CAR_Public/121015.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 15, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 204

                               Headlines

ALBANY LAW: Judge Declines Recusal From Suit Against Alma Mater
ALP LIQUIDATING: Continues to Defend "Rothal" and Other Suits
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Approval Hearing of ERISA Suit Deal on Nov. 14
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit Deal Order Affirmed in July
AT&T: Advocates Lose Mass Wiretapping Class Action Appeal

ATOMI: Recalls 80,000 Sharper Image USB Wall Chargers
AVX CORP: Defends Factory-Related Class Suit in South Carolina
BGC MANUFACTURING: Recalls Peanut Butter Bash Ice Cream
BLISS UNLIMITED: Recalls Luna & Larry's Non-Dairy Frozen Dessert
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Pradaxa Litigation Continues to Grow

CHATTANOOGA BAKERY: Recalls Peanut Butter Crunch Products
DEAN FOODS: Recalls Two Albertsons(R) Brand Ice Cream Varieties
EBIX INC: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Revises $20-Mil. "Sponsored Stories" Settlement
FACEBOOK INC: Some Investors Seek to Keep IPO Suits in Calif.

FALCON TRADING: Recalls SunRidge Farms Products With Peanuts
FIRST INTERSTATE: Awaits Approval of Interchange Fee Suit Deal
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Insurance Cos. Obtain Favorable Ruling
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cascadian Farm Snack Bars With Peanuts
GEORGIA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Use of Taxpayer Money

GEORGIA: Public Set to Vote on Amendment One on November 6
GOOGLE: Gmail Class Action May Threaten Anti-Spam Software
GREAT SOUTHERN: Bank Still Defends Overdraft Practices Suit
GREENSTONE FARM: Genesee County to File Tax Class Action
INUVO INC: Awaits Ruling on Sup. Ct. Petition in Suit v. Vertro

INUVO INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Tarczynski" Class Suit
KELLOGG CO: Recalls Frosted and Unfrosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size
LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Monopoly
LOWE'S: Homeowners Get Drywall Class Action Compensation
MALTA: To Face Suit Over Electricity Provision Discrimination

MONSTER BEVERAGE: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Remain Sub Judice
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Continues to Defend "Wellman" Suit in Canada
MONSTER BEVERAGE: "Chavez" Suit Deal Approval Appealed
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Jail Suit Interim Consent Judgment Due Today
NINA INT'L: Recalls Ground Hot Pepper Due to Possible Health Risk

RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Ice Cream Cake and Frozen Yogurt Pie
SACRAMENTO, CA: Police Department Settles Homeless Class Action
SPEARMINT RHINO: Judge Approves $12.9-MM Dancers Suit Settlement
THQ INC: Defends "Zaghian" Suit Related to uDraw GameTablet
TICKETMASTER: Los Angeles Court Rejects Class Action Settlement

TOFT DAIRY: Recalls Buckeye Bites Ice Cream With Peanut Butter
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 7.4-MM Vehicles Over Power-Window Switches
TYSON FOODS: Recalls 67,269 Lbs. of Boneless Chicken Products
WAL-MART STORES: Leopold Law Firm Files Class Action in Florida
WHIRLPOOL: Wants U.S. Supreme Court to Review Class Certification

WINNER MEDICAL: Faces Three Shareholder Class Suits in Nevada
WSFS FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fee Suit Dismissed in 2nd Quarter


                          *********

ALBANY LAW: Judge Declines Recusal From Suit Against Alma Mater
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a New York
state judge who graduated at the top of his class at Albany Law
School has declined to recuse himself from a class action claiming
that the school published misleading employment data.

State Supreme Court Justice Richard Platkin, a 1993 graduate of
Albany Law School, is presiding over the case, which was brought
in May by four recent graduates who say the school published
employment statistics between 2006 and 2012 that overstated the
number of graduates who had secured law-related jobs.  They
claimed they may not have attended the school if they had known
the real employment figures.

In August, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking Justice Platkin's
recusal, claiming that as an Albany alumnus and the valedictorian
of his class, he might have knowledge of the employment landscape
for Albany Law graduates apart from the facts presented in the
case.  They claimed this could present a potential conflict.

Justice Platkin disagreed.

"Plaintiffs' unsupported speculation that (Platkin) may have
acquired personal knowledge regarding the current job market for
ALS graduates -- knowledge that any other judge in the Capital
District might share, regardless of where he or she attended law
school -- does not provide a reasonable basis for recusal," the
judge wrote in a decision dated Sept. 13.

Jesse Strauss, who is representing the plaintiffs in the Albany
case and plaintiffs in 13 similar suits across the country, said
he had preserved the right to appeal Justice Platkin's ruling.

The lawsuits generally allege fraud and misrepresentation, as well
as violations of state business laws, on behalf of proposed
classes of law school alumni.  Most of the schools, including
Albany, have refuted the claims, saying that employment data does
not constitute a promise of future employment.

Judges have dismissed three of these suits, brought against New
York Law School, Cooley Law School in Michigan and DePaul
University Law School in Chicago.  Mr. Strauss is appealing these
rulings.  Meanwhile, his clients have won cases against the
University of San Francisco Law School and Golden Gate Law School
in California.

The issue of judges' relationships with defendant law schools had
arisen in at least four of the cases, Mr. Strauss said.  A judge
in California was removed from a panel tasked with deciding
whether to consolidate multiple suits there, and two Michigan
judges recused themselves from the case against Cooley.  A judge
in Illinois declined to recuse himself despite receiving an
honorary degree from a law school there.

In August, New York State Supreme Court Justice David Schmidt
denied Mr. Strauss's motion for him to step down from a case
against his alma mater, Brooklyn Law School.  Justice Schmidt, who
graduated in 1982, said he had maintained few ties with the
school, other than paying class alumni dues "once in a while" and
attending a recent 30th reunion.

Mr. Strauss did not appeal that decision.

"Schmidt graduated 30 years ago," Mr. Strauss said.  "Platkin is a
younger judge, from the class of 1993, and he was the
valedictorian."

Albany Law's attorney, Henry Greenberg, did not return a request
for comment.  A spokesman for Albany Law School also did not
return a request for comment.

Under the New York Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(E)(1), recusal
is up to the individual judge, who must consider how the decision
could impact the appearance of impartiality.  Justice Platkin
wrote that he had found "no reason to conclude that he will be
anything but fair and impartial" in the Albany Law case.

The school in June filed a motion to dismiss the case, which is
pending.

The case is Austin v. Albany Law School of Union University, New
York State Supreme Court, Albany County, No. 1500014-2012.

For the plaintiffs: Jesse Strauss, David Anziska and Frank
Raimond.

For Albany Law School: Henry Greenberg of Greenberg Traurig.


ALP LIQUIDATING: Continues to Defend "Rothal" and Other Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit and other related lawsuits in Florida,
according to ALP Liquidating Trust's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On September 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") completed its liquidation by contributing all of
its remaining assets to ALP Liquidating Trust ("ALP"), subject to
all of the Partnership's obligations and liabilities.  Arvida
Company ("Arvida"), an affiliate of the general partner of the
Partnership, acts as Administrator (the "Administrator") of ALP.
Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc., is the former General Partner of the
Partnership.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.  In this
lawsuit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003,
plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out
of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.  On
May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.  Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems.  Plaintiffs have filed
a motion to expand the class to include other homes in Weston.
The motion to expand the class was denied.

The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010.  The case did not
settle.  The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the
amended complaint.  The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.
The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010.  On October 15, 2010, the
Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the
certification order.  On June 1, 2011, the appellate court
affirmed the trial court's order certifying the class.  The case
has been returned to the trial court for further proceedings
including trial.  The defense of the case is proceeding.

The Partnership intends to vigorously defend itself.  The
Partnership is not able to determine what, if any, loss exposure
that it may have for this matter.  This case has been tendered to
one of the Partnership's insurance carriers, Zurich American
Insurance Company (together with its affiliates collectively,
"Zurich"), for defense and indemnity.  Zurich is providing a
defense of this matter under a purported reservation of rights.
The Partnership has also engaged other counsel in connection with
this lawsuit.  The ultimate legal and financial liability of the
Partnership, if any, in this matter cannot be estimated with
certainty at this time.  The Partnership is unable to determine
the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees and damages, if any,
which will be covered by its insurance.

On June 23, 2011, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled,
Investors Insurance Company of America ("Investors Insurance") v.
Waterproofing Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:11-cv-61408-DMM,
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Ft. Lauderdale).  In the complaint, as amended, an insurer for
Waterproofing Systems, Inc. and Waterproofing Systems of Miami,
Inc. ("Waterproofing"), the alleged roofer of the homes and co-
defendant in the Rothal case seeks a declaratory judgment order
that it owes no duty of indemnity or defense to Waterproofing for
the damages sought in the Rothal complaint.  In the Investors
Insurance complaint, as amended, the plaintiff declares that ALP
has an interest in the plaintiff's policies that purport to cover
Waterproofing and by its complaint seeks an order that would
attempt to effectively adjudicate ALP's rights to any coverage
benefits under the Investors Insurance policies.  The Partnership
has filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction
and a motion to stay.  The motion to dismiss Arvida was granted.
The case is proceeding against the remaining parties.

On August 4, 2011, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled,
Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard Rothal et al, Case No. 11-
61732-civ-dimitrouleas, in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division.  In the
complaint, Scottsdale Insurance Company ("Scottsdale"), an alleged
insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. ("Waterproofing"),
brings an action for declaratory relief against, among others,
Waterproofing, the class certified in the Rothal action and the
Partnership, seeking a declaration of its rights and obligations
to, among others, Waterproofing, the class certified in Rothal and
Arvida in connection with two policies it allegedly issued.  The
Partnership filed a motion to dismiss Arvida from this case and it
was granted.  This federal case has been closed and Scottsdale re-
filed its case in Florida state court.

On January 19, 2012, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled,
Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard Rothal, et al., Case No.
2012-CA-03451, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Circuit in
and for Broward County, Florida, Complex Litigation Unit.  In this
case, Scottsdale Insurance Company ("Scottsdale"), an alleged
insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. ("Waterproofing"),
seeks a declaratory judgment against, among others, Waterproofing,
the class certified in the Rothal action and the Partnership,
seeking a declaration of Scottsdale's rights and obligations under
two commercial general liability policies it allegedly issued over
the years May 29, 2000 - May 29, 2002.  The case has been
transferred from the complex litigation unit to the trial court
handling the Rothal action.  The declaration in this case seeks to
affect the rights that Waterproofing, Rothal, and the Partnership
may have in these policies.

The Partnership will vigorously defend its interests in the
policies written by the plaintiff.  The Partnership is unable to
determine what portion of its fees and damages in the Rothal case,
if any, may be recovered under the Scottsdale policies.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Approval Hearing of ERISA Suit Deal on Nov. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing to determine if Ambac Financial Group, Inc.'s
settlement of a class action lawsuit in New York should receive
final approval is expected to occur on November 14, 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.

Karthikeyan V. Veera v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al.,
(United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Case No. 10 CV 4191) was filed on or about May 24, 2010, and
amended on September 7, 2010.  Plaintiff, a former employee and
participant in Ambac's Savings Incentive Plan (the "Plan"),
asserts violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") and names as defendants the Plan Administrative
Committee, the Plan Investment Committee, the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of Ambac, and a number of
current and former officers and directors of Ambac.  This action
is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons, excluding
defendants and their immediate families, who were participants in
the Plan from October 1, 2006, through July 2, 2008, and whose
Plan accounts included an investment in Ambac stock. The complaint
alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties by
defendants in respect of the continued offering of Ambac stock as
an investment option for the Plan and the failure to provide
complete and accurate information to Plan participants regarding
Ambac's financial condition.  This ERISA action seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, a constructive trust for amounts by
which the fiduciaries allegedly benefited as a result of their
breaches, and attorneys' fees.  On October 20, 2010, all of the
defendants named in the amended complaint moved to dismiss all of
the claims in the amended complaint.  In an Opinion and Order
issued January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On January 18, 2011, Ambac filed an adversary complaint in the
Bankruptcy Court against Plaintiff, primarily seeking declaratory
relief to confirm the applicability of the automatic stay under
Bankruptcy Code section 362(a) to plaintiff's claims.  On February
11, 2011, Ambac filed a motion in the adversary proceeding for
summary judgment declaring that the protections of the automatic
stay apply or should be extended to the claims in the ERISA action
and for injunctive relief.

Following a hearing on Ambac's motion on March 4, 2011, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Ambac's motion, holding
that the automatic stay applied to the ERISA action, but also
granted Plaintiff relief from the stay to pursue limited discovery
during the extended exclusivity period in Ambac's Chapter 11 case.
On July 15, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for additional relief
from the automatic stay.  The Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiff's
motion on July 20, 2011, ordering that the automatic stay shall
continue to apply to the ERISA action but granting plaintiff
limited relief from the automatic stay in order to permit
plaintiff to participate in mediation, which occurred in September
2011.  Veera filed an objection to Ambac's Reorganization Plan to
the extent the releases in the Reorganization Plan sought to
extinguish Veera's claims against the defendants.

On March 13, 2012, Veera and Ambac entered into a stipulation and
agreed to an order resolving Veera's objection.  Pursuant to such
Stipulation, Veera and Ambac agreed that the automatic stay could
be lifted as it applies to the ERISA action with respect to
certain discovery.  On April 10, 2012, defendants filed a motion
for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims based
on the defendants' alleged failure to act on material non-public
information.  Veera opposed the motion, and the court held oral
argument on May 15, 2012.  While defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment was pending, on June 8, 2012, Veera informed the
court that the parties had agreed to a proposed settlement of the
action.  On June 11, 2012, the court endorsed the letter, granting
the parties' requests to cancel pre-trial deadlines and remove
pending motions from the docket.  The court also ordered that the
case be removed from its docket within thirty days with a
stipulation of discontinuance and instructed that, if not
discontinued by July 11, 2012, the matter would be reinstated for
trial scheduled for March 2013.

Consistent with this order, the parties filed the settlement
agreement and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the court on July 11, 2012, and at the Court's
request, on August 2, 2012, submitted a revised preliminary
approval order and notice to the court.  The Court granted the
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  Notice of the
settlement will be sent to class members and a fairness hearing to
determine if the settlement should receive final approval by the
court is expected to occur on or about November 14, 2012.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit Deal Order Affirmed in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of Ambac Financial Group, Inc.'s settlement of
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit was affirmed 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.

Ambac and certain of its present or former officers or directors
have been named in lawsuits that allege violations of the federal
securities laws and/or state law.  Various putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws have
been filed against Ambac and certain of its present or former
directors and officers.  These lawsuits include four class actions
filed in January and February of 2008 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"District Court") that were consolidated on May 9, 2008, under the
caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Lead Case No. 08 CV 411.  On July 25, 2008, another lawsuit,
Painting Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance
Corporation, et al., case No. 08 CV 6602, was filed in the United
States District for the Southern District of New York.  On or
about August 22, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
in the consolidated action.  The consolidated amended complaint
includes the allegations presented by the original four class
actions, the allegations presented by the Painting Industry
action, and additional allegations.  The consolidated amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
Ambac's common stock from October 25, 2006, to April 22, 2008, on
behalf of purchasers of Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of
2007, and on behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock
in Ambac's March 2008 offerings.  The lawsuit names as defendants
Ambac, the underwriters for the three offerings, Ambac's
independent Certified Public Accountants and certain present and
former directors and officers of Ambac.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial
results and guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions and that the
Registration Statements pursuant to which the three offerings were
made contained material misstatements and omissions in violation
of the securities laws.  On August 27, 2009, Ambac and the
individual defendants named in the consolidated securities action
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On February
22, 2010, the Court dismissed the claims arising out of the March
2008 equity units and common stock offering (resulting in the
dismissal of Ambac's independent Certified Public Accountants from
the action), and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss.  On
December 9, 2010, Ambac and the present or former officers or
directors who are defendants in these actions entered into a
memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to
settlement and, on May 4, 2011, Ambac and the present or former
officers or directors who are defendants in these actions entered
in a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims asserted in
these actions.  On September 13, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order approving the stipulation of settlement and
Ambac's entry into the stipulation of settlement and performance
of all of its obligations thereunder (which the District Court
affirmed on December 29, 2011, and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") in turn
affirmed on July 12, 2012), and on
September 28, 2011, the District Court entered a judgment
approving the settlement (which the Second Circuit affirmed on
July 12, 2012).

On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action
entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et
al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and
director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241 (such
action, together with the consolidated actions, the "Securities
Class Actions").  An amended complaint was subsequently filed on
January 20, 2009.  This action is brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities,
Callable Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for
Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 ("STRATS") from June
29, 2007 through April 22, 2008.  The STRATS are asset-backed
securities that were allegedly issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia
Corporation and are allegedly collateralized solely by Ambac's
DISCS.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding Ambac's business and financial results and Ambac's
guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the
securities laws. On April 15, 2009, Ambac and the individual
defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
On December 23, 2009, the Court initially denied defendants'
motion to dismiss, but later recalled that decision and requested
further briefing from parties in the case before it rendered a
decision on the motion to dismiss.  On December 9, 2010, Ambac and
the former officer and director and the former officer who are
defendants in this action entered into a memorandum of
understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to settlement and, on
May 4, 2011, Ambac and the former officer and director and the
former officer who are defendants in this action entered into a
stipulation of settlement to settle the claims asserted in this
action.  On September 13, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order approving the stipulation of settlement and Ambac's entry
into the stipulation of settlement and performance of all of its
obligations thereunder (which the District Court affirmed on
December 29, 2011, and the Second Circuit in turn affirmed on July
12, 2012), and on September 28, 2011, the District Court entered a
judgment approving the settlement (which the Second Circuit
affirmed on July 12, 2012).

Various shareholder derivative actions have been filed against
certain present or former officers or directors of Ambac, and
against Ambac as a nominal defendant.  These lawsuits, which are
brought purportedly on behalf of Ambac, are in many ways similar
and allege violations of law for conduct occurring between October
2005 and the dates of lawsuit regarding, among other things,
Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, Ambac's public
disclosures regarding such guarantees and Ambac's financial
condition, and certain defendants' alleged insider trading on non-
public information.  The lawsuits (the "Derivative Actions")
include (i) three actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York that have been
consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 854; on June 30, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts
violations of state and federal law, including breaches of
fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and
violations of the federal securities laws; on August 8, 2008,
Ambac and the individual defendants named in the consolidated
Southern District of New York derivative action moved to dismiss
that action for want of demand and failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted; on December 11, 2008, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint and
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 17, 2008; on
June 2, 2009, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint;
on November 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the consolidated
derivative action without prejudice to its renewal when and if the
automatic stay provided by the Bankruptcy Code is lifted; (ii) two
actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery that have been
consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
Shareholders Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 3521; on
May 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint
that asserts claims including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste,
reckless and gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment; on
December 30, 2008, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted
defendants' motion to stay the Delaware shareholder derivative
action in favor of the Southern District of New York Consolidated
Derivative Action; plaintiffs in the Delaware action subsequently
moved to intervene in the Southern District of New York derivative
action and on May 12, 2009, the motion to intervene was denied; on
August 15, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery modified the stay
to permit the defendants to move for dismissal pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Court 9019 Order approving the settlement; on September
27, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss; on December 15, 2011, the
Court of Chancery dismissed the Delaware derivative action; one
derivative plaintiff, the Police and Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit ("PFRS"), appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court,
which affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal on May 7, 2012;
and (iii) two actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County, that have been consolidated under the
caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 650050/2008E; on September 22,
2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that
asserts claims including breaches of fiduciary duties, gross
mismanagement, abuse of control, and waste; on January 5, 2010,
the New York Supreme Court granted defendants motion to stay the
New York Supreme Court action in favor of the Southern District of
New York Consolidated Derivative Action; both actions are now
listed on the Court's docket as dismissed.

Pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of understanding entered
into on December 9, 2010, on May 4, 2011, Ambac and all of its
present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the
Securities Class Actions or the Derivative Actions, entered into a
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") with the lead
plaintiffs in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation and the named plaintiffs in Tolin v. Ambac Financial
Group, Inc. for settlement of both of the Securities Class
Actions.  The Stipulation provides that the claims of the putative
plaintiff classes, among other claims, will be settled for a cash
payment of $27,100,000.  Certain of the insurance carriers who
provided directors and officers' liability coverage to Ambac's
present and former officers and directors for the period July
2007-July 2009 have agreed to pay $24,600,000 of the settlement,
pursuant to a separate agreement entered into between Ambac, the
present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the
Securities Class Actions or the Derivative Actions, and those
insurance carriers.  Ambac has agreed to pay $2,500,000 of the
settlement and previously deposited that amount into an escrow
account (classified as Restricted Cash on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet since these amounts are held in escrow).  Lead and named
plaintiffs in the Securities Class Actions, on behalf of
themselves and all other members of the settlement class, have
agreed to releases of claims against, among others, Ambac and the
present or former officers or directors who are parties to the
Stipulation.  The settlement provided for in the Stipulation is
subject to various conditions, including, among others, approval
by the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and approval by the Bankruptcy Court of Ambac's entry
into the settlement and of certain releases and bar orders that
would release and bar claims (among others) by or on behalf of
Ambac, including by any shareholder or creditor of Ambac
purportedly acting derivatively on behalf of Ambac, against
present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could
have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted in
any of the Securities Actions or any of the Derivative Actions.
The Stipulation further provides that nothing in the Stipulation
shall be deemed an admission by any defendant of any fault,
liability, or wrongdoing.  The terms of the Stipulation is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the text of the
Stipulation, which was filed in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation on May 6, 2011.  On May 19, 2011, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an order lifting the automatic stay
pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code to permit inter
alia the settling parties to seek preliminary approval of the
settlement in the District Court.

On June 14, 2011, the District Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On July 19, 2011, the
Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtor's motion pursuant to section
105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9019 approving
the Stipulation and related agreements and the Debtor's entry into
the Stipulation and related agreements and performance of all of
its obligations thereunder.  The Bankruptcy Court's order also
approved certain releases and bars that will, upon the effective
date of the settlement, release and bar claims (among others) by
or on behalf of Ambac, including by any shareholder or creditor of
Ambac purportedly acting derivatively on behalf of Ambac, against
present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could
have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted in
any of the Securities Actions or any of the Derivative Actions.
On July 25, 2011, the Debtor sought by Notice of Presentment to
enter an amended order pursuant to section 105(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9019.  Certain objections were
filed on behalf of putative shareholders who were plaintiffs in
the derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery or the
Southern District of New York, including the Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit ("PFRS") (one of the
plaintiffs in the Delaware Court of Chancery).  Hearings on the
proposed amended order were held before the Bankruptcy Court on
August 10, 2011, and September 8 and 9, 2011.  On September 13,
2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered the amended order pursuant to
Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9019,
approving the Stipulation and related agreements and the Debtor's
entry into the Stipulation and related agreements and performance
of all of its obligations thereunder.  On September 23, 2011, the
Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion explaining its reasons for
entering the amended order and its reasons for overruling the
objections filed on behalf of putative shareholders who are or
were plaintiffs in the derivative actions in the Delaware Court of
Chancery or the Southern District of New York.  On September 28,
2011, the District Court held a settlement hearing to consider the
proposed settlement.  Counsel for PFRS, the same putative
shareholder who had objected in the Bankruptcy Court, also
appeared in the District Court and objected to the proposed
settlement.  The District Court overruled the objection, and on
September 28, 2011, entered a judgment approving the class action
settlement with Ambac and the individual defendants.

PFRS, the putative shareholder who objected to the proposed
settlement in both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court,
then pursued appeals from both the Bankruptcy Court's amended
order and the District Court's judgment.  On September 26, 2011,
counsel for PFRS filed a notice of appeal to the District Court
from the Bankruptcy Court's amended order.  On October 28, 2011,
counsel for PFRS filed a notice of appeal from the District
Court's September 28, 2011 judgment approving the settlement.
PFRS's appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's amended order was
considered first by the District Court, which affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court's amended order on December 29, 2011.

On January 4, 2012, PFRS filed a further notice of appeal from the
District Court's order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's amended
order.  Thus, as of January 4, 2012, both of PFRS's appeals were
pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and were docketed as Case Nos. 11-4643 and 12-59.  On
January 19, 2012, Ambac and the individual defendants-appellees
moved to consolidate the two appeals and to expedite the
resolution of the consolidated appeal.  On January 26, 2012, the
Court granted certain relief sought in the motion to consolidate
and expedite, and consolidated both appeals under Lead Case No.
11-4643.  On March 23, 2012, the Court issued an expedited
briefing schedule for the consolidated appeal.

The Court heard oral argument on June 27, 2012, and on July 12,
2012, affirmed both the District Court's judgment approving the
settlement as well as the District Court's order affirming the
Bankruptcy Court's amended order.


AT&T: Advocates Lose Mass Wiretapping Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
David G. Savage, writing or Los Angeles Times, reports that the
Supreme Court has ended a 6-year-old class-action lawsuit against
the nation's telecommunications carriers for secretly helping the
National Security Agency monitor phone calls and e-mails coming
into and out of the country.

The suit was dealt a death blow in 2008 when Congress granted a
retroactive immunity to people or companies coming to the aid of
U.S. intelligence agents.

Without comment, the justices turned down appeals from civil
liberties advocates who contended this mass surveillance was
unconstitutional and illegal.

Later this month, the justices are set to hear a separate case to
decide whether NSA officials can be sued for authorizing this
allegedly unconstitutional mass wiretapping.

The suit against the telecom companies was triggered when Mark
Klein, a retired AT&T engineer in San Francisco, revealed the
company had allowed NSA agents to tap into its switching devices.
He testified this meant that the NSA may "conduct what amounts to
vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the Internet
-- whether that be people's e-mail, web surfing or any other
data."

More than 30 lawsuits were filed against telecommunications
companies, alleging they had violated their customers' rights
under federal laws that require them to maintain the privacy of
electronic communications.

At first, the companies asked to have the suits thrown out on
grounds that the cases could reveal state secrets, a claim backed
by the George W. Bush administration.  That argument failed before
a judge in San Francisco.

But a few months before Bush left office, Congress passed a
measure to shield the companies.  It said a civil suit against
"any person for providing assistance to an element of the
intelligence community shall be promptly dismissed" if the U.S.
attorney general invokes this provision in a court case.

Then-Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey invoked this provision in the San
Francisco court where the 30 lawsuits had been consolidated.  A
judge then dismissed the suit, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed last December that the case could not go forward.

Lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American
Civil Liberties Union appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that
the retroactive immunity was an "unprecedented violation of the
separation of powers" because it allowed the executive branch to
shield itself from accountability in court.  But in a one-line
order, the court said it would not hear the case of Hepting vs.
AT&T.


ATOMI: Recalls 80,000 Sharper Image USB Wall Chargers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Atomi, of New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 80,000
Sharper Image USB wall chargers.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The chargers can overheat and smoke, posing fire and burn hazards
to consumers.

Atomi has received 13 reports of the chargers overheating, smoking
and acrid smells.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Sharper Image USB wall chargers with model
numbers "TSI202" and "TSI260."  The wall chargers are used to
recharge electronic devices through a USB connection including MP3
players and other devices.  The chargers are black plastic and
measure about 2 1/2 inches high by 1 1/2 inches wide.  "The
Sharper Image" is printed on the top.  The model number is printed
on bottom of the charger.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13007.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory, Tuesday Morning and TJ Maxx stores and on
various Web sites from October 2011 through September 2012 for
between $8 and $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wall chargers
and contact Atomi for instructions on returning the chargers for a
full refund.  Consumer Contact: Atomi; Phone (800) 790-1440, 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, e-mail
info@atominy.com


AVX CORP: Defends Factory-Related Class Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit over pollutants from its Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
factory, 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.

There are two lawsuits pending with respect to property adjacent
to the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values have been negatively impacted by alleged migration
of certain pollutants from the Company's property.  On November
27, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the South Carolina State Court by
certain individuals as a class action.  Another lawsuit is a
commercial lawsuit filed on January 16, 2008, in South Carolina
State Court.  Both of these lawsuits are pending.  The Company
says it intends to defend vigorously the claims that have been
asserted in these two lawsuits.  At this stage of the litigation,
there has not been a determination as to responsible parties or
the amount, if any, of damages.  Based on the Company's estimate
of potential outcomes, it has accrued approximately $0.3 million
with respect to these cases as of
June 30, 2012.

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


BGC MANUFACTURING: Recalls Peanut Butter Bash Ice Cream
-------------------------------------------------------
BGC Manufacturing is recalling Goldenbrook Farms Peanut Butter
Bash Ice Cream.  This recall is being initiated because the peanut
butter used in the 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 Brookshire Grocery retail stores
throughout Texas, Louisiana, and Southern Arkansas between May
2010 and September 2012 and is packaged in 1/2 gallon cartons,
with UPC code 0009282530538 printed on the carton.  Pictures of
the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323385.htm

To date, there have been no reported illnesses attributed to
Goldenbrook Peanut Butter Bash Ice Cream and the recall does not
include any other flavors.  The peanut butter 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 immediately discard it.  Consumers with questions may
contact the Company at 866-440-6455, 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.


BLISS UNLIMITED: Recalls Luna & Larry's Non-Dairy Frozen Dessert
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bliss Unlimited, LLC, Eugene, Oregon is recalling Luna & Larry's
Coconut Bliss Chocolate Peanut Butter Non-Dairy Frozen Dessert
with codes dates Nov 11 2012 through Oct 24 2013 only.  This
recall is being initiated because the peanut butter used in the
product for these specific code dates is supplied by Sunland,
Inc., which has issued a national recall of some of its products
due to possible contamination 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 November 2010 and December 2011.  It is packaged in
One Pint (473ml) paperboard containers with UPC code 8 96767 00121
9 printed on the back of the container, and the stamp with 41-61
and a date range of Nov 11 2012 through Oct 24 2012 printed on the
bottom of the container.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323159.htm

To date, there have been no reported illnesses attributed to Luna
& Larry's Coconut Bliss Chocolate Peanut Butter Non-Dairy Frozen
Dessert and the recall does not include any other flavors or date
codes.

Anyone in possession of the recalled product should not consume it
and should discard it.  Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 541-345-0020, Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Pacific Standard Time.

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


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Pradaxa Litigation Continues to Grow
----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Ray, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that Pradaxa
litigation continues to grow as more patients who have suffered
bleeding from the anticoagulant file lawsuits against Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, the drug's manufacturer.  But despite
the lawsuits, there has been no announcement of a recall.

Pradaxa was approved by the FDA in October 2010.  The drug is a
blood-thinner used to prevent strokes in patients with atrial
fibrillation. At the time, it was marketed as a convenient
alternative to Coumadin (warfarin), another anticoagulant, because
patients on Pradaxa do not need to follow a restricted diet or
frequently monitor their blood levels, as patients on warfarin do.
However, both drugs carry a risk of bleeding, and bleeding from
Pradaxa has no known antidote, whereas bleeding from warfarin can
be stopped by administering Vitamin K. Bleeding from Pradaxa can
occur in the brain, intestines, or internal organs.

Reports filed with the FDA reveal that from October 2010 through
March 2011, there were 272,119 patients who were prescribed
Pradaxa.  Out of that number, there were 932 adverse event
reports, which included 500 cases of life-threatening bleeding and
117 deaths.

                          Pradaxa MDL

On August 8, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
established a Pradaxa MDL in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Illinois (East S. Louis) to consolidate lawsuits
claiming injuries from the anticoagulant.  By the end of August,
there were nearly 80 lawsuits in the MDL.  The MDL is being
overseen by Chief Judge David R. Herndon.

One lawsuit recently added to the MDL was filed by plaintiff
Roselyn Hay.  Her lawsuit was transferred to the MDL on September
4, 2012.  According to her complaint, Ms. Hay was hospitalized for
four days because of complications of bleeding from Pradaxa.  She
alleges that Boehringer Ingelheim failed to warn patients about
the drug's risks.

The purpose of an MDL is to consolidate lawsuits that cite similar
evidence and make similar claims. In an MDL, cases share pretrial
proceedings and the discovery process, but each lawsuit remains
separate and individual: each plaintiff is able to argue his or
her own individual case and receive his or her own individual
verdict.  This differs from a class action lawsuit, in which the
claims of all plaintiffs in a class are combined into one single
lawsuit, and the verdict of that single lawsuit applies to all the
plaintiffs.  In a class action lawsuit, any damages awarded are
divided among the plaintiffs according to predetermined criteria.


CHATTANOOGA BAKERY: Recalls Peanut Butter Crunch Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Chattanooga Bakery Inc. was notified that Sunland is expanding the
range of dates involved in their recall.  As a result, the Company
is recalling four additional non-expired code dates of MoonPie(R)
Crunch Peanut Butter product: 10/29/12, 12/10/12, 01/07/13, and
01/29/13.  Consumers who have purchased this item are urged not to
eat the product, and to dispose of it or return it to the retailer
for a full refund.  Expired product should be destroyed as well.
Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm320975.htm

If you are a direct account with Chattanooga Bakery, please notify
all of your stores/retail outlets.  If you are a
wholesaler/distributor, please be sure to notify all of your
retailer customers who, in turn, should notify all stores/retail
outlets.  To date, there have been no reports of illness
associated with MoonPie(R) Crunch Peanut Butter.

As a reminder, the Company has a new approved peanut butter
supplier and will produce all current open orders next week.

                    September 26, 2012 Recall

In an abundance of caution, Chattanooga Bakery, Inc., maker of
MoonPie(R) snacks, announced a voluntary recall of its Peanut
Butter Crunch products with "Best By" dates of 02/26/13, 03/25/13,
and 04/29/13.  No other Chattanooga Bakery/MoonPie/LookOut
products are affected by this recall.  If you are a direct account
with Chattanooga Bakery, please notify all of your stores/retailer
outlets.  If you are a wholesaler/distributor, please make sure
you notify all your retailer customers who, in turn, should notify
all stores/retail outlets.

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

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

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

For more specific information regarding the Sunland recall, please
visit the manufacturer website by viewing the link below:
http://www.sunlandinc.com/788/html/pdfs/SunlandRecall.pdf. If you
require further information, please contact customer service at
(423) 267-3351.


DEAN FOODS: Recalls Two Albertsons(R) Brand Ice Cream Varieties
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dean Foods Company of California processing facility in Buena
Park, California, and Meadow Gold Dairy processing facility in
Orem, Utah, are taking the precautionary measure to voluntarily
recall two ice cream varieties manufactured for Albertsons
supermarkets.  This recall was initiated because the affected
products contain a peanut butter ingredient supplied by Sunland,
Inc. which may be contaminated with Salmonella.  The peanut butter
manufacturer Sunland recently expanded its nationwide product
recall.

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.

To date, no complaints or reactions have been reported related to
these ice cream products, and only two flavors of Albertsons ice
cream are included in the recall.  No Meadow Gold(R) brand ice
cream products are included in this recall.  Both the "Peanut
Butter Cup" and "Peanut Butter Chocolate" flavors are sold in 1.5
quarts (1.42L) cardboard cartons in Albertsons stores.  Only the
ice cream made in two plants is impacted by this recall and
therefore the product being recalled was sold between 3/26/2010
and 9/25/2012 only in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North
Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming and Washington.

The ice cream is printed with one of two plant codes: either 49-11
or 06-20 and a "BEST BY" or "EXP" date ranging from 3/26/2011 to
9/25/2013.

Name: Albertsons

Size                 Flavor         UPC #        Plant Code
----                 ------         -----        ----------
1.5 quarts (1.42L)   Peanut Butter  41163 45891  49-11 or 06-20
"scround" container  Cup

Date: Any "Best By" or "EXP" dates ranging
       from 4/6/2011 to 9/25/2013

1.5 quarts (1.42L)   Peanut Butter  41163 45903  49-11 or 06-20
"scround" container  Chocolate

Date: Any "Best By" or "EXP" dates ranging
       from 3/26/2011 to 8/3/2013

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323389.htm

No other Albertsons or Meadow Gold brand ice cream products are
affected by this recall.  In particular, this recall only impacts
Albertsons ice cream products with the plant codes of 49-11 or 06-
20 and sold in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota,
Oregon, Utah, Wyoming and Washington.

The processing facilities have ceased distribution of the affected
product and recovery is actively underway.  Consumers who have
this product should not consume it.  They should discard it and
may return the product package to the place of purchase for a full
refund or exchange. Consumers with questions can contact the
Company at 1-800-587-2259 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Central
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this
voluntary recall.


EBIX INC: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Georgia, 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.

Between July 14, 2011, and July 21, 2011, securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  The complaints assert claims
against (i) the Company and the Company's CEO and CFO for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
(ii) the Company's CEO and CFO as alleged controlling persons.
The complaints generally allege false statements in earnings
reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements
that allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices.  Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.  The New York action has been transferred to Georgia and
has been consolidated with the Georgia action, now styled In re:
Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-02400-
RSW (N.D. Ga.).  In September 2011, a related derivative complaint
was filed against the Company and each of its Directors in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, styled Nauman v. Raina,
et al., Civil Action File No. 2011-cv-205276.  The derivative
action has been stayed pending resolution of the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in the federal action.  A Consolidated Amended
Complaint ("CAC") was filed by Plaintiffs on November 28, 2011, in
the federal action.

On January 12, 2012, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
CAC, which raises various defenses that the CAC fails to state a
claim.  Plaintiffs filed their Response on February 23, 2012.  On
March 26, 2012, the Company filed a Reply Memorandum in Further
Support of the Motion to Dismiss.

The Company believes that the complaints are legally insufficient,
and it intends to seek dismissal.  The likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome for this matter is not estimable.


FACEBOOK INC: Revises $20-Mil. "Sponsored Stories" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Facebook Inc. has
proposed a revised $20 million settlement in a class action
lawsuit accusing it of violating the rights of users through its
"Sponsored Stories" advertising feature after a U.S. judge
rejected an earlier accord.

The new settlement agreement, filed on Oct. 6 in U.S. District
Court in San Francisco, drops provisions setting aside up to $10
million for plaintiffs lawyers' fees and allows users to apply for
a cash payment of up to $10 each.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg rejected an initial settlement
proposal on Aug. 17 after questioning why the agreement provided
no cash for Facebook users.

The initial agreement provided no money to class members and
instead set aside $10 million to be given to charities involved in
Internet privacy issues.

The new agreement, which is also subject to Judge Seeborg's
approval, allows for some of the funds to go to charity, but only
if there is any left after users' claims, attorneys fees and other
expenses are met.

But given the size of the class, the charities might still get
some cash.  The agreement provides that, if it is not economically
feasible to pay all the users a cut, the court may designate the
entire fund as going to the charities.

The proposed settlement covers nearly 125 million people, court
documents show. The $20 million equates to less than 2 cents per
class member.

"We believe the revised settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and responds to the issues raised previously by the
court," Andrew Noyes, a Facebook spokesman, said on Oct. 8.

Richard Arnes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

Filed in 2011, the lawsuit alleged that the social networking
site's "Sponsored Stories" feature violated California law by
publicizing users' "likes" of advertisers without any compensation
or a way to opt-out.

As part of both settlement proposals, Facebook also agreed to give
users more control over how their names and likenesses are used.

Facebook's revised agreement also provides new terms on targeting
children.

Facebook said it agreed to encourage new users to designate who
else on the site is a member of their family. Parents will be able
to directly have their children opt-out of the Sponsored Stories
feature once their relationship to the child is confirmed.

Facebook also now has a right to object to plaintiffs lawyers' fee
applications, unlike the earlier settlement agreement.  It was
unclear how much the plaintiffs lawyers would seek with the new
settlement.

The case is Fraley v. Facebook Inc., U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 11-1726.


FACEBOOK INC: Some Investors Seek to Keep IPO Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that dozens of lawsuits against Facebook Inc., the
NASDAQ exchange and various underwriters will be centralized
before a federal judge in New York, who must sort through the
legal aftermath of Facebook's botched initial public offering.

A panel of federal judges on Oct. 4 ordered that cases filed
around the United States be transferred to U.S. District Judge
Robert Sweet in Manhattan.  Facebook had requested the transfer,
while some investors sought to keep their cases in California.

While some of the cases concern different defendants and claims,
"they do involve enough common questions of fact, related
circumstances and common discovery to warrant centralization," the
panel said.

Facebook said in a statement that it was pleased with the ruling,
and that it would "vigorously" defend itself.  An attorney for
some of the California plaintiffs declined to comment, while a
NASDAQ representative did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Investors say they lost money due to technical glitches on the
NASDAQ stock market and accuse the company of selectively
disclosing unflattering information about its business prospects
to Wall Street analysts who then shared it with privileged
investors.

The lawsuits, which are seeking unspecified damages, could cost
Facebook millions of dollars to defend as it strives to put the
IPO behind it.

In at least 33 lawsuits seeking class action status, investors
have asked courts to hold the company and its underwriters
responsible for causing their losses.

Facebook has said that it did not violate any rules and that
NASDAQ was to blame for trading glitches on the day of the
offering.

Grouping cases together keeps similar lawsuits from proceeding at
the same time in different courts.

Lawsuits against NASDAQ OMX Group Inc., which accuse the exchange
of being negligent in failing to execute trades in the face of
record-breaking volume during the IPO, will also be in front of
Judge Sweet.

But the exchange has already asked that their cases proceed on a
separate track from the Facebook lawsuits.

The case is In Re: Facebook Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative
Litigation, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, No.
12-md-2389.


FALCON TRADING: Recalls SunRidge Farms Products With Peanuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon Trading Company, Inc./SunRidge Farms of Royal Oaks,
California, announced that it has taken the precautionary measure
of voluntarily recalling four bulk items.

The product contains peanut butter supplied by Sunland, Inc.
Sunland, Inc. initiated a secondary voluntary recall of all peanut
butter products manufactured between March 1, 2010, and September
24, 2012, "because the products may 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.  Please visit the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/

Falcon Trading Company/SunRidge Farms says it is committed to
producing only the highest quality products, and its top priority
is the safety of its customers.  For this reason, the Company is
issuing this voluntary recall as a precautionary measure.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with the SunRidge
Farms recalled product and no other SunRidge Farms products are
being recalled at this time.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled items should return it
to the retail store where they purchased it for a full refund.  If
they have any questions, they should call Falcon Trading Company's
customer service at 1-831-786-7000.

         RE: SUNRIDGE FARMS - CHOCOLATE BROWNIE SQUARES
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   Item Code    Item Description      Pack Size     Case Qty.
   ---------    ----------------      ---------     ---------
     021116     SUNRIDGE CHOCOLATE    10 LB CASE    481 Cases
                BROWNIE SQUARES

UPC Code: 086700211168
Lot Codes: ALL LOT CODES

        RE: SUNRIDGE FARMS - CHOCOLATE DOUBLE DECKER CHEW
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   Item Code    Item Description      Pack Size     Case Qty.
   ---------    ----------------      ---------     ---------
     021117     SUNRIDGE CHOCOLATE    10 LB CASE    233 Cases
                DOUBLE DECKER CHEW

UPC Code: 086700211175
Lot Codes: ALL LOT CODES

   RE: SUNRIDGE FARMS - PEANUT BUTTER CRUNCHY WITH SALT-ORGANIC
   ------------------------------------------------------------
   Item Code    Item Description      Pack Size     Case Qty.
   ---------    ----------------      ---------     ---------
     016185     SUNRIDGE PEANUT       35 LB TUB     1928 Tubs
                BUTTER CRUNCHY
                WITH SALT-ORGANIC
                (LABELED SUNLAND)

UPC Code: 086700161852
Lot Codes: ALL LOT CODES

    RE:  SUNRIDGE FARMS - PEANUT BUTTER CREAMY NO SALT-ORGANIC
   ------------------------------------------------------------
   Item Code    Item Description      Pack Size     Case Qty.
   ---------    ----------------      ---------     ---------
     016186     SUNRIDGE PEANUT       35 POUND TUB 1372 Tubs
                BUTTER CREAMY
                NO SALT-ORGANIC
                (LABELED SUNLAND)

UPC Code: 086700161869
Lot Codes: ALL LOT CODES

Pictures of the recalled products and their labels are available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323151.htm


FIRST INTERSTATE: Awaits Approval of Interchange Fee Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated lawsuit over credit card interchange
fees are awaiting approval of settlement pursuant to a memorandum
of understanding entered in July 2012, resolving the dispute,
according to First Interstate BancSystem, 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 July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and U.S. financial institution
defendants signed a memorandum of understanding to enter into a
settlement agreement to resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging
collusion between the defendant banks and the credit card
companies to maintain higher credit card interchange fees.  Under
the terms of the proposed settlement, class merchants may receive
a distribution equal to 10 basis points of default interchange for
a period of eight months, which would effectively reduce
interchange fees received by credit card issuers, like the
Company, during that time.  Based on current transaction volumes,
a 10 basis point reduction in credit interchange fees would not
have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements, results of operations or liquidity.  Assuming the
proposed settlement agreement is approved by the plaintiffs, the
eight-month reduction in interchange fees could begin in mid-to-
late 2013.


FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Insurance Cos. Obtain Favorable Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Telegraph Herald reports that none of Flexsteel Industries'
insurance companies must provide coverage on claims that the
company polluted air and drinking water near Elkhart, Ind.,
according to a Dubuque District Court judge.

In a ruling filed on Oct. 4, Judge Michael Shubatt granted summary
judgment in favor of 13 insurance companies that claim no
responsibility in a class-action lawsuit against Flexsteel.


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cascadian Farm Snack Bars With Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Mills announced a voluntary recall of a limited number of
Cascadian Farm Granola Bars containing peanuts.  This action is
being taken as a precaution because peanut pieces in the products
may have been sourced from Sunland, Inc., a peanut supplier that
recently expanded its recall of peanut ingredients.

This voluntary recall includes 6-count boxes of Cascadian Farm
Peanut Butter Chip Chewy Granola Bars with the following "Better
if Used By" dates printed on the top of the box:

   * 01NOV2012
   * 02NOV2012

Because this product was produced in February, it may no longer be
on store shelves.

Consumers are urged to check their pantries for these two "Better
if Used By" dates.  Consumers are also urged to dispose of any
Cascadian Farm Granola Bar products containing peanuts that are
past the "Better if Used By Date" printed on the box.  These
products include:

   * Cascadian Farm Sweet & Salty Peanut Pretzel Bars

   * Cascadian Farm Sweet & Salty Mixed Nut Granola Bars

   * Cascadian Farm Peanut Butter Chip Chewy Granola Bars

   * Cascadian Farm Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip Chewy Granola
     Bars

   * Cascadian Farm Trail Mix Dark Chocolate Cranberry Chewy
     Granola Bars

Pictures of the labels of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323324.htm

No illnesses have been reported in connection with Cascadian Farm
products.  No other varieties or production dates of Cascadian
Farm products are affected by this recall.

Consumers who have products covered by this recall may contact
Cascadian Farm Consumer Services at 1-800-624-4123 for a
replacement.


GEORGIA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Use of Taxpayer Money
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that Georgia school
districts are using taxpayer dollars illegally to fund a campaign
against a constitutional amendment on charter schools, five
taxpayers claim in a class action.

The class claims the districts are violating Georgia law, which
prohibits government agencies from spending public money on
electoral advocacy.

Lead plaintiff R. Allen Hughes sued the Fulton County School
System and Gwinnett County School District, as representatives of
all school districts in Georgia, in Fulton County Superior Court.

The plaintiffs claim that school districts, the Georgia School
Boards Association, teachers unions and other entities, which the
plaintiffs call the "Education Empire," are using taxpayer money
"in a blatant attempt" to defeat a proposed constitutional
amendment on charter schools, on the Nov. 6 ballot.

They claim that Georgia's Constitution and Georgia Supreme Court
rulings prohibit local government entities, including county
school boards, from spending public money to support or oppose
referenda, campaign committees or other political organizations.

"This case is not about whether or not the voters of Georgia
should approve the amendment, which would allow charter schools to
be authorized by someone other than a local school board," the
complaint states.  "Instead, this case is about whether the voters
of Georgia are entitled to a fair and free election on this issue,
without taxpayers' funds and resources funding an anti-amendment
campaign.

"Specifically, these individuals allege that defendant Fulton,
defendant Gwinnett and the districts, as well as the rest of the
Education Empire are engaged in a coordinated campaign and
conspiracy to avoid the constitutional and statutory prohibition
against public officials using public resources to engage in
political activity in support or opposition to the amendment.  The
defendants are using tax dollars to fund a campaign to defeat the
amendment in order to retain their current monopoly power over
public education in Georgia.  Despite plaintiffs' written request
to defendants, they have refused to take the necessary action to
stop these activities."

The plaintiffs say the districts used school resources to print
anti-amendment materials and distributed them through students,
spent public resources and employees' time on the anti-amendment
campaign, and encouraged employees to vote "no" on the amendment.

They claim the districts and public education entities such as the
Georgia School Boards Association are using some of the millions
they receive annually in public tax dollars to finance the anti-
amendment campaign.

"One of the allegations of plaintiffs, in this case, is that
defendant Gwinnett has spent over $750,000 over the past five
years to pay the salaries of two employees of the Gwinnett Chamber
of Commerce," the complaint states.  "Until the local media
discovered this fact, the Gwinnett Chamber had publicly opposed
the amendment and planned to hold an event to raise funds for the
anti-amendment campaign."

The plaintiffs say the districts used public money to pay for
meetings where they instructed school board members to organize
anti-amendment campaigns and to lobby school staff, teachers,
parents and chambers of commerce to advance their agenda.
They claim the districts tried to hide the use of public funds for
political purposes by creating Vote Smart Georgia, an affiliated
"coalition of community, business and education leaders across the
state who oppose the State Power Grab Amendment."

"Defendant Fulton, defendant Gwinnett, and the districts, and the
entire Education Empire, have used public resources and funds to
prepare anti-amendment documents, distributed the material
electronically, given anti-amendment speeches while on official
business, adopted resolutions opposing the amendment, allowed
representatives of the teachers' union to appear at staff meetings
and advocate against the amendment, held staff meetings on public
property in which teachers were warned that, unless they voted No,
they could lose their jobs, and allowed the Georgia PTA to use
students to carry the anti-amendment information home in
backpacks," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs want the districts enjoined from continuing their
anti-amendment activities before the November election, and
reimbursement for the taxpayer-funded activities.

They are represented by Glenn Delk with Lightmas & Delk.


GEORGIA: Public Set to Vote on Amendment One on November 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Paluska, writing for CBS Atlanta, reports that in a lawsuit
filed with the Fulton County Superior Court on Oct. 8, five people
part of a class action lawsuit allege that the Fulton and Gwinnett
School Districts used tax payer money and students to strike down
Amendment One on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Amendment One will be voted on by the public on whether to amend
the Georgia Constitution to grant the state more power to create
charter schools.

"The defendants are using tax dollars to fund a campaign to defeat
the amendment in order to retain their current monopoly of power
of public education in Georgia," according to the suit filed by
Allen Hughes, Rich Thompson, Rae Anne Harkness, Kelley O' Bryan
Gary and Kara Martin, on behalf of themselves and all taxpayers in
Georgia.

On Oct. 8, CBS Atlanta News spoke to Mr. Thompson and Ms.
Harkness.

"I support school choice, and I support the ability for parents to
have more options for their children. The unfortunate part is we
have a bureaucracy that has decided they don't want parents to
have that option," Mr. Thompson said.  "And they are using our tax
dollars against us to limit us from receiving accurate information
so parents can make informed decisions on Election Day."

According to the lawsuit, "Defendant Fulton, Defendant Gwinnett
and the districts and the entire Education Empire have used public
sources and funds to prepare anti-amendment documents, distributed
the material electronically, given anti-amendment speeches while
on official business, adopted resolutions opposing the amendment,
allowed representatives of the teachers union to appear at staff
meetings and advocate against the amendment, held staff meetings
on public property in which teachers were warned that, unless they
voted 'No,' they could lose their jobs and allowed the Georgia PTA
to use students to carry the anti-amendment information home in
backpacks."

A representative with Fulton County Schools told CBS Atlanta News
they don't have a position on the proposed amendment and only have
information from a question and answer session posted on their Web
site.

"I want to see all the school districts take the material down,"
Ms. Harkness said.  "They were wrong that they should not have
been advocating for it, we want them to return the tax dollars
they have used to promote it so far."

According to both Mr. Thompson and Ms. Harkness, they just want
the vote on Nov. 6 to be fair.

"The lawsuit isn't about how to vote or telling people how to vote
-- it's about having a fair election," Ms. Harkness said.

A hearing on the lawsuit was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on Oct.  10.


GOOGLE: Gmail Class Action May Threaten Anti-Spam Software
----------------------------------------------------------
The Vancouver Sun reports that if the British Columbia lawsuit
against Google for its data mining of Gmail is successful, it has
the potential to make anti-spam and anti-virus software that scans
e-mails illegal.

Similar cases have been launched in the United States, where Eric
Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and
director of the High Tech Law Institute, has characterized them as
"are-you-kidding-me," lawsuits.

"If electronic scrutiny of private e-mail constitutes an
interception then all anti-spam software violates that as well . .
. the same probably with virus checkers," Mr. Goldman said when
contacted about the case filed in BC Supreme Court.

"In the US I consider similar lawsuits to be dead on arrival,"
Mr. Goldman said.  "They have no merit.  I can't speak to Canadian
laws."

However, while Mr. Goldman made it clear he can't comment on BC or
Canadian laws, he raised issues that could be applicable on both
sides of the border.  He said one issue for the courts to
determine is whether or not an automated process scanning e-mails
amounts to a violation of privacy.

"Google isn't manually reading these, a machine is reading them,"
he said.  "It is about whether the law cares if a machine has
scrutinized private communications and if that scrutiny
constitutes a violation of privacy."

In the case launched on Oct. 4 in BC Supreme Court a Sunshine
Coast man is seeking damages of $500 per e-mail and an injunction
that would stop Google from intercepting and using personal
information it collects by scanning e-mails sent through Gmail.
The statement of claim alleges that Google is violating the
Privacy Act, infringing copyright and breaching the Competition
Act.

A second issue Mr. Goldman said arises in the US is the statute of
limitations.  The practice of serving up ads in Gmail linked to
keywords and information gleaned from e-mails dates back to about
2004.

"This has been going on for a long time so to have it come up now
is odd," said Mr. Goldman.

The third issue is one of consent, said Mr. Goldman, and that can
vary with the jurisdiction.

"In the United States many of the privacy laws will step away if
the user consents," said Mr. Goldman.

In the BC case, the plaintiff is arguing not as a Gmail user but
as a non-Gmail user sending e-mails to a correspondent's Gmail
address.

Mr. Goldman said under the US Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, if the e-mail recipient consents to the scrutinization, "then
the sender has nothing to object about."

However he said in some US states, second party consent is
required, which mean both parties have to consent before a
communications can be intercepted.

In Canada, the law requires one party in a phone call to give
consent to recording so in effect you can legally record a
conversation with someone without their consent.

The Conservative government introduced a controversial bill,
"Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act," attacked by
critics as online surveillance and 'warrantless wiretapping,'
which would make Internet service providers track their customers
Internet usage and include all forms of telecommunications in what
has traditionally been telephone wiretap warrants.

Mr. Goldman said he uses Gmail and Gmail ads are not a concern.

"Everyone in my circle has moved on a long time ago from this
issue," he said.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Bank Still Defends Overdraft Practices Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 22, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Great Southern
Bancorp, Inc.'s primary subsidiary, Great Southern Bank, in
Missouri state court in Springfield by a customer alleging that
the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws.  The lawsuit seeks
class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft
fees on their checking accounts.  At this early stage of the
litigation, it is not possible for management of the Bank to
determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.

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.


GREENSTONE FARM: Genesee County to File Tax Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ron Fonger, writing for mlive, reports that Genesee County is
about to tell one of the nation's largest rural lenders to pony up
on past real estate transfer taxes.

The county Board of Commissioners has agreed to enter into an
agreement with a Troy law firm to file a class action lawsuit
against Greenstone Farm Credit Services, claiming the company owes
it for several years of unpaid transfer taxes.

"They are not exempt from excise taxes," said county Treasurer Deb
Cherry, who asked commissioners to take the action.  "They check a
box on the deed that says they are exempt, (and) we are
challenging this one."

The case is similar to a lawsuit in which Genesee, other counties
and the state of Michigan sued mortgage giants Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac for failing to pay the same tax.

That case, which county officials have said could prove to be
worth $500,000, is pending on appeal following a victory in U.S.
District Court.

Michigan law imposes a state tax of $7.50 per $1,000 in property
value and an additional $1.10 for the county once properties are
transferred.

Jake Harris, a spokesman for Greenstone, said he was unsure if the
East Lansing-based company would comment on the county's legal
preparations and claims.

Greenstone's Web site says the $6.1 billion company is the sixth-
largest association in the Farm Credit System with 37 branches
throughout Michigan and northeast Wisconsin.

GreenStone provides financial services to the agricultural
industry as well as residential and country home loans, according
to its Web site.

Elizabeth Favaro, an attorney with Troy-based Giarmarco, Mullins &
Horton, said Greenstone should have been paying transfer taxes on
the real estate transfers it has been involved in here and
elsewhere.

A memorandum from Ms. Cherry to county commissioners said for many
years, Greenstone asserted it was exempt from transfer taxes
because of the nature of its business.

But the treasurer said attorneys believe "a claim against
Greenstone is even stronger than our claims against (Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac) to recover unpaid transfer taxes."

Ms. Cherry did not cite a specific amount but said the volume of
the transfers is less than in the previous case.  She said the
county will pay no fees "unless we prevail and recover unpaid
taxes."

A draft contingent fee agreement says the county would pay
attorneys one-third of the gross amount recovered.

The county filed as the lead county in a class action lawsuit
against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after Oakland County filed a
separate suit to recover from the companies, which were originally
chartered by Congress but which later became private corporations.

The lawsuits come after the state treasurer issued guidance to
local officials in 2011, saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not
exempt from the transfer fees.


INUVO INC: Awaits Ruling on Sup. Ct. Petition in Suit v. Vertro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on its
petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court seeking review of an appellate court decision in a
consolidated securities fraud class action, 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 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against Vertro Inc. and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the
individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as "control persons."  Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages
and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period,
Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted material
information.  The court granted Defendants' motion for summary
judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final
judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.
Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court's
prior orders dismissing certain claims.  On September 30, 2011,
the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and reversed the
court's prior order on summary judgment.  Vertro intends to file a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court
seeking review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision.  On April 16,
2012, Vertro filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Eleventh
Circuit's decision.  The certiorari petition is fully briefed and
the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court.


INUVO INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Tarczynski" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
alleging violations of the Florida statute prohibiting misleading
advertisements, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, fraud in the inducement, conspiracy to commit
fraud, restitution/unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.  The
lawsuit is styled Beth Tarczynski v. Inuvo, Inc. d/b/a Blog Tool
Kit, Home Biz Ventures, LLC, and John Doe Defendants; Case No. 11-
5111-CI-7, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of
Florida.  The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a statewide
class and unspecified damages.  Initial discovery has begun and
Inuvo is vigorously defending the action.

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.


KELLOGG CO: Recalls Frosted and Unfrosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg's announced that it has initiated a voluntary recall due
to the possible presence of fragments of flexible metal mesh from
a faulty manufacturing part.  Recalled products include only
Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size Original and Mini-Wheats Unfrosted
Bite Size with the letters KB, AP or FK before or after the Best
If Used Before date.  Products impacted are:

Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size Original cereal

   * UPC 3800031829  - 18-ounce carton with Better if Used Before
     Dates between APR 01 2013 KB - SEP 21 2013 KB

   * UPC 3800073444 - 18-ounce carton with Better if Used Before
     Dates between APR 01 2013 KB - SEP 21 2013 KB

   * UPC 3800031834 - 24-ounce carton with Better if Used Before
     Dates between APR 01 2013 KB - SEP 21 2013 KB

   * UPC 3800046954 - 30-ounce carton with Better if Used Before
     Dates between APR 01 2013 KB - SEP 21 2013 KB

   * UPC 3800031921 - 70-ounce club store carton with Better if
     Used Before Dates APR 01 2013 KB - JUL 29 2013 KB

   * UPC 3800004961 - single-serve bowl with Better if Used
     Before Dates between 04013 KB - 09213 KB

   * UPC 3800021993  - single-serve carton with Better if Used
     Before Dates between AP 04013 - AP 09213 or FK 04013 -
     FK 09213

Kellogg's Mini-Wheats Unfrosted Bite Size cereal

   * UPC 3800021983 - single serve carton with Better if Used
     Before Dates between FK 04013 - FK 09213

   * UPC 3800035982 - 18-ounce carton with Better if Used Before
     Dates between APR 01 2013 KB - SEP 21 2013 KB

Consumers with affected product or who have questions should
contact the Company using the Contact Us feature on
http://www.Kelloggs.com/or call 800-962-1413 from 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday - Friday.

          Kellogg Expects $30 Million Charge for Recall

Bill Tomson and Paul Ziobro of The Wall Street Journal reports
that Kellogg Co. said on October 10, 2012, that it would take a
charge of up to $30 million to cover the recall of Mini-Wheats
cereal in the U.S. due to possible contamination by pieces of
metal mesh.

Retailers have been contacted about the recall of 2.8 million
packages of Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite-Size Original and Mini-Wheats
Unfrosted Bite Size, which are being pulled from store shelves.
Kellogg blamed the contamination on "a faulty manufacturing part,"
and said no injuries had been reported.

The incident is another supply-chain glitch for the Battle Creek,
Michigan food maker, which recalled a variety of its cereals in
2010 because of odd colors and odors traced to improper packaging.
It is spending $100 million this year -- after spending a similar
amount in 2011 -- to fix its supply chain, which suffered deep
cost cuts, leaving several manufacturing facilities overworked and
too few people overseeing operations.

Kellogg said the recall would lead to a third-quarter charge of
between $20 million and $30 million, but reiterated its existing
full-year earnings' guidance of $3.18 to $3.30 a share.

The maker of Pop-Tarts, Rice Krispies and Eggo waffles, which
reports earnings on November 1, said the performance by its
recently acquired Pringles snack business and changes in estimates
for some nonoperating items would offset the recall expenses.

The Company's breakfast offerings has been growing much slower
than the snacks business, and cereal sales declined slightly in
the second quarter compared with a year earlier.

Competition in the breakfast business has become fierce, in part
because of expanded fast-food offerings and the faster sales
growth of private-label cereals as price-conscious consumers trade
down from brand names.


LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Live Nation
Entertainment, formerly known as Ticketmaster, abuses its ticket
monopoly to gouge music fans for surcharges, a class action claims
in Federal Court.

"This case has been brought to find a common answer to a lingering
legal question," lead plaintiff Brendon Holub says: "Can
monopolist Live Nation overcharge ticket buyers with add-on fees
to event ticket prices rather than selling tickets using a clear
and conspicuous 'all-in' price?

"Plaintiff brings this case to determine once and for all if
defendant's practice of charging add-on fees is an unfair business
practice and whether defendant must use 'all-in pricing.'"

Since its 2010 merger with Ticketmaster, Beverly Hills-based Live
Nation has dominated ticket sales, has a monopoly on venues that
host live shows, and controls promoters nationwide, according to
the lawsuit.

Citing 4-year-old data used by ticket tracker Pollstar, Mr. Holub
claims that Live Nation sold 70 percent of tickets for concerts by
major artists in 2008, and that it controls amphitheaters in 18 of
the 25 largest markets in the country.

"Live Nation controls the best and most of the contemporary
outdoor amphitheaters (47) across the country where performances
by the top artists in the world are staged.  Live Nation currently
owns 46 clubs and theaters, and 11 'House of Blues,' and continues
to obtain more," the complaint states.

Live Nation earned more than $1.3 billion in the United States in
2008 and promoted shows that sold 46 percent of the tickets sold
at major concert venues in 2009, according to the complaint.

Mr. Holub claims Live Nation's merger with Ticketmaster allowed it
to "directly sell tickets to concerts that it promoted," and gives
it "unilateral power to raise the price of tickets in a dominant
segment of the market for concert tickets."

He claims that Live Nation broke a promise to eliminate
"unnecessary and unwanted" add-on fees in favor of all-in pricing,
which allows music fans to see the total retail price before they
buy tickets.

"Defendant has not made a clear, simple transaction for the
consumer," the complaint states.  "Defendant continues use their
monopoly market power to charge unfair fees and refuses to provide
consumers with a clear simple transaction through implementation
of 'all in' pricing.  Due to lack of competition created by the
merger defendant has been non-responsive to consumer demand and
has extracted unfair overcharges in the form of add-on fees to
ticket prices."

Add-ons to ticket prices have "persisted for years and resulted in
hundreds of millions of dollars in unfair transaction costs,"
according to the complaint.

In the 1990s, Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder protested Ticketmaster's
practice of using add-on fees, Mr. Holub says.  But years later,
the practice continues.

"This case seeks to answer that common question with the common
answer -- Yes, add-on fees to events tickets charged by Live
Nation are unfair and thus unlawful," the complaint states.

Mr. Holub is represented by Grenville Pridham of Tustin.  He seeks
an injunction barring Live Nation from charging add-on fees, and
restitution under California unfair competition law.

Live Nation Entertainment did not immediately respond to an e-
mailed request for comment.


LOWE'S: Homeowners Get Drywall Class Action Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Josh Salman, writing for Bradenton Herald, reports that thousands
of homeowners across the United States began receiving gift cards
in late September as a result of a class-action lawsuit against
Lowe's.

The nation's second largest home improvement retailer agreed to a
$7.75 million settlement in August 2010 for drywall sold to
customers that may have been defective.

The compensation comes as $50, $250 or $2,000 Lowe's gift cards
depending on the level of documentation customers could provide,
and how much of the bad product they bought.

Those who proved they suffered severe damages by the July 2011
filing deadline could also receive up to $2,500 cash -- for
maximum extra benefit refund of $100,000, court records show.

Appeals to the case were dismissed in April, the final judgment
was signed in Muscogee County, Ga. court that month, and payments
were dispersed in September.

Lowe's remains adamant the drywall covered under the settlement
was not made in China, which became the focus of separate lawsuits
spanning the country for the sulfur gases it emits -- corroding
electrical wiring and causing respiratory problems for many
homeowners.

In some cases, Chinese drywall problems have caused upwards of
$100,000 to fix, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.

"The court-approved, nationwide settlement addressed the concerns
of thousands of Lowe's customers while avoiding a potentially
lengthy trial," Lowe's spokeswoman Karen Cobb said in an e-mail
statement.  "The court did not decide in favor of or against
anyone, and we don't believe the company sold defective drywall."

More than 40,000 claims from across the U.S. were filed in the
class-action suit, which were vetted by a settlement administrator
appointed by the court when no proof of purchase could be
provided.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs at the Barrett Law Group did not
return phone calls seeking comment.

Case administrators said the two-year processing lag for the
refunds was mostly fanned by individual appeals that took some
time to sort out.

The final settlement figure also grew during that time from $6.5
million to $7.75 million to account for higher total payouts
expected when the maximum refund was adjusted.

When first announced, the settlement was slated to pay consumers
only $4,500 between Lowe's gift cards and $2,500 cash -- no matter
how much drywall they purchased or damage they suffered.  That
mark was later lifted to $100,000, including $98,000 in cash.

"After the claims were filed and before the final approval, there
were some individual appeals that had to be worked on," said Tim
Taylor, president of Texas-based Total Class Solutions LLC, which
administered the settlement.  "Until those were resolved, the
judge was not going to allow us to process the claims."

Court records estimate more than 550 million pounds of Chinese
drywall has come into the U.S. since 2006, enough to build 60,000
homes.

Several builders continue to fight litigation from homeowners
whose properties were nearly destroyed from problems resulting
from the defective drywall. Other homeowners have reported severe
respiratory problems.

The National Association of Home Builders announced in late
September it will oppose stricter regulations with the amended
Contaminated Drywall Safety Act.


MALTA: To Face Suit Over Electricity Provision Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Malta Independent Online reports that the European Commission
has sent Malta a letter of formal notice, effectively kick
starting an infringement case over discriminatory processes in the
provision of electricity to foreign nationals from EU member
states.

A letter of formal notice is the first of three steps of
infringement proceedings, the last of which would be answering on
the issue before the European Court of Justice.

The Commission's bone of contention with Malta is that, in order
to benefit from reduced water and electricity tariffs, EU citizens
residing in Malta need to present a specific set of residence
documents, whereas Maltese citizens need only to submit a copy of
their identity card and no other proof of residence.

According to the Commission, such discriminatory treatment is not
in line with EU law and creates an unacceptable obstacle to
exercising the right to free movement and to fully enjoying their
rights as EU citizens residing in Malta.

A group of EU nationals living in Malta, meanwhile, is preparing
to submit a class action lawsuit in the Maltese courts on behalf
of a "significant" number of EU residents in Malta, who say they
have been charged "significantly" more for their electricity and
water because their Maltese residency is not accepted by ARMS on
the basis of their identity cards and often, other supporting
documentation.

One affected person, speaking with Malta Independent Online
explains, "In my own case, ARMS insisted that I obtain a residence
certificate. This would not be provided unless I obtained a health
certificate. Indirectly, this meant that ARMS required a health
certificate.

"I objected strongly to my electricity tariff being dependent on a
health certificate and not on the fact that I have been resident
in Malta for many years.  ARMS has written to say that it will now
accept that I am a resident based on my tax returns and identity
card, but will not correct previous overcharges.

"I am not sure whether their willingness to change the tariff
without a residence certificate was because of the threat of court
action or whether they genuinely admit that their application
forms and procedures are wrong.

"Our class action will seek to recover overcharges by ARMS to EU
citizens resident in Malta."


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Remain Sub Judice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation's motion to dismiss an amended
consolidated class action complaint remains sub judice, 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 September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court").  On September 17, 2008, a
second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v.
Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.  On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws
(the "Consolidated Class Action Complaint").  The Consolidated
Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period
November 9, 2006, through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period").
It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H.
Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly.  Plaintiff principally alleged
that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and
misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution
coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its
sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of
shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public
information.  Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial
statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain
promotional expenses.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On July 12, 2010, following a
hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to
amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify
which statements plaintiff claimed were false or misleading,
failed adequately to allege that certain statements were
actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to
demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter.

On August 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the
"Amended Class Action Complaint").  While similar in many respects
to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class
Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations set forth in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint and makes certain new
allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel
stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or
misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other
statements made by the defendants.  In addition, it no longer
names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.  The Amended Class Action
Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on November 8, 2010.  At a hearing on defendants' motion
to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint held on
May 12, 2011, the District Court issued a tentative ruling that
would grant the motion to dismiss as to certain of plaintiff's
claims, but would deny the motion to dismiss with regard to the
majority of plaintiff's claims.  The District Court has not,
however, issued a final ruling.  The District Court held an
additional hearing on the motion to dismiss on May 25, 2011, and
has received supplemental submissions from the parties.
Defendants' motion to dismiss remains sub judice.

The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.  As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible
litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be
estimated.  Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be
determined with certainty, the Company believes that the
allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint are without
merit.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit.

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


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Continues to Defend "Wellman" Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against Monster Beverage Corporation and
its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as
defendants.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in
Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with
respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated
with the consumption of the energy drink products.  The
plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in
violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act
(Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).  The
plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class
in the amount of C$20 million, together with punitive damages of
CDN$5 million, plus legal costs and interest.  The plaintiff's
certification motion materials have not yet been filed.  The
Company believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.  In accordance with class action practices
in Ontario, the Company will not file an answer to the complaint
until after the determination of the certification motion.  The
Company believes that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit
and plans a vigorous defense.

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.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: "Chavez" Suit Deal Approval Appealed
------------------------------------------------------
An objector appealed the final approval of Monster Beverage
Corporation's settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by
Christopher Chavez, 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 September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair
business practices, false advertising, violation of California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky(R) beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled
wholly in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Defendants removed this Superior
Court action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "District Court") under the Class
Action Fairness Act and filed motions for dismissal or transfer.
On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice.  On June 23, 2009,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth
Circuit") filed a memorandum opinion reversing the decision of the
District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion for a decision on a
preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On June 18, 2010, the District Court entered an
order certifying the class, ruled that there was no preemption by
federal law, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  The
class that the District Court certified initially consists of all
persons who purchased any beverage bearing the Blue Sky mark or
brand in the United States at any time between May 16, 2002, and
June 30, 2006.  On September 9, 2010, the District Court approved
the form of the class notice and its distribution plan; and set an
opt-out date of December 10, 2010.

On January 27, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement on terms acceptable to the Company.  On June 1, 2012,
the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and
entered judgment.  On June 26, 2012, an objector to the settlement
filed a notice appealing the District Court's judgment, which is
now pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company does not believe that the settlement or the pending
appeal will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Jail Suit Interim Consent Judgment Due Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Maldonado, writing for Gambit, reports that U.S. District
Court Judge Lance Africk on Oct. 5 ordered Orleans Parish Sheriff
Marlin Gusman and the U.S. Department of Justice submit a
"proposed interim consent judgment," according to court documents.

The proposal, which will be submitted as part of an ongoing class-
action lawsuit against the jail, will be due to the court by
October 15.  As reported last spring, the Southern Poverty Law
Center filed suit on behalf of all Orleans Parish Prison inmates
in April.

The alleged details of daily life in OPP -- including charges of
dangerously overfilled cells, inadequate medical care and a
culture of indifference to the inmates' welfare on the part of
guards, supervisors, wardens, all the way up to Gusman himself --
have inundated SPLC's office.  On an average day, OPP is home to
more than 3,200 inmates, or the equivalent of nearly 1 percent of
New Orleans' total population.

In an interview for that story, SPLC attorney Katie Schwartzmann
said the evidence against the Sheriff's Office was "overwhelming."

Attached to the 38-page lawsuit are 19 affidavits signed by
current or former inmates, including 10 named plaintiffs. The
witnesses paint a picture of an institution where brutal violence
is the norm, with little intervention from guards, and where
medical attention arrives late if at all.

The federal government has been negotiating an agreement with the
Sheriff's Office for more than a year, following several years of
federal scrutiny.  Last month, Justice intervened in the lawsuit.
Judge Africk has also granted a request from Sheriff Gusman that
the city of New Orleans -- which controls the sheriff's budget --
be named as a third-party defendant.


NINA INT'L: Recalls Ground Hot Pepper Due to Possible Health Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the utmost caution and care for its customers, Nina
International of Hyattsville, Maryland, is initiating a voluntary
recall of its brand of Ground Hot Pepper, 5 oz, because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, 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.

Ground Hot Pepper was distributed in MD, Washington, DC and VA and
reached consumers through African and ethnic retail food stores.
The product is in a 5 oz, clear plastic container, and inscribed
with "Nina International, The Best Brand" and "Ground Hot Pepper,
Chillies, All Natural."  It has a yellow seal with a red "Nina"
inscription and the barcode is 745851004004.

A picture of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323229.htm

Nina International is issuing this voluntary recall to minimize
the risk to the public health.  No related illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this problem.

The recall was the result of a routine testing program which
revealed that the finished products contained the bacteria.  The
Company says it has ceased the distribution of the product as it
continues to identify the source of the problem.

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

Consumers who have purchased Nina International Ground Hot Pepper
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

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


RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Ice Cream Cake and Frozen Yogurt Pie
-----------------------------------------------------------
In response to the expanded Sunland, Inc. recall of all of its
peanut butter products manufactured at its plant since March 31,
2010, Rich Products Corporation ("Rich's") on October 9, 2012,
recalled its Jon Donaire(R) Peanut Butter Cup Ice Cream Cake
(Product Code: 62683) and TCBY(R) Peanut Buttery Fudge Deep Dish
Frozen Yogurt Pie (Product Code: 02772).

Rich's Quality Assurance Team has determined that the two products
contain ingredients sourced from a supplier using Sunland, Inc.
peanuts in the production of certain lots of the products and have
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.  Specifically,
the peanut butter ribbon provided by the Company's supplier
contains peanuts sourced from Sunland, Inc.  The products are
produced by Rich's in its Santa Fe Springs, California plant.

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.  For more information on Salmonella,
please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web
site at http://www.cdc.gov/or call 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636).

Rich's has not received any reports of illness connected with this
product and has issued this voluntary recall as a precautionary
measure.

The UPC code for the Jon Donaire(R) Peanut Butter Cup Ice Cream
Cake is: 049800626836.  Product produced from March 31, 2010,
through July 6, 2012 (Julian Dates: 14070008-14072115 ) is
affected.  The Jon Donaire(R) Peanut Butter Cup Ice Cream Cake is
sold by the case primarily to in-store bakeries nationwide; a
small amount of product is sold to food service distributors
nationwide.  Each individual unit is boxed with a best by date of
(October 5, 2010 - January 19, 2013).

The TCBY(R) Peanut Buttery Fudge Deep Dish Frozen Yogurt Pie does
not have a UPC code and is sold by the case exclusively to TCBY(R)
stores.  Product produced from March 31, 2010, to July 31, 2012
(Julian Date: 14070048 - 14072156) is affected.  TCBY(R) Peanut
Buttery Fudge Deep Dish Frozen Yogurt Pie is not packaged for
retail distribution.  Each individual unit is labeled with a best
by date of (November 14, 2010 - March 1, 2013).

Pictures of the recalled products and their labels are available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323209.htm

Rich's has already notified all of its distributors and customers
who have received the product in question, and has directed them
to remove and destroy the affected product.  All other affected
product under Rich's control has been quarantined and will be
destroyed.  Rich's will file with the Reportable Food Registry
within 24 hours.

Consumers with questions may contact the Rich's Product Helpline
at 1-800-356-7094 (United States) between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.  Voice mail is available
after hours.


SACRAMENTO, CA: Police Department Settles Homeless Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Brinkerhoff, writing for AllGov, reports that Sacramento's
police department has agreed to pay nearly $800,000 to more than a
thousand homeless people for destroying their property.  The
destruction occurred during numerous raids on homeless campsites
over the last seven years.

Those who lost their belongings banded together in a class-action
lawsuit that challenged the legality of the officers' actions on
the basis that the police threw away their possessions without
providing the campsite residents a way of getting them back.  The
lost possessions included tents, sleeping bags and medicine.  The
city will cut $796,050 in checks to 1,143 people involved in the
case.  The checks are expected to range from $400 to $750.

In addition, the city will have to cover the plaintiffs' legal
fees.  Mark Merin, who represented the homeless, is asking for
$1.8 million.  The city attorney's office objects to the amount,
calling it inaccurate and unreasonable.


SPEARMINT RHINO: Judge Approves $12.9-MM Dancers Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge approved a $12.9 million class settlement for exotic dancers
who claimed strip clubs denied them benefits by calling them
independent contractors.

More than a dozen dancers settled the 3-year-old class action with
several operators of adult entertainment clubs.

Among other abuses, the dancers claimed that clubs helped
themselves to more than half their tips, penalized them for not
selling enough drinks to customers, and made them pay stage fees.

Defendants included the Spearmint Rhino nightclub.

Under the terms of the settlement, the clubs will treat dancers as
either employees, partners or shareholders in their businesses,
and in California, dancers will no longer have to cough up pay-to-
perform fees.

After deductions for administrative and legal costs, 50.14 percent
of the settlement fund will be paid on a claims-made basis to
California dancers, roughly 42.69 percent to Nevada dancers, and
7.16 percent to dancers in Kentucky, Idaho, Texas, Nevada and
Florida.

Dancers who do not make a written claim to the fund will not be
paid; any remaining funds will go back to the strip clubs.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips also granted in part the
dancers' request for attorney fees.

Judge Phillips concluded that fees charged by the dancers'
attorneys were reasonable, but reduced the fees for time attorneys
charged for "irrelevant issues," including certain applications to
the court and administrative tasks.

Judge Phillips noted that some attorneys had charged for reviewing
court notices for their own "filing deficiencies," and had billed
too much for reviewing minute orders of the court.

"The court finds it indefensible that an attorney who had attended
the hearing would then charge for 24 minutes of his time to review
the clerk's two or three sentence minute order, or even six
minutes to do so," Judge Phillips wrote in her 30-page order.

The court approved $2.3 million in fees to dancers and more than
$73,000 in costs, plus incentive fees for the time the named
dancers spent on the case, and the "professional and personal
risk" of being named as lead plaintiffs in the class action.

A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. No. 317) and Granting in
Part Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. No. 311)
in Trauth, et al. v. Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc., et
al., Case No. 09-cv-01316 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/10/Exotic%20Dancers.pdf


THQ INC: Defends "Zaghian" Suit Related to uDraw GameTablet
-----------------------------------------------------------
THQ Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit alleging it issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its uDraw
GameTablet, 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.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of THQ
common stock between May 3, 2011, and February 3, 2012 (the "Class
Period"), styled Zaghian vs. THQ Inc., et al., was filed against
the Company and certain executive officers of the Company on June
15, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants knowingly made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's uDraw GameTablet during the
Class Period.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages, reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs and other relief.  The
Company and the other defendants believe the complaint is without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the pending lawsuit.


TICKETMASTER: Los Angeles Court Rejects Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Henegan, writing for TicketNews, reports that former
Ticketmaster customers who had signed onto a class-action lawsuit
against Ticketmaster will have to wait a little while longer to
receive their compensation, as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge
has rejected a proposed settlement agreement between Ticketmaster
and the class-action plaintiffs' attorneys.

The lawsuit alleges that Ticketmaster's use of excessive
processing and shipping fees served to create a windfall for the
company, and the expenses of processing and shipping were, in
fact, significantly lower than the prices charged.  According to
the facts plead by the plaintiffs, from the years 1999-2011,
Ticketmaster took in roughly $590 million in charged shipping and
processing fees, with only $165 million used to off-set actual
costs.  Ticketmaster, the suit argues, profited to the tune of
$425 million over the twelve year period.

The terms of the proposed settlement would have allowed the more
than 50 million class members to receive coupons from Ticketmaster
in the amount of $1.50 to offset the overcharges in processing
fees, while a smaller subclass of plaintiffs would receive $5.00
vouchers for overcharges in shipping fees.  Along with the
coupons, Ticketmaster had also agreed to cover the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.  Under the proposed terms, Ticketmaster would be
responsible for paying nearly $16.5 million to the plaintiffs'
team of attorneys -- a number that has raised some eyebrows among
class participants.

When the terms of the proposed settlement were initial announced
in July of 2012, the large amount of attorneys' fees caught the
eye of many, including the US Chamber of Commerce.  Comparing the
relatively low amount each coupon will be redeemed for to the
$16.5 million in attorneys' fees, the Chamber of Commerce cried
foul.

According to Variety, the lawsuit was filed prior to the enactment
of the "Class Action Fairness Act," which allows federal courts to
use greater discretion in the awarding of attorneys' fees and
payouts to class members.  Matthew Webb, senior VP of Legal Reform
Policy for the Chamber, told Variety that courts traditionally do
not look at the full picture of what settlements truly give to
those affected.  Rather, "They look at the fiction of what
attorneys are putting together," said Mr. Webb.

In this instance, the Los Angeles judge agreed with the Chamber
Commerce in rejecting the proposed settlement agreement.  Judge
Kenneth Freeman wrote that "In the court's opinion, this
settlement represents a windfall for Ticketmaster and does not
represent 'real value' for class members."  The proposed $1.50
vouchers were found to not accurately represent what each class
member lost through their dealings with Ticketmaster.

In addition, the plaintiffs attempted to reach all of the
estimated 50.7 million class members via their e-mail addresses
and found nearly 20 percent of the addresses to no longer be
active.  Judge Freeman found the large number of undelivered e-
mails to be "of significant concern to the court."

With the settlement proposal rejected by the court, both sides
must now go back to the negotiating table to see if a viable deal
can be worked out.  The next scheduled court date is a status
conference set for today, October 15, 2012, at which the judge
will hear if any progress has been made.


TOFT DAIRY: Recalls Buckeye Bites Ice Cream With Peanut Butter
--------------------------------------------------------------
After receiving a recall notice from a former supplier of peanut
butter base, Toft's has issued a voluntary recall on 48 oz cartons
and 3 gallon tubs of Buckeye Bites Ice Cream with expiration dates
of March 14, 2013, or before.  Any 48 oz or 3 gallon tub of Toft's
Buckeye Bites with an expiration date after March 14, 2013, is NOT
involved in this recall due to the Company switching peanut butter
suppliers on March 15, 2012.  Toft's Prime Time Buckeye Bites Ice
Cream has been distributed throughout the state of Ohio and
Southern Michigan.  The Company has not received any reports of
consumer illness associated with this recall.  The Company has
comprehensive product quality and safety policies and procedures
operating throughout its facility daily to ensure the safety of
its products.

The recalled product contains a peanut butter base that contains
peanut butter manufactured by Sunland, Inc, which has just
announced an expansion of a voluntary recall covering peanut
products made in their Portales, New Mexico plant.  Sunland's
peanut butter products have been linked to Salmonella outbreaks
across the United States dating back to March 1, 2010.  However,
Ohio has yet to report any illnesses from Sunland's recall.
(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.  For more information on Salmonella,
please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web
site at http://www.cdc.gov/).

Toft's 48 oz Buckeye Bites Product UPC is 19473-00602.  The
Product Code for Toft's 3 gallon tubs of Buckeye Bites is 874.
Buckeye Bites 48 oz cartons and 3 gallon tubs are the only items
in this voluntary recall.  No other Toft's products are included
in this recall.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323310.htm

If consumers have 48 oz cartons or 3 gallon tubs of Toft's Buckeye
Bites with an expiration date of March 14, 2013, or before in
their freezers, they should cut out the date on their Buckeye
Bites 48 oz carton or 3 gallon tub label and send it to the
following address to Toft's for a full refund: Buckeye Bites, Toft
Dairy, PO Box 2558; Sandusky, Ohio 44870.  If you have any
questions, please contact the Company's corporate office at 800-
521-4606 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time.  The Company says it is sorry for the
inconvenience.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 7.4-MM Vehicles Over Power-Window Switches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Chester Dawson reports that
Toyota Motor Corp. said on October 10, 2012, that it is recalling
7.4 million vehicles globally, including 2.5 million cars and
light trucks sold in the U.S., due to a potential fire hazard
involving power-window switches, a glitch on a world-wide scale
that evokes the Company's much-publicized quality woes of two
years ago.

The recall affects cars made between July 2005 and May 2010.  The
affected models, including Camry and Corolla sedans and RAV4
sport-utility vehicles, were sold in Japan, North America, Europe,
China, the Middle East and Oceania, the Company said.

Japan's biggest auto maker called it the Company's largest recall
to date for a single part, although it is second to the 7.7
million vehicles Toyota recalled around the world in 2009 and 2010
targeting floor mats.  The company maintains that wasn't
technically a recall in some markets, but rather a "safety
campaign."

The latest recall comes as Toyota's sales in the U.S. have begun
to recover from the black eye the company received after being
slow to recall more than five million vehicles in the U.S. to fix
loose floor mats, and 2.2 million cars and light trucks for
accelerator-pedal upgrades.  Altogether, the Company was forced to
recall about 11 million vehicles world-wide for those issues.

It adds to the auto maker's difficulties as it and other Japanese
car companies struggle with a de facto boycott of their vehicles
in China, the world's largest auto market, as a result of strained
political relations between Beijing and Tokyo.

Toyota, which said it knows of no accidents or deaths stemming
from the faulty parts, blamed sticky power-window control-switch
circuitry on the driver's seat-door panel, which can melt if
lubricants are misapplied.

"As far as we know, there have been no reports of accidents as a
result of this.  We're taking it as a protective measure," a
spokesman for the Company said.

Toyota Models Affected

The recall covers 2.5 million cars and light trucks sold in the
U.S., including these models:

   * Yaris, 2007-2008
   * RAV4, 2007-2009
   * Tundra, 2007-2009
   * Camry, 2007-2009
   * Camry Hybrid, 2007-2009
   * Scion xD, 2008-2009
   * Scion xA, 2008-2009
   * Sequoia, 2008-2009
   * Highlander, 2008
   * Highlander Hybrid, 2008
   * Corolla, 2009
   * Matrix, 2009

In an indication of the perils of relying on single suppliers for
certain parts, which can reduce production costs thanks to larger
volumes, Toyota said the flawed switch came from one global parts
maker, which it declined to identify.

The auto maker didn't provide cost estimates for the recall.  Last
year, it pegged the total cost incurred in 2010 from recalls
related to accelerator pedals, floor mats and Prius model brakes
at 170 billion yen to 180 billion yen ($2.17 billion to $2.3
billion).

Toyota said it first became aware of the latest issue in September
2008, but was unable to determine the cause until now.  The recall
doesn't affect any vehicles made after 2010 because of production-
process changes unrelated to the internal probe, it said.

After the U.S., China is the biggest market for the recall, with
1.4 million vehicles, followed by Europe at 1.39 million, the
Company said.


TYSON FOODS: Recalls 67,269 Lbs. of Boneless Chicken Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc., a Pine Bluff, Arkansas establishment, is
recalling approximately 67,269 pounds of packages labeled as Honey
BBQ Flavored Boneless Chicken Wyngz because of misbranding and
undeclared allergens.  Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wyngz were
packaged in bags meant for Honey BBQ Flavored Boneless Chicken
Wyngz and contain the allergens milk, soy and egg, which are not
declared on the Honey BBQ Flavored Boneless Chicken Wyngz label,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * 25.5 oz. (1.59 lb.) bags of "Tyson any'tizers Boneless
     Chicken Wyngz Honey BBQ Flavored." Each bag bears the USDA
     mark of inspection.  The establishment number "P13456" and
     the use by date "Aug 072013" or "Aug 082013" are inkjetted
     on the back of the bags.

   * 12.75 lb. shipping cases of "Fully Cooked Boneless Chicken
     Wyngz Buffalo Style."  Each case bears the USDA mark of
     inspection.  The establishment number "P13456" and the use
     by date "Aug 07 2013" or "Aug 08 2013" are inkjetted on the
     cases.  Identifying case codes "2202PBF0208:xx" through
     "2202PBF0223:xx" or "2212PBF0200:xx" through
     "2212PBF0223:xx," where the last four digits represent hours
     and minutes ("xx") in military time, also can be found
     inkjetted on cases subject to recall.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://is.gd/lq7hvN

The products were produced on August 7 and August 8, 2012, and
were distributed to retail stores nationwide.  When available, the
retail distribution list(s) will be posted on FSIS' Web site at:

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

Tyson Foods was alerted to the problem through consumer
complaints.  FSIS and the company have not received reports of
adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.  Anyone
concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Tyson
Foods' Consumer Relations at (866) 328-3156.  Media with questions
about the recall should contact Mr. Worth Sparkman at (479) 290-
6358.

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.


WAL-MART STORES: Leopold Law Firm Files Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charging that Wal-Mart Stores discriminated against female
employees in stores in the Southeast Region, which includes
Florida and parts of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Alabama, Tennessee, and Virginia, the Leopold Law firm on Oct. 7
filed a class action complaint (Case 9:12cv61959) in a federal
court against the giant retailer.

The complaint -- Love et. al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- filed in
U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida, alleges
Wal-Mart conducted discriminatory practices regarding the pay and
promotion of female employees in Wal-Mart and its subsidiary Sam's
Club stores throughout the region for the plaintiffs in the class.

"Our interviews with countless women have unveiled a shameful
pattern of deliberate discrimination against female employees
throughout the Southeast region.  Plaintiffs in this action were
denied opportunities for advancement and equal pay for hourly and
salaried positions," said Theodore J. Leopold, Managing Partner at
Leopold Lawand lead counsel in this litigation.

Love et. al. v. Wal-Mart is the fourth regional discrimination
lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart since the U.S. Supreme Court in
June 2011 reversed a lower court ruling on the national class
action against the retailer and issued new guidelines for class
actions and Title VII Civil Rights Act employment discrimination
cases.  In October 2011, two regional complaints were filed -Dukes
et. al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California (C-01-2252-CRB), and Odle et. al. v Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas, Dallas (3:11-cv-02954-O).  Earlier last week, Phipps et.
al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (cv- 01009 )was filed in U.S.
District Court of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division.

Named plaintiffs in the Florida Region case include Zenovdia (Zee)
Love, of Lakeland, Fla., employed by Wal-Mart for 15 years;
Christina Going, of Boca Raton, Fla., employed by Wal-Mart for 4
years; and Lori McCarthy, employed by Wal-Mart for 10 years.  The
class includes women who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores
and were subject to pay and promotion discrimination at any time
since Dec. 26, 1998.

In a statement, named plaintiff Zee Love said: "I dedicated my
career to Wal-Mart with the hopes that through hard work and
loyalty, I would earn a Co-Manager position and ultimately become
a Store Manager.  After 15 years, I finally had to accept that my
efforts were a hopeless endeavor and that no amount of merit would
lead to a promotion within the company."

According to the case, female employees of Wal-Mart retail stores,
excluding Pharmacists and Managers at Store Manager level and
above, were denied equal opportunities for promotion, and equal
pay.  The class action alleges that Wal-Mart fosters a work
environment that actively discriminates against women and
management has failed to take action to prevent gender
disparities.  These practices permeated stores throughout the
region. For example:

Named plaintiff Zenovdia (Zee) Love was a Wal-Mart employee for
over 15 years.  Despite her attempts to seek promotion and being
on the promotable list, she was never promoted beyond the position
of Assistant Manager.

According to the case, when named plaintiff Christina Going became
a Manager of the Pets and Chemicals Department in 2000, she began
applying for Support Manager positions.  The application process
required that she secure 3-4 nominations by other managers before
she could qualify to attend the requisite classes.  She never
received those nominations, however, because all of the managers
were male and refused to nominate Ms. Going for advancement.

According to the case, named plaintiff Lori McCarthy entered the
Wal-Mart Management Training program after graduating from Florida
State University in May 1991.  She completed her training in Fort
Walton Beach, Fla. and was then promoted to Assistant Manager at
the Fort Walton Beach store.  Over the next 10 years, she was only
ever promoted to Co-Manager.  Ms. McCarthy applied to become a
Store Manager 18 times, but never received the position.

Theodore Leopold added "After years of discriminatory treatment,
these workers deserve to have their day in court and stand up
against the injustices that have plagued their careers."

Love et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., plaintiffs are represented by
Leopold Law, P.A., Fla.; Cathleen Scott & Associates, P.A., P.A.,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, D.C; and the
Impact Fund, Berkeley, Calif.


WHIRLPOOL: Wants U.S. Supreme Court to Review Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiger Joyce, writing for The Washington Times, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court had until Oct. 12, to determine whether it will
hear an appeal involving a class-action lawsuit against Whirlpool,
the nation's largest washing machine manufacturer.  Until then,
the future of all manufacturing in the United States hangs in the
balance.

The case is one of dozens that class-action attorneys have brought
against every major maker of washing machines sold in the United
States.  If the high court ultimately lets stand the legal
theories of liability these attorneys are advancing, the resulting
flood of litigation will not be contained in the laundry room.
Virtually every U.S. producer of durable goods, for which August
orders alarmingly plummeted 13 percent, will be subjected to the
constant threat of crippling litigation and the erosion of global
competitiveness that goes with it.

The contingency-fee lawyers suing Whirlpool claim that all modern
water- and- energy-efficient, fabric-friendly, front-loading
washing machines aren't good enough.  Why? If not properly
maintained, these washers can develop a moldy, musty odor.  The
lawyers acknowledge this is true of older washers, too, but they
say modern washers smell more often.  Estimates of potential jury
awards against the industry overall range into billions of
dollars.

Like many class actions ginned up by plaintiffs' lawyers, this
case does not lack for gall in its intent to inflate the class
size and thus the enormity of a damages award.  For example, it
demands payments to the overwhelming majority of class members who
have never experienced a moldy odor in their washers, including
people who have happily owned their machines for 10 years or more.

Meanwhile, Consumers Union reliability surveys indicate that less
than 1 percent of owners of modern washing machines report a smell
four years after purchase.  Data from Sears, one of the nation's
largest sellers and servicers of washing machines, similarly show
only 2 to 3 percent of consumers reporting such problems.  Such
paltry complaint numbers, without a class action's multiplier
effect, could never deliver the mega-jackpot that big-time
plaintiffs' attorneys now often seek.

So the question before the Supreme Court, should it choose to hear
the defendant's appeal, is one of class certification.  That
decision will go a long way in determining the final outcome of
the suit.  Certification of a huge class all but guarantees a
settlement favorable to the plaintiffs' lawyers because few
companies, regardless of how strong their case may be, will risk a
jury verdict that could cost them billions.

Last year, the high court recognized this problem and tightened
the standards for certifying a class in a landmark employment
case.  The justices ruled that individuals comprising a class must
share "common questions of law or fact" determined after "rigorous
analysis" of the "merits of the underlying claim."

The Whirlpool lawsuit includes 21 distinct machine models.  The
two named plaintiffs did not maintain their machines as specified
and continued using them even after the suit was initiated.  Most
of the purported class never smelled mold.  How could a federal
district court in Ohio and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
grant and then uphold class certification in light of these facts?

If certain lower courts are allowed to ignore a major Supreme
Court precedent, others may come to see the high court's limited
capacity to hear fresh appeals of presumably settled law as an
advantage in an ideological war of attrition.  As it has in recent
years with antitrust and securities law, the high court can nip in
the bud such thinking on class-certification standards with the
Whirlpool case.

Beyond the urgent question of class certification, the 6th
Circuit's opinion being appealed also establishes a radical new
theory of product liability.  In essence, it says that even if
just one buyer of a manufactured product might one day become
dissatisfied with the product, even if proper product maintenance
would have prevented that dissatisfaction, and even if the product
is otherwise widely and enthusiastically embraced in the
marketplace, everyone who ever bought the product has, by
definition, been overcharged and can be joined in a class action
against the manufacturer.

Such a wild expansion of product liability law in the class-action
context could make trial lawyers rich beyond their wildest dreams
while bankrupting countless manufacturers and dooming those
manufacturers' employees to the nightmare of joblessness.

Oddly enough, this Ohio-based case comes as Whirlpool is bringing
its overseas washing machine assembly back to the United States,
adding thousands of jobs at its factory in the Buckeye State.
Thus, the importance of the Supreme Court's decision on whether to
hear class-certification arguments in Whirlpool v. Glazer cannot
be overstated.  The future of manufacturing in America depends on
it.


WINNER MEDICAL: Faces Three Shareholder Class Suits in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Winner Medical Group Inc. is facing three shareholder class action
lawsuits 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.

Between April 9 and April 27, 2012, three purported shareholder
class actions were filed against the Company, its board of
directors and its chief executive officer, Jianquan Li, in
District Court, Clark County, Nevada (the "Class Actions").  The
Class Actions arise from Mr. Li's initial non-binding proposal on
April 2, 2012, to acquire all outstanding shares of the Company's
common stock not owned or controlled by him or his wife in a
"going private" transaction.  The Class Actions allege that the
Company's board of directors has breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company as a result of the proposed "going private"
transaction, and the Company has aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.  The Company has not yet responded to the Class Actions,
but believes the allegations therein are without merit.  The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the claims.

The Company has not yet been required to respond formally to these
lawsuits.  In addition, the complaints do not specify any amount
of damages to be sought by plaintiffs.  Because these matters are
in very early stages, the Company cannot determine whether or not
an adverse outcome is probable, nor can it provide a reasonable
estimate of any potential losses related to these matters.  While
the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of
these actions and intends to defend them vigorously, an adverse
outcome in one or more of these matters could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or liquidity.


WSFS FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fee Suit Dismissed in 2nd Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit over overdraft fees was dismissed after
it was settled in the second quarter of 2012 for an immaterial
amount, WSFS Financial Corporation 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.

On November 18, 2011, a purported class action captioned Joy v.
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, was filed in the Delaware
Superior Court for New Castle County.  The Complaint challenges
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB's practices relating to its
assessment and collection of overdraft fees on checking accounts.
Damages are sought for the statute of limitations period
applicable to the claims made in the lawsuit, and include
restitution of overdraft fees paid to WSFS Bank, actual damages
allegedly sustained by customers, punitive damages, and attorney's
fees.  This case is nearly identical to numerous other lawsuits
that have been brought by a small handful of class action
litigators.  The Company has discovered more than 120 other
overdraft lawsuits that have been brought against U.S. banks.

During the second quarter of 2012, the lawsuit was settled and
dismissed.  The Company says the costs of the settlement were not
material and were included in its second quarter results.


                           *********

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  * * *