CAR_Public/121018.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 18, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 207

                               Headlines

AMERICAN GREETINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Ohio
CALIFORNIA: Legal Aid of Marin Files Class Action v. MHA
CAPITAL ONE: Awaits OK of Calif.-Only Settlement in "Rubio" Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Credit Card MDL
CAPITAL ONE: Canadian Interchange Fee Suit in Prelim. Discovery

CAPITAL ONE: Discovery in "Steen" Suit to End in 4Q 2012
CAPITAL ONE: Consolidated Late Fees Suit Remains Stayed
CAPITAL ONE: Awaits Approval of Interchange Fee Suit Settlement
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal in Stockholder Suit Remains Pending
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Suits Over Retiree Benefits Remains Stayed

CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
DECKERS OUTDOOR: Faces Shareholder Suits in Calif. and Del.
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Feb. 7 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Securities Class Action Dismissed
GENVEC INC: To Seek Dismissal of "Shah" Suit Pending in Maryland

GOLDMAN SACHS: Made Counterclaims in Suit Over 2006 & 2007 Notes
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Strike Discrimination Suit Gets Partial OK
GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Approval of New York Suit Settlement
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in SLKS Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Refinancing/Hedging Transactions Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Suits Over MF Global Convertible Notes Pending
GUAM: Judge Allows More Time to Negotiate Permanent Injunction
HILLCREST INDUSTRIES: Attica Residents File Class Action
INVENTURE FOODS: Expects to Be Added as Party in "Anderson" Suit
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit

MEADOW GOLD: Recalls 1.5-Qt. Western Family(R) Brand Ice Cream
MEDIFAST INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Maryland Pending
MGIC INVESTMENT: Opposes Relief Motion in C-BASS-Related Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Seven RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending
NATIONWIDE: Settles Class Action Over Harleysville Merger

PEET'S COFFEE: Defends Suit Alleging Mass. Tip Law Violations
PEET'S COFFEE: Faces Class Suit Over Tip Pools in California
PEET'S COFFEE: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by JAB Unit
PETALUMA FARMS: Owner Responds to Class Action
RAYMOND-HADLEY: Recalls Wegmans 17.2 oz Gluten Free Brownie Mix

REPUBLIC BANCORP: "Webb" Class Suit vs. RB&T Stayed in Kentucky
RICK'S CABARET: Awaits OK of Settlement in Remaining TCPA Suit
STATE FARM: Seeks Dismissal of RICO Class Action
SUPER STORE: Recalls Lovin' Scoopful 1.75-Qt. Peanut Butter Cup
TYSON FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

VISA INC: Group of Retailers Oppose Credit Card Settlement


                          *********

AMERICAN GREETINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that led by the Weiss Family,
directors of American Greetings are taking the company private
through an unfair process at the unfair price of $17.18 per share,
or $550 million, shareholders say in a class action in Cuyahoga
County Court.


CALIFORNIA: Legal Aid of Marin Files Class Action v. MHA
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Walsh, writing for Pacific Sun, reports that when Lewis
Jordan takes the reigns as the new director of the Marin Housing
Authority next month, he'll be sorting through low-income housing
programs, vouchers and the needs of nearly 12,000 residents.

He'll also have to deal with a lawsuit.

Legal Aid of Marin, together with a San Francisco law group, have
filed a class-action suit against the Authority last week,
alleging the MHA had charged public-housing clients in Marin City
for unnecessary and costly repairs, which left residents short on
rent -- a situation that in some cases snowballed into eviction
proceedings.

Five plaintiffs are named in the suit, though it was filed on
behalf of all the tenants at the Golden Gate Village complex in
Marin City.  The suit is calling for a halt to the alleged repair-
and-maintenance practices and reimbursements to affected tenants.


CAPITAL ONE: Awaits OK of Calif.-Only Settlement in "Rubio" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation disclosed in its August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it is awaiting court
approval of a California-only settlement in the case captioned
Rubio v. Capital One Bank.

In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed a dismissal entered in favor of Capital One Bank (USA),
National Association ("COBNA"), in Rubio v. Capital One Bank,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in 2007.  The plaintiff in Rubio alleges in
a putative class action that COBNA breached its contractual
obligations and violated the Truth In Lending Act (the "TILA") and
the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") when it raised
interest rates on certain credit card accounts.  In May 2012, the
parties agreed to a California-only settlement for a non-material
amount, and the Court stayed the case for all purposes except for
approval of the settlement.  The Company expects plaintiffs will
file a motion for preliminary court approval of the class
settlement in the third quarter of 2012.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/--
is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Credit Card MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its August 9, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that a motion for summary
judgment in the Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation in Georgia remains pending.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer
order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two
pending putative class actions against COBNA--Nancy Mancuso, et al.
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and
Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D.
Georgia). A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred
into the MDL. On August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleges in a putative class action that COBNA breached its
contractual obligations, and violated the TILA, the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the UCL, the California False
Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on certain
credit card accounts. The MDL plaintiffs seek statutory damages,
restitution, attorney's fees and an injunction against future rate
increases. Fact discovery is now closed. On August 8, 2011,
Capital One filed a motion for summary judgment, which remains
pending with the court.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/--
is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Canadian Interchange Fee Suit in Prelim. Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation and other parties to class
action lawsuits over interchange fees in Canada have engaged in
the preliminary stage of discovery, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner, on behalf of himself and
other merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit
cards, filed a class action in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia (Vancouver Registry) against the Visa and MasterCard
membership associations related to credit card interchange fees.
In May 2011, another merchant, on behalf of himself and other
merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit cards,
filed a class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Toronto Region) asserting the same alleged violations of law
related to credit card interchange fees and network rules.  In
April 2012, Capital One Financial Corporation was included as a
defendant, along with several other member banks, to an existing
class action against Visa and MasterCard that is pending in the
Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal) and brought by a
merchant corporation on behalf of itself and other merchants that
accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit cards.

In July 2012, another merchant corporation brought a class action
lawsuit on the same alleged violations of law, filed in the
Queen's Bench Judicial Centre of Regina (Province of
Saskatchewan).  All four class actions name Visa and MasterCard
and a number of member banks, including Capital One Financial
Corporation.  Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), which was not
named as a defendant, issues only MasterCard branded credit cards
in Canada.  The class action complaints allege that the
associations and member banks are liable for civil conspiracy,
unjust enrichment, constructive trust and unlawful interference
with economic interests and violated Canadian anti-competition
laws by (a) conspiring to fix supra-competitive interchange fees
and merchant discounts, and (b) requiring participation in the
respective networks and adherence to Visa and MasterCard Rules to
acceptance of payment guarantee services.  The parties have
engaged in the preliminary stage of discovery.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/--
is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Discovery in "Steen" Suit to End in 4Q 2012
--------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action lawsuit styled as Steen v. Capital
One Financial Corporation, et al., will be concluded in the fourth
quarter of 2012, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association ("COBNA") were named as
defendants in a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One
Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Plaintiff challenges the
Company's practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-
sufficient funds fees on consumer checking accounts.  Plaintiff
alleges that the Company's methodology for posting transactions to
customer accounts is designed to maximize the generation of
overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of contract, breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade
practices laws.  Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.  In May 2010, the case was transferred to the
Southern District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings
as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous
defendant banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.  In
January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against
Capital One, National Association ("CONA") in the MDL court.  In
February 2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  On March 21, 2011, the MDL court granted CONA's motion
to dismiss claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing under Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all
other respects.  The parties have been engaged in discovery since
May 2011.

On June 21, 2012, the MDL court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  The scheduling order entered by the MDL
court on June 25, 2012, contemplates the conclusion of discovery
in the fourth quarter 2012 and remand to the Eastern District of
Louisiana by first quarter 2013.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/--
is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Consolidated Late Fees Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit over excessive late fees
charge to cardholders involving Capital One Financial Corporation
remains stayed, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including the Company.  These
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired
to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to
cardholders, and that these fees are excessive.  In May 2007, the
cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed alleging violations of federal
statutes and state law.  The amended complaint requests civil
monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive relief.
In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal of their
claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions
Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition Law
(the "UCL"), but not their antitrust conspiracy claims.  In June
2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the matter pending
the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant financial
institutions.

On June 4, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an
additional order continuing the stay of the matter pending the
bankruptcy proceedings.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/--
is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Awaits Approval of Interchange Fee Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation and other defendants are
awaiting court approval of a settlement pursuant to a memorandum
of understanding they entered into in July 2012 resolving a
consolidated litigation over interchange 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.

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several
member banks, including the Company and its subsidiaries, alleging
among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level
of interchange fees.  The complaints seek injunctive relief and
civil monetary damages, which could be trebled.  Separately, a
number of large merchants have asserted similar claims against
Visa and MasterCard only.  In October 2005, the class and merchant
Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes,
including discovery.  On July 13, 2012, the parties executed and
filed with the court a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to
resolve the litigation on certain terms set forth in a settlement
agreement attached to the Memorandum.  This agreement is
contingent on preliminary and final court approval of the class
settlement.

The defendant banks are members of Visa U.S.A., Inc. ("Visa").  As
members, the Company's subsidiary banks have indemnification
obligations to Visa with respect to final judgments and
settlements of certain litigation against Visa.  In the first
quarter of 2008, Visa completed an initial public offering of its
stock.  With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for
the benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements
and claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits.  As a result, in
the first quarter of 2008, the Company reduced its Visa-related
indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in other
liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-interest
expense.  The Company made an election in accordance with the
accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets and
liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the fair
value of the guarantee at December 31, 2011, and June 30, 2012,
was zero.  In January 2011, the Company entered into a MasterCard
Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with other
defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and its
member banks any costs and liabilities of any judgment or
settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/--
is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal in Stockholder Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, the purported stockholder class actions pending
against the Company consolidated as In re: Century Aluminum
Company Securities Litigation were dismissed with prejudice by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiffs in the class actions allege that the
Company improperly accounted for cash flows associated with the
termination of certain forward financial sales contracts which
accounting allegedly resulted in artificial inflation of the
Company's stock price and investor losses.  Plaintiffs are seeking
rescission of the Company's February 2009 common stock offering,
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest thereon,
costs and expenses and attorneys' fees.  On March 10, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the order and judgment
entered by the court on March 3, 2011.  The notice of appeal
remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

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.

Century Aluminum Company -- http://www.centuryaluminum.com--
through its subsidiaries, produces primary aluminum in the United
States, China, and Iceland.  It also holds a 40% joint venture
interest in a carbon anode and cathode facility located in the
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of south China.  The Company was
founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Monterey, California.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Suits Over Retiree Benefits Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits relating to retiree benefits offered by
Century Aluminum Company's subsidiary continue to be stayed
pending the parties' talks on the possible resumption of
operations at a Ravenswood, Virginia facility, 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.

Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. ("CAWV") amended its
postretirement medical benefit plan, effective January 1, 2010,
for all current and former CAWV salaried employees, their
dependents and all bargaining unit employees who retired before
June 1, 2006, and their dependents.  Effective January 1, 2011,
CAWV no longer provided retiree medical benefits to active
salaried CAWV personnel or any other personnel who retired prior
to November 1, 2010.

The principal changes to the plan as a result of this amendment
were that, upon attainment of age 65, all CAWV provided retiree
medical benefits ceased for retirees and dependents.  In addition,
bargaining unit retirees under age 65 and qualified dependents
under age 65 were covered by the salary retiree medical plan which
required out-of pocket payments for premiums, co-pays and
deductibles by participants.

In November 2009, CAWV filed a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment against the USWA, the USWA's local union, and
four CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives,
seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree
medical benefits.  Later in November 2009, the USWA and
representatives of a retiree class filed a separate lawsuit
against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master
Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the
foregoing.  These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century
Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc.
v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated and venue has been set in
the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent the Company from implementing the changes
while these lawsuits are pending, which was dismissed by the trial
court.  In August 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the District Court's dismissal of the USWA's motion for
preliminary injunction, finding that the USWA had failed to
establish the likelihood of success on the merits of the
underlying matter.  In October 2011, CAWV filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint with the trial court.
No ruling has yet been made on the motion.  In March 2012, the
court granted a stay pending negotiations to restart Ravenswood.
The plaintiffs have agreed in principle to settle the lawsuit upon
a successful restart of Ravenswood.

In June 2011, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the
"PBGC") informed the Company that it believed that a "cessation of
operations" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA") had occurred at the Company's Ravenswood facility
as a result of the curtailment of operations at the facility and
requested that the Company engage in discussions with the PBGC
relating thereto.  The Company has notified the PBGC that it does
not believe that a "cessation of operations" has occurred and has
entered into ongoing discussions with the PBGC to resolve the
matter.  If a "cessation of operations" is ultimately determined
to have occurred under ERISA, it may be necessary for Century
Aluminum of West Virginia to accelerate the timing of
approximately $17,400 in contributions over a period of years to
certain of its defined pension plans or post other collateral with
the PBGC or negotiate an alternative agreement.

Century Aluminum Company -- http://www.centuryaluminum.com--
through its subsidiaries, produces primary aluminum in the United
States, China, and Iceland.  It also holds a 40% joint venture
interest in a carbon anode and cathode facility located in the
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of south China.  The Company was
founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Monterey, California.


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Oct. 13 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Chanticleer Holdings, Inc.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages suffered by investors who purchased units
and shares pursuant or traceable to Chanticleer's June 21, 2012,
secondary offering.

To join the Chanticleer class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at
866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The complaint charges that Chanticleer falsely represented that
the financial statements for its South African operations,
accounting for a majority of Chanticleer's revenues, had been
audited.  In reality, they had not been audited.  When Chanticleer
revealed that the financial statements for its South African
operations had not been audited, the NASDAQ halted trading in
Chanticleer's stock and warrants.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 12, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The
Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

        CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        Jonathan Horne, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
        New York, New York 10016
        Telephone:  (212) 686-1060
        Weekends Telephone: (917) 562-8616
        Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                jhorne@rosenegal.com
        Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


DECKERS OUTDOOR: Faces Shareholder Suits in Calif. and Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deckers Outdoor Corporation is facing shareholder class action
lawsuits in California and Delaware, 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 31, 2012, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company and certain of its officers.  On
August 1, 2012, a similar purported shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its
officers.  These actions are purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between
October 27, 2011, and April 26, 2012.  Plaintiffs in both
complaints allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purport to assert claims for violations of the federal
securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.  The Company believes the claims in both complaints
are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously.
While the Company believes there is no legal basis for liability,
due to the uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any,
at this time.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Feb. 7 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on Oct. 12 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California:

If you bought a new copy of an Electronic Arts' Madden NFL, NCAA
Football, or Arena Football videogame for Xbox, Xbox 360,
PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, GameCube, PC, or Wii, with a release
date of January 1, 2005 to June 21, 2012, you may be a class
member and may be entitled to benefits from a proposed settlement.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action alleging
that Electronic Arts overcharged consumers for certain football
videogames.  Electronic Arts denies any liability and all
allegations of misconduct, including that it overcharged
consumers.  The sole purpose of this notice is to inform you of
the proposed settlement so that you may decide what to do.

At this time, the settlement has only been preliminarily approved
by the Court, pending the results of the Settlement Fairness
Hearing.  On February 7, 2013 at 2:00 p.m., a hearing will be held
in Courtroom 2 of the Oakland Courthouse of the United States
Federal District Court for the Northern District of California,
located at 1301 Clay St., Oakland, CA 94612, to determine whether
the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, whether judgment should be entered
thereon, and whether this lawsuit should be dismissed with
prejudice against Electronic Arts.  No money or other benefits
will be available until final approval has been granted by the
Court.

The time and date of the Settlement Fairness Hearing may be
changed without further notice to the Settlement Class. Any
changes to the date and time of the Settlement Fairness Hearing
will be posted at www.easportslitigation.com.

What is the lawsuit about?

The lawsuit claims that Electronic Arts violated federal and
California antitrust laws, as well as California consumer
protection laws, by signing exclusive licensing agreements with
the Arena Football League ("AFL"), the Collegiate Licensing
Company ("CLC") (on behalf of the National Collegiate Athletic
Association ("NCAA"), the National Football League ("NFL"), the
National Football League Players Association ("NFLPA") and ESPN.
Electronic Arts denies the allegations in the lawsuit, denies that
it has engaged in any wrongdoing, denies that there is a relevant
market limited to "interactive football videogames," and denies
that it ever charged supra-competitive prices for its videogames.

The Court has not decided whether Electronic Arts did anything
wrong, and this Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the
Court about the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted
by any party to this litigation.

Who's included as a Settlement Class Member?

You are a member of the Settlement Class if:

You are in the United States and bought a new copy of an
Electronic Arts' Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football
videogame for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3,
GameCube, PC, or Wii, with a release date of January 1, 2005 to
June 21, 2012.

You are excluded from the Settlement Class if (1) you purchased
the game(s) directly from Electronic Arts; (2) you purchased only
used copies of the games; or (3) you are an employee, officer,
director, or legal representative or Electronic Arts or a wholly
or a partly owned subsidiary or affiliated company.

You are also excluded from the Settlement Class if you previously
submitted a timely request for exclusion on or prior to June 25,
2011.

What are the terms of the settlement?

The Settlement provides that Electronic Arts will pay $27 million
into a fund that will include money for Settlement Class Members
to be provided for timely and valid claims, after deducting
payment of the costs of administering the Settlement, including
the costs of this notice, attorneys' fees, costs of the litigation
and any payments allowed by the Court to the named plaintiffs.

Additionally, the Settlement provides that Electronic Arts will
not enter into an exclusive trademark license with the AFL for
five years from the date of approval of the Settlement; and that
Electronic Arts will not renew its current collegiate football
trademark license with the CLC on an exclusive basis for five
years after it expires in 2014; and that Electronic Arts will not
seek any new exclusive trademark license for the purpose of making
football videogames with the CLC, the NCAA, or any NCAA member
institution covered by the current exclusive license for five
years after the expiration of the current CLC agreement.

The Settlement will release claims that consumers may have against
Electronic Arts relating to the exclusive agreements, and any
resulting overcharge for football videogames, for the period of
time from January 1, 2005 to June 21, 2012, unless an individual
excludes himself or herself from the Settlement.  Specifically,
the Settlement will release and forever discharge the claims that
were pled or could have been pled in the Pecover v. Electronic
Arts case.

What are my options as a Settlement Class Member?

Settlement Class Members have the following rights and options
with respect to this settlement:

1) Do Nothing - If you do nothing, you will give up your right to
sue Electronic Arts over the claims in this matter, and you will
give up your right to get money from the Settlement if it is
approved by the Court.

2) Submit a Claim Form - If you are an eligible Settlement Class
Member, and you submit a valid claim by March 5, 2013, your share
of the net proceeds of the settlement will be based upon the
number of eligible new videogame titles you purchased during the
Class Period, as well as the number of Settlement Class Members
who submit valid claims.  Claims may be submitted by mail, or
online at www.easportslitigation.com

3) Object to the Settlement - If you are a Settlement Class
Member, you can tell the Court that you don't agree with the
Settlement or some part of it.  The Court will consider your
views.  If you do not file an objection to the Settlement, you
waive your right to object to and/or appeal the Settlement.
Objections must be filed by December 10, 2012.

4) Ask to be Excluded from the Settlement - If you ask to be
excluded from the settlement ("opt-out"), you will no longer be
considered a Settlement Class Member and will receive no benefit
from the settlement.  This is the only option that allows you to
keep your right to sue Electronic Arts over the claims in this
matter.  Exclusions must be filed by December 10, 2012.

Please visit the Web site for more details regarding your options.

Where can more information be found?

This Notice is only a summary of the lawsuit and the proposed
Settlement.  For more information, or to file your claim online,
please visit the case Web site, http://www.easportslitigation.com
or by calling, toll-free: 888-213-8331.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Securities Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited on Oct. 12 disclosed that the
purported class action commenced in July 2011 against Fairfax and
others, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws
between May 2003 and March 2006, has been dismissed with prejudice
("with prejudice" meaning that the action cannot be revived).  The
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit approved a
stipulation, in which the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss
with prejudice its appeal of the dismissal of this action earlier
this year by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  This action was substantially identical to
a purported class action filed against Fairfax in 2006 by other
plaintiffs, which was dismissed prior to the commencement of the
2011 action.  Neither Fairfax nor any other defendant made any
settlement or other payment to the plaintiffs in connection with
the two above-mentioned actions.

Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited is a financial services holding
company which, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in property
and casualty insurance and reinsurance and investment management.


GENVEC INC: To Seek Dismissal of "Shah" Suit Pending in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenVec, Inc. said in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012, that it intends to seek dismissal of an amended
complaint in a securities the class action lawsuit pending in
Maryland.

On February 3, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Paul H. Fischer, Douglas J. Swirsky and Mark
O. Thornton, in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, captioned Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al. Civil
Action. No. 8:12 CV-00341-DKC.  Following appointment of a Lead
Plaintiff group in April 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a pleading
titled Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws on July 6, 2012 (the "Amended Complaint").
In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs assert claims, purportedly on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased or acquired Company
common stock between March 12, 2009, and March 30, 2010 (the
"Class Period"), that the Company and the individual defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs allege generally that
defendants made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions concerning the prospects for the Company's leading
product candidate at the time, TNFerade, and the outcome of the
then-ongoing clinical trial for TNFerade.  Plaintiffs allege that
these misrepresentations resulted in the Company's common stock
trading at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.  Defendants intend
to seek dismissal of the Amended Complaint; and had a deadline of
September 4, 2012, for filing that motion.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the anticipated
motion to dismiss, or of the securities litigation should the
motion to dismiss be denied.  The Company denies the material
allegations of the Shah action and intends to vigorously defend
the case.

GenVec, Inc. -- http://www.genvec.com/-- operates as a
biopharmaceutical company that uses differentiated, proprietary
technologies to create therapeutics and vaccines.  GenVec is
working with various companies and organizations, such as
Novartis, Merial, and the U.S. Government to support a portfolio
of product programs that address the prevention and treatment of
human and animal health concerns.  Founded in 1992, the Company is
based in Gaithersburg, Maryland.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Made Counterclaims in Suit Over 2006 & 2007 Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it counterclaimed for
breach of contract and fraud in the class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of investors in $821 million of notes issued in 2006 and
2007.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(Group Inc.) and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $821 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1
and 2006-2).  The complaint, which was amended on February 4,
2011, asserts federal securities law and common law claims, and
seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages.  The
defendants moved to dismiss on April 5, 2011, and the motion was
granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied
as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated
March 21, 2012.  On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed
for breach of contract and fraud.

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: Bid to Strike Discrimination Suit Gets Partial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class
allegations in a lawsuit alleging it and a subsidiary have
systematically discriminated against female employees was granted
in part, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three
former female employees alleging that The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. (Group Inc.) and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect
of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance
evaluations.  The complaint alleges a class consisting of all
female employees employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws.  The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.  Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion
to stay the claims of one of the named plaintiffs and to compel
individual arbitration with that individual, based on an
arbitration provision contained in an employment agreement between
Group Inc. and the individual.  On April 28, 2011, the magistrate
judge to whom the district judge assigned the motion denied the
motion.

On July 7, 2011, the magistrate judge denied Group Inc.'s and
GS&Co.'s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's
decision, and on July 21, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co. appealed the
magistrate judge's decision to the district court, which affirmed
the decision on November 15, 2011.  Group Inc. and GS&Co. have
appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  On June 13, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co. moved to strike
the class allegations of one of the three named plaintiffs based
on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  On September
29, 2011, the magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion to
strike and Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed their objections to that
recommendation with the district judge presiding over the case on
October 11, 2011.

By a decision dated January 10, 2012, the district court denied
the motion to strike.  On July 22, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co.
moved to strike all of the plaintiffs' class allegations, and for
partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs' disparate impact
claims.  By a decision dated January 19, 2012, the magistrate
judge recommended that defendants' motion be denied as premature.
The defendants filed objections to that recommendation with the
district judge and on July 17, 2012, the district court issued a
decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to
strike plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs
lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying
in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs'
class allegations in their entirety as premature.

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: Awaits Approval of New York Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of an
agreement it entered into in July 2012 to settle a class action
lawsuit filed against it and three subsidiaries in New York 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.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage
Securities Corp. (GSMSC) are among the defendants in a putative
class action commenced on February 6, 2009, 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 GS&Co. in 2006.
The other original defendants include three current or former
Goldman Sachs employees and various rating agencies.  The second
amended complaint generally alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated
the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
and rescissionary damages.  Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  On January 12, 2011, the district court
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to offerings in which
plaintiff had not purchased securities as well as all claims
against the rating agencies, but denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to a single offering in which the plaintiff allegedly
purchased securities.  These trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote,
approximately $698 million principal amount of certificates to all
purchasers in the offerings at issue in the complaint (excluding
those offerings for which the claims have been dismissed).

On February 2, 2012, the district court granted the plaintiff's
motion for class certification and on June 13, 2012, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted defendants'
petition to review that ruling.  On July 31, 2012, the parties
reached a settlement, subject to court approval.  The Company has
reserved the full amount of the proposed settlement.

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: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in SLKS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC (SLKS) and certain
affiliates have received requests for information from various
governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations as part of
an industry-wide investigation relating to activities of floor
specialists in recent years.  The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group
Inc.) has cooperated with the requests.

On March 30, 2004, certain specialist firms on the New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE), including SLKS, without admitting or denying the
allegations, entered into a final global settlement with the SEC
and the NYSE covering certain activities during the years 1999
through 2003.  The SLKS settlement involves, among other things,
(i) findings by the SEC and the NYSE that SLKS violated certain
federal securities laws and NYSE rules, and in some cases failed
to supervise certain individual specialists, in connection with
trades that allegedly disadvantaged customer orders, (ii) a cease
and desist order against SLKS, (iii) a censure of SLKS, (iv) SLKS'
agreement to pay an aggregate of $45.3 million in disgorgement and
a penalty to be used to compensate customers, (v) certain
undertakings with respect to SLKS' systems and procedures, and
(vi) SLKS' retention of an independent consultant to review and
evaluate certain of SLKS' compliance systems, policies and
procedures.  Comparable findings were made and sanctions imposed
in the settlements with other specialist firms.  The settlement
did not resolve the related private civil actions against SLKS and
other firms or regulatory investigations involving individuals or
conduct on other exchanges.  On May 26, 2011, the SEC issued an
order directing the undistributed settlement funds to be
transferred to the U.S. Treasury; the funds will accordingly not
be allocated to any settlement fund for certain civil actions.

SLKS, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. and Group, Inc. are among
numerous defendants named in purported class actions brought
beginning in October 2003 on behalf of investors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in
connection with the NYSE floor specialist activities.  The
actions, which have been consolidated, seek unspecified
compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of
purchasers and sellers of unspecified securities between October
17, 1998, and October 15, 2003.  By a decision dated March 14,
2009, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The defendants' petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking review of the certification
ruling was denied, and the specialist defendants' petition for a
rehearing and/or rehearing en banc was denied on February 24,
2010.  On December 5, 2011, the parties reached a settlement in
principle, subject to documentation and court approval.  The firm
has reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution to the
settlement.

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 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: Suit Over Refinancing/Hedging Transactions Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One remaining action involving The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and
its subsidiaries alleging they conspired to arrange bids, fix
prices and divide up the market for derivatives used by
municipalities in refinancing and hedging transactions remains
pending, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), Goldman Sachs Mitsui
Marine Derivative Products, L.P. (GSMMDP) and Goldman Sachs Bank
USA (GS Bank USA) are among numerous financial services firms that
have been named as defendants in numerous substantially identical
individual antitrust actions filed beginning on November 12, 2009,
that have been coordinated with related antitrust class action
litigation and individual actions, in which no Goldman Sachs
affiliate is named, for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiffs
include individual California municipal entities and three New
York non-profit entities.  All of these complaints against Group
Inc., GSMMDP and GS Bank USA generally allege that the Goldman
Sachs defendants participated in a conspiracy to arrange bids, fix
prices and divide up the market for derivatives used by
municipalities in refinancing and hedging transactions from 1992
to 2008.  The complaints assert claims under the federal antitrust
laws and either California's Cartwright Act or New York's Donnelly
Act, and seek, among other things, treble damages under the
antitrust laws in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief.  On
April 26, 2010, the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss
complaints filed by several individual California municipal
plaintiffs was denied.

On August 19, 2011, Group Inc., GSMMDP and GS Bank USA were
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from all actions except
one brought by a California municipal entity.

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: Suits Over MF Global Convertible Notes Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits involving a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. in connection with two offerings of MF Global Holdings
Ltd. convertible notes remain pending, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named
as defendants in class action complaints filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing
November 18, 2011.  These complaints generally allege that the
offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd.
convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575 million in
principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among other
things, failed to describe adequately the extent of MF Global's
exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.  GS&Co.
underwrote an aggregate principal amount of approximately $214
million of the notes.  On October 31, 2011, MF Global Holdings
Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in Manhattan, New York.

GS&Co. has also received inquiries from various governmental and
regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations concerning
certain transactions with MF Global prior to its bankruptcy
filing. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such inquiries.

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.


GUAM: Judge Allows More Time to Negotiate Permanent Injunction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Salas Matanane, writing for Kuam News, reports that
District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall has agreed to allow the
Government of Guam and the plaintiffs in the tax refund class
action lawsuit more time to negotiate a permanent injunction.  The
parties have been ordered to engage in negotiations from Oct. 11
until Oct. 19.

If the parties are not able to come up with an agreed upon
injunction, they will seek the assistance of District Court
Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan.

The plaintiffs want the government to be forced to pay tax refunds
within six months after a return is filed and interest to be paid
on refunds not paid on a timely basis.  The government expressed
concerns saying the proposed injunction fails to address the $30-
40 million owed for tax refunds already filed and the $105 million
shortfall for payment of 2012 tax returns.

The plaintiffs have been ordered to file a permanent injunction by
November 2 while the government must file its objections by
November 16.


HILLCREST INDUSTRIES: Attica Residents File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Your News Now reports that more than one-hundred residents in the
Wyoming County Village of Attica have now filed a class-action
lawsuit against the company that is stinking up their town.

Buffalo attorney Richard Lippes confirms to YNN that he is
representing Attica residents in the lawsuit against Hillcrest
Industries.

Mr. Lippes says he will seek millions of dollars in compensation
for residents who claim to suffer health problems as a result of
chemicals emitting from Hillcrest's burning pile of recyclable
glass.


INVENTURE FOODS: Expects to Be Added as Party in "Anderson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that it expects to be added as a party in the
class action lawsuit brought by Kevin Anderson.

In March 2012, the Company learned that Jamba Juice Company was
named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the
Federal Court for the North District of California and captioned
Kevin Anderson v. Jamba Juice Company which claims that the use of
the words "all natural" to describe the Smoothie Kits is
misleading and deceptive to consumers and violates various
California consumer protection statutes and unfair competition
statutes.  The lawsuit is one of several "all natural" lawsuits
recently brought against various food manufacturers and
distributors in California.  Under the Company's license agreement
with the Jamba Juice Company, the Company is obligated and has
agreed to indemnify and defend Jamba Juice in the lawsuit.

The Company expects that it will be added as a party to the
lawsuit as the actual manufacturer and distributor of the Smoothie
Kits.  While the Company currently believes the "all natural"
claims on the Smoothie Kits are in full compliance with FDA
guidelines, it is investigating the claims asserted in the action,
and intends to vigorously defend against them.


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Transportation, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
wage and hour class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is involved in certain class action litigation in
which the plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and
rest breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions, and other
items.  Based on its knowledge of the facts and advice of outside
counsel, management does not believe the outcome of this
litigation is likely to have a materially adverse effect on the
Company.  However, the final disposition of these matters and the
impact of such final dispositions cannot be determined at this
time.


MEADOW GOLD: Recalls 1.5-Qt. Western Family(R) Brand Ice Cream
--------------------------------------------------------------

   * Cites Potential Health Risk Posed by Nationwide Sunland,
     Inc. Peanut Butter Recall

   * Recall Impacts Western Family(R) "Creamery Select (Premium
     Ice Cream) Peanut Butter Cup" ice cream sold in Arizona,
     Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming

The Meadow Gold Dairy processing facility in Orem, Utah, is taking
the precautionary measure to voluntarily recall "Creamery Select
(Premium Ice Cream) Peanut Butter Cup" ice cream manufactured for
Western Family.  This recall was initiated because the affected
products contain a peanut butter ingredient supplied by Sunland,
Inc. which may be contaminated with Salmonella.  The peanut butter
manufacturer Sunland recently expanded its nationwide product
recall.  No Meadow Gold(R) Brand ice cream products are affected
by this recall.

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

To date, no complaints or reactions have been reported related to
this ice cream product, and only one flavor of Western Family ice
cream is included in the recall.  The "Creamery Select (Premium
Ice Cream) Peanut Butter Cup" flavor is sold in 1.5 quarts (1.42L)
cardboard cartons at a variety of retailers.  Only the ice cream
made in one plant is impacted by this recall and therefore the
product being recalled was sold between 9/9/2010 and 10/3/2012
only in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah
and Wyoming.

The ice cream is printed with plant code 49-11 and a "BEST BY"
date ranging from 9/9/2011 to 10/3/2013.

                                                           Plant
  Size                Name             Flavor              Code
  ----                ----             ------              ----
  1.5 qts. (1.42 L)   Western Family   Peanut Butter Cup   49-11
  "scround"           "Creamery
  container           Select" Premium
                      Ice Cream
  UPC #: 15400 21432
  Date: Any "Best By" dates ranging from 9/9/2011 to 10/3/2013

No Meadow Gold(R) Brand ice cream products are affected by this
recall.  Only Western Family "Creamery Select (Premium Ice Cream)
Peanut Butter Cup" ice cream product with the plant code 49-11 and
sold in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah
and Wyoming is included in the recall.

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

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


MEDIFAST INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Maryland Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 17, 2011, a class action complaint titled Oren Proter et
al. v. Medifast, Inc. et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV-720[BEL]),
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, was filed for an
unspecified amount of damages in the U.S. District Court, District
of Maryland.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects.  On March 24, 2011, a class action complaint titled
Fred Greenberg v Medifast, Inc., et al (Civil Action 2011-CV776
[BEL], alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act,
was filed for an unspecified amount of damages in the U.S.
District Court, District of Maryland.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed
to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's
business, operations and prospects.  On July 19, 2011, the U.S.
District Judge ordered the consolidation of the cases and
appointment of co-lead counsel among other matters.  The Greenberg
case was dismissed without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs subsequently
filed an Amended Complaint.  The Company has reviewed these
allegations, and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss which is
currently pending.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this amended complaint.

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.

Medifast, Inc. -- http://www.medifast1.com-- through its
subsidiaries, engages in the production, distribution, and sale of
weight management and disease management products, and other
consumable health and diet products in the United States.  The
Company's product lines include weight and disease management,
meal replacement, and vitamins.   It was founded in 1980 and is
headquartered in Owings Mills, Maryland.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Opposes Relief Motion in C-BASS-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation disclosed in its August 9, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it is opposing plaintiffs'
motion for relief from a judgment of dismissal of a consolidated
class action lawsuit relating to its investment in C-BASS.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint") in June 2009.  Due in part to its length and
structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in
the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that the Company
and its officers named in the Complaint violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about (i) loss development in the Company's insurance
in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned,
unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its
liquidity.  The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with
respect to the Complaints' allegations regarding C-BASS.  The
Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February
2010.  In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint.  Attached to this motion was a proposed
Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended
Complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers named
in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly
account for the Company's investment in C-BASS.  The Amended
Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the
Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The purported
class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on
February 6, 2007, and ended on August 13, 2007.  The Amended
Complaint sought damages based on purchases of the Company's stock
during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as
a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.
In December 2010, the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended
complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  In January 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the February
2010 and December 2010 decisions to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On April 12, 2012, the Appeals Court affirmed the dismissals by
the District Court and these dismissals have become final.  In
early July 2012, the plaintiffs re-filed a motion with the
District Court for relief from that court's judgment of dismissal
on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of
transcripts the plaintiffs obtained of testimony taken by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in its now-terminated
investigation regarding C-BASS.  Their original motion filed in
June 2011, was denied without prejudice by the District Court in
June 2012, as a result of the opinion from the Appeals Court.  The
Company is opposing the re-filed motion.

The Company says it is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of
these consolidated cases or estimate its associated expenses or
possible losses.  Other lawsuits alleging violations of the
securities laws could be brought against the Company.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Seven RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Seven lawsuits alleging that a Company subsidiary's captive
mortgage reinsurance arrangements violate provisions of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act remain pending, according to MGIC
Investment Corporation's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home
mortgage lenders and settlement service providers.  Mortgage
insurers, including Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation
("MGIC"), a Company subsidiary, have been involved in litigation
alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and the notice
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  MGIC's
settlement of class action litigation against it under RESPA
became final in October 2003.  MGIC settled the named plaintiffs'
claims in litigation against it under FCRA in December 2004,
following denial of class certification in June 2004.  Since
December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a
number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.

On or about December 9, 2011, seven mortgage insurers (including
MGIC) and a large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs'
lender) were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a
class action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  Since then, eight similar cases have been
filed naming various mortgage lenders and mortgage insurers
(including MGIC) as defendants.  The cases filed are:

   Date Filed          Court                        Dismissed
   ----------    -----------------                  ---------
   12/09/2011    U.S. District Court for the           No
                 Central District of CA

   12/31/2011    U.S. District Court for the           No
                 Eastern District of PA

   02/27/2012    U.S. District Court for the           Yes
                 Eastern District of CA

   03/12/2012    U.S. District Court for the           Yes
                 Eastern District of CA


   04/05/2012    U.S. District Court for the           No
                 Western District of PA

   04/05/2012    U.S. District Court for the           No
                 Eastern District of CA

   04/19/2012    U.S. District Court for the           No
                 Southern District of NY

   05/18/2012    U.S. District Court for the           No
                 Eastern District of PA

   06/18/2012    U.S. District Court for the           No
                 Middle District of PA

Of the nine total cases, MGIC's motion to dismiss one of the cases
has been granted and another of the cases has been voluntarily
dismissed.  Seven cases remain pending.  The complaints in all
seven of the remaining cases alleged various causes of action
related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the
mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by paying excessive
premiums to the lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk
assumed by that captive.

MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegations in the lawsuits.  There can be no
assurance that the Company will not be subject to further
litigation under RESPA or that the outcome of any such litigation,
including the lawsuits, would not have a material adverse effect
on the Company.

In January 2012, the Company received correspondence from the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") indicating that the
CFPB had opened an investigation into captive mortgage reinsurance
premium ceding practices by private mortgage insurers.  In that
correspondence, the CFPB also requested, among other things,
certain information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance
transactions in which the Company participated.  In June 2012, the
Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB
requiring additional information and documentation regarding
captive mortgage reinsurance.


NATIONWIDE: Settles Class Action Over Harleysville Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide has agreed to settle litigation related to the merger
with Harleysville Insurance.  The $26 million settlement relates
to In re Harleysville Mutual, a consolidated class action and
derivative suit related to the merger of Nationwide Mutual and
Harleysville Mutual that has been brought on behalf of former
Harleysville Mutual policyholders.  The suit and settlement were
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, First Judicial
District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division under the Honorable
Patricia A. McInerney.

Given the potential cost and burden of continued litigation,
Nationwide believes that settling this lawsuit is in the best
interest of all Nationwide and Harleysville stakeholders.  The
Company is pleased to resolve this matter and put the Harleysville
class action and derivative litigation behind it.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability by
Nationwide or Harleysville.  The court has not ruled on the merits
of the suit, and is not expected to do so in the course of the
settlement-related proceedings.  The settlement will not be final
until it is approved by the court and any appeals from the court's
ruling are resolved.

As part of the settlement process, the parties have requested that
the court certify a class for the purposes of settlement only.
Before the court can approve the settlement, class members must be
given notice of the terms of the settlement and their rights with
respect to it, and the court must hold a hearing to determine the
fairness of the settlement.

The timeline for when class members will receive written notice of
the settlement, their deadline for objecting to or opting out of
the settlement, and the date of the fairness hearing on the
settlement will be determined by the court.


PEET'S COFFEE: Defends Suit Alleging Mass. Tip Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Massachusetts Tip Law, 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.

On May 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk
County, by a former retail associate employee on behalf of himself
and all other employees similarly situated in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts naming the Company as a defendant.  The complaint
alleges that the Company has a policy of including shift
supervisors in the retail store tip pools and allowing them to
share in the proceeds of tips left by customers and that this
policy violates the Massachusetts Tip Law.  The named plaintiff is
seeking certification of the class, restitution for himself and
all other similarly situated employees, and all other remedies to
which they are entitled, including treble damages, attorney's fees
and costs.  The Company plans to vigorously defend this action.
As this matter is at a very early stage, at this time, the Company
is not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate
of loss, if any, related to this matter.


PEET'S COFFEE: Faces Class Suit Over Tip Pools in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in
California relating to its policy regarding retail store tip
pools, 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.

On June 27, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
San Francisco County Superior Court by a current retail associate
employee on behalf of himself and all other employees similarly
situated in the state of California naming the Company as a
defendant.  The complaint alleges that the Company has a practice
and policy of including shift supervisors in retail store tip
pools and that such practice constitutes conversion and unfair
business practices in violation of California law.  The named
plaintiff is seeking class certification, restitution, interest,
attorney fees and injunctive relief.  The Company plans to
vigorously defend this action.  As this matter is at a very early
stage, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the
probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to
this matter.


PEET'S COFFEE: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by JAB Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed acquisition by an affiliate of JAB Holdings BV,
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.

On July 21, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with JAB Holdings BV, a Dutch
Besloten Vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid ("JAB"), and
Panther Merger Co., a Washington corporation and an affiliate of
JAB ("Merger Sub") providing for the acquisition of the Company by
an affiliate of JAB Holdings BV.  Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Company's Board
of Directors, the affiliate of JAB will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock for $73.50 per
share in cash.  The transaction, which is structured as a one-step
merger with the Company as the surviving corporation (the
"Merger"), is not subject to a financing condition and is subject
to customary closing conditions, including receipt of shareholder
and regulatory approvals.  The transaction requires the
affirmative vote of holders of a majority of the Company's
outstanding shares.

On July 24, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
Alameda County Superior Court in California by a purported
shareholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other
shareholders naming as defendants the Company, the members of its
board of directors and JAB Holdings BV and alleging that the
members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties, and that the Company and JAB aided and abetted
the alleged breaches, in connection with the Company's agreement
to be acquired by an affiliate of JAB.  As of August 2, 2012, at
least five other similar putative class actions have been filed,
four in Alameda County Superior Court and one in King County
Superior Court in Washington, and more may be filed in the future.
The lawsuits each assert that the Company and its board of
directors engaged in a flawed process in negotiating the potential
sale, obtained a price that was below the Company's actual value
and agreed to provisions that would allegedly preclude another
interested buyer from making a topping bid for the Company.  The
lawsuits seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief or rescission to enjoin or rescind the proposed
acquisition, "rescissory damages," an accounting for damages, a
constructive trust for any allegedly improper gains by defendants,
pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes these lawsuits are meritless and intends to
defend against them vigorously.  As these matters are at a very
early stage, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the
probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to
these matters.


PETALUMA FARMS: Owner Responds to Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Marsha Trent, writing for The Argus-Courier, reports that a class
action lawsuit accusing local egg farmer Steve Mahrt of marketing
"designed to dupe consumers" seems a little like "bullying,"
according to Mr. Mahrt, the owner of Petaluma Farms.

The lawsuit, filed by a student animal activist, the Animal Legal
Defense Fund (ALDF) and Camilla Glover, a member of the Golden
Gate University Law School Student Animal Legal Defense Fund
(GGUSALDF), claims that Glover is representative of a class of
consumers who bought eggs sold by Mr. Mahrt of "Petaluma Egg Farm"
based on the belief that the hens that produced them were "raised
free of cages..." and able to "run, scratch and play in the fresh
air of Sonoma Valley."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Mahrt is "deliberately" trying to
fool buyers of "large and extra large eggs" sold under his "Judy's
Family Farm" brand with egg cartons depicting "chicks and hens
running free in an environment that is reminiscent of days gone
by."

Ms. Glover, who declined to be interviewed, claims in the suit
that she stopped buying Judy's Family Farm eggs in January when
she learned that the hens laying them "live their entire lives
inside modern, barren industrial sheds with no grassy fields and
no outdoor access."

Mr. Mahrt said last week that he is feeling "bullied" by the legal
action.  He characterized himself as a "mid-sized" egg producer
and third-generation egg farmer, without the legal resources
wielded by ALDF.  He declined to comment specifically on the
allegations in the suit.

"I have been a cage-free egg producer for 30 years," he said, "In
fact, the oldest one in the state and I have been certified
organic for over 16 years.

"When I started doing this I was a hero . . . I am the same
person, my packaging has been the same for 16 years . . . ," he
said.

Mr. Mahrt said he considers sheltering his uncaged hens and their
eggs from the weather, from disease and from predators necessary
to take care of them.  He added that doing so allows him to
produce high-quality eggs at affordable prices.  He has never
represented his operation as free range, he said.

"What is the benefit to the chicken" of keeping it outside all the
time? he asked.

Free-range egg farms are not sustainable for consumers or
producers, Mr. Mahrt contended, because the process drives egg
prices beyond the reach of ordinary buyers.

The ALDF is a self-described national "non-profit organization,
founded in 1979 by attorneys," and focused on protecting animals.

ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells said that the legal action
is an effort to stop egg farmers like Mr. Mahrt from "taking
advantage" of consumers who care about "animal welfare."

ALDF Litigation Fellow Christopher Berry initially described
Glover as a consumer who was "aware of our group and following its
activities."  Later he confirmed that she is a member of a student
arm of ALDF.

"It is very common for public interest organizations to represent
their members on matters like this since everybody's interests are
already aligned," he said.

Both ALDF's Wells and Mr. Berry said the aim of the suit is to
make an example of Mr. Mahrt to other food producers.

Since the news of the lawsuit was released, "we have heard from
lots of consumers who are feeling duped" by Mr. Mahrt, Mr. Wells
said.

Another Petaluma egg farmer, Arnie Riebli, president of the
Association of California Egg Farmers, declined comment on the
lawsuit, but said he personally thinks "the only people who
benefit from class-action lawsuits are the attorneys."


RAYMOND-HADLEY: Recalls Wegmans 17.2 oz Gluten Free Brownie Mix
---------------------------------------------------------------

   * Milk Contamination in Brownie Mix Cited

The Raymond-Hadley Corp. of Spencer, New York, is recalling
Wegmans Gluten Free Double Chocolate Brownie mixes because they
may be contaminated with the undeclared allergen Milk.  People who
have an allergy to milk run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Wegmans 17.2 oz Double Chocolate Brownie mixes were distributed in
the United States through the Wegmans retail stores.

The mixes are packaged under the Wegmans brand in chipboard boxes
with the following markings on the packages:

   * Wegmans Gluten Free Double Chocolate Brownie Mix 17.2 OZ,
     UPC 077890283363, with Enjoy By Dates 30 Oct 2013 -
     19 Dec 2013

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
chocolate chunks used in the mix were received in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of the allergen milk.  Subsequent
investigation confirms milk as a possible cross-contaminate in the
chocolate chunks used in the brownie mixes.

As of October 12, 2012, two reports of rash have been received.

Consumers who have purchased the product listed above are urged to
return it to Wegmans for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
may contact the manufacturer at 1-800-252-2220, Monday - Friday
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.


REPUBLIC BANCORP: "Webb" Class Suit vs. RB&T Stayed in Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought by Brenda Webb against a subsidiary
of Republic Bancorp, Inc. is stayed pending a decision in a case
with a similar issue, 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 August 1, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky styled Brenda
Webb vs. Republic Bank & Trust Company d/b/a Republic Bank, Civil
Action No. 3:11-CV-00423-TBR.  The Complaint was brought as a
putative class action and seeks monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory relief allegedly arising from the manner in which RB&T
assessed overdraft fees.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiff pleads
six claims against RB&T alleging: breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count I),
unconscionability (Count II), conversion (Count III), unjust
enrichment (Count IV), violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and Regulation E (Count V), and violations of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act, KRS Section 367, et seq. (Count VI).
RB&T filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on January 12, 2012.  In
response, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Amend the Complaint on
February 23, 2012.  In Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff acknowledges disclosure of the Overdraft Honor Policy
and does not seek to add any claims to the Amended Complaint.
However, Plaintiff divided the breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims into two counts
(Counts One and Two).  In the original Complaint, those claims
were combined in Count One.  RB&T filed its objection to
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.

On June 16, 2012, the District Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion
to Amend concluding that she lacked the ability to automatically
amend the complaint as of right.  However, the Court held that she
could be permitted to amend if she could first demonstrate that
her amendment would not be futile and the she had standing to sue
despite RB&T's offer of judgment.  The Court declined to rule on
that issue at this time and ordered the case stayed pending a
decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in a case on appeal with the same standing issue.

RB&T intends to vigorously defend its case. Management continues
to closely monitor this case, but is unable to estimate, at this
time, the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, that
may result from this lawsuit.


RICK'S CABARET: Awaits OK of Settlement in Remaining TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick's Cabaret International, Inc. is awaiting court approval of
its settlement of a remaining class action lawsuit alleging
Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations pending in Florida,
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.

Two securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  The plaintiffs claim to represent recipients
of text messages.  The complaints allege that the Company violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") by sending
unsolicited advertisements by text message to the plaintiff and
other recipients nationwide during the four-year period preceding
the lawsuit without the prior express invitation or permission of
the recipients.  On January 20, 2012, an amended complaint was
filed in one of the cases to add one of the Company's subsidiaries
as a defendant.  One of the cases was settled in June 2012 for
$200,000 and this amount is included in the accompanying statement
of income as settlement of lawsuits.  The settlement for the other
case has been presented to the judge in the case.  The amount the
Company will ultimately have to pay in this case is unknown, but
the Company believes that it will be negligible.

Rick's Cabaret International, Inc. -- http://www.rick's.com/--
through its subsidiaries, owns and operates upscale adult
nightclubs serving primarily businessmen and professionals in the
United States.  Its nightclubs offer live adult entertainment,
restaurant, and bar operations.  The Company was founded in 1982
and is based in Houston, Texas.


STATE FARM: Seeks Dismissal of RICO Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that the plaintiffs in a class action suit alleging
fraudulent activity in Avery v. State Farm have simply recast the
same claims they've been making for years to avoid yet another
dismissal, the defendants assert.

The defendants -- State Farm, William Shepherd, an attorney at the
insurance company, and Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil
Justice League (ICJL) -- this month all filed motions to dismiss
the suit that Mark Hale, Todd Shadle and Carly Vickers Morse
brought in May in federal court.

In their motions, the three defendants contend that the suit must
be dismissed because federal courts don't have jurisdiction to
review civil judgments of state courts.

They also assert that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their
claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) and even if they did, their claims were time barred at
least two years ago.

Mr. Hale, Mr. Shadle and Ms. Morse were class members to the 1997
class action suit against State Farm that accused the company of
providing inferior parts for vehicle repairs.  The suit resulted
in a $1 billion judgment against State Farm, which the state high
court eventually overturned.

In 2005, the Avery plaintiffs asked the court to vacate their
decision, claiming that Justice Lloyd Karmeier should have recused
himself from the case based on $350,000 in campaign donations he
received from State Farm employees.

A group of attorneys in 2011 made a similar argument, but noted
that Justice Karmeier actually got more than $3 million in
contributions that they claim the insurance company funneled
through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and ICJL, as well as its
political action committee JUSTPAC.

The state Supreme Court rejected both requests and the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2006 denied the plaintiffs' petition for
certiorari.

In May, the three Avery plaintiffs accused State Farm, Mr.
Shepherd, Mr. Murnane and Justice Karmeier's campaign committee of
creating a RICO enterprise to defraud millions of policyholders
out of the billion dollar judgment.

They claim that the defendants basically worked together to
recruit, finance and elect Justice Karmeier to the Supreme Court
so he would vote to overturn the judgment against State Farm once
elected.

Justice Karmeier's campaign committee was dismissed from the suit
late last month because it dissolved as a political association
several years ago.

In their recently-filed motions to dismiss, Mr. Shepherd, Mr.
Murnane and State Farm claim that the complaint should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker
Feldman doctrine.

They contend that federal district courts don't have jurisdiction
to review civil judgments of state courts and that despite how the
plaintiffs worded their May complaint, they are seeking review of
the Avery judgment.

"Plaintiffs seek to avoid dismissal by attempting to recast their
claims as not stemming from the Illinois Supreme Court's judgment
in Avery," Mr. Shepherd asserts in his motion to dismiss.

His motion goes on to say that "While their response attempts to
prevaricate regarding the source of their alleged injury, the face
of plaintiffs' complaint makes it clear that the lynch pin of the
alleged fraudulent scheme was Justice Karmeier's participation in
the Avery decision."

State Farm made the same argument in its motion, asserting that
"Plaintiffs' present attempt to recast the same allegations as
RICO claims is an impermissible attack on the judgment and
decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court."

Mr. Murnane stresses in the motion he filed this week that from
2005 to 2011, "plaintiffs presented substantially similar
allegations and arguments regarding Justice Karmeier's
participation in Avery" in several motions and memos to the
Illinois and U.S. Supreme courts to no avail.

In addition, Messrs. Murnane and Shepherd both brought up the
First Amendment in their support of the suit's dismissal.

They contend that the plaintiffs failed to prove they engaged in
fraudulent activity and were simply exercising their First
Amendment right to participate in political speech by supporting
Justice Karmeier's campaign.

"Essentially, the plaintiffs are asking this court to use RICO to
penalize Mr. Shepherd for exercising one of the most fundamental
rights in our society," the attorney's motion states.  "To do so
would allow a RICO action to be used to chill the kind of speech
that is essential to political process in this society."

Mr. Murnane agreed in his memo, saying that the First Amendment
protected his right to support Justice Karmeier in the 2004
election.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission, Mr. Murnane's memo states that
"The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use
information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened
self-government and a necessary means to protect it."

All three of the defendants also argue that the plaintiffs failed
to meet the RICO requirement of showing a direct relationship
between the plaintiffs' injuries and the defendants' conduct.

Mr. Murnane contends that the plaintiffs accuse him of being
involved in an alleged RICO enterprise, but never explain how his
"relationship with the alleged enterprise provided the means for
State Farm to allegedly conceal its support of Justice Karmeier
from the Illinois Supreme Court."

State Farm also notes in its motion that despite their employees'
contributions to Justice Karmeier, there was no guarantee he would
be elected, let alone that he would vote to overturn the billion
dollar judgment.

"Even more importantly, Plaintiffs cannot show that Justice
Karmeier's participation had any effect on the outcome in Avery,"
the insurance company contends.

Saying that the court unanimously rejected different aspects of
the Avery plaintiffs' suit and that only justices would have
remanded on their contract claim, State Farm asserts that
"Karmeier's vote in Avery was not decisive."

The plaintiffs have until mid-November to respond to the
defendants' motions.

Court documents show that Chief Judge David Herndon is presiding
over the matter.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tennessee attorneys W. Gordon
Ball and Charles Barrett, as well as Louisiana attorney Patrick
Pendley.

Chicago attorneys Joseph Cancila Jr., J. Timothy Eaton and James
Gaughan, as well as Edwardsville attorney Patrick Cloud, represent
State Farm.

Belleville attorneys Russell Scott and Laura Oberkfell represent
Mr. Shepherd and Chicago attorneys Richard O'Brien and David
Greenfield represent Mr. Murnane.


SUPER STORE: Recalls Lovin' Scoopful 1.75-Qt. Peanut Butter Cup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Super Store Industries, Turlock, CA is recalling Lovin' Scoopful
Ice Cream - Super Duper Peanut Butter Cup.  This product has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstance, 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.

                                      Package
Product Name                  Size     Type   Code Date
------------                  ----   -------  ---------
Lovin' Scoopful Ice Cream -   1.75   Carton   All code dates
Super Duper Peanut Butter     Quart           are being recalled
Cup Ice Cream

UPC Code: 898987001086

The "Best By" code date is in the Month/Date/Year format (i.e. OCT
24 12) and can be found on the bottom of the carton.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323950.htm

Lovin' Scoopful Super Duper Peanut Butter Cup ice cream was
distributed at Albertsons retail stores in OR, UT, WA, ID, MT and
Walmart stores in WA only.

This recall is in response to an expansion of Sunland, Inc.'s
voluntary recall of products manufactured in its peanut butter
plant after March 1, 2010, due to possible Salmonella
contamination.  No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers with the recalled product are urged not to eat the
product, and to dispose of it or return it to any Albertsons or
Walmart retail store for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
about the recalled products may call Lovin' Scoopful at 209-285-
2573 24 hours a day.


TYSON FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
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.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name         Location
    -------------         --------
    Wal-Mart              Nationwide
    Kroger                Nationwide
    Hannaford             New York and New England states
    H-E-B                 Texas
    Publix                Florida and Georgia
    Shaw's Supermarkets   Maine
    Redner's Markets      Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania
    Roundy's              Wisconsin and greater Chicago area
    Wegmans               New York and Pennsylvania

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name                     City and State
    -------------                     --------------
    Davis Monthan                     Davis Monthan, Arizona
    Luke Air Force Base Commissary    Glendale, Arizona
    Camp Pendleton Commissary         Camp Pendleton, California
    Fort Irwin                        Fort Irwin, California
    San Diego Naval Base Commissary   San Diego, California
    Imperial Beach Naval              Imperial Beach, California
    Air Station Commissary


VISA INC: Group of Retailers Oppose Credit Card Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Anne D'Innocenzio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a group of retailers and trade groups has launched a last-ditch
effort to stop a settlement worth at least $6 billion that Visa
Inc., MasterCard Inc. and major banks have agreed to pay retailers
for alleged fee fixing.

Ten out of the 19 retailers and trade groups that are plaintiffs
in the class-action lawsuit against the credit card companies say
they're trying to block the deal because they believe it would
allow the credit card industry to continue to take advantage of
merchants and their customers while stopping competition.

The proposed settlement, which was disclosed in July, is expected
to be submitted to the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn by Oct. 19.
Merchants objecting to the deal will then have 30 days to submit
arguments urging the court to reject the proposal.

Under the settlement, stores will be allowed to charge customers
more if they pay with a credit card.  The settlement covers only
U.S. transactions.  But the plaintiffs says that the settlement
will not stop swipe fees from continuing to rise, which will hurt
both retailers and shoppers, and that it will prevent any future
legal challenges.

"There is strong concern among our member companies that the
proposed settlement will not achieve the litigation's most
critical goal -- to fundamentally change a broken marketplace in
which swipe fees are set," said Dawn Sweeney, president and CEO
for the National Restaurant Association, one of the plaintiffs
opposing the settlement.  "We don't expect any settlement to
address every flaw of the current system, but we cannot allow it
to lock in the worst elements."

Other recent plaintiffs to join the growing chorus include
D'Agostino Supermarkets, and Jetro Cash & Carry Enterprises, a
supplier that serves grocery retailers and food-service operators.

They join other trade groups including the National Association of
Convenience Stores, National Grocers Association and National
Community Pharmacists Association.  Other retailers, including
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corp., that are not part of the
class-action suit also have expressed objections.

The National Retail Federation, the nation's largest retail trade
group and also not a party to the lawsuit, says it is has the
authorization from its board of directors to file an objection
with the court.  It is made of up more than 9,000 retailers.

Trish Wexler, a spokesman for the Electronic Payment Coalition, a
trade group made up of Visa and MasterCard, believes the
objections are politically motivated. She says they are trying to
mount a case for legislation to curb credit card swipe fees.

"This is their job, to throw bombs and to make noise and to march
up to Capitol Hill with their hands out," she said.

Officials at Visa could not be immediately reached.  Jim Issokson,
a spokesman at MasterCard, said, "We look forward to the court's
approval."

According to Craig Sherman, vice president of government affairs
for the National Retail Federation, the plaintiffs that support
the settlement include Payless ShoeSource Inc. and Scanmy
photos.com, a photo digitization company based in Irvine, Calif.

Mitch Goldstone, CEO of Scanmyphotos.com, the first lead plaintiff
back in 2005, says that he is "thrilled" with the settlement.
"This is the very best deal," he said.  "They were in the same
meetings as I was and I am supporting it."

Mr. Goldstone added that if there wasn't a settlement, MasterCard
and Visa could charge as much as 10 percent of a transaction in
swipe fees.  He also noted that the proposed settlement allows
retailers to sue the banks if they commit other violations such as
price fixing.

Payless ShoeSource couldn't be reached immediately.

In July, Visa, MasterCard and the banks settled a long-standing
lawsuit brought by several retailers that claimed card issuers
conspired to fix merchants' fees for accepting credit cards.
Retailers have long complained about the billions of dollars in
"swipe" or "interchange" fees that they have had to pay, which
average about 2 percent of the price of a purchase.


                           *********

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  * * *