CAR_Public/120927.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 192

                             Headlines

AARON'S INC: Appeal From Class Cert. in "Jewell" Suit Pending
AARON'S INC: Bid to Decertify Class in "Kunstmann" Suit Pending
AARON'S INC: Discovery in "Korrow" Class Action Suit Ongoing
AMERICAN REALTY: Shareholders File Class Action in New York
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits "Krueger" Suit Dismissal Bid Ruling

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Continues to Defend Deepwater Horizon Suits
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Still Awaits OK of Tronox-Related Suit Deal
BRAD HUEBNER: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud Scheme
COACH: Settles Class Action Over Customer's Personal Info
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Defends Securities Suit in New Jersey

EUROFINS AIR: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
EXETER HOSPITAL: 169 People joins Hepatitis C Class Action
EXPEDIA INC: Faces Class Action Suit for Sherman Act Violations
FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Upholds $9.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
FANNIE MAE: Ex-Chief Dismissed From Investors' Class Action

FIRST HORIZON: Continues to Defend Tennessee Suit vs. FTBNA
FNB CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees in Pennsylvania
FORTUNE HI-TECH: Judge Reinstates Class Action
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Expired Leafy Green Romaine Salad Packs
GRUPO MEXICO: Law Firms Win Legal Fee Bid in Securities Suit

HANOVER PIKE: Issues Alert on Undeclared Milk and Soy in Products
INTEGRATED DEVICE: Acquisition-Related Suit Dismissed in July
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Faces Class Action Over Spy Cameras
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Suit vs. Atlantic Lottery Dismissed in April
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Hearing on "IBEW" Suit Settlement on Oct. 4
MAINE NATURAL: Issues Alert on Undeclared Allergens in Products
MAYBELLINE: Faces Class Action Over "Super Stay" Products
PALL CORP: Dec. 14 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PATRIOT COAL: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action in Missouri

SEI INVESTMENTS: Court to Issue Class Cert. Decision on Nov. 30
SHORT ELLIOT: Judge Certifies Sewer Line Class Action
SUNLAND INC: Recalls Almond Butter and Peanut Butter Products
TORCHMARK CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Kennedy" Suit Denied in July
TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal From "Hoover" Suit Ruling Pending in S.C.

TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Implements Terms of "Smith" Suit Settlement
TRUSTMARK CORP: Awaits Rulings in Stanford-Related Class Suit
TRUSTMARK CORP: Unit Continues to Face Suits Over Overdraft Fees
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: "GCERS" Securities Suit vs. PSI Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gender Bias Class Action

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks Reversal of Class Action Certification


                          *********

AARON'S INC: Appeal From Class Cert. in "Jewell" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its request for
interlocutory appeal from a conditional class certification ruling
in the lawsuit filed by Kurtis Jewell, 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 matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division on October 28, 2011, and was transferred on
February 23, 2012, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) (Civil No.:1:12-
CV-00563-AT).  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non-
exempt employees who worked in Company stores, alleges that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act when it
automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees' time for meal
breaks.  Plaintiff claims he and other employees actually worked
through meal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their
meal break and asked to perform work.  As a result of the
automatic deduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to
account for all of his working hours when it calculated overtime,
and consequently underpaid him.  Approximately 20 employees have
opted-in to this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA's opt-in provisions.
On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an order granting conditional
certification of a class consisting of all hourly store employees
from October 27, 2008, to the present.  The Company believes that
the Court erred in conditionally certifying this class and has
filed a request for interlocutory appeal, which is currently
pending before the Court.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims,
and intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims.
However, due to inherent uncertainty in litigation and similar
adversarial proceedings, there can be no guarantee that the
Company will ultimately be successful in these proceedings, or in
others to which it is currently a party.  Substantial losses from
legal proceedings or the costs of defending them could have a
material adverse impact upon the Company's business, financial
position or results of operations.


AARON'S INC: Bid to Decertify Class in "Kunstmann" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on its motion to
decertify the class and motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
pending in  Alabama, 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 Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., originally filed with the
United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, on
October 29, 2008, plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly
classified store general managers as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Plaintiffs
seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for
all similarly situated general managers nationwide for the period
January 25, 2007, to present.  After initially denying plaintiffs'
class certification motion in April 2009, the court ruled to
conditionally certify a plaintiff class in early 2010.  The
current class includes 247 individuals.  The Company has filed its
motion to decertify the class action as well as a motion for
summary judgment on plaintiff's individual claims and is awaiting
a ruling from the court.  The parties were ordered by the court to
attend mediation on March 1, 2012, and March 12, 2012, which did
not result in settlement.


AARON'S INC: Discovery in "Korrow" Class Action Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuit initiated by
Margaret Korrow, et al., Aaron's, Inc. disclosed in its August 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a lawsuit on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated alleging that Company is
liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the
Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006,
purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes.
The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010.
Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks
equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees.  Discovery is proceeding,
and to date, no class has been certified.


AMERICAN REALTY: Shareholders File Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dolmetsch, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that American
Realty Capital Trust Inc. was sued in New York state court by
shareholders over the company's $1.9 billion acquisition by Realty
Income Corp. announced this month.

The Carol L. Possehl Living Trust, a shareholder of New York-based
American Realty Capital Trust, filed the lawsuit on Sept. 20 in
New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, seeking class-action
status, according to documents.

The proposed acquisition price of $12.21 a share, about 2 percent
more than American Realty Capital Trust's closing share price
(ARCT) the day before the transaction was announced, is unfair and
deprives shareholders of a 6 percent dividend yield on the stock,
the trust said in its complaint.

"While ARCT shareholders are losing their equity interests in ARCT
for an unfair price, Realty Income is receiving substantial
benefits from the proposed acquisition at a bargain- basement
price," the trust said in its complaint.

American Realty Capital Trust is aware of lawsuits that have been
filed in Maryland and New York concerning the proposed merger and
will respond to the suits "in due course," the company said in a
statement.

"ARCT's management continues to believe that the proposed merger
is in the shareholders' best interests," the company said.

Tere H. Miller, a spokeswoman for Realty Income, didn't
immediately reply to a voice-mail message seeking comment on the
lawsuit.

The proposed deal will add 501 properties to Realty Income's
portfolio, bringing its holdings to more than 3,250 buildings,
John Case, the Escondido, California-based company's chief
investment officer, said in a statement announcing the deal.

The transaction would increase rental revenue from tenants with
higher credit ratings, such as FedEx Corp. and Walgreen Co., and
allow Realty Income to diversify by reducing revenue from retail
real estate to 77 percent from 86 percent.

The case is the Carol L. Possehl Living Trust v. American Realty
Capital Trust Inc. (ARCT), 653300/2012, New York State Supreme
Court, New York County (Manhattan).


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits "Krueger" Suit Dismissal Bid Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Roger Krueger,
et al., 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 October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan.  The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005, to the
present.  The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
by selecting and retaining primarily proprietary mutual funds with
allegedly poor performance histories, higher expenses relative to
other investment options and improper fees paid to Ameriprise
Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries.  The action also alleges that
the Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA because it used
its affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan trustee and
record-keeper and improperly reaped profits from the sale of the
record-keeping business to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Plaintiffs allege
over $20 million in damages.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on February 7, 2012.  On April 11, 2012, the Company
filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The Court held
a hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 13, 2012, and the
Company is awaiting the decision.  The Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result
from this matter due to the early procedural status of the case,
the pending motion to dismiss, the absence of class certification,
the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific, evidence-based
damages.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Continues to Defend Deepwater Horizon Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to defend itself from
lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident, 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 April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out and
an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.  The
well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and
Anadarko held a 25% non-operated interest.  In October 2011, the
Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement, mutual
releases, and agreement to indemnify, relating to the Deepwater
Horizon events (Settlement Agreement).  Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against claims
and damages arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),
claims for natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs,
and other potential damages.  This indemnification is guaranteed
by BP Corporation North America Inc. (BPCNA) and, in the event
that the net worth of BPCNA declines below an agreed-upon amount,
BP p.l.c. has agreed to become the sole guarantor.  The Settlement
Agreement does not indemnify Anadarko against potential losses
arising from fines, penalties, or punitive damages.  The Company
has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to
indemnification by BP.

Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been
filed against BP and other parties, including the Company.  This
litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the
Louisiana District Court.  Only OPA claims seeking economic loss
damages against the Company remain.  In addition, certain state
and local governments have appealed, or have provided indication
of a likely appeal of, the MDL court's decision that only federal
law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related
claims.  The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is
fully indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of
claims for damages, irrespective of whether such claims are based
on federal (including OPA) or state law.

The Louisiana District Court plans to hold a trial in Transocean's
Limitation of Liability case in the MDL.  The first phase of the
trial is to determine certain liability issues and the liability
allocation among the parties alleged to be involved in or liable
for the Deepwater Horizon events.  In March 2012, BP and the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) entered into a tentative
settlement agreement to resolve the substantial majority of
economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Deepwater
Horizon events.  In light of this settlement agreement, the
Louisiana District Court postponed the start of the trial until a
future date and requested that the parties submit separate briefs
that explain the parties' opinions as to the impact of the
tentative settlement on the Louisiana District Court's previously
issued trial plan.  BP and the PSC jointly filed the proposed
settlement agreement with the Louisiana District Court in April
2012.  In May 2012, the Louisiana District Court issued its
revised case management order (CMO) ruling that the first phase of
the trial will commence in January 2013, and will address issues
arising out of the conduct of various parties involved with the
Deepwater Horizon events.  The CMO provides that the Stipulated
Order excusing Anadarko from participation in the first phase of
the trial remains in effect.  The CMO also provides that the
second phase of trial will follow the first phase after a two-to-
three week recess and will address source-control and
qualification issues.

Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August
2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York District Court) on behalf of purported purchasers
of the Company's stock between June 9, 2009, and
June 12, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers.  The
complaints allege causes of action arising pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) for purported
misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon events.  In
March 2012, the New York District Court granted the Lead
Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas
District Court).  In May 2012, the Texas District Court granted
the defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated action within
the district to Judge Keith P. Ellis.

In November 2011, the Company's Board of Directors (Board)
received a letter from a purported shareholder demanding that the
Board investigate, address, remedy, and commence derivative
proceedings against certain officers and directors for their
alleged breach of fiduciary duty related to the Deepwater Horizon
events.  The Board has considered this demand and in February 2012
determined that it would not be in the best interest of the
Company to pursue the issues alleged in the demand letter.  In
March 2012, the Company's Board received a similar demand letter
from a purported shareholder supplementing an original demand that
had been made by the shareholder in September 2010 related to the
Deepwater Horizon events.  The Board has considered this demand
and in April 2012 determined that it would not be in the best
interest of the Company to pursue the issues alleged in the demand
letter.

Given the various stages of these proceedings, the Company
currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably
estimate a range of any potential losses, related to ongoing
proceedings.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself, its
officers, and its directors in each of these proceedings, and will
avail itself of any and all indemnities provided by BP against
civil damages.

The Woodlands, Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corporation explores
for, develops, produces, and markets natural gas, crude oil,
condensate, and natural gas liquids (NGLs).  The Company also
engages in the gathering, processing, and treating of natural gas,
and the transporting of natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Still Awaits OK of Tronox-Related Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is still awaiting court approval of
a tentative settlement hammered in April 2012 resolving a
consolidated class action lawsuit commenced by purchasers of
equity and debt securities of Tronox Incorporated, 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 July 2009, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in
the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of
equity and debt securities of Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), a
former subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee), which is
a current subsidiary of Anadarko, between November 21, 2005, and
January 12, 2009, against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, several former
Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several former Tronox officers
and directors, and Ernst & Young LLP (Securities Case).  The
complaint alleges causes of action arising under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for purported misstatements and
omissions regarding, among other things, Tronox's environmental-
remediation and tort-claim liabilities.  The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that these purported misstatements and
omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's public filings,
including filings made in connection with Tronox's initial public
offering.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as
litigation fees and costs.  Certain parties, including Anadarko,
Kerr-McGee, and the former Kerr-McGee officers and directors,
reached a tentative settlement in this matter in April 2012,
subject to approval by the court.  The tentative settlement amount
will be directly funded by the insurers for Tronox, Anadarko, and
Kerr-McGee.  As a result, offsetting gains and losses have been
recorded to reflect the impact of the tentative settlement of the
Securities Case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

The Woodlands, Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corporation explores
for, develops, produces, and markets natural gas, crude oil,
condensate, and natural gas liquids (NGLs).  The Company also
engages in the gathering, processing, and treating of natural gas,
and the transporting of natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs.


BRAD HUEBNER: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Hubert Wiggins, writing for Northwestohio.com, reports that the
day after three Toledo businessmen were indicted by a federal
grand jury on fraud charges in a scheme involving the sale of
Iraqi currency there was additional bad news for the trio on
Sept. 21.  Brad Huebner, Charles Emmenecker and Michael Teadt were
named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in Lucas
County Common Pleas Court.  Toledo attorney Thomas Pigott filed
the lawsuit.  "We think very strongly that the sale of Iraqi
dinars is the sale of a security and to sell a security one must
be licensed and in this case these individuals were not,"
Mr. Pigott said.

On Sept. 20, Bradford Huebner of Ottawa Hills, Charles Emmenecker
of Sylvania and Michael Teadt of Maumee were charged in connection
with a scheme in which the feds allege the men were enriched to
the tune of $24 million by selling Iraqi currency through their
business the Bh Group.  Each man pleaded not guilty.  Messrs.
Huebner and Teadt were released on Sept. 20 after each man posted
a $250,000 bond.  Mr. Huebner was released on Sept. 21 after
posting a $500,000 bond.

Mr. Pigott says the federal government has recovered about $2
million of the $24 million taken in by the BH Group.


COACH: Settles Class Action Over Customer's Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------
KESQ reports that some "Coach" store customers will have some
extra cash to put in the brand's popular purses and wallets.

On Sept. 21, a class-action settlement was reached with the chain.
Coach was sued over requesting the addresses, phone numbers and
e-mails of customers.  The company denies any wrongdoing, but
agreed to the settlement.

An attorney for Coach said on Sept. 21, "All of those class
members, all 1,047,000, now have a chance to save 30-percent on
all their purchases.  They can go in, clean up the store if they
want."

Customers who bought something at Coach between February 15th,
2010 to February 29th, 2012 with a credit or debit card are
eligible for a 30% off coupon.

If you think you may be eligible and have not received a coupon or
been contacted by e-mail, log onto
http://www.SongBeverlySettlement.comto receive your 30% off
coupon.


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Defends Securities Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Laboratories, Inc. is defending a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in New Jersey, 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.

Between February 1, 2012, and February 6, 2012, two putative
securities class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  These actions were
filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et
al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al.  Both actions
have been consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re
Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, have added
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its officers as
defendants, and assert claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Common Stock
during the period from December 6, 2010, through January 20, 2012.
The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
and a director omitted to state material facts that they were
under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and misleading
statements that related to the results of the Company's PREGNANT
study and the likelihood of approval by the FDA of an NDA to
market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm
birth in women with premature cervical shortening.  According to
the complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Common Stock.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees.  The Company believes that this action
is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously.  At this
time it is not possible to determine the likely outcome of, or
estimate the liability related to, this action and the Company has
not made any provision for losses in connection with it.


EUROFINS AIR: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Sept. 21 disclosed that on
August 8, 2012, the San Francisco employment law firm filed a
class action lawsuit against Eurofins Air Toxics, Inc. alleging
Eurofins miscalculated their employees' overtime rate of pay thus
failing to pay them the full amount of overtime wages owed to them
during their employment.

Managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal, stated, "large corporations are getting away with
cutting costs in subtle ways.  It's our job to catch them and see
that the money is going into the right hands -- their employees."

State law mandates that all non-exempt employees must be paid
overtime at one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay.
Regular rate of pay, however, does not simply mean "hourly rate"
for all employees.  If non-exempt employees receive non-
discretionary bonuses, then these bonuses must be factored into
the calculation of their regular rate of pay for purposes of
calculating their true overtime rate of pay.

The class action Complaint alleges that Eurofins has a
compensation payment system that pays their employees performance
related bonuses in addition to their hourly pay.  Furthermore, the
Complaint alleges that Eurofins was not factoring in their
employees' bonuses when calculating their overtime pay.  Finally,
the Complaint states that as a result these employees were getting
short-changed on their overtime pay.  Moqadam, et al. vs. Eurofins
Air Toxics, Inc., Case No. 34-2012-00129594 is currently pending
in the Sacramento County Superior Court for the State of
California.

The employment law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
represents many California workers in class action lawsuits
against their current and/or former employers for various wage and
hour violations.  It hasv offices in San Diego, Los Angeles, and
San Francisco.


EXETER HOSPITAL: 169 People joins Hepatitis C Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
NECN reports that attorney Peter McGrath says he now has 169
clients who have signed on to a class action lawsuit against
Exeter Hospital in New Hampshire.

Federal prosecutors have charged a medical technician who worked
for Exeter Hospital with infecting 32 patients with hepatitis C.

Authorities allege David Kwiatkowski injected himself with
medication intended for patients and then returned the
contaminated needles for use in the hospital.

Mr. Kwiatkowski worked at Exeter Hospital for 13 months.

Three of Mr. McGrath's clients spoke out on Sept. 21, two of them
have tested positive for hepatitis C.

Mr. McGrath says he has also now named Triage Staffing, the agency
which placed Mr. Kwiatkowski at the hospital, in the lawsuit.


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Class Action Suit for Sherman Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcello Romanelli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Expedia, Inc.; Hotels.com LP; Travelocity.com LP;
Sabre Holdings Corporation; Priceline.com Incorporated;
Booking.com B.V.; Booking.com (USA), Inc.; Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.;
Hilton Worldwide Inc.; Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.;
Marriott International, Inc.; Trump International Hotels
Management, LLC; Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC; and
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-
04883 (N.D. Calif., September 18, 2012) is an antitrust class
action brought to recover for the injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class as a result of the
Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act.

The Class consists of all persons and entities that purchased
hotel room reservations online directly from one or more of the
Defendants in the United States during the Class Period, Mr.
Romanelli says.  He alleges that the Defendants conspired, through
a combination of contracts, mutual promises, agreements and
understandings to eliminate competition on the online prices
offered to the public for the Hotel Defendants' rooms and fixing
the retail price for room reservations at the price the Hotel
Defendants were selling room reservation.

Mr. Romanelli is a resident of New York.  During the four years
immediately preceding this complaint, he purchased room
reservations directly from one or more of the Online Defendants
and from one or more of the Hotel Defendants.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
          E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1900
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 868-3610
          Facsimile: (212) 918-7967
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com
                  joseph@sarrafgentile.com


FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Upholds $9.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals on Sept. 20 upheld a $9.5-million settlement of a
class action charging Facebook, Inc. with invading users' privacy
by publicizing purchases they made on various Web sites.  The
panel ruled, 2-1, that U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the
Northern District of California did not abuse his discretion in
approving the settlement over objections that it gave nothing to
those whose privacy was invaded and too much to lawyers.

Under Facebook's "Beacon" program, discontinued in November 2009
while the suit was in mediation, the social networking giant
contracted with online retailers to disclose to Facebook the
transactions of Facebook users, which were then appeared on the
Facebook Wall of the purchaser and on to their friends' feeds.
Facebook initially required users who did not want to be part of
Beacon to opt out, then agreed to limit it to those who opted in,
before finally agreeing to get rid of it altogether.

The plaintiffs claimed that the disclosure of their transactions
caused them embarrassment and ridicule.  One plaintiff explained
that he had purchased a ring from Overstock.com as a Christmas
gift for his wife, but Facebook spoiled the surprise by disclosing
it to 700 of his friends before the holiday.

                         Settlement Terms

The settlement requires Facebook to pay more than $3 million in
attorney fees, court costs, and administrative expenses, with the
remainder of the money to be used to fund education about online
privacy issues.  This cy pres portion of the settlement is being
administered by a new entity called the Digital Trust Fund, whose
board consists of Chris Jay Hoofnagle, who heads the Berkeley
Center for Law & Technology; Tim Sparapani, Facebook's public
policy director; and writer Larry Magid.

Judge Seeborg agreed that the cy pres provision was appropriate
given that the class consists of more than 3.663 million members,
few of whom opted out or objected.  He also rejected objections
that Mr. Sparapani's presence on the board of the DTF rendered the
settlement unfair, and that the notice of the proposed settlement
should have disclosed his Facebook affiliation, rather than
identifying him merely by name.

The objectors, represented by Washington, D.C.-based Public
Citizen, called the settlement a sweetheart deal for Facebook, but
Ninth Circuit Senior Judge Procter Hug Jr., joined by Judge
William A. Fletcher, said the approval fell within the district
judge's broad authority to find the deal "fair, reasonable, and
adequate."

Judge Hug wrote: "A $9.5 million class recovery would be
substantial under most circumstances, and we see nothing about
this particular settlement that undermines the district court's
conclusion that it was substantial in this case."

                        Video Privacy Act

The judge tossed aside the objector's complaint that the lack of a
financial recovery for any of the class members was unfair,
particularly since a number of them -- those whose video rentals
had been disclosed -- would have been entitled to $2,500 each in
statutory damages for violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.

"Objectors are no doubt correct that the VPPA claims of some class
members might prove valuable if successful at trial, but that does
not cast doubt on the district court's conclusion as to the
fairness and adequacy of the overall settlement amount to the
class as a whole," Judge Hug wrote. "It is an inherent feature of
the class-action device that individual class members will often
claim differing amounts of damages . . . . But a class action
settlement necessarily reflects the parties' pre-trial assessment
as to the potential recovery of the entire class, with all of its
class members' varying claims.  So even if some of the class
members in this case would have successful claims for $2,500 in
statutory damages under the VPPA, those individuals represent, to
use the candid phrasing of Objectors, 'only a fraction of the 3.6
million-person class.'  Their presence does not in itself render
the settlement unfair or the $9.5 million recovery among all class
members too low."

Senior Judge Andrew Kleinfeld dissented.

"The most we could say for the cy pres award is that in exchange
for giving up any claims they may have, the exposed Facebook users
get the satisfaction of contributing to a charity to be funded by
Facebook, partially controlled by Facebook, and advised by a legal
team consisting of Facebook's counsel and their own purported
counsel whom they did not hire and have never met.

Facebook deprived its users of their privacy.  And now they are
deprived of a remedy."

The case is McCall v. Facebook, Inc., 10-16380.


FANNIE MAE: Ex-Chief Dismissed From Investors' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Morgenson, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Franklin D. Raines, who resigned as chief executive of Fannie Mae
in late 2004 amid revelations of extensive accounting
improprieties at the mortgage finance company, has been dismissed
from a long-running civil suit brought by Fannie Mae investors
hoping to recover damages.

The federal judge overseeing the class action, Richard J. Leon of
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
ruled on Sept. 20 that the investors' lawyers had not proved that
Mr. Raines knowingly misled shareholders about the company's
accounting and internal controls, a necessary hurdle for the case
against him to continue.

"There is not only no direct evidence that Raines intended to
deceive Fannie Mae's investors," Mr. Leon ruled, "there is no
evidence that he even knew his statements were false."  At best,
the judge continued, evidence submitted by the shareholders showed
that Mr. Raines "acted negligently in his role as the company's
chief executive and negligently in his representations about the
company's accounting and earnings management practices."

The judge said that he would rule on the other defendants in the
case soon.  They are J. Timothy Howard, Fannie's former chief
financial officer, and Leanne G. Spencer, its former controller.

Kevin M. Downey, a lawyer at Williams & Connolly who represents
Mr. Raines, declined to comment.  So did Steven J. Toll, of Cohen
Milstein, the lawyer for the plaintiffs.

The investor lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of approximately
one million Fannie Mae shareholders who incurred losses after
regulators identified pervasive accounting irregularities at the
company.  Between 1998 and 2004, government investigators found,
senior executives at Fannie had manipulated its results to hit
earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation.
The company had to restate its earnings, reducing them by $6.3
billion.

In 2006, the government sued the three former executives, seeking
$100 million in fines and $115 million in restitution from bonuses
it maintained they had not earned.  Without admitting wrongdoing,
Mr. Raines, Mr. Howard and Ms. Spencer paid $31.4 million to
settle the matter in 2008.  In September of that year, the federal
government stepped in to rescue Fannie Mae, which was struggling
under a mountain of bad mortgages.

The shareholder case, led by two Ohio state retirement systems,
dragged on, however.  Discovery did not conclude until 2011.
Lawyers for both sides have retained 35 experts in the case and
interviewed 123 witnesses; some 67 million pages of documents have
been produced in the matter.

Costs spent defending the three former executives against the
shareholder suit recently totaled almost $100 million, according
to a report last February by the inspector general of the Federal
Housing Finance Agency, the regulator of Fannie Mae.  Since Fannie
was taken over by the government in September 2008, the inspector
general said, taxpayers have borne $37 million in legal outlays on
behalf of the three executives.  As is typical among top
executives, Mr. Raines's employment contract with Fannie Mae
required that the company cover the legal costs of defending
against such lawsuits as long as he was not found at fault.

Since taxpayers took over Fannie Mae, formally known as the
Federal National Mortgage Association, four years ago, the company
has drawn a total of $90.5 billion from the United States
Treasury.

Although the Treasury Department has suggested ways to wind down
the company and its smaller sibling, the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, there has been little
in the way of follow-through.


FIRST HORIZON: Continues to Defend Tennessee Suit vs. FTBNA
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation continues to defend its
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit pending in Tennessee,
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.

First Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA") became a
defendant in 2011 in a putative class action lawsuit concerning
overdraft fees charged in connection with debit card transactions.
A key claim is that the method used to order or sequence the
transactions posted each day was improper.  The case is styled as
Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, before the
Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11.
The plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5 million,
unspecified restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive
damages, among other things.  FHN's estimate of reasonably
possible loss for this matter, which is included in the aggregate
range in the Company's established liabilities, is subject to
significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class will be
certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims as to
which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies that
might be available or awarded; the outcome of potentially
dispositive early-stage motions such as motions to dismiss; and
the lack of discovery.  FHN is aware that claims which appear to
be somewhat similar have been brought against other financial
institutions.  Although this lawsuit is in an early stage, FHN
intends to defend itself vigorously.


FNB CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
F.N.B. Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit over overdraft
fees, according to the Corporation's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 5, 2012, the Corporation was named as a defendant in an
alleged class action lawsuit filed by two Pennsylvania customers
of First National Bank of Pennsylvania in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The lawsuit challenges
the manner in which checking account overdraft fees were charged
and the policies related to the posting order of checking and
debit card transactions.  The plaintiffs seek relief under state
law, including compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  The
Corporation intends to vigorously defend the plaintiff's claims
and to oppose any effort to certify a class in this case.  At this
stage of the lawsuit, it is not yet possible for the Corporation
to estimate potential losses, if any.  Although it is not possible
to predict the ultimate resolution or any potential financial
liability with respect to this litigation, management after
consultation with legal counsel, currently does not anticipate
that the aggregate liability, if any, arising out of this
proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the
Corporation's financial position, or cash flows; although, at the
present time, management is not in a position to determine whether
such proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the
Corporation's results of operations in any future quarterly
reporting period.


FORTUNE HI-TECH: Judge Reinstates Class Action
----------------------------------------------
On Friday, September 13, 2012, the United States District Court
Eastern District of Kentucky rescinded its dismissal and
reinstated a proposed class-action lawsuit against Fortune Hi-Tech
Marketing, Inc. (FHTM).  The judge ruled in favor of the
Plaintiffs and against all named individual defendants on their
motion to compel arbitration.  The judge denied the validity of
the arbitration clause contained in FHTM's Independent
Representative Agreement, determining that the contract contained
an unenforceable arbitration clause for all of the plaintiffs'
claims, and therefore that the case should once again move
forward.  Judge Coffman ruled that the FHTM agreement to Arbitrate
was not valid because it was illusory.  The ruling may be found
at: http://is.gd/kPWdBv

According to the lead plaintiff, Yvonne Day, "We are very excited
about having our appeal approved and that we will finally get our
day in court.  This was a great day to all of those who have been
cheated! We all deserve our day in court and this is a huge
victory for justice!"


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Expired Leafy Green Romaine Salad Packs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express Incorporated is voluntarily recalling a limited
quantity of 9 oz. Leafy Green Romaine Salad with the expired Use-
by Date of September 16 as a precaution in an unlikely event that
consumers may still have the expired salad in their refrigerators.
The recall was necessitated by a positive test result for Listeria
monocytogenes on a single package out of many samples collected
for the U. S. Department of Agriculture random sample testing
program.

Because it is beyond the expiration date, the salad is no longer
available for sale in stores.  No illnesses are reported in
association with the product recall.  No consumer complaints have
been received about the salad.  No other Fresh Express products
are being recalled.

The Company says the recall notification is being issued out of an
abundance of caution in keeping with the Company's commitment to
protect the public health.

In an unlikely event consumers may still have this particular
salad -- now well beyond its Use-by Date and expected usability --
in their refrigerators, they should not eat it and throw it out.
Consumers with questions may call the Fresh Express Consumer
Response Center at (800) 242-5472 during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

Recalled salad details are:

   * Product: Fresh Express Leafy Green Romaine Salad in a 9 oz.
     package

   * Use-by Date: September 16 (located in upper right hand
     corner of package)

   * Product Code: I246A5BMG (located in upper right hand corner
     of package)

   * Distribution: Primarily Midwest and Eastern states of the
     U.S.

According to Fresh Express instructions and retail store
procedures, expired salads are removed from store shelves.

Fresh Express is coordinating closely with regulatory officials.

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

FRESH EXPRESS PRECAUTIONARY SALAD RECALL - 9/22/12
(No other Fresh Express Salads are included in this recall)

   Brand            Product Name    Size          UPC
   -----            ------------    ----    ---------------
   Fresh Express    Leafy Green     9 oz.   0 71279-26112 6
                    Romaine

   Production Code: I246A5BMG
   Best If Used By Date: SEP 16
   Possible Distribution States: IL, MI, MN, ND, NY, NJ,
                                 SD, WI, IA, IN, OH, PA

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320678.htm


GRUPO MEXICO: Law Firms Win Legal Fee Bid in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsmax reports that two law firms were poised on Sept. 21 to
collect a blockbuster $305 million in legal fees for their work on
a lawsuit, after Delaware's Supreme Court declined to consider a
challenge to the payout.

The fee award to law firms Prickett, Jones & Elliott of Wilmington
and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check of Radnor, Pennsylvania, is
believed to be the biggest ever awarded by the Delaware's Court of
Chancery.  It is also one of the largest legal fees awarded in
securities class actions nationwide.

The fee was awarded in December for plaintiffs' attorneys who
brought a shareholder lawsuit on behalf of Southern Copper Corp.

The court's chief judge, Leo Strine, calculated the fee as 15
percent of the $2 billion judgment to be paid to Southern Copper.
Mr. Strine said at the time that the fee was meant as an incentive
for lawyers to achieve good outcomes for their clients.

The judgment and fee were affirmed by the full Supreme Court in
August, although Justice Carolyn Berger dissented on the fee.

The defendants asked the Supreme Court to change its ruling on the
fee because the high court did not consider the limited impact of
the judgment on minority shareholders.  The defendants argued
Grupo Mexico will pay the judgment largely for the benefit of
itself, because it owns 81 percent of Southern Copper.

The defendants argued the minority shareholders will get just $386
million of the actual benefit.  On that basis, they argued the fee
was not 15 percent, but 79 percent.

In a four-page ruling on Sept. 21, the Supreme Court rejected the
motion for reargument on procedural grounds and because they said
no stockholder has a claim to any particular assets.

Mr. Strine ruled that Grupo Mexico could satisfy the judgment by
returning to Southern Copper an equivalent value of the Southern
Copper shares it held, but that the fee award had to be paid out
of the judgment in cash.

The judgment is due immediately, said plaintiffs' attorney Ronald
Brown of Prickett Jones in a voicemail message left with Reuters.
He said after 20 days, if the judgment is not paid, it can be
satisfied by canceling shares of Southern Copper stock held by
Grupo Mexico.

Mr. Brown also said a bond for the attorneys' fee had been posted
by Grupo Mexico.  If the company did pay the plaintiffs' attorneys
next week, the bond would be used to cover the payment.

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible, but unlikely.
The judgment is increasing by $212,000 a day due to interest
costs, according to court records.

Lee Rudy, a partner with Kessler Topaz and Bruce Angiolillo, a
partner with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, who argued the appeal for
the defendants, did not immediately return calls for comment.
Grupo Mexico did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The fee award had set off a protest among critics of trial
lawyers, who pointed out it amounted to $35,000 an hour, or about
10 times the going rate in class actions with similar-sized
judgments or settlements.

Other large fee awards in U.S. cases include fees and expenses of
$688 million for plaintiffs' lawyers in the Enron Corp class
actions, and $493 million for attorneys in the Tyco International
class actions.

The Enron and Tyco cases each required at least 88,000 hours of
work, according to a legal brief by defendants. In contrast, the
attorneys in the Southern Copper case invested 8,597 hours,
according to court records.

Mr. Strine ordered Grupo Mexico to pay the $2 billion judgment and
fee after finding that it coerced Southern Copper to overpay for
Minera Mexico in 2005.  Grupo Mexico controlled both companies at
the time.

The lawsuit was what is known as a derivative suit.  The
shareholders sued on behalf of the company and the judgment will
not be paid directly to stockholders but to Southern Copper.


HANOVER PIKE: Issues Alert on Undeclared Milk and Soy in Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Pike Enterprises, Inc., of Hampstead, Maryland, is
notifying its customers that its 8 ounce and 4 ounce jars of Hot
Pepper Jelly and Green Pepper Jelly and its 4 ounce and 9 ounce
jars of Blackberry Brandy Jam and Peach Brandy Jam may contain
undeclared milk and soy.  People who have allergies to dairy
products may run the risk of allergic reactions if they consume
these products.  These items were distributed nationwide through
retail stores and via the company website under the label "Jill's
Jams Mixes and More" or "Jill's Jams and Jellies".  No illnesses
have been reported to date in connection with this situation.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320684.htm

This notification was initiated after it was discovered that the
products containing milk and soy were distributed in packaging
that did not list milk or soy as ingredients.  The use of milk and
soy as ingredients has been discontinued.

Retail stores who have these products in inventory will be
furnished with an additional label indicating these allergens as
ingredients.  Consumers with dairy or soy related allergies, who
have purchased these products may return them to their place of
purchase or contact the Company at 410-239-7433 between the hours
of 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. weekdays.


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Acquisition-Related Suit Dismissed in July
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit arising from Integrated Device Technology,
Inc.'s proposed acquisition of PLX Technology, Inc. was
voluntarily dismissed in July 2012, according to the Company's
August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012.

On April 30, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with PLX Technology, Inc. (PLX).  The Merger Agreement
provides that, on and subject to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, the Company will commence an exchange offer to purchase
all of the outstanding shares of PLX common stock, $0.001 par
value, in exchange for consideration, per share of PLX common
stock, comprised of (i) $3.50 in cash plus (ii) 0.525 of a share
of IDT common stock, without interest and less any applicable
withholding taxes.  The Company expects the proposed acquisition
to expand the Company's core serial switching and interface
business.  The Company and PLX have complementary product sets,
technologies and customer bases.

On May 22, 2012, the Company commenced the exchange offer to
purchase the outstanding shares of PLX common stock.  The exchange
offer was scheduled to expire at the end of the day on July 12,
2012.  On July 11, 2012, the Company extended the expiration date
of its exchange offer for all outstanding shares of common stock
of PLX since the applicable waiting period for regulatory review
has not yet been expired or been terminated and the exchange offer
was set to expire at the end of the day on August 9, 2012, unless
further extended.  Approximately 15.7 million shares, or
approximately 35.1% of PLX's outstanding common stock, had been
tendered as of July 10, 2012.

On May 14, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Cox v.
Guzy, et al., C.A. No. 7529, was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the Cox Complaint).  The Cox Complaint names as
defendants the members of the PLX Board of Directors, as well as
PLX, IDT, Pinewood Acquisition Corp. (Pinewood) and Pinewood
Merger Sub, LLC (Pinewood LLC), both of which are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of IDT.  The plaintiff alleges that PLX's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to PLX stockholders in connection
with the Offer and the Merger, and were aided and abetted by PLX,
IDT, Pinewood and Pinewood LLC.  The Cox Complaint alleges that
the Offer and the Merger involve an unfair price and an inadequate
sales process, unreasonable deal protection devices, and that
defendants entered into the Offer and the Merger to benefit
themselves personally.  The Cox Complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the Offer and the Merger, an award of damages,
attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief.  On May 29,
2012, plaintiff filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings.  On June
7, 2012, defendants filed oppositions to plaintiff's Motion for
Expedited Proceedings.  At the hearing, on June 8, 2012, the Court
denied plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Proceedings.  On June 19,
2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the putative class
action lawsuit without prejudice.


INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Faces Class Action Over Spy Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a coffee
shop staged a failed cover-up after a lawyer planted spy cameras
in its restrooms, a class of customers claim in court.

Lead plaintiff Roderick Smith says he discovered a spy camera in
the restroom of a Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf in Encino last year,
and that personal injury attorney Mark Daniel Wenzel planted
another camera a week later.

Corporate owner International Coffee & Tea LLC failed to
"proactively prevent" this spying, according to the complaint in
Superior Court.

"Plaintiff frequented this Encino Coffee Bean location to work on
personal projects, and would therefore stay there for extended
hours at a time to complete his work," Mr. Smith says.  "In or
around October of 2011, plaintiff used defendant Coffee Bean's
restroom to attend to his personal and private needs.  While using
the toilet, plaintiff noticed a blue blinking light which led, him
to discover a small device, the size of a syringe, nestled into
the u-bend of the pipes underneath the sink.  The device was
pointed directly at the toilet and the blue blinking light had
emanated from the device."

After Googling the device, Mr. Smith found out it was a spy cam,
reported his discovery to Coffee Bean, which called the police,
according to the lawsuit.

"Within one week of discovering that he had been secretly
videotaped by a recording device in defendant Coffee Bean's
restroom, and having immediately alerted and notified defendant
Coffee Bean's management, plaintiff made a second startling and
equally disturbing discovery at the same Coffee Bean location,"
Mr. Smith says.  "Upon using the restroom for his personal and
private needs, plaintiff yet again discovered another recording
device in the same restroom at the same coffee shop, aimed
directly at the toilet and on information and belief was used for
the purpose of secretly recording Coffee Bean patrons while using
the toilet, from underneath the sink."

Detectives allegedly identified Mr. Wenzel as the culprit because
the spy cam's own footage captured him during the installation
process.

"The police sent pictures of defendant Wenzel to all the Coffee
Bean shops in the area, and weeks later, in or about November of
2011, defendant Wenzel was apprehended by the police on a visit to
the Coffee Bean located at the intersection of Woodley and Ventura
at 16101 Ventura Boulevard in Encino, California, where another
hidden recording device was also uncovered," the complaint says.

Meanwhile, Coffee Bean superiors allegedly told staff to keep the
incident to themselves.

"The cover up administered by defendant Coffee Bean's corporate
level went so for as to instruct the Coffee Bean location where
the camera/recording devices were discovered to take down
defendant Wenzel's mug shot which had been installed by the police
department, before he had been arrested," according to the 15-page
complaint.

A personal injury attorney and partner at Encino law firm Stone,
Dolginer & Wenzel, Wenzel was later banned from stepping within
100 yards of all Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf coffee shops, sentenced to
200 hours of community service, and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine,
Mr. Smith says.

Mr. Wenzel has also allegedly been barred from using any recording
device aside from his cellphone.

The class seeks punitive damages and an injunction for invasion of
privacy, negligence, negligent hiring, training and supervision,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Melidonian, Esq.
          KABATACK BROWN KELLNER
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          E-mail: lm@kbklawyers.com


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Suit vs. Atlantic Lottery Dismissed in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Atlantic Lottery Corporation
was dismissed in April, according to International Game
Technology'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 11, 2010, Atlantic Lottery Corporation commenced an action
against International Game Technology, VLC, Inc. and IGT-Canada,
wholly-owned subsidiaries of International Game Technology, and
other manufacturers of video lottery machines in the Supreme Court
of New Foundland and Labrador seeking indemnification for any
damages that may be awarded against Atlantic Lottery Corporation
in a class action lawsuit also filed in the Supreme Court of New
Foundland and Labrador, captioned Rice (formerly Piercey) v.
Atlantic Lotteries.  In December 2011, the plaintiff filed a
motion seeking leave to substitute a new plaintiff in place of
Rice and to make certain amendments to plaintiff's statement of
claim.  In January 2012, Atlantic Lottery Corporation filed a
motion to dismiss the action for abuse of process.  By a decision,
dated April 5, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to
strike plaintiff's statement of claim, terminating the action.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a global
company specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing of
electronic gaming equipment and systems products.  The Company is
a supplier of gaming products in substantially all legal
jurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of quality
products and services at competitive prices, designed to increase
the potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing the
player's experience.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology continues to defend a consolidated
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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 October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.
The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology
et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International
Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585.  The actions were
consolidated.  The consolidated complaint (which seeks unspecified
damages) asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to
those in the securities and derivative lawsuits against the
Company, and further alleges that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties to plan participants by failing to disclose
material facts to plan participants, failing to exercise their
fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the participants,
failing to properly manage plan assets, and permitting
participants to elect to invest in Company stock.  In March 2011,
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
granted in part and denied in part.  On March 16, 2012, the Court
denied plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a global
company specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing of
electronic gaming equipment and systems products.  The Company is
a supplier of gaming products in substantially all legal
jurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of quality
products and services at competitive prices, designed to increase
the potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing the
player's experience.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Hearing on "IBEW" Suit Settlement on Oct. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for final approval of International Game Technology's
settlement of a securities class action lawsuit initiated by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 is
scheduled for October 4, 2012, 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 July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the US
District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
IGT and certain of its current and former officers and directors.
The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007, and
October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price
through a series of materially false and misleading statements or
omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects.  In
April 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In March 2011,
defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part
and denied in part.  The Court found that the allegations
concerning statements about the seasonality of game play levels
and announcements of projects with Harrah's and City Center were
sufficient to state a claim.  Plaintiffs did not state a claim
based on the remaining statements about earnings, operating
expense, or forward-looking statements about play levels and
server-based technology.

The parties have settled this action.  On February 1, 2012, at the
direction of the Court, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pending
Settlement.  On March 28, 2012, the parties submitted to the Court
a stipulation to settle the litigation for a payment of $12.5
million.  On March 30, 2012, the Court issued an order of
preliminary approval and the settlement was paid into escrow by
insurance in April 2012.  A hearing for final approval of the
settlement by the Court has been scheduled for October 4, 2012.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a global
company specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing of
electronic gaming equipment and systems products.  The Company is
a supplier of gaming products in substantially all legal
jurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of quality
products and services at competitive prices, designed to increase
the potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing the
player's experience.


MAINE NATURAL: Issues Alert on Undeclared Allergens in Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maine Natural Health Company is announcing a recall of Whey
Protein Concentrates as the labels fail to declare the allergens:
milk, shellfish and coconut.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk, shellfish or nuts run the risk of a serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The products can be identified by the following names:

   * Pure Whey in Maine Natural Health and Stronger Faster
     Healthier brands contains the allergen milk

   * Fortified and Endurance Daily in Stronger Faster Healthier
     contains the allergen milk.

   * Recovery (also labeled as Post Workout) and Rejuvenate in
     Maine Natural Health and Stronger Faster Healthier contains
     the allergens milk and glucosamine derived from crab shells.

   * Daily Balance, Endurance Daily, Endurance In Race, and
     Hunger and Weight in Stronger Faster Healthier contains the
     allergens milk and coconut fat that is derived from
     coconuts.

Stronger Faster Healthier and Maine Natural Health products are
sold in the flavors of chocolate, natural, vanilla, lime, coconut
and pina colada and in the two lb, 10 oz and 30 gram sizes.
Products were sold since July 14, 2010, through August 31, 2012.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320713.htm

These products are distributed nationwide both directly to
consumer via the internet and through retailers.

As most customers know whey protein is derived from milk.  Maine
Natural Health shipped the whey protein products beginning
July 14, 2010, without stating: whey is derived from 'milk' on
their labels through a Company oversight.  This product recall
notice has been initiated because these products contain milk
ingredients but do not list on the labels that the ingredients are
derived from milk.  In addition, products sold under the name
Recovery (also labeled as Post Workout) and Rejuvenate contained
glucosamine derived from crab shells.  Products sold under the
name of Daily Balance, Endurance Daily, Endurance In Race, and
Hunger and Weight are made from coconut fat that is derived from
coconuts.

If the consumers are allergic or have extreme sensitivity to milk,
shellfish or nuts, they should discontinue use.  In addition, if
the consumers may have further distributed this product, the
Company asks to please identify these individuals and notify them
at once of this voluntary product recall.

To date, no consumer has reported any allergic or other negative
reaction to any of the products.  Please feel free to contact the
Company directly at the number given and also by e-mail.

   * FDArecall@mainenaturalhealth.com
   * 800-797.2021 x106

Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard
Time).

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.


MAYBELLINE: Faces Class Action Over "Super Stay" Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Golding, writing for New York Post, reports that Maybelline
was slapped with a class-action suit on Sept. 21 charging that its
lipstick and lip gloss don't last as long as promised.

America's leading cosmetics company is accused of making
"misleading, inaccurate and deceptive" claims regarding its "Super
Stay 14HR Lipstick"and "Super Stay 10HR Stain Gloss."

The Manhattan federal court filing says TV commercials,
promotional materials and the product's very names tout the $8.99
makeup's "super staying power" that "won't fade."

"Contrary to these representations . . . the Super Stay products
do not remain on the wearer's lips for the extended periods as
advertised," court papers say.

"Rather, the Super Stay products wear off and fade after only a
few hours of wear."

The suit seeks more than $5 million in damages for unjust
enrichment, breach of warranty and violations of various consumer-
protection laws.

It says "possibly thousands of individuals" who bought the makeup
are likely eligible to join the case.

The suit was filed on behalf of three women from New York, New
Jersey and Michigan, all of whom purchased various Super Stay
products earlier this year.

One of the plaintiffs is special-ed teacher Wanda Santa of Jackson
Heights, Queens, who bought a tube of Super Stay lipstick from a
local Rite Aid in July.

"The product is not exactly what they claim it to be," she said.
"You eat breakfast, and there goes your lipstick."

Ms. Santa, 51, says she's been using other Maybelline products
without complaint since she was 14.

"It's one of my favorite brands," she said.

"Maybelline let me down."

Ms. Santa, a divorced mom of three grown children, said she bought
the Super Stay specifically because of the claims on the label.

"You know how women are; we're very vain. We go with whatever
product lasts longer," she said.

"I love makeup. I'm all about looking good . . . if you look good,
you feel good. But this was not true."

A call for comment from Maybelline parent company L'Oreal wasn't
returned.


PALL CORP: Dec. 14 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 21 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK



         In re PALL CORP. SECURITIES  X    Master File No. 2:07-
         LITIGATION                   :     cv-03359-JS-GRB
                                      :
        This Document Relates To:     :    CLASS ACTION
                    -----------------------------------
           ALL ACTIONS                :
                                      :    SUMMARY NOTICE
                                      X


TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED PALL
     CORPORATION ("PALL") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD
     APRIL 20, 2007 THROUGH AUGUST 2, 2007, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
     PERIOD")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a
hearing will be held on December 14, 2012, at 11:30 a.m., before
the Honorable Joanna Seybert, United States District Judge,
Eastern District of New York, at the Alfonse M. D'Amato Federal
Building, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
Class Action for the sum of Twenty Two Million Five Hundred
Thousand United States Dollars (USD $22,500,000.00) in cash should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether, thereafter, this Class Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants as set forth in the Amended
Settlement Agreement dated May 16, 2012; (3) whether the Plan of
Distribution of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Class Action, together with interest thereon.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Pall common stock during
the period April 20, 2007 through August 2, 2007, inclusive, your
rights may be affected by this Class Action and the settlement
thereof.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Pall
Corp. Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o KCC Class
Action Services, PO Box 43093, Providence, RI 02940-3093, or by
downloading this information at
http://www.PallSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release form postmarked no later than December 13, 2012,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Class Action unless you
request to be excluded, in writing, to the above address,
postmarked by November 30, 2012.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than November 30, 2012, and
received by the following no later than November 30, 2012:

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff: Ellen Gusikoff Stewart ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA
92101

Counsel for Defendants: Lewis J. Liman CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED:  August 20, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


PATRIOT COAL: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP on Sept. 22 disclosed
that it has commenced a federal securities class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, on
behalf of purchasers of Patriot Coal Corporation shares between
October 21, 2010 and July 6, 2012.  Concerned shareholders who
would like more information about their rights and potential
remedies can contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at (800) 350-
6003, inquiry@robbinsumeda.com or via the shareholder information
form on the firm's Web site.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, certain of
Patriot Coal's officers issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission rules by failing to properly account for costs
associated with Court-ordered remediation obligations related to
the Company's selenium water treatment requirements.  In
particular, defendants improperly capitalized these costs instead
of recording them as expenses, thereby overstating the Company's
financial results.

In response to comments received from the SEC regarding the
Company's accounting for the court-ordered remediation costs,
defendants were forced to reveal that the Company's previously
issued consolidated financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 should no longer be relied
upon.  Moreover, defendants admitted that it was necessary to
restate the Company's previously issued consolidated financial
statements to accrue a liability and recognize a loss for the
estimated costs of installing the Court-ordered water treatment
facilities.

Further, the complaint alleges that the defendants were also
making false and misleading statements about the Company's
business health and continuing prospects.  In particular, the
defendants continuously touted that the Company's "operations are
performing well" and that the Company is positioned for "future
growth."  Then, on July 9, 2012, Patriot Coal shocked the market
when it announced that it and substantially all of its wholly
owned subsidiaries have filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  When the
true state of the Company's business health became public, Patriot
Coal's shares dropped 72%, from a closing pricing of $2.19 on
July 6, 2012, to a closing price of $0.61 at the end of the day on
July 9, 2012.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Patriot stock during the
Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the court no later than November 20, 2012.  To discuss your
shareholder rights, please contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo
at 800-350-6003, via e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com or via the
shareholder information form.

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com-- is a
securities litigation and shareholder rights law frim.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Court to Issue Class Cert. Decision on Nov. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lodge, writing for The Advocate, reports that state
regulators in Louisiana and a Pennsylvania financial services firm
did not verify the value of assets purported to support
multibillion-dollar investments of Houston promoter Robert Allen
Stanford before his indictment in 2009, an investor attorney
alleged on Sept. 21.

Phillip W. Preis, an attorney for 86 Stanford investors, told
state District Judge R. Michael Caldwell his clients should be
allowed to represent all other Louisiana victims of Mr. Stanford's
proven $7 billion in worldwide frauds in a class-action lawsuit.

That lawsuit is pending against the Louisiana Office of Financial
Institutions and SEI Investments Co., which provided
administrative services to Stanford Trust Co.

"OFI feigns ignorance" of Stanford's frauds, Mr. Preis argued.  He
said SEI, contracted by Stanford Trust for bookkeeping purposes,
should have verified the value of assets Mr. Stanford said
supported certificates of deposit in his Caribbean flagship,
Stanford International Bank.

Mr. Stanford, who maintains he is innocent, is serving a 110-year
term in federal prison for his conviction this year on charges
that he spent investors' money on himself until his bank scheme
collapsed.

"SEI was not involved in sales "of those certificates of deposit,
countered SEI's Philadelphia attorney, J. Gordon Cooney Jr.,
adding that "SEI did not make any false statements" to Stanford
investors.

Because SEI neither controlled Stanford Trust nor became the Baton
Rouge firm's partner, "The issue here is not one of duty,"
Mr. Cooney told Judge Caldwell.  "The duty to disclose is on
somebody who sells or offers to sell. If SEI is not the seller . .
. end of story."

Judge Caldwell should not grant class certification for the
plaintiffs in the Baton Rouge lawsuit, Mr. Cooney said.

Such certification could attract hundreds of other Stanford
victims.  If the investors were to win a judgment in the case, the
expanded number of plaintiffs could greatly inflate any cash
award.

"SEI has not violated Louisiana securities law," Mr. Cooney said.

OFI also did not ignore any obligation to verify the value of
Mr. Stanford's holdings, argued David M. Latham, an attorney for
the agency.  Mr. Latham earlier told the judge OFI has no such
obligation.  He, too, asked Judge Caldwell to deny class
certification for the investors' lawsuit.

Earlier in the day, Al Delpizzo, president of SEI Private Trust,
testified that he was operations manager for SEI's work on behalf
of Stanford Trust during the period covered by the investor
lawsuit.  That period was 2007 until February 2009, when federal
regulators seized all Stanford operations.

During questioning by SEI attorney Elizabeth H. Fay, Mr. Delpizzo
said the firm plugged customer account activity, provided by
Stanford, into a computer program used to spit out monthly and
quarterly reports.

"Did SEI ever have custody of the Stanford Trust customers'
CDs?"Fay asked.

"We did not," Mr. Delpizzo said.

Mr. Delpizzo also said SEI charged each CD holder $110 per month
for maintenance of his or her Stanford account.

Harry C. Stansbury, who took state retirement in 2004 after 29
years as deputy commissioner of securities for Louisiana, is an
attorney who served as an expert witness for SEI.

Mr. Stansbury, of New Iberia, testified that SEI had no obligation
to research the value of Stanford's purported assets.

"There's no duty for them to have asked any of those questions,"
Mr. Stansbury said.

"We've made a case of omission," Mr. Preis told Judge Caldwell.

Mr. Preis argued that both SEI and OFI had an obligation to
research the actual value of Stanford's claimed assets.

The Securities and Exchange Commission didn't protect Stanford
investors from loss of their savings to a program that was
fraudulent from its inception, Mr. Preis told Judge Caldwell.

The investor attorney added that the congressionally created
Securities Investor Protection Corp. has refused a directive from
the SEC to pay up to $500,000 of each individual Stanford
investor's losses.

Mr. Preis added that many Stanford investors in Louisiana were
retirees who now find themselves desperate for cash to carry them
through old age.

Those retirees don't have time to wait years for resolution of
their claims, Mr. Preis said, before invoking the adage: "Justice
delayed is justice denied."

Judge Caldwell gave all parties deadlines for filing post-hearing
briefs.  The judge said he would render a decision on class
certification by Nov. 30.


SHORT ELLIOT: Judge Certifies Sewer Line Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Rick Olivo, writing for The Ashland Daily Press, reports that more
than 40 property owners whose existing six-inch sewer laterals
were improperly connected to four-inch service lines leading to a
new main sewer line on Lake Shore Drive in Ashland have been
brought in as class action members of a lawsuit filed by an
Ashland businessman.

Scott Bretting, owner of the River Rock Inn and Bair Shop, whose
business suffered a sewer backup in 2009, originally filed the
lawsuit on behalf of his companies, Bayfront LLC and MJH
Properties LLC shortly after the sewer rebuild on Lake Shore Drive
was completed.

The certification of the suit as a class action was made by
Ashland County Circuit Court Judge Robert E. Eaton on Sep. 18.
In his memorandum opinion and order, obtained by The Daily Press
on Sept. 20, Judge Eaton quoted state law that says lawsuits may
be certified to class action status when "parties are very
numerous and it may be impracticable to bring them all before the
Court."

Under a class action suit, one or more of the plaintiffs may file
suit "for the benefit of the whole."

"There is a common or general interest shared by all members of
the proposed class," Judge Eaton wrote in his opinion.  "Each
member of the proposed class has a non-conforming sewer
connection.  These connections must be fixed.  The named parties
fairly represent the interest involved.  Although the same fix may
not be required on all properties, a similar problem is presented
on each property." Judge Eaton noted all of the proposed class
members had an interest in having their sewer connections fixed
and that it would be unwieldy to try all of the potential cases
individually.

"It is contrary to the interests of the public to have multiple
lawsuits, spread out possibly over a number of years to resolve
this common issue," he said.

Representing Mr. Bretting is Duluth Attorney Jerome D. Feriancek,
who said on Sept. 21 that the lawsuit class would represent all of
the affected property owners.

"There is a class created that would include all parties who have
the same or similar problems that everyone is experiencing with
the city sewer issue," he said.

Mr. Feriancek said membership in that class is automatic and does
not require the class members to file their own lawsuits.  He said
that creation of a class in a class action suit means that the
originator of the suit can speak for similarly affected
individuals.

"Those individuals are now part of the class for which we, who
represent them will be seeking compensation from the insurance
companies who are representing the architect and the contractor
who we believe caused their problems," he said.

Those parties are Short, Elliot and Hendrickson, who designed the
sewer system and Ruben, Johnson and Son and RJS Construction,
which installed the sewer lines.

Mr. Feriancek said he could not foresee a situation where anyone
involved as a class member would not want to have their sewer
issues resolved and resolved correctly.

"We will soon be in contact with all known or potentially affected
property owners, now that the class has been created," he said.
Mr. Feriancek said members of the class could opt out of the suit
and pursue their own course of action, but he said he considered
that unlikely.

"Given the effort the amount of effort we have put into this, the
amount of experts that we have and the understanding we have with
respect to it, I can't envision that anybody would want to take on
the insurance companies on their own," he said.

Mr. Ferancek said the City of Ashland was not named in the lawsuit
because the suit sought to address the problems through the people
who actually did the work and installation on the project.
"We are looking for their insurance carriers to step up and take
care of the property owners, not the taxpayers of Ashland," he
said.

Mr. Feriancek said that no date has been set for court proceedings
to begin, and again noted that property owners affected by the
incorrect sewer installations would be contacted in the near
future.  He said those with questions could contact him at his
Duluth office by phone at 218-722-0073.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bretting said on Sept. 21 that while city
government was not involved in the lawsuit filed by him, it still
bears considerable responsibility in the matter.  He said that
included the mayor and city council as well as members of city
staff.

He said that filing the suit has cost him greatly both in his
business and personally; but that it was something he said he had
to do to prevent what he called a "Band-Aid" fix.

Mr. Bretting said the only repairs that were possible to bring the
improper connections into compliance with the state code was
either to dig up the highway and install six inch connections back
to the property owners laterals, something he recommended against
or to remove the six inch lines at the home or business and
replace them with new four inch lines to make the entire
connection the same width.

He said the lawsuit came about because the city failed to exercise
its responsibility to protect taxpayers.

"The buck should have stopped at the city.  It should have stopped
there where they should have taken responsibility to correct the
problem and to correct it in the right fashion with public input,
and to correct it to the point of not being shortsighted or making
a short-term fix," he said.

He said city officials have cast a blind eye to the problem.
"The city should have represented the people in the community," he
said.  They've chosen to make the people the villains in fast-
tracking a solution that is not a corrective action."

Mr. Bretting said the failure of the city to take what he said was
the proper corrective action would affect the entire city.
"This is going to affect everybody in this community, people
should be up in arms about it. Nobody has been held account for
it," he said.  "It is sad that people in this community don't have
a strong voice about what is happening here."

Meanwhile, Ashland Mayor William Whalen denied that his
administration, the council or city officials have conspired to
cover up the issue or to produce a defective solution to the sewer
connection issue.

"If some of those things were true about the city and how we
handled the project, I would have expected that we would be part
of the lawsuit, we would have had some negligence there," Mayor
Whalen said on Spt. 21.  "Apparently that's not the case; we are
not part of the lawsuit.  You can say quite a few things, but
until you prove it in court, it really doesn't count for
anything."

Mr. Bretting said his only goal was to see the issue corrected.
"That is all I have wanted from the word go, and I have spent a
lot of time and money at that.  This is not a problem that I have
created."


SUNLAND INC: Recalls Almond Butter and Peanut Butter Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunland, Inc. announced a voluntary limited recall of its Almond
Butter and Peanut Butter products, manufactured between May 1,
2012, and September 24, 2012, because these products may be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and those with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The voluntary recall was initiated after learning that between
June 11, 2012, and September 2, 2012, twenty-nine people reported
Salmonella Bredeney PFGE matching illnesses in approximately 18
states, including Washington, California, Arizona, Texas,
Louisiana, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Virginia,
Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland, according to a report issued
on September 22, 2012, by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).

"There is nothing more important to us than the health and safety
of our customers, particularly the many families who enjoy our
peanut butter everyday.  While FDA, CDC, and State Health Agencies
investigate to confirm the cause of illnesses reported, as a
precautionary step, we have decided to voluntarily recall our
Almond Butter and Peanut Butter products manufactured between May
1, 2012 and September 24, 2012.  If you purchased these products,
do not eat them. Please return the product to your supermarket for
a full refund or dispose of it."  This is the statement of Jimmie
Shearer, President and CEO of Sunland, Inc.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).  No other Sunland products are
affected by this recall.

The products were distributed nationally to numerous large
supermarket chains.

The specifics of the affected products are as follows: The UPC is
located on the side of the jar's label below the bar code.

UPC            Type of product                         Jar Size
---            ---------------                         --------
8523902334     Archer Farms Creamy Almond Butter         16 oz

8523902333     Archer Farms Peanut Butter with Flax      16 oz
                Seeds

3377610090     Earth Balance Natural Almond Butter       16 oz
                and Flaxseed

051379022518   fresh & easy Crunchy Almond Butter        16 oz

20003357       fresh & easy Organic Creamy Peanut        16 oz
                Butter with Sea Salt

20003364       fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter         18 oz

20003388       fresh & easy Organic Crunchy Peanut       16 oz
                Butter with Sea Salt

051379026431   fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter         40 oz

20003395       fresh & easy Creamy Almond Butter         16 oz

20003357       fresh & easy Organic Creamy Peanut        16 oz
                Butter with Sea Salt

20003371       fresh & easy Crunchy Peanut Butter        18 oz

2060140048     heinen's All Natural Peanut Butter,       16 oz
                Creamy

2060140047     heinen's All Natural Peanut Butter,       16 oz
                Crunchy

2060140046     heinen's Organic Peanut Butter, Creamy    16 oz

2060140045     heinen's Organic Peanut Butter, Crunchy   16 oz

3307915073     Joseph's Salt-Free No Sugar Added New     18 oz
                Crunchy Valencia Peanut Butter

3307915072     Joseph's Salt-Free No Sugar Added New     18 oz
                Creamy Valencia Peanut Butter

910053         Natural Value Creamy Peanut Butter/Salt   15 lb

910060         Natural Value Crunchy Peanut Butter/Salt  15 lb

5859500020     Naturally More Organic Peanut Butter      16 oz

5859500019     Naturally More Almond Butter              16 oz

5859500033     Naturally More Peanut Butter Crunchy      16 oz

5859500055     Naturally More Peanut Butter,             26 oz
                Gluten Free Vegan

5859500050     Naturally More Peanut Butter,             16 oz
                Gluten Free Vegan

7989311202     Open Nature Crunchy Peanut Butter         16 oz

7989311201     Open Nature Old Fashioned Creamy          16 oz
                Peanut Butter

5855200003     Peanut Power Butter, Original Formula     16 oz

5855200007     Peanut Power Butter, Original Formula      4 lb

4792100442     Serious Food, Silly Prices Almond         12 oz
                Butter Creamy

4792100439     Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic        16 oz
                No-Stir Peanut Butter, Crunchy

4792100438     Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic        16 oz
                No-Stir Peanut Butter, Creamy

4792100436     Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic        16 oz
                Peanut Butter, Creamy

4792100435     Serious Food, Silly Prices,               16 oz
                No-Stir Peanut Butter, Crunchy

4792100434     Serious Food, Silly Prices,               16 oz
                No-Stir Peanut Butter, Creamy

4792100432     Serious Food, Silly Prices,               16 oz
                Peanut Butter, Creamy

8506000004     Snaclite Power PB                         16 oz

7487500334     Sprouts Farmers Market Creamy             16 oz
                Peanut Butter, No Salt

7487500335     Sprouts Farmers Market Crunchy            16 oz
                Peanut Butter, No Salt

7487500336     Sprout's Creamy Peanut Butter             16 oz

7487500337     Sprout's Crunchy Peanut Butter            16 oz

7487500433     Sprout's Creamy Almond Butter             16 oz

7487500434     Sprout's Crunchy Almond Butter            16 oz

7487500431     Sprout's Creamy Peanut Butter             16 oz

4868787906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Crunchy     16 oz
                Valencia No Stir

4868786906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy      16 oz
                Valencia No Stir

4868722906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy      16 oz
                Salt Free Valencia

4868709915     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter with         40 oz
                Sea Salt

4868726910     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              12 oz

4868785920     Sunland Valencia Peanut Butter            36 oz

062725         Sunland Dark Roast Creamy Peanut Butter   40 lb

4868730725     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter      40 lb

029725         Sunland Pecan Deluxe Creamy               40 lb
                Peanut Butter

028725         Sunland Pecan Deluxe Crunchy              40 lb
                Peanut Butter

26570          Sunland Creamy Dark Roast Peanut Butter  500 lb

4868726909     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              18 oz

4868767909     Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut Butter      18 oz

4868785920     Sunland Valencia Peanut Sauce             36 oz

22725          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              40 lb

22704          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter               5 lb

4868722715     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter      40 lb

4868721722     Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter             15 lb

48687009704    Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut Butter       5 lb

4868790301     Sunland Creamy Natural Stabilizer         50 lb
                Peanut Butter

87725          Sunland Crunchy Natural Stabilized        40 lb
                Peanut Butter

4868786724     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              35 lb

4868786704     Sunland Creamy No Stir Peanut Butter       5 lb

4868784301     Sunland Extra Stabilized Organic          50 lb
                Creamy Peanut Butter

21705          Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter             40 lb

25704          Crunchy Sugar Butter                       5 lb

26704          Creamy Sugar Butter                        5 lb

072704         Sunland Almond Butter                      5 lb

003050         Dogsbutter RUC with Flax PB               16 oz

4868772906     Sunland Natural Almond Butter,            16 oz
                Creamy Roasted Almond

00989275       Trader Joe's Valencia Peanut Butter
                with Roasted Flaxseeds, Crunchy and Salted

00940795       Trader Joe's Almond Butter with           16 oz
                Roasted Flaxseeds, Crunchy & Salted

Best-If-Used-By Dates: This recall applies to the above products
with Best-If-Used-By Dates between May 1, 2013, and September 24,
2013.  (Stamped on the side of the jar's label below the lid of
the jar.)

Consumers who have purchased Sunland's Almond Butter and Peanut
Butter products with the above UPC and Best-If-Used-By-Dates are
urged to discard the product immediately.  Consumers can contact
the company at 1-866-837-1018, which is operational 24 hours a
day, for information on the recall.  In addition, a consumer
services representative is available Monday through Friday between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time at (575) 356-
6638.

Media representatives should contact Ms. Katalin Coburn, Vice
President for Media Relations, Sunland, Inc., at 805-796-3368.


TORCHMARK CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Kennedy" Suit Denied in July
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit in Arkansas against
Torchmark Corporation's subsidiary was denied in July 2012,
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.

Torchmark subsidiary, United American Insurance Company, was named
as defendant in purported class action litigation filed on May 31,
2011, in Cross County Arkansas Circuit Court (Kennedy v. United
American Insurance Company (Case # CV-2011-84-5).  In the
litigation, filed on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of
owners of certain limited hospital and surgical expense benefit
policies from United American, the plaintiff alleged that United
American breached the policy by failing and/or refusing to pay
benefits for the total number of days an insured is confined to a
hospital and by limiting payment to the number of days for which
there are incurred hospital room charges despite policy
obligations allegedly requiring United American to pay benefits
for services and supplies in addition to room charges.  Claims for
unjust enrichment, breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay
first party benefits, breach of the implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing, bad faith, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act were initially asserted.  The plaintiff sought
declaratory relief, restitution and/or monetary damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorneys fees.  In September 2011, the
plaintiff dismissed all causes of action, except for the breach of
contract claim.

On November 14, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint based
upon the same facts asserting only breach of contract claims on
behalf of a purported nationwide restitution/monetary relief class
or, in the first alternative, a purported multiple-state
restitution/monetary relief class or, in the second alternative, a
purported Arkansas statewide restitution/monetary relief class.
Restitution and/or monetary relief for United American's alleged
breach of contract, costs, attorney's fees and expenses, expert
fees, prejudgment interest and other relief are being sought on
behalf of the plaintiff and members of the class.  On December 7,
2011, United American filed a Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's
amended complaint, which the Court subsequently denied on
July 24, 2012.  Discovery is ongoing.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets
primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and
annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S.  The
company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the
insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and
investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal From "Hoover" Suit Ruling Pending in S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by Torchmark Corporation's subsidiary from a
ruling denying the exercise the arbitration clauses in a class
action lawsuit filed in California is now before the Supreme
Court, 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 September 23, 2009, purported class action litigation was filed
against the Company's subsidiary, American Income Life Insurance
Company, in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
California (Hoover v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case
No. CIVRS 910758).  The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents
of American Income who are suing on behalf of all current and
former American Income sales agents in California for the four
year period prior to the filing of this litigation, have asserted
that American Income's agents are employees, not independent
contractors as they are classified by American Income.  They
alleged failure to indemnify and reimburse for business expenses
as well as failure to pay all wages due upon termination in
violation of the California Labor Code; failure to pay minimum
wages in violation of the California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order No. 4-2001, originally and as amended; and unfair
business practices in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.  They sought, in a jury
trial, reimbursement for business expenses and indemnification for
losses, payment of minimum wages for their training periods,
payment of moneys due immediately upon termination under the
California Labor Code, disgorgement of profits resulting from
unfair and unlawful business practices, and injunctive relief
granting employee status to all of American Income's California
agents.  On October 29, 2009, American Income filed a motion
seeking to remove this litigation from the Superior Court in San
Bernadino County to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division.  The U.S. District Court
remanded the case without prejudice to the Superior Court and
denied American Income's motion to dismiss on December 15, 2009.
On January 19, 2010, American Income filed a motion to dismiss
which was denied by the Superior Court after a hearing held on
March 16, 2010.  On September 20, 2010, American Income again
filed a motion to remove the case to federal court based upon
jurisdictional grounds that had not been available previously.
American Income's motion was not successful, however, and the case
was remanded back to Superior Court.  On January 12, 2011, the
Superior Court denied American Income's motion to exercise the
arbitration clauses of those agent contracts that contain them.
American Income appealed that denial to the Court of Appeal.

On May 16, 2012, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's
denial.  American Income has petitioned the California Supreme
Court for a review of this decision.  Discovery is proceeding.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets
primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and
annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S.  The
company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the
insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and
investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Implements Terms of "Smith" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation's subsidiary is now implementing the terms
and provisions of its court-approved settlement of the class
action lawsuit styled Smith and Ivie v. Collingsworth, et al.,
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 Company's subsidiary, United American Insurance Company, was
named as a defendant in purported class action litigation
originally filed on September 16, 2004, in the Circuit Court of
Saline County, Arkansas, on behalf of the Arkansas purchasers of
association group health insurance policies or certificates issued
by United American through Heartland Alliance of America
Association and Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc. (Smith and Ivie v.
Collingsworth, et al., CV2004-742-2).  The plaintiffs asserted
claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, common law
liability for nondisclosure, breach of fiduciary duties, civil
conspiracy, unjust enrichment, violation of the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, and violation of Arkansas law and the rules
and regulations of the Arkansas Insurance Department.
Declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as actual
and punitive damages were sought by the plaintiffs.  On
September 7, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
assert a nation-wide class, defined as all United American
insureds who simultaneously purchased both an individual Hospital
and Surgical Expense health insurance policy (Form HSXC) and an
individual supplemental term life insurance policy (Form RT85)
from Farm & Ranch through Heartland.  Defendants removed this
litigation to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas (No. 4:05-cv-1382) but that Court remanded
the litigation back to the state court on plaintiffs' motion.

On July 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
asserting a class defined as "all persons who, between January
1998 and the present, were residents of Arkansas, California,
Georgia, Louisiana or Texas, and purchased through Farm & Ranch:
(1) a health insurance policy issued by United American known as
Flexguard Plan, CS-1 Common Sense Plan, GSP Good Sense Plan, SHXC
Surgical & Hospital Expense Policy, HSXC 7500 Hospital/Surgical
Plan, MMXC Hospital/Surgical Plan, SMXC Surgical/Medical Expense
Plan and/or SSXC Surgical Safeguard Expense Plan, and (ii) a
membership in Heartland."  Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach
of contract, violation of Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and/or applicable consumer protection laws in other states, unjust
enrichment, and common law fraud.  Plaintiffs sought actual,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, equitable and
declaratory relief.  On
September 8, 2009, the Saline County Circuit Court granted the
plaintiff's motion certifying the class.  On October 7, 2009,
United American filed its notice of appeal of the class
certification and subsequently filed its appellate brief on April
8, 2010.  On December 2, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed
the lower court's decision to certify the class.

On January 6, 2012, the parties agreed in principal to settle the
case.  On January 11, 2012, the Court ordered the continuation of
the trial, previously set to commence on January 17, 2012, pending
notice to the class and the Court's consideration of the agreed-
upon settlement.  On April 4, 2012, the parties executed a
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Release, effectuating their
prior agreement as to the material settlement terms, and the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement on April 9, 2012.  A
fairness hearing was held on June 29, 2012, and the Court approved
and entered the Settlement Order and Final Judgment.  United
American is now implementing the terms and provisions of such
settlement.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets
primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and
annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S.  The
company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the
insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and
investments, which supports the product lines.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Awaits Rulings in Stanford-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation is awaiting court decisions on certain
pending motions in the class action lawsuit related to the
collapse of the Stanford Financial Group, 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.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank
(TNB), has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to
the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a
purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23,
2009, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif
Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze,
Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with the Company as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial
Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged
conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the
asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did
not quantify damages.  In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed
to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the
United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court
in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford
related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, and the motions to dismiss have been fully
briefed by all parties.  The court has not yet ruled on the
defendants' motions to dismiss.  In August 2010, the court
authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford
Investors Committee to represent the interests of Stanford
investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions
for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In December 2011, the
Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a motion to intervene
in this action.  In January 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
join the Official Stanford Investors Committee as an additional
plaintiff in this action.  Trustmark opposed these two motions.
The court has not yet ruled on the intervention and joinder
motions.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14,
2009, in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana,
individually by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith,
Christine Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB
(misnamed as Trust National Bank) and other individuals and
entities not affiliated with the Company as defendants.  The
complaint seeks to recover the money lost by these individual
plaintiffs as a result of the collapse of  the Stanford Financial
Group (in addition to other damages) under various theories and
causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform
fiduciary, securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does
not quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.
In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case.  TNB filed a motion to lift the
stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and
have been previously reported in the press and disclosed by
Trustmark.

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Unit Continues to Face Suits Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation's subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank,
continues to face class action lawsuits over overdraft fees,
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.

TNB is the defendant in two putative class actions challenging
TNB's practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds"
fees charged by TNB in connection with customer use of debit
cards, including TNB's order of processing transactions, notices
and calculations of charges, and calculations of fees.  Kathy D.
White v. TNB was filed in Tennessee state court in Memphis,
Tennessee and was removed on June 19, 2012, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.  (Plaintiff
Kathy White had filed an earlier, virtually identical action that
was voluntarily dismissed.)  Leroy Jenkins v. TNB was filed on
June 4, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.  The White and Jenkins pleadings are
matters of public record in the files of the courts.  In both
cases, the plaintiffs purport to represent classes of similarly-
situated customers of TNB.  The White complaint asserts claims of
breach of contract, breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The Jenkins complaint includes similar allegations as well as
federal-law claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  Each of these
complaints seeks the imposition of a constructive trust and
unquantified damages.  These complaints are largely patterned
after similar lawsuits that have been filed against other banks
across the country.

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: "GCERS" Securities Suit vs. PSI Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Garden
City Employees' Retirement System v. PSI was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against
Universal Health Services, Inc.'s subsidiary, Psychiatric
Solutions Inc., and the former directors in 2009 alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  The Company says it
intends to defend the case vigorously.

Should the Company be deemed liable in this matter, the Company
believes it would be entitled to commercial insurance recoveries
for amounts paid by it, subject to certain limitations and
deductibles.  Included in the Company's consolidated balance
sheets as of June 30, 2012, and December 31, 2011, is an estimated
reserve (current liability) and corresponding commercial insurance
recovery (current asset) which did not have a material impact on
the Company's financial statements.  Although the Company believes
the commercial insurance recoveries are adequate to satisfy
potential liability and related legal fees in connection with this
matter, the Company can provide no assurance that the ultimate
liability will not exceed the commercial insurance recoveries
which would make it liable for the excess.

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.


WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gender Bias Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Gullo and Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. must face an 11-year-old gender
discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of workers in California
after the U.S. Supreme Court barred a lawsuit representing Wal-
Mart employees nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco said in an
order on Sept. 21 that the plaintiffs have proposed a reduced
class size to between one and several hundred thousand members.

The reduced class "could be certified," Judge Breyer wrote, if it
made a "showing consistent with the Supreme Court's decision" that
a nationwide class action isn't appropriate.

Judge Breyer rejected Wal-Mart's bid to dismiss the case, an
argument made on grounds that even the reduced class size suffers
from the problems that led the Supreme Court to bar a nationwide
class certification, according to the ruling.  Judge Breyer said
he "reserves for later determination" if the class should be
certified.

The sex-bias case was originally filed in San Francisco in 2001 by
women at a handful of Wal-Mart stores (WMT) claiming they were
denied pay and promotions.  It was eventually certified as a class
action, or group lawsuit covering more than 1 million employees
after lawyers for the workers convinced a judge that Wal-Mart's
employment policies meant that women at hundreds of stores across
the country were subject to similar treatment.

Class certification provides leverage to plaintiffs in financing
the lawsuit and negotiating a settlement.  Wal-Mart appealed the
certification, saying hiring and promotion decisions were made by
local managers and each claim of discrimination should be handled
in individual lawsuits.

                          Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled the workers didn't provide convincing
proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy.
It threw out class certification and sent the case back to the
lower court.

Worker's attorneys refiled the lawsuit in October as a group case
representing California store employees, saying that while the
Supreme Court blocked a nationwide class, the court's ruling
allowed them to show evidence of bias in pay and promotion against
tens of thousands of women who worked in California.  They filed a
separate lawsuit against Wal-Mart in Dallas on behalf of women who
worked at stores in Texas.

"We have maintained all along that the Supreme Court's decision
did not preclude us from seeking justice for the women of Wal-
Mart," said plaintiffs' lead counsel Brad Seligman of the Impact
Fund, Berkeley, Calif., in a statement.

At a hearing in June in the California case, Judge Breyer said he
was "seriously concerned" that the plaintiffs' lawyers didn't have
the evidence to support claims of statewide discrimination.

On Sept. 21, Judge Breyer set a hearing for Feb. 15 to consider
whether the women can sue as a group.

The California case is Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 01- cv-
02252, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Supreme Court case is Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 10-00277,
U.S. Supreme Court (Washington).


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks Reversal of Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Whirlpool Corp. has
asked the U.S. Supreme Court to toss the certification of a
consumer class action alleging its washing machines accumulate
pungent mold, saying the Sixth Circuit decision upholding
certification ran counter to the court's ruling in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

In a petition filed with the high court Sept. 14, Whirlpool claims
that because at least 97 percent of all washer buyers never
experienced mold problems, the Sixth Circuit erred in upholding
class certification in light of the Supreme Court's Dukes ruling.


                           *********

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  * * *