---

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

             Wednesday, October 10, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 201

                               Headlines

ACCESS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Student Loan
ASSANTE WEALTH: Financial Adviser Faces C$80-Mil. Class Action
BAENSCH FOOD: Recalls Ma Baensch Marinated Herring in Wine Sauce
BEVERAGE PLUS: Immigrant Workers Get $950,000 in Wage Class Action
CALIFORNIA: HJTA Files Class Action Over Fire Tax

DEER CONSUMER: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Rose" Suit
FACEBOOK: Suits Over Failed Initial Public Offering Consolidated
FLAGSTAR BANK: Sued Over Disability Income Requirements
FORESTAR GROUP: Faces Suits Over Proposed CREDO Acquisition
GOOGLE: Faces Privacy Class Action in Canada

GREEN DOT: Faces "Zee" Securities Class Suit in California
GRETCHEN'S SHOEBOX: Expands Recall of Protein Bistro Boxes
HIGHER ONE: Claims in "McFall" Suit Voluntary Dismissed in July
HIGHER ONE: Defends "Parker" Class Action Suit in Mississippi
HIGHER ONE: Defends "Price" Class Action Suit in Connecticut

HIGHMARK: Settles Class Action Over Premium Hike
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Iron Workers Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Consolidated N.Y. Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Action for Misrepresenting Siding
JBI INC: Amended Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in Nevada Ct.

JUDY'S FAMILY: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
KRASNYI OKTYABR: Recalls Beer Set Dried Rudd
LAS VEGAS MOB: Founder Faces Investor Class Action
LG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Home Theater System
MMODAL INC: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Merger-Related Suit

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Awaits Okay of $7.25-Bil. Deal in Suit vs. VISA
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bank Defends FLSA and Wage Act Violations Suit
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit vs. Smithtown Pending
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Discovery in Overdraft Fee Suit Began in July

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Sued Over Mitchell International Program
PROSHARES TRUST: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Calif. Securities Suit in Prelim. Stages
PUBLISHAMERICA: Judge Dismisses Authors' Class Action
REX ENERGY: Faces More Suits Over Oil & Gas Leases in Clearfield

STANDARD FIRE: Judge to Mull Over Bid to Stay "Knowles" Suit
STEFANO FOODS: Recalls 3,744 Lbs of Chicken Quesadilla Products
SUNLAND INC: Expands Ongoing Recall to Include 139 More Products
TALENTI GELATO: Recalls Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup Gelato
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action over Misleading Cab Fees

UNION DRILLING: Faces Shareholder Class Action
UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans' Class Action Can Proceed
VIVUS INC: Class Action Over Qsymia Drug Dismissed
WAL-MART STORES: 11 Women File Gender Bias Class Action in Fla.
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Asks Supreme Court to Review Class Action

WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cheese from 2 Stores in Kentucky and Tenn.
WOODLANDS RESIDENTIAL: Gets One-Year Extension to Resolve Claims
WRIGLEY ROOFTOP: Two Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
XL FOODS: License Suspended, Class Action Likely to Grow
XL FOODS: FSIS Expands Health Alert for Imported Canadian Beef


                          *********

ACCESS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Student Loan
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a law student has filed a
class action against his education lender, Access Group; the
company that services his loan, Affiliated Computer Services; and
that company's parent, Xerox Corp., for improperly increasing his
outstanding balance.


ASSANTE WEALTH: Financial Adviser Faces C$80-Mil. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Van Rassel, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that a
Calgary law firm has launched an C$80-million class-action lawsuit
against a financial adviser accused of killing a central Alberta
woman with a bomb concealed in a parcel delivered to her home.

The civil suit, filed in Court of Queen's Bench in Red Deer,
alleges Brian Andrew Malley engaged in investment strategies that
were unsuitable for his clients and instead acted in his own best
interests.

The class action suit is filed on behalf of clients of Mr. Malley,
who worked for Assante Wealth Management in Red Deer.

One of the lawyers handling the suit says his firm has so far
identified approximately 90 clients handled by Mr. Malley and they
estimate there could be as many as 300 covered by the class
action.

"There are others out there we haven't spoken with.  We'll have a
better idea of the magnitude of the suit once we've spoken with
them," said Carsten Jensen of JSS Barristers.

Mr. Malley, 55, is charged with first-degree murder in connection
with the killing of one of his former clients, Victoria Shachtay.

Ms. Shachtay, a quadriplegic who used a wheelchair, was killed in
Nov. 2011 by an explosive inside a parcel delivered to the
Innisfail home she shared with her young daughter and a live-in
caregiver.

Ms. Shachtay's daughter wasn't home when the bomb exploded.  The
caregiver was home, but wasn't hurt.

Ms. Shachtay was paralyzed in a car crash in 2004, and received a
large financial settlement after the incident.

The civil suit claims Mr. Malley's clients suffered unnecessary
losses due to investments he made with no regard to his customers'
goals or risk tolerance.

The statement of claim alleges Mr. Malley made frequent and
unnecessary trades to reap additional commissions, and made
investments to benefit himself -- not his clients.

Assante is named as a defendant because it allegedly didn't take
steps to safeguard the interests of Mr. Malley's clients after he
was charged with murder.

"Assante failed to reassign the investor accounts that had been
managed by Brian Malley and completely disregarded the class
members allowing the investment accounts to incur further losses.
In the alternative, Assante did reassign the investment accounts
but the new investment adviser took no steps to evaluate or
otherwise provide any management of the investor accounts thereby
resulting in further losses to the class members," the statement
of claim reads.

Allegations in the lawsuit are unproven in court.  No statements
of defense have been filed on behalf of Assante, Mr. Malley or his
wife Christine, who is also named as a defendant.

In a written statement on Oct. 3, Assante said it has not yet been
served with the statement of claim.

"Assante has been working with a number of clients and former
clients to resolve certain concerns related to the handling of
their accounts by Brian Malley," the company said.

"In our experience, it is extremely unusual to advance such claims
through a class action proceeding.  Assante will continue to work
with our clients and former clients to resolve their concerns."

The suit also alleges that prior to Mr. Malley's arrest, Assante
failed to properly supervise his clients' accounts and failed to
notice unusual trades.

The statement of claim also names Mr. Malley's wife, Christine, as
a defendant, alleging she had oversight over her husband's
dealings.

The lawsuit is seeking $50 million for losses allegedly suffered
by investors, $20 million in general damages and $10 million in
punitive damages.

The suit must be certified by a judge before it can proceed.  If a
judge certifies the suit, it would include all former clients of
Assante whose portfolios were handled by Mr. Malley.


BAENSCH FOOD: Recalls Ma Baensch Marinated Herring in Wine Sauce
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baensch Food Products Co. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is voluntarily
recalling a single lot code of Ma Baensch Marinated Herring in
Wine Sauce because it may contain an undeclared milk allergen.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The product was distributed to select retail stores in Wisconsin
and Rockford, Illinois, beginning on June 6, 2012.

   Product: Ma Baensch Marinated Herring in Wine Sauce - 24 ounce
            retail glass jar
   UPC #:   71444910220
   Sell By Date and Lot Code: BEST IF USED BY 06NOV12 158
            (Sell By and Lot Code is printed in black ink on the
            top of the gold lid)

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

No other products or lot codes are affected by this recall.

The voluntary recall was initiated after the company discovered
that as a result of a labeling error 144 - 24 ounce jars (12 - 12
count cases) of Ma Baensch Marinated Herring with Sour Cream &
Chives were labeled as Ma Baensch Marinated Herring in Wine Sauce.
The Ma Baensch Marinated Herring in Wine Sauce label does not
reveal the presence of the milk allergen.

Consumers who have purchased the 24 ounce Ma Baensch Herring in
Wine Sauce bearing the "best if used by" date of 06NOV12 158
should return the product to the store where it was purchased to
receive replacement or a refund.  Consumers with questions should
contact Baensch Food Products at 414-562-4643.


BEVERAGE PLUS: Immigrant Workers Get $950,000 in Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
WorkerFreedom reports that a federal judge has awarded a group of
immigrant workers over $950,000 in unpaid wages for work at a
Queens-based beverage distributor.  A group of Latino warehouse
workers and truck drivers brought the class action lawsuit against
Beverage Plus and its owners after years of disrespect and
systematic violations of state and federal law, violations which
the judge found were intentional.  The workers are members of
Focus on the Food Chain, a coalition promoting good jobs and a
sustainable food system in New York City's growing food processing
and distribution sector.

"My co-workers and I were deprived of our pay and badly exploited
but we finally learned about our rights," said Richard Merino, who
drove a delivery truck at Beverage Plus for six years and was a
named plaintiff in the case.  "We stood up together and now
justice has arrived for us and more importantly for our families."

Beverage Plus employees worked as many as twelve hours a day, were
deprived of overtime, and subjected to unlawful deductions from
their pay.  Individual workers will recover as much as $169,000
and the egregious nature of the company's conduct resulted in an
award of punitive and compensatory damages for retaliation.  The
workers were represented by the law firm Vladeck, Waldman, Elias &
Engelhard, P.C and Brandworkers, a non-profit organization
advancing the rights of low-wage retail and food employees.

"All of us who eat in New York rely on the hard work of the City's
35,000 food processing and distribution workers," said Daniel
Gross, the executive director of Brandworkers and one of the
attorneys on the case.  "With this victory, we're one step closer
to a food chain based on sustainability and human rights, rather
than sweatshop practices."

The employees in NYC's industrial food industry are 80% immigrant
workers of color and the sector is characterized by high levels of
workers' rights violations.  Workers are routinely subjected to
large-scale wage theft, like at Beverage Plus, depriving families
of hard-earned wealth.  Workers of color and women workers are
relegated to the hardest and lowest paying positions, and all
white senior management teams are common.  Employers frequently
cut costs by disregarding health and safety protections, and as a
result, over 4 in 10 workers in the sector have been injured on
the job.

Focus on the Food Chain, a coalition of Brandworkers and the NYC
Industrial Workers of the World, provides a space for food
processing and distribution workers to discuss common challenges
and carry out innovative campaigns for workplace justice.


CALIFORNIA: HJTA Files Class Action Over Fire Tax
-------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 4, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) filed a
class action lawsuit challenging the validity of recently-imposed
fees on structure owners in the State Responsibility Areas
(commonly known as the 'fire tax').

The class action complaint, which was filed in Superior Court in
Sacramento, seeks to overturn the fire tax, which is imposed on
SRA property owners at approximately $150 per year for each
habitable structure on their property (a $35 discount is provided
to structure owners that have local fire protection services).
The class action suit names plaintiffs from Kern County, Mendocino
County, Calaveras County, Butte County, San Bernardino County,
Solano County, San Luis Obispo County, El Dorado County, and
Lassen County, who together represent a large section of the
nearly 825,000 property owners subject to the fee.  HJTA is
challenging the constitutionality of the fee on the grounds it is
a tax that required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, but was
approved only by a simple majority.

The suit was filed against the California Department of Forestry
and the State Board of Equalization, as the two agencies
responsible for identifying owners of the parcels subject to the
new tax and collecting the tax, respectively.  If the suit is
successful, homeowners could be eligible for refunds.


DEER CONSUMER: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Rose" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Deer Consumer Products, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit brought by
James Rose, 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 April 29, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 31, 2009, and March 21, 2011, James Rose v. Deer Consumer
Products, Inc. et al, was filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The court
has not yet certified the class action status.  The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the
Section 20(a) control person provisions of the Exchange Act.  The
factual assertions in the complaint, based expressly on the
published statements at issue in the Company's lawsuit against a
certain blogger, "Alfred Little," consist primarily of allegations
that the defendants made materially false or misleading public
statements concerning the Company's financial condition in 2010
and 2009.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other
relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of the
Company's common stock during the class period.  A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on September 6, 2011, with essentially
the same allegations.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, which motion is fully briefed and has been taken under
submission by the Court.

The Company strongly denies the allegations in the complaint.  The
Company believes this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit and
will contest it vigorously.  The Company plans to pursue all legal
remedies available to it if the complaint is not withdrawn in its
entirety.

Deer Consumer Products, Inc. -- http://deerinc.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, engages in the design, manufacture, and sale of
small home and kitchen electronic appliances.  It also operates as
an original design manufacturer and original equipment
manufacturer.  The Company was formerly known as Tag Events Corp.
and changed its name to Deer Consumer Products, Inc. in September
2008.  The Company is based in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of
China.


FACEBOOK: Suits Over Failed Initial Public Offering Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNET reports that Facebook's wishes to defend itself against one
consolidated case has been granted.  The social networking
behemoth will now face a legal battle in Manhattan, New York
against dozens of lawsuits over its failed initial public
offering.

There are estimated 50 lawsuits filed against the social network,
Nasdaq exchange, and Facebook's underwriters.  A panel of federal
judges have decided that all of these cases will be collected
throughout the United States as one and transferred to a district
court in Manhattan headed by Judge Robert Sweet.

Reuters reported on Oct. 5 that Facebook was pleased with the
announcement and is making plans to defend itself "vigorously".
Last June, Facebook filed a motion asking that the lawsuits be
taken as a single case.

The bungled IPO last May fueled the lawsuits after Facebook's
Nasdaq stock price opened at $38 but then never recovered from a
dive.  The company's stock price closed today at $21.95, a far-
fetched price when the IPO was opened.  The defendants in the
lawsuits, most of whom are investors, argue that Facebook did not
disclose in the days immediately before the IPO that a downhill
revenue growth had been forecasted.

Facebook denies it is at fault but blames Nasdaq charging, citing
it as the main reason why the share price declined.  The CEO of
Nasdaq remarked about the claims by pointing at the "arrogance"
and "overconfidence" among the staffers of the stock exchange,
resulting to the mishandling of the IPO.

Investors claim that they lost their money after Nasdaq stock
market suffered technical glitches.  They accuse Facebook of
providing only unflattering information about some of its business
prospects to analysts in Wall Street, who in turn, shared them to
privileged investors.

According to Reuters, the lawsuits did not yet specify the damages
being sought but the amount could easily reach in millions of
dollars for the social network in legal fees alone.


FLAGSTAR BANK: Sued Over Disability Income Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Flagstar Bank makes disabled
borrowers provide unnecessary and burdensome documentation about
their disability income, a class claims in federal court.


FORESTAR GROUP: Faces Suits Over Proposed CREDO Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forestar Group Inc. is facing five class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed acquisition of CREDO Petroleum Corporation,
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 3, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to acquire CREDO Petroleum Corporation (Credo) in an all cash
transaction for $14.50 per share, representing an equity purchase
price of approximately $146,000,000.  Closing is subject to
customary conditions, including approval by Credo's stockholders
and, if approved, is expected to close in second half of 2012.
The Company obtained a commitment for bridge financing that,
combined with available liquidity, is sufficient to fund the
acquisition.  However, the Company intends to pursue amendments to
its senior secured credit facility to fund a significant portion
of the purchase price.

In connection with the Company's definitive agreement to acquire
Credo, four purported class action lawsuits, and one lawsuit that
seeks certification as a class action, have been filed against
Credo, its board of directors and the Company.  These actions
generally allege that Credo and its board of directors breached
fiduciary duties to Credo stockholders with respect to the
proposed transaction.  The five actions also allege that the
Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches.  The plaintiffs'
allegations include that the consideration to be paid pursuant to
the definitive agreement to acquire Credo is inadequate.  They
seek remedies that include enjoining the defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction and directing Credo's
directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of the Credo
stockholders.

The Company believes that the claims are entirely without merit
and intends to defend the actions vigorously.


GOOGLE: Faces Privacy Class Action in Canada
--------------------------------------------
Tara Carman, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a Sunshine
Coast man is taking Internet giant Google to court for allegedly
mining and profiting from information sent to Gmail accounts from
non-Gmail users.

The lawsuit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court on Oct. 4, is a proposed
class action that, if certified by the court, could potentially
include anyone in the province who has ever sent an e-mail to a
Gmail account.

It is believed to be the first court action of its kind in Canada.

The statement of claim alleges that California-based Google Inc.
intercepts and uses personal information it collects from e-mail
sent to Gmail users to avoid paying for the data and to increase
its revenues from third-party advertisers by displaying "targeted"
ads to consumers based on information received from others.

"Google has failed or omitted to disclose or describe . . .  the
fact and the extent of Google's interception, copying, retention,
review and use of e-mails sent . . . to Gmail account holders,"
the statement of claim says.

In doing so, Google has violated the Privacy Act, invaded users'
privacy, violated solicitor-client, physician-patient, pastor-
penitent and journalist-source privilege, infringed upon copyright
and breached the Competition Act, the statement of claim alleges.

"Google's actions . . . including its interception, copying,
scanning, retention and use of private email communications is
high-handed, outrageous, wanton, reckless, callous, disgraceful,
wilful and entirely without care for (the plaintiff's) statutory
and common law rights," it says.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The plaintiff, Sechelt retiree Wayne Plimmer, seeks damages
including all revenue or profits obtained by Google as a result of
the alleged activities, damages for breach of copyright in the
amount of $500 per e-mail, and any other damages assessed by the
court.

Mr. Plimmer is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google from
engaging in the activities described in the statement of claim
without the explicit consent of all parties to e-mail
communications, as well as an order certifying the lawsuit as a
class action.

Mr. Plimmer declined to comment on the suit through lawyer Mike
Wagner of Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy.

Google spokeswoman Leslie Church said the company would not
comment on the allegations at this time.

Two class-action lawsuits filed in California in June make similar
allegations against both Google and Yahoo, accusing the companies
of violating California's Invasion of Privacy Act by intercepting
electronic communication without the consent of all parties
involved.  This is the first such lawsuit to be filed in Canada.

Google's privacy policy and "terms of service" make no explicit
mention of the company collecting and using the content of
incoming e-mails for advertising or other purposes.  The company
says it collects personal information submitted by the user when
signing up for Google services, as well as information derived
from the use of those services.  This may include search queries,
location information, phone and text logs, IP addresses,
information about the devices used, and cookies that may identify
a person's browser or Google account, according to Google's
privacy policy.

The information is used to "provide, maintain, protect and
improve" Google services and to protect both the company and its
users, the privacy policy says.

"We also use this information to offer you tailored content --
like giving you more relevant search results and ads," it says.

However, Google's privacy policy and terms of service do not apply
to people who don't subscribe to the company's service.


GREEN DOT: Faces "Zee" Securities Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation is facing a securities class action lawsuit
in California initiated by Bryan Zee, 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 July 27, 2012, an alleged class action entitled Bryan Zee v.
Green Dot Corp., et al., No. CV12-6492-GW, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
against the Company and two of its officers.  The lawsuit asserts
purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results.  Plaintiff alleges that defendants
made statements that were misleading because they failed to
disclose certain facts concerning the Company's internal risk
policies and plans by its retailer distributors to sell products
that would compete with its general purpose reloadable, or GPR,
cards.  The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's securities between
January 26, 2012, and July 26, 2012, and seeks compensatory
damages, fees and costs.  The defendants have not yet responded to
the complaint in this matter.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.


GRETCHEN'S SHOEBOX: Expands Recall of Protein Bistro Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------
In response to an expansion of Justin's Nut Butter voluntary
recall of its' 0.5 oz. single-serve Honey Peanut Butter squeeze
packs to include additional lot codes, Gretchen's Shoebox Express
in Seattle, Washington, is expanding its voluntary recall of
Starbucks brand Protein Bistro Box to include enjoy by dates:
09/28/12 and dates 09/30/12 - 10/06/12.  The Protein Bistro Box
contains peanut butter with one of the lot codes recently added to
the Justin's recall which impacts peanut butter packs with Best By
dates of 8/26/13.

Peanuts associated with the Sunland, Inc. recall were used in the
production of certain lots of Justin's Nut Butter product and have
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

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

Gretchen's Shoebox Express is issuing this voluntary recall linked
to the supplier's recall to minimize the risk to the public
health.

The recalled product under the expanded recall was distributed
solely to Starbucks retail stores in Washington and Oregon, from
9/29/2012 to 10/5/2012.  Affected product has been confirmed as
removed from stores.

The Bistro Box product is in a clear plastic container, with a
white code date sticker on the bottom of the container, stating
"Enjoy by" followed by the date in the following format:  M
(Month) DD (Date), for example 9 29 standing for Sept 29th.  The
recalled single-serve peanut butter pouches are included inside
the Bistro Box and are fully labeled and sealed.  The individual
pouches are date stamped at the bottom of the pouch.

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

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

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

ORIGINAL Recalled Product and Pack Codes:

                                                   Included
   Brand        Product               Pack Size     States
   -----        -------               ---------    --------
   Starbucks    Protein Bistro Box     6.80 oz      WA, OR

   UPC: 762111881502
   Code Date Range: Enjoy By 09/02/12 - 09/27/12

EXPANDED Recalled Product and Pack Codes:

                                                   Included
   Brand        Product               Pack Size     States
   -----        -------               ---------    --------
   Starbucks    Protein Bistro Box     6.80 oz      WA, OR

   UPC: 762111881502
   Code Date Range: Enjoy By 09/28/12, 09/30/12 - 10/06/12

EXPANDED Recalled Peanut Butter Pouch, located inside the Protein
Bistro Box products:

                                                   Included
   Brand        Product               Pack Size     States
   -----        -------               ---------    --------
   Justin's     Honey Peanut Butter     0.5 oz      WA, OR
                Blend

   UPC: 894455000391
   Code Date Range: Best By 8/26/13


HIGHER ONE: Claims in "McFall" Suit Voluntary Dismissed in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry McFall voluntary dismissed in July 2012 all claims against
Higher One Holdings, 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 April 18, 2012, Sherry McFall, a Higher One customer, filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, against Higher
One Holdings, Inc. alleging, among other things, violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act in connection with
alleged improper disclosures of fees and costs associated with
opening and maintaining an account, as well as various common law
claims.  The complaint was subsequently voluntarily withdrawn by
the plaintiff.  On April 24, 2012, Sherry McFall filed a new
complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Ventura, the claims of which are substantially the same as the
first complaint.  The case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division, on July 11, 2012.  On July 27, 2012, the plaintiff
voluntary dismissed all claims in the complaint.


HIGHER ONE: Defends "Parker" Class Action Suit in Mississippi
-------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
initiated by Ashley Parker, et al., in Mississippi, 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 July 3, 2012, Higher One customer Ashley Parker and three other
customers filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Eastern
Division, against Higher One Holdings, Inc. alleging, among other
things, violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as various common
law claims.  The Company believes the claims to be without merit.
Although the Company plans to defend the matter vigorously, there
can be no assurances of its success in this matter.


HIGHER ONE: Defends "Price" Class Action Suit in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
commenced by Jeanette Price, et al., in Connecticut, 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 July 27, 2012, Higher One customer Jeanette Price and six other
customers filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against Higher One
Holdings, Inc. alleging, among other things, violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, statutory theft and
various common law claims.  The Company believes the claims to be
without merit.  Although the Company plans to defend the matter
vigorously, there can be no assurances of its success in this
matter.


HIGHMARK: Settles Class Action Over Premium Hike
------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that a real
estate firm that filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
insurance ratepayers against Highmark and UPMC alleging that they
conspired to raise premiums submitted on Oct. 4 to federal court a
proposed settlement with the insurer.

If the proposed settlement with Highmark is approved by U.S.
District Judge Joy Flowers Conti, the insurer would put $4.5
million into an escrow account.  That money would eventually pay
costs and expenses of Royal Mile's attorneys.

Highmark has also agreed to help Royal Mile to continue to pursue
its case against UPMC, by providing information that it gave to
the U.S. Department of Justice when that agency was investigating
the insurer's relationship with UPMC.

Judge Conti is also overseeing two other cases related to UPMC and
Highmark.

In one, West Penn Allegheny Health System is suing UPMC, claiming
it unlawfully sought to stifle competition.

In the other, UPMC sued Highmark, claiming it used unlawful means
to try to siphon business from the region's dominant hospital
system.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Iron Workers Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. disclosed 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 the "Iron Workers" class
action lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in June 2012.

On May 1, 2012, the Company became aware of a purported class
action complaint (the "Iron Workers Complaint" or "Iron Workers
Action") filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in
New York County against the Company, certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters
for the Company's April 6, 2011 public offering of common stock
(the "Offering").  The Iron Workers Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the registration statement for the Offering contained
false and misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations and management in violation of the Securities Act of
1933.  The Iron Workers Complaint makes substantially the same
allegations as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, except
that the purported class is limited to those who purchased
securities in the Offering.  On May 9, 2012, the Company removed
the Iron Workers Action to the SDNY and requested that it be
assigned to the same judge as in the Consolidated Class Action.
On June 8, 2012, plaintiff in the Iron Workers Action filed a
motion to remand the case to state court.  On June 19, 2012,
plaintiff filed a notice of voluntarily dismissal of the complaint
without prejudice, and the action is no longer pending.

Based in New York, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.intralinks.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely
managing content, exchanging critical business information, and
enabling inter-enterprise collaboration worldwide.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Consolidated N.Y. Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IntraLinks Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit in New York is 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.

On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers.
The complaint (the "Wallace Complaint") alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
February 17, 2011, through November 10, 2011 (the "Allegation
Period").  On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action
complaint (the "Thaler Complaint"), which makes substantially the
same claims as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was
filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain of its current
and former executive officers seeking similar unspecified
compensatory damages for the Allegation Period.  On April 3, 2012,
the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Plumbers and
Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and also
appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action ("Consolidated
Exchange Act Class Action").  On June 15, 2012, lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint (the "Consolidated Class Action
Complaint").  In addition to the original allegations made in the
Wallace Complaint, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges
that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the underwriters in IntraLinks' April 6, 2011 stock
offering (the "Secondary Offering") issued a registration
statement and prospectus in connection with the Secondary Offering
that contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material information required to be stated therein in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The Defendants' filed their motion to dismiss the action on
July 31, 2012, and lead plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's
motion was due on September 17, 2012.  Defendants' reply is due on
October 10, 2012.

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

Based in New York, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.intralinks.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely
managing content, exchanging critical business information, and
enabling inter-enterprise collaboration worldwide.


JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Action for Misrepresenting Siding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that James Hardie Building
Products misrepresents that its siding is durable for up to 50
years, though the product warps and cracks much sooner, a federal
class claims.


JBI INC: Amended Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in Nevada Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint in the stockholder class action lawsuit filed
against JBI Inc., is pending in Nevada, 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 July 28, 2011, one of the Company's stockholders filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company, John Bordynuik, the Company's
founder, and Ronald Baldwin, its former Chief Financial Officer,
on behalf of purchasers of its securities between August 28, 2009,
and July 20, 2011.  The complaint in that case, filed in federal
court in Nevada, alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements, or both, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects in press releases and filings made with the SEC.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose material
information, or a combination thereof regarding: (1) that the
media credits were substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company
improperly accounted for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the
Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) that the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as
a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was
appointed in the case and an amended complaint was filed.  The
defendants' answer to the amended complaint is due on October 5,
2012.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the class action
litigation at this time.


JUDY'S FAMILY: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Johnson at Courthouse News Service reports that Judy's
Family Farm Eggs advertises chickens raised "free of cages," but
the birds actually dwell in "barren industrial sheds," a class
claims in court.

The ruse is all in the packaging, lead plaintiff Camilla Glover
says in Alameda County Superior Court.

Petaluma Egg Farm, which produces and markets Judy's Family Farm
Eggs, allegedly leads consumers to believe that its chicks and
hens roam free "in a bucolic environment that is reminiscent of
days gone by."

One version of the packaging states that "the hens that produce
these eggs are raised free of cages and can 'run, scratch and
play' in the fresh air of Sonoma Valley," according to the
complaint.  The packaging also allegedly says that the hens have
"access to the outdoors and enjoy large communal areas with
natural ventilation and sunlight."

In reality, however, the animals actually spend their lives in
"modern, barren industrial sheds with no grassy fields and no
outdoor access," the complaint states.

Petaluma Egg Farm, owned by Steven Mahrt, has engaged in a
"classic form of unfair competition" as well as fraud, Ms. Glover
says.

Mr. Mahrt knows that consumers will pay a higher price for "cage-
free" or organic eggs, and markets his product accordingly,
without bearing the additional cost associated with a truly cage-
free environment, according to the complaint.

When the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act was on the ballot
as Proposition 2, Mr. Mahrt allegedly told the San Francisco
Chronicle why he opposed the measure.

Mr. Mahrt said he would need "four to five times more land" if the
proposition passed, which would "kill my business," according to
the article, quoted in the complaint.

Ms. Glover says she bought Judy's Family Farm Eggs at Safeway and
Lucky's grocery stores in various Northern California East Bay
locations over a two-year period.  The El Cerrito woman says she
would not have paid a premium price for Judy's eggs if she had
known that the "free of cages" claim was misleading.

Ms. Glover seeks restitution and punitive damages for unfair
competition, false advertising and violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Petaluma Egg Farm produces eggs under the brand Judy's Family Farm
as well as Uncle Eddie's Cage Free Eggs and Rock Island Fertile
Brown Eggs.  The brand also produces eggs for Whole Foods' 365
Everyday Value brand and Organic Valley for regional distribution.

Animal Legal Defense Fund attorney Christopher Berry, of Cotati,
Calif., represents the class, along with the firm Fazio Micheletti
in San Ramon, Calif.


KRASNYI OKTYABR: Recalls Beer Set Dried Rudd
--------------------------------------------
KRASNYI OKTYABR located at 60 20th street, in Brooklyn, New York,
11232 is recalling Beer Set Dried Rudd discovered by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors during
a routine inspection and subsequent analysis of the product by
Food Laboratory personnel that confirmed the fish had not been
properly eviscerated prior to processing.

This product may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum
spores, which can cause Botulism, a serious and potentially fatal
food-borne illness.

The sale of this type of fish is prohibited under New York State
Agriculture and Markets regulations because Clostridium botulinum
spores are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than any
other portion of the fish.  Uneviscerated fish has been linked to
outbreaks of botulism poisoning.  Symptoms of botulism include
blurred or double vision, general weakness, poor reflexes,
difficulty swallowing and respiratory paralysis.

The recalled Beer Set Dried Rudd comes in a vacuum packed 7oz (200
g) bag with a code Best before 10.22.12 was sold to one retail
store on June 14 in New York City.  It is a product of Russia.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm322908.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who have Beer Set Dried Rudd are advised not
to eat it, but should return it to the place of purchase.
Consumers with questions should contact the company at 718-858-
6720.


LAS VEGAS MOB: Founder Faces Investor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for Vegas Inc., reports that legal problems
are growing for Jay Bloom, founder of the old Las Vegas Mob
Experience tourist attraction at the Tropicana hotel-casino.

On Oct. 4 he was hit with two potential setbacks: One in the form
of a new class-action lawsuit alleging he deceived investors in
the Mob Experience, and secondly in the form of a court order
requiring him to pay $35,495 as partial damages in an existing
lawsuit.

As has been extensively reported, Mr. Bloom raised money from
investors and finance companies to develop the $25 million Mob
Experience, which opened in March 2011, but ended up in bankruptcy
amid a flurry of lawsuits over unpaid bills and allegations Mr.
Bloom had diverted much of the investors' money to himself.

Mr. Bloom has denied those allegations and has blamed the
Experience's problems on a former partner.

What used to occupy the Experience space at the Tropicana is now
the Mob Attraction and is operating under new ownership.  The
owner of the Mob Attraction and certain Experience creditors are
fighting with Mr. Bloom and investors allied with him over
ownership of the mob artifacts that were procured by Mr. Bloom but
remain under control of the new Mob Attraction.

One of Mr. Bloom's investors, Harold Braxton of Miami-Dade County,
Fla., in the meantime filed a class-action lawsuit on Oct. 4
against Mr. Bloom and one of his companies, Eagle Group Holdings
LLC.

The suit, seeking to represent all Mob Experience investors, was
filed in Clark County District Court and asserts claims of
professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty to investors, constructive fraud and conversion of
investors' funds.

"This is a case of professional malpractice" involving Mr. Bloom
engaging in professional museum exhibit consulting services, says
the suit filed by Las Vegas attorney Marc Cook.

The suit seeks to recover more than $7.5 million raised by Mr.
Bloom from investors along with punitive and other damages.

It says Mr. Bloom presented to investors inaccurate financial
projections for the Experience and falsely told them that their
investments were "fully secured by valuable collateral" in the
form of mob artifacts like guns, knives, personal photos and other
memorabilia.

"The future of the exhibit was not bright and the collateral did
not secure the investments.  The invested money is gone.  Court
intervention is needed," the lawsuit says.

It alleges Mr. Bloom and/or Eagle Group converted the investors'
money to themselves, were involved in "self dealing" and that
after Mr. Bloom and Eagle Group gained the confidence of
investors, "each defendant intended and/or acted to deceive and
defraud the plaintiffs."

Mr. Bloom, however, said the Braxton lawsuit is meritless since
most of the investors are allied with him.

"Counsel for Hal Braxton contacted us about bringing this action
before filing it in an effort to gain our cooperation for what he
described as 'solely for Braxton to reach the insurance policy of
Eagle Group Holdings for his personal recovery,'" Mr. Bloom said
on Oct. 4.  "He was also told that I would not cooperate with his
attempt at recovery through an insurance claim based on his
fraudulent assertions."

Separately, Clark County District Judge Mark Denton signed an
order on Oct. 4 requiring Mr. Bloom and co-defendants to pay
$35,495 as partial damages in existing lawsuit over a Southern
Highlands home that Mr. Bloom and his family had occupied
beginning in March 2010 and that was foreclosed on this year.

In his suit, the foreclosing lender Daniel Simon said that after
Mr. Bloom and his company Eagle Group Holdings defaulted on the
mortgage in September 2011, the home was foreclosed in June of
this year.  The suit says after the foreclosure, Mr. Bloom was
asked to vacate the home but fraudulently remained there for
several months because he had drawn up a bogus lease with a third
party who was supposedly occupying the home.

"Bloom and (co-defendant Manuel Ramirez) created a fraudulent
lease and caused it to be recorded to adversely effect the rights
of Simon and occupy the premises unlawfully," the suit charged.

Mr. Bloom denied wrongdoing in his dealings with Mr. Simon, though
Judge Denton also signed an order finding the "lease was recorded
improperly and is expunged from the records of the Clark County
Recorder and that the lease will have no force and effect."

The $35,495 in partial damages is for an "unlawful detainer"
including rent Mr. Bloom and his co-defendants failed to pay of
$18,000 from June 15 through Sept. 11, along with Mr. Simon's
legal fees.

Mr. Bloom said on Oct. 4 that, "Simon will have no entitlement to
receive anything for his claim."

"The law provides for an offset against the Simon costs for the
amount Eagle Group Holdings invested in permanent improvements in
the property," Mr. Bloom said.

The home Mr. Simon foreclosed on and that Mr. Bloom lived in came
up in earlier lawsuits in which Mob Experience creditors
complained Mr. Bloom used Mob Experience funds to buy the home,
which at one point was valued at $1.3 million.

Mr. Bloom denied any wrongdoing in buying the property.


LG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Home Theater System
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that LG Electronics charges
hundreds of dollars for a Blue-ray Disc Home Theater System that
is basically "inoperable" because a product defect makes it
difficult for the wireless speakers to "mate" with the main unit,
a federal class claims.


MMODAL INC: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MModal Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding in August
to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its
proposed merger with affiliates of One Equity Partners V, L.P.,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 2, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Legend Parent, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Legend Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub").  Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of One
Equity Partners V, L.P., a Cayman Islands exempted limited
partnership ("OEP").

On August 8, 2012, Parent and Merger Sub, delivered a waiver (the
"Waiver Letter") in which they waived certain of their rights
under the Merger Agreement, which waiver has the effect of
permitting the Company to release the 19 financial sponsors
(excluding One Equity Partners IV, L.P., which is an affiliate of
One Equity Partners V, L.P.) referred to in the Company's
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on July
17, 2012, as amended, that entered into a confidentiality
agreement with the Company between March 16, 2012, and April 11,
2012, from the provisions of any standstill with the Company.

On August 8, 2012, the parties to the three purported class action
lawsuits related to the Merger Agreement, which were subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding captioned In re MModal Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 7675-VCP,
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") providing
for the settlement of certain litigation in relation to Merger
Sub's pending tender offer (the "Offer") and the Merger (as
defined in the Merger Agreement) and pursuant to which Parent and
Merger Sub waived certain rights under the Merger Agreement and
related support agreement.  On August 8, 2012, the Company
released the 19 financial sponsors (excluding One Equity Partners
IV, L.P.) from the provisions of any standstill with the Company
by delivering a waiver letter to each such sponsor in accordance
with the terms of the MOU.

In addition, on August 8, 2012, Merger Sub extended the expiration
date of the Offer to 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on August 14,
2012.  The Offer had previously been scheduled to expire at 11:59
p.m., New York City time, on August 13, 2012.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to hotel occupancy taxes, 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.

The Company is a party to various cases brought by consumers and
municipalities and other U.S. governmental entities involving
hotel occupancy taxes and the Company's merchant hotel business
model.  Some of the cases are purported class actions, and most of
the cases were brought simultaneously against other online travel
companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.  The
cases allege, among other things, that the Company violated the
jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinances.  While not
identical in their allegations, the cases generally assert similar
claims, including violations of local or state occupancy tax
ordinances, violations of consumer protection ordinances,
conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust,
demand for a legal or equitable accounting, injunctive relief,
declaratory judgment, and in some cases, civil conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including:
declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition
of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs,
attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an
order certifying the action as a class action.  An adverse ruling
in one or more of these cases could require the Company to pay tax
retroactively and prospectively and possibly pay penalties,
interest and fines.  The proliferation of additional cases could
result in substantial additional defense costs.

The Company has also been contacted by several municipalities or
other taxing bodies concerning the Company's possible obligations
with respect to state or local hotel occupancy or related taxes.
The following taxing bodies have issued notices to the Company:
the Louisiana Department of Revenue; the Montana Department of
Revenue; the Wyoming Department of Revenue; an entity representing
84 cities and 14 counties in Alabama; 43 cities in California; the
cities of Paradise Valley and Phoenix, Arizona; North Little Rock
and Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Aurora, Broomfield, Colorado Springs,
Golden, Greenwood Village, Lakewood, Littleton, Loveland, and
Steamboat Springs, Colorado; and the counties of Jefferson,
Arkansas; Brunswick and Stanly, North Carolina; Duval, Florida;
and Davis, Summit, Salt Lake and Weber, Utah.  These taxing
authorities have not issued assessments, but have requested
information to conduct an audit and/or have requested that the
Company register to pay local hotel occupancy taxes.  On May 17,
2012, the Louisiana Department of Revenue announced that it had
suspended its audit of the online travel companies.

Assessments that are administratively final and subject to
judicial review have been issued by the cities of Anaheim, San
Francisco, Santa Monica and San Diego, California; the city of
Denver, Colorado; the counties of Miami-Dade and Broward, Florida;
the Indiana Department of Revenue; the Hawaii Department of
Taxation; and the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. In addition,
the following taxing authorities have issued assessments which are
subject to further review by the taxing authorities: the Colorado
Department of Revenue; the City of Aurora, Colorado; the Maryland
Comptroller; the Texas Comptroller; the West Virginia Department
of Revenue; the South Carolina Department of Revenue; the city of
Los Angeles, California; the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
the City of Portland, Oregon; the cities of Alpharetta,
Cartersville, Cedartown, College Park, Dalton, East Point,
Hartwell, Macon, Rockmart, Rome, Tybee Island and Warner Robins,
Georgia; and the counties of Augusta, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Hart and Richmond, Georgia; Osceola, Florida;
and Montgomery Maryland.  The Company disputes that any hotel
occupancy or related tax is owed under these ordinances and is
challenging the assessments made against the Company.  These
assessments range from $250 to approximately $58.0 million, and
total approximately $79.8 million.  Some of these assessments,
including a $58.0 million assessment from the Hawaii Department of
Taxation, do not appear to be based on historical transaction
data.  If the Company is found to be subject to the hotel
occupancy tax ordinance by a taxing authority and appeals the
decision in court, certain jurisdictions may attempt to require
the Company to provide financial security or pay the assessment to
the municipality in order to challenge the tax assessment in
court.

In July 2011, related to the city of San Antonio, Texas hotel
occupancy tax case, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas issued its findings of fact and
conclusions of law in which it held the defendant online travel
companies, including Orbitz, liable for hotel occupancy taxes on
markup, fees, and breakage revenue, and also imposed penalties and
interest.  The online travel companies have asked the court to
modify its findings of fact and conclusions of law to conform to
the Texas Court of Appeals' decision in the City of Houston case,
which determined that the online travel companies are not liable
under an ordinance that is similar to the ones at issue in the San
Antonio class action.  The court has not yet ruled on the online
travel companies' motion.  If the court does not grant the motion,
and enters judgment, the Company intends to appeal.  Because it
expects to prevail, the Company has not accrued any expenses
related to this case.  It is possible, however, that the Company
will not prevail, and if that occurs, it estimates that the amount
of the judgment that it would be required to pay would be
approximately $2.9 million.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses, and it is
vigorously defending against these claims, proceedings and
inquiries.  At June 30, 2012, and December 31, 2011, the Company
had a $1.0 million and $0.9 million accrual related to various
legal proceedings, respectively.  Litigation is inherently
unpredictable and, although the Company believes it has valid
defenses in these matters, unfavorable resolutions could occur.
The Company cannot estimate its range of loss, except to the
extent taxing authorities have issued assessments against it.
Although the Company believes it is unlikely that an adverse
outcome will result from these proceedings, an adverse outcome
could be material to the Company with respect to earnings or cash
flows in any given reporting period.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. is an online travel company that uses
innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to
search for and book a broad range of travel products and services.
Its brand portfolio includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, The Away
Network and Orbitz for Business in the United States; ebookers in
Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo based in Australia, which have
operations globally.  The Company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Awaits Okay of $7.25-Bil. Deal in Suit vs. VISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a
$7.25 billion settlement resolving an antitrust class action
lawsuit against VISA and MasterCard, 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 June 2005, a group of U.S. merchants filed a class action
lawsuit against VISA and MasterCard claiming that the way VISA and
MasterCard set interchange rates was a violation of anti-trust
laws.  In July 2012, the parties announced a settlement to the
lawsuit in which VISA and MasterCard proposed to pay $7.25 billion
to the merchants ($6.05 billion in cash and $1.2 billion from an
eight month reduction in credit card interchange).  The
settlement, which is contingent on approval by a judge and
acceptance by the merchants in the lawsuit, is not expected to
have a significant impact on the Company's financial results.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bank Defends FLSA and Wage Act Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary is defending a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, 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.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. People's United Bank) based on
allegations that People's United Bank failed to pay overtime
compensation required by (i) the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and (ii) the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (Rule 23).  The
plaintiffs allege that they were employed as "underwriters" and
were misclassified as exempt employees.  The plaintiffs further
allege that they worked in excess of 40 hours per week and were
erroneously denied overtime compensation as required by federal
and state wage and hour laws.  The complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of Connecticut on May 3, 2012.  Since the complaint
is brought under both federal and state law, the complaint seeks
certification of two different but overlapping classes.  The
plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of their respective unpaid
overtime and minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages and
interest and attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2012, People's United Bank filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit vs. Smithtown Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
class action lawsuit against its subsidiary, Smithtown Bancorp,
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.

On February 25, 2010, and March 29, 2010, Smithtown and several of
its officers and directors were named in two lawsuits commenced in
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
(Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement v. Smithtown Bancorp,
Inc., et al. and Yourgal v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. et al.,
respectively) on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who purchased Smithtown's common stock between March 13,
2008, and February 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Smithtown's loan loss
reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired assets
and its internal and disclosure controls were materially false,
misleading or incomplete.  As a result of the merger of Smithtown
with and into People's United Financial on November 30, 2010,
People's United Financial has become the successor party to
Smithtown in this matter.

On April 26, 2010, the named plaintiff in the Waterford action
moved to consolidate its action with the Yourgal action, to have
itself appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and to
obtain approval of its selection of lead counsel.  The Court
approved the consolidation of the two lawsuits, with Waterford
Township named the lead plaintiff.  On December 23, 2011, People's
United Financial filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Discovery in Overdraft Fee Suit Began in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedited discovery in the class action lawsuit over overdraft
fees against People's United Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary began in
July 2012, 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.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Marta Farb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. People's United Bank) arising from its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011, and alleges
that People's United Bank engaged in certain unfair practices in
the posting of electronic debit card transactions from highest to
lowest dollar amount.  The complaint also alleges that such
practices were inadequately disclosed to customers and were
unfairly used by People's United Bank for the purpose of
generating revenue by maximizing the number of overdrafts a
customer is assessed.  The complaint seeks certification of a
class of checking account holders residing in Connecticut and who
have incurred at least one overdraft fee, injunctive relief,
compensatory, punitive and treble damages, disgorgement and
restitution of overdraft fees paid, and attorneys' fees.  On
June 16, 2011, People's United Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and on December 7, 2011, that motion was denied by the
court.  Expedited discovery in this case began in July 2012.


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Sued Over Mitchell International Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Progressive Casualty
Insurance uses a Mitchell International program that uses
benchmarks to unfairly limit coverage, a class claims in federal
court.


PROSHARES TRUST: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II (formerly known as the Commodities and
Currencies Trust) (the "Trust") and certain principals of ProShare
Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") are defendants (along with
several other parties) in a consolidated class action lawsuit
styled In re ProShares Trust Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 09-
cv-6935, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The complaint, as amended, alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 by including untrue statements of material fact and
omitting material facts in the Registration Statement for one or
more ProShares ETFs and allegedly failing to adequately disclose
the Funds' investment objectives and risks.  The six Funds of the
Trust named in the complaint are ProShares Ultra Silver, ProShares
UltraShort Gold, ProShares Ultra Gold, ProShares UltraShort DJ-UBS
Crude Oil, ProShares Ultra DJ-UBS Crude Oil and ProShares
UltraShort Silver.

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.

The Trust believes the complaint is without merit and that the
anticipated outcome will not adversely impact the operation of the
Trust or any of its Funds.  Accordingly, no loss contingency has
been recorded in the balance sheet and the amount of loss, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Calif. Securities Suit in Prelim. Stages
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit alleging violations of
securities laws in California is in its preliminary stages,
according to Prosper Marketplace, Inc.'s August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company and certain of its executive officers and
directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all
loan note purchasers on the platform from January 1, 2006, through
October 14, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company offered
and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in violation of
the California and federal securities laws.  The lawsuit seeks
class certification, damages and the right of rescission against
the Company and the other named defendants, as well as treble
damages against the Company and the award of attorneys' fees,
experts' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

On February 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint, which removed David Booth as a plaintiff and added
Brian Russom and Michael Del Greco as plaintiffs.  The new
plaintiffs are representing the same putative class and
prosecuting the same claims as the previously named plaintiffs.
On February 29, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the class action
lawsuit.  The Company cannot, however, presently determine or
estimate the final outcome of the lawsuit, and there can be no
assurance that it will be finally resolved in the Company's favor.
If the class action lawsuit is not resolved in the Company's
favor, the Company might be obliged to pay damages, and might be
subject to such equitable relief as a court may determine.
Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an accrued loss
contingency in connection with its sale of notes through the
platform prior to November 2008.  Accounting for loss
contingencies involves the existence of a condition, situation or
set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss
that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future event(s)
occur or fail to occur.  An estimated loss in connection with a
loss contingency shall be recorded by a charge to current
operations if both of the following conditions are met: first, the
amount can be reasonably estimated; and second, the information
available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates
that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date
of the financial statements.

As of June 30, 2012, the class action lawsuit is in its
preliminary stages and its probable outcome cannot presently be
determined, nor can the amount of damages or other costs that
might be borne by Prosper be estimated.

                        Greenwich Action

The Company's insurance carrier with respect to the class action
lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company ("Greenwich"), denied
coverage.  On August 21, 2009, the Company filed a lawsuit against
Greenwich in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The lawsuit sought a declaration that the
Company was entitled to coverage under its policy with Greenwich
for losses arising out of the class action lawsuit as well as
damages and the award of attorneys' fees and pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On January 26, 2011, the court issued a final statement of
decision finding that Greenwich has a duty to defend the class
action lawsuit, and requiring that Greenwich pay the Company's
past and future defense costs in the class action lawsuit up to
$2.0 million.  Greenwich subsequently made payments to the Company
in the amount of $2.0 million to reimburse the Company for the
defense costs it had incurred in the class action lawsuit.  As a
result, Greenwich has now satisfied its obligations with respect
to the Company's defense costs for the Hellum lawsuit, with the
exception of $142,584 in pre-judgment interest that Greenwich will
be required to pay to the Company when a final judgment has been
entered in the lawsuit and all appeals have been exhausted.  On
July 1, 2011, the Company and Greenwich entered into a Stipulated
Order of Judgment pursuant to which the Company agreed to dismiss
its remaining claims against Greenwich.

On August 12, 2011, Greenwich filed a notice of appeal of the
court's decision regarding Greenwich's duty to defend up to $2.0
million.  On July 16, 2012, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the trial court's decision.

Prosper Marketplace, Inc. operates as a peer-to-peer lending
marketplace in the United States.  It connects prospective
borrowers with people who have money and a willingness to lend
through an online community.  The Company handles funding and
servicing of the loan on behalf of the matched borrowers and
investors.  It is based in San Francisco, California.


PUBLISHAMERICA: Judge Dismisses Authors' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Danielle E. Gaines, writing for The Frederick News-Post, reports
that a class-action lawsuit against a Frederick-based publisher
has been dismissed after a judge found that PublishAmerica did not
have a consumer relationship with its authors.

In June, the Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman sued
PublishAmerica, alleging that the company told authors it was a
"traditional publisher" but didn't offer services the plaintiffs
expected and that the company used deceptive practices and was
unjustly enriched by charging its authors various fees.

PublishAmerica disputed the claims and filed a motion for
dismissal of the lawsuit in July.

In an opinion issued Sept. 4, U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis
said the suit would be dismissed if the plaintiffs didn't more
clearly specify allegations of wrongdoing and that the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act did not apply because it protects
consumers.  In this case, the authors were in a commercial
relationship with PublishAmerica, Judge Garbis wrote.

The judge also noted that almost six pages of the complaint that
quote complaints about the company in various news accounts
amounted to a "gratuitous slamming of PA."

The order became final on Sept. 30 after Hagens Berman decided not
to refile the suit.

"Our decision not to go forward is not related to the merits of
the case," said Barbara A. Mahoney.

Willem Meiners, CEO of PublishAmerica, issued a letter on the
company's Web site on Oct. 3 that, in part, outlined why he
believes the company is a traditional publishing firm.

He wrote that the company's authors pay nothing to be published
and are paid royalty fees after their manuscript is accepted and
bought by consumers, similar to traditional publishing houses.  He
argued that PublishAmerica is not a so-called vanity publisher, or
self-publishing services that require authors to pay upfront to
have their books printed.

The authors, however, argued in the lawsuit that they had to pay
fees to have their books marketed, stocked on store shelves or
promoted at industry events.

Mr. Meiners' letter, which stated that the company decided to
"shoot back" because a class-action lawsuit is "just about the
biggest gun that can be brought against you," suggested that the
lawsuit was fueled by competing publishers, namely Amazon's
CreateSpace.  He also alleged that the law firm had a financial
interest in the suit because Hagens Berman "share an office
building with the owner of CreateSpace . . . (and) sought to bring
PublishAmerica down."

Ms. Mahoney said Amazon is based in Seattle and has office space
in several high-rises in the city. The law firm and online
retailer lease separate areas of the 36-floor skyscraper.

Mr. Meiners' letter also attributed negative press about
PublishAmerica to competing companies.

"Assuming that most of you have, at some point, encountered some
of the hardcore BS that's out there on the Web, often anonymous,
about PublishAmerica, you may have noticed that the real object of
these people's wrath is not us.  It's you.  It's your book," he
wrote, addressing the company's purported stable of 47,000
authors.

Ms. Meiners could not be reached for comment on Oct. 3.
PublishAmerica does not have a listed phone number, and a
spokesman, Shawn Street, did not return an e-mail from a reporter
seeking a number to call.

A phone number for the attorney listed in online court files was
disconnected.


REX ENERGY: Faces More Suits Over Oil & Gas Leases in Clearfield
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation is facing two more lawsuits related to
proposed oil and gas leases in Clearfield County, 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 October 2011, the Company was named as defendants in a proposed
class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case").  The named
plaintiffs are two individuals who sued on behalf of themselves
and all persons who are alleged to be similarly situated.  The
complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts that a binding
contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed between the
Company and each proposed class member when representatives of
Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a leasing agent that the
Company engaged, presented a form of proposed oil and gas lease
together with an order for payment and related documents to each
person in 2008, and each person signed the proposed oil and gas
lease form and order for payment and delivered the documents to
representatives of Western.  The Company rejected these leases and
never signed them.  The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring the
rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases, as
well as damages and other relief as may be established by
plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees.

The Company filed affirmative defenses and preliminary objections
to the plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made various
responsive filings throughout the first quarter of 2012.  In May
2012, the Cardinale case was dismissed with prejudice on the
grounds that there was no contract formed between the Company and
the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal,
however, as of June 30, 2012, no date had been set for the appeal
proceedings.

In July 2012, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against the Company in the Court of
Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed
class action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the
"Billotte case") and another on behalf of a group of individually
named plaintiffs (the "Meeker case").  The complaint for the
Billotte case contains the same claims as those set forth in the
Cardinale case.  The Company has not yet been served with a
complaint in the Meeker case, but it believes the claims will also
mirror those made in the Cardinale and Billotte cases.  It is the
Company's understanding that these two additional lawsuits were
filed for procedural reasons.

As with the Cardinale case, the Company says it intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.  The Company is preparing
its defense strategy for the Billotte and Meeker cases and is
preparing for the appeal of the Cardinale case.  Due to the
dismissal of the Cardinale case and the uncertainty of the outcome
of the appeal, and the early nature of the proceedings for the
Billotte and Meeker cases, the Company is unable to express an
opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
for any of these cases or provide an estimate of potential losses.

Rex Energy Corporation -- http://www.rexenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and gas company operating in the Illinois Basin
and the Appalachian Basin.  The Company is based in State College,
Pennsylvania.


STANDARD FIRE: Judge to Mull Over Bid to Stay "Knowles" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that at a
hearing held on Oct.4 in Miller County, Ark., Circuit Court Judge
Kirk Johnson stated it could take him "a little while" to form his
opinion on the defendant's motion to stay a class action pending
before his Court.

The motion to stay asks Judge Johnson to temporarily halt ongoing
case proceedings, for six to nine months, until the U.S. Supreme
Court issues an opinion in the case on a jurisdictional question
related to the Class Action Fairness Act.

The lawsuit began in April 2011 when Arkansas resident Greg
Knowles filed a putative class action against Standard Fire
Insurance Company in Judge Johnson's Miller County Circuit Court.
The lawsuit claims breach of contract due to Standard Fire's
alleged underpayment of claims for loss or damage to property made
under a homeowner's insurance policy.

Mr. Knowles requested payment for damage to his home caused by
hail on March 10, 2010, and claims that Standard Fire did not pay
for charges associated with retaining the services of a general
contractor to repair or replace his damaged property, charges
known as general contractors' overhead and profit, that are an
extra 20 percent fee routinely assessed by contractors when
repairing damaged property.  In the lawsuit, Standard Fire is
accused of fraudulently concealing its obligation to pay the GCOP
on homeowners' insurance contracts throughout the state of
Arkansas.

Arguing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and that
the Plaintiff fraudulently defined the class in an effort to avoid
federal jurisdiction, Standard Fire removed the case to federal
court in May 2011.  In response to Standard Fire's efforts, the
plaintiff argued that its original complaint included a
stipulation which limits the recovery to under $75,000 and limits
unnamed class members' recovery to under $5 million, which would
keep them in the Miller County Circuit Court.

Federal Judge P. K. Holmes III agreed with the Plaintiff that the
stipulation did legally bind the Plaintiff to an amount that
places them in the lower state court.  However, Judge Holmes also
opined that Standard Fire met the initial burden of proof and
showed that the actual amount in controversy reaches, if not
exceeds, the federal court's minimum threshold for jurisdiction
pursuant to CAFA. Judge Holmes remanded the case back to Miller
County.

The defendant appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, which was denied without explanation.
Then, Standard Fire petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for Writ of
Certiorari, which was granted in August.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on whether a
plaintiff can limit absent class members recovery so as to destroy
federal jurisdiction and keep the case in a "friendly" state
court.

While the legal question is currently waiting oral arguments
before the U.S. Supreme Court, the state court heard arguments
from the parties on whether to continue the case or stay the case
until the Supreme Court has made its decision.

At the Oct. 4 hearing, Little Rock attorney Lyn Pruitt, on behalf
of defendant Standard Fire Insurance, argued that a motion to stay
the case should be granted "out of respect to our highest Court."

Further, she argued that allowing the case to continue will cause
her client irreparable harm in the form of millions of dollars
spent in discovery costs.

She pointed out that the plaintiff has made hundreds of discovery
requests which aren't allowed at the federal level.  Although
Standard Fire has produced an estimated 2,100 claim files, Ms.
Pruitt is expecting a "flurry of additional discovery" from the
plaintiff if the case is allowed to continue.

She told Judge Johnson that there is no harm to the plaintiff by
waiting, but there are significant costs associated with
proceeding with a case that he may not have jurisdiction over.

On behalf of the plaintiff, attorney Martin Weber stated that they
had an obligation to "try and move the case along" and that
bringing the case to a halt would not serve the public interest of
the citizens of Arkansas.  Mr. Weber countered the defendant's
statements by claiming that the costs associated with discovery
are considered a mere litigation expense and do not constitute
irreparable injury.

After Judge Johnson asked for clarification on standards, both
attorneys explained that there was not clear guidance in Arkansas
for a case in this situation.

At the end of arguments, Judge Johnson told the parties that he
has a capital murder case which will take precedence over any
ruling in the class action.  However, Judge Johnson said "off the
cuff" that there will be no rulings on any dispositive motions and
that the parties cannot have a class certification hearing with
the case pending before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is expected to hold oral arguments in December
or January with an opinion due by the end of term in June.


STEFANO FOODS: Recalls 3,744 Lbs of Chicken Quesadilla Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stefano Foods, Inc., a Charlotte, North Carolina establishment, is
recalling approximately 3,744 pounds of a chicken quesadilla
product because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen.  The
product contains isolated soy protein, a known allergen, which is
not declared on the label.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * 18-lb. cases, each containing 12, "QUESADILLA CHICK INS
     12/24OZ," with an identifying case code of "F2829" and use
     by date of "03/31/2013."

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "EST.
P-19140" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The product was
produced on August 3, 2012, and shipped to a distributor in
Georgia for further sale at retail locations.

The problem was discovered by the company during a routine
internal audit and may have occurred as a result of a change in
the chicken and spice mix used in the product.  FSIS and the
company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
company's Vice President of Food Safety, Katie Hanigan, at (712)
263-7383.  Media with questions about the recall should contact
the company's Vice President of Investor and Corporate
Communications, Keira Lombard, at (757) 365-3050.

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


SUNLAND INC: Expands Ongoing Recall to Include 139 More Products
----------------------------------------------------------------

   * Expansion to Include All Products Manufactured in the
     Company's Peanut Butter Plant After March 1, 2010, Due to
     Possible Health Risk

Sunland, Inc. announced a voluntary expansion of its ongoing
recall of all products manufactured in its Peanut Butter Plant
because the products have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella.  Specifically, the recall is being expanded to include
all products manufactured in its Peanut Butter Plant after March
1, 2010.  The scope of the initial recall covered one hundred one
(101) products manufactured between May 1, 2012, and September 24,
2012.  The expanded recall adds forty-nine (49) products that are
currently within the manufacturer's recommended shelf-life, that
is, the "Best-If-Used-By" dates have not expired.  The expanded
recall also adds ninety (90) products consumers may still have in
their homes which are older than the "Best-If-Used-By Date."
Distribution of many of the products being added to the recall was
discontinued some time ago.  The expanded recall covers all
previously identified Peanut Butter, Almond Butter, Cashew Butter,
and Tahini products as well as Roasted Blanched Peanut Products.
New product categories being added to the list are several
varieties of flavored butters and spreads, including Thai Ginger
Butter, Chocolate Butter and Banana Butter.

The Company is voluntarily expanding the recall to cover all
products manufactured in its Peanut Butter Plant since March 2010
because the products have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and those
with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.  Symptoms of Salmonella infection include diarrhea,
fever and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection.  The
illness usually lasts four to seven days, and most people recover
without treatment.  However, in some cases, the diarrhea may be so
severe that the patient requires hospitalization.  Older adults,
infants and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to
have a severe illness from Salmonella infection.

None of the one hundred-thirty nine (139) products being added to
the recall list have been associated with any reported illness to
date; however, the Company initiated the recall on September 24,
2012, after receiving a September 22, 2012 report by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) that between June 11, 2012, and
September 2, 2012, twenty-nine (29) people reported Salmonella
Bredeney PFGE matching illnesses in approximately eighteen (18)
states, and that among those reporting illnesses, fourteen persons
had been interviewed at that time, with twelve reporting having
eaten the same single product made by the Company.  As of
September 25, 2012, the CDC reported a total of thirty (30)
illnesses in nineteen (19) states, including Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia and
Washington.  Additional testing conducted as part of the joint
investigation by the Company and FDA since the recall was
initiated has confirmed the presence of Salmonella Bredeney,
according to a report provided to the Company by the CDC and FDA
on October 3, 2012.  The FDA and the Company are continuing their
investigation.

The products were distributed under the Company's own label and
under other brand names, and were distributed nationally to
numerous large supermarket, grocery and retail chains.  The
products also were available for purchase on the Internet.

All products with "Best-If-Used-By" dates of March 1, 2011, or
later should be returned or discarded immediately.  Consumers who
have purchased any of the recalled products are urged not to eat
them and to return or dispose of them immediately.  The "Best-If-
Used-By" date is stamped on the side of the jar's label below the
lid of the jar.  The UPC is located below the bar code on all
products.  For products in jars it will appear on the side of the
jar's label.  For products in other types of containers, the bar
code may be located elsewhere on the packaging.

Consumers can contact the Company at 1-866-837-1018 for
information on the recall.  This toll- free number is operational
24 hours a day.  Consumers who have products which are within
their current shelf life ("Best-If-Used-By" dates of October 4,
2012 and later) should return the products to the place of
purchase for a full refund or discard them.  All expired products
("Best- If-Used-By" dates of October 4, 2012, and earlier) should
be discarded.  Customers who purchased products directly from the
Company's Web site should discard the products and contact the
Company at 1-866-837-1018.

"For twenty-two years Sunland has been committed to producing high
quality, safe products and taking appropriate steps to ensure the
safety and good health of everyone who enjoys them.  We are most
concerned about the individuals experiencing these recent
illnesses.  Sunland is dedicating all of its resources to the
identification and correction of any conditions which have created
the potential for Salmonella contamination in any of our products.
We are reviewing every step in our manufacturing process and are
confident that the expertise being applied to the investigation
will enable Sunland to take any necessary corrective measures and
once again produce products that families will enjoy with
confidence," Jimmie Shearer, President and CEO of Sunland, Inc.,
said in a statement dated October 4, 2012.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the FDA. The
specifics of the affected products are set forth below.  Products
being added to the list for the first time appear in the first
table.  All previously identified products follow in the second
table.

List of Products Added to Recall on October 4, 2012 -- Recall
covers all of the following products which were manufactured on
March 1, 2010, or later.  The "Best- if-Used-By" Dates stamped on
the recalled products will be March 1, 2011 or later.

UPC            Type of Product                        Jar Size
---            ---------------                        --------
AC223          American Choice Creamy Peanut Butter   6 x 5 lb

AC222          American Choice Creamy Peanut Butter   6 x 5 lb

085239021743   Archer Farms Creamy Cinnamon Peanut       12 oz
                Butter

085239021750   Archer Farms Creamy Dark Chocolate        12 oz
                Peanut Butter

085239264409   Archer Farms Creamy Peanut Butter         16 oz

085239023310   Archer Farms Creamy Peanut Butter         16 oz

085239020531   Archer Farms Creamy Vanilla               12 oz
                Cranberry Peanut Butter

085239264508   Archer Farms Crunchy Peanut Butter        16 oz

085239023327   Archer Farms Crunchy Peanut Butter        16 oz

085239021422   Archer Farms No Stir Creamy Peanut        12 oz
                Butter

085239015308   Archer Farms No Stir Crunchy Peanut       12 oz
                Butter

085239020302   Archer Farms Organic Chunky Peanut        12 oz
                Butter

085239020203   Archer Farms Organic Creamy Peanut        12 oz
                Butter

47046          Arrowhead Mills Creamy Peanut Butter      40 lb

074333470588   Arrowhead Mills Creamy Valencia Peanut    15 lb
                Butter

074333470380   Arrowhead Mills Crunchy Valencia          15 lb
                Peanut Butter

074333470052   Arrowhead Mills Organic Sesame Tahini     16 oz

815369011594   Cadia All Natural Creamy Peanut Butter    18 oz

815369010993   Cadia All Natural Creamy Peanut Butter    18 oz
                No Stir

815369011600   Cadia All Natural Crunchy Peanut Butter   18 oz

815369011006   Cadia All Natural Crunchy Peanut Butter   18 oz
                No Stir

815369011181   Cadia All Natural Unsalted Creamy         18 oz
                Almond Butter

815369011167   Cadia All Natural Unsalted Creamy         18 oz
                Peanut Butter

815369011174   Cadia All Natural Unsalted Crunchy        18 oz
                Peanut Butter

22722          Creamy Peanut Butter                      15 lb

5051379032494  fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter        6/2 oz

780994757868   Harry & David Creamy Caramel Peanut       12 oz
                Spread

096619124497   Kirkland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy     40 oz

048687309177   Kirkland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter     28 oz

5VR3023099     Multiple Organics Certified Organic       30 lb
                Valencia Peanuts-Dry Roasted

706173011057   Natural Value Creamy Salted               18 oz
                100% Organic Peanut Butter

910145         Natural Value Creamy Salted Peanut         5 lb
                Butter

706173011033   Natural Value Creamy Unsalted             18 oz
                100% Natural Peanut Butter

706173011019   Natural Value Creamy Unsalted             18 oz
                100% Organic Peanut Butter

706173011064   Natural Value Crunchy Salted              18 oz
                100% Organic Peanut Butter

706173011040   Natural Value Crunchy Unsalted            18 oz
                100% Natural Peanut Butter

706173011026   Natural Value Crunchy Unsalted            18 oz
                100% Organic Peanut Butter

909057         Natural Value Organic Creamy Peanut        5 lb
                Butter

909095         Natural Value Organic Creamy Peanut       15 lb
                Butter

910039         Natural Value Organic Creamy Peanut       15 lb
                Butter with Salt

910121         Natural Value Organic Creamy Salted        5 lb
                Peanut Butter

909064         Natural Value Organic Crunchy Peanut       5 lb
                Butter

909101         Natural Value Organic Crunchy Peanut      15 lb
                Butter

910046         Natural Value Organic Crunchy Peanut      15 lb
                Butter with Salt

910114         Natural Value Organic Crunchy Salted       5 lb
                Peanut Butter

847921004409   Serious Food Silly Prices Cashew          12 oz
                Butter Creamy

847921004416   Serious Food Silly Prices Cashew          12 oz
                Butter Crunchy

847921004430   Serious Food...Silly Prices Almond        12 oz
                Butter Crunchy

847921004379   Serious Food...Silly Prices Organic       16 oz
                Peanut Butter Crunchy

847921004331   Serious Food...Silly Prices Peanut        16 oz
                Butter Crunchy

874875004322   Sprouts Tahini Butter                     16 oz

646670304316   Sun Harvest Natural Creamy No Stir        18 oz
                Peanut Butter

646670304392   Sun Harvest Natural Creamy Peanut         18 oz
                Butter

646670304293   Sun Harvest Natural Creamy Roasted        16 oz
                Almond Butter

646670304972   Sun Harvest Natural Crunchy Mixed         16 oz
                Nut Butter

646670304378   Sun Harvest Natural Crunchy Peanut        18 oz
                Butter

646670304279   Sun Harvest Natural Crunchy Roasted       16 oz
                Almond Butter

646670304354   Sun Harvest Organic Creamy Peanut         16 oz
                Butter

646670304330   Sun Harvest Organic Crunchy Peanut        16 oz
                Butter

56906          Sunland Almond & Valencia Mixed Nuts      16 oz
                Creamy Peanut Butter

060527         Sunland Banana Peanut Butter             500 lb

060301         Sunland Banana Peanut Butter              50 lb

073301         Sunland Chocolate PB                      50 lb

073527         Sunland Chocolate PB                     500 lb

072725         Sunland Creamy Almond Butter              40 lb

26725          Sunland Creamy Butter                     40 lb

086527         Sunland Creamy No Stir                   500 lb

086301         Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              50 lb

081725         Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              40 lb

26527          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter             500 lb

4898732722     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              15 lb

36527          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter             500 lb

22705          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              40 lb

048687263011   Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              50 lb

72048687866165 Sunland Creamy Valencia Peanut          72/2 oz
                Butter Cups

048687259090   Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter             18 oz

4898731722     Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter             15 lb

048687548132   Sunland Dark Chocolate Organic Creamy     10 oz
                Peanut Butter

56704          Sunland Mixed Nuts Creamy Peanut Butter    5 lb

22527          Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut Butter     500 lb

48687009778    Sunland Natural Crunchy Peanut Butter      5 lb

21704          Sunland Natural Crunchy Peanut Butter  6 x 5 lb

21724          Sunland Natural Crunchy Valencia          50 lb
                No Salt Peanut Butter

044725         Sunland Natural Peanut Butter             40 lb

048687607549   Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy     500 g
                Banana

048687600724   Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy     1.1 oz
                Banana - Squeeze Pack

048687599066   Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy      16 oz
                Caramel Spread

048687540723   Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy     1.1 oz
                Chocolate

048687547548   Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy     500 g
                Chocolate

048687340729   Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy     1.1 oz
                Valencia

48687867349    Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Valencia   500 g
                Creamy

048687877348   Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Valencia   500 g
                Crunchy

C47810         Sunland Onion Parsley Peanut Butter      375 g

048687528295   Sunland Organic Cinnamon Currant         375 g
                Creamy Peanut Butter

4868788704     Sunland Organic Creamy No Stir Peanut      5 lb
                Butter

4868732704     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter       5 lb

4868732723     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter      32 lb

4868732724     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter      35 lb

048687329700   Sunland Organic Creamy Valencia           16 oz
                Peanut Butter

4868731724     Sunland Organic Crunchy Peanut Butter     35 lb

4868735723     Sunland Organic Crunchy Peanut Butter     32 lb

4868735724     Sunland Organic Crunchy Peanut Butter     35 lb
                with Salt

048687319701   Sunland Organic Crunchy Valencia          16 oz
                Peanut Butter

048687898299   Sunland Organic Dark Chocolate Creamy    375 g
                Peanut Butter

048687508105   Sunland Organic Thai Ginger Crunchy      375 g
                Peanut Butter

50704          Sunland Organic Thai Ginger Peanut         5 lb
                Butter

71704          Sunland Tahini Butter                  6 x 5 lb

048687328093   Sunland Organic Valencia Creamy          500 g
                Peanut Butter

048687318094   Sunland Organic Valencia Crunchy         500 g
                Peanut Butter

048687508105   Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter    12 oz
                Creamy Thai Ginger & Red Pepper

41331          Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted and      30 lb
                Blanched Bar Ready Peanuts

41333          Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted and      30 lb
                Blanched Granulated Peanuts

41334          Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted and      30 lb
                Blanched Granulated Peanuts

83326          Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted          30 lb
                Blanched and Salted Peanuts

048687558292   Sunland Organic Vanilla Cranberry        375 g
                Creamy Peanut Butter

55813          Sunland Organic Vanilla Cranberry         10 oz
                Peanut Butter

4868741325     Sunland Roasted and Blanched              30 lb
                Granulated Peanuts

4868763329     Sunland Roasted and Blanched              30 lb
                Granulated Runner Peanuts

16326          Sunland Roasted Blanched Honey Peanuts    30 lb

2370230000     Sunland Roasted Blanched Organic          30 lb
                Spanish Peanuts

048687349708   Sunland TruePB Creamy Valencia            16 oz
                Peanut Butter

048687339709   Sunland TruePB Crunchy Valencia           16 oz
                Peanut Butter

C22809         Sunland Valencia Creamy Peanut Butter    500 g

048687318131   Sunland Valencia Crunchy Organic          10 oz
                Peanut Butter

048687219063   Sunland Valencia Natural Crunchy          16 oz

048687328130   Sunland Valencia Organic Creamy           10 oz
                Peanut Butter

048687229093   Sunland Valencia Peanut Butter Creamy     18 oz

048687866281   Sunland Valencia Peanut Butter Creamy    6/2 oz

048687219094   Sunland Valencia Peanut Butter Crunchy    18 oz

41320          Sunland Valencia Roasted and Blanched     30 lb

41321          Sunland Valencia Roasted and Blanched     30 lb
                Bar Ready Peanuts

41322          Sunland Valencia Roasted and Blanched     30 lb
                Wildlife

00819558       Trader Joe's Organic Creamy Peanut        16 oz
                Butter

00915878       Trader Joe's Organic Creamy Unsalted      16 oz
                Peanut Butter

00819534       Trader Joe's Organic Crunchy Peanut       16 oz
                Butter

00915816       Trader Joe's Organic Crunchy Unsalted     16 oz
                Peanut Butter

891317002326   Tropical Traditions Coconut Peanut        26 oz
                Butter

891317002210   Tropical Traditions Coconut Peanut        16 oz
                Butter

1A733          Yogurtland Dark Roast Peanut Butter       45 lb
                with Flax

List of Products Recalled September 24, 2012 -- Expanded recall
now covers ALL of the following products which were manufactured
on March 1, 2010, or later.  The "Best-if-Used-By" Dates stamped
on the recalled products will be March 1, 2011, or later.

UPC            Type of product                        Jar Size
---            ---------------                        --------
8523902336     Archer Farms Almond, Peanut &             16 oz
                Cashew Butter

8523920335     Archer Farms Creamy Cashew Butter         16 oz

8523902334     Archer Farms Creamy Almond Butter         16 oz

8523902333     Archer Farms Peanut Butter with           16 oz
                Flax Seeds

3377610090     Earth Balance Natural Almond Butter       16 oz
                and Flaxseed

051379022525   fresh & easy Creamy Cashew Butter         16 oz

003248         Fresh & Easy Creamy Peanut Butter Cups  72/2 oz

51379022518    fresh & easy Crunchy Almond Butter        16 oz

51379041625    fresh & easy goodness Valencia         8/1.1 oz
                Creamy Peanut Butter                       cups

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

20003364       fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter         18 oz

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

51379026431    fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter         40 oz

20003395       fresh & easy Creamy Almond Butter         16 oz

20003371       fresh & easy Crunchy Peanut Butter        18 oz

8099473873     Harry & David Crunchy Almond and          12 oz
                Peanut Butter

8099473871     Harry & David Creamy Banana               12 oz
                Peanut Spread

8099473872     Harry & David Creamy Raspberry            12 oz
                Peanut Spread

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

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

2060140046     heinen's Organic Peanut Butter, Creamy    16 oz

2060140045     heinen's Organic Peanut Butter,           16 oz
                Crunchy

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

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

910053         Natural Value Creamy Peanut Butter/Salt   15 lb

910060         Natural Value Crunchy Peanut Butter/Salt  15 lb

5859500020     Naturally More Organic Peanut Butter      16 oz

5859500020     Naturally More Organic Peanut Butter      16 oz

5859500019     Naturally More Almond Butter              16 oz

5859500019     Naturally More Almond Butter              16 oz

5859500033     Naturally More Peanut Butter Crunchy      16 oz

5859500055     Naturally More Peanut Butter, Gluten      26 oz
                Free Vegan

5859500050     Naturally More Peanut Butter, Gluten      16 oz
                Free Vegan

7989311202     Open Nature Crunchy Peanut Butter         16 oz

7989311201     Open Nature Old Fashioned Creamy          16 oz
                Peanut Butter

5855200003     Peanut Power Butter, Original Formula     16 oz

5855200007     Peanut Power Butter, Original Formula      4 lb

4792100442     Serious Food, Silly Prices Almond         12 oz
                Butter Creamy

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

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

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

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

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

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

4792100444     Serious Food Silly Prices Tahini          12 oz

8506000004     Snaclite Power PB                         16 oz

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

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

7487500336     Sprout's Creamy Peanut Butter             16 oz

7487500337     Sprout's Crunchy Peanut Butter            16 oz

7487500433     Sprout's Creamy Almond Butter             16 oz

7487500434     Sprout's Crunchy Almond Butter            16 oz

7487500431     Sprout's Creamy Peanut Butter             16 oz

4868787906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Crunchy     16 oz
                Valencia No Stir

4868786906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy      16 oz
                Valencia No Stir

4868722906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy      16 oz
                Salt Free Valencia

4868709915     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter with         40 oz
                Sea Salt

4868726910     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              12 oz

47730          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              30 lb

62725          Sunland Dark Roast Creamy Peanut Butter   40 lb

4868757906     Sunland Natural Mixed Nut Butter,         16 oz
                Crunchy Almonds and Peanuts

4868760906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, Creamy     16 oz
                Banana Spread

4868773906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, Creamy     16 oz
                Chocolate Spread

4868761906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, Creamy     16 oz
                Raspberry Spread

4868771906     Sunland Natural Tahini, Creamy Roasted    16 oz
                Sesame

4868732810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Creamy

4868731810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Crunchy

4868755810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Creamy Cherry Vanilla

4868754810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Creamy Dark Chocolate

4868747810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Crunchy Chipotle Chile

4868730725     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter      40 lb

41330          Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted and      30 lb
                Blanched Peanuts

29725          Sunland Pecan Deluxe Creamy Peanut        40 lb
                Butter

28725          Sunland Pecan Deluxe Crunchy Peanut       40 lb
                Butter

26570          Sunland Creamy Dark Roast Peanut         500 lb
                Butter

4868726909     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              18 oz

4868767909     Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut Butter      18 oz

4868763325     Sunland Roasted and Blanched Runner       30 lb
                Peanuts

4868763326     Sunland Roasted and Blanched Bar Ready    30 lb
                Runner Peanuts

4868771725     Sunland Sesame Tahini                     40 lb

4868785920     Sunland Valencia Peanut Sauce             36 oz

41323          Sunland Valencia Roasted Blanched         30 lb
                Salted

22725          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              40 lb

22704          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter               5 lb

4868722715     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter      40 lb

4868721722     Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter             15 lb

48687009704    Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut Butter       5 lb

4868790301     Sunland Creamy Natural Stabilized         50 lb
                Peanut Butter

87725          Sunland Crunchy Natural Stabilized        40 lb
                Peanut Butter

4868786724     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              35 lb

4868786704     Sunland Creamy No Stir Peanut Butter       5 lb

4868784301     Sunland Extra Stabilized Organic Creamy   50 lb
                Peanut Butter

21705          Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter             40 lb

25704          Crunchy Sugar Butter                       5 lb

26704          Creamy Sugar Butter                        5 lb

72704          Sunland Almond Butter                      5 lb

3050           Dogsbutter RUC with Flax PB               16 oz

4868772906     Sunland Natural Almond Butter, Creamy     16 oz
                Roasted Almond

989275         Trader Joe's Valencia Peanut Butter       16 oz
                with Roasted Flaxseeds, Crunchy & Salted

971119         Trader Joe's Valencia Creamy Salted       16 oz
                Peanut Butter with Sea Salt

940795         Trader Joe's Almond Butter with Roasted   16 oz
                Flaxseeds, Crunchy & Salted

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

    http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm321760.htm
    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/Recalls/UCM322770.pdf
    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/Recalls/UCM322794.pdf
    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/Recalls/UCM322772.pdf

Media representatives should contact Ms. Katalin Coburn, Vice
President for Media Relations, Sunland, Inc., at (805) 796-3368.
A full copy of the list of recalled products is also available at
the Company's Web site: http://www.sunlandinc.com/


TALENTI GELATO: Recalls Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup Gelato
----------------------------------------------------------
Talenti Gelato is recalling Talenti Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup
Gelato.  The peanut butter used in this product has the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella.

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

The product was distributed to retail stores throughout the United
States between September 2011 and September 2012 and is packaged
in clear, plastic One Pint (473ml) containers with UPC code 1
86852 00094 5 printed on the back of the container and "Best By"
date range of 3/21/13 through 3/26/14 printed on the bottom of the
container.

To date, there have been no reported illnesses attributed to
Talenti Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup Gelato and the recall does not
include any other flavors.  This recall is being initiated because
the peanut butter used in the product is supplied by Sunland,
Inc., which has issued a national recall of some of its products
due to possible contamination with Salmonella.

Anyone in possession of the recalled product should not consume it
and should discard it.  Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 612-455-8104, Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Central Standard Time.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.  (http://www.fda.gov/)


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action over Misleading Cab Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a taxi-
service smartphone app charges a 20 percent gratuity, but the cab
companies and their drivers do not get the full fee, a class
claims in court.

Uber Technologies sells a smartphone app that enables consumers to
arrange and pay for cab rides electronically with a credit card,
according to the complaint in Cook County's chancery court.

The company's Web site, app and e-mail receipts allegedly indicate
the addition of a 20 percent gratuity or service charge to the
metered fare.

"Defendant does not however remit the full 20 percent of the
charge that defendants represents to consumers, including
plaintiff and the class, is a 'gratuity' to the taxi driver/owner
and/or company actually providing transportation service,"
according to the complaint (emphasis in original).  "Instead,
defendant keeps a substantial portion of this additional charge
for itself as its own additional revenue and profit on each taxi
ride arranged and paid for by consumers, including plaintiff and
the class, using defendant's app."

Lead plaintiff Caren Ehret notes that Uber takes pains to
differentiate between the metered fare and the 20 percent charge,
but it still hits the customer in the same place.

"By retaining a substantial portion of the so-called 'gratuity,'
defendant effectively increases the 'metered fare,'" according to
the complaint.  "This is false price advertising at its most
pernicious and flagrant violation of the act.  Further, in this
way, defendant conceals that it is passing along to plaintiff, the
class and the fare paying public credit-card processing fees in
violation of city of Chicago ordinances/rules applicable to taxi-
cabs."

Ms. Ehret says she would not have arranged and paid for a cab ride
using Uber's app last month, had she known the truth about the 20
percent fee.

"Since it began operating in Chicago, defendant has systematically
defrauded consumers in this same way," the complaint states.
"Upon information and belief a class of over one thousand have
arranged and paid for over one thousand [sic] using defendant's
app in the same manner as plaintiff, as replicability and
repeatability is the essence of defendant's business model."

The class seeks punitive damages and an injunction requiring Uber
to truthfully advertise and charge for the full price of the
transportation services arranged.

It is represented by Hall Adams.


UNION DRILLING: Faces Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Union Drilling is looking for
a buyer without obtaining fair and adequate consideration for
shareholders, a class claims in court.


UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans' Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
David Wallechinsky and Noel Brinkerhoff, writing for AllGov,
report that after three years of waiting, a large group of Vietnam
veterans has gotten the okay from a federal judge to sue the
government for using them as human guinea pigs during the Cold
War.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted the plaintiffs class
action status, which allows the case, filed in 2009, to proceed.

The plaintiffs claim the military and the Central Intelligence
Agency tested as many as 400 types of drugs and chemicals,
including mescaline, LSD, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas
and nerve agents, on soldiers.  The purpose of the experiments,
conducted at Army compounds at Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick,
Maryland, was to develop new weapons of warfare.

It is thought that several thousand soldiers were exposed to the
testing between 1955 and 1975.  Although the soldiers usually
signed consent forms, they contend that they did so because they
were misled as to the dangers of the experiments.

Some of their individual stories are alarming.  For example, in
1958 Eric Muth, who was then 17 years old, volunteered for an
experiment at Edgewood in which he was told that he would be
testing masks to protect against chemical gas. In fact, the masks
were designed to fail because what was really being tested was the
gas.  Along with other soldiers, he was put in a chamber that
filled with gas.  Later he was injected with a substance that
turned out to be an arsenic compound.  He was also given a pill
that made him hallucinate and then lose consciousness for three
days.  Like most of the other human guinea pigs, he was told that
he could not tell anyone about the experiments because they were
top secret.  Mr. Muth, who later became an optician, did not seek
medical help until 1997.  Although he was diagnosed with post-
traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder, the Veterans
Administration ruled that his exposures to experimental substance
in the 1950s did not produce his long-term health problems.

The veterans are not seeking monetary damages, but want the
Department of Veterans of Affairs to provide medical coverage for
those suffering from the effects of the testing.


VIVUS INC: Class Action Over Qsymia Drug Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Pallavi Ail, writing for Reuters, reports that obesity drugmaker
Vivus Inc. said a class action lawsuit against the company related
to Vivus' claims about its drug Qsymia has been dismissed.

Vivus said the lawsuit, filed in November 2010 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, has been
dismissed for the second time, ruling out the possibility of the
plaintiff filing an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs can appeal within 30 days of the date of filing of
the order.

The weight-loss drug was approved by U.S. health regulators in
July.

The plaintiffs had alleged in the lawsuit that the company made
false or misleading statements about Vivus' new drug application
and clinical trials for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity.


WAL-MART STORES: 11 Women File Gender Bias Class Action in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwal, writing for Business Insurance, reports that
putative class action litigation filed on Oct. 4 by 11 women
charging Wal-Mart Stores Inc. with gender discrimination in its
Southeast region is the fourth regional discrimination lawsuit
filed against the retailer so far, and the second to be filed last
week.

Zenovdia Love et. al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was filed in U.S.
District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on behalf of present and
former female employees in 158 Wal-Mart stores and 77 Sam's Club
stores in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.

Ms. Love, the lead plaintiff, had worked for Wal-Mart for 15 years
until 2003.  She was passed over for promotion to an unposted co-
manager position by a male from outside Wal-Mart who had less
experience than her and then was required to train him, the
lawsuit said.

Three Tennessee women filed a putative class action lawsuit on
Oct. 2 against Wal-Mart, charging the retailer with discrimination
in its Region 43, which centers in Tennessee and includes parts of
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi.

Regionally focused litigation also has been filed against the
Bentonville, Ark-.based retailer in California and Texas.  A
federal judge refused to dismiss the California litigation last
week.

In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a proposed
class of some 1.5 million members nationwide in the case.

Wal-Mart said in a statement: "These cases are nothing more than
recycled claims driven by the same plaintiffs lawyers whose
arguments were considered and rejected by the Supreme Court.  The
Supreme Court's decision was clear -- these claims are unsuitable
for class treatment because each individual's situation is so
different.  We are focused on continuing to make Wal-Mart a great
place for women to work."


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Asks Supreme Court to Review Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
appliance maker Whirlpool Corp. is asking the U.S. Supreme Court
to review a class action filed against it by hundreds of thousands
of consumers complaining of moldy odors in their front-loading
washing machines, made by the company.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest legal organization
that -- according to its Web site -- "fights for limited
government, property rights, individual rights and a balanced
approach to environmental protection," also is asking the nation's
high court to review the case.

In its amicus brief, filed this week in support of Whirlpool, PLF
questions whether an injured named plaintiff can "bootstrap" the
standing of thousands of unnamed plaintiffs who have suffered no
injury.

In the class action, Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer, two named
plaintiffs -- Ohio residents -- bought front-loading washers
manufactured by Whirlpool.

Months after their purchases, the plaintiffs noticed the smell of
mold or mildew coming from the machines and from laundry washed in
the machines.

In fact, one found mold growing on the sides of the detergent
dispenser.  The other saw mold growing on the rubber door seal,
despite keeping the machine doors open to dry.

The two filed suit, alleging tortious breach of warranty,
negligent design and negligent failure to warn.

A federal district court later certified a class comprised of Ohio
residents who purchased one of the specified machines in the state
primarily for personal, family or household purposes and not for
resale.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed class
certification, with proof of damages reserved for individual
determination.

"Even under the facts alleged by a plaintiff, at most one-third of
those consumers ever suffered an injury," Deborah La Fetra,
principal attorney in PLF's Individual Rights practice group,
wrote on the foundation's blog last week.  "Whirlpool places the
number at 3 percent."

Ms. La Fetra, who also authored PLF's amicus brief, explains that
class actions are an appropriate device to combine lots of similar
claims.

However, when legitimate claims are joined with tens of thousands
of uninjured plaintiffs, this opens the door "wide" for "gross
misuse" of the justice system, she says.

"The judicial economy that justifies the use of class actions in
appropriate circumstances does not mean that class actions are
appropriate in all circumstances.  The Constitution mandates a
strong standing requirement," PLF's brief argues.

"And while this Court has addressed the question of named
plaintiffs' standing, there is confusion in the lower courts as to
the constitutional standing requirements applied to unnamed,
uninjured class members.

"As with any case that involves uninjured plaintiffs, the
potential for litigation abuse, and waste of judicial resources,
is compounded when the issues arises in class actions."

PLF notes in its 18-page brief that the U.S. Supreme Court "has
yet" to address important issues related to the factual record
that trial courts must allow both plaintiffs and defendants to
develop in accordance with due process rights.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cheese from 2 Stores in Kentucky and Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market announces that it is recalling "Kenny's
Farmhouse Cheese KY BL" sold in its Louisville, Kentucky store and
"Blue Kentucky Rose Kenny's" cheese sold in its Nashville,
Tennessee store.  These cheeses are being recalled because they
have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes,
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 recalled Kentucky Bleu cheese sold in the Louisville,
Kentucky, Whole Foods Market store, was cut and packaged in clear
plastic wrap.  It was sold with a Whole Foods Market scale label
reading "Kenny's Farmhouse Cheese KY BL," with a PLU of 209578 and
includes all "sell by" dates, which are noted on the scale label.

The recalled Blue Kentucky Rose cheese sold in the Nashville,
Tennessee, Whole Foods Market store was cut and packaged in clear
plastic wrap.  It was sold with a Whole Foods Market scale label
reading "Blue Kentucky Rose Kenny's" with a PLU of 71113 and
includes all "sell by" dates, which are noted on the scale label.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm322956.htm

To date, no illnesses have been reported.  This recall is in
response to a recall by Kenny's Farmhouse Cheese of Austin,
Kentucky.

Signage is posted in both Whole Foods Market stores to notify
customers of this recall.  Customers who have purchased this
product from Whole Foods Market should discard it, and may bring
in their receipt for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
call 512-542-0060 Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Central Standard Time.


WOODLANDS RESIDENTIAL: Gets One-Year Extension to Resolve Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Bernard, writing for News1130, reports that a BC Supreme
Court judge has admitted dealing with the claims made by 800
people who lived at the Woodlands Residential School is more
complicated and time consuming than anyone ever thought.

That's why Justice Robert Bauman has given a one-year extension
for lawyers to resolve compensation claims.

Only a handful of claims in the class-action lawsuit have been
filed, and only nine have been decided.

While Bauman says no one is at fault for the delays, Gregg
Schiller with We Survived Woodlands blames the province.

"Lawyers with the government are pretty much fighting every claim
put forward.  They haven't been very cooperative in getting all
the information in a timely manner," he insists.

He says it's unfortunate the government opted not to pay all
survivors the same amount of compensation.

"It would have been easier and cheaper in the end and instead the
government is taking this lengthier process which is more
complicated and more expensive.  Some people will never see any
compensation at this rate."

Survivors are seeking compensation for the physical and sexual
assaults that happened at the New Westminster facility.  The
residential school operated between 1950 and 1996 for disabled
children and adults.  The class-action suit only covers people
victimized after 1974.


WRIGLEY ROOFTOP: Two Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
WLS Radio 890AM and Sun-Times Media Wire report that two employees
of rooftop entertainment venues near Wrigley Field filed a class-
action lawsuit on Oct. 3 that claims workers are unfairly paid and
forced to work off the clock.

George Dahnka and Nick Konstanopoulos filed the suit against The
Wrigley Rooftop Club, the Sheffield Baseball Club and the Ivy
League Club and owner Thomas Gramatis.

The entertainment venues overlook Wrigley Field, and tickets to
watch Chicago Cubs home games other events includes food and drink
packages.

The suit claims tickets include a listed three percent gratuity,
but that the operators do not pass the gratuity on to employees.
As a result, customers assume employees have already been paid
gratuity and do not tip, the plaintiffs claim.

Messrs. Dahnka and Konstanopoulous also allege venue operators
arrange paychecks to avoid paying time-and-a-half overtime pay,
even though employees can work up to 10 hours a day during Cubs
home games.  They also claim employees must often work through
unpaid meal breaks.

The suit did not make clear whether the plaintiffs are still
employed by the rooftops.

Mr. Gramatis could not be reached immediately for comment on the
suit on Oct. 3.

The three-count complaint, filed in Cook County Circuit Court,
claims unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.  It seeks an unspecified amount in damages.


XL FOODS: License Suspended, Class Action Likely to Grow
--------------------------------------------------------
Scaachi Koul, writing for Maclean's, reports that despite rumors
to the contrary, Alberta's XL Foods is closed for business due to
tainted meat and isn't about to reopen any time soon.  The XL
plant in Brooks, just southeast of Calgary, has a suspended
license and won't get it back until the minister gets written
notice that the plant is safe from the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency.

XL has recalled more than 1,700 products in what some are calling
the largest recall of meat products ever.  The recalls first
started in mid-September.  The company has remained tight-lipped
thus far, even forcing local plant workers to pay attention to
media to find out whether they should go to work.

Meanwhile, it's becoming more likely that there could be even more
claimants in a class action law suit over beef tainted with E.
coli.

Edmonton man Matthew Harrison alleges he contracted E. coli after
eating steak from XL Foods Inc. in a lawsuit filed on Oct. 2.  XL
Foods processed, packaged, and stored the meat.

Mr. Harrison says he had severe stomach pain and blood in his
stool.  He spent three or four days in the hospital.

Mr. Harrison's lawsuit says XL was negligent in ensuring its beef
was safe to eat, and didn't test its beef products adequately.  It
also says it failed to follow quality control processes and didn't
recall all the tainted beef as soon as the company heard people
were getting sick.  The suit also claims that XL hid this
information from consumers even though they knew how poor the
quality control was at the Brooks plant.

Mr. Harrison says he still experiences side effects from the E.
coli and can only work for four to five hours before getting
tired.  The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages, as well as
looking for XL to admit that the recalled products were
contaminated.

XL has since taken responsibility for the beef recall after a
month-long silence, and a recall of 680 tonnes of beef.  The
company said they thought their safety procedures were enough, but
realize now they weren't.  They also said they would improve using
video surveillance to monitor the production line, and implement
an improved washing system.

According to researchers at the University of British Columbia,
this newest outbreak of E. coli could have been prevented with a
cattle vaccine.  The vaccine prevents cattle from shedding the
bacteria, and has been long-lauded as a success.  Brett Finlay,
one of the researchers, was given millions to continue the
research.

Farmers, however, still aren't using the vaccine because it costs
C$6 per cow, and there's no requirement that animals be
vaccinated.


XL FOODS: FSIS Expands Health Alert for Imported Canadian Beef
--------------------------------------------------------------
The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is expanding
the Public Health Alert for XL Foods (Canadian Establishment 038)
to include all beef and beef products produced on August 24, 27,
28, 29 and September 5.  FSIS was notified this evening that XL
Foods has expanded their recall to include all beef and beef
products produced on the above dates.

                    Information for Consumers

Because FSIS has been informed that all beef and beef products
produced on the above dates are being recalled by XL Foods, the
Agency is using this public health alert to make the public aware
that these products are considered adulterated and should be
returned to the place of purchase or destroyed.  Products subject
to the recall include, but are not limited to, steaks, roasts,
mechanically tenderized steaks and roasts, and ground beef.

Previously, FSIS reported that approximately 890,000 pounds of
boneless beef trim were received by U.S. firms from XL Foods, Inc.
After conducting effectiveness checks, FSIS now estimates that
approximately 1.1 million pounds of trim and approximately 1.4
million pounds of primal and sub-primal cuts used to produce
steaks, roasts, mechanically tenderized steaks and roasts, and
ground beef were received by U.S. firms.  Information for
consumers and the current retail distribution list are posted on
FSIS' Web site at:

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

                    Information for Industry

FSIS has reason to believe, based on information provided by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), that beef from cattle
slaughtered during the period associated with the recall was
produced under insanitary conditions that resulted in a high event
period (a period when the trim from carcasses exhibited an
unusually high frequency of positive findings for the possible
presence of E. coli O157:H7).  Therefore, all products produced on
the affected dates are considered adulterated and must be either
destroyed or verified as having received a full lethality
treatment.

CFIA is overseeing the effectiveness of the recall in Canada and
FSIS is overseeing the effectiveness in the United States.  FSIS
continues to verify that all receivers of affected beef from the
Canadian-initiated recall have been notified and have removed
product from commerce, and will take appropriate action if
prohibited activity is found.  FSIS will update the retail
consignee list as FSIS verifies information received during the
recall effectiveness verification process.

FSIS testing of raw boneless beef trim product from Canadian
Establishment 038, XL Foods, Inc., confirmed positive for E. coli
O157:H7 on September 3, 2012.  After alerting the CFIA of the
positive results, the agencies launched an investigation including
additional testing, and CFIA announced a recall by XL Foods, Inc.
of a variety of ground beef products on September 16.  FSIS also
issued a Public Health Alert (PHA) on September 20, 2012, provided
updated information on September 21 and September 26, 2012.  The
CFIA notified FSIS that XL Foods is recalling all product produced
on August 24, 27, 28, 29 and September 5.  This Public Health
Alert applies to all beef and beef products produced by Canadian
Establishment 038, XL Foods, Inc. on these dates.

                       GENERAL INFORMATION

FSIS issues Public Health Alerts to make the public aware of a
public health hazard.  FSIS is not announcing a recall at this
time because the goal of such an action is to have the
establishment most directly associated with producing adulterated
product remove the product from commerce.  In this case, the
establishment was XL Foods, Inc., a Canadian firm, and that recall
has been initiated in Canada.

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

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

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

                           *********

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  * * *