme Court,
entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al.  Defendants include Carl C. Icahn
and Dynegy Inc, as well as two of Icahn Enterprises L.P.'s
officers.  The action purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between
September 2011 and March 2012.  The Complaint alleges violations
of the federal securities laws in defendants' allegedly making
false and misleading statements in securities filings that
artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock.  The individual
defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy.
Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount. Subsequent
to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and the
Court has stayed the litigation against Dynegy, pursuant to the
automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  By agreement,
defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint.  However,
defendants believe they have meritorious defenses to the claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Toxic Spray-On Foam Installation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lapolla Industries' spray-on
polyurethane foam installation remains toxic after it's sprayed
on, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Markey v. Lapolla Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-04622 (E.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/17/Foam.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benedict P. Morelli, Esq.
          David S. Ratner, Esq.
          David T. Sirotkin, Esq.
          MORELLI RATNER PC
          950 Third Avenue
          11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          E-mail:  bmorelli@morellilaw.com
                   dratner@morellilaw.com
                   dsirotkin@morellilaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Rash, Esq.
          Jeremy W. Alters, Esq.
          Matthew T. Moore, Esq.
          ALTERS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Miami Design District
          4141 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 201
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 571-8550
          E-mail: david@alterslaw.com
                  jeremy@alterslaw.com
                  matthew@alterslaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Pravato, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WOLF & PRAVATO
          2101 West Commercial Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 522-5800
          E-mail: vince@wolfandpravato.com


LIBRARY BOARD: Faces Class Action Over Library Card Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Benjamin Theule, an attorney,
claims in a class action in Superior Court that the San Diego
Public Law Library charges lawyers $45 a year for a library card,
though by law its fees may not exceed the cost of providing the
service.

A copy of the Complaint in Theule v. The Library Board of
Trustees, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00057087 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/17/LawBooks.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
          FINEMAN & ASSOCIATES
          155 N. Riverview Dr.
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
          Telephone: (714) 620-1125


MERCK & CO: May be Reinstated as Defendant in AWP Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. disclosed in its August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that a motion has been filed to
reinstate the Company as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in New Jersey alleging manipulation of average wholesale
prices.

The Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries remain defendants
in cases brought by various states alleging manipulation by
pharmaceutical manufacturers of Average Wholesale Prices ("AWP"),
which are sometimes used by public and private payors in
calculating provider reimbursement levels.  The outcome of these
lawsuits could include substantial damages, the imposition of
substantial fines and penalties and injunctive or administrative
remedies.

Since the start of 2012, the Company has settled certain AWP cases
brought by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, and Mississippi.  The Company and/or certain of its
subsidiaries continue to be defendants in cases brought by six
states.

A motion has also been filed to reinstate the Company as a
defendant in a putative class action in New Jersey State court
which alleges on behalf of third-party payers and individuals that
manufacturers inflated drug prices by manipulation of AWPs and
other means.  This case was dismissed against the Company without
prejudice in 2007.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that
delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and
consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its
joint ventures.  The Company's operations are principally managed
on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,
which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and
Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the
Pharmaceutical segment.


MERCK & CO: Third Circuit Remanded K-DUR Antitrust Suits in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed in July
2012 a district court ruling dismissing K-DUR antitrust lawsuits,
and remanded these suits for further proceedings, according to
Merck & Co., Inc.'s August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In July 2011, the Company announced the latest phase of its global
restructuring program (the "Merger Restructuring Program") that
was initiated in conjunction with the integration of the legacy
Merck and legacy Schering-Plough Corporation businesses.  This
Merger Restructuring Program is intended to optimize the cost
structure of the combined company.  As part of this latest phase,
the Company expects to reduce its workforce measured at the time
of the Merger by an additional 12% to 13% across the Company
worldwide.

In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough settled patent
litigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") and ESI
Lederle, Inc. ("Lederle"), respectively, relating to generic
versions of K-DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium
chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which
Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications ("ANDAs").  Following the commencement of an
administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(the "FTC") in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effects from those
settlements (which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor),
putative class and non-class action lawsuits were filed on behalf
of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-
Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in a multi-
district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  These lawsuits claimed violations of federal and
state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common
law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages.  In April
2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their case.
In March 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment to the
defendants on the remaining lawsuits and dismissed the matter in
its entirety.  However, in July 2012, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the
case for further proceedings.  At the same time, the Third Circuit
upheld a December 2008 decision by the District Court to certify
certain direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as a class action.
The Company intends to seek further judicial review.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that
delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and
consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its
joint ventures.  The Company's operations are principally managed
on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,
which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and
Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the
Pharmaceutical segment.


MICRONETICS INC: Has Yet to File Merger-Related Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micronetics, Inc. has yet to file and seek approval of its
settlement of class action lawsuits arising from its proposed
merger with a subsidiary of Mercury Computer Systems, Inc.,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On June 8, 2012, the Company, Mercury Computer Systems, Inc., a
Massachusetts corporation ("Mercury"), and Wildcat Merger Sub
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mercury ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Mercury will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company for $14.80
per share in cash, without interest, and pursuant to which Merger
Sub will be merged with and into the Company with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Mercury (the "Merger").

On June 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Jason Katz, an
alleged stockholder of the Company (Katz v. Micronetics, Inc. et
al., C.A. No. 7626-VCP).  The lawsuit alleges: (i) that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached fiduciary
duties they allegedly owed in negotiating and approving the Merger
Agreement, that the merger consideration negotiated in the Merger
Agreement improperly values the Company, that the Company's
stockholders will not likely receive adequate or fair value for
their Company common stock in the Merger, and that the terms of
the Merger Agreement impose improper deal protection devices that
will preclude competing offers and (ii) that Mercury and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the Merger and rescission in the event that the
Merger has already been consummated prior to the entry of the
court's final judgment and an award of damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.  On
June 29, 2012, a substantially identical purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery by Kambiz Abbassi,
another alleged stockholder of the Company (Abbassi v. D'Anne
Hurd, et al., C.A. No. 7665-VCP).  In addition to similar
allegations regarding the Company's board of directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties relating to negotiation and approval
of the Merger, the Abbassi complaint also alleges that the Company
and the board of directors made materially false and misleading
disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement.  On July 3, 2012,
the Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the Katz and
Abbassi actions as In re Micronetics, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 7626-VCP, and appointing co-lead counsel.

On June 20, 2012, another substantially identical purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New
Hampshire, Hillsborough County, by Paul Constantinescu, an alleged
stockholder of the Company (Constantinescu v. Micronetics, Inc. et
al., Docket No. 226-2012-00-440).  On
July 13, 2012, the Constantinescu action was stayed in favor of
the consolidated Delaware action.

On July 26, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
by Bhanwar Joshi, an alleged stockholder of the company (Joshi v.
Micronetics, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-00285).  The lawsuit is
substantially identical to the other lawsuits relating to the
Merger, but in addition asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that the definitive proxy
statement disseminated in connection with the Merger contained
material misstatements and/or omissions.

On July 30, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company agreed to settle the
litigation pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the
United States District Court.  The settlement provides, among
other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement which provides for the conditional
certification of the consolidated Delaware action as a non opt-out
class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23 on behalf of a
class consisting of all record and beneficial owners of Company
common stock during the period beginning on June 10, 2012, through
the date of the consummation of the Merger, including any and all
of their respective successors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, and the release of all asserted claims.  Pursuant
to the settlement, the Company agreed to additional disclosure
related to continued employment provisions for senior management
included in the various offers made for the Company and the
extension of exclusivity to Mercury.  This additional disclosure
was provided in the form of a press release issued on July 30,
2012, and filed pursuant to Form 8-K on such date.  The asserted
claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement
is approved by the court, and such release, if approved by the
court, would encompass all claims alleged in the lawsuit pending
in the Superior Court of the State of New Hampshire.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  The settlement will not affect the merger
consideration to be received by the Company's stockholders.

In connection with this settlement, the Company may be liable for
the plaintiff's attorney fees; however, as of this time any such
fee award is uncertain and no reasonable estimate can be made. The
Company carries a director and officer insurance policy which may
cover some or all of the cost of this matter subject to a $150,000
retention.

Micronetics Inc. -- http://www.micronetics.com-- manufactures
microwave and radio frequency (RF) components and integrated
subassemblies used in a variety of defense, aerospace and
commercial applications.  Micronetics also manufactures and
designs test equipment and components that test the strength,
durability and integrity of communication signals in communication
equipment.  Micronetics serves a diverse customer base, including
BAE Systems, Boeing, Cobham, EADS, General Dynamics, ITT Exelis,
L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon,
Rockwell, Tecom Industries, Teradyne, and Thales.  The Company is
based in Hudson, New Hampshire.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wants to Delay Class-Certification Process
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Solomon, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) wants to delay the
class-certification process in the Ed O'Bannon antitrust lawsuit,
arguing that ex-college athletes fundamentally changed their case
by claiming current players have the right to be paid for playing
on live television.

Ex-players such as Mr. O'Bannon, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell and
Tyrone Prothro are embattled in a 3-year-old lawsuit against the
NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Co., and Electronic Arts over the
commercial use of their names, images and likenesses.

In documents filed last week in California federal court, the NCAA
says the ex-players in the past "repeatedly and specifically
conceded" their claims don't involve live NCAA basketball or
football games.  Expert reports recently filed by the ex-players
"appear to assert that more than 99.9% of the class damages are
attributable to the use of current student-athletes' name, image
or likeness in live broadcasts," the NCAA writes.

At stake in the short term is whether the suit becomes classified
as a class action that would increase potential financial damages
or force a settlement.  Granting the suit as a class action would
mean any current or former football or men's basketball player
could join the lawsuit.

The dynamics of the case changed Aug. 31, when in seeking
certification, lawyers for the ex-players argued the NCAA should
share with players revenue from TV, video games and other products
that use athletes' names, images and likenesses.  The revenue
could go in a trust until players' college careers are over, the
lawyers said.

The NCAA argues that TV has become the centerpiece of the ex-
players' claims without a single plaintiff demonstrating he was
"included" in live game footage during the proposed class period.

Previously, the ex-players argued they weren't being compensated
from the sale or licensing of archival video, not live TV, the
NCAA claims.

"It is also a plain and direct assault on the NCAA's amateurism
and eligibility rules, one that appears nowhere in the (second
amended class-action complaint), and has been repudiated by the
Supreme Court," NCAA lawyers write.  "This is a clear attempt at
litigation by ambush."

The ex-players claim every college athlete since at least 2004 has
been compelled to sign a standard "Student-Athlete Statement," a
portion of which requires authorization to the NCAA and others to
use the athlete's name or picture.  The form suggests that signing
it is necessary to be eligible in college, the ex-players argue.
The NCAA, CLC and EA Sports have until Oct. 31 to file responses
opposing the suit becoming a class action.  The NCAA now wants to
delay that process until the defendants can address what the NCAA
calls "obvious and fatal legal defects" in the ex-players'
theories.

Meanwhile, CLC -- the country's leading collegiate trademark
licensing and marketing company -- is seeking court sanctions
against one of the plaintiffs, former Arizona State football
player Ishmael Thrower.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins has recommended that U.S
District Court Judge Claudia Wilken dismiss Mr. Thrower's claims
from the consolidated suit for failure to prosecute.  Mr. Thrower
and his counsel failed to appear in person at an Aug. 24 hearing
and did not provide responses to CLC's requests for documents,
according to Cousins.

"Although counsel for antitrust plaintiffs, Jon King, was present
at the hearing, he did not have any explanation for Thrower's
failure to appear," Judge Cousins wrote.

CLC says in court documents it will seek sanctions against Mfr.
Thrower at a Nov. 1 hearing.

Mr. Thrower was a two-year starter on Arizona State's defensive
line in 2003 and 2004.


NATURE'S WAY: Sued Over False Claims on Homeopathic Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nature's Way Products and
Schwabe North America push Umcka ColdCare and Umcka Cold+Flu
homeopathic products with false claims that they are "clinically
proven," a woman claims in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Grimes v. Nature's Way Products, LLC,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-00941 (E.D. Wis.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/17/NoTheyArent.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
          SALAS WANG LLC
          155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 803-4963
          E-mail: jsalas@salaswang.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          3636 4th Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006


NBTY INC: Awaits Final Approval of "Dirickson" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of a wage
and hour lawsuit initiated in California, according to the
Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On April 8, 2010, a putative class action captioned Dirickson v.
NBTY Acquisition, LLC, NBTY Manufacturing, LLC, NBTY, Inc., and
Volt Management Corporation ("Volt") was filed against the Company
and certain subsidiaries in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles.  Volt is not related to the Company.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of employees in connection
with several causes of action alleging, among other things, wage
and hour violations.  The complaint seeks damages on behalf of all
non-exempt employees within the State of California who worked for
Volt or any of the NBTY entities between April 8, 2006, and April
8, 2010, including compensatory damages, unpaid wages, statutory
penalties, restitution, unspecified injunctive relief, unjust
enrichment and attorneys' fees and costs in unidentified amounts.
The parties submitted to the court a settlement agreement
providing for potential payments to the class and the court
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement on or about May 9,
2012.  No determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of
the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, until such
settlement is approved and entered by the court.  The Company says
the estimated settlement value is not material.


NBTY INC: Awaits Okay of Settlement in "Hamilton" Suit vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its subsidiary's
settlement of a wage and hour class action lawsuit commenced by
Hamilton and Taylor, according to the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On July 7, 2010, a putative class action captioned Hamilton and
Taylor v. Vitamin World, Inc. was filed against one of the
Company's subsidiaries in the Alameda Superior Court, California.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of employees in connection
with several causes of action alleging, among other things, wage
and hour violations.  Plaintiffs describe the class as all non-
exempt current and former employees of Vitamin World Stores in
California.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages, statutory
penalties, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys'
fees and costs in unidentified amounts.  Vitamin World, Inc. has
agreed upon a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs, and the
parties have submitted settlement documentation to the court for
approval, which would provide for payments to the class.  Until
such settlement is approved and entered by the court, however, no
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of the
defendant. The Company says this proposed settlement is not
material.


NBTY INC: Defends Suits Over Glucosamine-Based Food Supplements
---------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. is defending class action lawsuits challenging the
marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, according to
the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against the Company, its subsidiary
Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to
which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the
marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various
states' consumer protection statutes.  The lawsuits against the
Company and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and
Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf
of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified
compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and
disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief); and
Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers seeking
unspecified trebled compensatory damages), as well as other cases
in California and Illinois against certain wholesale customers as
to which the Company may have certain indemnification obligations.
Motions to dismiss have been filed in all of these cases.  On
April 10, 2012, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and
denied in part in the Jennings case and discovery has commenced;
all other cases currently remain at the pleading stage.  The
Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend
these actions.  At this time, however, no determination can be
made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of
liability, if any, on the part of any of the defendants.


NBTY INC: Discovery in "Hutchins" Class Action Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit commenced by John
F. Hutchins against NBTY, Inc., according to the Company's August
7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 11, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned John F.
Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, against NBTY and
certain current and former officers, claiming that the defendants
made false material statements, or concealed adverse material
facts, for the purpose of causing members of the class to purchase
NBTY stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices.  An amended
complaint, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, was served on February 1, 2011.  The Company moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on March 18, 2011, and that
motion was denied on March 6, 2012.  Discovery is ongoing.  The
Company believes the claims are without merit and it intends to
vigorously defend this action.  At this time, however, no
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of any
of the defendants.


NCO PORTFOLIO: Judge Certifies Debt Collection Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge certified a class action against a collection agency that
allegedly operated in Illinois without a license.

Rocio Galvan and Joseph Hawthorne sued NCO Portfolio Management
and NCO Financial Systems for collecting debts in Illinois without
a license.  They claim that NCO Financial is "one of the largest
collection agencies in the world."

NCO Portfolio purchases debts owed by individuals, and then NCO
Financial collects the funds.  Specifically, NCO Financial
collected a debt Mr. Galvan owed to AT&T Universal, and a debt Mr.
Hawthorne owed to Citibank.

NCO Financial allegedly filed more than 1,000 consumer debt-
collection lawsuits between 2007 and 2008 in Cook County Court
alone.

But the plaintiffs claim that NCO Portfolio was not licensed as a
debt collector in Illinois, and therefore has no legal rights to
the payments it collected.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly found that the case hinged on
a common question, and certified a class of Illinois residents
from whom NCO collected a debt between June 2006 and June 2011.

"NCO Portfolio, which was unlicensed, purchased debts and obtained
payments on those debts through NCO Financial or by filing its own
suits to collect on the debts," he wrote.  "The crux of the case
involves a determination of whether this was legal or illegal
under the ICAA [Illinois Collection Agency Act].  This is the
epitome of a common question, the answer to which will enable
determination of the case."

Before the Illinois Collection Agency Act was amended in 2008, the
statute did not expressly state whether a debt buyer was a
collection agency that had to be licensed.

"Though there is no question that this is a legal issue that the
Court will have to determine, it involves a binary choice --
either the pre-amendment ICAA applied to debt buyers like NCO
Portfolio, or it didn't," Judge Kennelly wrote.

"In short, this is a common issue, not an individual one," he
added.

Finding that many of the debts in question are too old to be
collected under the statute of limitations, Judge Kennelly also
disagreed that the lawsuit cannot help those who owe a debt to the
original creditor.

"There is a very good chance that plaintiffs are right on their
argument about staleness, and if so, the possibility of debt
resurrection likely would apply only to a very small number of
class members," Judge Kennelly wrote.

"In any event, the possibility of future litigation by non-parties
(creditors or other debt collectors) against some class members
has nothing to do with the superiority of a class action for
resolving the parties' current dispute," he added (parenthesis in
original).

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Galvan, et al. v.
NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-03918 (N.D. Ill.) and
in Galvan, et al. v. NCO Portfolio Management, Inc., Case No. 11-
cv-03918 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/17/NCO.pdf


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Class Action Goes Back to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Vielmetti, writing for the Journal Sentinel reports that a
class-action lawsuit against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Co. that could cost the firm hundreds of millions of dollars is
back in state court after the company's effort to shift the
dispute to federal court was denied.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman's decision could land
Northwestern Mutual back in front of the reserve judge it accused
of an ethical breach after he ruled against the company in 2011.
But Northwestern Mutual is already trying to get a federal appeals
court involved.

A Fort Atkinson woman, Marleen LaPlant, contends that in 1985,
Northwestern Mutual improperly changed the way it paid people who
had purchased annuities from the company without notice to or
permission from the buyers, resulting in their loss of dividend
income over the next 20 years.  The company says the change was a
normal part of business.

After a trial in 2010, Racine Reserve Judge Dennis Flynn issued a
sharply worded 97-page ruling against Northwestern Mutual in March
2011, finding the insurer had acted in bad faith and breached its
contracts with thousands of annuity holders when it unilaterally
changed how dividends were paid on some annuities sold before
1985.

Seventeen days later, lawyers for Northwestern Mutual told Judge
Flynn they had just discovered that he had once owned a similar
annuity, should have disclosed that fact, and consequently should
vacate all his previous rulings and get off the case.

But instead of stepping down, Judge Flynn blasted the lawyers for
not revealing their knowledge of his policies when they first
became aware of them back in 2009.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs called Northwestern Mutual's claim a
"failed ambush," "baseless in fact and law," and an "insulting and
specious attack" on Judge Flynn meant to delay the final outcome
of the case.

Northwestern appealed Judge Flynn's refusal to drop the case,
arguing the "one-sidedness" of his findings after trial rendered
his "judicial demeanor suspect."  The Wisconsin Court of Appeals
denied the petition.

Buoyed by Judge Flynn's ruling, the plaintiffs sought to enlarge
their class from about 3,600 who bought policies in Wisconsin to
about 35,000 who purchased them nationwide.  That prompted
Northwestern Mutual to remove the case to federal court last fall
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Judge Adelman, however, agreed with the plaintiffs that the case
focuses on corporate governance issues under Wisconsin law, an
exception to the fairness act's application.  Provisions in some
of the contracts that expressly provided for other states' laws to
apply were unenforceable, Judge Adelman found, because they would
undermine Wisconsin's interest in regulating companies
headquartered here.

Northwestern Mutual has already petitioned the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for permission to appeal Judge Adelman's order.
The petition characterizes the LaPlant case as one of bait-and-
switch, initially presented as only for Wisconsin annuity
customers and only seeking declaratory judgment on narrow issues,
but that morphed into claims for a larger class and damages.

It notes that LaPlant's lawyers have filed similar cases in
Florida, California and Washington seeking national class action
status.  Northwestern Mutual tried to shift those cases to federal
courts as well.  Some were also sent back to state courts, but all
have been on hold pending the outcome of the Milwaukee case.


PETERSON CO: Recalls Ricotta Salata Frescolina Brand Cheese
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peterson Company is recalling Ricotta Salata Frescolina brand
cheese that came from its supplier Forever Cheese of Long Island
City, New York.  Forever Cheese recalled this cheese product due
to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination, 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 cheese was sold to distributors, retailers and restaurants in
Washington and Oregon states between July 17 and September 10,
2012.

The cheese is Ricotta Salata Frescolina brand, cut into 7 ounce
pieces, with manufacturer codes 7022, 7212, 7272 and 7432.  There
is a total of 390 pounds in distribution.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm319735.htm

The potential for contamination was noted after an illness was
reported in connection with eating the cheese.  Each and every
distributor, retailer and restaurant has been contacted in an
effort to recall any and all remaining product in the marketplace.

If you believe that you have purchased any of this cheese please
contact your distributor or retailer for a full refund.  If you
have any questions please call Peterson Company 253-249-2453,
contact Scott Williams or Kelly Beale Monday through Friday 9:00
a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time and mention Recall, or e-
mail Recall@petersoncheese.com


POLK COUNTY, FL: Preliminary Hearing Held in Pepper Spray Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elvia Malagon, writing for Ledger Media Group, reports that on the
last day of a five-day hearing, a federal judge on Sept. 14 heard
how Polk County detention deputies interpret use-of-force
guidelines involving juvenile inmates.

The preliminary hearing, in which the Southern Poverty Law Center
asked for an injunction to stop the use of pepper spray on
juvenile inmates at the Polk County Jail, is part of a federal
class-action civil rights lawsuit filed by the advocacy group.
The lawsuit outlines what the group calls the mistreatment of
juvenile inmates.

Before deciding whether to grant an injunction, U.S. Magistrate
Mark Pizzo will examine evidence and testimony raised during the
hearing.

Throughout the week, the SPLC called on teens to tell of their
experiences in the jail and called on experts to comment on
practices in the juvenile wing at the Polk County Jail.

Lawyers for the Polk County Sheriff's Office presented evidence
and testimony saying a temporary injunction is not necessary.

Polk County Sheriff's Office Maj. Michael Allen, who oversees Polk
County jails, spent most of Friday testifying about the standards
used in the wing of the jail the county converted last October to
house teens facing charges in juvenile and adult courts.

The judge questioned Mr. Allen about the Florida Model Jail
Standards wording on juvenile detention centers.  According to the
document, each agency can create its own guidelines based on "the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement Use of Force Continuum
and/or the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Use of Force
Continuum."


REACH MEDIA: Accused of Sending Unauthorized Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
David Trindade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Reach Media Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 5:12-cv-04759 (N.D. Calif., September 12, 2012)
is brought to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of making
unsolicited text message calls to cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide.

The Defendant repeatedly made unsolicited text message calls to
the Plaintiff's and the other putative class members' cellular
telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
Mr. Trindade alleges.  He contends that neither he nor the other
class members ever provided their phone numbers and consent to the
Defendant.

Mr. Trindade is a citizen of California.

Reach Media is a Delaware limited liability company based in
Atlanta, Georgia.  The Company is a performance based publisher
network specializing in "affiliate marketing," "lead generation,
interactive web design, branding & consumer acquisition."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Phone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Christopher Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
          1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


SEABRIGHT HOLDINGS: Being Sold to Enstar for Too Little
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Seabright Holdings is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Enstar, for $11.11
a share, or $252 million, shareholders claim in King County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Daks v. SeaBright Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 12-2-30226-0 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/17/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
          1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2230
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 652-8660
          E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
                  mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


SNYDER'S-LANCE: S-L Continues to Defend "McPeak" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance, Inc. continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit commenced by Joseph A. McPeak,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On January 19, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by
Joseph A. McPeak individually and allegedly on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals against S-L Distribution Company,
Inc., a subsidiary of the Company.  The complaint alleges a single
cause of action for damages for violations of New Jersey's
Franchise Practices Protection Act.  S-L Distribution Company,
Inc. believes it has meritorious defenses to this claim and
intends to vigorously defend against this action.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Discovery Ongoing in Minn. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
federal district court in Minnesota against St. Jude Medical, Inc.
and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical
common stock between April 22, 2009, and October 6, 2009.  The
lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for the
first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary
earnings release dated October 6, 2009.  The complaint, which
seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys'
fees, alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it was
experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not
receiving anticipated orders for CRM (Cardiac Rhythm Management)
devices.  Class members allege that the Company's failure to
disclose the information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude
Medical stock at an artificially inflated price.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this
lawsuit.  In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a
motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010.  The
defendants filed their answer in January 2012, and the discovery
phase in the case has begun.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Faces New Securities Class Action Suit in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. is facing a new securities class action
lawsuit in Minnesota, according to the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 14, 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and a
company officer for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities
of the Company between December 15, 2010, and April 4, 2012, who
were damaged thereby.  The complaint, which seeks unspecified
damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that
the Company failed to disclose information concerning its Riata,
QuickFlex and QuickSite leads.  Class members allege that the
Company's failure to disclose this information resulted in the
class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against
the claims asserted in this lawsuit.  The lawsuit is in a very
early stage and is awaiting appointment of a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel to represent the putative class.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Time to Appeal in Silzone Suit Extended to Sept. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario extended the time
for filing a notice of appeal to September 14, 2012, in one of the
four outstanding lawsuits relating to Silzone(R), according to St.
Jude Medical, Inc.'s August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone(R) coating, which the Company stopped selling in
January 2000.  The Company has vigorously defended against the
claims that have been asserted and will continue to do so with
respect to any remaining claims.

The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of two class
actions in Ontario, one individual case in Ontario and one
proposed class action in British Columbia by the provincial health
insurer.  In Ontario, a trial on common issues commenced in
February 2010 in a class action case involving Silzone patients.
In June 2012, the Court in that case ruled in the Company's favor
on all nine common class issues and the Court ruled the case
should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal for the Province of
Ontario granted the plaintiff's request seeking to extend the time
for filing a notice of appeal to September 14, 2012.

An additional case seeking class action status in Ontario was
originally stayed in 2003 pending resolution of the class action
that went through the common issue proceeding, and the Company
will seek dismissal of both class action matters when it seeks to
have the Court effectuate its June 2012 order finding that a class
action in Ontario involving Silzone products should be dismissed.
The proposed class action lawsuit by the British Columbia
provincial health insurer seeks to recover the cost of insured
services furnished or to be furnished to patients who were also
class members in a British Columbia class action that was resolved
in 2010.  Although that lawsuit remains pending in the British
Columbia court, there has not been any activity since 2010.  The
individual case in Ontario requests damages in excess of $1
million (claiming unspecified special damages, health care costs
and interest).  Based on the Company's historical experience, the
amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any
relationship to the amount claimed.

The Company has recorded an accrual for probable legal costs,
settlements and judgments for Silzone related litigation. The
Company is not aware of any unasserted claims related to Silzone-
coated products.  For all Silzone legal costs incurred, the
Company records insurance receivables for the amounts that it
expects to recover based on its assessment of the specific
insurance policies, the nature of the claim and the Company's
experience with similar claims.  The Company's current and final
insurance layer for Silzone claims consists of $13 million of
remaining coverage with two insurance carriers.  To the extent
that the Company's future Silzone costs (the material components
of which are settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related
defense costs) exceed its remaining insurance coverage, the
Company would be responsible for such costs.  The Company has not
recognized an expense related to any potential future damages as
they are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


TOLEDO COUNTY, OH: Judge Denies Bid to Amend Housing Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Kate Giammarise, writing for Toledo Blade, reports that a federal
judge has denied a request to amend an affirmative-action plan
that was put in place several decades ago to desegregate public
housing in Toledo and Lucas County.

U.S. District Court Judge David Katz found recently that the Lucas
Metropolitan Housing Authority's use of housing vouchers under the
federal Section 8 program had not been shown to worsen racial
segregation in public housing projects.

The matter stems from a class-action case that stretches back to
1974, which alleged the Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority (at
the time the Toledo Metropolitan Housing Authority) and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development segregated minority
and white tenants when building and renting out housing.

Federal courts found in favor of the plaintiffs -- several public
housing tenants or prospective tenants who were Mexican-American
and African-American and wished to live in suburban areas -- and
ordered the housing authority to put in place an affirmative-
action plan to provide more racial balance at its properties.

Plaintiffs in the case, represented by Advocates for Basic Legal
Equality, asked last year that the plan be modified.  They alleged
the housing authority had not achieved "any meaningful progress"
on desegregation and the affirmative-action plan should include
the Section 8 voucher program administered by LMHA, not just
public housing.

Under the Section 8 program, tenants are given a voucher and are
allowed to choose their own privately-owned rental housing, unlike
traditional public housing that is owned and operated by a housing
authority.

Along with denying that modification request, Judge Katz found
that, based on measurements of the percent of minority and non-
minority residents at various LMHA sites, "LMHA is making some
progress towards desegregation (significant progress in elderly
housing, moderate progress in family housing)."

However, the ruling noted the affirmative action plan "is not well
suited to contemporary realities," with outdated ratios of
minority and non-minority residents the housing authority is
striving for at each site.

"Furthermore, the practical application of waiting lists, resident
preference, and LMHA's shifting focus (to Section 8 and rebuilding
troubled projects) likely means that LMHA could act in a
completely fair, non-discriminatory, non-segregationist manner and
still never reach the point where every project's ratio" was
within a desegregated racial balance, Judge Katz wrote.

The judge also recommended the plaintiffs and LMHA work together
to revise the affirmative-action plan.

"[I]n Lucas County, there is an extensive waiting list for public
housing," the judge also noted.  "When a resident does not get
into his desired location, it may be a reflection of that
resident's need for immediate housing more than a poor reflection
on desegregation efforts.  For example, a minority application may
not end up living in a predominantly non-minority location because
his strong need for housing left him with no other choice than to
take the first available unit rather than waiting months or years
for an opening in his desired location.  This, then, reflects the
sad reality of a heavily burdened public housing system in
general, not that system's ability to desegregate its properties."

Linnie Willis, the housing authority's executive director,
declined to comment on the ruling on Sept. 15.

Aneel Chablani, a lawyer and director of advocacy for ABLE, said
his agency hopes to work with LMHA to further enhance the
desegregation plan.

"The real harm that is done in segregation is that it isolates
people and it disconnects them from opportunities," he said.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Ubiquiti
Networks, Inc., on Sept. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class  consisting
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ubiquiti common
stock between October 14, 2011 and August 9, 2012, inclusive,
and/or all persons who acquired shares of Ubiquiti common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's allegedly false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its October 14, 2011 initial public offering.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com

Ubiquiti, together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, offers a
portfolio of wireless networking products and solutions.  The
Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts
concerning the Company's business and operations, including: (i)
the true magnitude of the risks the Company faced from counterfeit
copies of its products including the popular and profitable AirMax
product line; (ii) the widespread nature and extent of the
counterfeit-product operations, and the impact those activities
would have on the Company's future operating results; (iii) the
increased risks to the Company's operations due to its unique
business model, whereby it exclusively relied on distributors to
sell its products to end customers; (iv) that the Company lacked
the proper internal controls to prevent its product designs from
being stolen and replicated; and (v) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than November 6, 2012, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll
Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com
or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com


WALTER ENERGY: Ontario Court Dismisses Proposed Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy Inc. disclosed that on Sept. 14, 2012, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice released its decision denying in its
entirety the request of the Plaintiff, Wayne Gould, for leave to
proceed with a proposed class action making misrepresentation
claims against the Company and certain of its former directors on
the basis that the claims did not have a reasonable possibility of
success.

The Ontario Court also denied in their entirety the Plaintiff's
requests to certify, as a class proceeding, other claims alleging
oppression made against the Company, the Defendant Directors,
Audley Capital Management, Audley Advisors LLP and certain Audley
Funds.  The Ontario Court also denied in their entirety the
Plaintiff's requests to certify additional claims of conspiracy
made against the Company and the Audley Defendants.

The Company intends to request that the Ontario Court order
reimbursement of costs incurred in responding to the Plaintiff's
claims.  The Plaintiff has 30 days within which to serve an appeal
from the Sept. 14, 2012, decision.


                           *********

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  * * *