CAR_Public/121001.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 1, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 194

                             Headlines

ALBERTVILLE, AL: Faces Class Action Over Restitution Fee Policy
AMBER GOLD: Directors Face Investor Class Action
AUSTRALIA: CFA Fiskville Faces Class Action Over Toxic Chemicals
BANK OF AMERICA: 1st Cir. Upholds Borrowers' Class Action Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Rejects Bid to Dismiss Discrimination Suit

BIG LOTS: Recalls 6,900 Garden Swings Due to Fall Hazard
CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
CARROLL ELECTRIC: APSC Dismisses Bylaw Violation Class Action
CHATTANOOGA BAKERY: Recalls Peanut Butter Crunch Products
CHATTANOOGA BILLIARD: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Lawyer

CITIGROUP INC: Must Face Breach of Contract Claims in Class Action
DANONE INC: Canadians Eligible for Class Action Settlement
DIAGEO: Lawyers Invite More Residents to Join "Whisky Fungus" Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Faces Class Action Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit

FOXBOROUGH, MA: Police Sued Over Protective Custody Policy
FRESH & EASY: Recalls Almond, Cashew, Peanut and Tahini Butters
GRETCHEN'S SHOEBOX: Cinnamon Apple & Almond Butter Sandwiches
HAYASTAN INDUSTRIES: Bircham Bend Residents File Class Action
HEALTH NET: Continues to Defend Suits Over Hard Disk Drive Loss

HUGOTON ROYALTY: Hearing on "Fankhouser" Suit Deal on Oct. 10
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO's Appeals From Class Cert. Orders Pending
INNERTHRIVE LLC: Sued Over False Claims on Dietary Supplements
INTL FCSTONE: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
INTL FCSTONE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit

KADANT INC: Accrued $2.577MM for Payment of Unit's Settlement
MAKOWSKI'S REAL: Recalls 1,305 Lbs. of Cooked Bratwurst Products
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Still Defends Suit Over 401(k) Plan in Missouri
ORLEANS PARISH PRISON: DOJ Files Request to Join Jail Class Action
PATRIOT COAL: Robbins Umeda Corrects Class Action Release

SCOTTISH WATER: Judiciary Blocks Class Action Attempt
SEQWATER: Flood Victims' Lawyers to Press Ahead with Suit
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend "Nishimura" Suit
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Product Suits Pending in Ocean Pointe
STATER BROS: Settlement of "Martinez" Suit Approved in July

STATER BROS: Still Awaits Approval of "Lunsford" Suit Settlement
STEVEN MADDEN: Awaits Okay of $10-Mil. "Ellison" Suit Settlement
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Faces Class Action Over Redistricting
UGI CORP: "Swigers" Class Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
WESTERN LIBERTY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Sale Price

WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Variety of Peanut Butter Cookies
WMI HOLDINGS: Hearing on Settlement of Suit vs. WMMRC on Nov. 27
XL FOODS: FSIS Updates Health Alert for Imported Canadian Beef
XL GROUP: Objectors Appeal Antitrust Suit Settlement Approval


                          *********

ALBERTVILLE, AL: Faces Class Action Over Restitution Fee Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Summers, writing for The Sand Mountain Reporter, reports
that an Albertville man claims the city profits unfairly from a
$500 city court restitution fee.

In a federal lawsuit filed by Martin Weinberg, of Shannon, and
Abbey Herrin, of Birmingham, the attorneys seek to have
Albertville's current policy of collecting a $500 restitution fee
on all crimes declared unconstitutional.

In addition, Mr. Weinberg seeks monetary damages, a refund of all
restitution fees paid to the city and payment of attorney's fees
for his client Jarrod Benefield.

In the suit, Mr. Benefield, of Albertville, claims he was pulled
over on Nov. 25, 2010, and arrested for driving under the
influence by Albertville Police officers.

During the course of his driving, he claims he did not cause any
type of accident nor cause any property damage.

During an October 2011 appearance in Albertville Municipal Court,
Mr. Benefield was offered a deferred prosecution on the DUI charge
that included a $500 restitution fee.

Deferred prosecution generally allows the person charged with a
crime to agree to pay certain fees and participate in certain
programs in exchange for a dismissal of the charges upon
successful fulfillment of the terms.

However, Mr. Benefield argues he was not given an opportunity for
a restitution hearing to determine the actual loss to the city and
the city never asserted any basis for assessing restitution.
In Mr. Benefield's deferred prosecution agreement, he was required
to pay $189 in court costs, the $500 in restitution to the city of
Albertville, and complete a defensive driving class, community
service and a county Court Referral Substance Abuse Program.

Mr. Benefield says he is "underemployed" as a part-time waiter and
has not been able to pay the $500 restitution.  He now faces jail
time if he cannot pay the money by an Oct. 26 court hearing.

Mr. Weinberg seeks to have the lawsuit certified as a class action
to include others facing Mr. Benefield's situation.

"We feel like we have a large class of people that were similarly
situated and harmed by the Albertville Municipal Court's policy,"
Mr. Weinberg said.

"By them calling it a restitution, it sets a lot of things into
play.

"We feel there are many more people out there that will be
affected over the years if this practice is allowed to continue."

In the filed lawsuit, "the city charges this 'restitution' as a
means of increasing its revenue stream, without regard to the
city's actual damages, causation, of the ability of plaintiff to
pay it."

The restitution amount is levied on all deferred prosecution
cases, regardless of the crime or if the city suffered any
damages, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Weinberg said there has been some confusion about the lawsuit.
He is challenging the restitution, not the deferred prosecution
program.

"The court is charging restitution without any kind of hearing,
and they are setting that restitution as an arbitrary amount,"
Mr. Weinberg said.

"We want to know why they are doing it in this particular way."

The lawsuit names Mayor Lindsey Lyons, Albertville Municipal Court
Judge James D. Walker, Albertville Court Clerk Crissy Wright, and
Albertville Magistrates Ashlie Waldrop and Monica Payne as
defendants.

Albertville City Attorney Jimmy Carnes declined comment on
Sept. 21 because he is prohibited from discussing pending
litigation.


AMBER GOLD: Directors Face Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Polskie Radio S.A. reports that a new legal action is being
prepared on behalf of a group of clients of collapsed lender and
investment firm Amber Gold, amid fears that the assets of the
company will be insufficient to cover their losses.

The new lawsuit, which pertains to about 1000 clients of the
Gdansk-based company, will seek to secure the private assets of
the directors of Amber Gold, Marcin P. (name withheld under Polish
law) and his wife Kataryzna P.

The clients are seeking about PLN70 million (EUR16.8 million).

The Warsaw law firm in question, Chalas i Wspolnici (Chalas and
Partners), had initially filed an action against the company on
August 31.

However, on September 20, a district court in Gdansk formally
declared the bankruptcy of Amber Gold, and the company went into
receivership.

This made the initial suit filed by the Warsaw firm invalid,
although individual clients may now apply for compensation
directly to the receiver.

However, according to Pawel Borowski from Chalas and Partners, the
company's assets will not suffice.

"I estimate that on the basis of information in the media, that
source will enable our clients to obtain a refund of about a tenth
of what they are owed by Amber Gold," he told the Polish Press
Agency.

However, Mr. Borowski hopes that the new lawsuit will alter this
state of affairs.

It has been estimated that the assets of Amber Gold are between
PLN100 and PLN150 million (EUR24.1 to EUR36.1 million), yet claims
against the company are expected to reach PLN366 million (EUR88.2
million).

Assets of Amber Gold include 11 properties, 140 cars, four buses,
IT equipment and furniture, complemented by quantities of money
and gold, silver and platinum.

Amber Gold was founded in 2009, promising high returns on
investment in gold.

Founder Marcin P. was arrested on August 30, standing accused of
cheating clients out of millions.

On September 12, a district court in Gdansk denied Marcin P. bail,
and the defendant could face up to fifteen years in prison.


AUSTRALIA: CFA Fiskville Faces Class Action Over Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Rollason, writing for ABC Ballarat, reports that people
and their families exposed to dangerous chemicals at the Country
Fire Authority's Fiskville training center have signed up to a
potential class action. Twenty people from the Ballarat region are
seeking justice for diseases believed to be caused by the
facility.

Warren Pinkerton lost his father four years ago to multiple
myeloma cancer; he had worked as a vehicle trainer at Fiskville
until he was forced to retire due to illness.

His father didn't find out what caused his cancer before he died,
but Mr. Pinkerton suspects that chemicals his father was exposed
to in burn offs attributed to the disease.

"For my father Fiskville was a lifestyle not a job.  He retired
with heart disease at 44 and underwent a five bypass operation.
From this his health deteriorated over the years until he
eventually had a massive heart attack due to myeloma cancer."

Mr. Pinkerton says he feels robbed by the loss of his father.
"I think he would be very proud of me, for standing up for him.
For the amount of work that these blokes did for the community I
feel the CFA should at least say sorry to the families that are
left."

Lawyer Andrew Baker from Slater and Gordon says there are no
formal legal proceedings in process yet.

"People want an acknowledgement from the CFA that the chemicals
that were stored, burned and used at Fiskville can be linked to
the cancers and other illnesses people are suffering now," he
says.

"Other people are also concerned with making sure their medical
expenses are looked after as time goes on and their care needs
increase.  Those with terminal cancers are also looking to make
sure their families can be looked after."

Although he has not heard formally from the CFA, it now says its
training facilities are safe.

"Their position of the standards were different back then and it's
a very different organization today, they don't think it's
appropriate to judge their conduct back then by today's industrial
standards.

"Our response is that it was very foreseeable even back then that
burning chemicals of this nature was likely to have adverse
effects on people's health."

A recent investigation by the CFA does not examine the specifics
of what the chemicals were and what was done with them on site.
It fails to acknowledge illnesses associated with its training
facility.

One-third of Mr. Baker's Fiskville clients have been diagnosed
with cancer, which includes people who have lived on the grounds,
volunteered or lived nearby the center.

He hopes the firm won't need to undertake legal action.

"It is preferable to solve this case without the need to engage in
court proceedings and we're hoping the state government and CFA
will be willing to talk."

Last year the Federal Parliament set up a Senate inquiry to look
at the link between exposure to chemicals and fire-fighting and
the causation of occupational cancer.

Based on evidence and international studies, it concluded that
there is a direct link, and as a result the Federal Government
enacted legislation which covers federal fire-fighters who have
been affected.

United Firefighters Union secretary Peter Marshall says the
Victorian Government should do the same.

"I do not accept that the practices at the time have moved on to
an extent where the CFA can wipe their hands and say they have
done everything possible.  If something is foreseeable it is
preventable.

"What we're asking for is for Mr. Ryan and Mr. Baillieu to support
the same legislation and take into account these people that have
been affected at Fiskville."


BANK OF AMERICA: 1st Cir. Upholds Borrowers' Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nichols Kaster, PLLP disclosed that on September 21, 2012, the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a pair
of decisions upholding claims by borrowers in two class action
lawsuits against Bank of America.  The lawsuits allege that Bank
of America breached its mortgage contracts and acted in bad faith
by forcing borrowers to maintain excessive amounts of flood
insurance, by purchasing backdated flood insurance policies at
borrowers' expense, and by purchasing such coverage through
affiliated entities so that its affiliates could earn a kickback.

In these decisions, the Appeals Court struck down two earlier
district court opinions that had dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.
In the first case, captioned Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing
d/b/a Bank of America, N.A. (Case No. 11-2010), the Court upheld
claims that Bank of America breached the terms of FHA mortgages
and violated U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines
by requiring borrowers to carry flood insurance in excess of the
amount they owed on their loans.  The Court found "strong support"
for these claims in the mortgage contract, and noted that the
mission of the FHA loan program is to make home ownership
"affordable."

In the second case, captioned Lass v. Bank of America, N.A. (Case
No. 11-2037), the Court upheld similar claims that Bank of America
"demand[ed] more flood insurance than required by federal law or
the mortgage agreement," and also upheld claims that Bank of
America "unjustifiably charged borrowers for backdated coverage
and commissions[.]"  In particular, the Court noted that the
plaintiff's allegations of improper kickbacks or so-called
"commissions" in connection with force-placed flood insurance
"easily meet the threshold for a viable claim."

"We are thrilled with the Court's decision and believe it
vindicates each and every one of the claims we have asserted
against Bank of America," said attorney Kai Richter, who
represents Plaintiff Susan Lass.  "There are a lot of borrowers
across the country really hurting right now, and it is not right
for banks to add to their pain by engaging in these types of
practices," said Richter.

The Court's decision could have broad implications for several
other cases across the country, which involve not just Bank of
America, but other major banks.  Earlier this month, a federal
district court in Pennsylvania reached a similar result in another
case brought by Nichols Kaster against Wells Fargo, Morris v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:11-cv-00474, 2012 WL 3929805
(W.D.Pa. Sept. 7, 2012).  In total, Nichols Kaster is currently
litigating more than a dozen force-placed flood insurance class
actions against some of the nation's largest banks, including
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo, Citibank, U.S. Bank, and
RBS Citizens, N.A., as well as Bank of America.

Plaintiff Susan Lass is represented by Kai Richter, Paul Lukas,
and E. Michelle Drake of Nichols Kaster, PLLP.  Plaintiff Stanley
Kolbe is represented by Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP.  Copies of the
Appeals Court's decisions can be found on Nichols Kaster's Web
site at http://www.nka.com

Additional information also may be obtained by calling Nichols
Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Rejects Bid to Dismiss Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Bianco of the Eastern District
of New York yesterday denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss a
gender discrimination class action brought by current and former
female Financial Advisors of Bank of America and Merrill Lynch
challenging alleged discrimination in compensation and business
opportunities.  The complaint charges that these violations are
systemic, based upon company-wide policies and practices.

"Female Financial Advisors at Bank of America and Merrill Lynch
now have the opportunity to pursue their gender discrimination
claims - and show why their challenge to defendants' common
policies should be given class treatment," stated Lieff Cabraser
partner Rachel Geman.  "Plaintiffs allege that defendants' account
distribution and compensation policies are structurally unfair and
inconsistently applied, creating stark, discriminatory, and very
real-world differences in compensation and opportunities between
men and women.  We are especially pleased the court ruled that
defendants could not escape legal scrutiny simply by labeling
these policies as so-called 'merit' or 'production' systems."

Bank of America sought to dismiss the lawsuit on various grounds.
Bank of America argued that plaintiffs' class claims were
precluded, as a matter of law, by the Supreme Court's decision in
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2551 (2011).  The Court
rejected this argument:

"The fatal flaw identified by the Supreme Court in Dukes was that
the class claims alleged discrimination by local managers
exercising their broad, subjective discretion in the absence of
any policies, which by its very nature could not satisfy the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).  However, the Supreme
Court made clear that a putative class could satisfy commonality,
even where there is subjective decision making involved, if the
subjective decision making was 'operated under a general policy of
discrimination.' [Citation omitted.]  That is precisely what
plaintiffs allege here.  In the third amended complaint,
plaintiffs assert that specific employment practices -- namely,
the criteria of the compensation and account distribution systems
-- systematically favor male Financial Advisors at BOA, and result
in a discriminatory impact on female Financial Advisors."(Order,
at 2.)

Bank of America also argued that plaintiffs' disparate impact
claims should be dismissed in their entirety pursuant to section
703(h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), which allows employers to
maintain compensation systems that reward employees based on
production or merit even if those systems otherwise have an
adverse impact on a protected group. The Court rejected Bank of
America's Section 703(h) argument, finding that plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged a disparate impact claim that was not barred
by Section 703(h) of Title VII: "Plaintiffs here allege that (1)
the compensation and account distribution systems are not merit or
production based, but rather are governed by tainted and
discriminatory criteria, and (2) defendants intentionally
discriminated in implementing these policies.  Such allegations
are sufficient to survive defendants' motion to dismiss and/or
strike the class claims." (Order, at 2.)


BIG LOTS: Recalls 6,900 Garden Swings Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, and manufacturer, Anji
Jiayi Garden Supplies Company, Xiaofeng Town, China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,900 units of Wilson & Fisher Garden
Swings.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wooden swing's seat can break while in use, posing a fall
hazard to the consumer.

Big Lots has received 14 reports of swing seats breaking,
resulting in four reports of back pain and five reports of
scratches and scrapes.

This recall involves Wilson & Fisher log-style swing sets sold in
a natural wood finish.  The swing's two-person bench seat is
suspended between two wooden A-frame supports.  Assembly
instructions sold with the swings have item number JY1107 and SKU
number 210020400 printed on the sheet.  A picture of the recalled
products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12282.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from March 2012 through
June 2012 for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled swing sets,
detach the bench seat and return it to any Big Lots store for a
full refund.  Consumers should destroy the remaining components.
For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at (866)
244-5687 between 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.biglots.com/and click on recalls.


CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Capital One Bank and its
counsel, Cohen & Slamowitz, practice illegal credit and collection
practices, a federal class claims.


CARROLL ELECTRIC: APSC Dismisses Bylaw Violation Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Lucariello, writing for Carroll County News, reports that
in a ruling issued Sept. 18, the Arkansas Public Service
Commission (APSC) dismissed a class action complaint filed in
July 2011 against Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation by
Ikard Wynne of Austin, Texas, representing Gordon Watson and Dane
Schumacher.

The complaint, filed on behalf of all Carroll Electric members,
asserts that the APSC has jurisdiction over Carroll Electric and
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for a number of what
plaintiffs say are violations of Carroll Electric against its own
bylaws and against contract law.

Specifically, the complaint lists concealment and withholding of
patronage capital; unjust enrichment of board members;
"incompatible" accounting practices; withholding of access to
books, records, meeting minutes and mailing lists; and use of
herbicides without member input and in violation of rights-of-way.

The complaint also seeks an award of attorney fees.

In its reply, attorneys for Carroll Electric asserted that, under
state law governing the creation of the ASPC and its scope, it has
no jurisdiction over any of the complaints against Carroll
Electric except in the matter of patronage capital.

The ASPC agreed with Carroll Electric that it has no jurisdiction
over anything except patronage capital.  It can adjudicate "public
rights asserted against utilities and to award monetary refunds
and billing credits," but it cannot determine "disputes involving
private rights found in the common law of contracts, torts or
property."

The ASPC staff further asserts that any claim for violation of
Carroll Electric's own bylaws as a "breach of contract" cannot
"convert this private right into a public right . . . ."

The ASPC also declined to consider the complaint as a class action
"because any relief that may be awarded to Complainants regarding
the retirement of patronage capital will also extend to all other
members . . . ."

Attorney Bill Ikard declined to comment on the ruling in detail
but said on Sept. 24, "We're analyzing the order and discussing it
and will be taking appropriate action within a short period of
time."

As of press time, a spokesperson for Carroll Electric could not be
reached.

The ASPC's full ruling is available at http://is.gd/Xg7027


CHATTANOOGA BAKERY: Recalls Peanut Butter Crunch Products
---------------------------------------------------------
In an abundance of caution, Chattanooga Bakery, Inc., maker of
MoonPie(R) and LookOut!(TM) branded snacks, announced a voluntary,
limited recall of its Peanut Butter Crunch products with "Best By"
dates of 02/26/13, 03/25/13, and 04/29/13.  No other Chattanooga
Bakery/MoonPie/LookOut products are affected by this recall.

The voluntary recall was initiated immediately upon learning that
the Company's peanut butter supplier, Sunland, Inc., has recalled
product produced from May 1, 2012 - September 24, 2012.  Sunland
has stated that twenty-nine people have reported Salmonella
Bredeney PFGE matching illnesses in approximately 18 states.
These illnesses were associated with Creamy Salted Valencia Peanut
Butter, which was produced by Sunland, Inc.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320975.htm

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

Chattanooga Bakery's Peanut Butter Crunch products (9.6 ounce
multipack and 2.4 ounce twin pack) have not been associated with
any of the reported illnesses.  Regardless, the Company is taking
this precautionary step to protect its customers and their
families from any possible risk.  Customers who have purchased
this item are urged not to eat the product, and to dispose of it
or return it to the retailer for a full refund.

For more specific information regarding the Sunland recall, please
visit the manufacturer Web site by viewing the link below:
http://www.sunlandinc.com/788/html/pdfs/SunlandRecall.pdf

If further information is required, please contact customer
service at (423) 267-3351.


CHATTANOOGA BILLIARD: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Lawyer
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd South, writing for Timesfreepress.com, reports that the
attorney representing a group of poker players who sued over the
cancellation of a tournament must be dismissed since he played in
the games, an opposing attorney says.

Lawyer Hoyt Samples filed a class-action lawsuit in July after the
Chattanooga Billiard Club halted a series of weekly and monthly
poker tournaments at the club.  The six men who filed the suit are
seeking money damages that triple the amount they spent on food
and beverages while playing cards at the 119 Jordan Drive club and
$50,000 in punitive damages.

But attorney Jerrold Farinash, who represents the club, filed a
motion to boot Mr. Samples off the case and strike the lawsuit's
class-action status.  Mr. Farinash said on Sept. 24 that
Mr. Samples' involvement as one of the players presents a conflict
of interest and means he should not also represent the plaintiffs.

His court filing also argues that the case should not be a class
action because class-action cases are not allowed under the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Farinash's motion was scheduled to be heard on Sept. 24 in
Hamilton County Chancery Court but was moved when both sides
agreed they needed more time.  The next hearing is scheduled for
Nov. 12 before Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton.

Samples did not return calls seeking comment on Sept. 24.

For at least two years, the club held weekly "Texas Hold 'Em"
tournaments, with the winner receiving a Chattanooga Billiard Club
gift certificate based on the number of participants, which
numbered between 70 and 100 players each week.

The club contributed $1 for each player in the weekly tournaments
and the money was divided and held for the weekly, monthly and
annual tournament winners, according to court documents.

According to court documents, the winner of the weekly games
received a gift certificate to the club while monthly and annual
winners took home certified checks.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Samples claims that the club benefited
financially from food and drink sales and induced players to come
to the weekly tournaments to qualify for the annual tournament,
which advertised "substantial cash prizes."

He claims that at least 70 people were harmed by the tournament
cancellation so it qualifies the group as a "class" for the
purposes of a class-action lawsuit.

He also played in the tournaments, making the finals in the
October 2011 tournament.

Chattanooga Billiard Club owner Phil Windham told players this
spring that he would not hold any more tournaments after the
scheduled August 2012 tournament.

"This is the last week of poker.  I am not going to put out any
more money for poker.  It is my money and I am going to keep it
and there will be no Annual Tournament," Mr. Windham said,
according to court documents.


CITIGROUP INC: Must Face Breach of Contract Claims in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, reports that a Connecticut
federal judge on Sept. 24 allowed breach of contract claims to
survive in a putative class action alleging that a Citigroup Inc.
unit failed to lower borrowing costs on adjustable-rate mortgages,
and then refused to pay back borrowers when the error was
discovered.

Judge Warren W. Eginton said that it could be "reasonably
inferred" that the borrowers had held up their end of the contract
by paying their mortgage payments as required, but that
CitiMortgage Inc. did not live up to the contract's terms.


DANONE INC: Canadians Eligible for Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Ciarula Taylor, writing for Toronto Star, reports that
millions of yogurt-eating Canadians are eligible for a little
windfall from Danone Inc., from a class-action lawsuit about
advertising health claims.

A Montreal woman had brought the lawsuit against the Canadian
subsidiary of the global diary giant in October 2009, a few weeks
after the U.S. subsidiary settled a class-action lawsuit over the
same issues.

The two sides announced the Canadian settlement on Sept. 24.

In both cases, the lawsuits challenged Danone's claims that
Activia yogurt or DanActive probiotic drinks could aid digestion
or prevent colds.

And in both cases, Danone settled without admitting any
wrongdoing, although agreeing to modify its advertising claims.

In Canada, anyone who bought or will buy Activia yogurt of
DanActive drinks between April 1, 2009 and Nov. 6, 2012, is
eligible for from C$15 to C$50, depending on how much they spent.

Claims are to be filed through the web site
http://www.collectiva.ca

The settlement is subject to a routine final approval by the
Quebec Superior Court at a hearing on Nov. 6.  Claims are to be
made within 90 days of that court hearing and require a proof of
purchase or a sworn statement.

The woman who brought the lawsuit, Emmanuelle Sonego, chief
financial officer at furniture company in Montreal, will receive
C$5,000.

Ms. Sonego and her lawyer, David Assor of Lex Group in Westmount,
Que., declined comment, although legal notices of the settlements
were published on Sept. 24.

Mr. Assor told the Star the settlement contains a non-disclosure
clause.

"We have accepted, without acknowledging the grounds raised by the
petitioner, to clarify certain . . . communications," company
spokeswoman Anne-Julie Maltais told the Star.

"The company decided to settle the matter to avoid further
litigation."

She called it "premature" to speculate on how much money Danone
will have to pay Canadian customers.

None of the disputed health benefit claims currently appears on
the company's Canadian Web site.

The U.S. class action lawsuit, filed in January 2008, and settled
in September 2009, paid out only about $1 million from an
available fund of $35 million.  Dannon, as the U.S. subsidiary is
known, also paid $21 million to 39 states in an attorney-general
led consumer protection multi-state settlement.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission had ruled in December 2010 on
the states' challenge to the dairy company.

"Companies like Dannon shouldn't exaggerate the strength of
scientific support for their products," FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz
said at the time.


DIAGEO: Lawyers Invite More Residents to Join "Whisky Fungus" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaynor Allen, writing for The Scotsman, reports that residents of
two more Scottish communities have been invited to join a multi-
million pound action against drink firm Diageo.

Lawyers will send a "letter of claim" to the company after more
than 300 people packed into Bonnybridge Primary School, near
Falkirk, last week to discuss the "whisky fungus" they claim is
blighting property.

Some 50 householders have already signed up for a "class action"
against Diageo and lawyers expect that number to increase
dramatically.

They are planning similar meetings in Tullibody, Clackmannanshire,
and Leven, Fife, which also have Diageo plants.

Bill McMurry, an American lawyer involved in similar cases in
Kentucky, came to Bonnybridge and said the case could cost the
drinks industry in Scotland up to GBP500 million.

Mr. McMurry insists the claim is based on "rock-solid" scientific
evidence that property has been damaged as a result of ethanol
being released into the atmosphere from Diageo's warehouses during
the whisky fermentation process.

Mr. McMurry, who is working with Edinburgh-based lawyers
Balfour+Manson, said: "Samples of whisky fungus from Bonnybridge
have been found to contain baudoinia -- a fungus that germinates
on ethanol -- after being tested in Canada."

Diageo denies the claims of a link between its warehouses and the
blackening of homes.

Bonnybridge resident Tom Chalmers said: "This problem will not go
away on its own, and it is good to know the strength of
determination to get rid of it. It is on everything and can't be
washed off with soap and water. It is on cars, furniture, kids'
toys, everything."

David Short, a partner at Balfour+Manson, said 47 residents had
signed a contract to pursue legal action, while a further 350 of
the documents had been taken away by those attending the public
meeting.

"We are now moving forward to look at other areas affected by this
problem.  In the immediate future, a letter of claim will be sent
to Diageo."

There is no provision for class action in Scotland -- or for
community cases, which can be brought forward in England and
Wales.

Mr. Short said the Courts Administration in Scotland would have to
advise on how to proceed, but insisted the case would go ahead.

A Diageo spokesperson said: "As an industry committed to the
highest standards of environmental responsibility, there is
continual research into our processes.

"This research has found a complex range of naturally occurring
microflora at warehouse sites and that the same microflora is
present widely across the environment in the UK.

"No direct association between ethanol and microflora was found.
Instead, the micro-flora appears to grow wherever the prevailing
environmental conditions (such as light, moisture, temperature,
nutrients) support that growth.

"If there is a change to the scientific evidence, we can assure
you that the industry would consider what the most appropriate,
proportionate and effective way forward might be."


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Class Action Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that hotel operators and travel
Web sites conspired to fix the price for room reservations, a
class says, echoing the claims of the past month.

The case, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, is Patricia Greenberg v. Expedia;
Hotels.com; Travelocity.com; Sabre Holdings; Priceline.com

A copy of the Complaint in Greenberg v. Expedia, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-04975 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/26/expedia.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Linda M. Fong, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Justin B. Farar, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 620
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 575-8670
          E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
FalconStor Software, Inc., continues to await a court decision
with respect to its motion to dismiss a shareholder class action
lawsuit, 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 is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought by
Company shareholders (the "Class Action").  The other defendants
are James Weber, the Company's former CFO and Vice President for
Operations, and the estate of ReiJane Huai.  Mr. Huai was the
Company's former Chairman, President and CEO.

The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants defrauded
shareholders by falsely certifying in the Company's SEC filings
that they had disclosed any fraud, whether or not material, that
involved management or other employees who had a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants were in
fact aware of fraud.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  That
motion is now fully briefed.

Certain of the defendants may be entitled to indemnification by
the Company under the laws of Delaware and/or the Company's by-
laws.

The Company cannot predict when the Class Action will be resolved
or its outcome.  While the Company has insurance policies that it
believes covers the Company, at least in part, for the allegations
of the Class Action, there can be no assurance that the amount of
insurance will be adequate to cover the costs of its defense of
the Class Action or any damages that might be awarded against the
Company or any defendant(s) to whom the Company owes
indemnification.  The Company's insurers may deny coverage under
the policies.  If the plaintiffs are awarded damages and the
Company's insurance is not adequate to cover the amounts, or its
insurers deny coverage, the amounts to be paid by the Company
could have a significant negative impact on the Company's
financial results, its cash flow and its cash reserves.  As a
result, the Company recorded an accrual of $0.4 million in the
second quarter of 2012 for certain costs associated with the
possible resolution of the Class Action.

Headquartered in Melville, New York, FalconStor Software, Inc. --
http://www.falconstor.com/-- develops, manufactures, and sells
network storage software solutions; and provides the related
maintenance, implementation, and engineering services worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1989.


FOXBOROUGH, MA: Police Sued Over Protective Custody Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremie Smith, writing for Foxborough Patch, reports that two men
who attended a Bruce Springsteen concert at Gillette Stadium in
August and allegedy taken into protective custody by Foxborough
Police have filed a class action lawsuit against Police Chief
Edward O'Leary and the town.

Plaintiffs Paul Weldner and Timothy Dutton, both of Portland,
Maine, filed the class action lawsuit in federal court on Sept. 24
alleging that the Foxborough Police Department is putting people
into protective custody even when people are not incapacitated.

Mr. Dutton commented on Foxborough Patch's Aug. 21 article,
"Foxborough Police Report 'Few Problems' During Bruce Springsteen
Concert at Gillette Stadium," calling Foxborough Police
"vigilantes."

"The security surrounding these events are vigilantes," said
Dutton.  "So are the Foxboro Police.  My girlfriend was nabbed for
barely stumbling in the ticket line, breathalyzed, handcuffed and
detained for nothing more than having a good time.  I was told to
move on or join her. I joined her. For the next six hours I
received inhumane treatment that the Foxboro Police all enjoyed.
Lawsuit coming."

Mr. Dutton remained true to his word.

The lawsuit, according to the Law Offices of Howard Friedman P.C.
in Boston, alleges that it is unconstitutional to take people into
custody simply because they are perceived to be under the
influence of alcohol.

Messrs. Weldner and Dutton planned to attend the Springsteen
concert in Foxborough on Aug. 18.  They drank alcohol before the
concert, but they were not incapacitated, according to a press
release issued by Law Offices of Howard Friedman.  They had rented
a bus so they could travel safely.

Foxborough Police officers, according to attorney Friedman's
office, detained Messrs. Weldner and Dutton before they entered
the concert and placed them into protective custody along with
over 60 others.

"Protective custody is a joke," said Mr. Dutton.  "I was detained
in a cell with a man who had spent one year in jail for attempted
murder for stabbing someone eight times.  There were plenty of
other innocent people like me in this lockup."

Messrs. Weldner and Dutton sued Foxborough Police Chief Edward
O'Leary and the Town of Foxborough on behalf of all the people
affected by Foxborough's unconstitutional use of the protective
custody statute, according to the press release.

The lawsuit alleges that Foxborough established a policy of taking
people into protective custody even though the people detained
were not incapacitated by alcohol consumption.  As a result of
this policy, which has been applied at numerous events, over 1,000
people have been handcuffed and placed in cells merely because
they were perceived to be under the influence of alcohol,
according to the press release.

The lawsuit alleges that Foxborough's practices violate the
constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures,
according to the press release.  The civil lawsuit, brought by
Boston attorneys Howard Friedman and David Milton of the
Law Offices of Howard Friedman P.C. in Boston, seeks money damages
for violations of the class members' constitutional rights, as
well as an end to the policy.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court in
Boston and is called Paul Weldner et al., v. Edward O'Leary, et
al., C.A. No. 12-11771-DPW, according to the press release.


FRESH & EASY: Recalls Almond, Cashew, Peanut and Tahini Butters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Out of an abundance of caution, Fresh & Easy is voluntarily
recalling several nut butters (almond, cashew, peanut and tahini)
marked with 'Best Before' dates from May 1, 2013, to September 24,
2013, due to potential contamination with Salmonella.  This recall
is in response to the voluntary recall issued by Sunland, Inc.

With the customers' safety in mind, the Company has removed these
products from its shelves.  The Company encourages any customers
who may have purchased these products to immediately stop using
and discard the item, keeping just the label or store receipt to
claim a full refund from the store.

The following products sold at fresh&easy are included in this
recall:

   * Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter Salt Free 16 oz
   * Sunland Tahini 16 oz
   * fresh&easy Crunchy Almond Butter 16 oz
   * fresh&easy Creamy Almond Butter 16 oz
   * fresh&easy Crunchy Peanut Butter 18 oz
   * fresh&easy Creamy Peanut Butter 18 oz
   * fresh&easy Creamy Peanut Butter 40 oz
   * fresh&easy Organic Crunchy Peanut Butter with Sea Salt 16 oz
   * fresh&easy Organic Creamy Peanut Butter with Sea Salt 16 oz
   * fresh&easy Goodness Creamy Valencia Peanut Butter 8/1.1 oz
     cups
   * fresh&easy Deli Box Protein Power Lunch
   * fresh&easy Creamy Cashew Butter

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm321096.htm

Some helpful questions and answers:

Q. Which date codes (use by date) have been affected?

A. Any date code from May 1, 2013, to September 24, 2013.

Q. What should I do if I have these products at my home?

A. Please discard the product and return the product label or
   receipt to any of our stores for a full refund.

Q. Have any customers become ill from consuming these products?

A. No.  The Company's fresh&easy products have not been directly
   linked to the Salmonella outbreak and no illnesses have been
   reported at this time.

Q. How can I talk to someone about the fresh&easy products
   involved in this recall?

A. Customers who have questions or concerns about this recall
   should contact the special Fresh & Easy 24-hour toll free
   number 1-800-648-8622.

Q. What should I do if I have consumed this product?

A. If you experienced any signs of illness, please contact your
   doctor right away.

Q. What can you tell me about Salmonella?

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

The Centers for Disease Control has a very helpful Web site with
much more information about identifying signs and symptoms of a
Salmonella illness:

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/bredeney-09-12/signs-symptoms.html


GRETCHEN'S SHOEBOX: Cinnamon Apple & Almond Butter Sandwiches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the utmost caution and care for its customers, Gretchen's
Shoebox Express in Seattle, Washington, is initiating a voluntary
recall of Evolution Fresh Brand Cinnamon Apple & Almond Butter
Sandwiches and Almond Butter that contain Almond Butter associated
with the Sunland, Inc., recall.  The Almond Butter has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

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

There have been no reported illnesses attributed to these two
recalled items.  Gretchen's Shoebox Express is issuing this
voluntary recall linked to the supplier's Almond Butter recall to
minimize the risk to the public health.

The two recalled products were distributed solely to two Evolution
Fresh stores in Seattle and Bellevue, Washington, from 7/24/12 to
9/23/2012.  A list of the two recalled products is identified in
the table below.

The sandwich product is hand wrapped in clear cellophane, with
prominent label identification.  The Almond Butter is packaged in
a clear plastic oval-shaped container with prominent label
identification.  Both products have a white code date sticker on
their respective sides, stating "Enjoy by" followed by the date in
the following format: M DD, for example 9 25 standing for
September 25th.  The Company has ceased production and
distribution of these items.  Pictures of the recalled products
and labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm321139.htm

Anyone who has the recalled product in their possession should not
consume it and should destroy or discard the product.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 206-623-8194 Monday -
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time).

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

The Company thanks the consumers for their understanding and
cooperation in this regard.  Please feel free to contact the
Company should additional information or assistance is required.

Recalled Products and Pack Codes:

                                                    Included
Brand       Product                    Pack Size    States
-----       -------                    ---------   --------
Evolution   Cinnamon Apple & Almond     5.75 oz       WA
Fresh       Butter Sandwich

UPC Code: 762111926371
Date Range: Enjoy By 07/26/12-09/25/12

Evolution   Almond Butter                  2 oz       WA
Fresh

UPC Code: 762111-26838
Date Range: Enjoy By 08/07/12-10/07/12


HAYASTAN INDUSTRIES: Bircham Bend Residents File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Goonan, writing for The Republican, reports that three
residents of the Bircham Bend Mobile Home Park have filed a class
action suit, accusing the owner and management of violations
ranging from overflowing trash containers to the imposition of
arbitrary and unapproved park rules and fines.

The suit was recently filed in Western District Housing Court by
Anna Rebelo, Paul Henault and Gene Desko, all residents of the
mobile home park at 93 Grochmal Ave., in Indian Orchard.  It was
filed on behalf of themselves "and all others similarly situated,"
the suit states.

Mr. Henault, who is president of the tenants association, said
there have been repeated complaints made to the park owner,
Stephen G. Shahabian, of Hayastan Industries Inc., about the
conditions, but failing to resolve the issues.  The plaintiffs are
all members of the association board, but filed as individuals,
Henault said.

"The only way it was going to be solved is through a lawsuit,"
Mr. Henault said.  "It really is sad.  He's not stopping.  He just
keeps doing it.  We want change."

The suit claims that under the ownership and management of
Hayastan Industries and under the past management of Valley
Management Inc., the residents have been subjected to "a number of
unfair and deceptive practices."

The practices include: "constant unsanitary conditions at Bircham
Bend because of overflowing trash dumpsters; (and) being subject
to and fined for violations of park rules and ad hoc rules that
were never approved by the Department of Housing and Community
Development," or the state Attorney General's office, the suit
states.

The suit also accuses the defendants of illegal fines and charges,
of refusal to maintain oil tanks that are owned by Hayastan, of
failing to provide rent receipts, and of changing leased lot
sizes.

Robert Kraus, a Plymouth lawyer representing Hayastan, said his
clients will fight "to clear our good name."

"We operate the park according to the city's standards and the
state standards," Mr. Kraus said.  "My client worked hard to
improve the park in all regards including the dumpsters. He is
complying with the standards mandated."

Mr. Kraus has filed suit to have the matter heard in Norfolk
County Superior Court, instead of Housing Court, based on the
business headquarters being located in Norfolk County, he said.

The residents say the venue is properly before the Housing Court
where the park is located, and because it involves housing
complaints.  The residents are being represented by the
Springfield law firm of Heisler, Feldman, McCormick, & Garrow,
P.C.

Mr. Kraus said his clients dispute the claims made by the
residents and will fight "to dispel any claims that the operation
of the park was improper."

The residents said the actions of the landlords "interfered with
Plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation" of state
law.

According to the suit, the Springfield Mobile Home Park Rent
Control Board granted a rent increase in March of 2008, but found
there was overflowing trash, and ordered Hayastan to add two
similar containers at opposite ends of the park, by April 30,
2008.

The landlords did not put in the added containers until October of
2010, the suit states.  In addition, the suit claims the
containers were intended for residents but "Hayastan's employees
or agents often disposed of construction debris and other
materials," leading to continued overflowing of trash.

In addition, Mr. Henault claimed that since December of 2007,
there have been a number of direct and indirect threats made
against him, and property vandalism.  There has also been verbal
abuse by "agents and employees of Hayastan," the suit states.

There has been damage to his mobile home, flowers stomped, dog
feces left on his back steps, poured paint on his car, and eggs
thrown at the house, the suit states.

Mr. Henault said the lathe suit includes class action claims, with
relief sought for all residents, as well as individual claims by
the three residents.

The residents are seeking preliminary and then permanent
injunctions from the court that would include: restraining the
landlords from enforcing any unapproved rules or fines; requiring
them to maintain the trash container area in a sanitary condition;
and to award any damages and attorney fees.  Any award or
agreement would affect all residents of the park during the four-
year period of the complaint, except for individual claims,
Mr. Henault said.


HEALTH NET: Continues to Defend Suits Over Hard Disk Drive Loss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
arising from the loss of hard disk drives that had been used in
its data center, 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 is a defendant in three related litigation matters
pending in California state and federal courts relating to
information security issues.  On January 21, 2011, International
Business Machines Corp. (IBM), which handles the Company's data
center operations, notified the Company that it could not locate
several hard disk drives that had been used in the Company's data
center located in Rancho Cordova, California.  The Company has
since determined that personal information of approximately two
million former and current Health Net members, employees and
health care providers is on the drives.  Commencing on March 14,
2011, the Company provided written notification to the individuals
whose information is on the drives.  To help protect the personal
information of affected individuals, the Company offered them two
years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity
theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit
files services, if needed.

On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this
incident was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (the Central District of
California), and similar actions were later filed against it in
other federal and state courts in California.  A number of those
actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (the Eastern District
of California), and the two remaining actions are currently
pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco (San Francisco County Superior Court) and the Superior
Court of California, County of Sacramento (Sacramento County
Superior Court).  The consolidated amended complaint in the
federal action pending in the Eastern District of California was
filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000 of the
Company's current or former members who received the written
notification, and also named IBM as a defendant.  It sought to
state claims for violation of the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act and the California Customer Records Act,
and sought statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each class
member, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and other relief.  On August 29, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On January 20,
2012, the district court issued an order dismissing the
consolidated complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing to bring their action in federal court.  On April 20,
2012, an amended complaint with a new plaintiff was filed against
the Company, but no longer asserted claims against IBM.  The
amended complaint asserted the same causes of action and sought
the same relief as the earlier complaint.  On June 18, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

An additional lawsuit was instituted on July 7, 2011, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, and was brought
on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all former and current
members affected by this incident, and sought to state similar
claims against the Company, as well as a claim for invasion of
privacy.  The Company removed this case to the Central District of
California on August 1, 2011.  On August 26, 2011, the plaintiff
filed a motion to remand the case to state court.  That motion was
granted on September 30, 2011.  On October 10, 2011, the Company
filed an application for leave to appeal the remand order to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On January
30, 2012, the Court of Appeals granted the motion for leave to
appeal and ordered the parties to submit briefs.  On March 20,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the
district court's ruling and instructing the district court to
review the motion to remand in accordance with the Court of
Appeals' opinion. Following the issuance of that opinion, the
Company filed a request with the district court seeking to have
the case transferred to the Eastern District of California to be
assigned to the same judge handling the other lawsuit in that
court.  That request was granted and the matter was ordered to be
transferred on May 1, 2012.  On June 8, 2012, the judge handling
the lawsuit in the Eastern District of California ordered that
this case be consolidated with the lawsuit currently pending in
that court.

The San Francisco County Superior Court proceeding was instituted
on March 28, 2011, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California residents who received the written notification, and
seeks to state similar claims against the Company, as well as
claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and
seeks similar relief.  The Company moved to compel arbitration of
the two named plaintiffs' claims.  The court granted the Company's
motion as to one of the named plaintiffs and denied it as to the
other.  The Company is appealing the latter ruling.  Thereafter,
the plaintiff as to whom the Company's motion to compel
arbitration was granted filed an application for a writ of mandate
with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of that ruling,
which writ was ultimately granted.  The Company filed a petition
for review by the California Supreme Court, which was denied, and
on July 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of
mandate directing the Superior Court to vacate its order granting
the motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order denying the
motion to compel.

The Sacramento County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on
April 3, 2012, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California members whose information was contained on the
unaccounted for drives.  The action was filed by many of the same
plaintiffs' lawyers, contains the same claims, and seeks the same
relief as the case pending in the Eastern District of California.
On June 18, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal
of this complaint.

The Company has also been informed that a number of regulatory
agencies are investigating the incident, including the California
Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), the California
Department of Insurance, the California Attorney General, the
Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation
and the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims; however, these proceedings are subject to many
uncertainties.  At this time, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the range of loss that may result from these legal and
regulatory proceedings in light of the facts that (i) legal and
regulatory proceedings are inherently unpredictable, (ii) there
are multiple parties in each of the disputes (and uncertainty as
to how liability, if any, may be shared among the defendants),
(iii) the proceedings are in their early stages and discovery is
not complete, (iv) there are significant facts in dispute, (v) the
matters present legal uncertainties, (vi) there is a wide range of
potential outcomes in each dispute and (vii) there are various
levels of judicial review available to the Company in each matter
in the event damages are awarded or fines or penalties are
assessed.  Nevertheless, an adverse resolution of or development
in the proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations, cash flow
and liquidity and could affect the Company's reputation.

Health Net, Inc. -- http://www.healthnet.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides managed health care services.  The Company
offers commercial health care products, such as health maintenance
organization plans through contracts with participating network
physicians, hospitals, and other providers; preferred provider
organization plans that provide coverage for services received
from health care provider; and point of service plans.  It also
provides Medicare products.  It serves approximately 6.0 million
individuals in the United States through group, individual,
Medicare, Medicaid, the U.S. Department of Defense that includes
TRICARE, and Veterans Affairs programs.  The Company was founded
in 1979 and is headquartered in Woodland Hills, California.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Hearing on "Fankhouser" Suit Deal on Oct. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for the final approval of the settlement of a
class action lawsuit captioned Fankhouser v. XTO Energy Inc. has
been scheduled for October 10, 2012, according to Hugoton Royalty
Trust's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma, by certain royalty owners of natural
gas wells in Oklahoma and Kansas.  The plaintiffs allege that XTO
Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the
royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting
regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their
wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products
produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed since June
2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies
owed for additional time.  XTO Energy removed the case to federal
district court in Oklahoma City.  In April 2010, new counsel and
representative parties, Fankhouser and Goddard, filed a motion to
intervene and prosecute the Beer class, now styled Fankhouser v.
XTO Energy Inc.  This motion was granted on July 13, 2010.  The
new plaintiffs and counsel filed an amended complaint asserting
new causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust
enrichment.  On December 16, 2010, the court certified the class.
Cross motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties and
ruled on by the court.  After consideration of the rulings by the
court in March and April of 2012, some benefiting XTO Energy and
some benefiting the plaintiffs, and with due regard to the
vagaries of litigation and their uncertain outcomes, XTO Energy
and the plaintiffs entered into settlement negotiations prior to
trial and reached a tentative settlement of $37 million on
April 23, 2012.  The hearing for formal court approval was
conducted on June 21, 2012, and preliminarily approved by the
court on June 29, 2012.  A fairness hearing has been scheduled for
October 10, 2012.

XTO Energy has advised the trustee it believes that the terms of
the conveyances covering the trust's net profits interests require
the trust to bear its 80% interest in the settlement, or
approximately $29.6 million.  If so, this will adversely affect
the net proceeds of the trust from Oklahoma and Kansas and will
result in costs exceeding revenues on these properties.  XTO
Energy has stated that it will begin deducting the settlement
amount in the third quarter.  Based on recent revenue and expense
levels, it is expected that the deductions XTO Energy has stated
it will make will cause costs to exceed revenues for approximately
18 months; however, changes in oil or natural gas prices or
expenses could cause the time period to increase or decrease
correspondingly.  The net profits interest from Wyoming is
unaffected and payments will continue to be made from those
properties to the extent revenues exceed costs on such properties.
XTO Energy has advised the trustee that the settlement is expected
to decrease the amount of net profits going forward for the
Oklahoma and Kansas properties due to changes in the way costs
(such as gathering, compression and fuel) associated with
operating the properties will be allocated, resulting in a net
gain to the royalty interest owners.  XTO Energy has advised the
trustee that this expected net upward revision for the royalty
interest owners will reduce applicable net profits to XTO Energy
and, correspondingly, to the trust.  The trustee has advised XTO
Energy that all or a portion of the settlement amount should not
be deducted from trust revenues.  XTO Energy does not agree with
the trustee's position and to resolve this disagreement XTO Energy
initiated arbitration on August 1, 2012, in accordance with the
terms of the dispute resolution provisions of the Trust Indenture.
The trustee intends to prepare a response to XTO Energy's
arbitration claim within the required time frame.  The binding
arbitration will be heard by a panel of three arbitrators in Fort
Worth, Texas, with each side selecting one arbitrator and the
third arbitrator selected by the two appointed arbitrators.  The
arbitration will be administered by the American Arbitration
Association under its commercial rules.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the
lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture
entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as
grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO's Appeals From Class Cert. Orders Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc.'s appeals from class certification orders in the
class action lawsuits commenced by Wallace B. Roderick Revocable
Living Trust, et al., and Chieftain Royalty Company remain
pending, according to the Hugoton Royalty Trust's August 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al.
v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.
XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas.
The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells
located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado.  The plaintiffs have
filed a motion to certify the class, including only Kansas and
Oklahoma wells not part of the Fankhouser matter.  After filing
the motion to certify, but prior to the class certification
hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion to sever the Oklahoma
portion of the case so it could be transferred and consolidated
with a newly filed class action in Oklahoma styled Chieftain
Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc.  This motion was granted.  The
Roderick case now comprises only Kansas wells not previously
included in the Fankhouser matter.  The case was certified as a
class action in March 2012.  XTO Energy has filed an appeal of the
class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April
11, 2012.  The appeal was granted on June 26, 2012.

In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal
County District Court, Oklahoma.  XTO Energy removed the case to
federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs
allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty
payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to
secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its
constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they
have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests.  The case
expressly excludes those claims and wells being prosecuted in the
Fankhouser case.  The severed Roderick case claims related to the
Oklahoma portion of the case were consolidated into Chieftain.
The case was certified as a class action in April 2012.  XTO
Energy has filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 26, 2012.  The appeal was granted on June 26, 2012.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO
Energy has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend its position.  However, XTO Energy is cognizant
of other, similar litigation involving it, such as Fankhouser, and
other, unrelated entities.  As these cases develop XTO Energy will
assess its legal position accordingly.  If XTO Energy ultimately
makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it in
Chieftain or Roderick, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it
believes that the terms of the conveyances covering the trust's
net profits interests require the trust to bear its 80% share of
such settlement or judgment related to production from the
underlying properties.  Additionally, if the judgment or
settlement increases the amount of future payments to royalty
owners, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that the trust would
bear its proportionate share of the increased payments through
reduced net proceeds.  In the event of any such settlement or
judgment, the trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in
payment to the trust based on the facts and circumstances of such
settlement or judgment.  XTO Energy has informed the trustee that,
although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not
presently determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is
not currently expected to be material to the trust's financial
position or liquidity though it could be material to the trust's
annual distributable income.  Additionally, XTO Energy has advised
the trustee that any reductions would result in costs exceeding
revenues on the properties underlying the net profit interests of
the cases, as applicable, for several monthly distributions,
depending on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and
the net proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in
the net profits interest being limited until such time that the
revenues exceed the costs for those net profit interests.  If
there is a settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the
trustee disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or
judgment to be charged against the trust's net profits interests,
the matter will be resolved by binding arbitration under the terms
of the Indenture creating the trust through the American
Arbitration Association.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the
lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture
entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as
grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.


INNERTHRIVE LLC: Sued Over False Claims on Dietary Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Innerthrive, LLC, Case No. L-007338-12 (N.J. Super.
Ct., September 20, 2012) accuses Innerthrive of using false
advertising claims to market its dietary supplements known as T-
Restore and T-Protect.

Innerthrive, on a nationwide basis, advertised, promoted,
marketed, distributed and sold the dietary supplements as
clinically proven to deliver to the consumer a variety of health
benefits, including more lean muscle mass and strength as well as
decreased body fat, Mr. Hoffman says.  In truth and in fact, he
contends, there are no valid clinical studies and there is no
medically-accepted evidence that T-Restore and T-Protect can
deliver any of these benefits to the consumer.

Mr. Hoffman is a resident of Bergen County, New Jersey.  He
asserts that he was exposed to the Defendant's advertising and
marketing claims, and thereafter, purchased T-Restore and T-
Protect in August 2012.

Innerthrive is a Nevada limited liability company based in Minden,
Nevada.  The Defendant advertises, markets, distributes and sells
T-Restore and T-Protect in commerce throughout the United States,
including the state of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff, Harold M. Hoffman, Esq., of Englewood, New Jersey -
- hoffman.esq@verizon.net -- represents himself in the lawsuit.


INTL FCSTONE: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
a securities class action lawsuit filed in Missouri against a
subsidiary, 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.

FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone") and certain officers of FCStone
were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on July 15,
2008.  A consolidated amended complaint ("CAC") was subsequently
filed on September 25, 2009.  As alleged in the CAC, the action
purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers
of FCStone common stock between November 15, 2007, and
February 24, 2009.  The CAC seeks to hold defendants liable under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and concerns disclosures included in FCStone's fiscal year
2008 public filings.  Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's
public disclosures regarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt
expense arising from unprecedented events in the cotton trading
market, and certain disclosures beginning on November 3, 2008,
related to losses it expected to incur arising primarily from a
customer energy trading account.  FCStone and the named officers
moved to dismiss the action.  The parties to the litigation
reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter during May
2012.  The proposed settlement would be at no cost to the Company
after consideration of insurance, and is subject to approval by
the court.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities;
Debtors origination and asset management.  During the quarter
ended March 31, 2011, the Company changed its name from
International Assets Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc.,
following approval of the name change by the Company's
stockholders.  INTL's businesses, which include the commodities
advisory and transaction execution firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve
more than 10,000 commercial customers in more than 100 countries
through a network of offices in 12 countries around the world.


INTL FCSTONE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class
action lawsuit pending in Missouri, 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 August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed against
FCStone and certain directors of FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone")
in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches
of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment.  An amended complaint was subsequently filed in May
2009 to add claims based upon the losses sustained by FCStone
arising out of a customer's energy trading account.  On July 7,
2009, the same plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
existing case to add a purported class action claim on behalf of
the holders of FCStone common stock.

On July 8, 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against FCStone and its directors, as well as the
Company, in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The
complaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in
connection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the
Company.  This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated
complaint which does not assert any claims against the Company.
This complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and
the Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone current and
former directors and officers and directly against the same
individuals.  The Company, FCStone and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on multiple grounds.  That motion is fully
briefed and pending decision.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities;
Debtors origination and asset management.  During the quarter
ended March 31, 2011, the Company changed its name from
International Assets Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc.,
following approval of the name change by the Company's
stockholders.  INTL's businesses, which include the commodities
advisory and transaction execution firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve
more than 10,000 commercial customers in more than 100 countries
through a network of offices in 12 countries around the world.


KADANT INC: Accrued $2.577MM for Payment of Unit's Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2012, Kadant Inc. has accrued $2,577,000 for the
payment of claims under a settlement of a class action lawsuit
against one of its subsidiary, 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 24, 2011, the Company, Composites LLC, and other co-
defendants entered into an agreement to settle a nationwide class
action lawsuit related to allegedly defective composites decking
building products manufactured by Composites LLC between April
2002 and October 2003, which was filed and approved in Connecticut
state court.  As of June 30, 2012, the Company has accrued
$2,577,000 for the payment of claims under the settlement.  If the
actual claims submitted and approved under the settlement
agreement exceed the amount of this reserve, the Company says it
will reflect the amount of the additional claims in the results of
the discontinued operation in future periods, up to a maximum of
$5,000,000 as agreed in the settlement agreement.  In the second
quarter of 2012, the Company paid $710,000 in legal fees and
incentives as agreed to in the settlement agreement.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The Company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The Company's operations consist of one
operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking
Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other
Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its sale
in April 2007, Casting Products.  Its Papermaking Systems segment
develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the global
papermaking and paper recycling industries.


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

The following products are subject to recall:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
Real Sausage Co. Cooked White Bratwurst products that have been
recalled by Makowski's Real Sausage Co.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/kdi2xf,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Retailer Name               City and State
    -------------               --------------
    Gourmet Express             Addison, Illinois
    Veterans Tamale             Chicago, Illinois


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Still Defends Suit Over 401(k) Plan in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit initiated by Jerry Jones related to its
401(k) Savings Plan, 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 December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Jerry Jones v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of MEMC's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan")
between September 4, 2007, and December 26, 2008, inclusive.  The
complaint asserted claims against MEMC and certain of its
directors, employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, generally asserting that the defendants failed to
make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of
investing in MEMC's stock and that the company's stock should not
have been made available as an investment alternative in the Plan.
The complaint also alleges that MEMC failed to disclose certain
material facts regarding MEMC's operations and performance, which
had the effect of artificially inflating MEMC's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008, through the
present, inclusive.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in MEMC's stock, equitable relief and
an award of attorney's fees.  No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun.  The company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of
October 9, 2009.  The parties each subsequently filed notices of
supplemental authority and corresponding responses.  On March 17,
2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss.  The MEMC defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative,
certification for interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by
the parties as of June 16, 2010.  The parties each subsequently
filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding
responses.  On October 18, 2010, the court granted the MEMC
defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying
the MEMC defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will
revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the
parties supplement their arguments relating thereto.  Both parties
filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.
On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of
voluntary withdrawal from the action.  On June 29, 2011, the Court
entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in
this action.  The parties each have continued to file additional
notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto.

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

MEMC believes the class action is without merit, and it will
assert a vigorous defense.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or
resolution of the class action proceedings or estimate the amounts
of, or potential range of, loss with respect to these proceedings.
An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's business, results of operations and financial condition.
The Company has indemnification agreements with each of its
present and former directors and officers, under which the Company
is generally required to indemnify each such director or officer
against expenses, including attorney's fees, judgments, fines and
settlements, arising from actions such as the class action
lawsuit.


ORLEANS PARISH PRISON: DOJ Files Request to Join Jail Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Justice Department
asked on Sept. 24 to join a class-action lawsuit that accuses
Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman of overseeing a jail that
routinely subjects prisoners to brutal, inhumane conditions.

"The Orleans Parish Prison is a violent and dangerous
institution," the federal agency said in a request filed in New
Orleans federal court, seeking to be included as a plaintiff in
the lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  It contends
that the jail's conditions violate the U.S. Constitution.

Federal officials have been investigating the Orleans Parish
Prison since February 2008, chronicling what they say are repeated
instances of jail officials refusing to correct conditions that
leave prisoners vulnerable to attacks and rape from other
prisoners and their guards.

Sheriff Gusman is accused of running a prison that doesn't provide
proper medical and mental health care, fails to protect prisoners
from physical and sexual violence, ignores requests for help,
offers inadequate monitoring and treatment of suicidal prisoners,
and houses inmates in unsafe and unsanitary facilities.

The Orleans Parish sheriff is "engaging in a pattern or practice
of violating the constitutional rights of prisoners" at the prison
that houses about 2,500 inmates and has shown "deliberate
indifference" to complaints, the Justice Department says in its
legal request.

Sheriff Gusman's office didn't immediately respond to calls for
comment on Sept. 24.

The sheriff has previously said his office was improving its
deputy training and inmate conditions to respond to complaints.
Sheriff Gusman also accused the Justice Department of making
"sensationalized comments" to try to pressure his office to reach
a consent decree.

The Sept. 24 court filing says a settlement has been reached to
make improvements to prison operations and the settlement will be
submitted to the federal judge if the Justice Department is
approved to intervene in the case.

"We are hopeful that we can reach a negotiated resolution of this
case in the near future and put in place a comprehensive blueprint
for sustainable reform," Thomas Perez, an assistant attorney
general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said
in a statement.

Any settlement will require improvements in staff training and
supervision, mental health and medical care, suicide prevention
efforts and the physical plant, the department said.

The federal agency issued scathing assessments of conditions it
found in the prison, in letters to Sheriff Gusman in both
September 2009 and April after the class action lawsuit was filed.
But the Justice Department said Sheriff Gusman hasn't corrected
the problems.

"Today's development further confirms the gross neglect, sadistic
rapes and brutal beatings that have become so commonplace at
Orleans Parish Prison.  We hope the sheriff will stand up and
finally address the abusive and inhumane conditions that have
plagued the jail for far too long," Katie Schwartzmann, a lawyer
for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement.


PATRIOT COAL: Robbins Umeda Corrects Class Action Release
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP on Sept. 24 issued a correction to its release
regarding a class action against Patriot Coal Corporation.

The date given in fifth graph, first sentence of release dated
Sept. 22, 2012 has been corrected to read: November 21, 2012 (sted
November 20, 2012).

The corrected release reads:

Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP announces 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 21, 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 law firm
that specializes in securities litigation and shareholder rights
law.  The firm represents individual and institutional investors
in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


SCOTTISH WATER: Judiciary Blocks Class Action Attempt
-----------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News reports that campaigners pressing for a
change in the law so they can sue Scottish Water over the
notorious "Seafield stench" on Sept. 25 claimed their efforts were
being blocked by a "conservative" judiciary.

Leith Links Residents Association lodged a petition at the
Scottish Parliament earlier this year arguing that people in
Scotland should be able to take collective "class actions" against
companies, as is already the case in England and Wales.

Residents have been complaining for decades about the smell from
the Seafield sewage works and were inspired by the idea of a class
action after a similar case in Liverpool led to an out-of-court
settlement of millions of pounds for residents.

A review of Scotland's civil law system by Lord Gill recommended
the present barriers to class actions should be removed, but the
residents fear there is little political will to implement the
changes because it could prove costly.

They also highlighted problems obtaining crucial documents and the
massive costs involved in pursuing legal action.  At present, a
multi-party action in Scotland would require each individual
claimant to pay a GBP180 fee, meaning 500 residents would incur a
charge of GBP90,000.  In England and Wales, a class action
involves one fee of GBP1,500.

In the absence of new legislation, the residents' petition calls
for existing court rules to be used to allow multiple actions to
go ahead.  However, in a response to the Scottish Parliament's
petitions committee, the head of Scotland's judiciary, the Lord
President Lord Hamilton, suggested the rules could only be varied
for cases which were already going through the system.

He also pointed out the rules would not affect the fees charged,
said he was not clear what the problem was in relation to
documents and argued primary legislation would be needed.

Rob Kirkwood, of Leith Links Residents Association, said: "The
petition we submitted was based on sound legal opinion.  This is a
very negative response to all our proposals.

"I don't believe there is a will in the judiciary for any changes.
The conservative nature of the judiciary is well known."

The Scottish Government responded to the committee saying it
planned to introduce legislation to allow class actions within the
lifetime of the current parliament -- before 2016.

But Mr. Kirkwood pointed to the government's response to the Gill
report -- supporting the introduction of class actions -- which
warned that Scotland faced "a period of unprecedented pressure on
public finances", adding that "simply spending more money on a
wider range of publicly funded services to improve access to
justice is unaffordable and unsustainable".

Mr. Kirkwood said: "Scottish ministers responded to the Gill
report saying there was no money and what we needed were proposals
that were innovative.  I don't believe it will be a priority for
them in the current economic situation."


SEQWATER: Flood Victims' Lawyers to Press Ahead with Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosanne Barrett, writing for The Australian, reports that lawyers
working on a class action for Brisbane and Ipswich flood victims
are pressing ahead with their proposed claim, labelling a report
endorsing the actions of the dam operator irrelevant.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini said a US Army Corps
of Engineers review supportive of Wivenhoe Dam operations during
last year's disaster had "no effect" on their plan to lodge a
civil action against the Queensland government and SEQWater by the
end of the year.

"It's one of the interesting distractions in the whole thing but
it's not affecting anything we do," he said.  "It was all done in
six weeks -- our experts have taken a lot longer than that.

"It was given very specific guidelines.  They weren't referred to
the final report of the (floods) commission."

The US review praised the initial report of operations from
SEQWater written six weeks after the January floods, which was
critiqued by the state's Floods Inquiry.

In her final findings, commissioner Cate Holmes said the engineers
"each had a level of understanding that the report was misleading"
but there was no direct evidence they discussed their knowledge
with each other.

Three engineers were referred to the Crime and Misconduct
Commission, which found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Mr. Scattini said up to 5000 people had signed up to a prospective
class action, which will argue their properties were damaged
needlessly, and pit them against the state government.

"We should report back in the next couple of weeks, make an
announcement and go from there," he said.

"We'll call it as we see it, or, more importantly, as our experts
see it".

The lawyers' determination to press ahead with their action came
as state Water Minister Mark McArdle on Sept. 25 ordered further
information from bureaucrats and the dam operator ahead of a final
decision on draining Wivenhoe ahead of the wet season.

The process, which will take two weeks, will allow the government
to order a quicker dam-lowering process in the event of a
disaster.

Premier Campbell Newman on Sept. 25 flagged retaining the dams at
the same high level -- Wivenhoe is currently at 99 per cent --
following a weather briefing warning of a hot and drier summer.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend "Nishimura" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd; Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.;
and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1-1522-07, was
filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on
July 20, 2011.  The case alleges premature corrosion of Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.'s strap tie holdown products in a housing
development at Ewa Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii.  The case is a
putative class action brought by owners of allegedly affected
homes.

The Complaint alleges that the Company's strap products and
mudsill anchors are insufficiently corrosion resistant and/or fail
to comply with Honolulu's building code.  The Company is currently
investigating the claims asserted in the complaint, including,
among other things: the existence and extent of the alleged
corrosion, if any; the building code provisions alleged to be
applicable and, if applicable, whether the products complied; the
buildings affected; the responsibility of the general contractor,
various subcontractors and other construction professionals for
the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and
the costs of repair, if any are needed.  At this time, the
likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any damage
allegedly suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are
unknown.  The Company denies any liability of any kind and intends
to defend itself vigorously in this case.

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.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering,
manufacture, and sale of building products.  It offers wood-to-
wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors; screw
fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel fasteners;
pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss plates; and a
range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors, carbide drill
bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete, masonry, and steel
markets, as well as a range of concrete repair products and
engineered materials for the repair, strengthening, and
restoration of asphalt and masonry construction.  The Company
markets its products to the residential construction, light
industrial and commercial construction, remodeling, and do-it-
yourself markets primarily in the United States, Canada, Europe,
Asia, and the South Pacific.  Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was
founded in 1956 and is based in Pleasanton, California.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Product Suits Pending in Ocean Pointe
------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits arising from alleged premature corrosion of its strap tie
holdown products installed in buildings in a housing development
known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, 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.

Four lawsuits (the "Cases") have been filed against the Company in
the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and
Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke
Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case
2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case
4").  Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009.  The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.  Case 1 is a putative class
action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe
houses.  Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko
Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing,
Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then
re-filed with a new representative plaintiff.  Case 2 is an action
by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the
Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are
defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to
provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility
to corrosion in certain environments.  Case 3 is a subrogation
action brought by the insurance company for the builders and
developers against the Company claiming the insurance company
expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the
Company's products.  Case 4 is a putative class action brought,
like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.
In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc. ("Haseko"), the developer of the
Ocean Pointe development, has brought a third party complaint
against the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may
be liable are actually the fault of the Company.  None of the
Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought, although each
of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive
damages.  Cases 1 and 4 have been consolidated.  The Company is
currently investigating the facts underlying the claims asserted
in the Cases, including, among other things, the cause of the
alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown to exist;
the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general
contractor, various subcontractors and other construction
professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of
damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed.  At this
time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any
property damage allegedly suffered and the extent of such
liability, if any, are unknown.  Management believes the Cases may
not be resolved for an extended period.  The Company intends to
defend itself vigorously in connection with the Cases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may
be covered by its insurance policies.  On April 19, 2011, an
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al.,
Civil No. 11-00254 ACK.  In this action, Plaintiff National Union
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National
Union"), which issued certain Commercial General Liability
insurance policies to the Company, seeks declaratory relief in the
Cases with respect to its obligations to defend or indemnify the
Company, Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., and a vendor of the
Company's strap tie holdown products.  By Order dated November 7,
2011, all proceedings in the National Union action have been
stayed.  If the stay is lifted and the National Union action is
not dismissed, the Company intends vigorously to defend all claims
advanced by National Union.

On April 12, 2011, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Fireman's
Fund"), another of the Company's general liability insurers, sued
Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford"), a third insurance
company from whom the Company purchased general liability
insurance, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the
"Fireman's Fund action").  The Company has intervened in the
Fireman's Fund action and has moved to stay all proceedings in
that action as well, pending resolution of the underlying Ocean
Pointe Cases.

On November 21, 2011, the Company commenced a lawsuit against
National Union, Fireman's Fund, Hartford and others in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and
County of San Francisco (the "San Francisco coverage action").  In
the San Francisco coverage action, the Company alleges generally
that the separate pendency of the National Union action and the
Fireman's Fund action presents a risk of inconsistent
adjudications; that the San Francisco Superior Court has
jurisdiction over all of the parties and should exercise
jurisdiction at the appropriate time to resolve any and all
disputes that have arisen or may in the future arise among the
Company and its liability insurers; and that the San Francisco
coverage action should also be stayed pending resolution of the
underlying Ocean Pointe Cases.  The Company intends to move for
such a stay if necessary.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering,
manufacture, and sale of building products.  It offers wood-to-
wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors; screw
fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel fasteners;
pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss plates; and a
range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors, carbide drill
bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete, masonry, and steel
markets, as well as a range of concrete repair products and
engineered materials for the repair, strengthening, and
restoration of asphalt and masonry construction.  The Company
markets its products to the residential construction, light
industrial and commercial construction, remodeling, and do-it-
yourself markets primarily in the United States, Canada, Europe,
Asia, and the South Pacific.  Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was
founded in 1956 and is based in Pleasanton, California.


STATER BROS: Settlement of "Martinez" Suit Approved in July
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit
initiated by Diego De Jesus Martinez was approved 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 24, 2012.

On November 5, 2010, an action by Diego De Jesus Martinez was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles against Markets ("Martinez Case") seeking
individual and potential class action monetary damages for alleged
discrepancies between the actual time worked by certain employees
and the amounts recorded on Markets' time clock reports.  On
October 26, 2011, following a mediation, the Martinez Case was
settled and the court approved the settlement in July of 2012.
The full settlement amount was recorded in the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended
September 25, 2011, and the recorded amount was paid on July 18,
2012.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets,
operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout
Southern California.


STATER BROS: Still Awaits Approval of "Lunsford" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In May of 2011, Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.'s wholly owned
subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets, was served with an action filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside ("Harold F. Lunsford et al. v. Stater Bros. Markets")
seeking individual and potential class action damages including
associated penalties for Markets' alleged failure to provide meal
periods, rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof and alleged
failure to pay certain wages for terminated employees.  On January
26, 2012, following a mediation, this case was settled subject to
final court approval of the settlement and the full settlement
amount has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial
statements for fiscal 2012.

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 24, 2012.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets,
operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout
Southern California.


STEVEN MADDEN: Awaits Okay of $10-Mil. "Ellison" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Madden, Ltd. is awaiting court approval of its $10 million
settlement of the class action lawsuit commenced by Samantha
Ellison, 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 19, 2011, an individual purporting to act on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals commenced a civil action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Samantha Ellison, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Steven Madden, Ltd.,
No. CV11-05935 (the "Ellison Action").  The Ellison Action asserts
that the Company made unsolicited commercial text calls to
wireless telephone numbers of the class in violation of the
Telecommunications Privacy Act and seeks, on behalf of the class,
an injunction requiring the Company to cease all wireless spam
activities and an award of statutory damages to the class members
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.  The Company
responded by challenging the lawsuit on several grounds.
Settlement discussions have resulted in a settlement being reached
on July 30, 2012, for an aggregate gross fund amount of
$10,000,000, including all settlement costs and administration
fees, as well as the fees recoverable by class counsel.  As the
settlement calls for the reversion of all monies not paid to class
claimants, it is possible that the actual settlement amount paid
will be substantially less than $10,000,000.  In addition, the
Company's insurance coverage will cover a portion of the
settlement at the rate of 45% of the initial settlement payment of
$5,000,000 and 30% of amounts over and above the initial
settlement payment.  The settlement remains subject to Court
approval.  Based on the settlement as contemplated and applying
the insurance coverage as applicable, the maximum exposure to the
Company is approximately $6,250,000, however, in light of
historical "take rates" in cases of this type, counsel estimates
that the actual liability to the Company will be between
approximately $2,000,000 and $2,500,000.  Accordingly, the Company
has recorded a liability in the amount of $2,500,000 in the second
quarter of 2012.  This liability is subject to change to reflect
any change in the status of this matter.

New York-based Steven Madden, Ltd., designs, sources, markets and
sells footwear for women, men and children. The Company also
designs, sources, markets and retails name brand and private label
fashion handbags and accessories, through its Accessories
Division.  The Company distributes products, through its retail
stores, its e-commerce Web site, department and specialty stores
throughout the United States and through distribution arrangements
in Asia, Canada, Europe, Central and South America, Australia and
Africa.  It operates in five segments: Wholesale Footwear,
Wholesale Accessories, Retail, First Cost and Licensing.


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Faces Class Action Over Redistricting
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Suffolk County
Legislature plans to trample minority rights by reapportioning the
two districts of Wheatley Heights, a class claims in federal
court.

A copy of the Complaint in Burnett, et al. v. Suffolk County
Legislature, et al., Case No. 12-cv-04696 (E.D.N.Y.) (Hurley, J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/26/Suffolk%20County.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Stewart Moore, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J. STEWART MOORE, P.C.
          320 Carleton Avenue, Suite 3300
          Central Islip, NY 11722
          Telephone: (631) 234-3111


UGI CORP: "Swigers" Class Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Harrison County, West Virginia, against UGI Corporation, an
insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the
General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance
adjusters.  In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory
and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged
violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice
Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy.
The Court has not certified the class and, in October 2008, stayed
the lawsuit pending resolution of a separate, but related, class
action lawsuit filed against AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County,
which was settled in Fiscal 2011.  The Company believes it has
good defenses to the claims in this action.

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.


WESTERN LIBERTY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Sale Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Segall, writing for Vegas Inc., reports that a shareholder in
Service1st Bank of Nevada's parent company has filed a class-
action lawsuit against the lender and its board of directors,
alleging they are selling the Las Vegas bank at an unfair price.

David Raul filed his complaint on Sept. 21 in Clark County
District Court.  He alleges the board of Western Liberty Bancorp
breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell the company to
Bank of Nevada's parent, Western Alliance Bancorp., for "grossly
inadequate consideration."

The deal has been valued at $55 million.

Mr. Raul further alleges that by cutting a deal with Western
Alliance, Western Liberty "inexplicably" abandoned the sales
process it began in mid-2011, "despite having interest from at
least eight parties."

Among other things, Mr. Raul is seeking class-action status for
him and other Western Liberty shareholders, as well as unspecified
damages.  He also named Western Alliance as a defendant in the
suit.

Such lawsuits are common when publicly traded companies agree to
be bought out, with shareholders arguing for a higher sales price.

Bill Martin, CEO of Service1st and its parent, could not
immediately be reached for comment on Sept. 24.  A spokesman for
Western Alliance also could not be reached.

Phoenix-based Western Alliance announced Aug. 17 it signed a
definitive agreement to buy Western Liberty.

The deal is expected to close this fall, and at that point,
Service1st will merge into Bank of Nevada.

Under the terms of the deal, Western Liberty shareholders can
choose to receive either $4.02 in cash or 43 percent of a share of
Western Alliance for each share they owned in Western Liberty.

Shares of Western Liberty soared in the first full trading day
after the deal was announced.  Its stock jumped 34 percent on
Aug. 20 to $3.82 per share, up from $2.85 on Aug. 17. It was the
largest percentage gain that day of any company listed on the
Nasdaq Stock Market or the New York Stock Exchange.

The stock has since climbed even higher, closing at $4.04 per
share on Sept. 24.

Bank of Nevada had 12 branches in Southern Nevada as of last
summer and nearly $2.5 billion of local deposits.  Service1st had
two branches in the region and $132 million of deposits, according
to the most recent federal regulatory data.

Western Liberty plans to close one of its branches, located at
8965 S. Eastern Ave.  The branch had roughly $36 million of
deposits as of last summer.

By comparison, Service1st's main office, at 8349 W. Sunset Road in
Las Vegas, holds $96 million of deposits.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Variety of Peanut Butter Cookies
-----------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling 3oz peanut butter cookies and 3oz
peanut butter chocolate chunk cookies sold in its self-serve
pastry case, and mini peanut butter cookies sold in 12-pack paper
bags due to possible Salmonella contamination in the peanut butter
used as an ingredient.  Salmonella is an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled cookies were sold before September 29, 2012 in all
Whole Foods Market stores in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and
Texas.  No illnesses have been reported related to the cookies.
This cookie recall is in response to a recall by Sunland, Inc.,
whose recalled peanut butter has been connected to 29 illnesses in
18 states.

Two of the recalled items are sold in the self-serve pastry case
(3oz Peanut Butter Cookie, 3oz Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk),
under the cookie PLU (47963).  The packaged cookies (Mini Peanut
Butter Cookie 12pk) are sold in small, plain brown bags featuring
a cellophane window on the front, an oval Whole Foods Market
sticker that says "mini peanut butter cookies" and has the PLU
(22096100000).  The recall includes all of these cookies sold
before September 29, 2012.

Signage is posted in Whole Foods Market stores to notify customers
of this recall.  Consumers who have purchased 3oz Peanut Butter
Cookie, 3oz Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk or Mini Peanut Butter
Cookie 12pk in these four states should discard them, and may
bring their receipt to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact 512-542-0060 Monday to Friday
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time.


WMI HOLDINGS: Hearing on Settlement of Suit vs. WMMRC on Nov. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing to approve the settlement of the class action
lawsuit against WMI Holdings Corp.'s sole operating subsidiary is
currently scheduled for November 27, 2012, according to the
Company's August 8, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

With respect to WMIHC's sole operating subsidiary, WM Mortgage
Reinsurance Company, Inc. ("WMMRC"), on October 22, 2007, lead
plaintiffs Robert Alexander and James Reed filed a putative Class
Action Complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the
"Pennsylvania Action") against WMMRC, Washington Mutual, Inc.
("WMI"), Washington Mutual Bank ("WMB") and Washington Mutual Bank
fsb ("FSB", and collectively, the "Defendants") alleging that the
Defendants violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Section 2607, by collecting
referral payments or unearned fees in the form of reinsurance
premiums.  Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the private
mortgage insurance policies procured in connection with their
loans are subject to captive reinsurance arrangements between
private mortgage insurers and WMMRC.  Plaintiffs have alleged that
a percentage of the mortgage insurance premiums paid by borrowers
are ceded to WMMRC, but that the risk assumed by WMMRC is not
commensurate with the premiums that it receives.  According to
plaintiffs, these allegedly excessive reinsurance premiums are
disguised kickbacks paid to WMI through the captive reinsurance
arrangements in exchange for the placement of its primary mortgage
business.  The complaint seeks treble damages, attorney's fees and
defense costs.

On December 21, 2007, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint.  That motion was denied. The Defendants
subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial with the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  Following the Third Circuit's
October 2009 decision in Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corp.,
585 F.3d 753 (3d Cir. 2009), which raised similar issues, the
petition for appeal in the Pennsylvania Action was denied and the
matter was returned to the district court.  On January 11, 2010,
the Pennsylvania Action was removed from the Civil Suspense File
and re-opened for final disposition by the district court.  A
joint discovery plan was approved by the district court on
February 2, 2010.  The Pennsylvania Action remained stayed as to
WMI due to its bankruptcy filing.

On March 1, 2010, WMMRC filed an Amended Answer to the Class
Action Complaint.  In addition, pursuant to the parties' joint
discovery plan, three additional motions were filed on March 1,
2010.  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), in its
capacity as receiver for WMB, and JPMC, as successor to FSB, filed
motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  Additionally, the FDIC, as receiver, filed a motion
to strike plaintiffs' class allegations against the FDIC for
failure to comply with procedural requirements of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act ("FIRREA").  The
FDIC's motion to dismiss was granted on June 28, 2011.

In 2011, the parties reached a preliminary compromise and
settlement in the Class Action Complaint.  That compromise was
subsequently memorialized in a written settlement agreement.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement
must be approved by the District Court.  On June 4, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement and on June 25, 2012, the District Court entered an
order preliminarily approving such settlement.  In accordance with
GAAP guidance on Loss Contingencies, in 2010 management recorded
(and continues to record) an accrual for estimated anticipated
settlements of $4 million as a component of other liabilities on
the balance sheet and as a component of general and administrative
expenses on the statement of operations.  The amount of such
accrual as of March 19, 2012, and December 31, 2011, corresponds
to the settlement amount.  On or about July 16, 2012, the
settlement amount was deposited into a settlement distribution
escrow account and will remain on deposit in such account until
the District Court finally approves the settlement.  A final
hearing to approve the settlement of the Class Action Complaint is
currently scheduled for November 27, 2012.


XL FOODS: FSIS Updates Health Alert for Imported Canadian Beef
--------------------------------------------------------------
The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is alerting
the public that, in conducting standard recall effectiveness
checks of U.S. domestic establishments receiving beef from XL
Foods, Inc. (Canadian Establishment 038), the Agency discovered
that whole muscle beef cuts produced on the same production dates
as beef subject to recall in Canada were being used to produce raw
ground products.  Specifically, FSIS discovered that sub-primal
materials (i.e., beef short ribs) produced on the same production
dates as beef subject to recall in Canada were being used by a
U.S. facility to manufacture other products and that the beef
short ribs were being trimmed in order for the trim to be used to
make ground beef.

FSIS has reason to believe, based on information provided by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), that beef from cattle
slaughtered during the period associated with the recall was
produced under insanitary conditions that resulted in a high event
period (a period when the trim from carcasses exhibited an
unusually high frequency of positive findings for the possible
presence of E. coli O157:H7).  Therefore, all products that are
non-intact, such as trim and ground beef subject to the recall, as
well as all cuts of beef that will be processed into non-intact
product, are considered adulterated.

Because FSIS now has evidence gathered through its effectiveness
checks that whole muscle cuts were being used to produce ground
beef, the Agency is using this public health alert to make the
public aware that product from these cuts are also are considered
adulterated unless they receive a full lethality treatment capable
of eliminating E. coli O157:H7 that may be present.

FSIS testing of raw boneless beef trim product from Canadian
Establishment 038, XL Foods, Inc., confirmed positive for E. coli
O157:H7 on September 3, 2012.  After alerting the CFIA of the
positive results, the agencies launched an investigation including
additional testing, and CFIA announced a recall by XL Foods, Inc.
of a variety of ground beef products on Sept. 16.  FSIS also
issued a Public Health Alert (PHA) on September 20, 2012, provided
updated information on September 21, 2012, conducted effectiveness
checks this week, and notified the public once more through the
PHA.  The CFIA has expanded the scope of the recall to now include
the production dates of August 24, August 27, August 28 and August
29, 2012, and FSIS has determined that a slaughter date of August
23, 2012, is common to all four production dates.

FSIS issues Public Health Alerts to make the public aware of a
public health hazard.  FSIS is not announcing a recall at this
time because the goal of such an action is to have the
establishment most directly associated with producing adulterated
product remove the product from commerce.  In this case, the
establishment was XL Foods, Inc., a Canadian firm, and that recall
has been initiated in Canada.  CFIA is overseeing the
effectiveness of the recall in Canada and FSIS is overseeing the
effectiveness in the United States.  FSIS continues to verify U.S.
establishments' use of primal and non-primal cuts associated with
the XL Foods recall and will take appropriate action if prohibited
activity is found.

While the investigation continues, FSIS will provide information
as it becomes available.  The products subject to the Canadian
recall were distributed to U.S. establishments in the following
states: California, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas, Utah,
Washington and Wisconsin.  FSIS will continue to update the retail
distribution list posted on FSIS' Web site at:

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

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

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

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
raw boneless beef trim products imported from Canada that have
been recalled by XL Foods.

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

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name      Location
    -------------      --------
    Albertson's        All locations in Oregon and Washington
                       State

    Food4Less          Greater Cincinnati area, Northern
                       Kentucky, Dayton Ohio, Southeastern
                       Indiana, Indiana (except for Evansville),
                       Illinois, and Eastern Missouri

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

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

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

    Safeway            Locations in Idaho, Montana, Oregon,
                       Washington State


XL GROUP: Objectors Appeal Antitrust Suit Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain objectors have filed appeals from the order approving XL
Group plc's settlement of a brokerage antitrust litigation,
according to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action (the "Class
Action") that was consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
captioned In re Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663,
Civil Action No. 04-5184 (the "MDL"), filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which named as new defendants
approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich Insurance Company,
Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XL-Cayman (the "XL
Defendants").  In the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted
various claims purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial
insureds against approximately 113 insurance companies and
insurance brokers through which the named plaintiffs allegedly
purchased insurance.  The Amended Complaint alleged that the
defendant insurance companies and insurance brokers conspired to
manipulate bidding practices for insurance policies in certain
insurance lines and failed to disclose certain commission
arrangements and asserted statutory claims under the Sherman Act,
various state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as common law claims
alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  By Opinion and Order dated
August 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the Sherman Act
claims with prejudice and, by Opinion and Order dated September
28, 2007, the District Court dismissed the RICO claims with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs then appealed both Orders to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16, 2010, the
Third Circuit affirmed in large part the District Court's
dismissal.  The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of certain
Sherman Act and RICO claims alleged against several defendants
including the XL Defendants but remanded those claims to the
District Court for further consideration of their adequacy.  In
light of its reversal and remand of certain of the federal claims,
the Third Circuit also reversed the District Court's dismissal
(based on the District Court's declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction) of the state-law claims against all defendants.  On
October 1, 2010, the remaining defendants, including the XL
Defendants, filed motions to dismiss the remanded federal claims
and the state-law claims.  The motions were fully briefed in
November 2010.  In May 2011, a majority of the remaining
defendants, including the XL Defendants, executed a formal
Settlement Agreement with the Class Action plaintiffs to settle
the Class Action and dismiss all claims with prejudice.  The
settlement was approved by the District Court by Order dated March
30, 2012.  The XL Defendants' portion of the defendants' aggregate
settlement payment is $6.75 million.  Certain objectors have filed
appeals from the District Court's March 30, 2012 Order approving
the settlement.

XL Group plc -- http://www.xlgroup.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides insurance and reinsurance coverages to
industrial, commercial, and professional firms, as well as
insurance companies and other enterprises worldwide. The Company
operates in three segments: Insurance, Reinsurance, and Life
Operations.

                           *********

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  * * *