CAR_Public/120926.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, September 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 191

                             Headlines

AMGEN INC: AWP Litigation by Louisiana State Dismissed in May
AMGEN INC: Bid to Consolidate Co-Pay Assistance Suits Denied
AMGEN INC: Oral Argument in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 5
ANTELOPE VALLEY: Newspaper Carriers' Class Action Revived
AON PLC: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Settlement Order Pending

APPLEILLINOIS LLC: Did Not Pay Earned Vacation Pay, Suit Says
AUSTRALIA: Judge Balks at Abalone Diver Class Action Delays
CITIZENS BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action
CLS TRANSPORTATION: Court Agrees to Review Arbitration Ruling
DIGITAL DOMAIN: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action

EDWARDS ANGELL: Loses Bid to Dismiss RICO Class Action
FANNIE MAE: Bid to Dismiss 2008 ERISA Litigation Pending
FANNIE MAE: Bid to Dismiss 2008 Securities Suit Remain Pending
FANNIE MAE: Judgment Motions in Securities Suit Remain Pending
FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Class Suits

FIFTH THIRD: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Antitrust Suit
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Fights Interns' Bid to Enlarge Class Action
HARVARD CLUB: Settles Waiters' Class Action Over Unpaid Tips
IRIS INT'L: Being Sold to Danaher for Too Little, Suit Claims
KASEL ASSOCIATED: Recalls Boots & Barkley Beef Bully Sticks

MAKOWSKI'S REAL: Recalls 1,305 Lbs. of Cooked Bratwurst Sausages
MERCK & CO: Sued Over False Claims on Sunscreen Products
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Sued Over False Claims on Supplement
OPTION ONE: Black Borrowers Lose Class Certification
POOLCORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Class Action in Ohio
SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Fraud Victims Seek Class Certification
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Humboldt County Action Injunction In Place
SNC-LAVALIN: Ontario Judge Certifies Investor Class Action
SOUTHERN UNION: Del. Plaintiffs to Join in Merger Suit in Texas

SOUTHERN UNION: Panhandle Continues to Defend "Price" Suit
STANHOPE BEACH: Faces Class Action Over Norovirus Cases
STRYKER CORP: Sued Over Defective Trident Hip Implant Systems
SUTTER HEALTH: Sued for Anti-Competitive Conduct in California
SUTTER HEALTH: Sept. 27 Hearing Set for Data Breach Class Action

TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Creamy Salted Valencia Peanut Butter
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in Calif.
VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
VITACOST.COM INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Miyahira" Suit
VULCAN MATERIALS: Defends Suits Over Martin Marietta Offer

XL FOODS: FSIS Expands Alert on Raw Boneless Beef Trim Products


                          *********

AMGEN INC: AWP Litigation by Louisiana State Dismissed in May
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit over average wholesale price initiated by the state of
Louisiana was dismissed in May 2012, according to Amgen Inc.'s
August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Amgen and its wholly owned subsidiary Immunex Inc. are named as
defendants, either separately or together, in numerous civil
actions broadly alleging that they, together with many other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, reported prices for certain products
in a manner that allegedly inflated reimbursement under Medicare
and/or Medicaid programs and commercial insurance plans, including
co-payments paid to providers who prescribe and administer the
products.  The complaints generally assert varying claims under
the Medicare and Medicaid statutes, as well as state law claims
for deceptive trade practices, common law fraud and various
related state law claims.  The complaints seek an undetermined
amount of damages, as well as other relief, including declaratory
and injunctive relief.

The average wholesale price (AWP)litigation was commenced against
Amgen and Immunex on December 19, 2001, with the filing of
Citizens for Consumer Justice, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories,
Inc., et al.  Additional cases have been filed since that time.
Most of these actions have been consolidated, or are in the
process of being consolidated, in a federal Multi-District
Litigation proceeding (the MDL Proceeding), captioned In Re:
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation MDL No.
1456 and pending in the Massachusetts District Court.

The following cases have been consolidated into the MDL
Proceeding, and include cases brought by consumer classes and
certain state and local governmental entities:

Citizens for Consumer Justice, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories,
Inc., et al.; Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia, et
al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; Action Alliance of
Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Immunex Corporation;
Constance Thompson, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;
Ronald Turner, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;
Congress of California Seniors v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
al.

In the MDL Proceeding, the Massachusetts District Court has set
various deadlines relating to motions to dismiss the complaints,
discovery, class certification, summary judgment and other pre-
trial issues.  For the private class action cases, the
Massachusetts District Court has divided the defendant companies
into a Track I group and a Track II group.  Both Amgen and Immunex
are in the Track II group.  On March 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
fourth amended master consolidated complaint, which did not
include their motion for class certification as to the Track II
group.  On September 12, 2006, a hearing before the Massachusetts
District Court was held on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as to the Track II group defendants, which include
Amgen and Immunex.  On March 7, 2008, the Track II defendants
reached a tentative class settlement of the MDL Proceeding, which
was subsequently amended on April 3, 2008.  The tentative Track II
settlement relates to claims against numerous defendants,
including Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Amgen Inc., Aventis
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Baxter
Healthcare Corporation, Baxter International Inc., Bayer
Corporation, Dey, Inc., Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc., Fujisawa USA,
Inc., Immunex Corporation, Pharmacia Corporation, Pharmacia &
Upjohn LLC (f/k/a Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc.), Sicor, Inc., Gensia,
Inc., Gensia Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and ZLB Behring, L.L.C.  Following repeated hearings on the
sufficiency of the notice given by the plaintiffs, the
Massachusetts District Court approved the Track II settlement on
December 8, 2011, and dismissed with prejudice the fourth amended
master consolidated complaint effective January 31, 2012.

                      Other AWP Litigation

The following AWP litigation case is not part of the MDL
Proceeding: State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
al.

The State of Louisiana filed a complaint against Amgen and several
other pharmaceutical manufacturers, on November 3, 2010, in the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District (the Louisiana
Court).  Amgen was served the complaint on November 9, 2010.  The
complaint alleges that the manufacturers misrepresented product
pricing information reported to the state by falsely inflating
those prices.  On May 12, 2011, Amgen and the other defendants
filed joint exceptions seeking to dismiss the complaint.  On
October 27, 2011 the Louisiana Court denied the defendants' joint
exceptions.

In May 2012, this state price reporting lawsuit brought by the
State of Louisiana against Amgen and other pharmaceutical
companies was settled as to Amgen and the State of Louisiana for
an immaterial amount.  The Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th
Judicial District, approved the settlement and dismissed the case
against Amgen with prejudice.


AMGEN INC: Bid to Consolidate Co-Pay Assistance Suits Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to consolidate lawsuits challenging co-pay assistance
programs were denied in August 2012, according to Amgen Inc.'s
August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A class action lawsuit titled American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan
and Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Amgen Inc. and Pfizer Inc. was filed on March 7, 2012, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  That lawsuit
was dismissed and re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on March 27, 2012.  The complaint
alleges that Amgen and Pfizer have unlawfully implemented
prescription co-pay assistance programs that caused health benefit
providers to pay more for prescription drugs and falsely inflated
drug reimbursement rates reported to health benefit providers and
that the co-pay assistance programs cause privately insured
individuals to choose Amgen's branded drugs, Sensipar(R) and
Enbrel(R), instead of less expensive therapeutic alternatives.
Plaintiffs further claim that the co-pay plans constitute
"insurance fraud" under the federal racketeering laws and unlawful
commercial bribes under the antitrust laws.  The lawsuit seeks to
have a class certified as well as treble damages under the
antitrust laws and an injunction preventing Amgen from offering
the co-pay programs.  Similar lawsuits were filed at the same time
against Abbott Laboratories, Astrazeneca LP, Astrazeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP, Merck & Co., Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC
and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (collectively, the Additional
Co-Pay Litigation).

On April 12, 2012, New England Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund
(Carpenters Fund) filed a Motion for Transfer of Actions For
Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 (the Motion for Transfer) with the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have the
lawsuit against Amgen and Pfizer consolidated with the Additional
Co-Pay Litigation.  Plaintiffs joined Carpenters Fund's Motion for
Transfer.  Carpenters Fund has requested the cases be consolidated
into a federal Multi-District Litigation proceeding before Judge
Robert M. Dow, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

Six additional lawsuits were subsequently filed by several
plaintiffs against Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer and Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corp.  Amgen has not been named as a defendant in
any of these subsequent actions (collectively, the Follow On
Cases).  The plaintiffs in the Follow On Cases moved to be
included as part of the motions for consolidated federal
Multidistrict Litigation.  A hearing before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation was held on July 26, 2012, and the
motions for consolidation were denied on August 2, 2012.


AMGEN INC: Oral Argument in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 5
----------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument is set for November 5, 2012, in the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit against Amgen Inc., according to
the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The six federal class action stockholder complaints filed against
Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton,
Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V.
Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., (the
Federal Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (the California Central District Court) on
April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007
(Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.),
May 11, 2007 (Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007
(Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public
Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et
al.), were consolidated by the California Central District Court
into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation.
The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central
District Court on October 2, 2007.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices.  The
complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations that,
throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly
marketed Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) for off-label uses while aware
that there were alleged safety signals with these products.  The
plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal
fees and other relief deemed proper.  The Federal Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss on November 8, 2007.  On February 4, 2008, the
California Central District Court granted in part, and denied in
part, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  Specifically, the California Central District
Court granted the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
individual defendants Fritzky, Omenn, Johnson, Fenton and McNamee,
but denied the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
individual defendants Sharer, Nanula, Perlmutter and Morrow.

A class certification hearing before the California Central
District Court, was held on July 17, 2009, and on August 12, 2009,
the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On August 28, 2009, Amgen filed a
petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court) under Rule 23(f),
regarding the Order on Class Certification and the Ninth Circuit
Court granted Amgen's permission to appeal on December 11, 2009.
On February 2, 2010, the California Central District Court granted
Amgen's motion to stay the underlying action pending the outcome
of the Ninth Circuit Court 23(f) appeal.  On October 14, 2011, the
appeal under Rule 23(f) was argued before the Ninth Circuit Court
and on December 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court denied the
appeal.  On January 3, 2012, Amgen filed a motion to stay the
mandate and the Ninth Circuit Court granted the motion and stayed
the mandate on January 12, 2012.  The staying of the mandate
effectively stays the underlying action in the California Central
District Court for ninety days pending the filing of a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Amgen was given until
March 27, 2012, to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Amgen filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court
on March 3, 2012.  Three amicus briefs in support of Amgen's
petition were filed on April 4, 2012.

On June 11, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen's petition
for certiorari to address various issues related to the
plaintiffs' ability to obtain class certification in this
securities class action lawsuit pending against Amgen.  Oral
argument is set for November 5, 2012.


ANTELOPE VALLEY: Newspaper Carriers' Class Action Revived
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that an appeals court on Sept. 19 revived a bid by newspaper
carriers to bring a labor law class action against the company
that publishes the Antelope Valley Press.

Div. Four, in an unpublished opinion by Thomas Willhite, said the
plaintiffs established that the issue of whether the carriers were
employees or independent contractors could be resolved on a class-
wide basis, contrary to the trial court's ruling.  The action was
sent back to the Los Angeles Superior Court for further
proceedings.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the company
misclassified them as independent contractors, thus depriving them
of overtime wages, meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu
thereof, payment of reasonable business expenses, and itemized
wage statements, all in violation of the Labor Code.  They also
claimed the newspaper made illegal deductions from their wages in
response to customer complaints, charged them for supplies, and
required them to provide their own workers' compensation coverage.

                       Parties' Contentions

The plaintiffs claimed that they operated under precise
instructions from management as to where to place newspapers,
whether to start or stop delivery as to specific customers, what
inserts to put in the newspapers, and what types of bags to use on
a particular day.  The company responded that the only requirement
it imposed was that each customer receive a dry, readable
newspaper each day, and that its communications to the employees
were means to that end, not independent job requirements.
Superior Court Judge Carl J. West -- who has since retired --
ruled that in order to determine whether the newspaper exercised
sufficient control over the employees' activities to require they
be classified as employees, there would have to be "heavily
individualized inquiries."  Even if the employees were found as a
class to be employees, he added, there would have to be
individualized determinations with respect to overtime and breaks,
since the evidence showed that the hours and days worked by the
carriers varied widely.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge on the latter
point, affirming the denial of class certification with regard to
the issues of overtime and meal and rest breaks.  But the court
must, on remand, certify a class action with respect to the
remaining claims unless it finds individual issues predominant
with respect to liability, the panel said.

                          Form Agreements

Judge Willhite noted that all of the carriers entered into the
same form agreements with the company.  While there were
disagreements as to what policies the company had, or didn't have,
with respect to how carriers were required to do their jobs, those
disagreements did not preclude a classwide determination as to
whether the carriers were employees or independent contractors,
the justice said.

He explained:
"The parties do not argue that some carriers operating under the
form agreements are employees while others are not.  Both sides
argue that AVP has policies that apply to all carriers.  The
difference between the parties is the content of those policies .
. . . While there may be conflicts in the evidence regarding
whether the policies plaintiffs assert exist, the issue itself is
common to the class.  Similarly, whether the policies that exist
are ones that merely control the result, rather than control the
manner and means used to accomplish that result, is an issue that
is common to the class."

Attorneys on appeal were Daniel J. Callahan, Jill A. Thomas,
Michael J. Sachs, Kathleen L. Dunham and Scott D. Nelson of
Callahan & Blaine for the plaintiffs and William C. Rava and Sue
J. Scott of Perkins Coie for the defendant.

The case is Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., B235484.


AON PLC: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Settlement Order Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of Aon plc's settlement of civil cases
consolidated in New Jersey under which it will pay $550,000 in
exchange for dismissal of class claims remain pending, according
to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance industry
by the Attorney General of New York and other regulators,
purported classes of clients filed civil litigation against Aon
and other companies under a variety of legal theories, including
state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and statutory
theories and federal antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") theories.  The federal actions
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, and a state court collective action was filed in
California.  In the New Jersey actions, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs' federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders
in August and October 2007, respectively.  In August 2010, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
dismissals of most, but not all, of the claims.  In March 2011,
Aon entered into a Memorandum of Understanding documenting a
settlement of the civil cases consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  Under that agreement, Aon
will pay $550,000 in exchange for dismissal of the class claims.
This agreement received final approval in the trial court in March
2012.  In April 2012, certain entities that had objected to the
settlement filed notices of appeal from the trial court judgment.
Several non-class claims brought by individual plaintiffs who
opted out of the class action proceeding will remain pending, but
the Company does not believe these present material exposure to
the Company individually or in the aggregate.  The outcome of
these lawsuits, and the amount of any losses or other payments
that may result, cannot be estimated at this time.


APPLEILLINOIS LLC: Did Not Pay Earned Vacation Pay, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Mello and David R. Zajac, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v.
AppleIllinois, LLC d/b/a Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar, Case
No. 2012-CH-35110 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 17, 2012)
is brought to seek earned vacation pay and interest, declaratory
relief, injunctive and other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees
under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, on behalf of
the persons employed by the Defendant in Illinois during the
applicable limitations period, who were not paid all earned
vacation pay as part of their final compensation.

Throughout the limitations period, the Defendant maintained an
unlawful vacation policy that denied employees earned vacation
pay, the Plaintiffs allege.  They argue that the Defendant's
vacation policy includes three express forfeiture provisions that
violate the Illinois WPCA.

Ms. Mello was employed by the Defendant from December 1997 through
May 4, 2010, at its Tinley Park Applebee's restaurant, where she
worked as a server and a bartender.  Mr. Zajac was employed by the
Defendant from May 11, 2004, through April 3, 2005, at its Gurnee
Applebee's restaurant, where he worked as a server.  As a result
of the Defendant's policy, the Plaintiffs forfeited earned
vacation when they separated from employment.

AppleIllinois is an Illinois limited liability company that owns
and operates approximately 34 Applebee's restaurants within
northern Illinois, including the Tinley Park and Gurnee Applebee's
restaurants.  The Defendant is headquartered in Crestview Hills,
Kentucky.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jamie G. Sypulski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMIE G. SYPULSKI
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1720
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 360-0960
          E-mail: jsypulski@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Judge Balks at Abalone Diver Class Action Delays
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a
judge has attacked delays in bringing to trial a class action
brought by abalone divers as "very unfortunate", saying the hold-
up put at risk the hearing dates other major cases before the
Victorian Supreme Court.

The divers, represented by law firm Maurice Blackburn, allege the
state failed to take reasonable steps to stop run-off from a
commercial abalone farm infecting wild abalone living off the
Victorian coast with a lethal herpes-like virus.

On Sept. 20, counsel for the divers Richard Stanley, QC, told the
court his clients would not be ready to go to trial in February,
as planned, because they needed more time to get reports from
expert witnesses.

"As I understand the position, all the parties are of the view
that the trial cannot proceed on the proposed date, and that an
extended period of preparation is required," he said.

He suggested the trial, which is estimated to run for four to six
weeks, could instead start in early May.

However, his proposal was firmly rejected by Justice David Beach,
who said the next available date was in September because there
were "a number of other significant matters that must be heard
next year".

"I'm not going to tell you what the other cases are, but they
would risk being bumped if I simply acceded to the convenience of
the parties in this case, and I'm not going to do it," he said.

He said it was "very unfortunate that this matter might go off".

"It's often said that courts are responsible for delay, but this
court stands ready to hear this case on 4 February next year. It
will take some effort to move it."

Justice Beach said he would be able to start the trial in early
June, but only if the parties were able to guarantee it would not
take more than four weeks.

But after discussion Mr. Stanley said the parties were unable to
give such an assurance.

"So much as the plaintiff obviously would have wanted to accept
the June date, the reality is that that's not an option, "he said.

The trial is now set to start on September 9.


CITIZENS BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Jeff Blumenthal, writing for Philadelphia Business Journal,
reports that a federal judge in Miami approved agreements for
Citizens Bank and TD Bank to settle class-action lawsuits accusing
them of imposing excessive overdraft fees on checking account
customers, Reuters reported on Sept. 20.

Citizens would pay $137.5 million and TD $62 million.  They are
among 14 banks to settle their cases in front of U.S. District
Judge James Lawrence King, who is overseeing litigation against 35
lenders over the fees.

Judge King scheduled hearings for March 7 to consider final
approval for the Citizens and TD Bank settlements, Reuters said.

The lawsuits claim that banks' internal computer system re-
sequenced the actual order of its customers' debit card and ATM
transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount
rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by
customers and authorized by the bank.  According to the lawsuits,
the practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially
more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions
had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and
authorized.

Of the lenders that have settled, Bank of America Corp.'s was the
largest at $410 million, followed by Citizens.  PNC Bank announced
in June that it planned to settle for $90 million.

Other banks with Philadelphia operations who are defendants in the
lawsuits are Citibank, M&T Bank, Sovereign Bank, Susquehanna Bank
and Wells Fargo.


CLS TRANSPORTATION: Court Agrees to Review Arbitration Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that the
California Supreme Court on Sept. 19 agreed to consider a limo
driver's appeal of the decision to send his proposed wage-and-hour
class action to individual arbitration, which could give the court
an opportunity to clarify the enforceability of class waivers in
employment disputes in the state.

The state high court granted former CLS Transportation Los Angeles
LLC driver Arshavir Iskanian's petition for review of the ruling
that compelled individual arbitration of his claims because he had
signed an arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver.


DIGITAL DOMAIN: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a class action lawsuit
today seeking to recover money investors lost due to alleged
securities law violations at Digital Domain Media Group, Inc.

The lawsuit names as defendants certain DDMG officers, along with
the managing underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
of November 18, 2011.

The complaint alleges violations of United States securities laws
on behalf of individuals or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired DDMG common stock between November 18, 2011 and September
6, 2012.  It also alleges claims on behalf of those who purchased
or otherwise acquired DDMG stock in or traceable to the Offering.

The case, which was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, is captioned St. Cyr v. Teaford
et. al and the case number is 12-CV-14333. To receive a copy of
the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors that wish to serve as the lead plaintiff in the case
must file a motion for appointment with the court by no later than
November 19, 2012.

The lawsuit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the United States Securities Exchange Commission, on
behalf of Class Period investors, and under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of IPO purchasers.

The lawsuit claims that DDMG, a digital production company that
was forced to file for bankruptcy in September 2012, less than 10
months after its IPO, misled investors in documents filed with the
SEC as part of the Offering and in other statements made
throughout the Class Period.

The lawsuit alleges that, among other things, the defendants
misled the public about DDMG's ability to raise capital and fund
its operations, falsely reassuring investors about the Company's
ability to meet operating expenses while it "burned" cash at a
rate that threatened its viability.

In fact, according to a September 18, 2012 article in the Palm
Beach Post, DDMG had difficulties meeting payroll as far back as
2010.  According to the same article, then-Chairman and CEO John
C. Textor "himself predicted a 'train wreck'in an e-mail to an
investor in early 2010."

Textor, who resigned as Chairman and CEO on September 6, 2012, is
named as a defendant in the case.  The lawsuit also names as
defendants two other top DDMG officers and directors, and the
managing underwriters of the IPO, Roth Capital Partners, LLC and
Morgan Joseph Triartisan LLC.

The truth of the Company's financial situation was revealed in a
series of disclosures beginning with an August 1, 2012 press
release stating that DDMG would explore "a broad range of
strategic and financial alternatives" and culminating with its
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection September 11, 2012.

As a result of these disclosures, the value of the Company's stock
declined, damaging investors.

If you are a member of the class or purchased stock in connection
with the IPO, you may, no later than November 19, 2012, request
that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  You
may contact Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interest
in the case.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice or, alternatively, take no action at this time, in which
case you will still remain a class member.

Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com-- is a
national law firm that represents plaintiffs in complex
litigation, chiefly involving violations of securities and
antitrust laws.  Established in 1982, the firm has 41 lawyers in
Boston, San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.


EDWARDS ANGELL: Loses Bid to Dismiss RICO Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Martha Neil, writing for ABA Journal, reports that reversing a
lower court's dismissal of a civil racketeering class action
against a law firm and a client insurer, a federal appeals court
in Cincinnati on Sept. 19 gave the lawsuit a green light.

The suit was filed because of the defendants' marketing of a tax
shelter later determined by the Internal Revenue Service to be
abusive.  It alleges that Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, a law
firm now known as Edwards Wildman Palmer following a merger, and
its client, John Hancock Life Insurance Co., violated the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, reports
Reuters.

Several state-law claims are also included in the suit, which
contends that the plaintiffs, who own a family company, Stoney
Creek Fisheries and Equipment Inc., in Michigan, relied on legal
opinions from the law firm concerning the tax they would owe as a
result of participating in the Benistar 419 Plan promoted by the
defendants.  It asserts a state-law negligent misrepresentation
claim against all defendants and additional state-law claims
against the insurer only.

While the plaintiffs have not yet proven their case, U.S. District
Judge Janet Neff erred by granting a defense motion to dismiss in
2010 rather than allowing the plaintiffs a chance to obtain
potential evidence in discovery, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals said in a written opinion on Wednesday.

The judge found that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded
"conduct" and "enterprise" elements on the RICO claim.  However,
an amended complaint "delineates the specific roles and
relationships of the Defendants, alleges the enterprise functioned
at least five years, and alleges it functioned for the common
purpose of promoting a fraudulent welfare benefit plan to generate
commissions and related fees.  That pattern of activity is
sufficient to permit a jury to infer the existence of an
enterprise," the 6th Circuit writes.

Similarly, although the judge had agreed with the defendants that
they were simply carrying out ordinary business and legal
functions in marketing a third party's tax shelter, the "conduct"
element of the RICO claim was adequately pleaded by allegations
that the defendants "carried out the directions" of the third
party "by marketing the Plan directly to investors and providing
allegedly incomplete and misleading legal opinions," the appellate
court states.

"Importantly, the [Plaintiffs] allege the Defendants carried out
these directions, all the while knowing that contributions to the
Plan were not likely to be allowed as deductions by the IRS.  The
district court held these allegations to be merely conclusory.
The Amended Complaint reveals otherwise -- it lists the specific
IRS rulings and notices that should have put the Defendants on
notice of the likelihood that the Benistar Plan was not compliant"
with tax law, "but which were allegedly ignored in favor of older
rulings and notices that were more favorable."

While the plaintiffs have not proven their case, their allegations
must be assumed to be true for the purpose of a motion to dismiss,
the court notes, and enough was alleged to make it "plausible that
the Defendants were aware of the falsity of the tax benefits that
they represented as flowing from the Benistar Plans and that they
promoted to the [Plaintiffs]."

A spokesman for Edwards Wildman told Reuters that it is looking
forward "to the opportunity to show . . . that there is no basis
for the plaintiffs' claims against the firm."

Representatives of John Hancock did not respond to the news
agency's requests for comment.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive
damages.


FANNIE MAE: Bid to Dismiss 2008 ERISA Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the lawsuit In re 2008
Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation remain pending, according to Federal
National Mortgage Association's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

In a consolidated complaint filed on September 11, 2009,
plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors, including former members of Fannie Mae's
Benefit Plans Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie
Mae's Board of Directors, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee
Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached their duties to ESOP
participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie
Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do
so.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae
common stock beginning April 17, 2007.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, and
injunctive and other equitable relief.

On February 1, 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to amend their
complaint to add new factual allegations and the court granted
plaintiffs' motion.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
March 2, 2012, adding two current Board members and then-CEO
Michael J. Williams as defendants.  On April 4, 2012, defendants
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which are fully
briefed.


FANNIE MAE: Bid to Dismiss 2008 Securities Suit Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in the lawsuit In
re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation remain pending, according
to Federal National Mortgage Association's August 8, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In a consolidated amended complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred
shareholders) allege that the Company, certain of its former
officers, and certain of its underwriters violated Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Lead plaintiffs
also allege that the Company, certain of its former officers, and
the Company's outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Lead plaintiffs seek various forms of relief,
including rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and
experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief.  On
October 13, 2009, the Court entered an order allowing the Federal
Housing Finance Agency, Fannie Mae's conservator, to intervene.

On November 24, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants.  On
September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act
claims.  As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities
Exchange Act claims remained pending against the Company and
certain of its former officers.  Fannie Mae filed its answer to
the consolidated complaint on December 31, 2010.  On July 28,
2011, lead plaintiffs filed motions to certify a class of persons
who, between November 8, 2006, and September 5, 2008, inclusive,
purchased or acquired (a) Fannie Mae common stock and options or
(b) Fannie Mae preferred stock.

On February 1, 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to amend their
complaint to add new factual allegations and the court granted
plaintiffs' motion.  Briefing on the pending motions for class
certification has been held in abeyance pending resolution of
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed
a second amended joint consolidated class action complaint on
March 2, 2012, and added FHFA as a defendant.  On April 4, 2012,
defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint,
which are fully briefed.


FANNIE MAE: Judgment Motions in Securities Suit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Various motions for summary judgment are pending in the lawsuit
against Federal National Mortgage Association styled In re Fannie
Mae Securities Litigation, according to the Company's August 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Fannie Mae is a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit
initially filed in 2004 and currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.  In the consolidated complaint
filed on March 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
allege that the Company and certain former officers, as well as
its former outside auditor, made materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Plaintiffs contend that Fannie Mae's accounting
statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to
hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts,
and seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and
other fees and costs.  On January 7, 2008, the court defined the
class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and call
options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put options
during the period from April 17, 2001, through December 22, 2004.
On October 17, 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as
conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case.  On August
18, 2011, the parties filed various motions for summary judgment,
which are fully briefed.

FHFA adopted a regulation on June 20, 2011, that provides in part
that while the Company is in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay
claims by the Company's current or former shareholders, unless the
Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the
conservatorship.  FHFA's regulation has been challenged by lead
plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit also pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

In September and December 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports
claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging
cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion.  Given the
substantial and novel legal questions that remain, including those
raised by FHFA's regulation and the Director of FHFA's
determination, the Company is currently unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this
litigation.


FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp continues to defend itself against securities
class action lawsuits filed in 2008, according to the Company's
August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its
Chief Executive Officer, among other parties.  The five cases have
been consolidated under the caption Local 295/Local 851 IBT
Employer Group Pension Trust and Welfare Fund v. Fifth Third
Bancorp. et al., Case No. 1:08CV00421, and are currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.  The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws
related to disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and
filings with the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of
capital, credit losses and related matters, and seeking
unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who
either purchased the Bancorp's securities or TruPS, or acquired
the Bancorp's securities pursuant to the acquisition of First
Charter Corporation.  These cases remain in the discovery stages
of litigation.  The impact of the final disposition of these
lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time.  In addition, two cases
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
based on allegations similar to those set forth in the securities
class action cases filed during the same period of time.  The two
cases alleging violations of ERISA were dismissed by the trial
court, and are being appealed to the United States Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals.


FIFTH THIRD: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp in July 2012, entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated antitrust class action
lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's August 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are
unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also
subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has
also entered into with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named
defendants judgment and loss sharing agreements.  On July 13,
2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle the claims in the consolidated antitrust
class action lawsuit.  The Bancorp has remaining reserves related
to this litigation of approximately $50 million as of June 30,
2012, $49 million as of December 31, 2011, and $31 million as of
June 30, 2011.


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Fights Interns' Bid to Enlarge Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline.com, reports that Alex
Footman and Eric Glatt should not be allowed to enlarge their
class action suit to include all Fox Entertainment Group interns,
says Fox Searchlight.  In a 24-page memorandum filed on Sept. 19
in New York federal court, the studio claims that the request the
former Black Swan interns' made last month is speculative and not
even plausible.  Fox Searchlight did concede that former intern
Eden Antalik could serve as a rep for interns in its NYC office.
They did not do the same for Kanene Gratts, who served as an
intern on (500) Days of Summer back in early 2008 in LA. Fox, who
co-produced that film, claims that Gratts is time-barred under
California law, which has a four-year statute of limitations.  The
plaintiffs sought to have Antalik and Gratts added in August when
they sought to expand the claim.  Fox Searchlight also said that
the action's claims of overtime pay compensation for Gratts are
baseless.  The suit "is devoid of even a naked assertion that
Gratts or any CA Class member worked beyond 40 hours per week or 8
hours per day, and its assertion that Gratts 'worked three days
per week for approximately 25 hours per week according to a set
schedule' suggests that she did not ever work any OT," the filing
says.

Messrs. Footman and Glatt first filed on behalf of themselves and
more than 100 Fox Searchlight interns back in September 2011.
Their aim was to seek back wages for work they believe they should
have been paid for.  Additionally their suit sought to stop what
the plaintiffs say is the studio's incorrect use of students for
what is supposed to be training similar to that provided by an
educational institution, not getting coffee and other grunt work.
Early last October, after the initial suit was filed, the studio
fired back that the two were never Fox Searchlight interns and
that they were actually working for Black Swan director Darren
Aronofsky's production company.  Adam Klein, Rachel Bien and
Elizabeth Wagoner of New York firm Outten & Golden represent Alex
Footman and Eric Glatt.  Elise Bloom and Amy Melican of Proskauer
Rose's New York office represent Fox Searchlight.


HARVARD CLUB: Settles Waiters' Class Action Over Unpaid Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jeffrey, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the Harvard
Club of Boston reached a tentative settlement of a class-action
lawsuit brought by waiters who said they weren't paid tips.

"It has been amicably resolved," Shannon Liss-Riordan, a lawyer
for the waiters, said on Sept. 20 in a phone interview.  She
declined to comment further.  A Sept. 10 entry in the case docket
in Massachusetts state court says "case settled" without giving
details.

The Boston Globe reported on its Web site that the tentative
settlement, which must be approved by a judge, is valued at $4
million, citing a letter sent to Harvard Club of Boston members.

Frank Iudiciani, a spokesman for the Harvard Club, and Jeffrey
Burns, a lawyer for the club, didn't immediately return calls for
comment on the settlement.

The Harvard Club added surcharges of either 17 percent or 20
percent to food and beverage bills and represented them as service
charges in lieu of tips, the waiters said in the complaint filed
in November.  Members and guests were told not to tip waiters, the
waiters said.

"However, the Harvard Club does not remit any portion of these
service charges to the wait staff employees who work in its dining
rooms or at its private functions," according to the complaint.
"Instead, the Harvard Club retains the proceeds of these charges
for its own operating expenses."

The Harvard Club menu offers Maine Lobsters, stuffed with shrimp,
crab, scallops and mushrooms, for $30, and its signature entrees
include a grilled seven-ounce filet mignon for $34, according to
the menu posted on its Web site.

Waiters are paid an hourly wage, according to the filing.

The case is Bertrand v. Harvard Club of Boston, 11-4100,
Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County.


IRIS INT'L: Being Sold to Danaher for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Iris
International are unjustly enriching themselves by selling the
company too cheaply, through an unfair process, to Danaher Corp.,
for $19.50 a share or $338 million, shareholders claim in Superior
Court.


KASEL ASSOCIATED: Recalls Boots & Barkley Beef Bully Sticks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kasel Associated Industries of Denver, Colorado, is voluntarily
recalling its BOOTS & BARKLEY 6 COUNT 5 INCH AMERICAN BEEF BULLY
STICKS product because it may be contaminated with Salmonella.
Salmonella can sicken animals that eat these products and humans
are at risk for salmonella poisoning from handling contaminated
pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their
hands after having contact with the pet products or any surfaces
exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these symptoms after having contact with this product should
contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.  Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has any
of these signs, please contact your veterinarian.

The recalled American Beef Bully Sticks were distributed
nationwide through Target retail stores from April through
September 2012.

The product comes in a clear plastic bag containing 6 bully sticks
marked with bar code number 647263899189.  Kasel Industries is
recalling all lot numbers because the following lot codes tested
positive through analysis by the State of Colorado Department of
Agriculture: BESTBY20APR2014DEN, BESTBY01JUN2014DEN,
BESTBY23JUN2014DEN, and BESTBY23SEP2014DEN.  A picture of the
recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320570.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date in animals or humans in
connection with this problem.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling by the State of
Colorado Department of Agriculture which revealed that the
finished products contained the Salmonella bacteria.  The Company
has ceased the production and distribution of the product while
FDA and the company continue investigating as to the source of the
contamination.  No other products made by Kasel Associated
Industries are included in the recall.

Consumers who have purchased the 6 count 5 inch packages of Boots
& Barkley American Beef Bully Sticks are urged to return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact Kasel Associated Industries at 1-800-218-4417 Monday thru
Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time.


MAKOWSKI'S REAL: Recalls 1,305 Lbs. of Cooked Bratwurst Sausages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Makowski's Real Sausage Co., a Chicago, Illinois establishment is
recalling approximately 1,305 pounds of cooked bratwurst sausage
products because of misbranding and the undeclared allergen, milk,
that is not declared on the label.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 10-lb. packages of "Real Sausage Co. COOKED WHITE
     BRATWURST 4-1"

   * 10-lb. packages of "Real Sausage Co. COOKED WHITE
     BRATWURST 3-1"

The products also bear the establishment number "EST. 6844" inside
the USDA mark of inspection and the Julian dates of: 17812, 18812,
25112, 25712 or 26512.  The products were produced June 25,
July 5, September 6, September 12, and September 20, 2012, and
were shipped to foodservice distributors for hotel, restaurant and
other institutional use throughout Illinois.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine label review
and may have occurred due to a misprinting of the product's label.
FSIS and the Company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Company's president, Nicole Makowski, at (312) 842-5330.

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


MERCK & CO: Sued Over False Claims on Sunscreen Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Merck misleads consumers by
selling Coppertone sunscreen products in the SPF range of 55 to
over 100 because the products do not provide any clinical benefit
over SPF 50, a class claims in a suit filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-08100 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/21/coppertone.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1000
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 427-3600
          E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Sued Over False Claims on Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
consumer hit supplement manufacturer Nutraceutical Corp. with a
putative nationwide class action over its allegedly false
marketing of an osteoarthritis supplement he claims contains
significant quantities of lead, according to a complaint made
available September 19.

Harold Hoffman says Nutraceutical, which purports to be one of the
nation's largest manufacturers and marketers of nutritional
supplements, violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by falsely
advertising the purity and quality of its allegedly adulterated
KAL Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM supplement, according to the suit.


OPTION ONE: Black Borrowers Lose Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge decertified a class of black borrowers who claim that Option
One Mortgage Corp. charged them higher interest rates than it
charged white borrowers.

Option One allegedly bases part of its loan pricing on a fixed
"par" rate that is calculated with the applicant's credit score
and size of the requested loan.

But black borrowers say Option One also gave its brokers the
individual discretion to set interest rates higher than the par
rate and to charge loan origination and processing fees.

Ultimately, the average broker charged black borrowers higher
fees, according to the complaint.

Ian Ayres, a Yale University law professor, testified that black
borrowers faced interest rates on Option One mortgages that were
0.086 percent higher than the rates white borrowers faced.  In
other words, Option One charged black borrowers about $134 more
per year than it charged white borrowers, the class claimed.

Brokers also allegedly earned more for loans set at higher
interest rates.

U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel granted class certification in 2011,
but that decision came into question after the Supreme Court's
ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, which decertified a proposed
class of 1.5 million female employees found lack of sufficient
commonality.

The statistical analysis used by Mr. Ayres was "no longer
sufficient to establish commonality," Judge Zobel wrote.  "Wal-
Mart establishes that a nationwide policy of granting discretion
to local units can only raise a common question if the local units
have a 'common mode of exercising discretion.'  Furthermore, Wal-
Mart disapproves the use of aggregate, nationwide statistics to
prove a common method of exercising discretion at the local
level."

In this case, the plaintiffs did not show how Option One's brokers
exercised their discretion in a unified manner, the ruling states.

"If plaintiffs claimed that Option One's brokers uniformly
exercised their discretion by considering specific attributes that
produce disparate impact -- such as 'scores on general aptitude
tests or educational achievements,' -- they would state a common
question justifying class treatment," Judge Zobel wrote.  "But
without some such claim, the Supreme Court tells us,
'demonstrating the invalidity of one [broker's] use of discretion
will do nothing to demonstrate the invalidity of another's.'
Because plaintiffs do not claim that all of Option One's brokers
exercised their discretion in the same way, they do not raise a
single question common to all plaintiffs in the class."

A copy of the Memorandum and Order in Barrett, Jr., et al. v.
Option One Mortgage Corporation, et al., Case No. 08-cv-10157
(D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/21/Option%20One.pdf


POOLCORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------
Rebecca Robledo, writing for Pool & Spa News, reports that
megadistributor PoolCorp and the manufacturers known in the
industry as "The Big Three" are being accused of anti-competitive
activity in a lawsuit that the plaintiffs are hoping will gain
class action status.

The claim originally was filed solely against the Covington, La.-
based distributor.  But the plaintiffs amended their suit to
include the manufacturers -- Hayward Pool Products of Elizabeth,
N.J., Pentair Aquatic Systems of Sanford, N.C., and Zodiac Pool
Systems in Vista, Calif.

All are accused of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, which
prohibits activities that restrain trade or commerce.  PoolCorp
also is accused of violating the section of the law prohibiting
monopolies.

The case was spurred by an investigation involving the Federal
Trade Commission last November.  After a 1 1/2-year-long inquiry,
the FTC accused PoolCorp of pressuring manufacturers not to sell
to new distributors entering the market.  PoolCorp maintained its
innocence, but entered into a settlement in which it agreed to
certain conditions.

"They've done what the FTC required," said David Bamberger of DLA
Piper, an attorney representing PoolCorp.

But within days of the settlement, dealers began to file lawsuits.

The plaintiffs, consisting of 11 dealers and consumers, accuse
PoolCorp of using its Preferred Vendor program as a way to
motivate and even intimidate manufacturers to refuse to sell to
competing distributors.  According to the claim, manufacturers
often would have to agree because they couldn't easily replace
business lost by PoolCorp, the only national distributor.

"To achieve efficient and timely substitute distribution
throughout many parts of the country would be challenging and
problematic, if not infeasible," plaintiffs stated in court
documents.

The dealers and consumers also accuse the distributor of buying
competing companies for the purpose of shutting them down.
Through the alleged behavior, the plaintiffs said, PoolCorp and
the manufacturers removed enough competition to artificially raise
prices.

"PoolCorp unlawfully acquired, maintained and exercised monopoly
power in the relevant market through the anticompetitive conduct
set forth," court papers read.

Hayward, Zodiac and Pentair are accused of conspiring with
PoolCorp by agreeing to its terms.  The market dominance of those
three firms means that a distributor has to sell their products in
order to run a viable business, the plaintiffs said.  So for The
Big Three to refuse to do business with a competitor of PoolCorp
essentially constituted a death sentence to that distributor, the
plaintiffs alleged.

"With the assistance and agreement of the only full-line pool
products vendors . . . PoolCorp eliminated various existing
distribution competitors, and prevented other would-be rivals from
obtaining the products necessary to compete, blocking them from
penetrating the market and raising their costs to obtain pool
products," the complaint stated.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to certify the class, a
procedural step that would make the plaintiffs become
representatives of unnamed parties who qualify to receive part of
an award if the case is found in their favor.  For this to happen,
the judge must determine that enough parties have been affected,
they have enough in common, and meet other criteria.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, triple the damages
proven in court.  They also want the defendants to give up any
profits received as a result of their alleged conduct.

For their part, PoolCorp and the manufacturers have filed motions
to dismiss the case.  All defendants stated that the allegations
were not specific enough.

PoolCorp said that the alleged behavior, even if it had occurred,
doesn't meet the definition of antitrust.  Vertical agreements --
those with companies in another area of the supply chain -- are
not illegal on their face, PoolCorp stated.  The distributor also
said the plaintiffs didn't prove that the alleged behavior had
enough of an impact on the market to fall under the antitrust
category.

Additionally, PoolCorp stated that it doesn't have enough market
share to constitute a monopoly.  According to PoolCorp's motion
for dismissal, the company holds about one-third of the market,
and several courts have stated that a firm must have more than 50
percent market share to be considered a monopoly.

In the motions for dismissal, the defendants didn't address the
issue of guilt, which is common at this phase, said attorney Mark
Stapke, a partner in Michelman & Robinson, LLP, in Los Angeles,
who has represented a number of pool firms.  Defendants answer the
individual accusations if the case goes to trial.

But PoolCorp maintains its innocence.  "We've denied all the
allegations of unlawful conduct," Mr. Bamberger said.

The manufacturers declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

The hearings for the motions to dismiss will take place Oct. 31.
Even if the judge sides with the defendants, the case may not end
there.  Generally, plaintiffs get more than one try: If the judge
upholds the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs usually can modify their
complaints and refile, Mr. Stapke said.

"It's by the second or third time that you actually get traction
on a dismissal," he explained. If the cases move forward, it will
become the plaintiffs' job to prove that the classes deserve
certification.  If the judge is convinced it should be a class
action case, defendants generally settle shortly thereafter.


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Class Action in Ohio
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Progressive Casualty
Insurance underpays body shops for materials and wages to steer
policyholders to its own network of shops, some of which are
unregistered and operate illegally in Ohio, three body shops claim
in a class action in Cuyahoga County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Blue Ash Auto Body, Inc., et al. v.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. CV-12-
791816 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/21/Insurance.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Ellen M. Kramer, Esq.
          Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
          COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
          The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
          700 West St. Clair Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 781-7956
          E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com

               - and -

          Peter D. Traska, Esq.
          TRASKA LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 609306
          Cleveland, OH 44109
          Telephone: (216) 282-4738
          E-mail: ptraska@traskalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Erica L. Eversman, Esq.
          846 N. Cleveland-Massillon Road
          Bath, OH 44333-2181
          Telephone: (330) 668-2595
          E-mail: eeversman@vehicleinfo.com

               - and -

          Dennis A. Becker, Esq.
          BECKER & CADE
          526 Wards Comer Road, Suite A
          Loveland, OH 45140-9134
          Telephone: (513) 683-2252
          E-mail dabecker@fuse.net


SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Fraud Victims Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lodge, writing for The Advocate, reports that attorneys for
86 people affected by convicted Ponzi schemer Robert Allen
Stanford's $7 billion fraud argued on Sept. 20 in Baton Rouge for
class-action certification of their civil suit against state
financial regulators and a Pennsylvania corporation.

The investors allege the regulators and SEI Investments Co. failed
to protect them from Mr. Stanford's phony investment scheme.

If granted by state District Judge Mike Caldwell, class-action
certification would permit those 86 people to represent all
Stanford investors in Louisiana except for any who may choose to
opt out of the litigation.  In the event of a final decision in
the case in favor of investors, certification could greatly
increase the size of any total cash award.

Phil Preis and Chuck Gordon, attorneys for the plaintiffs, alleged
in the lawsuit that the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions
and SEI Investments ignored evidence of Mr. Stanford's massive
fraud, failing an obligation to protect the interests of
investors.

Mr. Preis and state Sen. Bodi White, R-Central, have estimated
that about 1,000 people in the Baton Rouge, Lafayette and
Covington areas were collectively bilked out of about $1 billion.

Messrs. Preis and Gordon brought several witnesses on Sept. 20 to
testify about the financial devastation caused by Stanford, 62,
who is serving a 110-year federal prison sentence.

Terence Beven, a retired 79-year-old Baton Rouge physician,
testified that he lost $7.3 million after Stanford financial
adviser Ron Clayton falsely told him that certificates of deposit
in Stanford International Bank were insured by Lloyds of London.

SEI and OFI attorneys maintained their clients did not fail any
obligations owed to Stanford's investors.

"SEI's only potential role was as a vendor," J. Gordon Cooney Jr.,
an attorney for SEI, told Judge Caldwell.  Mr. Cooney said SEI
only sold software to Stanford Trust Co.

The software was designed to track changing values of stocks and
other securities, Mr. Cooney said.  He added that SEI did not
participate in any false statements that Stanford representatives
may have made to lure and retain investors.

"We don't dispute the fact that many of the plaintiffs lost large
sums of money," Mr. Cooney said.

He added, however, that there is "no evidence that SEI controlled"
any false statements by Stanford employees.

"The Ponzi scheme was not disclosed," Mr. Preis responded.  "We
say this is an omissions case."

In the civil suit, Messrs. Preis and Gordon have argued SEI should
have known of Stanford's schemes because of administrative
services the firm provided Stanford.

"SEI stands only for SEI," Mr. Cooney told Judge Caldwell.  "It
has no connection to Stanford.  The 'S'does not stand for
Stanford."

In court filings, Mr. Preis told Judge Caldwell that OFI officials
knew as early as 2007 that Mr. Stanford was endangering Louisiana
investors' retirement funds.

OFI attorneys have maintained the office did not fail any
responsibilities to investors.

"The role of OFI is to regulate, not to ensure that those who
invest in companies subject to OFI regulation will never lose
money as a result of criminal actions," OFI attorney David Latham
wrote Caldwell in one filing.

The class-certification hearing was scheduled to resume on
Sept. 21.

Some of the information Judge Caldwell will use to make his
decision on class certification is in deposition testimony from
OFI officials who will not appear in the hearing.

That testimony is not being read aloud in the courtroom.  Excerpts
from the depositions may be used by all parties to support their
positions in the dispute.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Humboldt County Action Injunction In Place
--------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the September 2010 settlement of certain class
action litigation (the "Humboldt County Action") against Skilled
Healthcare Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, including
twenty-two California nursing facilities operated by Skilled's
subsidiaries, Skilled and its defendant subsidiaries entered into
settlement agreements with the applicable plaintiffs and agreed to
an injunction.  The settlement was approved by the Superior Court
of California, Humboldt County on November 30, 2010.  Under the
terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant entities
deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts to cover
settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments.  The court subsequently approved payments
from the escrow of up to approximately $24.8 million for
attorneys' fees and costs and $10,000 to each of the three named
plaintiffs.  In addition, approximately $9.3 million of settlement
proceeds have been distributed from the escrow to approximately
3,900 of an estimated 43,000 class members.  Pursuant to the
injunction, the twenty-two defendants that operate California
nursing facilities must provide specified nurse staffing levels,
comply with specified state and federal laws governing staffing
levels and posting requirements, and provide reports and
information to a court-appointed auditor.  The injunction will
remain in effect for a period of twenty-four months unless
extended for additional three-month periods as to those defendants
that may be found in violation.  Defendants demonstrating
compliance for an eighteen-month period may petition for early
termination of the injunction.

The defendants are required to demonstrate over the term of the
injunction that the costs of the injunction meet a minimum
threshold level pursuant to the settlement agreement, which level,
initially $9.6 million, is reduced by the portion attributable to
any defendant in the case that no longer operates a skilled
nursing facility during the injunction period.  The injunction
costs include, among other things, costs attributable to (i)
enhanced reporting requirements; (ii) implementing advanced
staffing tracking systems; (iii) fees and expenses paid to an
auditor and special master; (iv) increased labor and labor related
expenses; and (v) lost revenues attributable to admission
decisions based on compliance with the terms and conditions of the
injunction.  To the extent the costs of complying with the
injunction are less than the agreed upon threshold amount, the
defendants will be required to remit any shortfall to the
settlement fund.  In April 2011, five of the subsidiary defendants
transferred their operations to an unaffiliated third party
skilled nursing facility operator.  The remaining defendants
continue to monitor their compliance with the terms of the
injunction and to provide the applicable reports and information
to the court-appointed auditor.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


SNC-LAVALIN: Ontario Judge Certifies Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that an Ontario judge has certified a $1 billion
class-action lawsuit against SNC-Lavalin on behalf of investors
who saw the value of their investment in the company plummet
following revelations of mysterious payments in North Africa.

The Montreal-based engineering and construction firm didn't oppose
the certification in exchange for the plaintiffs withdrawing their
original plans to seek punitive damages.

Dimitri Lascaris, one of the lawyers involved in the case, said
certifications normally take years to achieve because of
opposition from defendants, but the case reached this stage at
perhaps record speed.

"I have done scores of class actions and I don't recall a case
where certification was ever achieved this quickly," he said in an
interview on Sept. 20.

SNC-Lavalin also agreed to pay nearly $250,000 to advertise the
notice of claim and to cover fees incurred for two plaintiff
experts.

The company said it intends to "defend our interests vigorously"
and noted the case is limited only to statutory claims under
securities legislation, which caps damages.

The suit alleges that SNC-Lavalin violated securities law by
misrepresenting that it had adequate controls and procedures to
ensure accurate disclosure and financial reporting.

The suit claims, among other things, that a 2009 prospectus
offering $350 million of debentures failed to contain "full, true
and plain disclosure of all material facts."

The claim arises from alleged payments made by SNC-Lavalin to
members, associates and agents of the Gadhafi regime to secure
contracts for infrastructure projects in Libya.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

The certification ruling by Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice doesn't apply to a separate $250-million
claim filed in Quebec.  It contains similar allegations filed in
March on behalf of most investors in Quebec.  A ruling to certify
that claim, which also isn't opposed by SNC, is expected in a few
weeks.

Two separate Ontario lawsuits filed by Mr. Lascaris and Rochon
Genova LLP were merged earlier this year.

Mr. Lascaris said the plaintiff could have refused to give up its
claim for punitive damages, but felt it kept the strongest part of
its case.

A trial could begin next year or early in 2014 unless the case is
settled.

An expert hired by the plaintiffs, Prof. Douglas Cumming of the
Schulich School of Business at York University, estimated damages
at between $700 million and $1.1 billion.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all SNC-Lavalin investors who
purchased SNC-Lavalin securities between Feb. 1, 2007 and Feb. 28,
2012 or who bought debentures through the company's June 2009
prospectus offering.

The lead plaintiff is Brent Gray, a resident of Surrey, B.C., who
purchased 600 shares in January at $52.20 per share.

SNC-Lavalin's stock dropped more than 20 per cent on Feb. 28,
wiping out more than $1.5 billion of market value after the
company disclosed the launching of an investigation into $35
million of undocumented payments.

More than $3.3 billion has been wiped from the company's value
since SNC's shares peaked at $59.97.  They lost 64 cents to $38.16
in Thursday trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

In addition to current and former members of SNC's board of
directors, those named in the Ontario lawsuit include SNC-Lavalin
International chairman Michael Novak.

The claim said these officials, former CEO Pierre Duhaime and
former controller Stephane Roy assisted executive vice-president
Riadh Ben Aissa in arranging "improper or unlawful payments" to
secure contracts in Libya.

Messrs. Duhaime, Roy and Ben Aissa have lost their jobs with SNC-
Lavalin.

Mr. Ben Aissa, SNC's former head of construction, was last
reported to be in a Swiss jail on suspicion of corrupting a public
official, fraud and money laundering tied to his dealings in North
Africa.

The engineering and construction giant's initial review led to it
finding $56 million of payments to unidentified foreign agents.

The company has insisted that none of the funds were directed to
Libya.

SNC-Lavalin removed $900 million worth of Libyan projects from its
backlog in 2010 amid the civil war in the North African country.

The RCMP executed search warrants at SNC-Lavalin's headquarters at
the request of Swiss police.


SOUTHERN UNION: Del. Plaintiffs to Join in Merger Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in merger-related lawsuits filed in Delaware dismissed
their complaints and indicated that they will join in the
consolidated merger-related case in Texas, according to Southern
Union Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On March 26, 2012, the Company, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
(ETE), and Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ETE (Merger Sub), completed their previously
announced merger transaction.  Pursuant to the Second Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 19, 2011,
as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of September 14,
2011 (as amended, the Merger Agreement), among the Company, ETE
and Merger Sub, Merger Sub was merged with and into the Company,
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation as an
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE (the Merger).  The Merger
became effective on March 26, 2012, at 12:59 p.m., Eastern Time
(the Effective Time).

On June 21, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37091, was filed in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition named as defendants the members of
the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE.  The
plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders or aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger.  The
petition alleged that the Merger involves an unfair price and an
inadequate sales process and that defendants entered into the
transaction to benefit themselves personally.  The petition sought
injunctive relief, including an injunction of the Merger,
attorneys' and other fees and costs, indemnification and other
relief.

Also on June 21, 2011, another putative class action lawsuit
captioned Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37134, was filed in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition named as defendants the members of
the Southern Union Board, Southern Union, and ETE.  The plaintiff
alleged that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the
Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted those
alleged breaches.  The petition alleged that the Merger involves
an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The petition sought injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 28, 2011, and August 19, 2011, amended petitions were
filed in the Magda and Jaroslawicz actions, respectively, naming
the same defendants and alleging that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders
in connection with the Merger and that Southern Union and ETE
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
amended petitions allege that the Merger involves an unfair price
and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union's directors
entered into the Merger to benefit themselves personally,
including through consulting and noncompete agreements, and that
defendants have failed to disclose all material information
related to the Merger to Southern Union stockholders.  The amended
petitions seek injunctive relief, including an injunction of the
Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in
addition to other relief.  The two Texas cases have been
consolidated with the following style: In re:  Southern Union
Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.  On October 21, 2011, the court
denied ETE's October 13, 2011, motion to stay the Texas proceeding
in favor of cases pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6615-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint named as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, Southern Union and ETE.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the Southern Union directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in
connection with the Merger and further claimed that ETE aided and
abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaint alleged that the
Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process,
that Southern Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that the directors should deem a competing
proposal made by The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams) to be
superior.  The complaint sought compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, including an injunction of the Merger, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 29 and 30, 2011, putative class action lawsuits captioned
KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A.
No. 6622-CS, and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH v. Southern
Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-CS, respectively were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaints named as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, Southern
Union, ETE and Merger Sub.  The plaintiffs alleged that the
Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that ETE aided and abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaints
alleged that the Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate
sales process, that Southern Union's directors entered into the
Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through
consulting and noncompete agreements, and that the directors must
give full consideration to the Williams proposal.  The complaints
sought compensatory damages, injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On July 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Memo v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint named as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, Southern Union ETE and Merger
Sub.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders
in connection with the amended Merger agreement and that Southern
Union, ETE and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.  The complaint alleged that the Merger involves an
unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that the terms of the amended Merger agreement are
preclusive.  The complaint sought injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On August 25, 2011, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, KBC Asset
Management NV, and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH  actions
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming the same
defendants as the original complaints in those actions and
alleging that the Southern Union directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection
with the Merger, that ETE aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty, and that the provisions in Section 5.4 of the
Second Amended Merger Agreement relating to Southern Union's
ability to accept a superior proposal is invalid under Delaware
law.  The amended complaint alleges that the Merger involves an
unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that the defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including an injunction of the Merger and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

The four Delaware Court of Chancery cases have been consolidated
with the following style:  In re Southern Union Co. Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On November 9, 2011, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Texas
and Delaware actions stated that they did not intend to pursue
their efforts to enjoin the Merger.  Plaintiffs have indicated
that they intend to pursue a claim for damages.  A trial has not
yet been scheduled in any of these matters.  Discovery for the
damages claim is in its preliminary stages.

On July 25, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without prejudice with
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  In the notice, the plaintiffs
stated their claims were being dismissed to avoid duplicative
litigation and indicated their intent to join the Texas case
before the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 333rd Judicial
District, captioned In re Southern Union Company, and docketed at
Cause No. 2011-37091.

The Company has not recorded an accrued liability, believes the
allegations of all the actions related to the Merger with ETE lack
merit, and intends to contest them vigorously.


SOUTHERN UNION: Panhandle Continues to Defend "Price" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Union Company's subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit initiated by Will Price, according
to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of
companies, including a Company subsidiary, Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company, LP, alleging mis-measurement of natural gas volumes
and Btu content, resulting in lower royalties to mineral interest
owners.  On September 19, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs'
request for class certification.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the Court denied on March 31, 2010.
Panhandle believes that its measurement practices conformed to the
terms of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) natural
gas tariffs, which were filed with and approved by the FERC.  As a
result, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the Will Price lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative
defenses, such as the filed rate/tariff doctrine, the
primary/exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC, and the defense that
Panhandle complied with the terms of its tariffs).  In the event
that Plaintiffs refuse Panhandle's pending request for voluntary
dismissal, Panhandle will continue to vigorously defend the case.
The Company believes it has no liability associated with this
proceeding.


STANHOPE BEACH: Faces Class Action Over Norovirus Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a $5 million class action suit has been
filed against the owners of Stanhope Beach Resort by people who
say they got sick with norovirus after being there earlier this
summer.

The suit claims the resort didn't do enough to keep people from
getting ill.  It was filed in court on Sept. 20 by Wagners, a
Halifax personal injury law firm.  It names Deborah Basco and
Christine MacDonald as representative plaintiffs.

The court documents say Ms. Basco is a Vancouver doctor who stayed
at the resort for five nights with her family beginning on Aug.
17.

"Both her and her spouse became very sick," said Michael Dull, the
Wagners lawyer for the plaintiff.

"Being a physician she approached the hotel staff or resort staff
and informed them of their belief that they were infected with
norwalk virus."

Christine MacDonald visited the resort over the Labour Day weekend
for a wedding, say the court documents.

Both women claim they became sick with symptoms that included
diarrhea, vomiting and stomach pains.

The chief health office on P.E.I. has confirmed close to 300
people were sick with norovirus between mid August and early
September.  The Health Department ordered food and beverage
service at the resort be shut down on Sept. 4, after what appeared
to be a second outbreak on the Labour Day weekend.

The class action suit claims the owners of the resort "created
insufficient systems and policies to prevent the infection and/or
spread of noroviruses at the resort."

The documents go on to say the owners "chose not to notify or warn
the plaintiffs or class members of the viral outbreak occurring at
the resort in a timely manner."

"The focus is going to be on what did the resort know, what should
they have known, what did they do, what were their cleanliness
policies, their inspection policies," said Mr. Dull.

"The answers to those questions apply equally to everybody."

The plaintiffs and class members want to be reimbursed for missed
wages while they were off sick, and for pain and suffering and
mental distress.

Paul Murphy, corporate counsel for Stanhope Beach Resort, did not
want to comment directly on the class action suit.

"Certainly we know there were a number of guests that were very
disappointed by what happened at the resort, and certainly we
share their disappointment," said Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Dull said after a defense is filed his firm will apply to the
courts to have the suit certified, meaning a judge has to
determine whether the plaintiffs constitute a class.

"One big lawsuit, because the issues are so much in common, is
better and preferable than 200 to 300 individual claims, which as
you can imagine would clog the court system," said Mr. Dull.

The owners of Stanhope Beach Resort have 20 days to file a
defense.


STRYKER CORP: Sued Over Defective Trident Hip Implant Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin reports that a Massachusetts recipient of an
allegedly defective Stryker Trident hip implant system has filed a
class action in federal court, contending that the system's
manufacturers violated the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act in placing
a faulty product on the market.

Raymond Chasse Jr. filed the lawsuit Sept. 12 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Massachusetts
residents who have experienced failures in Trident Hemispherical
Acetabular Shells since 2003.

Mr. Chasse estimates that the class will comprise 40 plaintiffs,
who can be identified through defendants' records.

Defendants include Stryker Corp. and Howmedica Osteonics.


SUTTER HEALTH: Sued for Anti-Competitive Conduct in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Djeneba Sidibe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Sutter Health, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 3:12-cv-04854 (N.D. Calif., September 17, 2012) is brought
against Sutter Health and its affiliated entities for violations
of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The class action complaint arises from Sutter Health's illegal and
anti-competitive conduct in connection with the market for medical
and ancillary healthcare-related services in Northern California,
Ms. Sidibe alleges.  She argues that Sutter Health conspired to
impose supracompetitive prices.  She adds that to coercively
maintain and enhance its monopoly power in the market for medical
services in Northern California, it imposes tying arrangements
that require health plans to use all Sutter Health providers or
affiliated physician's groups or suffer the devastating
consequences of having contracted access to none of them.

Ms. Sidibe is a resident of California.  During the relevant
timeframe, she has indirectly been a purchaser of Sutter Health's
medical and ancillary healthcare-related services beginning in
October 2005.

Sutter Health is a non-profit corporation based in Sacramento,
California, that controls the largest and most dominant hospital
chain and provider of medical services in Northern California.
Sutter Health is the "parent" of various non-profit and for-profit
entities and organizations that operate primarily in Northern
California and that are directly or indirectly (through one or
more intermediaries) controlled by or under common control with,
Sutter Health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM
          One Market
          Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
          E-mail: Azram@themehdifirm.com


SUTTER HEALTH: Sept. 27 Hearing Set for Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Robertson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that a hearing is scheduled in Sacramento on Sept. 27 in a class
action against Sutter Health over last year's theft of a personal
computer that held data on 4.24 million patients.

Twelve lawsuits filed over the incident have been coordinated in
Sacramento County Superior Court.

Sacramento attorneys Brooks Cutter and Robert Buccola, along with
San Francisco attorney Michael Ram, have been appointed lead
counsel.

It took a while to assign a judge due to conflicts of interest:
some had their own data stolen and were potential members of the
class.

The case has been assigned to Judge David De Alba, Mr. Cutter said
on Sept. 20.  Sutter has filed a challenge to the case; plaintiff
attorneys' response was due on Sept. 21.  A hearing will be held
Sept. 27.  A case management conference is likely to follow.
"Things are moving," Mr. Cutter said.

A decision about class certification is still pending, too. To
qualify, lawyers have to prove a common claim runs throughout the
class.

The wording of the lawsuits may be different, but they all seek a
court order requiring Sutter to do a better job protecting patient
information, plus monetary damages.

The computer was stolen during the weekend of Oct. 15, 2011.
Patient data on the computer was not encrypted.  Sutter
immediately reported the theft to the police and began an internal
investigation.

The computer did not contain patient financial records, Social
Security numbers, patients' health plan identification numbers or
medical records.  However, some medical information was included
on 943,000 patients, most of them in the Sacramento area.
The guts of the case will deal with liability, damages and
attorneys' fees.

Some attorneys put the price at $1,000 per member -- an amount
that, if approved, could add up to anywhere from $943 million to
$4.25 billion.

Sutter spokesman Bill Gleeson did not have a comment this week
about the status of the case, but reiterated remarks Sutter CEO
Pat Fry made when the theft was announced: "Sutter Health holds
the confidentiality and trust of our patients in the highest
regard, and we deeply regret that this incident has occurred."


TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Creamy Salted Valencia Peanut Butter
----------------------------------------------------------
Out of the utmost caution and care for its customers, Trader Joe's
is voluntarily recalling its Creamy Salted Valencia Peanut Butter
because of potential contamination with Salmonella.  At this time,
no confirmed illnesses directly linked to this product have been
reported to Trader Joe's.

While the Company has no confirmed information that suggests this
peanut butter is unsafe to eat, the Company says there is nothing
more important to it than the health and safety of its customers
and crew, and the quality of its products.

In advance of this recall, Trader Joe's removed the product from
all store shelves.

The recalled Creamy Salted Valencia Peanut Butter was distributed
to Trader Joe's stores nationwide.  The product comes in a 16
ounce, plastic jar with an expiration date of stamped below the
lid.  All code dates are included in this recall.  A picture of
the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320580.htm

Production and distribution of the item has been suspended while
the FDA and the Valencia Peanut Butter supplier continue their
investigations.

Customers who have purchased this item are urged to not eat the
product, and to dispose of it or return it to any Trader Joe's for
a full refund.  Customers with questions may contact Trader Joe's
Customer Relations at (626) 599-3817.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Goecker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Robert J. Pera, John Ritchie,
Peter Y. Chung, Christopher J. Crespi, Charles J. Fitzgerald, John
L. Ocampo, Robert M. Van Buskirk, UBS Securities LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Pacific
Crest Securities LLC and ThinkEquity LLC, Case No. 5:12-cv-04801
(N.D. Calif., September 13, 2012) is brought on behalf of all
persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Ubiquiti between October 14, 2011, and August 9, 2012, inclusive,
and who acquired shares of Ubiquiti common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its October 14,
2011 initial public offering.

Throughout the Class period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations, the Plaintiff alleges.  Among other things, the
Plaintiff asserts, the Defendants made false statements and failed
to disclose the true magnitude of the risks the Company faced from
counterfeit goods in connection with its products, including the
popular and profitable AirMax line of products.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of the Company.

Ubiquiti designs, manufactures and sells broadband wireless
solutions worldwide.  Ubiquiti, which is based in San Jose,
California, offers a portfolio of wireless networking products and
solutions, including systems, high performance radios, antennas
and management tools, designed for wireless networking and other
applications in the unlicensed radio frequency ("RF") spectrum.
The Company offers solutions that incorporate its RF technology,
antenna design and firmware technologies, referred to as Air
Technologies.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

UBS is a leading global investment banking and securities firm,
and one of the largest global asset managers.  Deutsche Bank, the
U.S investment banking and securities arm of Deutsche Bank AG,
provides investment banking products and services.  RJA is a
financial investment advisory firm.  Pacific Crest provides
investment banking products and services.  ThinkEquity provides
institutional investment banking, and asset management services to
small and middle market privately held companies and individuals.

UBS, Deutsche Bank, RJA, Pacific Crest and ThinkBquity acted as
underwriters for Ubiquiti's IPO, helping to draft and disseminate
the offering documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com
                  shareholders@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016-5516
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Grattan, writing for Austin Business Journal, reports that
stockholder unrest at Valence Technology Inc.'s bankruptcy
proceedings has sparked a securities fraud class-action lawsuit.
New York-based Robbins Umeda LLC, a law firm specializing in class
actions on behalf of shareholders, announced the filing of such a
lawsuit on behalf of all buyers of Valence stock from Aug. 3,
2011, to July 12, 2012.

The complaint alleges that Valence CEO Robert Kanode and acting
Chief Financial Officer Donald Gottschalk "consistently misled
investors about the company's business health and future prospects
by evading inquiries concerning Valence's liquidity and assuring
the market of the company's alternatives for raising capital."


VITACOST.COM INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Miyahira" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit styled
Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., et al. is pending, according to
the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On May 24, 2010, a punitive class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR.  After being
appointed to represent the purported class of shareholders, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Vitacost, its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering ("IPO").  On
December 12, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On January 11, 2012, lead plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Vitacost, its current and
former officers and directors, and its underwriters. Lead
plaintiff purports to bring its action on behalf of investors who
purchased stock in connection with or traceable to the Company's
IPO between September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
during the period by, among other things, disseminating false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning
the Company's current and prospective business and financial
results.  The complaint also alleges that as a result of these
actions the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during
the class period.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses.

On June 25, 2012, the Southern District of Florida entered its
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in full and
dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice.  On
July 23, 2012, lead plaintiff filed notice of appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit of the order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss.

The Company records provisions in its consolidated financial
statements for pending litigation when it determines that an
unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated.  As of June 30, 2012, the Company has
concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred
and is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable verdict.  Therefore, the Company
has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial
statements for an unfavorable outcome.  The Company believes that
it has meritorious arguments for affirmation of the Southern
District of Florida's order that it will raise in the appeal.  It
is possible that the Company's consolidated balance sheets,
statements of operations, or cash flows could be materially
adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome.

                    About Vitacost.com, Inc.

Vitacost.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: VITC) is a
leading online retailer of health and wellness products, including
dietary supplements such as vitamins, minerals, herbs and other
botanicals, amino acids and metabolites, as well as cosmetics,
organic body and personal care products, pet products, sports
nutrition and health foods.  Vitacost.com, Inc. sells these
products directly to consumers through its Web site,
http://www.vitacost.com/. Vitacost.com, Inc. strives to offer its
customers the broadest selection of healthy living products, while
providing superior customer service and timely and accurate
delivery.  The Company is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


VULCAN MATERIALS: Defends Suits Over Martin Marietta Offer
----------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company is defending class action lawsuits
arising from an unsolicited exchange offer by Martin Marietta
Materials, Inc., according to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In December 2011, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Martin
Marietta) commenced an unsolicited exchange offer for all
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a fixed
exchange ratio of 0.50 shares of Martin Marietta common stock for
each Vulcan common share and indicated its intention to nominate a
slate of directors to the Company's Board.  After careful
consideration, including a thorough review of the offer with its
financial and legal advisors, the Company's Board unanimously
determined that Martin Marietta's offer was inadequate,
substantially undervalued Vulcan, was not in the best interests of
Vulcan and its shareholders and had substantial risk.

In May 2012, the Delaware Chancery Court ruled and the Delaware
Supreme Court affirmed that Martin Marietta had breached two
confidentiality agreements between the companies, and enjoined
Martin Marietta for a period of four months from pursuing its
exchange offer for the Company's shares, prosecuting its proxy
contest, or otherwise taking steps to acquire control of the
Company's shares or assets and from any further violations of the
two confidentiality agreements between the parties.

Four putative class-action complaints challenging Vulcan's
response to the Martin Marietta exchange offer have been filed
against Vulcan and its directors.  Three of these complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey: City of Southfield Police & Fire Retirement Systems v.
Carroll, et al., No. 11-cv-07416 (the "Southfield Action");
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v.
Carroll, et al., No. 11-cv-7571 (the "Louisiana Municipal
Action"); and Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund v.
Carroll, et al., No. 12-cv-00349 (the "Stationary Engineers
Action").  The fourth complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division: KBC Asset Management NV v. James, et al., No. 11-cv-
04323 (the "KBC Action").  The Southfield and Louisiana Municipal
Actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the
plaintiffs on July 19, 2012.  Thus, the Company will not report on
these matters further.

The Stationary Engineers and KBC Actions were brought on behalf of
a putative class of Vulcan shareholders and allege that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with their response to the exchange offer.  The complaints also
purport to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Vulcan.  Both
complaints seek, among other things, an injunction barring the
named defendants from adopting any defensive measures in
connection with the exchange offer, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

On February 1, 2012, Vulcan filed a motion to transfer venue in
the KBC Action to the District of New Jersey.  On February 15,
2012, on stipulation of the parties, the New Jersey court ordered
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint within a "reasonable
time" after the actions were consolidated.  On February 28, 2012,
the Alabama court granted Vulcan's motion and transferred the KBC
Action to the District of New Jersey.

Various motions and related items (whether procedural, discovery-
related and/or substantive in nature) occur from time to time with
respect to these matters.

Vulcan and its directors believe the lawsuits are meritless.


XL FOODS: FSIS Expands Alert on Raw Boneless Beef Trim Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) is announcing additional information related to the
September 20 Public Health Alert for raw boneless beef trim
products imported from Canada that may be contaminated with E.
coli O157:H7. FSIS is including two additional production dates in
its alert.

FSIS testing of raw boneless beef trim product from Canadian
Establishment 38, XL Foods, Inc., confirmed positive for E. coli
O157:H7 on September 3, 2012.  FSIS alerted the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) of the positive results.  After follow-up
testing by FSIS and CFIA, the CFIA announced a recall by XL Foods,
Inc. of a variety of ground beef products on September 16, which
was the subject of the public health alert.  Subsequently, the
CFIA has expanded the scope of the recall to now include the
production dates of August 27 and August 29, 2012.

The Company has notified its customers, including U.S.
establishments that beef trim associated with the recall was
shipped to them.  FSIS is working expeditiously to perform
effectiveness checks to confirm that all trim received at FSIS-
inspected establishments from Canadian Establishment 38, either
received a full lethality treatment or that no raw trim was
further distributed and manufactured into other not-ready-to-eat
product.  In addition, for products that may have been further
distributed and manufactured into other not-ready-to-eat product,
FSIS is working to confirm that actions are being taken to remove
the product from commerce.  FSIS is taking all necessary steps to
ensure that all raw ground products produced from the recalled
trim are removed from commerce.

While the investigation continues, FSIS is issuing a Public Health
Alert to inform food service operations and consumers.  The
products subject to the Canadian recall were distributed to U.S.
establishments in the following states: California, Michigan,
Nebraska, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.  At the
U.S. establishments, these products may have been further
processed into various products, such as ground beef or ground
beef patties.  FSIS will continue to provide information as it
becomes available, including information about any related recall.
When available, the retail distribution list will be posted on
FSIS' Web site at:

   www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney
failure.  The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune
systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F.  The only
way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high
enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that
measures internal temperature.

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
raw boneless beef trim products imported from Canada that may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 that have been recalled by XL
Foods, Inc.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/f0JjbU,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name    Location
    -------------    --------
    Food4Less        Greater Cincinnati area, Northern Kentucky,
                     Dayton Ohio, Southeastern Indiana, Indiana
                     (except for Evansville), Illinois, and
                     Eastern Missouri

    Foods Co.        Greater Cincinnati area, Northern Kentucky,
                     Dayton Ohio, Southeastern Indiana, Indiana
                     (except for Evansville), Illinois, and
                     Eastern Missouri

    Jay C            Greater Cincinnati area, Northern Kentucky,
                     Dayton Ohio, Southeastern Indiana, Indiana
                     (except for Evansville), Illinois, and
                     Eastern Missouri

    Kroger           Greater Cincinnati area, Northern Kentucky,
                     Dayton Ohio, Southeastern Indiana, Indiana
                     (except for Evansville), Illinois, and
                     Eastern Missouri


                           *********

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  * * *