CAR_Public/121002.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, October 2, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 195

                             Headlines

250 WEST: Awaits Filing of Amended Consolidated N.Y. Complaint
ADS INC: Recalls 63 Cyclone Swing Seats Due to Fall Hazard
AMERICA REALTY: Being Sold to Realty for Too Little, Suit Says
ARCH COAL: Still Awaits Final Okay of "Saratoga" Suit Settlement
ATOMIC AQUATICS: Recalls 4,200 Cobalt Dive Computers

CABOT STAINS: Recalls 28,400 Wood Cleaners and Wood Brighteners
COMPEX LEGAL: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Copying Fees
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Gender Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
CUMULUS MEDIA: Received Final OK of Wage Suit Settlement in July
DEBEERS: Consumers to Get Class Action Settlement Checks Soon

DILLON IMPORTING: Recalls 6,970 Captain Cutlass Toy Pirate Guns
FACEBOOK INC: May Face More Lawsuits Over Botched IPO
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of ERISA Suit
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Units Face RESPA-Violations Suit in Penn.
FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL: Judge Sets Class Action Trial Date

FOREVER CHEESE: Recalls Marte Brand Ricotta Salata Frescolina
FREDDIE MAC: Stearns County to Join Class Action
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Expired 18 oz. Hearts of Romaine Salad
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Almond Nature Valley Granola Bars
GUNNS: Former Directors Next Target of Shareholder Class Action

LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Rulings on HQS Suit Dismissal Bids
LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss IPO Suit
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Underwriters Convert Suit to Class Action
MACQUARIE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Credit Approval Policy
MEDIVATION INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending

MERCK & CO: Settles Class Action Over Coppertone Sunscreen
MG OIL: Seeks Dismissal of Gasoline Mislabeling Class Action
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Trial Dates in Securities Suit Not Yet Set
REALNETWORKS INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit
ROBBINS & MYERS: Robbins Geller & Dowd Files Class Action

SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Effective Date of Cryovac Suits' Deal
SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Canadian Settlement to Become Effective
SJ SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of Pension Benefit Claims
STEAM: German Rights Group Mulls Suit Over Class Action Clause

VILLAGE OF DOWNERS, IL: Court Okays Booking Fee Suit Deal Notice
WAL-MART STORES: Feb. 15 Class Certification Hearing Set
XL FOODS: FSIS Updates Lists of Stores With Recalled Products
YAHOO INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
YAHOO INC: Delaware Court Dismissed Claims in Shareholder Suit


                          *********

250 WEST: Awaits Filing of Amended Consolidated N.Y. Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. awaits the filing of an
amended complaint in the recently consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's August 9,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

250 West is a New York limited liability company organized as a
joint venture on May 25, 1953.  On September 30, 1953, 250 West
acquired fee title to the building known as 250 West 57th Street,
formerly known as the Fisk Building, and the land thereunder
located at 250-264 West 57th Street, New York, New York
(collectively, the Property).  On November 30, 2001, 250 West
converted to a limited liability company under New York law and is
now known as 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C.  The conversion
did not change any aspect of the assets and operations of the
Company other than to protect its participants from future
liability to a third party.  The Company's members are Peter L.
Malkin and Anthony E. Malkin, each of whom also acts as an agent
for holders of participations in their respective member interests
in the Company.  The Members in the Company hold senior positions
at Malkin Holdings LLC, One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd
Street, New York, New York, which provides supervisory and other
services to the Company and Lessee.

The Company does not operate the Property.  It leases the Property
to Fisk Building Associates L.L.C. (the Lessee) under a long-term
net operating lease dated May 1, 1954 (the Lease). In 1985, the
Participants in the Company consented to the Company's Agents
granting Lessee four options to extend the Lease, in each case for
an additional 25 year renewal period, the last expiring in 2103,
all on the same terms as the original lease.  The Agents intend to
grant such options on behalf of the Company, subject to Lessee's
compliance with such consents.  Such options have been granted by
the Agents and exercised by Lessee as to (a) the first renewal
period from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2028, and (b)
the second renewal period from October 1, 2028, through September
30, 2053.  The Participants in the Company have consented to the
granting of options to the Lessee to extend the lease for two
additional 25-year renewal terms expiring in 2103. Lessee is a New
York limited liability company whose members consist of, among
others, Anthony E. Malkin and entities for the benefit of members
of Peter L. Malkin's and Anthony E. Malkin's family.

Malkin Holdings and Peter L. Malkin, a member in the Company, were
engaged in a proceeding with Lessee's former managing agent,
Helmsley-Spear, Inc., commenced in 1997, concerning the
management, leasing, and supervision of the Property that is
subject to the Lease to Lessee.  In this connection, certain costs
for legal and professional fees and other expenses were paid by
Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin.  Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin
have represented that such costs will be recovered only to the
extent that (a) a competent tribunal authorizes payment or (b) an
investor voluntarily agrees that his or her proportionate share be
paid.  On behalf of himself and Malkin Holdings, Mr. Malkin has
requested, or intends to request, such voluntary agreement from
all investors, which may include renewing such request in the
future for any investor who previously received such request and
failed to confirm agreement at that time.  Because any related
payment has been, or will be, made only by consenting investors,
the Company has not provided for the expense and related liability
with respect to such costs in these financial statements.

Five putative class actions have been brought by Participants in
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. and several other entities
supervised by Malkin Holdings that own fee or leasehold interests
in various properties located in New York City, the first of which
was filed March 1, 2012 (the "Class Actions").  As currently
pending in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, each
Class Action challenges the proposed consolidation of those and
other properties supervised by Malkin Holdings into a real estate
investment trust (the "REIT") and the initial public offering of
shares of Class A common stock in Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.,
a Maryland corporation which intends to qualify for U.S. tax
purposes as a REIT.  The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin
Holdings, Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New
York, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin
Construction Corp., Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, Estate of
Leona M. Helmsley, Empire State Realty OP, L.P., and Empire State
Realty Trust, Inc. ("Defendants") for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, alleging, inter alia, that the terms of the transaction and
the process in which it was structured (including the valuation
which was employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing
entities, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to the
Malkin Holdings group and the prospectus/consent solicitation
fails to make adequate disclosure.  The complaints seek money
damages and injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction.
On
April 3, 2012, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the actions
and for appointment of co-lead counsel.  The motion was granted on
June 26, 2012, and the plaintiffs have 120 days from that date to
file a consolidated amended complaint.

The Class Actions are in a very preliminary stage, with no
responses to the complaints having been filed to date.

The Company says the outcome of this litigation is uncertain,
however, and as a result, the Defendants may incur costs
associated with defending or settling such litigation or paying
any judgment if they lose.  In addition, the Defendants may be
required to pay damage awards or settlements.  At this time, the
Defendants cannot reasonably assess the timing, outcome of this
litigation, and an estimate of the amount of loss, or its effect,
if any, on the Defendants' financial statements if applicable.
Defendants have stated they believe the Class Actions are baseless
and intend to defend them vigorously.

There is a risk that other third parties will assert claims
against the Defendants, including, without limitation, that the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants or that
the consolidation violates the relevant operating agreements, and
third parties may commence litigation against the Defendants.


ADS INC: Recalls 63 Cyclone Swing Seats Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
About 63 Cyclone Swing Seats were voluntarily recalled by
importer, ADS Inc., of Bremerton, Washington, d/b/a
SwingSetMall.com and PlaysetParts.com, and manufacturer, YCH
Industries Corp., of Taiwan, in cooperation with the CPSC.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The plastic swing seats can break during use, posing a fall hazard
to children.

The firm has received two reports of incidents involving the swing
seats breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves green, blue or yellow plastic, disc-shaped
Cyclone swing seats.  The swings are about 12 inches in diameter
and have a cone-shaped plastic piece in the middle to hold the
swing's rope.  Only swings with date codes "2012 5 18" through
"2012 6 25" stamped on the underside in black are included in this
recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12751.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at the firm's Web sites http://www.SwingSetMall.com/and
http://www.PlaysetParts.com/from May 2012 through June 2012 for
about $15 without a rope and $30 with a rope.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled swings and
contact the firm to receive a full refund or a replacement swing.
The firm is directly contacting consumers who purchased the
recalled swings.  For more information, contact the firm at (800)
985-7659 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web sites at
http://www.swingsetmall.com/and http://www.playsetparts.com/and
click on the "Safety" page to view the "Recalls" section.


AMERICA REALTY: Being Sold to Realty for Too Little, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald and Barbara Salenger, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. America Realty Capital Trust, Inc.,
Realty Income Corporation, Plus Merger Corporation, William M.
Kahane, Nicholas S. Schorsch, Leslie D. Michelson, William G.
Stanley, and Robert H. Burns, Case No. 653355/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
September 25, 2012) arises out of the Defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with Realty Income's proposed
acquisition of the publicly held shares of the Company for $12.21
per ARCT share in Realty Income stock.

On September 6, 2012, Realty Income and ARCT announced their entry
into a definitive agreement through which Realty Income will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of ARCT.  The Plaintiffs
allege that ARCT shareholders are losing their equity interests in
ARCT for an unfair price, while Realty Income is receiving
substantial benefits from the Proposed Acquisition at a reduced
price.  The Plaintiffs add that the terms of the Proposed
Acquisition were designed to lock up the sale of ARCT to one
buyer, Realty Income, on terms preferential to Realty Income, and
to undermine the interests of the Plaintiffs and the other public
stockholders of ARCT.

The Salengers are ARCT shareholders.

ARCT, a publicly traded corporation, is incorporated in Maryland
and headquartered in New York.  ARCT is a REIT that acquires, owns
and operates single-tenant freestanding commercial properties.
The Company's real estate portfolio is comprised of long-term, net
leases with primarily investment grade tenants.  Realty Income is
a Maryland corporation organized to operate as an equity real
estate investment trust and is headquartered in Escondido,
California.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street - 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com
                  info@trinko.com

               - and -

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8117 Preston Rd., Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR LLP
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com


ARCH COAL: Still Awaits Final Okay of "Saratoga" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust ("Saratoga") filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia against Arch Coal, Inc.'s subsidiary,
International Coal Group, Inc. ("ICG"), and certain of its
officers and directors seeking unspecified damages.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based
on alleged false and misleading statements in the registration
statements filed in connection with ICG's November 2005
reorganization and December 2005 public offering of common stock.
In addition, the complaint challenges other of ICG's public
statements regarding its operating condition and safety record.
On July 6, 2009, Saratoga filed an amended complaint asserting
essentially the same claims but seeking to add an individual co-
plaintiff.  ICG has filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In June 2011, ICG agreed to settle this matter for a
total of $1.375 million.  On August 1, 2011, the court issued its
order preliminarily approving settlement and conducted a
settlement fairness hearing on November 14, 2011.  The matter is
pending Court approval.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


ATOMIC AQUATICS: Recalls 4,200 Cobalt Dive Computers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Atomic Aquatics, of Huntington Beach, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 4,000 units of Cobalt Dive
Computers in the United States and 200 units in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The unit can leak and cause the lens of the computer to blow off
suddenly, which could result in impact injuries, and can cause a
gas leak, posing a drowning hazard.

The firm has received 23 reports of leaks caused by the lens being
forcefully expelled from the computer due to excess air pressure
inside the computer.  No injuries were reported.

This recall involves Atomic Aquatics brand Cobalt dive computers.
These handheld, console-style dive computers have LCD screens and
four magnetic control buttons located below the screen.  A fitting
at the bottom of the computer connects to the high pressure hose
of a scuba diving regulator.  The name Atomic Aquatics logo is
imprinted on the front of the console, below the screen.  The
recalled products can be identified by the manufacture dates,
which are determined by the first four numbers of the serial
number with the first 2 digits signifying the week of manufacture
(01 through 52) and the second 2 digits signifying the year of
manufacture (10, 11 or 12).  The dates of manufacture are between
May 31, 2010, and April 16, 2012.  Serial numbers, 2210-XXXX
through 1612-XXXX, can be found by scrolling to the "System Info"
screen on the computer.

The recall affects all Cobalt computers with serial numbers that
start with any of the following numbers:

   10 Series:  2210, 2910, 4010, 4710, 5010

   11 Series:  1111, 1711, 2611, 2811, 3211, 3311, 3411, 3511,
               3611, 3711, 3811, 3911, 4011, 4111, 4211, 4511,
               4611, 5211

   12 Series:  0812, 1112, 1212, 1312, 1412, 1612

A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12286.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized Atomic Aquatics dealers from
November 2010 through July 2012 for about $1200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dive
computers and return the unit to either an authorized Atomic
Aquatics dealer or the Atomic Aquatics factory for inspection and
repair.  For additional information, contact Atomic Aquatics toll-
free at (888) 270-8595 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday or on firm's Web site at
http://www.atomicaquatics.com/. Consumers can also e-mail the
firm at sales@atomicaquatics.com


CABOT STAINS: Recalls 28,400 Wood Cleaners and Wood Brighteners
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cabot Stains, a division of Valspar Corp., of Newburyport,
Massachusetts, announced a voluntary recall of about 17,500 units
of the Wood Cleaner and 10,900 units of the Wood Brightener in
container with spray pump.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The spray pump used for both products can lose its seal, causing
the product to leak.  Chemicals in these products can cause
burning or other serious injuries if the product comes into
contact with skin or eyes or is ingested.

Three incidents of leaks have been reported.  No injuries have
been reported.

Both products come in 1.3 gallon white handle tanks with black
pump assembly and sprayer hose.  The front has a yellow Cabot
label with the product name.  The back panel label contains
instructions for use and product information and UPC codes
080351810503 on the Wood Cleaner bottles and 080351810497 on the
Wood Brightener bottles.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12283.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Ace Hardware, Do It Best, Farm & Fleet, Lowes
Home Improvement Stores, United Hardware, and other hardware
stores nationwide from March 2011 until June 2012 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately discontinue use of the products and
return them to the store of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
should also not attempt to reuse empty containers.  For additional
information, contact Cabot toll-free at (877) 755-3336 between
8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 7 days a week, or log on to
http://www.cabotstain.com/recall/


COMPEX LEGAL: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Copying Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that a record-
retrieval company overcharges lawyers for its copy services, a
class claims in court.

"Defendant Compex Legal Service has been and is charging an
unreasonable amount for their copy services, to wit: charged a
$12.50 charting fee; charged a basic charge of $46.00; charged
$8.00 for shipping and handling; and charged a.$10.00 late
processing fee; charged $0.40 per page copied," according to the
complaint.

Lead plaintiff Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser & Zoeller PA says it
has been in existence since 1975.  It sued along with individual
attorney Scott Addlesberger.

They say Compex Legal Services owes $15,000 in damages for unjust
enrichment, conversion, and violations of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

"Defendant Compex Legal Service Inc. has engaged and continues to
engage in the business of retrieving, copying and shipping records
for law firms, individuals, their duly appointed designees," the
complaint states.

"The defendant submits its record request forms with
correspondence stating the charges for their services are $0.25
per page for copies and $7.50 for shipping and handling," the
class adds.  "The defendant does not provide notice of any other
charges.

"After plaintiffs and those similarly situated requested copies
from the defendant, they receive an invoice for additional and
excessive charges."

The class says excessive fees for charting and shipping are
unreasonable.

"Compex Legal Service Inc. issues thousands of invoices and
collects funds for copying and mailing records from requestors in
the state of Florida," the complaint states.

The actions "constitute unlawful business and reprehensible public
policy practices," the class adds.

Compex Legal Services should be required to disgorge unjust
enrichment and improperly converted profits, according to the
complaint.

A copy of the Complaint in Halvorson, et al. v. Complex Legal
Services, Inc., Case No. 2012CA017558 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Palm Beach
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/27/complexlegal.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason D. Weisser, Esq.
          David M. Kerner, Esq.
          SCHULER, HALVORSON, WEISSER & ZOELLER, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Ste. 4-D
          Barristers Building
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 689-8180
          E-mail: jweisser@shw-law.com
                  dkerner@shw-law.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Gender Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Allison, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that a
judge said a years-old class-action gender-discrimination lawsuit
against Costco Wholesale can move forward.  Costco had hoped to
stop the lawsuit after a case against Wal-Mart was thrown out by
the U.S. Supreme Court.

Costco Wholesale on Sept. 25 lost the latest round in a class-
action discrimination lawsuit that began in 2004.

The case involves roughly 700 women passed over for jobs as
warehouse manager and assistant manager because, the suit claims,
Costco has a discriminatory system in which it does not post those
positions or descriptions of them.

Costco officials had hoped to stop the suit after the U.S. Supreme
Court threw out a class-action gender-discrimination case against
Wal-Mart Stores.

The Costco case was put on hold for three years as the Wal-Mart
case worked its way to the Supreme Court, which in 2011 said there
were too many women -- as many as 1.5 million -- to be in a single
class-action case.  It also said employees can pursue class-action
suits only if there is a companywide policy that results in
discrimination against women or minorities.

After that decision, the Costco suit was revived in Northern
California, where U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on Sept. 25
granted plaintiffs' attorneys the right to move forward with
discovery, after which a court date will be set.

"We think Costco is a good employer, but they've had a blind spot
about the process for selecting warehouse managers and assistant
managers," said Jocelyn Larkin of the nonprofit Impact Fund in
Berkeley, who is lead counsel for the plaintiffs.  "We think it
wouldn't be difficult for them to put in place a system that would
be fair for everyone."

Two things that would help, she said, are posting openings for
those positions and providing written criteria of "what it takes
to be selected for the job.  It's nice for people to know this is
what I have to do in order to get the job."

Costco's chief legal counsel, Joel Benoliel, said in an e-mail,
"We have not yet received or reviewed the decision and will have
no comment [Tues]day."

Former CEO Jim Sinegal said in a 2009 interview, "We're not in the
business of discriminating against people or cheating our
employees relative to their wages or anything.  That's contrary to
the way Costco does business."

In his decision to let the case proceed, Judge Chen cited evidence
that Costco has a companywide policy for deciding who run its
warehouses.  Top management -- all the way to Mr. Sinegal -- helps
make those decisions, "including the maintenance of a Green Room
at corporate headquarters where the photographs of potential
promotees are displayed."

Judge Chen also cited evidence that management knows there is a
diversity problem.  A focus group of managers convened in 2001
found that Costco's employee base overall reflects the U.S.
population by race and gender, but the team found "serious
breakdowns occur at the management level."

Costco rejected that team's recommendation to post jobs for all
positions.

Women received only 103 of the 561 promotions to assistant general
manager between 1999 and August 2004, Judge Chen wrote, citing
plaintiffs' evidence.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Received Final OK of Wage Suit Settlement in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. received in July 2012 final approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit involving its subsidiary,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On January 21, 2010, a former employee of CMP Susquehanna Corp.
("CMPSC") (which became a subsidiary of Cumulus upon completion of
the CMP Acquisition on August 1, 2011) filed a purported class
action lawsuit, pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (the
"Court"), against CMPSC claiming (i) unlawful failure to pay
required overtime wages; (ii) late pay and waiting time penalties;
(iii) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (iv)
failure to indemnify for necessary expenses and losses; and (v)
unfair trade practices under California's Unfair Competition Act.

On September 2, 2011, CMPSC and this former employee entered into
a Joint Stipulation re: Settlement and Release of Class Action
Claims (the "Settlement") with respect to such lawsuit.  The
Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on February 6,
2012, and provides for the payment by CMPSC of a maximum of $0.9
million in full and final settlement of all of the claims made in
the lawsuit.

Final approval by the Court was obtained on July 13, 2012.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Cumulus Media Inc. (NASDAQ: CMLS) --
http://www.cumulus.com/-- is the second largest radio broadcaster
in the United States based on station count, controlling 350 radio
stations in 68 U.S. media markets.  In combination with its
affiliate, Cumulus Media Partners, LLC, the Company believes it is
the fourth largest radio broadcast company in the United States
when based on net revenues.


DEBEERS: Consumers to Get Class Action Settlement Checks Soon
-------------------------------------------------------------
WSYR-TV reports that the first checks have been mailed to diamond
dealers who filed a claim in the DeBeers class action lawsuit and
consumer checks should follow soon.

Those who have moved since joining the suit can still receive
their checks.

To notify the claims administrator of a change of residence, call
1-800-760-5431 or write to PO Box 9432 Minneapolis, MN 55440-9432.


DILLON IMPORTING: Recalls 6,970 Captain Cutlass Toy Pirate Guns
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Dillon Importing Co., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and
manufacturer, Ko Lik Manufacturing Ltd., of Hong Kong, China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 6,970 units of Captain
Cutlass Toy Pirate Pistols.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The surface paints on the pirate toy pistols contain excessive
levels of lead, a violation of the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Captain Cutlass Pirate Pistol toys with a
brown plastic grip, a black metallic stock and barrel, and a
muzzle with an orange cap.  The double-barreled toy pistol has one
trigger and two hammers.  A skull and crossbones motif is engraved
on the grip.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12285.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Halloween and specialty stores nationwide from April 2008 through
May 2012 for about $6.50.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pistol toys away
from children and contact Dillon Importing for instructions on
returning the product for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact toll-free at (800) 654-3696 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.dillonimporting.com/


FACEBOOK INC: May Face More Lawsuits Over Botched IPO
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron Lucchetti, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Facebook Inc.'s botched initial public offering is turning into a
potential legal morass for the social-networking firm, its
investment bankers and the exchange on which it went public.

About 50 lawsuits have been filed against Facebook, Nasdaq OMX
Group Inc. and underwriters of Facebook's May IPO, according to
lawyers involved in the cases.

In addition, securities lawyers who represent Facebook investors
say they expect hundreds of arbitration claims to be launched
against brokers and securities firms that pitched the company's
shares.

While investors face an uphill battle to recover losses, some
legal experts said defendants in the arbitration claims and civil
lawsuits face potentially large financial exposure given the
stock's 47% slide since the IPO.  The slump has erased about $38
billion in Facebook's stock-market value.  On Sept. 25, the
company's shares fell 2.5%, or 51 cents, to $20.28 in Nasdaq
trading.

"IPOs are the most attractive kind of suit for the plaintiff's
bar," said John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia University.
While at least one-third of such class-action cases are thrown
out, many of the rest eventually conclude in settlements for
roughly 2% to 3% of the alleged losses, he estimated.

According to Stanford University's Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse, Facebook has been named as a defendant in 29 of the
53 securities class-action filings related to IPOs this year.

The highly-anticipated Facebook IPO was plagued with problems,
potentially costing thousands of dollars to many small investors
and further damaging Wall Street's reputation on Main Street.

The bulk of the cases against Facebook and underwriters led by
Morgan Stanley allege that investors weren't told clearly enough
in disclosures that the social-networking firm's growth was
suffering from a migration in customers to mobile devices from
desktop computers.  Some analysts are concerned about Facebook's
advertising model for mobile devices.

Facebook and Nasdaq declined to comment.

In a securities filing, Facebook has said the lawsuits are
"without merit." Just before the initial public offering, Facebook
updated its stock-sale document with a warning about the mobile-
device trend and its possible impact on results.

People familiar with the company's thinking say Facebook followed
the securities rules mandating that certain deal-related
communications be disclosed only in a deal's prospectus.

At the same time, many stock analysts covering Facebook reduced
their revenue and earnings estimates for the company.  That
information was passed along to many large institutions -- but not
to many retail investors. Such information isn't required to be
made public.

A Morgan Stanley spokesman said that the firm followed "all
applicable regulations" with its handling of the Facebook IPO.  It
said that Facebook's revised prospectus filing on May 9 was
"widely publicized" and that "a significant number of research
analysts" reduced their earnings views to reflect the "impact of
the new information."

Steven Caruso, a partner at law firm Maddox Hargett & Caruso in
New York, says he is preparing to file as many as a dozen
arbitration claims with the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, representing investors who claim the deal's price was
"elevated" or they "weren't given the same information."

Lawyers say some Facebook investors aren't doing anything until
they know how much money will come from Nasdaq, which has admitted
that technology glitches hampered investors' ability to buy and
sell for a few hours on May 18.  The exchange operator is willing
to pay $62 million but has said it shouldn't be held responsible
for all Facebook investor losses.

A judicial panel playing the role of legal traffic cop recently
heard arguments about how and where the Facebook lawsuits should
be heard in court.  Legal experts say that many or all of the
cases could be brought to the same court in the U.S.  Southern
District of New York, with the cases combined into a small group.

Among the civil suits filed so far, about 30 name Facebook as a
defendant, according to the Stanford database.  The rest are
focused on Nasdaq, underwriters and directors, a lawyer familiar
with the cases said.  The Securities and Exchange Commission and
state regulators are looking into how individual investors were
treated in the Facebook deal.

Securities class-action suits can drag on for several years.
Arbitration cases, which typically are ruled by fairness or equity
issues rather than strict legal doctrines, generally appeal to
investors with steeper losses.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in July
2012 the order dismissing a class action lawsuit against Flagstar
Bancorp, Inc., according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In February 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court alleging
that it violated its fiduciary duty pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") to employees who
participated in the Company's 401(k) plan ("Plan") by continuing
to offer Company stock as an investment option after investment in
the stock allegedly ceased to be prudent.  On July 16, 2010, the
Company moved to dismiss the complaint and asserted, among other
things, that the Plan's investment in employer stock was protected
by a presumption of prudence under ERISA, and that plaintiff's
allegations failed to overcome such presumption.  On March 31,
2011, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the
case.  The plaintiffs appealed the matter to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On July 23, 2012, the Court of
Appeals issued its ruling, reversing the district court's
dismissal and remanding the case to the district court for further
proceedings.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Units Face RESPA-Violations Suit in Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc.'s subsidiaries are facing a class action
lawsuit in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's August 9,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In May 2012, Flagstar Bank, FSB, and Flagstar Reinsurance Company
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of Section 8 provisions of Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").  Section 8 of RESPA
generally prohibits anyone from accepting any fee or thing of
value pursuant to any agreement or understanding that business
related to a real estate settlement service involving a mortgage
loan shall be referred to any person. Section 8 of RESPA also
prohibits anyone from accepting any portion, split, or percentage
of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate
settlement service in connection with a mortgage loan other than
for services actually performed.  The lawsuit specifically alleges
that the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company violated Section 8
of RESPA through a captive reinsurance arrangement, involving
allegedly illegal payments for the referral of private mortgage
insurance business from private mortgage insurers to Flagstar
Reinsurance Company, and Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported
receipt of an unlawful split of private mortgage insurance
premiums.  The Bank is in the beginning stages of evaluating the
allegations in the complaint, but it intends to vigorously defend
against such allegations.


FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL: Judge Sets Class Action Trial Date
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Talhelm, writing for NBC29.com, reports that a federal judge
in Charlottesville has set a trial date for a class action lawsuit
filed by five prisoners at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for
Women.

The Charlottesville-based Legal Aid Justice Center filed the suit
in federal court in July.  It alleges the Virginia Department of
Corrections and its health care contractor fail to provide proper
medical care and timely treatment to prisoners.

A nine-day jury trial is scheduled to begin October 15 of next
year.  First, a judge will consider a defense request to dismiss
the case on that same date this year.


FOREVER CHEESE: Recalls Marte Brand Ricotta Salata Frescolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Forever Cheese Inc. is notifying consumers of their expanded
recall of all Marte brand Ricotta Salata Frescolina cheese,
originally announced on September 14, 2012, due to possible
Listeria Monocytogenes contamination.  Listeria Monocytogenes is
an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer
only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The cheese was sold to distributors for retailers and restaurants
in AL, CA, CO, CT, D.C., FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME,
MN, MT, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA, WA between
September 1, 2011, and August 31, 2012.  Products were sold to
supermarkets, restaurants and wholesale distributors.

The cheese in question is Marte brand Frescolina Ricotta Salata,
which is a product of Italy.  The expanded recall, announced on
September 14, 2012, includes ALL lots and ALL production codes.
The following lots/production codes may be found on the original
wheel: T5086/440220, T5520/440315, T6048/440417, T6528/440519,
T7012/440703, T7452/440601, T7939/440822, T8419/441003,
T8899/441020, T9425/441202, T9962/441227, U1392/450126

Consumers may wish to follow up at the place they purchased the
ricotta salata to ensure when it was cut or repacked that it was
not relabeled.  If the product was relabeled, consumers may not be
able to determine if the cheese is Marte brand Ricotta Salata
Frescolina.

There is an outbreak of 15 reported illnesses in 12 states which
has been linked to this particular cheese.

Each and every distributor and retailer are being contacted in an
effort to recall any and all remaining product in the marketplace.

If you believe that you have purchased any of this cheese please
contact your distributor or retailer for a full refund.  If you
have any questions please call Forever Cheese contact Jeff DiMeo
at (888) 930-8693 between 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday - Friday)
Eastern Standard Time and mention "Recall."


FREDDIE MAC: Stearns County to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Kirsti Marohn, writing for sctimes.com, reports that Stearns
County will participate in a class-action lawsuit against mortgage
giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for failure to pay a real estate
transfer tax.

The county board voted unanimously on Sept. 25 formally to join
the suit filed by Hennepin County in August on behalf of all 87
Minnesota counties.

The lawsuit contends that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have refused
to pay a deed tax on thousands of foreclosed properties they
acquired after the housing market crash.  The two firms have
argued that they are exempt from paying the tax under their
federal charter.

Under Minnesota law, counties are required to collect a deed
transfer tax from the property seller when a deed is recorded. For
a $100,000 home, the tax is $330.

About 97 percent of the tax goes to the state, while the county
keeps 3 percent.  Stearns County's share amounts to about $1,000 a
year over the past five or six years, said Randy Schreifels,
county auditor-treasurer.

"It's not a huge amount, but we're not putting much time into it,"
Mr. Schreifels said.  "I don't think there's any harm to be part
of this."

All counties are included in the class-action suit unless they opt
out.  Sherburne County informally voiced support for the legal
action recently, while Benton County will discuss it Oct. 3.


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Expired 18 oz. Hearts of Romaine Salad
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express Incorporated is voluntarily recalling a limited
quantity of expired 18 oz. Hearts of Romaine salad with the
expired Use-by Date of September 26, 2012, and Product Code
H256808 as a precaution due to a possible health risk.

No consumer complaints have been received by Fresh Express
Consumer Response Center in association with this recall.  No
other Fresh Express products are being recalled.

The product was distributed primarily in Northeast and Midwest of
the United States.

Fresh Express customer service representatives are already
contacting retailers to confirm the product was removed from their
inventories and store shelves in accordance with standard
procedures for products that have reached their expiration date.
Customers with questions may contact their Fresh Express customer
service representative

Should consumers have this expired product in their refrigerators,
it should discarded and not consumed.  Consumers with questions
may call the Fresh Express Consumer Response Center at (800) 242-
5472 during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time.

The precautionary recall notification for the now-expired salad is
being issued due to an isolated incident in which a sample of a
single package of 18 oz. Hearts of Romaine salad yielded a
positive result for Listeria monocytogenes as part of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's random sample testing program.
Fresh Express is continuing to coordinate closely with regulatory
officials.

Specific information follows:

   Product Being Recalled: Fresh Express Hearts of Romaine in
                           18 oz. package

   Product Code: H256808 (located in upper right corner on front
                 of package)

   Use-by Date: September 26, 2012 (also located in upper right
                hand corner of package)

   Distribution: Northeast and Midwest Regions of the U.S.

FRESH EXPRESS PRECAUTIONARY SALAD RECALL - 9/27/12
(No other Fresh Express Salads are included in this recall)

                                                      Production
BRAND       PRODUCT NAME    SIZE      UPC               Code
-----       ------------    ----      ---            ----------
Fresh       Hearts of       18 oz.   071279-262017     H256A08
Express     Romaine

Best If Used By Date: SEP 26

POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION STATES: CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, NC,
                              OH, PA, RI, VT, VA, WV,
                              WASHINGTON D.C.


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Almond Nature Valley Granola Bars
--------------------------------------------------------
General Mills is voluntarily recalling a single day's production
of Almond Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars because of
a labeling issue.  Product produced on this date may have been
packaged incorrectly, and may contain allergens not listed on the
box's ingredient label, specifically peanuts.

A production error resulted in a limited number of properly
labeled, individually wrapped Peanut Nature Valley Sweet & Salty
Nut Granola Bar packages being inserted into 6-count boxes labeled
as Almond Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars.

The Almond Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars carton
does contain an allergen statement indicating the product "may
contain peanuts."

There have been no reports of allergic reactions or illnesses
associated with this product.

This voluntary recall includes only 6-count boxes of Almond Nature
Valley Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars with one Better if Used By
date printed on the top of the box: 26FEB2013

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm321344.htm

No other varieties or production dates of Nature Valley products
are affected by this recall.

Consumers allergic to peanuts, or who are unsure of whether they
are allergic to peanuts, should not consume Almond Nature Valley
Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bar products from 6-count boxes bearing
the Better if Used By date 26FEB2013 on the top of the box, and
should contact General Mills for replacement or a full refund.

Consumers requesting refunds or calling with further questions
should contact General Mills Consumer Services at 1-800-231-0308.


GUNNS: Former Directors Next Target of Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for BusinessDay, reports that former Tasmanian
premier Robin Gray and other directors of forestry group Gunns may
become additional targets of a AUD75 million shareholder class
action against the company following its collapse into
administration on Sept. 25.

Gunns' directors on Sept. 25 appointed Ian Carson, Daniel Bryant
and Craig Crosbie of PPB as administrators after a syndicate of
banks owed AUD560 million refused to continue funding the deeply
unprofitable company, which had been buffeted by low woodchip
prices and the high dollar.

The banking syndicate, led by the ANZ, has moved to protect its
position by appointing Mark Korda and Bryan Webster of KordaMentha
as receivers.

The fall into administration of the once-dominant forestry group
makes more precarious its controversial AUD2 billion Bell Bay pulp
mill project, already under a cloud after the company said in
August it was no longer certain to go ahead.

It also means shareholders in a class action brought against the
company by law firm Maurice Blackburn face the prospect of winning
the lawsuit but being unable to recover damages.

In the Federal Court lawsuit, shareholders seeking between $35
million and $75 million allege Gunns sat on negative financial
information for months in the lead-up to a shocking 98 per cent
profit plunge unveiled in February 2010.

Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan, who is running the
class action, said the firm would consult with clients and funder
IMF about adding company directors and officers as defendants.

"They've got the potential to sue directors and officers for the
same conduct," she said.

"And there's also the possibility of [directors'] insurance."

As of December 31, 2009, the directors of Gunns were Mr. Gray,
chairman John Gay, Chris Newman, Richard Millar, David Simmons and
Paul Teisseire.

Mr. Newman is now chairman and Messrs. Simmons and Millar remain
on the board.  In the class action, it is alleged Gunns knew its
results for the six months to the end of 2009 would be dismal as
early as August 31 that year.

It is alleged that instead of warning the market of the impending
profit slump, Gunns management instead said prices for woodchips
were improving and it had hit the "bottom of the cycle".

Ms. Gilsenan said Maurice Blackburn was also closely watching the
criminal case brought against Mr. Gay, whom the corporate watchdog
has charged with insider trading over sales of Gunns shares in
December 2009.  "Obviously there would be a considerable overlap
between the issues in the Gay case and the class action," she
said.

IMF investment manager Simon Dluzniak said it was conceivable
Gunns could trade out of administration "but it seems unlikely".

"In the event that they don't, IMF will look at other courses of
recourse including directors' and officers' insurance," he said.

Gunns' most recent annual report, for 2011, shows the company held
professional liability insurance for Messrs. Gray, Newman, Millar,
Simmons, and Teisseire, valid until July this year.

As of June 30, AUD560 million was owed to a banking syndicate made
up of ANZ, Mizuho, China Construction Bank, Nordea Bank Finland,
Sumitomo Mitsui, Norddeutsche Landesbank, BOS International, Mega
International Commercial Bank, United Overseas Bank and Bank of
Finland.

As lead banker, ANZ is believed to have the greatest exposure but
a spokesman declined to say how much Gunns owed the bank.

However, ANZ is unlikely to be forced to set aside additional
money to cover the Gunns loan, because it has been building up
provisions against it.

As late as August 31, when it filed its annual return, Gunns
directors were insisting the company was solvent, highlighting the
need for "ongoing lender support" to "stabilize the company's
operations", but saying it was "appropriate" to consider the
company a going concern.

The company declared a loss of AUD903 million as it slashed the
value of its assets, including cutting AUD796 million from the
book value of the Bell Bay project.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Rulings on HQS Suit Dismissal Bids
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is awaiting court
decisions on motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit arising
from public offerings of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc.,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In December 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. ("HQS"), various
individuals, Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters
of 2009 and 2010 offerings of HQS common stock.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg, are liable for
violations of federal securities laws.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages.  Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint
are currently pending.  The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and, if they are not dismissed, intends to
vigorously defend against them.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss IPO Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is awaiting a court
decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit arising
from FriendFinder Networks, Inc.'s initial public offering in May
2011, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

In December 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against FriendFinder Networks, Inc. ("FriendFinder"), various
individuals, Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters
for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinder initial public offering.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg, are
liable for violations of federal securities laws.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages.  Defendants' motions to dismiss the
complaint are currently pending.  The Company believes that the
claims are without merit and, if they are not dismissed, intends
to vigorously defend against them.


LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Underwriters Convert Suit to Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Ugolik, writing for Law360, reports that Lloyd's of London
underwriters won a bid on Sept. 24 to drop several plaintiffs from
their suit seeking to determine coverage liability for a $20
million construction accident at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s
headquarters in Manhattan, converting the suit to a class action.

After four of six of the defendant insurers won summary judgment
last year and two others failed to escape claims, Lloyd's
discovered that the court lacked complete diversity jurisdiction
because some of the underwriters involved were actually New York
residents.


MACQUARIE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Credit Approval Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fraser Coast Chronicle reports that a single mother of three went
into a "dreadful spiral of debt" after she was granted a AUD2
million loan despite having no "capacity to pay interest or
capital", a court has heard.

Tracey Richards, 49, had spent years raising her children and had
only begun working as a receptionist for a month -- earning
AUD24,000 a year -- when Macquarie Bank approved the loan.

Barrister Douglas Campbell, representing a class action against
Macquarie, told the Federal Court in Brisbane he found it a
"surprising" move.

He said class action members, who are seeking compensation from
the bank, sought to prove the bank had acted unconscionably in
approving Ms. Richards' loan, and others, and that it breached
loan contracts.

The class action is piggybacking on an Australian Securities and
Investment Commission case against Storm Financial, Macquarie and
Bank of Queensland.

Mr. Campbell told the court Ms. Richards bought a AUD400,000
Brisbane unit to live in with her children, aged nine to 16, and
put the remaining AUD380,000 from her divorce settlement in the
bank.

He said she got AUD30,000 child support, AUD4000 family payment
and the interest from the money in the bank, which totaled about
AUD54,000 a year.

Mr. Campbell said Mrs. Richards, having not worked, did not have
any superannuation and wanted to invest her money wisely.

He showed the court a Storm Financial document revealing her goal
through investment was "to be happy until the day (I) die".

Ms. Richards decided to sell the unit, which fetched AUD450,000,
and rent until she found a bigger house to accommodate her growing
children.

When she found the perfect house, selling for AUD650,000, she
approached Storm about selling her shares.

But Mr. Campbell said a Storm Financial advisor convinced her she
should not invest in real estate but stick with shares.

"She believed her financial future was now safe and secure," he
said.

"He convinced her to splash out on more luxuries because he said
she could afford them."

Mr. Campbell said Mrs. Richards then invested more money and
agreed to a AUD2 million loan against what she had already
invested.

But he said she had to repeatedly sell unit shares to pay for
living expenses and supplement her income.

She lost everything when the stock market, and Storm Financial,
crashed in 2008.

"Mrs. Richards didn't have the capacity to service the interest
component of the loan," he said.

"She did not have the capacity to pay without going into further
debt.

"Mrs. Richards was entering a dreadful spiral of debt which would
be difficult if not impossible to extricate herself."

Mr. Campbell alleged Macquarie showed "no consideration of how the
interest or capital was to be repaid".

"It appears to be built with the belief that prices would continue
to rise and if they didn't the borrower would immediately be in
difficulty," he said.

"Macquarie was prepared and did stretch the bounds of its own risk
credit protocols for the significant commercial opportunities
presented by Storm."

The trial continues.


MEDIVATION INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against Medivation, Inc., remains pending,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In March 2010, the first of several putative securities class
action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers.  The lawsuits are largely identical
and allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants disseminated false and misleading statements about the
effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of their costs
and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
September 21, 2006, and March 2, 2010.  The actions were
consolidated in September 2010 and, in April 2011 the court
entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund, L.P. and its attorneys
as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  Thereafter, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which was
dismissed without prejudice as to all defendants in August 2011.
The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November
2011.

In March 2012, the court dismissed the second amended complaint
with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants.  Lead
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2012 and filed its opening
brief in July 2012.  Defendants' response was due on or about
August 29, 2012.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in the
lawsuit, and intends to advance its positions in the lawsuit
vigorously.  However, the lawsuit is subject to inherent
uncertainties, the actual costs may be significant, and the
Company may not prevail.  The Company has not established any
reserve for any potential liability relating to the lawsuit.  The
Company believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant
insurance policies for the putative securities class action
lawsuits, subject to a $350,000 retention, but coverage could be
denied or prove to be insufficient.


MERCK & CO: Settles Class Action Over Coppertone Sunscreen
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Berkrot and Ransdell Pierson, writing for Reuters, report
that Merck & Co has agreed to pay between $3 million and $10
million to settle a nearly decade old class-action lawsuit that
alleged the company made false claims about the benefits of its
Coppertone sunscreen products.

Merck acquired the popular Coppertone franchise in 2009 when it
bought U.S. rival Schering-Plough Corp, and thereby inherited the
2003 lawsuit.

Merck denied any wrongdoing or liability or that anyone was harmed
by the allegedly exaggerated claims for Coppertone sprays and
lotions cited in the lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of
numerous consumers.

It agreed to the settlement "solely for the purpose of avoiding
the burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continuing to
litigate those issues," the company said in the settlement
agreement filed on Sept. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Merck agreed that all Coppertone sunscreen products manufactured
on or after June 22, 2012 for sale in the United States, its
territories and possessions, will not use the terms "sunblock,"
"waterproof," "sweatproof," "all day" and/or "all day protection"
in the label, advertising, marketing or promotion of the products.

Once the settlement becomes final, members of the class who bought
the Coppertone products at issue will be able to submit a claim
worth up to $1.50 for each eligible sunscreen product purchased.

Merck spokesman Ron Rogers said all Coppertone products meet the
latest standards for broad-spectrum sun protection set by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, and added they carry product
information consistent with the FDA standards.


MG OIL: Seeks Dismissal of Gasoline Mislabeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mueller, writing for The Daily Republic, reports that
two South Dakota companies accused of mislabeling gasoline have
asked a judge to dismiss the class-action lawsuit filed against
them.

M.G. Oil Company, based in Rapid City, and Harms Oil Company,
based in Brookings, filed a motion to dismiss the suit on
Sept. 21.  The lawsuit itself was filed July 2 by six people,
including state Rep. Mitch Fargen, D-Flandreau.

The suit alleges both companies knowingly mislabeled 85 octane
gasoline as 87 octane for at least 10 years.  By doing so, the
companies "knowingly and fraudulently charged inflated prices" to
consumers in South Dakota, the plaintiffs' complaint says.  Anyone
who bought mislabeled gasoline from either company since Jan. 1,
2002, should be eligible for damages, the complaint says.

An octane rating is the standard measure of a fuel's performance.
Fuel with a low octane rating can cause engine problems.  After it
was discovered this past summer that 85 octane fuel is technically
illegal in South Dakota, Gov. Dennis Daugaard issued a temporary
ruling allowing the sale of the lower-octane fuel while a
permanent rule is considered.

If the companies' motion to dismiss the suit is denied, they have
requested a judge strike all the class-action allegations made in
the suit, which would limit the number of people eligible to
receive damages to those who filed the suit.  The companies also
requested a judge halt discovery -- the process allowing a party
in a case to access any evidence held by the opposing party --
while their motion to dismiss the suit is considered.  The
companies claim that request is necessary because the plaintiffs
have requested nearly every document related to the companies'
petroleum distribution over the last ten years.

Though the case was originally filed in Jerauld County, it was
moved to Brookings County last month to save on costs and prevent
unnecessary delays, court documents say.  The case will remain in
Brookings County while the court determines if the class-action
portion of the lawsuit is valid.

If the case goes to trial, M.G. Oil and Harms Oil have the right
to request the lawsuit be split and have separate trials held in
the counties where they are based -- Pennington County for M.G.
Oil and Brookings County for Harms Oil.

Mr. Fargen said on Sept. 25 when contacted by The Daily Republic
that he has been advised by his attorney Brian Donahoe, of Sioux
Falls, not to publicly comment on the case.

Criminal charges were filed on Sept. 21 in Beadle County against
M.G. Oil alleging the company illegally sold 85 octane gasoline
and mislabeled it at its five Corner Pantry stations in Huron.
Another gasoline retailer, 281 Travel Center in Wolsey, is charged
with mislabeling gasoline it bought from M.G. Oil.

The charges are misdemeanors carrying a maximum punishment of 30
days in jail and a $500 fine.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Trial Dates in Securities Suit Not Yet Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc. said in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that dates for the pretrial
conference and trial in the consolidated securities lawsuit
pending in California have not yet been scheduled.

On September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between
February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.  On December 11, 2008,
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled
Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H
(RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C.,
S.D. Cal.).  In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case
In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who
allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007,
and November 10, 2008.  The consolidated complaint names the
Company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.  The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements during
the relevant time period regarding the strength of the Company's
products and market share, its financial results and its internal
controls.  The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of
damages and costs.  The court has denied defendants' motions to
dismiss.  In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class
of purchasers of Company common stock between February 27, 2007,
and September 15, 2008.  On February 14, 2011, following extensive
discovery, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all
of plaintiffs' claims.  A trial date had been set for May 10,
2011.  On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new
district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia.  Following the
reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court's
consideration of dispositive motions.  Oral argument on the motion
for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011.  On
November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion for summary judgment.

On July 9, 2012, the court vacated the final pretrial conference
date.  Dates for the pretrial conference and trial have not yet
been scheduled.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome
of this litigation.  The Company has not recorded any significant
accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter
based on the Company's belief that a liability, while possible, is
not probable.  Further, any possible range of loss cannot be
estimated at this time.


REALNETWORKS INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
RealNetworks, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the
Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On May 24, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in Illinois federal court by an individual consumer
subscriber to one of the Company's subscription products.  The
lawsuit asserts that certain online marketing practices of the
Company's marketing affiliates violate federal and state laws.
The Company has moved to dismiss the lawsuit and to compel
arbitration of the plaintiff's claim or, in the alternative, to
transfer the case to Seattle, Washington.  The Company disputes
the substance of plaintiff's allegations.  The Company is unable
to provide a meaningful quantification of the potential impact of
the final resolution of this litigation on its future consolidated
financial statements.


ROBBINS & MYERS: Robbins Geller & Dowd Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 25 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of holders of
Robbins & Myers, Inc. common stock on August 9, 2012, against R&M,
its Board of Directors (the "Board") and National OilWell Varco,
Inc. ("NOVI") and NOVI's wholly owned subsidiary, Raven Process
Corp. ("Merger Sub"), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or
aiding and abetting those breaches, in connection with the Board's
decision to sell R&M to NOVI via an inherently unfair process (the
"Proposed Acquisition"), and violations of Secs. 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") in connection
with defendants' failure to disclose all material information to
R&M shareholders in the Preliminary Proxy Statement filed by R&M
with the SEC on August 31, 2012 (the "Proxy").  R&M is a supplier
of engineered equipment and systems for critical applications in
global energy, industrial, chemical and pharmaceutical markets.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Sept. 25.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

On August 9, 2012, R&M, Merger Sub and NOVI announced they had
entered into an agreement (the "Merger Agreement") under which
NOVI will acquire R&M in an all-cash transaction that values R&M
at approximately $2.5 billion.  The complaint alleges that the
Proposed Acquisition is the product of a fundamentally flawed
process that is designed to ensure the acquisition of R&M by NOVI
on terms preferential to NOVI and R&M's Board members, but
detrimental to plaintiff and the other public stockholders of R&M,
in breach of the Board's fiduciary duties.

The complaint further alleges that the Proxy filed on August 31,
2012 in connection with the Proposed Acquisition was false and
misleading and omitted or misrepresented material information
regarding the Proposed Acquisition in violation of Secs. 14(a) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act and in contravention of the Board's
fiduciary duties under state law.  The Proxy failed to disclose
material information regarding: (i) the sales process for the
Company; (ii) strategic alternatives for the Company; (iii) the
Company's financial projections; and (iv) the financial analyses
conducted by Citi, the Company's financial advisor.  Without this
material information, the Company's public shareholders will be
precluded from casting a fully informed vote in connection with
the Proposed Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of
holders of R&M common stock on August 9, 2012.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Effective Date of Cryovac Suits' Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to await W. R. Grace & Co.'s
emergence from bankruptcy, when a settlement resolving class
action lawsuits involving a subsidiary of Sealed Air will become
effective, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 30, 1998, the Company completed a multi-step transaction
that brought the packaging business of its subsidiary Cryovac Inc.
and the former Sealed Air Corporation's business under the common
ownership of the Company.  These businesses operate as
subsidiaries of the Company, and the Company acts as a holding
company.  As part of that transaction, the parties separated the
Cryovac packaging business, which previously had been held by
various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company, from the
remaining businesses previously held by the Company.  The parties
then arranged for the contribution of these remaining businesses
to a company now known as W. R. Grace & Co., and the Company
distributed the Grace shares to the Company's stockholders.  As a
result, W. R. Grace & Co. became a separate publicly owned
company.  The Company recapitalized its outstanding shares of
common stock into a new common stock and a new convertible
preferred stock.  A subsidiary of the Company then merged into the
former Sealed Air Corporation, which became a subsidiary of the
Company and changed its name to Sealed Air Corporation (US).

In connection with the Cryovac transaction, Grace and its
subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their
operations before the Cryovac transaction, whether accruing or
occurring before or after the Cryovac transaction, other than
liabilities arising from or relating to Cryovac's operations.
Among the liabilities retained by Grace are liabilities relating
to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured or sold by
Grace's subsidiaries prior to the Cryovac transaction, including
its primary U.S. operating subsidiary, W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn.,
which has operated for decades and has been a subsidiary of Grace
since the Cryovac transaction.  The Cryovac transaction agreements
provided that, should any claimant seek to hold the Company or any
of its subsidiaries responsible for liabilities retained by Grace
or its subsidiaries, including the asbestos-related liabilities,
Grace and its subsidiaries would indemnify and defend the Company.

Since the beginning of 2000, the Company has been served with a
number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac
transaction, the Company is responsible for alleged asbestos
liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also
named as co-defendants in some of these actions.  Among these
lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of
personal injury lawsuits.  Some plaintiffs seek damages for
personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product.  Neither the former Sealed Air
Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the
asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these
cases.  None of these cases has reached resolution through
judgment, settlement or otherwise.  Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding has stayed all of these cases.

While the allegations in these actions directed to the Company
vary, these actions all appear to allege that the transfer of the
Cryovac business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a
fraudulent transfer or gave rise to successor liability.  Under a
theory of successor liability, plaintiffs with claims against
Grace and its subsidiaries may attempt to hold the Company liable
for liabilities that arose with respect to activities conducted
prior to the Cryovac transaction by W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. or
other Grace subsidiaries.  A transfer would be a fraudulent
transfer if the transferor received less than reasonably
equivalent value and the transferor was insolvent or was rendered
insolvent by the transfer, was engaged or was about to engage in a
business for which its assets constitute unreasonably small
capital, or intended to incur or believed that it would incur
debts beyond its ability to pay as they mature.  A transfer may
also be fraudulent if it was made with actual intent to hinder,
delay or defraud creditors.  If a court found any transfers in
connection with the Cryovac transaction to be fraudulent
transfers, the Company could be required to return the property or
its value to the transferor or could be required to fund
liabilities of Grace or its subsidiaries for the benefit of their
creditors, including asbestos claimants.  The Company has reached
an agreement in principle and subsequently signed the Settlement
agreement that is expected to resolve all these claims.

In the Joint Proxy Statement furnished to their respective
stockholders in connection with the Cryovac transaction, both
parties to the transaction stated that it was their belief that
Grace and its subsidiaries were adequately capitalized and would
be adequately capitalized after the Cryovac transaction and that
none of the transfers contemplated to occur in the Cryovac
transaction would be a fraudulent transfer.  They also stated
their belief that the Cryovac transaction complied with other
relevant laws.  However, if a court applying the relevant legal
standards had reached conclusions adverse to the Company, these
determinations could have had a materially adverse effect on its
consolidated financial condition and results of operations.

On April 2, 2001, Grace and a number of its subsidiaries filed
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court").  Grace stated that the filing
was made in response to a sharply increasing number of asbestos
claims since 1999.

In connection with its Chapter 11 filing, Grace filed an
application with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to stay, among
others, all actions brought against the Company and specified
subsidiaries related to alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and
its subsidiaries or alleging fraudulent transfer claims.  The
court issued an order dated May 3, 2001, which was modified on
January 22, 2002, under which the court stayed all the filed or
pending asbestos actions against the Company and, upon filing and
service on the Company, all future asbestos actions.  No further
proceedings involving the Company can occur in the actions that
have been stayed except upon further order of the Bankruptcy
Court.

Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace's
bankruptcy case received the court's permission to pursue
fraudulent transfer and other claims against the Company and its
subsidiary Cryovac, Inc., and against Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc.  The claims against Fresenius are based upon a 1996
transaction between Fresenius and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn.
Fresenius is not affiliated with the Company.  In March 2002, the
court ordered that the issues of the solvency of Grace following
the Cryovac transaction and whether Grace received reasonably
equivalent value in the Cryovac transaction would be tried on
behalf of all of Grace's creditors.  This proceeding was brought
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"District Court") (Adv. No. 02-02210).

In June 2002, the court permitted the U.S. government to intervene
as a plaintiff in the fraudulent transfer proceeding, so that the
U.S. government could pursue allegations that environmental
remediation expenses were underestimated or omitted in the
solvency analyses of Grace conducted at the time of the Cryovac
transaction.  The court also permitted Grace, which asserted that
the Cryovac transaction was not a fraudulent transfer, to
intervene in the proceeding.  In July 2002, the court issued an
interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied in the trial,
holding, among other things, that, subject to specified
limitations, post-1998 claims should be considered in the solvency
analysis of Grace.  The Company believes that only claims and
liabilities that were known, or reasonably should have been known,
at the time of the 1998 Cryovac transaction should be considered
under the applicable standard.

With the fraudulent transfer trial set to commence on December 9,
2002, on November 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the Committees prosecuting the claims against the
Company and Cryovac, Inc., to resolve all current and future
asbestos-related claims arising from the Cryovac transaction.  On
the same day, the court entered an order confirming that the
parties had reached an amicable resolution of the disputes among
the parties and that counsel for the Company and the Committees
had agreed and bound the parties to the terms of the agreement in
principle.  The agreement in principle called for payment of nine
million shares of the Company's common stock and $513 million in
cash, plus interest on the cash payment at a 5.5% annual rate
starting on December 21, 2002, and ending on the effective date of
an appropriate plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy,
when the Company is required to make the payment.  These shares
are subject to customary anti-dilution provisions that adjust for
the effects of stock splits, stock dividends and other events
affecting the Company's common stock, and as a result, the number
of shares of the Company's common stock that it will issue
increased to eighteen million shares upon the two-for-one stock
split in March 2007.  On December 3, 2002, the Company's Board of
Directors approved the agreement in principle.  The Company
received notice that both of the Committees had approved the
agreement in principle as of December 5, 2002.  The parties
subsequently signed the definitive Settlement agreement as of
November 10, 2003, consistent with the terms of the agreement in
principle.  On November 26, 2003, the parties jointly presented
the definitive Settlement agreement to the District Court for
approval.  On Grace's motion to the District Court, that court
transferred the motion to approve the Settlement agreement to the
Bankruptcy Court for disposition.

On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving
the Settlement agreement.  Although Grace is not a party to the
Settlement agreement, under the terms of the order, Grace is
directed to comply with the Settlement agreement subject to
limited exceptions.  The order also provides that the Court will
retain jurisdiction over any dispute involving the interpretation
or enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Settlement
agreement.  The Company expects that the Settlement agreement will
become effective upon Grace's emergence from bankruptcy pursuant
to a plan of reorganization that is consistent with the terms of
the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2004, the Company filed a motion with the District
Court, where the fraudulent transfer trial was pending, requesting
that the court vacate the July 2002 interim ruling on the legal
standards to be applied relating to the fraudulent transfer claims
against the Company.  The Company was not challenging the
Settlement agreement.  The motion was filed as a protective
measure in the event that the Settlement agreement is ultimately
not approved or implemented; however, the Company still expects
that the Settlement agreement will become effective upon Grace's
emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization that is
consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement.

On July 11, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order closing
the proceeding brought in 2002 by the committees appointed to
represent asbestos claimants in the Grace bankruptcy proceeding
against the Company without prejudice to its right to reopen the
matter and renew in the Company's sole discretion its motion to
vacate the July 2002 interim ruling on the legal standards to be
applied relating to the fraudulent transfer claims against the
Company.

As a condition to the Company's obligation to make the payments
required by the Settlement agreement, any final plan of
reorganization must be consistent with the terms of the Settlement
agreement, including provisions for the trusts and releases and
for an injunction barring the prosecution of any asbestos-related
claims against the Company.  The Settlement agreement provides
that, upon the effective date of the final plan of reorganization
and payment of the shares and cash, all present and future
asbestos-related claims against the Company that arise from
alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its affiliates
(including former affiliates that became the Company's affiliates
through the Cryovac transaction) will be channeled to and become
the responsibility of one or more trusts to be established under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code as part of a final plan of
reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy.  The Settlement agreement
will also resolve all fraudulent transfer claims against the
Company arising from the Cryovac transaction as well as the
Fresenius claims.  The Settlement agreement provides that the
Company will receive releases of all those claims upon payment.
Under the agreement, the Company cannot seek indemnity from Grace
for the Company's payments required by the Settlement agreement.
The order approving the Settlement agreement also provides that
the stay of proceedings involving the Company will continue
through the effective date of the final plan of reorganization,
after which, upon implementation of the Settlement agreement, the
Company will be released from the liabilities asserted in those
proceedings and their continued prosecution against the Company
will be enjoined.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization
(the "Grace Plan") with the Bankruptcy Court.  There were a number
of objections filed.  The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants (the "ACC") and the Asbestos PI Future Claimants'
Representative (the "PI FCR") filed their proposed plan of
reorganization (the "Claimants' Plan") with the Bankruptcy Court
in November 2007.  On April 7, 2008, Grace issued a press release
announcing that Grace, the ACC, the PI FCR, and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders (the "Equity Committee") had
reached an agreement in principle to settle all present and future
asbestos-related personal injury claims against Grace (the "PI
Settlement") and disclosed a term sheet outlining certain terms of
the PI Settlement and for a contemplated plan of reorganization
that would incorporate the PI Settlement (as filed and amended
from time to time, the "PI Settlement Plan").

On September 19, 2008, Grace, the ACC, the PI FCR, and the Equity
Committee filed, as co-proponents, the PI Settlement Plan and
several exhibits and associated documents, including a disclosure
statement (as filed and amended from time to time, the "PI
Settlement Disclosure Statement"), with the Bankruptcy Court.
Amended versions of the PI Settlement Plan and the PI Settlement
Disclosure Statement have been filed with the Bankruptcy Court
from time to time.  The PI Settlement Plan, which supersedes each
of the Grace Plan and the Claimants' Plan, remains pending and has
not become effective.  The committee representing general
unsecured creditors and the Official Committee of Asbestos
Property Damage Claimants are not co-proponents of the PI
Settlement Plan.  As filed, the PI Settlement Plan would provide
for the establishment of two asbestos trusts under Section 524(g)
of the United States Bankruptcy Code to which present and future
asbestos-related claims would be channeled.  The PI Settlement
Plan also contemplates that the terms of the Settlement agreement
will be incorporated into the PI Settlement Plan and that the
Company will pay the amount contemplated by the Settlement
agreement.  On March 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order approving the PI Settlement Disclosure Statement (the "DS
Order") as containing adequate information and authorizing Grace
to solicit votes to accept or reject the PI Settlement Plan, all
as more fully described in the order.  The DS Order did not
constitute the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the PI
Settlement Plan, approval of the merits of the PI Settlement Plan,
or endorsement of the PI Settlement Plan.  In connection with the
plan voting process in the Grace bankruptcy case, the Company
voted in favor of the PI Settlement Plan that was before the
Bankruptcy Court.  The Company will continue to review any
amendments to the PI Settlement Plan on an ongoing basis to verify
compliance with the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2009, a senior manager with the voting agent appointed
in the Grace bankruptcy case filed a declaration with the
Bankruptcy Court certifying the voting results with respect to the
PI Settlement Plan. This declaration was amended on August 5, 2009
(as amended, the "Voting Declaration").  According to the Voting
Declaration, with respect to each class of claims designated as
impaired by Grace, the PI Settlement Plan was approved by holders
of at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number
(or for classes voting for purposes of Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code, at least 75% in number) of voted claims.  The
Voting Declaration also discusses the voting results with respect
to holders of general unsecured claims ("GUCs") against Grace,
whose votes were provisionally solicited and counted subject to a
determination by the Bankruptcy Court of whether GUCs are impaired
(and, thus, entitled to vote) or, as Grace contends, unimpaired
(and, thus, not entitled to vote).  According to the Voting
Declaration, more than one half of voting holders of GUCs voted to
accept the PI Settlement Plan, but the provisional vote did not
obtain the requisite two-thirds dollar amount to be deemed an
accepting class in the event that GUCs are determined to be
impaired.  To the extent that GUCs are determined to be an
impaired non-accepting class, Grace and the other plan proponents
have indicated that they would nevertheless seek confirmation of
the PI Settlement Plan under the "cram down" provisions contained
in Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum
opinion (as amended, the "Bankruptcy Court Opinion") overruling
certain objections to the PI Settlement Plan and finding, among
other things, that GUCs are not impaired under the PI Settlement
Plan.  On the same date, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
regarding confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan (as amended, the
"Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order").  As entered on
January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order
contained recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
recommended that the District Court approve the Bankruptcy Court
Confirmation Order, and that the District Court confirm the PI
Settlement Plan and issue a channeling injunction under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Thereafter, on
February 15, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order clarifying
the Bankruptcy Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation
Order (the "Clarifying Order").  Among other things, the
Clarifying Order provided that any references in the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order to a
recommendation that the District Court confirm the PI Settlement
Plan were thereby amended to make clear that the PI Settlement
Plan was confirmed and that the Bankruptcy Court was requesting
that the District Court issue and affirm the Bankruptcy Court
Confirmation Order including the injunction under Section 524(g)
of the Bankruptcy Code.  On March 11, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to
reconsider the Bankruptcy Court Opinion filed by BNSF Railway
Company (the "March 11 Order").  Among other things, the March 11
Order amended the Bankruptcy Court Opinion to clarify certain
matters relating to objections to the PI Settlement Plan filed by
BNSF.

Various parties appealed or otherwise challenged the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order,
including without limitation with respect to issues relating to
releases and injunctions contained in the PI Settlement Plan.  On
June 28 and 29, 2011, the District Court heard oral arguments in
connection with appeals of the Bankruptcy Court Opinion and the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order.

On January 30, 2012, the District Court issued a memorandum
opinion (the "Original District Court Opinion") and confirmation
order (the "Original District Court Confirmation Order")
overruling all objections to the PI Settlement Plan and confirming
the PI Settlement Plan in its entirety (including the issuance of
the injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code).  On
February 3, 2012, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("Garlock")
filed a motion (the "Garlock Reargument Motion") with the District
Court requesting that the District Court grant reargument,
rehearing, or otherwise amend the Original District Court Opinion
and the Original District Court Confirmation Order insofar as they
overrule Garlock's objections to the PI Settlement Plan.  On
February 13, 2012, the Company, Cryovac, and Fresenius Medical
Care Holdings, Inc. filed a joint motion (the "Sealed
Air/Fresenius Motion") with the District Court.  The Sealed
Air/Fresenius Motion did not seek to disturb confirmation of the
PI Settlement Plan but requested that the District Court amend and
clarify certain matters in the Original District Court Opinion and
the Original District Court Confirmation Order.  Also on February
13, 2012, Grace and the other proponents of the PI Settlement Plan
filed a motion (the "Plan Proponents' Motion") with the District
Court requesting certain of the same amendments and clarifications
sought by the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion.  On February 27, 2012,
certain asbestos claimants known as the "Libby Claimants" filed a
response to the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion and the Plan
Proponents' Motion (the "Libby Response").  The Libby Response did
not oppose the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion or the Plan Proponents'
Motion but indicated, among other things, that: (a) the Libby
Claimants had reached a settlement in principle of their
objections to the PI Settlement Plan but that this settlement had
not become effective and (b) the Libby Claimants reserved their
rights with respect to the PI Settlement Plan pending the
effectiveness of the Libby Claimants' settlement.  On April 20,
2012, as part of a more global settlement, Grace filed a motion
with the Bankruptcy Court seeking, among other things, approval of
settlements with the Libby Claimants and BNSF.  The settlements
with the Libby Claimants and BNSF were approved by order of the
Bankruptcy Court dated June 6, 2012.  Upon the implementation,
these settlements are, among other things, expected to result in
the Libby Claimants and BNSF withdrawing their opposition to the
PI Settlement Plan.  The District Court held a hearing on May 8,
2012, to consider the Garlock Reargument Motion.  On May 29, 2012,
Anderson Memorial Hospital ("Anderson Memorial") filed a motion
seeking relief from, and reconsideration of, the Original District
Court Opinion and the Original District Court Confirmation Order
(the "Anderson Relief Motion").  In the Anderson Relief Motion,
Anderson Memorial argued that a May 18, 2012, decision by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third
Circuit Court of Appeals") in a case called Wright v. Owens-
Corning undermined the District Court's conclusion that (a) the PI
Settlement Plan was feasible and (b) the asbestos property damage
injunction and trust included in the PI Settlement Plan were
appropriate. Objections to the Anderson Relief Motion were filed
by Grace and the other proponents of the PI Settlement Plan, and
by the representative of future asbestos property damage claimants
(the "PD FCR") appointed in the Grace bankruptcy proceedings.

On June 11, 2012, the District Court entered a consolidated order
(the "Consolidated Order") granting the Sealed Air/Fresenius
Motion, the Plan Proponents' Motion, and the Garlock Reargument
Motion, and providing for amendments to the Original District
Court Opinion and the Original District Court Confirmation Order.
Although the Consolidated Order granted the Garlock Reargument
Motion, it did not constitute the District Court's agreement with
Garlock's objections to the PI Settlement Plan, which the District
Court continued to overrule.  Also on June 11, 2012, the District
Court entered an amended memorandum opinion (the "Amended District
Court Opinion") and confirmation order (the "Amended District
Court Confirmation Order") overruling all objections to the PI
Settlement Plan, reflecting amendments described in the
Consolidated Order, and confirming the PI Settlement Plan in its
entirety (including the issuance of the injunction under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code).  Thereafter, on July 23, 2012, the
District Court issued a memorandum opinion and an order denying
the Anderson Relief Motion.  Parties have appealed the Amended
District Court Opinion and the Amended District Court Confirmation
Order to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although the Company is optimistic that, if it were to become
effective, the PI Settlement Plan would implement the terms of the
Settlement agreement, the Company can give no assurance that this
will be the case notwithstanding the confirmation of the PI
Settlement Plan by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court.
The terms of the PI Settlement Plan remain subject to amendment.
Moreover, the PI Settlement Plan is subject to the satisfaction of
a number of conditions which are more fully set forth in the PI
Settlement Plan and include, without limitation, the availability
of exit financing and the approval of the PI Settlement Plan
becoming final and no longer subject to appeal.  Parties have
appealed the Amended District Court Confirmation Order to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals or otherwise challenged the Amended
District Court Opinion and the Amended District Court Confirmation
Order.  Matters relating to the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy
and Amended District Court Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and
Amended District Court Confirmation Orders may be subject to
further appeal, challenge, and proceedings before the District
Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, or other courts.
Parties have designated various issues to be considered in
challenging the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended
District Court Opinions, or the Bankruptcy and Amended District
Court Confirmation Orders, including, without limitation, issues
relating to releases and injunctions contained in the PI
Settlement Plan.

Grace has publicly indicated its decision to seek to emerge from
bankruptcy despite the ongoing appeals challenging approval of the
PI Settlement Plan.  Grace has further indicated that emerging
from bankruptcy before the appeals are fully and finally resolved
will require consents or waivers from several parties, including
the Company.  Grace has also indicated that, to be confident of
emerging from bankruptcy by the end of 2012, a final decision will
need to be made by September of 2012 regarding Grace's emergence
from bankruptcy with the appeals pending.  Consistent with its
Settlement agreement, the Company is prepared to pay the
Settlement amount directly to the asbestos trusts to be
established under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code once the
conditions of the Settlement agreement are fully satisfied.  Among
those conditions is that approval of an appropriate Grace
bankruptcy plan -- containing all releases, injunctions, and
protections required by the Settlement agreement -- be final and
not subject to any appeal.  Given the pending appeals (which
include without limitation challenges to the injunctions and
releases in the PI Settlement Plan), the condition that approval
of the PI Settlement Plan be final and not subject to any appeal
has not been satisfied at this time.  The Company has not waived
this, or any other, condition of the Settlement agreement.
Furthermore, there can be no assurance that each party whose
consent or waiver is required for Grace to emerge from bankruptcy
while the appeals remain pending will provide such consent or
waiver.  The Company will continue to monitor the progress of
Grace's bankruptcy proceedings, including appeals.

While the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court have confirmed
the PI Settlement Plan, the Company says it does not know whether
or when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will affirm the Amended
District Court Confirmation Order or the Amended District Court
Opinion, whether or when the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions or the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Confirmation
Orders will become final and no longer subject to appeal, or
whether or when a final plan of reorganization (whether the PI
Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) will become
effective.  Assuming that a final plan of reorganization (whether
the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) is
confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, and does
become effective, the Company does not know whether the final plan
of reorganization will be consistent with the terms of the
Settlement agreement or if the other conditions to the Company's
obligation to pay the Settlement agreement amount will be met.  If
these conditions are not satisfied or not waived by the Company,
it will not be obligated to pay the amount contemplated by the
Settlement agreement.  However, if the Company does not pay the
Settlement agreement amount, it will not be released from the
various asbestos related, fraudulent transfer, successor
liability, and indemnification claims made against it and all of
these claims would remain pending and would have to be resolved
through other means, such as through agreement on alternative
settlement terms or trials.  In that case, the Company could face
liabilities that are significantly different from its obligations
under the Settlement agreement.  The Company cannot estimate at
this time what those differences or their magnitude may be.  In
the event these liabilities are materially larger than the current
existing obligations, they could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial condition and results of
operations.  The Company will continue to review the Grace
bankruptcy proceedings (including appeals and other proceedings
relating to the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended
District Court Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and Amended District
Court Confirmation Orders), as well as any amendments or changes
to the PI Settlement Plan or to Bankruptcy and Amended District
Court Opinions and Confirmation Orders, to verify compliance with
the Settlement agreement.


SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Canadian Settlement to Become Effective
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation is still waiting for a settlement resolving
class actions in Canada naming it as a defendant to become
effective, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 31, 1998, Sealed Air completed a multi-step transaction
(the "Cryovac transaction") involving W. R. Grace & Co., which
brought the Cryovac Inc. packaging business and the former Sealed
Air Corporation's business under the common ownership of the
Company.

Since November 2004, the Company and specified subsidiaries have
been named as defendants in a number of cases, including a number
of putative class actions, brought in Canada as a result of
Grace's alleged marketing, manufacturing or distributing of
asbestos or asbestos containing products in Canada prior to the
Cryovac transaction in 1998.  Grace has agreed to defend and
indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases.  The
Canadian cases are currently stayed.  A global settlement of these
Canadian claims to be funded by Grace has been approved by the
Canadian court, and the PI Settlement Plan provides for payment of
these claims.  The Company does not have any positive obligations
under the Canadian settlement, but it is a beneficiary of the
release of claims.  The release in favor of the Grace parties
(including the Company) will become operative upon the effective
date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter
11 bankruptcy proceeding.  As filed, the PI Settlement Plan
contemplates that the claims released under the Canadian
settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section 524(g) of
the Bankruptcy Code.  The Bankruptcy Court entered the Bankruptcy
Court Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011, and the Clarifying
Order on February 15, 2011, and the District Court entered the
Original District Court Confirmation Order on
January 30, 2012, and the Amended District Court Confirmation
Order on June 11, 2012.  The Canadian Court issued an Order on
April 8, 2011, recognizing and giving full effect to the
Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all provinces and
territories of Canada in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court
Confirmation Order's terms.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PI
Settlement Plan has not become effective, and the Company can give
no assurance that the PI Settlement Plan (or any other plan of
reorganization) will become effective.  Assuming that a final plan
of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan
of reorganization) is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the
District Court, and does become effective, if the final plan of
reorganization does not incorporate the terms of the Canadian
settlement or if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final
plan of reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if in addition
Grace is unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify the Company
and its subsidiaries in these cases, then the Company could be
required to pay substantial damages, which it cannot estimate at
this time and which could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.


SJ SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Manganis, writing for The Salem News, reports that a
Danvers-based cleaning company is facing a potential class-action
lawsuit brought on behalf of workers who say that they are not
being paid for all of the hours they work, and are also being
denied health insurance coverage.

The lawsuit, which is now pending in federal court, alleges that
SJ Services and its owners, Shawn and David Shea, violated state
wage laws, engaged in a breach of contract and were unjustly
enriched by the practice of not paying workers for all of the
hours they worked.

Lawyers for SJ Services have moved to dismiss the complaint on
jurisdictional grounds, contending that the case should be before
the National Labor Relations Board, not a judge.  Their formal
filings do not address the merits of the allegations, other than
to say that the workers have not stated a valid basis to sue.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two named plaintiffs, Vilma
Reyes and Patricia Martinez, but lawyers for the two are seeking
certification to proceed as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of at
least 40 other employees since 2006 who have not been paid wages
and benefits.

State law requires employers to offer health insurance to full-
time employees.  The lawsuit alleges that the employees at SJ were
hired as full-time employees but then deliberately paid for fewer
hours, and so did not receive health insurance benefits.

Earlier this year, the attorney general's office reviewed the case
and, rather than pursue enforcement by the state, authorized the
parties to pursue civil litigation, according to a letter attached
to the complaint.

SJ Services, in addition to providing janitorial services, also
does landscaping and other types of property maintenance.  They
hold both private contracts, as well as contracts with public
agencies, including school districts and the MBTA.

Calls to the attorney representing the workers, as well as the
company, were not returned on Sept. 25.

Messages were also left with the Service Employees International
Union's spokesperson.  That union currently represents employees
of SJ.

Last spring, a former employee, Jorge Hernandez, sued SJ Services
after he learned that his Social Security number had been given to
another employee, who did not have one, in order to pay that other
employee's taxes.  That lawsuit is still pending.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of Pension Benefit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Spirit AeroSystems and the union
representing its engineers are asking a federal court to dismiss
the union's claims against the Wichita aircraft company over
pension benefits.

The lawsuit by the Society of Professional Engineering Employees
in Aerospace arose from Spirit's 2005 purchase of Boeing Co.'s
commercial aircraft operations in Wichita.

The union is continuing its claims against Boeing.  But in a joint
motion filed on Sept. 25 in federal court, the parties agree
there's insufficient evidence against Spirit AeroSystems to
continue the union's class-action lawsuit.

SPEEA says that after reviewing thousands of pages of documents
and questioning 36 witnesses, it concluded that Spirit agreed only
to offer future retiree health care benefits when it bought
Boeing's assets.  The union could not find evidence Spirit
violated its pension plans or bargaining agreements.


STEAM: German Rights Group Mulls Suit Over Class Action Clause
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Parfitt, writing for MCV, reports that a recent change to
Steam's terms and conditions could face legal action from a German
consumer rights group.

In September, Valve added a clause into Steam's T&Cs that is
designed to protect itself from class action lawsuits.  Failure to
agree to the changes resulted in consumers being locked out of
their Steam accounts.

Cinemablend reports that the Federation of German Consumer
Organisation argues that, effectively, consumers have been coerced
into signing up to the agreement.

It is also pressing for the company to sign up to the
controversial digital resale recommendations made by the European
Court of Human Justice in July.

It has further threatened legal action if Valve does not respond
to the charges, the deadline for which is October 12.


VILLAGE OF DOWNERS, IL: Court Okays Booking Fee Suit Deal Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Sinopoli, writing for mysuburbanlife.com, reports that anyone
who's paid a jail intake/booking fee to the Village of Downers
Grove under village ordinance 17.3.2 after being arrested may
benefit from a class-action settlement.

The notice was authorized by the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division and is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.

If applicable, locals can submit a claim form by Nov. 6, as
determined by the postmark of the mailing or date of personal
service.

If the court approves the settlement, those who file claims may be
entitled to a share of the settlement funds.


WAL-MART STORES: Feb. 15 Class Certification Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
Wal-Mart employees who said they received less pay and fewer
promotions than men in comparable positions can continue with
their amended claims against the company, a federal judge ruled.

Several women sued Wal-Mart in a San Francisco-based District
Court in 2001, claiming the class they sought to represent
received less pay and fewer promotions than men in comparable
positions.

A federal judge ruled that the class should encompass "all women
employed by Wal-Mart at any time after Dec. 26, 1998," across the
company's 3,400 stores.

Wal-Mart argued that the proposed class -- an estimated 1.5
million women -- was too big to fight, and that employees should
file individual lawsuits.

The full 9th Circuit ruled 6-5 in April 2010 to send the case to
trial, ultimately narrowing the original seven plaintiffs to just
three as representatives of the certified class.  In December, the
Supreme Court said it would intervene to decide whether class
action is an appropriate forum for individual employees' claims.

In June 2011, the high court ruled that the women failed to prove
commonality in their complaint, and disbanded the class.

Since the Supreme Court's ruling, the women amended their
complaint a fourth time.

In the newest amended complaint, the number of potential class
members was greatly reduced, and the plaintiffs added specific
information about Wal-Mart's management structure, as well as
specific examples of discrimination.

Among other arguments, the plaintiffs claim "all California store
managers are required to attend centralized management training
where they are told that the gender disparity in senior management
is attributable to men being 'more aggressive in achieving those
levels of responsibility,' and are cautioned that efforts to
promote women could lead to the selection of less qualified
candidates," according to court documents.

Wal-Mart moved to dismiss, but U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer
denied the motion.

The judge rejected Wal-Mart's argument that the court should
dismiss the action before ruling on a motion to certify the class
because the Supreme Court rejected a larger version of the class.

"Plaintiffs cannot . . .  be faulted for failing to anticipate a
significant development in the Supreme Court's class-action
jurisprudence," Judge Breyer wrote, adding that the plaintiffs
should have an opportunity to present evidence in support of their
class claims.

The Supreme Court only decided that plaintiffs' evidence had not
established a general policy of discrimination in Wal-Mart's
nationwide operations, but did not consider the narrowly-defined
amended class action.

"To be sure, the basic theory of Plaintiffs' claims has changed
little, but for both the pattern or practice and disparate impact
claims, the Supreme Court's decision rested not on a total
rejection of plaintiffs' theories, but on the inadequacy of their
proof," Judge Breyer wrote.

The plaintiffs will have to prove that a group of regional,
district and store managers in the "California regions"
encompassed by the class, operated under a common policy of gender
discrimination.

The court will hear plaintiffs' arguments for class certification
on February 15, 2013.

A copy of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Dukes, et al. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 01-cv-02252 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/27/Walmart.pdf


XL FOODS: FSIS Updates Lists of Stores With 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 Inc.

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

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name      Location
    -------------      --------
    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, and
                       Washington State

    Sam's Club         Locations in Alaska, Arizona, California,
                       Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
                       New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
                       Washington, and Wyoming

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer      City and State
    --------      --------------
    Walmart       Sterling, Colorado
    Walmart       Chiefland, Florida
    Walmart       Beville Rd., Daytona Beach, Florida
    Walmart       Nova Rd., Daytona Beach, Florida
    Walmart       Dunnellon, Florida
    Walmart       13th St., Gainesville, Florida
    Walmart       12th Ave., Gainesville, Florida
    Walmart       Homosassa, Florida
    Walmart       Inverness, Florida
    Walmart       San Jose Blvd., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       Normandy Blvd., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       103rd St., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       13490 Beach Blvd., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       8808 Beach Blvd., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       Lem Turner Rd., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       Hutchinson Park Dr., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       Phillips Hwy., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       City Square Dr., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       Shops Ln., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       Atlantic Blvd., Jacksonville, Florida
    Walmart       Lake City, Florida
    Walmart       Live Oak, Florida
    Walmart       Macclenny, Florida
    Walmart       Middleburg, Florida
    Walmart       New Smyrna Beach, Florida
    Walmart       19th Avenue Rd., Ocala, Florida
    Walmart       Silver Springs Blvd., Ocala, Florida
    Walmart       SW Highway 200, Ocala, Florida
    Walmart       Blanding Blvd., Orange Park, Florida
    Walmart       County Road 220, Orange Park, Florida
    Walmart       Ormond Beach, Florida
    Walmart       Palatka, Florida
    Walmart       Palm Coast, Florida
    Walmart       Perry, Florida
    Walmart       Port Orange, Florida
    Walmart       St. Augustine, Florida
    Walmart       Starke, Florida
    Walmart       Summerfield, Florida
    Walmart       The Villages, Florida
    Walmart       Yulee, Florida
    Walmart       Baxley, Georgia
    Walmart       Brunswick, Georgia
    Walmart       Douglas, Georgia
    Walmart       Hazlehurst, Georgia
    Walmart       Hinesville, Georgia
    Walmart       Jesup, Georgia
    Walmart       Pooler, Georgia
    Walmart       Rincon, Georgia
    Walmart       Saint Marys, Georgia
    Walmart       Montgomery Xrd., Savannah, Georgia
    Walmart       Ogeechee Rd., Savannah, Georgia
    Walmart       Abercorn St., Savannah, Georgia
    Walmart       Statesboro, Georgia
    Walmart       Swainsboro, Georgia
    Walmart       Norman Dr., Valdosta, Georgia
    Walmart       Inner Perimeter Rd., Valdosta, Georgia
    Walmart       Vidalia, Georgia
    Walmart       Waycross, Georgia
    Albertson's   Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
    Albertson's   Hayden, Idaho
    Albertson's   Lewiston, Idaho
    Walmart       Council Bluffs, Iowa
    Walmart       Denison, Iowa
    Walmart       Le Mars, Iowa
    Walmart       Sioux Center, Iowa
    Walmart       Singing Hills Blvd., Sioux City, Iowa
    Walmart       Floyd Blvd., Sioux City, IA-Iowa
    Walmart       Spencer, Iowa
    Walmart       Spirit Lake, Iowa
    Walmart       Storm Lake, Iowa
    Walmart       Colby, Kansas
    Walmart       Concordia, Kansas
    Walmart       Dodge City, Kansas
    Walmart       Garden City, Kansas
    Walmart       Goodland, Kansas
    Walmart       Great Bend, Kansas
    Walmart       Hays, Kansas
    Walmart       Liberal, Kansas
    Walmart       Dilworth, Minnesota
    Walmart       Marshall, Minnesota
    Walmart       Montevideo, Minnesota
    Walmart       Redwood Falls, Minnesota
    Walmart       Worthington, Minnesota
    Walmart       Beatrice, Nebraska
    Walmart       Bellevue, Nebraska
    Walmart       Blair, Nebraska
    Walmart       Chadron, Nebraska
    Walmart       Columbus, Nebraska
    Walmart       Crete, Nebraska
    Walmart       Fairbury, Nebraska
    Walmart       Fremont, Nebraska
    Walmart       No. Diers Ave., Grand Island, Nebraska
    Walmart       S Locust St., Grand Island, Nebraska
    Walmart       Gretna, Nebraska
    Walmart       Hastings, Nebraska
    Walmart       Kearney, Nebraska
    Walmart       Lexington, Nebraska
    Walmart       N 27th St., Lincoln, Nebraska
    Walmart       Andermatt Dr., Lincoln, Nebraska
    Walmart       N 85th St., Lincoln, Nebraska
    Walmart       Mccook, Nebraska
    Walmart       Norfolk, Nebraska
    Walmart       North Platte, Nebraska
    Walmart       N 99th St., Omaha, Nebraska
    Walmart       Wright St., Omaha, Nebraska
    Walmart       S 72nd St., Omaha, Nebraska
    Walmart       W Maple Rd., Omaha, Nebraska
    Walmart       L St., Omaha, Nebraska
    Walmart       Papillion, Nebraska
    Walmart       Seward, Nebraska
    Walmart       Sidney, Nebraska
    Walmart       South Sioux City, Nebraska
    Walmart       York, Nebraska
    Walmart       Fredonia, New York
    Walmart       Hamburg, New York
    Walmart       Lakewood, New York
    Walmart       Rock Island PI, Bismarck, North Dakota
    Walmart       Skyline Blvd., Bismarck, North Dakota
    Walmart       Bottineau, North Dakota
    Walmart       13th Ave. S, Fargo, North Dakota
    Walmart       55th Ave. S, Fargo, North Dakota
    Walmart       Grand Forks, North Dakota
    Walmart       Jamestown, North Dakota
    Walmart       Minot, North Dakota
    Walmart       Wahpeton, North Dakota
    Walmart       Akron, Ohio
    Walmart       Alliance, Ohio
    Walmart       Ashland, Ohio
    Walmart       Ashtabula, Ohio
    Walmart       Aurora, Ohio
    Walmart       Austintown, Ohio
    Walmart       Avon, Ohio
    Walmart       Bedford, Ohio
    Walmart       Cambridge, Ohio
    Walmart       Atlantic Blvd. NE, Canton, Ohio
    Walmart       Tuscarawas St. W, Canton, Ohio
    Walmart       Chardon, Ohio
    Walmart       Brookpark Rd., Cleveland, Ohio
    Walmart       Steelyard Dr., Cleveland, Ohio
    Walmart       Mayfield Rd., Cleveland Heights, Ohio
    Walmart       Cortland, Ohio
    Walmart       Coshocton, Ohio
    Walmart       East Liverpool, Ohio
    Walmart       Eastlake, Ohio
    Walmart       Elyria, Ohio
    Walmart       Fairlawn, Ohio
    Walmart       Kent, Ohio
    Walmart       Lorain, Ohio
    Walmart       Macedonia, Ohio
    Walmart       Madison, Ohio
    Walmart       Marietta, Ohio
    Walmart       Massillon, Ohio
    Walmart       Medina, Ohio
    Walmart       Middlefield, Ohio
    Walmart       Millersburg, Ohio
    Walmart       New Philadelphia, Ohio
    Walmart       North Canton, Ohio
    Walmart       North Olmsted, Ohio
    Walmart       Norwalk, Ohio
    Walmart       Oberlin, Ohio
    Walmart       Parma, Ohio
    Walmart       Port Clinton, Ohio
    Walmart       Ravenna, Ohio
    Walmart       Saint Clairsville, Ohio
    Walmart       Salem, Ohio
    Walmart       Sandusky, Ohio
    Walmart       Steubenville, Ohio
    Walmart       Stow, Ohio
    Walmart       Streetsboro, Ohio
    Walmart       Strongsville, Ohio
    Walmart       Wadsworth, Ohio
    Walmart       Wooster, Ohio
    Walmart       Doral Dr., Youngstown, Ohio
    Walmart       Goldie Rd., Youngstown, Ohio
    Walmart       Maple Ave., Zanesville, Ohio
    Walmart       Maysville Pike, Zanesville, Ohio
    Walmart       Ada, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Altus, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Anadarko, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Ardmore, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Chickasha, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Duncan, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Durant, Oklahoma
    Walmart       El Reno, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Elk City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       NW Sheridan Rd., Lawton, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Quannah Parker Trl., Lawton, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Madill, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Midwest City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       501 SW 19th St., Moore, Oklahoma
    Walmart       640 SE 4th St., Moore, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Mustang, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Newcastle, Oklahoma
    Walmart       333 N Interstate Dr., Norman, Oklahoma
    Walmart       601 12th Ave. NE, Norman, Oklahoma
    Walmart       5401 Tinker Diagonal St., Oklahoma City, OK
    Walmart       6100 W Reno Ave, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       100 East I-240 Service Rd., Oklahoma City, OK
    Walmart       1500 SW 59th St., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       6000 NW 23rd St., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       911 SW 104th St., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       9011 NE 23rd St., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       2217 NW 23rd St., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       4420 S Western Ave., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Pauls Valley, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Purcell, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Sulphur, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Weatherford, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Yukon, Oklahoma
    Walmart       Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Belle Vernon, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Butler, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Carnegie, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Clarion, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Corry, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Cranberry, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Cranberry Twp, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Delmont, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Edinboro, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Downs Dr., Erie, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       W 23rd St., Erie, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       2711 Elm St., Erie, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Gibsonia, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Greensburg, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Greenville, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Harborcreek, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Hermitage, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Kittanning, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Meadville, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Monaca, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Natrona Heights, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       New Castle, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       North Versailles, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Tarentum, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Titusville, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Uniontown, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Warren, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Washington, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Waynesburg, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       West Mifflin, Pennsylvania
    Walmart       Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Carr 177, Bayamon, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Carr 167, Bayamon, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Rafael Cordero Ave., Caguas, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Centro Comercial Plaza, Caguas, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Carr Pr 52 And Pr 156, Caguas, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Canovanas, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Caparra, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Parque Escorial, Carolina, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Monserrate Ste. 1, Carolina, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Cayey, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Ceiba, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Coamo, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Corozal, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Dorado, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Guayama, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Santa Ana, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Plaza Guaynabo, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Hatillo, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Humacao, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Juncos, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Levittown, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Luquillo, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Manati, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Intersection Pr-2 & Pr-52, Ponce, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       #333 Carr #14, Ponce, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Rio Grande, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       San Patricio, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Carr 176 Cupey, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Gran Bulevar, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Salinas, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Toa Alta, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Utuado, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Vega Alta, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Villalba, Puerto Rico
    Walmart       Beaufort, South Carolina
    Walmart       Hardeeville, South Carolina
    Walmart       Hilton Head, South Carolina
    Walmart       Aberdeen, South Dakota
    Walmart       Brookings, South Dakota
    Walmart       Huron, South Dakota
    Walmart       Mitchell, South Dakota
    Walmart       Pierre, South Dakota
    Walmart       Louise Ave., Sioux Falls, South Dakota
    Walmart       Arrowhead Pkwy., Sioux Falls, South Dakota
    Walmart       Vermillion, South Dakota
    Walmart       Watertown, South Dakota
    Walmart       Yankton, South Dakota
    Walmart       Childress, Texas
    Walmart       Gainesville, Texas
    Walmart       Pampa, Texas
    Walmart       Vernon, Texas
    Walmart       Greenbriar Rd., Wichita Falls, Texas
    Walmart       Central Fwy., Wichita Falls, Texas
    Walmart       Lawrence Rd., Wichita Falls, Texas
    Walmart       Clarksburg, West Virginia
    Walmart       Fairmont, West Virginia
    Walmart       Mason, West Virginia
    Walmart       Four H Camp Rd., Morgantown, West Virginia
    Walmart       University Town Ctr, Morgantown, West Virginia
    Walmart       Moundsville, West Virginia
    Walmart       New Martinsville, West Virginia
    Walmart       Parkersburg, West Virginia
    Walmart       Ripley, West Virginia
    Walmart       Spencer, West Virginia
    Walmart       Summersville, West Virginia
    Walmart       Triadelphia, West Virginia
    Walmart       Vienna, West Virginia
    Walmart       Weirton, West Virginia
    Walmart       Weston, West Virginia


YAHOO INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
and directors by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin Cities Pipe Trades
Pension Trust.  In October 2011, the District Court consolidated
the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities
Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating
Engineers as lead plaintiff.  In a consolidated amended complaint
filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff purports to represent
a class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock
between April 19, 2011, and July 29, 2011, and alleges that during
that class period, defendants issued statements that were
materially false or misleading because they did not disclose
information relating to Alibaba Group's restructuring of Alipay.
The complaint purports to assert claims for relief for violation
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and for violation
of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages,
injunctive and equitable relief, fees and costs.  On June 22,
2012, the court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.

With respect to the legal proceeding and claims, the Company has
determined, based on current knowledge, that the amount or range
of reasonably possible losses, including reasonably possible
losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably
estimable with respect to certain matters and that the aggregate
amount or range of such losses that are estimable would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  Amounts accrued as
of December 31, 2011, and June 30, 2012, were not material.  The
ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments,
estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with
certainty.  In the event of a determination adverse to Yahoo!, its
subsidiaries, directors, or officers in these matters, however,
the Company may incur substantial monetary liability, and be
required to change its business practices.  Either of these events
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.  The Company may
also incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred,
in defending against these claims.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a digital media company that delivers
personalized digital content and experiences through various
devices worldwide.  It offers online properties and services to
users; and a range of marketing services to businesses.  The
Company's communications and communities offerings include Yahoo!
Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Groups, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, and
Connected TV.  The Company was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


YAHOO INC: Delaware Court Dismissed Claims in Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court dismissed in July 2012 plaintiffs'
claims in the consolidated shareholder litigation against Yahoo!
Inc., according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On December 1, 2011, and December 7, 2011, purported class action
complaints were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court by M & C
Partners, III and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System, respectively, against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors at that time.  On December 14, 2011,
the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two actions under the
caption In re Yahoo! Shareholders Litig. and appointed lead
plaintiffs.  On December 29, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint purportedly on behalf
of all of the Company's stockholders alleging that the Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the
Company's value in connection with the strategic review process.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, rescission, fees and costs.
The Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors at
that time answered the amended class action complaint on January
18, 2012.  On July 6, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses alleging that their
claims had become moot as a result of events occurring after the
filing of the amended class action complaint.  On July 25, 2012,
the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims while retaining
jurisdiction to decide plaintiffs' motion for fees and expenses.

With respect to the legal proceeding and claims, the Company has
determined, based on current knowledge, that the amount or range
of reasonably possible losses, including reasonably possible
losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably
estimable with respect to certain matters and that the aggregate
amount or range of such losses that are estimable would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  Amounts accrued as
of December 31, 2011, and June 30, 2012, were not material.  The
ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments,
estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with
certainty.  In the event of a determination adverse to Yahoo!, its
subsidiaries, directors, or officers in these matters, however,
the Company may incur substantial monetary liability, and be
required to change its business practices.  Either of these events
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.  The Company may
also incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred,
in defending against these claims.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a digital media company that delivers
personalized digital content and experiences through various
devices worldwide.  It offers online properties and services to
users; and a range of marketing services to businesses.  The
Company's communications and communities offerings include Yahoo!
Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Groups, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, and
Connected TV.  The Company was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


                           *********

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  * * *