CAR_Public/121016.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 205

                               Headlines

APPLE: Italian Consumer Associations Launch Class Action
ASTELLAS PHARMA: Hospital Seeks Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit
BEEBE MEDICAL: Settles Class Action Over Pediatrician's Abuse
CELESTICA INC: Court May Throw Out Securities Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Discovery in Suit Over 2008 Offering Ongoing

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in FWPP-Related Suit
CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Faces Four Class Actions in Circuit Court
CONSTAR INT'L: December 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EBAY: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Exclusions

EL PASO CORP: December 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ELLIPTIGO INC: Recalls 140 Elliptical Cycles Due to Fall Hazard
EMBASSY SUITES: Records Calls Without Callers' Consent, Suit Says
FANNIE MAE: Montgomery County Commission Mulls Class Action
FLYING FOOD: Recalls Protein Bistro Boxes Due to Health Risk

FOUR SEASONS: Recalls Herring Fillets "Atlantic Recipe" in Oil
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Judge Allows Interns' Class Action to Expand
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls 18 oz. Hearts of Romaine Salad
FRITO-LAY: Sued Over Misleading "All Natural" Popcorn Labeling
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal in IndyMac Certificates Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Certain Claims in Consolidated CDO Suit Dismissed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Two Suits Over Pass-Through Certificates
GOOGLE: Files Motion to Dismiss Gmail Privacy Class Action
IRELAND: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Child Homecare Budget
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss Remaining Enron Suits Pending

MACY'S: Sued Over False Claims on Jewelry
MITSUBISHI: Faces Antitrust Class Actions Over RAM Price Fixing
NEBRASKA STATE: Senator Files Class Action Over Bar Assoc. Dues
NEW YORK: Loses Stop-and-Frisk Class Certification Challenge
OREGON ICE: Recalls Aldens Organic and Cascade Glacier Ice Cream

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Pending
PFIZER INC: Arkansas Farmers File Suit Over Arsenic in Rice
PFIZER INC: Settles Celebrex Class Action for $164 Million
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over AWP Information
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Chantix and Champix

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: "Lewis" Suit Over Overdraft Fees Dismissed
SUNPOWER CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
TYSON FOODS: Wal-Mart Received Recalled Products, FSIS Says
UNION DRILLING: Brodsky & Smith Files Class Action vs. BOD
VELVET ICE: Recalls Ice Cream Containing Peanut Products

YAHOO! INC: Sued for Illegally Disclosing Users' Personal Data


                          *********

APPLE: Italian Consumer Associations Launch Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Willan, writing for IDG News Service, reports that two
Italian consumer associations are launching a class action lawsuit
against Apple for failing to respect Italy's national warranty
regulations, the lawyer coordinating the action confirmed on
Oct. 10.

Rome-based Federconsumatori and the Center for the Protection of
Consumers and Users (CTCU), based in the northeastern city of
Bolzano, announced the action in a joint statement on Oct. 9.

The groups cited a EUR900,000 (US$1.16 million) fine imposed on
Apple by Italy's Antitrust Authority in December and upheld on
appeal by the Regional Administrative Tribunal (TAR) of Lazio in
May.  Their statement also referred to a letter sent recently by
European Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding to justice ministers
in the European Union's 27 member states urging them to keep a
close watch on Apple's "unacceptable marketing practices."

"It has been reported in recent days that the Antitrust Authority
has reopened the Apple case because Group companies are allegedly
continuing to violate the consumer code," the statement said.

Apple fell foul of the Italian competition authority for promoting
the sale of its AppleCare Protection Plan warranty extension
without adequately clarifying consumers' automatic and free-of-
cost entitlement to a minimum two-year guarantee under E.U. law.

The consumer groups said they were launching the legal action in
view of Apple's continuing violation of consumer protections and
with the intention of recovering the financial losses incurred by
Apple's customers as a result of its "past and present behavior."

Massimo Cerniglia, the Rome lawyer coordinating the legal action,
said the suit would be against the three Apple Group companies
already sanctioned by the Antitrust Authority: Irish-registered
Apple Sales International, and two Italian companies, Apple Italia
and Apple Retail Italia.

The companies would be formally notified of the action within a
few days and consumers who had been induced to purchase
unnecessary warranty extensions would have around six months to
decide whether or not to participate in the lawsuit, Mr. Cerniglia
said in a telephone interview.

The two consumer groups would bear the legal costs if the action
was unsuccessful, and consumers would be expected to contribute a
modest 10 percent to 15 percent of their financial compensation in
the event of victory, he said.

Mr. Cerniglia said he had no idea how many consumers would sign up
for the lawsuit but the issue affected many thousands of Apple
customers.

"We have had a lot of reports from customers saying the phenomenon
of miss-selling warranty protection was continuing, even after the
action of the Antitrust Authority and the TAR ruling," he said.
"Apple products are excellent and I use them myself.  It's just a
shame the quality of the marketing is not as good as the products
themselves."

A year ago, a university student from the northeastern town of
Vicenza won EUR5,800 in damages and costs from Apple for failing
to recognize his right to a second year of warranty on his
computer, as provided by Italian law.  On that occasion the
plaintiff, Nils Calasanzio, was backed by another consumer
association, ADUSBEF (Association for the Defense of the Users of
Banking and Financial Services), which provided legal assistance.

According to Apple Insider's Mikey Campbell, in December, Apple
was fined EUR900,000, or nearly $1.2 million, by the Italian
Antitrust Authority for not providing adequate information to
customers about the length of product guarantees and the company's
AppleCare extended warranty.  Apple lost a subsequent appeal of
the ruling and was forced to add a disclaimer on its packaging to
inform customers of the existing two years of coverage.

In July, Italy's AGCM competition and marketing authority
threatened Apple's Italian operations with a 30 day suspension and
additional fines after finding the company had not yet fully
complied with the earlier order. Apple appealed the ruling, saying
the AGCM's warning was based on a flawed interpretation of the
law.


ASTELLAS PHARMA: Hospital Seeks Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, reports that Lakeland Regional
Medical Center on Oct. 9 again requested certification of an $867
million antitrust class action accusing Astellas Pharma Inc. of
improperly requiring use of its Adenoscan drug with patented
cardiac tests, saying an earlier denial misread the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois.


BEEBE MEDICAL: Settles Class Action Over Pediatrician's Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys for the state medical
society and a southern Delaware hospital have settled a class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of former pediatrician
Earl Bradley, who sexually abused scores of his young patients
over more than a decade.

Under the settlement disclosed on Oct. 10, $123 million will be
placed into a trust for the benefit of victims.  Mr. Bradley, 59,
is serving 14 life sentences for child rape.

The victims fund is composed mainly of insurance proceeds, with an
additional cash contribution from Beebe Medical Center.

Defendants in the lawsuit included Beebe -- where Mr. Bradley had
hospital privileges -- the Medical Society of Delaware, and five
physicians accused by the plaintiffs of not reporting suspicions
about the ex-doctor to authorities.

The settlement resolves claims against all the defendants.

Attorneys representing the victims declined to comment on Oct. 10.
Attorneys for Beebe said in a statement that "all parties
compromised."

Superior Court Judge Joseph Slights III has scheduled a Nov. 13
hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement.

The plan submitted to the court provides for claimants to be
separated into five categories, based upon the harm suffered and
the need for continued therapy.  Children within each category
will receive the same compensation, but it's unclear what the
range of payments could be among categories or how many families
will get money.

The fund will be administered by Thomas Rutter, a former
Pennsylvania judge who served as a settlement arbitrator in the
Catholic Diocese of Wilmington's bankruptcy.  The diocese sought
bankruptcy protection in 2009 because of liabilities stemming from
child abuse by pedophile priests.

Mr. Rutter will be assisted by Dr. Anne Steinberg, a Pennsylvania
pediatrician and child forensic psychiatrist.

Mr. Bradley was arrested in December 2009 after a young girl
complained to her mother after an office visit that he had hurt
her.  Investigators searched Mr. Bradley's Lewes office complex,
decorated with Disney characters and miniature amusement park
rides, and seized scores of homemade videos showing children,
mostly toddlers, being molested.

Mr. Bradley was convicted last year by a judge who viewed more
than 13 hours of videos showing sex crimes against more than 80
victims.  He waived his right to a jury trial after the judge
denied a motion to suppress the video evidence because it had been
illegally seized.

The Delaware Supreme Court last month upheld Mr. Bradley's
conviction, rejecting his challenge to the search warrant.
Mr. Bradley's public defenders have said they will not file any
further appeals on his behalf, meaning a federal court review is
unlikely.

Investigations ordered by Delaware's governor and attorney general
after Mr. Bradley's arrest found that medical society officials,
individual doctors and the Delaware Department of Justice violated
state law by not reporting possible unprofessional behavior to the
medical licensing board.  The board itself was criticized for
failing to act on information it did receive about Mr. Bradley.

State lawmakers subsequently passed several bills tightening
regulation of doctors and clarifying obligations of the medical
and law-enforcement communities to report and communicate about
suspected physician misconduct and child abuse.


CELESTICA INC: Court May Throw Out Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a
potential $300-million securities class-action suit against
Celestica Inc. could become the latest casualty of a court ruling
that critics say places severe restrictions on shareholders
looking to sue companies accused of making misleading statements.

The plaintiffs in the case, which was in court last week, allege
in court documents that Toronto-based Celestica provided a "false
picture" of financial results and inventory levels during its
2005-2006 restructuring, costing shareholders after the issues
were later made public and the company's stock sank.

But the allegations could be thrown out of court on a
technicality, following an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling earlier
this year that strictly interprets a three-year deadline for such
cases under the Ontario Securities Act.

In this case, Celestica denies the allegations, which have not
been proven.  The company has filed a statement of defense arguing
that its disclosure was "proper, complete, timely" and complied
with all rules.  The Ontario lawsuit has not yet been certified as
a class-action.

In February, the Ontario Court of Appeal shocked both sides of the
securities class-action bar with its landmark decision in a
lawsuit against Timminco Ltd.  The court ruled that plaintiffs in
securities class actions who bought shares on a stock exchange
must secure the leave, or permission, they need from a judge to
proceed within three years of the alleged misrepresentation by the
company.

Lawyers who act for plaintiffs in securities class-actions warned
the new time limit would destroy dozens of existing cases and
unfairly prohibit investors from filing new ones, as it would
allow defendants to simply run out the clock.  But litigators on
Bay Street who defend corporations against securities class-
actions argue the time limit frees companies from unproven
allegations that can hang over them for years.

The ruling's effects have already been felt.  A potential
multibillion-dollar class-action against Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce that alleged the bank misled investors over exposure to
U.S. subprime mortgages in 2007 was tossed out in July. But in
August, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg of the Ontario
Superior Court refused to throw out a massive shareholder lawsuit
dogging Imax Corp. based on the time limit, instead issuing a
retroactive ruling.

Lawyers for Celestica argued in court that time was up for the
plaintiffs, since the allegations date back to 2005 and 2006.
Hearing the case is Mr. Justice Paul Perell, the judge who
originally sided with the plaintiffs in the Timminco case.

Celestica lawyer Nigel Campbell, of Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP,
declined to comment on the case.  But in written arguments, he
argued that the plaintiffs had essentially dragged their feet,
pursuing a parallel lawsuit in the U.S. instead.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP, said the
investors in the case originally pursued a lawsuit in the U.S. in
2007.  But a controversial 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling now bans
foreigners who bought stock on a foreign exchange from suing
companies in U.S. courts.  This forced the Canadian plaintiffs to
file new actions here, only to run into yet another obstacle: the
Timminco time-limit decision.

Mr. Baert calls the three-year limit "unworkable," and unjust to
investors.  Not only does it put the fate of shareholder claims at
the mercy of a clogged court system, he said, it rewards companies
the longer they hide their financial problems.

"How are shareholders supposed to bring claims on
misrepresentations where the truth doesn't come out for more than
three years and a day?" Mr. Baert said in an interview.  ". . . I
mean, the better you are at hiding it, the less likely you are to
be sued."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Discovery in Suit Over 2008 Offering Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action lawsuit relating to Chesapeake
Energy Corporation's July 2008 common stock offering is
proceeding, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering.  Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and
counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
September 11, 2009, alleging that the registration statement for
the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and
seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission.  The action was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma on October 13, 2009.  On September 2, 2010, the court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the court certified
the class on March 30, 2012.  Defendants moved for summary
judgment on grounds of loss causation and materiality on December
16, 2011, and the plaintiff filed an Opposition on
May 18, 2012.  Discovery in the case is proceeding.

The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability
of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with the
case.  A derivative action was also filed in the District Court of
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, on March 10, 2009, against certain
current and former directors and officers of the Company asserting
breaches of fiduciary duties relating to alleged material
omissions in the registration statement for the July 2008
offering.  The derivative action was stayed pursuant to
stipulation.  A second derivative action relating to the July 2008
offering was filed against certain current and former directors
and officers of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on September 6, 2011.  This action
also asserts breaches of fiduciary duties with respect to alleged
material omissions in the offering registration statement.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the action on November 30, 2011,
which is pending.  Chesapeake is named as a nominal defendant in
both derivative actions.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is facing class action lawsuits in
Oklahoma alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 19, July 17 and July 20, 2012, putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma against the Company, Chesapeake Energy Savings and
Incentive Stock Bonus Plan (the Plan), and certain of the
Company's officers and directors alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The actions are brought on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan, and allege that as fiduciaries of the
Plan, defendants owed fiduciary duties, which they purportedly
breached by, among other things, failing to manage and administer
the Plan's assets with appropriate skill and care, failing to
disclose material information concerning such matters as
participation of the Company's CEO, Aubrey K. McClendon, in the
Founder Well Participation Program (FWPP) and his related
financing arrangements and the Company's volumetric production
payment (VPP) transactions, engaging in activities that were in
conflict with the best interest of the Plan, and permitting the
Plan to over-concentrate in Chesapeake stock.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, damages of an unspecified amount, equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability
of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with
these cases.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in FWPP-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lead plaintiff has been appointed in the class action lawsuit
over purported misstatements and omissions concerning the
participation of Chesapeake Energy Corporation's chief executive
officer in the Founder Well Participation Program, 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 putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012, against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
purported misstatements and omissions concerning the participation
of the Company's CEO, Aubrey K. McClendon, in the Founder Well
Participation Program (FWPP) and his related financing
arrangements, the Company's volumetric production payment (VPP)
transactions, and potential conflicts of interest related to Mr.
McClendon's personal hedging activities and association with a
hedge fund.  The action seeks class certification, damages of an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and other costs.  On July
20, 2012, a lead plaintiff was appointed and a consolidated
amended complaint is expected to be filed in the next 60 days.
The Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss
or estimate a range of potential loss associated with the case.


CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Faces Four Class Actions in Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Allen, writing for mlive, reports that four class-action
lawsuits have been filed in the 7th Circuit Court in Genesee
County against Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc., Citizens' board of
directors and FirstMerit Corporation.

Cecily Hoogerhyde, Michael Decker, Peter Block and a fourth,
unnamed plaintiff claim in lawsuits that Citizens Bank --
headquartered in Flint -- its board of directors and FirstMerit
all failed to uphold their fiduciary obligations to their
shareholders following the Sept. 13 $912 million stock-for-stock
sale agreement of Citizens to FirstMerit.

Under the agreement, Citizens shareholders will receive 1.37
shares of FirstMerit common stock for each Citizens Republic
share, an approximate value of $22.50 per share.

The lawsuits claim that the $22.50 per share value has diminished
due to FirstMerit's falling stock.

"The consideration to be paid to the Company's shareholders for
their interest in Citizens Republic is inadequate and materially
undervalues the Company, even at the implied value of $22.50 per
share at the time the deal was announced," Ms. Hoogerhyde's
lawsuit said.

"Just prior to the announcement, FirstMerit had been trading above
$17 per share.  After the announcement, the stock has traded as
low as $14.94, causing the implied consideration to drop nearly 10
percent, to less than $20.50 per share."

The suit also said that Citizens' board of directors failed to
negotiate for a set value for the exchange rate, meaning Citizens
failed to guard against downward fluctuation of FirstMerit's
stock.  The suit said the value of the deal to Citizens'
stockholders could continue to drop.

David Fink, of Fink & Associates Law based in Bloomfield Hills, is
one of the attorneys representing Ms. Hoogerhyde.  Mr. Fink
refused to answer questions regarding the case and also refused to
speak about how the lawsuit originated.

"I'm not authorized to comment," Mr. Fink said.  "I don't comment
on pending litigation. I don't try cases through the media and I
will absolutely not tell you the process by which I came to
represent my client."

Bert Ely, chief executive officer of the bank consulting firm Ely
& Co. in Alexandria, Va., said that oftentimes when mergers
happen, law firms will try to attract class-action lawsuits
against one or more parties involved in the merger.

"There's an element of the bar that certain class action lawyers
are always sniffing around," he said in a recent phone interview.
"The fact that they're sniffing around doesn't mean that anything
will come of it.  We see a lot of cases threatened and sometimes
brought to court, but a lot of them don't pan out to anything."

Representatives from Citizens Bank and FirstMerit each said they
do not comment on pending litigation.

The plaintiffs could not be reached for comment.

The cases are before Circuit Court Judge Richard B. Yuille.


CONSTAR INT'L: December 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 10 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
        In re CONSTAR INT'L INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
                 Master File No. 03cv05020

                  This Document Relates To:

                        CLASS ACTION
                         ALL ACTIONS

                       SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL INC.
("CONSTAR") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION
STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS FOR CONSTAR'S NOVEMBER 14, 2002 INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a
hearing will be held on December 19, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig, at the James A. Byrne United
States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of
the Action for the sum of $23,500,000 in cash should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether,
thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice
against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated August 31, 2012; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; (4) the reasonableness
of the application of Lead Plaintiffs' counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation, together with interest thereon; and (5) the
reasonableness of an award to Lead Plaintiffs for their service to
the Class.

If you purchased Constar common stock in the initial public
offering, your rights may be affected by this Litigation and the
settlement thereof.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
Settlement Fairness Hearing and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Constar Int'l
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co.
LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040, by calling toll-
free , or by downloading this information at www.gilardi.com .  If
you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release form postmarked no later than January 3, 2013,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you
request to be excluded, in writing, to the above address,
postmarked by December 5, 2012.  If you excluded yourself pursuant
to the Notice of Pendency of Class Action mailed in July 2011, you
need not do so again.

Any objection to the Settlement must be filed with the Court and
received by counsel listed below no later than December 5, 2012.

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

          Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs

               - and -

          DECHERT LLP
          STEVEN B. FEIRSON
          MICHAEL S. DOLUISIO
          STUART T. STEINBERG
          Cira Centre 2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104

          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          MARC J. SONNENFELD
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

          Counsel for Defendants

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

DATED: September 14, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


EBAY: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Exclusions
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that EBay sells insurance that
excludes from coverage the exact items it ships, rendering the
policy useless, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Luke Knowles claims eBay knew its ShipCover
insurance excludes entire categories of products from coverage,
but the company does not disclose that to sellers when they buy
the insurance.

He sued eBay, eBay Insurances Services, Brown & Brown of Missouri,
and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.

Mr. Knowles says he is a "regular seller of coins on eBay," and
bought ShipCover insurance repeatedly to cover gift cards and
coins he sold.

When a buyer notified him that a package he sent arrived open,
with the coin missing, Mr. Knowles says, he refunded the buyer the
purchase price.

Mr. Knowles made a claim under the ShipCover insurance, but the
defendants denied on, claiming that the "'item insured is on the
list of items that are ineligible for coverage,'" according to the
complaint.

Mr. Knowles claims they denied his claim "based on the category
selected by plaintiff when listing the coin."  In other words,
they accepted his premium payment, while simultaneously denying
coverage for the item he wanted to insure.

"The ShipCover policy excludes from coverage 'coins, bullions,
loose diamonds or stones, stocks, bonds, currency, deeds,
evidences of debt, travelers checks, money orders, gift
certificates, calling cards, lottery tickets, admission tickets,
or any other negotiable documents,'" the complaint states.

But Mr. Knowles says: "These exclusions are not evident on the
checkout page, even though that page offers the insurance sets the
insured value, and that determines the price of insurance."

He adds that had he "been aware that the exact item he sought to
insure was excluded from the policy, he never would have purchased
ShipCover insurance because it was worthless. In fact, no person
would purchase this insurance for any of the excluded categories
if they were aware of the exclusions as it defeats the entire
purpose of the insurance."

And, he says, the defendants "were aware when they offered the
policy that plaintiff's item was excluded from coverage because he
had specifically listed it on eBay in the predetermined category
of 'Coins & Paper Money.'"

When listing an item a seller must identify the item from a
predetermined list of categories set by eBay.  The seller must
then select a subcategory, which also is set by eBay.

Mr. Knowles claims that eBay, which shares in the revenue
generated by ShipCover insurance, was aware it was offering
insurance to the class on "other items specifically excluded from
ShipCover insurance by virtue of eBay's listing system."
He claims the defendants "intentionally elected not to prohibit
sellers from obtaining ShipCover insurance when merchandise is
sold under the categories of items that are specifically excluded
under the policy."

Mr. Knowles seeks damages for unfair competition, negligence,
illusory contract, unjust enrichment, unconscionable contract and
unilateral mistake.

He is represented by James Mills, of Oakland.


EL PASO CORP: December 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., and Labaton Sucharow LLP on Oct. 11 issued a statement
regarding the El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE EL PASO CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, CONSOLIDATED
C.A. NO. 6949-CS

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT
HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD EL PASO CORPORATION COMMON
STOCK AT ANY TIME BETWEEN AND INCLUDING AUGUST 30, 2011 AND MAY
25, 2012.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that Co-Lead
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned consolidated action (the
"Action") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with
Defendants (the "Settlement") for $110 million in cash.  If
approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims
asserted in the Action, and all claims asserted in the Texas
Action (defined in the Notice described below) and the New York
Action (defined in the Notice described below) will be dismissed
with prejudice.  A settlement hearing will be held on December 3,
2012 at 12:30 p.m. at the Court of Chancery in the New Castle
County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to
determine, among other things, (i) whether the Class consisting of
all persons and entities who held El Paso Corporation common stock
at any time between and including August 30, 2011 and May 25,
2012, and each of their transferees, successors and assigns,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), should be certified permanently
for Settlement purposes; (ii) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii)
whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the releases specified and described in the
Stipulation should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v)
whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT.  IF YOU HELD YOUR SHARES OF
EL PASO CORPORATION COMMON STOCK AS OF MAY 25, 2012, YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"),
and the Proof of Claim form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
at El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation, c/o GCG, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9943, Dublin, OH 43017-5943.  Copies of
the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
settlement website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.elpasoshareholderlitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked no later than December 27, 2012.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Co-Lead Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the
Register in Chancery and delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and counsel
for Defendants such that they are received no later than November
23, 2012, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than
requests for the Notice, may be made to any of the following Co-
Lead Counsel:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (800) 380-8496

          Megan D. McIntyre, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000

          Ira A. Schochet, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (888) 219-6877

DATED: October 11, 2012
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE


ELLIPTIGO INC: Recalls 140 Elliptical Cycles Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 140 ElliptiGO 11R outdoor elliptical cycles were voluntarily
recalled by ElliptiGO Inc., of Solana Beach, California, in
cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The drive arm on the ElliptiGO cycles can crack or break during
use, posing a fall hazard to the user.

ElliptiGO has received three reports of the drive arm cracking.
No injuries have been reported.

The ElliptiGO 11R is an outdoor elliptical cycle used by adults
for exercise.  It is a scooter-like device that combines an
elliptical trainer with a bicycle.  The ElliptiGO 11R has an
aluminum frame, carbon-fiber drive arms, two 20" spoked-wheels, an
11-speed internally geared hub, front and rear brakes and
adjustable height steering column.  Only ElliptiGo 11R cycles with
serial numbers that range from 12-003-069 through 12-020-035 are
included in the recall.  The serial number is located underneath
the product to the rear of where the kickstand attaches to the
frame.  The cycles are matte black with white markings and the
words ElliptiGO on the frame.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13702.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold by
ElliptiGO Inc. online at www.elliptigo.com and various specialty
bicycle and specialty fitness retailers nationwide from April 2012
through July 2012 for about $3,500.

Consumers should stop using the ElliptiGO 11R cycles included in
the recall immediately and contact the firm to receive free
replacement drive arms to be installed by an authorized dealer.
For additional information, contact ElliptiGO toll-free at (888)
551-0117 between 12:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.elliptigo.com/recall.html/or http://www.elliptigo.com/
and click on Support/Safety Notices.


EMBASSY SUITES: Records Calls Without Callers' Consent, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre McMahon and Latroya Simpson, individually and on behalf of
classes of similarly situated individuals v. Embassy Suites
Management LLC; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-12-
522496 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 18, 2012)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged policy and practice of
recording, intercepting and eavesdropping upon calls made or
routed to the telephone number 1-800-EMBASSY (1-800-362-2779).

The toll-free reservation telephone number connects callers with
the central reservations for Embassy Suites, the Plaintiffs say.
They allege that the Defendants intentionally and surreptitiously
record and intercept or eavesdrop upon telephone calls made to
this number without warning or disclosing to callers that they are
doing so.

The Plaintiffs are residents of California.

Embassy Suites is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of Delaware with a principal place of business in McLean,
Virginia.  The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Company removed the lawsuit on October 5, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because the matter in controversy is in excess of $5
million.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:12-cv-05169
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Carey G. Been, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  cbeen@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Randall J. Sunshine, Esq.
          Angela C. Agrusa Esq.
          David B. Farkas, Esq.
          LINER GRODE STEIN YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE
          REGENSTREIF & TAYLOR LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
          Telephone: (310) 500-3500
          Facsimile: (310) 500-3501
          E-mail: rsunshine@linerlaw.com
                  aagrusa@linerlaw.com
                  dfarkas@linerlaw.com


FANNIE MAE: Montgomery County Commission Mulls Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery Advertiser reports that the Montgomery County
Commission is planning a class-action lawsuit against two
financial institutions over what the county says are several years
of unpaid recording fees.

The Montgomery Advertiser reports that the commission voted on
Oct. 9 to sue Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing
Finance Authority in federal court in Montgomery.  Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac have not paid deed and mortgage recording fees at
least since 2007.  They say they are exempt as agencies of the
federal government or by their charter.

Recording fees are $1 for every $1,000 in assessed property value.

The county's attorney, Jimmy Walter, said similar lawsuits have
been filed by counties in Michigan and Georgia.  One federal judge
ruled the financial institutions must pay, but the other ruled
they are exempt.


FLYING FOOD: Recalls Protein Bistro Boxes Due to Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Out of utmost concern and caution for its customers, and in
response to Justin's Nut Butter expanded voluntary recall of 0.5
oz single-serve Honey Peanut Butter squeeze packs, Flying Food
Group, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is initiating a
voluntary recall of Starbucks brand Protein Bistro Box with Enjoy
By dates 8/10/12 - 10/06/12 which contain the above named peanut
butter product.  The recalled peanut butter squeeze packs
contained in the Protein Bistro Boxes have the following Best By
dates: 7/14/13, 7/26/13, 7/27/13, 7/28/13, 7/29/13, 8/9/23,
8/10/13, 8/13/13, 8/14/13, 8/15/13, 8/26/13, 8/27/13, 8/28/13,
8/29/13, or 8/30/13.

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

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

Flying Food Group is issuing this voluntary recall linked to the
supplier's recall to minimize any risk to public health.

The recalled product was distributed solely to Starbucks retail
stores in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Texas,
Arizona, Nevada, and California from 8/8/12 to 10/4/12.  All
impacted product has been confirmed as removed from stores.

The Protein Bistro Box product is in a clear plastic container,
with a white code date sticker on the bottom of the container,
stating "Enjoy by" followed by the date in the following format: M
(Month) DD (Date), for example, 08 08 standing for August 8th.
The recalled Justin's single-serve Honey Peanut Butter pouches are
included inside the Protein Bistro Boxes and are fully labeled
with the Justin's brand and sealed.  The individual pouches are
dated stamped at the bottom of the pouch.  A Picture of the
recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323383.htm

Anyone who has the recalled product or the associated individual
Peanut Butter pouches in their possession should not consume it
and should destroy or discard the product.  Consumers with
questions may contact the Flying Food Group at (773) 387-8078,
Monday- Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

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

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

Recalled Protein Bistro Box Products and Enjoy By Dates:

  Brand       Product             Pack Size   Code Date Range
  -----       -------             ---------   ---------------
  Starbucks   Protein Bistro Box   6.80 oz    Enjoy By 8/1012 -
                                              10/6/12
  UPC: 762111881502
  Included States: CT, MA, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, VA, GA, FL,
                   IL, WI, MN, IN, TX, AZ, NV, CA

Recalled Justin's Peanut Butter Pouch, contained inside the
Protein Bistro Box Products:

  Brand       Product             Pack Size   Code Date Range
  -----       -------             ---------   ---------------
  Justin's    Honey Peanut Butter   0.5 oz    7/26/13, 7/27/13,
                                              7/28/13, 7/29/13,
                                              8/09/13, 8/10/13,
                                              8/13/13, 8/14/13,
                                              8/15/13, 8/26/13,
                                              8/27/13, 8/28/13,
                                              8/29/13, 8/30/13
UPC: 894455000391
Included States: CT, MA, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, VA, GA, FL, IL,
                 WI, MN, IN, TX, AZ, NV, CA


FOUR SEASONS: Recalls Herring Fillets "Atlantic Recipe" in Oil
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four Seasons Dairy Inc., at 255 58th Street, in Brooklyn, New York
11220, is recalling Herring Fillets "Atlantic Recipe" in oil in
16.66 ounces/500 g because it may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy persons may
suffer only short term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headaches, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea.
Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.

The product comes in a 16.66 oz/500 g clean plastic tub with an
expiration date of 12/11/12 stamped on the bottom.  The recalled
herring fillets were distributed nationwide and are a product of
the Ukraine. Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323573.htm

The contamination was discovered after sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Market Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who have purchased 16.66 oz/500 g of Herring
Fillets "Atlantic Recipe" in oil are advised not to eat them, but
should return them to the place of purchase.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 718-567-7877.


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Judge Allows Interns' Class Action to Expand
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that a New
York federal judge is allowing a class-action lawsuit targeting
internship programs at Fox Entertainment Group to grow.

The original lawsuit, filed last August, involved two interns who
worked on Fox Searchlight's Black Swan and claimed that the
company's unpaid internship program violated minimum wage and
overtime laws.

But as The Hollywood Reporter reported this summer, during pre-
trial discovery, the attorneys at Outten & Golden began looking to
add new named plaintiffs and expand the purview of the litigation
after an investigation purportedly showed "that the same hiring,
personnel and company policies that applied to Searchlight interns
applied to all interns who participated in FEG's internship
program."

Fox resisted the plaintiffs' attempts to file an amended lawsuit
that would subject it to inquiries into internship programs at its
various divisions as well as corporate interns.  The entertainment
giant argued that a judge should reject the motion.

At a hearing on Oct. 9, Judge William Pauley disagreed with the
assessment and ruled that federal rules of civil procedure have
liberal amendment standards.  As such, he is allowing the new
bigger lawsuit with some caveats.

The original lawsuit, filed back in September, was brought on
behalf of Alex Footman and Eric Glatt, both of whom say they
worked on Black Swan in late 2009 and early 2010.

In August, their attorneys also sought to add Eden Antalik, who
participated in the FEG internship program, and Kanene Gratts, who
worked on Searchlight's (500) Days of Summer.

The additions meant an expansion of claims and potential damages.

Ms. Antalik would represent a class of "corporate interns" at Fox.
Meanwhile, Ms. Gratts did her work in California (unlike Footman
and Mr. Glatt, who worked in New York), and as such, her claims
also included a new state-based claim of unfair competition.

According to the judge's ruling, the plaintiff's lawyers have been
allowed to amend their complaint with the new named plaintiffs
with the following conditions: First, Ms. Antalalik will withdraw
overtime claims on behalf of the corporate interns.  Second,
Mr. Glatt, Mr. Footman and Ms. Gratts (the production interns)
will not bring claims against Fox Entertainment Group.  And third,
Ms. Gratts' California claims don't relate back to the filing of
the original complaint (meaning Gratts' class won't date back
further than about four years from this August).

Overall, it's largely what the plaintiffs wanted.

"What this means as a practical matter is that the scope of the
putative class is much larger," says Elizabeth Wagoner, one of the
attorneys representing the interns.  "The lawsuit will not only
cover Fox Searchlight, but all interns covered by the hiring
practices (that led to the named plaintiffs' being interns)."

Ms. Wagoner adds that she isn't sure which specific entities at
Fox will be targeted for their internship programs.  It will
depend on what comes out in further discovery.  The plaintiffs are
targeting specific hiring practices that led to interns being
hired to work without pay, even though they were required to fill
out I-9 forms, sign confidentiality agreements and were deemed
"employees" covered under workers' compensation laws.  Ms. Wagoner
says that the judge ordered Fox to turn over more information.

An amended complaint will be filed by the end of this week.
Discovery is now scheduled to be completed by the second week of
December.  Oral arguments on summary judgment motions have been
tentatively scheduled for next April.

Fox hasn't responded yet to a request for comment.


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls 18 oz. Hearts of Romaine Salad
-----------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express Incorporated is conducting a voluntary,
precautionary recall of a limited quantity of Fresh Express Hearts
of Romaine Salad with a Use-by Date of October 11 and Product Code
of S270A24 due to a possible health risk from Salmonella.

No illnesses or consumer complaints have been reported to Fresh
Express at this time in association with this recall.  No other
Fresh Express products are subject to this recall.

The recall notification is being issued out of an abundance of
caution based on an isolated instance in which a random sample
yielded a positive result for Salmonella as part of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration's random sample testing program.  Fresh
Express is coordinating closely with regulatory officials.

Fresh Express customer service representatives are already
contacting relevant retailers to confirm the recalled product has
been removed from store shelves and inventories and that none is
available for consumer purchase.  Customers with questions are
instructed to contact their Fresh Express customer service
representative.  The recalled salads were distributed primarily in
the West-Northwest and Midwest regions of the U.S.

Consumers who may have purchased the recalled salad are asked not
to eat it, but to throw it out instead.  Fresh Express is offering
a full refund.  Consumers with questions or who would like to
secure a refund may call the Fresh Express Consumer Response
Center at (800) 242-5472 during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.


FRITO-LAY: Sued Over Misleading "All Natural" Popcorn Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robles, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., a Texas
corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-05170 (N.D. Calif., October 5, 2012)
accuses the Defendant of erroneously representing on the labeling
and packaging that its Smartfood Selects popcorn products are "All
Natural."

Specifically, the Defendant mistakenly represents that the
products are "All Natural," when in fact they are not because they
contain genetically modified organisms, Mr. Robles alleges.  He
contends that products containing GMOs should not be labeled "All
Natural" when they contain GMOs, and that Defendant's advertising
and labeling is deceptive and likely to mislead the public as a
result.

Mr. Robles is a resident of the city and county of San Francisco,
California.  He has purchased several of the products, including a
purchase of Smartfood Selects Cinnamon Brown Sugar Multigrain
Popped Chips in September 2012, from a Safeway Supermarket located
in San Francisco.

Frito-Lay is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware.  Frito-Lay is the owner, manufacturer
and distributor of the products, and is the company that created
and authorized the false, misleading and deceptive labeling and
advertising for the products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal in IndyMac Certificates Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in a class action lawsuit relating to IndyMac Bancorp,
Inc.'s pass-through certificates remain pending, according to The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named
as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May
14, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the
offering documents in connection with various securitizations of
mortgage-related assets violated the disclosure requirements of
the federal securities laws.  The defendants include IndyMac-
related entities formed in connection with the securitizations,
the underwriters of the offerings, certain ratings agencies which
evaluated the credit quality of the securities, and certain former
officers and directors of IndyMac affiliates.  On November 2,
2009, the underwriters moved to dismiss the complaint.  The motion
was granted in part on February 17, 2010, to the extent of
dismissing claims based on offerings in which no plaintiff
purchased, and the court reserved judgment as to the other aspects
of the motion.  By a decision dated June 21, 2010, the district
court formally dismissed all claims relating to offerings in which
no named plaintiff purchased certificates (including all offerings
underwritten by GS&Co.), and both granted and denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss in various other respects.  On May
17, 2010, four additional investors filed a motion seeking to
intervene in order to assert claims based on additional offerings
(including two underwritten by GS&Co.).  The defendants opposed
the motion on the ground that the putative intervenors' claims
were time-barred and, on June 21, 2011, the court denied the
motion to intervene with respect to, among others, the claims
based on the offerings underwritten by GS&Co.  Certain of the
putative intervenors (including those seeking to assert claims
based on two offerings underwritten by GS&Co.) have appealed.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $751 million principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the May
2010 motion to intervene.  On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank was
placed under a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
receivership, and on July 31, 2008, IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. filed
for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los
Angeles, California.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a
leading global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a wide range of financial services
to a substantial and diversified client base that includes
corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-
worth individuals.  Founded in 1869, the Company is headquartered
in New York and maintains offices in all major financial centers
around the world.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Certain Claims in Consolidated CDO Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain claims in the consolidated class action lawsuit
challenging The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s public disclosure of
its activities in the collateralized debt obligation market were
dismissed, 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.

Beginning April 26, 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the Company's
activities in the CDO market and the SEC investigation that led to
the SEC Action.  The purported class action complaints, which name
as defendants Group Inc. and certain officers and employees of
Group Inc. and its affiliates, have been consolidated, generally
allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seek unspecified damages.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint on July 25, 2011.  On October 6, 2011, the
defendants moved to dismiss, and by a decision, dated June 21,
2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on Group
Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice from
the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction,
but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to proceed.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a
leading global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a wide range of financial services
to a substantial and diversified client base that includes
corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-
worth individuals.  Founded in 1869, the Company is headquartered
in New York and maintains offices in all major financial centers
around the world.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Two Suits Over Pass-Through Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is defending two class action
lawsuits in New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various
mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates,
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.

GS&Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage
Securities Corp. (GSMSC) and three current or former Goldman Sachs
employees are defendants in a putative class action commenced on
December 11, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various
mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates
issued by various securitization trusts established by the Company
and underwritten by Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) in 2007.  The
complaint generally alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the federal
securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
rescission or rescissionary damages.  The defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with leave to
replead certain claims.  On March 31, 2010, the plaintiff filed a
third amended complaint relating to two offerings, which the
defendants moved to dismiss.  This motion to dismiss was denied as
to the plaintiff's Section 12(a)(2) claims and granted as to the
plaintiff's Section 11 claims, and the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration was denied.  The plaintiff filed a motion for
entry of final judgment or certification of an interlocutory
appeal as to plaintiff's Section 11 claims, which was denied.  The
plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to amend to reinstate the
damages claims based on allegations that it had sold its
securities, which was denied.  On May 5, 2011, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for entry of a final judgment dismissing all
its claims.  The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal with respect
to all of the offerings included in its original complaint.

On June 3, 2010, another investor (who had unsuccessfully sought
to intervene in the action) filed a separate putative class action
asserting substantively similar allegations relating to an
additional offering pursuant to the 2007 registration statement.
The district court twice granted defendants' motions to dismiss
this separate action, both times with leave to replead.  On
July 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.  These
trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote, approximately $785 million
principal amount of certificates to all purchasers in the offering
at issue in this amended complaint.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a
leading global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a wide range of financial services
to a substantial and diversified client base that includes
corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-
worth individuals.  Founded in 1869, the Company is headquartered
in New York and maintains offices in all major financial centers
around the world.


GOOGLE: Files Motion to Dismiss Gmail Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a class is
"contorting" state law "in ways the California Legislature never
intended" by claiming that Gmail violates California privacy
statutes, Google said in a motion to dismiss.

Lead plaintiffs Brad Scott and Todd Harrington claim that the web-
based service scans e-mails for words and content, and
intentionally intercepts messages between non-Gmail subscribers
and subscribers.

Describing such actions as wiretapping and eavesdropping, the
class says Google is in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

Google replied on Oct. 10 that its "fully automated processes
involve no human review of any kind."  It further emphasized that
its measures intend to screen out viruses and spam "for the
protection of its users."

Google also argues that California's privacy statutes are not
intended to address e-mails or other electronic communications;
that the plaintiffs are Alabama and Maryland citizens who do not
allege that their e-mails have any connection to California; and
that the plaintiffs failed to cite additional elements of the act
related to wiretapping and eavesdropping.

"In the context of e-mails, multiple courts have recognized that
no one can reasonably expect that the e-mails they send to others
will be free from the automated processing that is normally
associated with delivering e-mails," the 25-page motion states.

"Plaintiffs fail to articulate a single concrete injury stemming
from the automated processing of e-mails sent to Gmail users,"
Google added.  "Plaintiffs instead rely on conclusory allegations
that their privacy rights were infringed in the abstract."
The terms "electronic communication," "e-mail," "Internet" and
"computer" allegedly appear nowhere in the statutes, which the
state's Legislature has repeatedly clarified, the motion states.

Messrs. Scott and Harrington filed the action in Marin County
Superior Court in June.  It was removed to federal court in San
Jose.

But Google says that the plaintiffs "cannot invoke the protections
of California law" as residents of Alabama and Maryland with no
connection to the Golden State.

"Even if the court were to accept plaintiffs' invitation to
judicially rewrite the statute to reach electronic communications,
choice of law rules would still preclude applying CIPA to this
case," according to the motion, abbreviating the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

"CIPA makes clear on its face that it is intended to protect
California residents and not to regulate California businesses,"
Google added.

The tech giant says that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh should
dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Judge Koh will hear the motion, authored by Cooley LLP attorney
Whitty Somvichian, on March 21.


IRELAND: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Child Homecare Budget
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rogers, writing for Irish Examiner, reports that the
Government is facing a class action in Brussels over the lack of a
national paediatric homecare budget after a "rude" and "gruff"
health minister was accused of refusing to engage on the subject
with a renowned children's campaigner.

Jonathan Irwin, founder of the Jack and Jill Children's
Foundation, posted on Twitter: "Pointless meeting with Min Reilly
on Oct. 10.  Late rude gruff 12mins incl deafening Divisional bell
then left to vote never to be seen again."

When contacted, Mr. Irwin explained that, two weeks ago his wife,
Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, put down a motion in the Seanad "to ask
why Ireland was almost unique in Europe that there is no national
paediatric homecare nursing budget".

Mr. Irwin said that, as a result, a meeting was arranged for
Oct. 9 with Health Minister James Reilly for Mr. Irwin, his wife,
and a Jack and Jill senior nurse.

They pointed out that a Jack and Jill baby costs EUR16,500 per
year to care for but because of a lack of homecare budget, the HSE
paid EUR147,000 per year to keep a baby in hospital.

Mr. Irwin said the 300 babies they look after are aged 0-4 years,
after which the Government is meant to take over their care.

"Out of those babies who reach four, a third would be so fragile
that they would have to go into hospital, where they cost a
fortune."

He said they suggested that, for a trial period of 12 months, the
foundation would continue its hours for babies to the age of six.
They said the scheme could be externally monitored to show it
could save "EUR1m, EUR2m, or more" for the State.

"At the moment, they give us EUR500,000 per year.  I have to raise
EUR3m [through donations] per year.  To look after the children
for another two years, I would need EUR4m per year.  We were
asking them to up their investment by another EUR500,000 to bring
it to EUR1m a year."

However, he said they had no success with Dr. Reilly.

"He said he was between a rock and a hard place and the troika.
He never for one moment debated or asked us.  He said they could
provide carers . . . Then he had to go and vote and we were left
with three civil servants and we got nowhere.  We thought he was
going to come back."

Mr. Irwin said his wife will now put a motion down again and "we
have set the ball in motion to take a class action against the
Government until such time as they agree to put in a national
paediatric homecare budget".

Dr. Reilly's office was unable to provide a comment on Oct. 10.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss Remaining Enron Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. disclosed in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that motions to dismiss two remaining
lawsuits related to Enron Corp. remain pending.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the "Firm") and certain of its officers and
directors are involved in several lawsuits seeking damages arising
out of the Firm's banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its
subsidiaries ("Enron").  A number of actions and other proceedings
against the Firm previously were resolved, including a class
action lawsuit captioned Newby v. Enron Corp. and adversary
proceedings brought by Enron's bankruptcy estate.  A purported
class action filed on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who
participated in the Firm's 401(k) plan asserting claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by JPMorgan Chase, its
directors and named officers was dismissed, and the dismissal was
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  Motions to dismiss are pending in an individual action
by an Enron investor and an action by an Enron counterparty.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding
company.  The Company is a global financial services firm and a
banking institution in the United States, with global operations.
The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial services
for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial
transaction processing, asset management and private equity.


MACY'S: Sued Over False Claims on Jewelry
-----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Macy's sells jewelry labeled
as "fine gold" which is actually "sterling silver covered with a
microlayer of gold," a class action claims in Federal Court.


MITSUBISHI: Faces Antitrust Class Actions Over RAM Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that thirty-two states filed
separate federal antitrust class actions against Mitsubishi,
Toshiba and Hitachi for conspiring to fix the price of dynamic
random access memory chips.


NEBRASKA STATE: Senator Files Class Action Over Bar Assoc. Dues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin O'Hanlon, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that
Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha took his ongoing fight with the
Nebraska State Bar Association to federal court on Oct. 10, filing
a lawsuit alleging it is unconstitutional to force lawyers to pay
dues to the association.

The class action lawsuit seeks to prevent the bar association from
collecting mandatory dues from members who object to the money
being used for political, ideological and other non-germane
activities until the association adopts procedures that properly
safeguard its members' civil rights.

Sen. Lautenbaugh, a lawyer, has said the bar "frequently gets
involved in issues on which its members have divergent views and
which have nothing to do with the limited issues a mandatory bar
association is allowed to weigh in on."

"I regret this lawsuit was necessary, but I simply do not believe
there is any other way to make the NSBA follow the law," Sen.
Lautenbaugh said.

Bar association spokeswoman Jane Schoenike declined comment.

The association has some 9,300 members.  Dues are $275 a year.
Each member also must pay a $60 assessment to support the Counsel
for Discipline, which investigates complaints against lawyers.

The lawsuit says: "The First Amendment protects not only the
freedom to associate, but the freedom not to associate; and it
protects not only the freedom of speech, but the freedom to avoid
subsidizing group speech with which an individual disagrees."

Earlier this year, Sen. Lautenbaugh filed a petition asking the
Nebraska Supreme Court to eliminate its rule that Nebraska lawyers
be members of the bar association.  Sen. Lautenbaugh also
introduced a bill (LB644) during the past legislative session to
make membership in the bar voluntary.

The Supreme Court case is pending.  His bill was killed in
committee.

The Nebraska Supreme Court recently ordered the bar association to
submit a detailed accounting of all its activities as well as an
analysis of how its spending on activities such as lobbying
complies with the United States Constitution.

The court also ordered the association to submit an analysis of
the constitutional soundness of its "opt-out" program for
dissenting members in light of a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Knox v. Service Employees International Union.

In that case, the high court said the First Amendment did not
permit a public-sector union to impose a special assessment on a
member without consent.  The opinion, written by Justice Samuel
Alito, said unions must give their non-members notice of any new
spending they are assessing workers to support.

"The general rule -- individuals should not be compelled to
subsidize private groups or private speech -- should prevail," Mr.
Alito said.

Sen. Lautenbaugh also has cited a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case,
Keller v. State Bar of California, in which the high court, in a
unanimous decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
said although attorneys could be required to be members of a state
bar association, their dues could be used only for regulating the
legal profession and improving the quality of legal services.

The court said lawyers who are required to be members of a state
bar association have a First Amendment right to opt out of paying
for political or ideological activities of the association.

Sen. Lautenbaugh is being represented by the Mountain States Legal
Foundation, a nonprofit, public-interest entity dedicated to
individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and
ethical government, and the free enterprise system. Its offices
are in suburban Denver.


NEW YORK: Loses Stop-and-Frisk Class Certification Challenge
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to let New
York City appeal class certification in a lawsuit over racially
disparate stop-and-frisk police policies.

"Well over one hundred thousand people" may fall into a class of
plaintiffs who have been stopped by police since Jan. 31, 2005,
without reasonable suspicion, court records indicate.

In a May certification order, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin
said that the case of Floyd v. City of New York involved "an issue
of great public concern," namely "the disproportionate number of
blacks and Latinos, as compared to whites, who become entangled in
the criminal justice system."

The city sought leave to appeal, but the 2nd Circuit refused on
Oct. 10.

City lawyer Fay Ng said the refusal should not be interpreted as
an endorsement of Judge Scheindlin's reasoning.

"The court did not rule on the merits of the district court's
class-certification decision," Ms. Ng said in a statement.
"Rather, it simply decided that the city's challenge to that
decision should be heard at a later time.  While we are
disappointed, it was just a decision on a procedural aspect of the
case."

A key witness for the plaintiff class, Columbia Professor Jeffrey
Fagan, found that police have stopped, questioned and frisked New
Yorkers and visitors more than 2.8 million times between 2004 and
2009.

While the NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne asserts that "stops
save lives," Mr. Fagan intends to testify at trial that the vast
majority of stops turn up no weapons, drugs or illegal activity.

The city hopes to undercut this testimony by calling upon New York
University public policy professor Dennis Smith.  A recent ruling,
however, has limited the testimony Mr. Smith is qualified to share
with the jury.

Trial is currently slated for March 18, 2013.


OREGON ICE: Recalls Aldens Organic and Cascade Glacier Ice Cream
----------------------------------------------------------------
As an update to the 09/27/2012 press release by Oregon Ice Cream
Company in Eugene, Oregon, additional lot codes are now included
in this recall.  Oregon Ice Cream Company is issuing this
voluntary recall linked to the Sunland, Inc. recall to minimize
the risk to the public health.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses.  Salmonella infections can be life-threatening,
especially to those with weak immune systems, such as infants, the
elderly and persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy.
The most common manifestations of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, and fever within eight to 72 hours.  Additional
symptoms may be chills, headache, nausea and vomiting that can
last up to seven days.

The list below identifies the production lots which are being
recalled due to their potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella.  Distribution of these products was nationwide.

Anyone who has the recalled product in their possession should not
consume it and should destroy or discard the product.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-800-282-2202 Monday -
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time).

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

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

ORIGINAL Recalled Products and Production Code Dates

Brand             Description     Pack Size    Code Date Range
-----             -----------     ---------    ---------------
Aldens Organic    Peanut Butter    1.5 Qts      12195 - 12261
                   n Chip
UPC: 0 72609 74191 2

Cascade Glacier   Chocolate        3 gallon     12223
                   Peanut Butter
UPC: 0 72609 60082 0

EXPANDED Recalled Products and Production Code Dates

Brand             Description     Pack Size    Code Date Range
-----             -----------     ---------    ---------------
Aldens Organic    Peanut Butter    1.5 Qts      10060 - 12261
                   n Chip
UPC: 0 72609 74191 2

Cascade Glacier   Chocolate        3 gallon     11101 - 12223
                   Peanut Butter
UPC: 0 72609 60082 0


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's motion to be
named lead plaintiff in a putative class action complaint pending
in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Orrstown Bank (the "Bank"), and certain current and former
directors and executive officers.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that (i) in connection with the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010, and
its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during
the purported class period of March 24, 2010, through October 27,
2011, the Company issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial
results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent
nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards,
the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the
proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case
were due by July 24, 2012.  SEPTA was the sole movant and the
Court's ruling on SEPTA's motion is pending.  Pursuant to the
PSLRA and the Court's June 28, 2012 Order, following the
appointment of the Lead Plaintiff in this case, the Court will
hold a scheduling conference to set deadlines for the filing of an
amended complaint (if any), the filing and briefing of the
Company's responsive pleading, and the filing and briefing of the
Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these
claims.


PFIZER INC: Arkansas Farmers File Suit Over Arsenic in Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jan Cottingham, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that three
Arkansas farming operations have filed suit against pharmaceutical
giant Pfizer, Tyson Foods Inc. and three other Arkansas poultry
producers, alleging arsenic found in Arkansas rice is caused by
farmers' use of chicken litter as fertilizer.

The lawsuit, filed in Circuit Court in Stuttgart by Hare Wynn
Newell & Newton LLP of Birmingham, Ala., seeks class-action
status.  In addition to Pfizer, of New York, and Tyson, of
Springdale, the suit names as defendants Pilgrim's Pride Corp. of
Greeley, Colo., Simmons Foods Inc. of Siloam Springs, George's
Farms Inc. of Springdale and Peterson Farms Inc. of Decatur.

Consumer Reports last month reported that it had found "worrisome"
levels of inorganic arsenic, a cancer-causing agent, in rice and a
number of rice products consumed widely in the U.S. and called for
the federal government to set limits on arsenic in rice.

The consumer group tested more than 200 rice products and found
varying levels of arsenic, including some that it termed
"significant."

"White rice grown in Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas
generally had higher levels of total arsenic and inorganic arsenic
than rice samples from elsewhere (India, Thailand and California
combined)," Consumer Reports said.

In the lawsuit filed late last month, the three Arkansas farming
enterprises allege that Pfizer manufactures additives containing
arsenic that are then sold to the poultry industry for use in
chicken feed.  The additives are used to foster the growth of
broiler chickens and prevent an intestinal disease in chickens
called coccidiosis, the suit says.

The suit says that chicken litter, which contains chicken waste,
is used by rice farmers as fertilizer.  This litter winds up
contaminating the soil and, ultimately, the rice crop, according
to the suit.

The poultry growers "knew that excessive arsenic in chicken litter
used as fertilizer on many rice farms in Arkansas would
contaminate the entire U.S. rice crop and infiltrate the general
U.S. rice supply, and that public news about such arsenic
contamination would result in devastating financial losses to U.S.
and Arkansas rice producers . . .," the suit says.

The suit's plaintiffs are John Alter and Kenneth Graves, both of
Arkansas County, and Mark and Joyce Hargrove of DeWitt.  All are
rice farmers, the suit says.

The suit seeks class-action status to represent all rice farmers
in Arkansas.  It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages to
be determined at trial.

Gary Mickelson, a Tyson spokesman, said, "We're still reviewing
the lawsuit, but will say it appears to be an example of creative
lawyers trying to use frivolous litigation to extract money from
companies that have done nothing wrong.  We will vigorously defend
ourselves.  None of our chickens are given feed additives
containing arsenic."

A spokesman for Simmons declined comment, and spokesmen for the
other companies did not immediately return phone calls.


PFIZER INC: Settles Celebrex Class Action for $164 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Post, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that Pfizer Inc.
has agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to settle a
shareholder class action lawsuit concerning its arthritis drug
Celebrex.

In 2002, Pfizer acquired Pharmacia Corp., the maker of Celebrex.
A year later, investors sued Pfizer and some former Pharmacia
officers for allegedly violating federal securities laws.  The
plaintiffs claimed that from 2000 to 2001, the defendants
misrepresented the clinical trial results of Celebrex in order to
make it appear safer than similar drugs.

A district judge certified the class in 2007 but later granted
Pfizer's motion to dismiss the case.  The 3rd Circuit reinstated
the case in 2009, and the Supreme Court denied Pfizer's cert
petition in 2010.  Pfizer then tried to get the case dismissed
earlier this year, but the district judge denied the motion and
scheduled a trial for Oct. 22.

On Oct. 5, Pfizer agreed to pay $164 million to settle the suit.
However, it continues to deny any wrongdoing.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over AWP Information
----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is defending lawsuits alleging defendants provided
average wholesale price information that was higher than the
actual average prices, according to the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 1, 2012.

Pfizer, certain of its subsidiaries and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers are defendants in actions in various state courts by
a number of states, as well as one purported class action by
certain employee benefit plans and other third-party payers,
alleging that the defendants provided average wholesale price
(AWP) information for certain of their products that was higher
than the actual average prices at which those products were sold.
The AWP is used to determine reimbursement levels under Medicare
Part B and Medicaid and in many private-sector insurance policies
and medical plans.  The plaintiffs claim that the alleged spread
between the AWPs at which purchasers were reimbursed and the
actual sale prices was promoted by the defendants as an incentive
to purchase certain of their products.  In addition to suing on
their own behalf, some of the plaintiff states seek to recover on
behalf of individuals, private-sector insurance companies and
medical plans in their states.  These various actions allege,
among other things, fraud, unfair competition, unfair trade
practices and the violation of consumer protection statutes, and
seek monetary and other relief, including civil penalties and
treble damages.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that
discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and
effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease
for both people and animals.  The Company also partners with
healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the
world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better
quality health care and health system support.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Chantix and Champix
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is still defending lawsuits related to Chantix and
Champix, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 1, 2012.

A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in various federal and state courts alleging suicide,
attempted suicide and other personal injuries as a result of the
purported ingestion of Chantix, as well as economic loss.
Plaintiffs in these actions seek compensatory and punitive damages
and the disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of
Chantix.  In October 2009, the federal cases were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL-
2092) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of
Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial
District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia
(Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party
payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix.  Each of these
actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law,
including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and,
on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including
punitive damages.  In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action,
defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all persons
in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from April 2,
2007, to May 31, 2010, and who experienced at least one of a
number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all
persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix
pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their
relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers
who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant
to Canadian legislation.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that
the action against Pfizer Inc. should be stayed until after the
trial of the issues that are common to the class members.  The
actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed
in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national
basis.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that
discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers quality, safe and
effective prescription medicines to treat and help prevent disease
for both people and animals.  The Company also partners with
healthcare providers, governments and local communities around the
world to expand access to its medicines and to provide better
quality health care and health system support.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: "Lewis" Suit Over Overdraft Fees Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted in July 2012 Santander Holdings USA, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Diane Lewis over
overdraft fees, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The putative class action litigation filed against the Company's
principal subsidiary, Sovereign Bank N.A. (the "Bank") by Diane
Lewis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland was
transferred to and consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(the "MDL Court") under the caption In re Checking Account
Overdraft Litigation.  The complaint alleges violations of law in
connection with the Bank's overdraft/transaction ordering and fees
practices and seeks unspecified damages.  The Bank filed a motion
seeking dismissal of the complaint.  On July 26, 2012, the MDL
Court determined that the Plaintiff's claims are preempted by
federal banking law.  Accordingly, the MDL Court granted the
Bank's motion and dismissed all claims against the Bank.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc., headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts, provides customers with a broad range of financial
products and services through its two primary subsidiaries,
Sovereign Bank and Santander Consumer USA.


SUNPOWER CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against SunPower
Corporation and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008, through
November 16, 2009.  The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010.
The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009, regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010.  The court dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on March 1, 2011.
An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011.  The amended
complaint added two former employees as defendants.  Defendants
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 23, 2011.
The motions to dismiss the amended complaint were heard by the
court on August 11, 2011.  On December 19, 2011, the court granted
in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the
claims brought pursuant to sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the claims brought against the two newly added
former employees.

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

The Company says it is currently unable to determine if the
resolution of these matters will have an adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

Based in San Jose, California, SunPower Corporation --
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/-- an integrated solar products and
services company, designs, manufactures, and delivers solar
electric systems for residential, commercial, and utility-scale
power plant customers worldwide.  It operates in two segments,
Utility and Power Plants, and Residential and Commercial.
SunPower Corporation is a subsidiary of Total Gas & Power USA,
SAS.


TYSON FOODS: Wal-Mart Received Recalled Products, FSIS Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that Wal-Mart stores all over the country
received Chicken Wyngz products that have been recalled by Tyson
Foods, Inc.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/lq7hvN,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.


UNION DRILLING: Brodsky & Smith Files Class Action vs. BOD
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC on Oct. 10 disclosed that
it has filed a class action lawsuit against the Board of Directors
of Union Drilling, Inc. relating to the proposed acquisition by
Sidewinder Drilling, Inc.

Under the terms of the transaction, Union Drilling shareholders
will receive only $6.50 in cash for each share of Union Drilling
stock they own.  The class action lawsuit alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty, conflicts of interest, and various deal
protections which would prevent a superior offer.  The transaction
may undervalue the Company and result in a substantial loss for
many Union Drilling shareholders.

If you own shares of Union Drilling stock and wish to discuss the
legal ramifications of the proposed transaction, or have any
questions, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to
answer your questions.  You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire
or Evan J. Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by e-mail at
investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com visiting
http://brodsky-smith.com/483-udrl-union-drilling-inc.htmlby
calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.


VELVET ICE: Recalls Ice Cream Containing Peanut Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Velvet Ice Cream has been notified that peanut products sold to
the Company from Sunland, Inc., which were used to make select
peanut butter-flavored ice creams, may be contaminated with
Salmonella.  Thus, the Ohio-based ice cream manufacturer is
voluntarily recalling products that may contain contaminated nut
products.  The recalled products are only sold at convenience
stores, small, independent retailers and ice cream parlors in
Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
Not all peanut products sold to Velvet Ice Cream are at risk,
consequently, only the items with corresponding code numbers are
affected.

Salmonella is an organism that 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 (ie:, infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The following products with specific code numbers are covered
under the recall:

                                        Code      Manufactured
  Product Name            UPC #         Number*       Date
  ------------            -----         -------   ------------
  Velvet Supreme Peanut   70682-10119    10181      6/30/2010
  Butter Cup - 1/2 gal.

  Velvet Peanut Butter    70682-10539    10181      6/30/2010
  Cup - 3 gallon

  Velvet Buckeye          70682-10038    10193      7/12/2010
  Classic - 56 oz

  Velvet Buckeye          70682-10519    10193      7/12/2010
  Classic - 3 gallon

  Velvet Buckeye          70682-10519    12207      7/25/2012
  Classic - 3 gallon

  Velvet Buckeye UPC      70682-10519    12227      8/14/2012
  Classic - 3 gallon

  Velvet Buckeye          70682-10423    12251      9/07/2012
  Classic - pints

* Found on the bottom of 56 oz and pint cartons, label of 3 gallon
container and flap of half-gallon carton

Product descriptions:

   * Buckeye Classic ice cream (Creamy peanut butter ice cream
     swirled with thick chocolate fudge and chocolate-covered
     peanut butter candies) 56 oz carton, 3 gallon containers
     and pints

   * Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup ice cream (Chocolate ice cream
     with peanut butter swirls) half-gallon cartons and 3 gallon
     containers

Pictures of the recalled products and labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323490.htm

"The wellbeing of Velvet Ice Cream customers and the quality of
our products is of the utmost importance to our company," said
Velvet Ice Cream President Luconda Dager.  "The moment we heard
there were issues with nut products manufactured by Sunland, Inc.,
we took immediate steps to investigate all peanut products shipped
to our company and voluntarily removed any product that may
include tainted ingredients."

Customers who have purchased affected products can return them to
the store of purchase for a full refund.

Located in Utica, Ohio, Velvet Ice Cream is a family-owned and
operated business that has been making ice cream for nearly 100
years.  Joseph Dager founded Velvet Ice Cream in 1914 and four
generations of Dagers have since run the Company.


YAHOO! INC: Sued for Illegally Disclosing Users' Personal Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth McInnish, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-05173 (N.D. Calif.,
October 5, 2012) is brought against Yahoo! for improperly and
voluntarily disclosing certain personal and private user
information, data, records and the contents of electronic
communications in violation of the privacy rights of visitors,
members, subscribers, customers or users of Yahoo! services.

Yahoo! disclosed Personal Private Data of Yahoo! Users to law
enforcement and other government entities without enforceable
legal process, Ms. McInnish alleges.  She argues that Yahoo!'s
unlawful disclosure of Personal Private Data violates Yahoo!
Users' rights under federal and state statutes as well as common
law.

Ms. McInnish is a resident of the state of Georgia and a Yahoo!
User.  On March 3, 2011, her Personal Private Data was disclosed
by Yahoo! to law enforcement in violation of federal and state
statutes and common law.

Yahoo! is a Delaware corporation based in Sunnyvale, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Anderson, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1500 7th Street, Apt 12G
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 397-8418
          E-mail: janderson.law30@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Joshua A. Millican, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA A. MILLICAN, P.C.
          The Grant Building, Suite 607
          44 Broad Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 522-1152
          Facsimile: (404) 522-1133
          E-mail: joshua.millican@lawofficepc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
          NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 619-5400
          Facsimile: (212) 619-3090
          E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com


                           *********

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  * * *