CAR_Public/121030.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 30, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 215

                               Headlines

ASHFORD UNIVERSITY: Laid-Off Workers File Class Action
AURORA ORGANIC: January 28 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
BA CREDIT: $6-Bil. MOU Reached in Interchange Fees Litigation
BACK YARD BURGERS: Class Suit Goes to Bankruptcy Court
BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss "Parker" Suit Granted in August

BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in "Nguyen" Suit
BARNES & NOBLE: Parties in "Lina" Suit Currently in Discovery
BARNES & NOBLE: "Torrez" Class Action Complaint Still Pending
BUMBLE BAR: Recalls Cafe Chocolate and Cinnamon Sesame Bars
CAMDEN, NJ: Parents Lose Bid to Transfer Students

CHESWICK GENERATING: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
CHINA ADVANCED: Class Lawsuit Over Xianfu Han Deal Terminated
DELTA PETROLEUM: Court Consolidates Securities Class Suits
DELTEK INC: Reaches Tentative Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suit
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Nov. 9 Hearing on Delaware Suit Dismissal Bid Set

DONALDSON CO: Awaits Okay of Aftermarket Filters Suit Settlement
FLO CYCLING: Recalls 800 Bike Wheel Rim Tape Due to Fall Hazard
ILLINOIS: Prisoner Review Board Sued Over "Kangaroo" Court System
KASON INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
LAND O'LAKES: Judge Dismisses Giant Eagle's Claim

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Defective Balance-Shaft Gears
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Calif. Securities Law Violations
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
OFFICE DEPOT: Managers File OT Class Action in Pennsylvania

ONEWEST BANK: Judge Allows HAMP Class Action to Proceed
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
PATRIOT COAL: UMWA Files Class Action Over Retirement Benefits
PAYPAL: Updates User Agreement to Prevent Class Actions
PHILADELPHIA: Live Stop Car-Seizure Program Claims Dismissed

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: BVF Partners Wants to Opt Out of Settlement
ROYAL BANCSHARES: Hagens Berman Named Interim Counsel in N.J. Suit
RUDI'S ORGANIC: Withdraws Select Packages of Breads From Market
SAIC INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
SAIC INC: Defends Data Privacy-Related MDL in Dist. of Columbia

SNAP-ON INC: Screwdrivers Emit Corrosive Substance, Suit Says
SOVEREIGN GRACE: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuses
STERLING FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fee Class Action Dismissed
SYMANTEC CORP: May 6 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
SYNGENTA: Settles Atrazine Class Action for $105 Million

SYNOPSYS INC: Awaits OK of Magma Acquisition-Related Suits Deal
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Suits Over Chrome 6 Exposure Still Pending
THOR INDUSTRIES: Awaits Final OK of FEMA Trailer Dispute Deal
TRICAM INDUSTRIES: Recalls 84,000 Easy Reach Step Stools
TROPICAL VALLEY: Recalls Dark Chocolate and Trail Mix Products

UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Defends Two Shareholder Class Suits in Calif.
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Faces New Hepatitis C Class Action
VISA INC: Settlement Appears to Meet Prelim. Approval Requirements
WAL-MART STORES: Temporary Workers File Wage Class Action
WILDWOOD SEED: Recalls Pet Bird and Small Pet Animal Foods


                          *********


ASHFORD UNIVERSITY: Laid-Off Workers File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ashford
University/Bridgepoint Education laid off 1,200 workers this year
without proper notice, a class action claims in Superior Court.


AURORA ORGANIC: January 28 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on Oct. 24 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri:

If you purchased Milk Products (organic milk and/or butter)
produced by Aurora Organic Dairy and sold in the U.S. under
certain brands, including but not limited to, Aurora Organic
Dairy's "High Meadow" brand, Costco's "Kirkland" brand, Safeway's
"Safeway Select" and "O Organics" brands, Target's "Archer Farms"
brand, Wal-Mart's "Great Value" brand, and/or Wild Oats' "Wild
Oats" brand, you may be entitled to compensation.

What is the lawsuit about?

Consumers sued Aurora Dairy Corporation and Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Safeway Inc., Target Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. and Wild Oats Markets, Inc. (now known as WFM-WO, Inc., but
referred to herein as "Wild Oats," and collectively with Costco,
Safeway, Target and Wal-Mart, "Retailer Defendants") and claimed
that Aurora Organic Dairy and the Retailer Defendants
(collectively "Defendants") violated state consumer fraud and
deceptive business practices acts, express and implied warranty
statutes, and unjust enrichment laws, in connection with the sale
and marketing of certain Milk Products (organic milk, organic
butter, organic cream, and organic non-fat dry milk).

These Milk Products include but are not limited to those sold
under Aurora's "High Meadow" brand, Costco's "Kirkland" brand,
Safeway's "Safeway Select" and "O Organics" brands, Target's
"Archer Farms" brand, Wal-Mart's "Great Value" brand, and Wild
Oats' "Wild Oats" brand.  Defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and assert that their conduct was proper and lawful.
The Court has not decided who is right and who is wrong.

What are the terms of the settlement?

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, each Settlement Class
member who submits a valid claim may be entitled to money.  Aurora
Organic Dairy and its insurers have agreed to pay $7,500,000.00 to
cover claims and other settlement costs including notice and
administration costs, attorneys' fees and expenses and service
awards.  Aurora Organic Dairy has also agreed to certain
injunctive relief.  For more details, write to the address or
visit the Web site identified below.

Are you affected?

If you purchased any of the Milk Products in the U.S. for
personal, family or household uses on or before September 14,
2012, then you are a member of the Settlement Class.  Be sure to
visit the Settlement Web site for complete class member
information.

What are my legal rights?

You have a choice of whether to stay in the Settlement Class or
not, and you must decide now.

1) Stay In - You will be legally bound by the terms of the
settlement, and you won't be able to sue Defendants -- as part of
any other lawsuit -- for any claims arising from or related to the
Milk Products.  To receive benefits from the settlement, you must
submit a valid, sworn Claim Form.  The Claim Form must be
postmarked, faxed, or submitted online by March 13, 2013.  Any
member of the Settlement Class who does not timely submit a valid,
sworn Claim Form will not be entitled to settlement benefits.

2) Get Out - If you get out, you will not receive benefits from
the proposed settlement, but you will keep rights to sue
Defendants for these claims, and will not be bound by the terms of
the settlement.  To be excluded from the Settlement Class, you
must act by January 28, 2013.  If you wish to be excluded from the
Settlement Class visit
http://www.OrganicMilkMarketingSettlement.comor write to Aurora
Organic Dairy Litigation Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O.
Box 8090 San Rafael, CA 94912-8090.

3) Object to the Settlement - If you stay in any settlement class,
you can object to the Settlement and must act by January 28, 2013.

Who represents me?

The Court appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Gray,
Ritter & Graham P.C. to represent the Settlement Class. You may
hire your own attorney, if you wish, at your own expense.

The proposed settlement:

The Court, will hold a Fairness Hearing on February 26, 2013, at
9:00 a.m. CST, to determine whether the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and to approve attorney's fees and
costs.  The Hearing is at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, 111 S. 10th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102.  If
you are a member of the Settlement Class who did not seek to be
excluded, you may write to the Court to object to the proposed
settlement, and you may ask to speak at the hearing about the
fairness of the proposed settlement.

How can I get more information?

If you have questions, visit
http://www.OrganicMilkMarketingSettlement.comcall 1-877-280-8361,
or write to Aurora Organic Dairy Litigation Settlement, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 808003, Petaluma, CA 94975-8003.

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.OrganicMilkMarketingSettlement.comor by calling, toll-
free: 877-280-8361.


BA CREDIT: $6-Bil. MOU Reached in Interchange Fees Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A $6 billion memorandum of understanding in a class lawsuit
relating to interchange fees of Visa and Mastercard card
transactions has been reached, according to BA Credit Card Trust's
September 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30,
2012.

FIA Card Services, National Association ("FIA") issues credit
cards on MasterCard's and Visa's networks.  FIA is the servicer of
BA Credit.

A group of merchants have filed a series of putative class actions
and individual actions with regard to interchange fees associated
with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.  These
actions, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation, name Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank
holding companies, including Bank of America Corporation, as
defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix
the level of default interchange rates, which represent the fee an
issuing bank charges an acquiring bank on every transaction.

Plaintiffs also challenge as unreasonable restraints of trade
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act certain rules of Visa and
MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the
point of sale.

On July 13, 2012, defendants, including Bank of America
Corporation, and class plaintiffs in the Interchange matter filed
a memorandum of understanding with the court regarding a global
settlement of the Interchange litigation.  The memorandum of
understanding provides that defendants and class plaintiffs have
agreed to enter a definitive settlement agreement that will
provide, among other things, that all defendants will pay a total
of $6.05 billion to class plaintiffs and that each network will
make certain changes to network rules regarding merchant point of
sale practices.  Visa and MasterCard also have agreed to
distribute to class members an amount equal to 10 bps of credit
interchange rates for U.S. merchant class members for a period of
eight months, beginning within 60 days after completion of the
court-ordered period during which individual class members may opt
out of the settlement.  Such amounts otherwise would have been
paid to Visa or MasterCard issuers, including Bank of America
Corporation.  In exchange, class plaintiffs have agreed to a broad
release for defendants.  The class action settlement agreement to
be executed by the parties will be subject to court approval.  In
addition to settlement with the class plaintiffs, defendants in
the individual actions also reached a settlement with plaintiffs
in the individual actions.  The settlement of the individual
actions provides that all defendants will pay a total amount of
$525 million.

Subject to the loss-sharing agreements Bank of America Corporation
and certain affiliates previously entered into with Visa,
MasterCard and other financial institutions, Bank of America
Corporation will contribute a total of $738 million to the
settlement of the class and individual actions.  Of that amount,
$539 million will be paid from the proceeds that Visa previously
placed into an escrow fund pursuant to Visa's Retrospective
Responsibility Plan to cover Bank of America Corporation's share
of Visa-related claims.  Bank of America Corporation has agreed to
pay $199 million in cash for the MasterCard-related claims.  The
costs of the Interchange settlement have been fully accrued by
Bank of America Corporation.

The primary asset of BA Credit Card Trust is the collateral
certificate, Series 2001-D, representing an undivided interest in
BA Master Credit Card Trust II, whose assets include the
receivables arising in a portfolio of unsecured consumer revolving
credit card accounts.  BA Master Credit Card Trust II, therefore,
may be considered a significant obligor in relation to BA Credit
Card Trust.


BACK YARD BURGERS: Class Suit Goes to Bankruptcy Court
------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Laurie Smith Camp referred a class action
lawsuit pending against Back Yard Burgers of Nebraska, Inc., in
the District Court in Nebraska to that state's Bankruptcy Court,
in view of Back Yard Burgers' Chapter 11 filing.  All pending
motions are dismissed, Judge Camp ruled, without prejudice to re-
filing, and the case before the District Court is terminated.  The
class suit is, BRADY KEITH, Individually and on behalf of a class,
Plaintiff, v. BACK YARD BURGERS OF NEBRASKA, INC., BACKYARD
BURGERS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 8:11CV135 (D.
Neb.).  A copy of Judge Camp's Oct. 19, 2012 Order is available at
http://is.gd/2dqE8nfrom Leagle.com

Back Yard Burgers -- http://backyardburgers.com/-- operates and
franchises more than 150 quick-service restaurants in 20 states,
primarily in markets throughout the Southeast region of the United
States.  Back Yard Burgers Inc. and three of its affiliates sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 12-12882 to
12-12885) on Oct. 17, 2012, with a pre-negotiated restructuring
plan that has the support of both the Company's majority owner and
secured lender.  The debtor-affiliates are BYB Properties, Inc.,
Nashville BYB, LLC, and Little Rock Back Yard Burgers, Inc.
Attorneys at Greenberg Traurig serve as bankruptcy counsel.  Saul
Ewing LLP is the conflicts counsel.  GA Keen Realty Advisors is
the real estate advisor.  Rust Consulting/Omni Bankruptcy is the
claims and notice agent.  Back Yard Burgers estimated up to $10
million in assets and at least $10 million in liabilities.


BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss "Parker" Suit Granted in August
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. and other defendants' motion to dismiss the
class action lawsuit initiated by Whitney Parker was granted in
August 2012, according to the Company's August 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 28, 2012.

On December 21, 2010, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Stephen
Strugala against the Company's current directors and former
directors Lawrence Zilavy and Michael Del Giudice.  The complaint,
captioned Whitney Parker v. Leonard Riggio, et al. (formerly
Stephen Strugala v. Leonard Riggio, et al.), is purportedly
brought both directly, on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders, and derivatively, on behalf of the Company.  The
complaint generally alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, waste
and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company's acquisition
of Barnes & Noble College Booksellers LLC, the adoption of the
Shareholder Rights Plan, and other unspecified instances of
alleged mismanagement and alleged wrongful conduct.  The complaint
also generally alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act
in connection with the issuance of various proxy statements by the
Company.  The complaint generally seeks declaratory and equitable
relief, including injunctive relief, and costs and fees.  On
January 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties' Stipulation and
Order.  On February 18, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal of Claim, dismissing without prejudice his
putative class claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934
Act.  On March 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the litigation.  On October 4, 2011, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, but also granted plaintiff leave to
replead within 30 days.  On November 3, 2011, plaintiff requested
a pre-motion conference with the Court to discuss an anticipated
motion to substitute a new plaintiff, Ms. Whitney Parker, for Mr.
Strugala, and simultaneously filed an amended complaint on behalf
of Ms. Parker containing substantially the same claims asserted in
Mr. Strugala's original complaint.  The Court held a pre-motion
conference on December 9, 2011, at which the parties agreed that
Ms. Parker could be substituted for Mr. Strugala without prejudice
to any of defendants' rights.

On January 20, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Briefing on that motion was completed on May 4, 2012.
On August 3, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, dismissing the complaint in its entirety and denying
plaintiff's request for leave to replead.


BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in "Nguyen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to
compel arbitration in the class action lawsuit commenced by Kevin
Khoa Nguyen, according to the Company's August 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 28, 2012.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of Orange against the Company.
The lawsuit is captioned Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes &
Noble, Inc.  The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action
and includes a California state-wide subclass based on alleged
cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the
Company's Web site in August 2011.  The lawsuit alleges claims for
unfair business practices and false advertising under both New
York and California state law, violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act under California law, and breach of contract.  The
complaint demands specific performance of the alleged contracts to
sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief,
and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount.  The Company
submitted its initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012,
and moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an
individual basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision
on May 25, 2012.  The Company also moved to stay all proceedings
pending final resolution of the motion to compel arbitration on
July 20, 2012.  The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to
compel arbitration or the motion to stay.


BARNES & NOBLE: Parties in "Lina" Suit Currently in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. disclosed in its August 31, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 28, 2012, that parties to the class action
lawsuit titled Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. et al., are currently engaged in pre-
certification discovery.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried
Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of
California from the period of August 5, 2007, to present: (1)
failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed
meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure
to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements.  The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws.  The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf the purported class.
The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011.  On
August 30, 2011, the Company filed an answer in state court, and
on August 31, 2011, it removed the action to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d).  On October 28, 2011, the district court granted
plaintiff's motion to remand the action back to state court, over
the Company's opposition.  On November 7, 2011, the Company
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of the district court's
remand order.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
remand order on May 18, 2012.  The parties are currently engaged
in pre-certification discovery.  The Court has not yet set a date
for plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification, and it
has not yet set a trial date.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Torrez" Class Action Complaint Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit commenced by Dustin Torrez against Barnes &
Noble, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's August
31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.

On October 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against the
Company.  The complaint is styled as a California state-wide class
action captioned Dustin Torrez, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
It alleges violations of California Civil Code section 1747.08
(the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971) due to the Company's
alleged improper requesting and recording of zip codes from
California customers who used credit cards as payment.  The
complaint was re-filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Francisco on December 23, 2011, as a
separate action.  The Summons and Complaint have not been served
on the Company for either action.  On February 10, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a request that the action filed in December be
dismissed with prejudice.


BUMBLE BAR: Recalls Cafe Chocolate and Cinnamon Sesame Bars
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Bar, Inc. is recalling certain lots of Gluten Free Cafe(TM)
Chocolate Sesame Bars and Gluten Free Cafe(TM) Cinnamon Sesame
Bars associated with Sunland Inc. peanut products, because they
have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infection 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.  Consumers with the above symptoms should
consult their physician.

While no illnesses associated with any of these products have been
reported to date, as part the Company's commitment to the safety
and quality of its products, the Company is issuing a voluntary
recall, which includes expired product.

The 'Best Buy' date is located on the lower left panel of the 12-
pack retail box and is also located on the back film of each
individual bar.  The specific product and lot codes are as
follows:

Retail Carton    Individual
   UPC code      Bar UPC code   Item Description       Lot code
-------------   ------------   ----------------       --------
70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       01MAY13
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       30APR13
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       18MAR13
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       20OCT12
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       19OCT12
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       17OCT12
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       16OCT12
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       04JUL12
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       03JUL12
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       26APR12
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03450     70795-03550    Gluten Free Cafe       21MAR12
                                Chocolate Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       16APR13
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       17APR13
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       15MAR13
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       22SEP12
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       22AUG12
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       23AUG12
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       29JUN12
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       24MAY12
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       25APR12
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

70795-03451     70795-03551    Gluten Free Cafe       02MAR12
                                Cinnamon Sesame Bar

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm325870.htm

The recalled products were distributed nationwide from June 2011
to October 2012, and exported primarily to retail stores, and
through Internet orders.  Consumers who have purchased any
products covered by this recall should destroy them or return them
to the retail store where purchased for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-800-434-4246 during
extended hours from Wednesday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.  After hours and weekend calls
will be monitored and returned promptly.


CAMDEN, NJ: Parents Lose Bid to Transfer Students
-------------------------------------------------
MaryAnn Spoto, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that an
administrative law judge refused on Oct. 23 to remove three Camden
students from the city's public schools despite their parents'
contention that the children shouldn't be forced to stay in
failing schools.

Judge Edward Delanoy said the parents' arguments didn't satisfy
the criteria needed for him to order an immediate relocation for
them.

Three parents -- Sandra Vargas, Maria Roldan and Gricelda Ruiz --
filed a class-action petition Oct. 15 against the Camden Board of
Education claiming their sons were being denied a thorough and
efficient education and demanded they be removed immediately.

Among their arguments before Judge Delanoy on Oct. 22, attorneys
for the parents and the board of education sparred over whether
the children were suffering irreparable harm by remaining in the
district.

Patricia Bombelyn and Julio Gomez, attorneys who represented the
parents, said they plan to ask state Education Commissioner
Christopher Cerf to find in their favor.

"If the (judge's) legal analysis is allowed to stand, it will mean
that zip codes do indeed determine whether or not a child has the
right to a thorough and efficient education in New Jersey," they
said in a joint statement.  "We are hopeful that the commissioner
of education will carefully review this matter and place the
immediate needs and interests of children ahead of the interests
of a school district that has failed them for over a decade."

Judge Delanoy said the parents did not prove their children had
suffered academically by remaining in the schools.  He also noted
they did not prove relocating them would prevent irreparable harm.

"It would be unfair to place the blame for the alleged
shortcomings of the petitioner schoolchildren solely at the feet
of the district without regard for some consideration of
sufficient proofs to indicate that the district is to blame,"
Judge Delanoy wrote in his 12-page decision.  "Without those
proofs, it cannot be determined whether or not these petitioner
schoolchildren are currently receiving a thorough and efficient
education."

Ms. Bombelyn has said Camden, which has 1 percent of all the
schools in New Jersey, constitutes 33 percent of all schools in
New Jersey that are considered by the state Department of
Education to be the lowest performing.

Mr. Cerf can adopt, change or reject Judge Delanoy's ruling.

Lester Taylor III, solicitor for Camden schools, has contended
there is no proof that the children are suffering immediate
irreparable harm. He also argued the district would suffer a
greater harm because the relocation of the three students could
lead to all 12,000 students leaving the district along with the
$350 million in education financing.


CHESWICK GENERATING: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class of 1,500 people
living near the coal-fired Cheswick Generating Station failed to
state a claim against plant owner GenOn Power Midwest, a federal
judge ruled.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court in Bell v.
Cheswick Generating Station, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00929 (W.D.
Penn), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/25/GenOn.pdf


CHINA ADVANCED: Class Lawsuit Over Xianfu Han Deal Terminated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action complaint against China Advanced
Construction Materials Group, Inc. relating to a stock sale
transaction with Xianfu Han has been dismissed, according to China
Advanced's September 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2012.

Since July 29, 2011, multiple class action complaints (the
"Stockholder Actions") were filed against the Company and its
Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, generally alleging that the Company and all of its
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
receipt by the Company of a preliminary, non-binding offer from
Xianfu Han, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
and Weili He, the Company's Vice Chairman and Chief Operating
Officer (together with Xianfu Han and their affiliates, the "Buyer
Group"), to acquire all of the outstanding shares of its common
stock not currently owned by them in a going private transaction
at a proposed price of $2.65 per share in cash.  The Stockholder
Actions were consolidated under the caption In re China Advanced
Construction Materials Group Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
6729-CS.

On July 9, 2012, the Company announced that it and the Buyer Group
determined to terminate the merger agreement the parties signed on
October 24, 2011, based on the determination by all parties that
the conditions to consummate the merger contemplated by the Merger
Agreement cannot be satisfied, and the Company and the Buyer Group
entered into the Termination of Agreement and Merger Agreement.
On August 14, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions
requested that the case be dismissed and the court approved the
dismissal.

China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc. --
http://www.china-acm.com-- through its subsidiaries, produces and
supplies ready mix concrete materials and related technical
services for large scale, high-speed rail, and other complex
infrastructure projects primarily in the People's Republic of
China.  The Company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in
Beijing, China.


DELTA PETROLEUM: Court Consolidates Securities Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Colorado District Judge Christine M. Arguello consolidated the
various securities class actions pending in Colorado district
court brought by purchasers of the common stock of Delta
Petroleum, Inc., against various present and former officers or
directors of Delta.  The Court designated Patipan Nakkhumpun as
lead plaintiff and the law firm of Federman & Sherwood as lead
counsel.  The Court denied the requests of Alfredo Bogliolo and of
Sunil Varghese and Ancy Ninan that they be appointed as lead
plaintiffs.

The complaints allege that the Defendants violated federal
securities laws by knowingly or recklessly disseminating false and
misleading information, which purportedly inflated the market
price of Delta's common stock during the period beginning March
11, 2010, through and including Nov. 9, 2011.  The complaints
assert that, during the Class Period, the Defendants made false or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about Delta's business operations, prospects, financial
position, and results.  The complaints further assert that, on
Nov. 9, 2011, Delta disclosed disappointing third quarter 2011
financial results and informed investors that, if its ability to
address its liquidity proved unsuccessful, it would need to
seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  According to the
complaints, these disclosures caused Delta's stock to experience a
"one-day decline of 65% on volume of nearly 4.5 million shares."

A copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2012 Order is available at
http://is.gd/M3MQnYfrom Leagle.com

                        About Delta Petroleum

Delta Petroleum Corporation (NASDAQ: DPTR) is an independent oil
and gas company engaged primarily in the exploration for, and the
acquisition, development, production, and sale of, natural gas and
crude oil.  Natural gas comprises over 90% of Delta's production
services.  The core area of its operations is the Rocky Mountain
Region of the United States, where the majority of the proved
reserves, production and long-term growth prospects are located.

Delta and seven of its subsidiaries sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 11-14006 to 11-14013,
inclusive) on Dec. 16, 2011, roughly six weeks before the Jan. 31,
2012 scheduled maturity of its $38.5 million secured credit
facility with Macquarie Bank Limited and after several months of
unsuccessful attempts to sell the business.  Delta disclosed
$375,498,248 in assets and $310,679,157 in liabilities, which also
include $152,187,500 in outstanding obligations on account of the
7% senior unsecured notes issued in March 2005 with US Bank
National Association indenture trustee; and $115,527,083 in
outstanding obligations on account of 3-3/4% Senior Convertible
Notes due 2037 issued in April 2007.  In its amended schedules,
the Delta Petroleum disclosed $373,836,358 in assets and
$312,864,788 in liabilities.

W. Peter Beardsley, Esq., Christopher Gartman, Esq., Kathryn A.
Coleman, Esq., and Ashley J. Laurie, Esq., at Hughes Hubbard &
Reed LLP, in New York, N.Y., represent the Debtors as counsel.
Derek C. Abbott, Esq., Ann C. Cordo, Esq., and Chad A. Fights,
Esq., at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, in Wilmington, Del.,
represent the Debtors as co-counsel.  Conway Mackenzie is the
Debtors' restructuring advisor.  Evercore Group L.L.C. is the
financial advisor and investment banker.  The Debtors selected
Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as claims and noticing agent.  The
petition was signed by Carl E. Lakey, chief executive officer and
president.

Delta Petroleum won confirmation of its reorganization plan at a
hearing on Aug. 15, 2012.  Laramie Energy II LLC is the plan
sponsor.

Delta Petroleum emerged from bankruptcy as Par Petroleum
Corporation.  At closing, Laramie and Par Petroleum contributed
their respective assets in Mesa and Garfield counties, Colorado,
to form a new joint venture called Piceance Energy, LLC.  Laramie
and Par Petroleum hold 66.66% and 33.34% ownership interests in
Piceance Energy, respectively.


DELTEK INC: Reaches Tentative Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deltek, Inc. negotiated an agreement-in-principle to settle a
class action complaint over its merger deal with Project Diamond
Holdings Corporation, according to the Company's September 26,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Following the announcement by Deltek, Inc. of its entry into the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 26, 2012, by and among
Deltek, Project Diamond Holdings Corporation ("Parent") and
Project Diamond Merger Corp. ("Merger Sub") (the "Merger
Agreement"), a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Bushansky
v. Deltek, Inc. et al., Case No. 7827-12-VCP, was filed against
Deltek, the board of directors of Deltek, Thoma Bravo, L.L.C.,
Parent and Merger Sub in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, New Castle County.

On September 26, 2012, the Company and the other defendants
reached an agreement-in-principle with the plaintiff regarding the
settlement of the lawsuit.  In connection with the settlement, the
Company agreed to supplement the Information Statement and make
additional disclosures to stockholders in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

The Information Statement Supplement is available at the SEC at:

                       http://is.gd/kH2Iz8


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Nov. 9 Hearing on Delaware Suit Dismissal Bid Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Various class action complaints relating to the now terminated
proposed merger transaction with Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. have
been filed in Oklahoma state court, Oklahoma federal court, and
Delaware Chancery Court against Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., its directors, and Hertz by various plaintiffs, for
themselves and on behalf of the Company's stockholders, excluding
defendants and their affiliates.  The complaints allege that the
consideration the Company's stockholders would have received in
connection with the proposed transaction with Hertz is inadequate
and that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties
to stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.
These complaints also allege that the proxy materials that were
sent to the Company's stockholders to approve the merger agreement
are materially false and misleading.

One of the cases is Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., et al. (Consolidated Case No. CJ-2010-02761, Dist. Ct. Tulsa
County, Oklahoma).  This case was dismissed without prejudice on
September 20, 2012.

The other case is In Re: Dollar Thrifty Shareholder Litigation
(Consolidated Case No. 5458-VCS, Delaware Court of Chancery).  On
October 18, 2011, plaintiffs sought permission to amend their
pleadings to assert additional claims that members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
concerning the following matters: (a) the Board's response to a
merger proposal by Avis Budget Group, Inc. in September 2010; (b)
the Board's use of defensive measures, including the adoption of a
poison pill, in response to the Exchange Offer made by Hertz; (c)
the Board's response to the failure of Hertz to submit an improved
final offer meeting certain Board criteria by October 10, 2011;
and (d) the Board's alleged failure to make full material
disclosures to the Company's stockholders concerning the Hertz
offer, the Company's stand-alone plan, and the Company's
negotiations with Hertz regarding a business combination.  On
November 1, 2011, the plaintiffs advised the court that the
parties have agreed to stay further activity pending the outcome
of the Hertz antitrust review process.

On August 27, 2012, the Company and Hertz announced that they
entered into a new definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
Hertz would acquire the Company for $87.50 per share in a two-step
tender offer transaction.  The Tender Offer is not the subject of
any claims asserted in the Delaware Shareholder Litigation.

Accordingly, the Lead Plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder
Litigation believes the claims asserted in its action have become
moot, and the defendants do not object to a dismissal of the
action.  The parties subsequently entered a stipulation agreeing
to the dismissal of the Delaware Action.

Judge Leo E. Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that
he will convene a hearing on November 9, 2012, on the proposed
dismissal of the Delaware Action, the Company disclosed in its
September 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.


DONALDSON CO: Awaits Okay of Aftermarket Filters Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson Company, Inc. continues to await court approval of a
settlement resolving class action lawsuits filed against filter
manufacturers in 2008, according to the Company's September 28,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2012.

The Company has reached a preliminary agreement to settle the
class action lawsuits filed in 2008 alleging that 12 filter
manufacturers, including the Company, engaged in a conspiracy to
fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. Customers for aftermarket
automotive filters.  The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Company denies any liability and has vigorously
defended the claims raised in these lawsuits.  The settlement will
fully resolve all claims brought against the Company in the
lawsuits and the Company does not admit any liability or
wrongdoing.  The settlement is still subject to Court approval and
will not have a material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or liquidity.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-K
filing.

Founded in 1915, Donaldson Company, Inc. is a worldwide
manufacturer of filtration systems and replacement parts. The
Company's product mix includes air and liquid filtration systems
and exhaust and emission control products.  Products are
manufactured at 40 plants around the world and through three joint
ventures.  The Company has two reporting segments: Engine Products
and Industrial Products.


FLO CYCLING: Recalls 800 Bike Wheel Rim Tape Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 800 Bicycle Wheel Rim Tapes were voluntarily recalled by FLO
Cycling LLC, of Las Vegas, Nevada, in cooperation with the CPSC.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The rim tape can fail and break under pressure.  When this
happens, the inner tube of the bicycle can puncture or burst.
This poses a fall hazard to the rider.

The firm has received four reports of exploding inner tubes and
flat tires.  No injuries were reported.

The rim tape is a yellow plastic strip that was provided for free
with the purchase of FLO 60, FLO 90 and FLO DISC wheels.  The
number 700X18 A/V is printed on the tape.  The serial number is
located either on the wheel rim under the tube or on the outer
edge of the disc wheel.  The following serial numbers are included
in this recall:

      12DA3542 to 12DA3547
      12DA3550
      12DA3561 to 12DA3565
      12DA3582 to 12DA3584
      12DA3586
      12EA2770
      12EA2933 to 12EA2940
      12EA2943
      12EA2944
      12EA2948
      12EA2953 to 12EA2960
      12EA3179
      12EA3180
      12EA3187 to 12EA3189
      12FA1972 to 12FA1980
      12FA1982 to 12FA1998
      12FA2943
      12FA3028
      12GA0311 to 12GA0320
      12GA0643 to 12GA0662
      12GA0664
      12GA0665
      12GA0673 to 12GA0675
      12GA0976 to 12GA1000
      12GA1031 to 12GA1043
      12GA1125 to 12GA1130
      12GA1134 to 12GA1136

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13703.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold
exclusively at FLO Cycling's Web site from May 2012 through July
2012 with the purchase of FLO wheels.  The wheels cost between
$375 and $700.

Consumers should contact FLO Cycling to receive a $5 refund for
each wheel purchased.  The firm is contacting consumers who
purchased wheels with the recalled rim tape directly.  FLO
Cycling: (800) 959-8312 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday or http://www.flocycling.com/for more
information.


ILLINOIS: Prisoner Review Board Sued Over "Kangaroo" Court System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Meisner, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit filed last week in federal court
alleges that hundreds of Illinois youth are imprisoned each year
on often technical parole violations and held unconstitutionally
through a "kangaroo court" system that restricts access to an
attorney.

The suit, filed on Oct. 23 by the Northwestern University School
of Law's MacArthur Justice Center on behalf of a teen identified
by initials M.H., names Gov. Pat Quinn and Adam Monreal, the
chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board.

It seeks class-action status for "all children and teenagers who
have been imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty as a
result of the unconstitutional" system of juvenile parole.

The suit alleged that juvenile offenders accused of violating
parole are often persuaded to waive their right to a crucial
preliminary hearing by being told it will help them get home
sooner.

Even if that hearing occurs, the juvenile typically has no chance
to review the alleged violations and does not have access to legal
counsel, both due-process violations, according to the suit.

"This flawed system creates a revolving door that ensures most
young people who leave prison will return at some point,"
MacArthur's attorney, Alexa Van Brunt, said in a statement.  "Not
necessarily because they commit a new crime, but because the
parole process imprisons youth without a hearing based on a mere
allegation that the youth committed a minor violation of his
parole."

M.H., described as a 17-year-old Chicago boy on parole for a drug
conviction, was locked up on Sept. 13 on accusations he failed to
keep in touch with his parole officer, according to the suit.  The
teen, who is "moderately cognitively impaired" and has been in and
out of drug and mental health treatment, was asked to sign a piece
of paper with the promise it would get him home sooner.

He's since been held for six weeks without a hearing and has had
no access to an attorney, the suit alleged.

"I would like a lawyer to help me tell my side of the story," M.H.
wrote in an affidavit attached to the lawsuit.  "I don't
understand a lot about the parole process. I don't understand the
rules.  I can't speak up for myself in a room full of adults."

The teen wrote that without access to a car the conditions of his
parole were difficult to meet.  He also said he needed more time
to earn his high school diploma and find a job.

According to statistics provided by MacArthur, the prisoner review
board in 2011 revoked parole in 65 percent of its 1,132 juvenile
cases.  More than half of those revocations stemmed from technical
parole violations, not new arrests or criminal charges.

Keeping a youth locked up on a parole violation costs taxpayers
between $67,000 and $140,000 a year, according to MacArthur.

Representatives with Quinn's office and the Prisoner Review Board
were not immediately available for comment.


KASON INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Oct. 24 approved a class action settlement
resolving claims that Kason Industries Corp. and Component
Hardware Group Inc. fixed prices for components used in commercial
food service equipment.

The settlement, approved by U.S. District Judge Michael M. Anello,
is intended to compensate indirect purchasers of Kason and CHG
products who claimed they were forced to pay third-party suppliers
inflated prices for the companies' food service equipment.  Under
the terms of the deal, the companies will pay class members up to
$720,000.


LAND O'LAKES: Judge Dismisses Giant Eagle's Claim
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that fresh from entering a $25
million settlement in a consolidated class action over the price-
fixing of eggs in the United States, a federal judge looking at
Giant Eagle's individual action dismissed a claim against Land O'
Lakes.

A copy of the Memorandum in In Re: Processed Egg Products
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/25/Eggs.pdf


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Maxim Healthcare Services
stiffs home health aides for overtime, doesn't pay them for all
hours worked, and violates other labor laws, a class action claims
in Superior Court.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Defective Balance-Shaft Gears
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mercedes-Benz's M272 and M273
engines have defective balance-shaft gears, which cause expensive
malfunctions, according to a federal class action.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Calif. Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Falk, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OCZ Technology Group, Inc., Arthur F. Knapp, Jr. and
Ryan M. Petersen, Case No. 3:12-cv-05345 (N.D. Calif.,
October 16, 2012) accuses OCZ and certain of its officers and
directors of violating federal securities laws.

Mr. Falk alleges that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent
scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price.  As a
result of the fraud, the Company lost a substantial portion of its
value, he says.

Mr. Falk says he purchased the publicly traded OCZ securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has been
damaged thereby.

OCZ is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose,
California.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3082
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Oct. 20 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased OCZ Technology
Group, Inc. common stock or call options, or sold OCZ put options
OCZ, between July 10, 2012 and October 10, 2012.

To join the OCZ 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.  The action filed by the firm is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

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 asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against OCZ and certain of its officers and directors for issuing
materially false and misleading financial information.  The
lawsuit asserts that OCZ: (a) was providing extraordinary customer
incentives in excess of what was normal and customary; and (b)
improperly accounting for customer incentive programs.  As a
result, OCZ's financial results were misstated during the Class
Period and OCZ lacked adequate internal controls.  When this
adverse information entered the market, OCZ's stock price dropped,
damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 10, 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. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free,
at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com

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


OFFICE DEPOT: Managers File OT Class Action in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that Office Depot Inc.
was hit with a lawsuit on Oct. 23 by a proposed class of assistant
store managers in Pennsylvania accusing the office supplies giant
of denying them proper overtime pay and failing to give them such
pay in a timely manner.

In a complaint filed in Pennsylvania federal court, Timothy
Stivers, a former Office Depot assistant store manager who had
worked at its Pittsburgh location until April 2011, claims that
the Boca Raton, Fla.-based firm had not paid him and other
assistant store managers the appropriate overtime pay.


ONEWEST BANK: Judge Allows HAMP Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Podmolik, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
Yorkville homeowner's lawsuit alleging that her lender botched her
efforts to modify her mortgage will be allowed to proceed and seek
class-action status, a federal court judge ruled last week.

The Oct. 22 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman, denying OneWest Bank's motion to dismiss the case filed
by Stacey Fletcher, shows that the door has been opened to
homeowners and former homeowners who believe their lenders
mishandled applications for participation in the government's loan
modification programs, according to Steven Woodrow, one of
Ms. Fletcher's attorneys.

"It really helps the people who are really being strung along,"
Mr. Woodrow said.  "That person may be able to sue the bank for
breach of contract."

In 2009, three years after purchasing a home, Ms. Fletcher
encountered financial difficulties and sought to have her mortgage
payments modified by IndyMac Mortgage Services, her lender whose
assets have since been acquired by OneWest.  According to the
suit, a bank representative suggested that Ms. Fletcher skip a few
mortgage payments in order to qualify for the federal government's
Home Affordable Modification Program.

In February 2010, she was approved for a three-month trial payment
plan and told, according to the suit, that if she was approved
after making those three payments, her modification would be made
permanent.  Ms. Fletcher made the payments, but the bank had
trouble crediting her account for the payments and reported her
delinquency to credit bureaus.  Conflicting letters arrived,
including one that came even before the first trial payment was
due.  That one stated Ms. Fletcher was not eligible for a
permanent modification because she hadn't made her trial payments.

Two months after the trial period ended, Ms. Fletcher hadn't
received any decision regarding a permanent loan modification.
She filed the lawsuit seeking class action status, alleging, among
other things, breach of contract and violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act.

Ms. Fletcher remains in the home, and a foreclosure action has not
yet been filed against her because of the pending litigation, Mr.
Woodrow said.  Ms. Fletcher declined an interview request.

David Isaacs, a spokesman for OneWest, said the bank doesn't
comment on pending litigation.

In her opinion, Judge Coleman cited a federal appellate court
ruling in March that favored another Chicago-area homeowner who
filed a similar case.

In that case, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overturned a
lower court ruling and revived a suit filed by Lori Wigod, a
Chicago resident who sued Wells Fargo in 2010.  She claimed that
the lender broke a promise made in 2009 to give her a permanent
loan modification after giving her a four-month trial payment
plan.

Lenders have argued that the Home Affordable Modification Program
precludes consumers from filing lawsuits alleging federal law
violations.  But the appellate court ruled that Ms. Wigod's state
law claims of breach of contract and fraud were not barred by
federal laws.

Ms. Fletcher's case was put on hold until the appellate court's
ruling.

"There's new cases being filed all the time," said Mr. Woodrow,
who also represents Ms. Wigod.  "The first wave got knocked off by
motions to dismiss.  Since the Wigod decision, that's really
opened the door for more claims to be filed, rooted in state law,
more breach of contract claims."

Mr. Woodrow acknowledged that such cases are complex. If it
becomes a class-action complaint, the litigation will have to
determine the potential class of claimants.  It also will have to
resolve now much a time delay constitutes breach of contract and
how damages would be calculated.


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
12 Civ. 7938 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
Overseas Shipholding between May 4, 2009 and October 19, 2012,
both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a
result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Overseas Shipholding
securities during the Class Period, you have until December 26,
2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address and telephone number.

Overseas Shipholding is one of the world's leading tanker
companies engaged primarily in the transportation of crude oil and
petroleum products.  At December 31, 2011, the Company owned or
operated a modern fleet of 111 double hulled vessels of which 89
vessels operated in the international market and 22 operated in
the U.S. Flag market.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business, operations and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Company made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company improperly
accounted for certain tax liabilities; (ii) the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (iii) as a result of
the above, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 3, 2012, the Company disclosed the resignation of a
Board member due to "a disagreement with the Board as to the
process the Board is taking in reviewing a tax issue."  On this
news, Overseas Shipholding stock declined $0.26 per share or 3.6%,
to close at $6.82 per share on October 3, 2012.

On October 16, 2012, it was reported in the media that the Company
might be facing a liquidity problems, and its Chief Executive
Officer confirmed that the Company had hired a financial adviser
and was in talks with its lenders.  On this news, Overseas
Shipholding stock declined $1.77 per share or over 34% within two
trading sessions, to close at $3.40 per share on October 17, 2012.

On October 22, 2012, the Company disclosed that it was reviewing a
tax issue arising from it being domiciled in the United States and
having substantial international operations, and relating to the
interpretation of certain provisions in its loan agreements.
Moreover, the Company's Audit Committee concluded that the
financial statements for at least the three years ended
December 31, 2011 and associated interim periods, and for the
quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2012, should no longer be
relied upon and is evaluating if it will need to restate for those
periods.  The Company further disclosed that it is negotiating
with creditors and is evaluating its strategic options including
filing for bankruptcy.  On this news, Overseas Shipholding stock
declined $2.02 per share or 62%, to close at $1.23 per share on
October 22, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and San
Diego, concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate,
securities, and antitrust class litigation.


PATRIOT COAL: UMWA Files Class Action Over Retirement Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Kuykendall, writing for State Journal, reports that in the
latest attempt to fulfill its promise to do "whatever it takes" to
protect the retirement benefits owed by Patriot Coal, the United
Mine Workers of America has filed a class action lawsuit against
the company's progenitors.

The suit was filed Oct. 23 in the Southern District of West
Virginia and asks the court declare Magnum Coal and Peabody Energy
obligated to maintain funding of the benefit plans.  The suit was
filed by eight retired and active members of the UMWA but claims
to represent more than 10,000 retirees and active workers.

The basis of their argument comes from the Employee Retirement and
Income Securities Act, which prohibits discriminating against a
beneficiary with the purpose of interrupting benefits obligated.

Patriot was spun off from Peabody Energy in a move that distanced
the company not only from Central Appalachian coalfields but also
most of its union employees.  Mines spun off from Arch Coal into
Magnum Coal were later acquired by Patriot.

A spokesperson for Peabody maintained that Patriot was a viable
company at spin-off.

"As we have noted before, substantial events after that time, both
inside and outside Patriot, significantly affected its future,
from Patriot's transformational acquisition of Magnum Coal Company
to Patriot's decisions to make significant changes in its capital
structure," a Peabody spokesperson said.  "Other factors were
decreased demand for U.S. coal due to sharp declines in natural
gas prices; the softening of the global steel markets; and more
burdensome regulations.  Patriot notes many of these same factors
in its filings with the bankruptcy court."

The UMWA has insisted that Peabody's move created a company that
was doomed to fail, taking with it several post-retirement
obligations and improving its bottom line at the expense of their
workers.  Peabody has maintained that at the time of the Patriot
spin-off, there was potential for great success, had coal markets
not done so poorly.

"Peabody and Arch established separate spin-off companies, which
have become today's Patriot Coal, with the publicly stated
intention of getting rid of their obligations to the retirees who
gave a lifetime of service to those companies," UMWA President
Cecil E. Roberts said.  "The companies bragged about getting those
liabilities off their balance sheets.

"As people with long experience in the coal industry, they knew
that the cyclical nature of the industry would inevitably lead to
Patriot's inability to pay for those liabilities," Ms. Roberts
said.  "It was a company set up to fail.  But under the law, that
does not relieve Peabody and Arch of their obligation to these
retirees, their spouses and their widows."

The suit alleges that Peabody glossed over the potential pitfalls
to investors in its financial documents.

"Without Peabody's assumption of these healthcare obligations,
Patriot would have shown a negative net worth on its pro forma
financial statements, which would have both jeopardized the
intended tax-free nature of the distribution of Patriot's shares
to the shareholders of Peabody Energy and constituted an obvious
fraud on Peabody's creditors," the suit states.  "Upon information
and belief, in order to make Patriot appear solvent at the time of
the spin-off, Peabody Energy assumed $615.8 million dollars of
retiree healthcare and other liabilities, while transferring $557
million in retiree healthcare liabilities to Patriot.  As of
December 31, 2011, the present value of the retiree healthcare
obligations Peabody assumed at the time of the spin-off was $697
million."

Following the spinoff, Peabody made a point of its lower legacy
liabilities to investors.  This, the UMWA asserts, is proof
Peabody was aware of the toxicity of Patriot assets.

"In view of the realities of the transaction and the cyclical
nature of the price of coal, it was inevitable that Patriot would
eventually fail under the weight of its retiree healthcare and
other legacy obligations," the suit states.

Patriot is currently going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy
reorganization.  Benefits to retirees are not guaranteed to change
under bankruptcy, but the likelihood of post-retirement
obligations going untouched is unlikely.

In an interview with the State Journal, Trent Cornell, an attorney
with Pedersen and Houpt in Chicago, a non-union attorney who
regularly represents non-union employees in large bankruptcies,
said the retirement benefits will likely be examined.

"It would be unbelievable to me that this case would emerge from
bankruptcy without going after the union and non-union benefits,"
he said.

Arch Coal declined comment on the suit.

"Since the matter is in active litigation, we must refrain from
commenting at this time," said Kim Link, spokeswoman, Arch Coal,
Inc.


PAYPAL: Updates User Agreement to Prevent Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Corbin, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that
PayPal has been sending out notices to its customers alerting them
to a significant set of changes to its user agreement that will
shield the company from class-action lawsuits, following close on
the heels of a similar policy adopted by parent company eBay.

The changes, which take effect Nov. 1, would bar users from
joining a class to pursue litigation against PayPal, instead
limiting them to final and binding arbitration in the event of a
dispute.

Under PayPal's revised terms, individuals can still pursue
litigation in small claims court when the case is appropriate for
that venue.  eBay also included a provision in its updated
agreement allowing aggrieved customers to file individual
lawsuits, but that is small solace to Christine Hines, consumer
and civil justice counsel at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy
group that earlier this month launched a petition campaign
protesting eBay's forced-arbitration clause.

"I don't know if it makes that much of a difference to tell you
the truth.  It doesn't really affect the impact of a class-action
ban," Ms. Hines said of the provision preserving the right to
individual action.  "It's really a red herring. It's okay for a
company to, say, give up $2,000 in small claims court versus
addressing wrongful action against thousands of consumers in one
action."

PayPal customers can preserve their right to join in class-action
lawsuit by opting out of the updated terms.  To do so, they must
notify PayPal by mail, an irony for a company that lives in the
digital world that is not lost on Public Citizen and other
critics.  The group offers sample form letters on its Web site
that users can print and mail to eBay and PayPal to retain the
right to join a class-action lawsuit.

But irrespective of the somewhat inconvenient format the companies
are requiring for a notice to opt out, introducing the new terms
on an opt-out basis, rather than opt-in, seems to Ms. Hines a
transparent effort to impose the forced-arbitration clause on as
many users as possible.

"These opt outs are, again, another red herring," she said.  "They
know that most consumers are not going to read all of the fine
print or even understand what they're giving up."

PayPal users' opt-out notices must be postmarked by Dec. 1.

At the core of the issue, Public Citizen sees an erosion of a
valuable right for consumers, for whom class-action activity
offers an important legal recourse.  Most class-action cases
concern small individual sums for which most consumers do not take
the trouble to hire a lawyer and bring to court on their own.

"Arbitration is not a bad deal if they have a choice," Ms. Hines
said. "It's taking away the choice in the fine print of a terms-
of-service (agreement) or a contract that's really the problem."

But arbitration has its own problems, according to Ms. Hines.  In
a dispute between a corporation and an individual, the business
commonly will dictate the terms of the arbitration proceeding,
including venue and the arbiter that will hear the case.

"The problem is that it favors companies because they can write
the rules for the arbitration and they are repeat players, in that
they go back to the same arbitration provider," Ms. Hines said.

A PayPal spokesman defended the update to the terms of service in
the context of the broader industry adoption of forced-arbitration
policies, and noted the provisions offering an opt-out and
allowing for legal action in small claims court.

"eBay Inc's policy (including PayPal's) is consistent with the
practices of many leading consumer, technology and Internet
companies," the spokesman said in an e-mailed statement.  "We
added this clause to ultimately make it easier on our customers to
resolve disputes outside of direct contact with our customer
service team.  Unlike going to court, arbitration can be filed in
the location where the customer resides and can be conducted
through exchange of documents without an in-person hearing if the
customer agrees.  We also agree to pay the customer's filing fees
for matters of $10,000 or less."

Public Citizen maintains a running list of the companies that have
adopted forced-arbitration clauses, and continues to ask lawmakers
and policymakers to address the issue.

Businesses, including ecommerce heavyweight Amazon, have felt
emboldened to adopt forced-arbitration clauses following a 2011
U.S. Supreme Court ruling.  In AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion, the
high court held that federal arbitration law supersedes state laws
against contracts that bar class-action litigation.

An attorney with Public Citizen argued that case before the
Supreme Court, and the issue remains on the group's litigation
agenda.

Additionally, Public Citizen is asking the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to ban forced-arbitration clauses in the user
agreements of the financial firms that it oversees, and is calling
on members of Congress to support legislation that would ban the
practice.

In 2011, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.)
introduced the Arbitration Fairness Act, a measure to preserve the
rights of consumers and employees to seek relief in a court that
Public Citizen supports, but the companion bills have not moved
out of committee in either chamber.


PHILADELPHIA: Live Stop Car-Seizure Program Claims Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class opposed to the
Philadelphia Parking Authority's motion Live Stop car-seizure
program cannot advance claims over the failure to immobilize a
vehicle before towing it or the failure to afford a hearing, a
federal judge ruled.

A copy of the Memorandum & Order in Sheller, et al. v. City of
Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02371 (E.D. Pa.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/25/Live%20Stop.pdf


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: BVF Partners Wants to Opt Out of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Santo, writing for Law360, reports that the Delaware Supreme
Court heard oral arguments on Oct. 24 as BVF Partners LP sought to
escape the terms of a class action settlement preventing the
private equity firm from pursuing its own shareholder suit over
Quest Diagnostics Inc.'s $344 million buyout of Celera Corp.

The class action had been brought by New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System in Delaware Chancery Court, which in March
certified NOERS as class representative, approved its settlement
agreement and refused BVF's request that it be allowed to opt out
of the deal.


ROYAL BANCSHARES: Hagens Berman Named Interim Counsel in N.J. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has appointed Hagens Berman interim class counsel
in a class-action lawsuit alleging that a group of investors and
investment companies conspired to fix the interest rates paid by
thousands of New Jersey property owners on unpaid property taxes.

The suit, filed in March 2012, in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, alleges that a group of investors
and investment companies exploited a bidding process under which
municipalities in the state auction off delinquent property tax
obligations of property owners.  Under state law, the property
owners' tax obligation is sold to the bidder who agrees to accept
the lowest interest rate on the debt.  The bidding at the auction
opens at 18 percent interest and is then bid down by each
subsequent bidder, and in many cases to zero percent interest,
according to the complaint.  The system is designed so that the
interest rate will be as low as possible for property owners.

However, the complaint alleges that a group of investors conspired
to split the market and made agreements not to bid against one
another.  The agreements resulted in many tax obligations
auctioned off with only one bid, according to the suit, meaning
that interest rates on the debt were set at the statutory maximum
of 18 percent, the lawsuit states.

"New Jersey designed this system to benefit property owners and
make sure they get the lowest interest rates supported by the
market," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.
"The defendants turned that system on its head, agreeing not to
compete with one another so that property owners, including both
families and businesses, would be forced to pay interest rates on
their unpaid taxes far above a reasonable market rate."

On Oct. 22, 2012, U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp appointed
Hagens Berman and Hausfeld LLP as interim class counsel and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as interim liaison counsel in the case,
which will now move forward to discovery, and ultimately, trial.

"We are pleased with the judge's ruling to select Hagens Berman as
interim class counsel, and we will continue to work hard to
recover funds for property owners," said Mr. Berman.  "We look
forward to demonstrating the strength of our claims to the court."

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and asks the court to award
damages to property owners who were damaged as a result of the
alleged scheme.

According to the complaint, the Department of Justice is
continuing to investigate this matter and at least 10 defendants
have already pled guilty to criminal charges.

New Jersey property owners who fell behind in property tax
payments and whose debt was auctioned to an investor during the
period 1998 through 2009 may have paid inflated taxes due to this
scheme and can contact Hagens Berman to discuss this case by
calling 206-623-7292 or by e-mailing
NJtaxsalecertificates@hbsslaw.com.

The defendants in the case include William A. Collins, David M.
Fraber, Chun Li, Isadore H. May, Richard J. Pisciotta, Jr., Robert
E. Rothman, Robert W. Stein, David Butler, Stephen E. Hruby,
Crusader Servicing Corporation, Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC,
CCTS, LLC, Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, and Rothman Realty
Corp.

More information about this case is available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/NJtaxsalecertificate

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com--- is a class-action law firm, with
offices in ten cities.  Founded in 1993, the firm represents
plaintiffs in class actions and multi-state, large-scale
litigation that seek to protect the rights of investors,
consumers, workers and whistleblowers.


RUDI'S ORGANIC: Withdraws Select Packages of Breads From Market
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rudi's Organic Bakery, Inc. has initiated a voluntary product
withdrawal due to the possible presence of metallic foreign
objects in select products or product packaging.  Products
withdrawn from the market include only Rudi's Organic Bakery
Multigrain Oat Bread, Rudi's Organic Bakery Colorado Cracked Wheat
Bread, and Rudi's Organic Bakery Cinnamon Raisin Bread.

No other Rudi's Organic Bakery or Rudi's Gluten-Free Bakery
products are included in this voluntary market withdrawal.

The affected products include the lot codes below.  Lot codes are
printed on the quick lock closure, which is the plastic piece that
seals the bread bag, and the UPC code is listed on the barcode on
the bread package.

   * UPC: 0-31493-82888-8 Rudi's Organic Bakery Multigrain Oat
     Bread (22 oz) Lot Code 1-173-R

   * UPC: 0-31493-54373-6 Rudi's Organic Bakery Colorado Cracked
     Wheat Bread (22 oz) Lot Code 2-193-R

   * UPC: 0-31493-92183-1 Rudi's Organic Bakery Cinnamon Raisin
     Bread (24 oz) Lot Code 1-273-R

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm325624.htm

Consumers with the lot codes and UPC codes listed and/or who have
questions, should contact Rudi's Organic via e-mail at
info@rudisbakery.com or call 877-293-0876 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. (Mountain Standard Time), Monday - Friday.


SAIC INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
SAIC, Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to
the Company's August 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2012.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions.  One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  The consolidated complaint names as defendants the
Company, its chief financial officer, two former chief executive
officers, a former group president, and the former program manager
on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly on behalf of
all purchasers of SAIC's common stock from April 11, 2007, through
September 1, 2011.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that the Company and individual defendants made
misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues,
operating income, and internal controls in connection with
disclosures relating to the CityTime project.  The plaintiffs seek
to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an
unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by
buying SAIC's stock at an inflated price.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.

The Company currently believes that a loss relating to the
stockholder matters is reasonably possible, but the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the range of loss in light of the fact that
these matters are in their early stages.


SAIC INC: Defends Data Privacy-Related MDL in Dist. of Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAIC, Inc. is defending itself against a multidistrict litigation
over data privacy issues, according to the Company's August 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in the following seven putative class
action lawsuits filed in October 2011 through March 2012: (1)
Richardson, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science
Applications International Corporation, United States Department
of Defense, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia; (2) Arrellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (4) Moskowitz, et al.
v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v.
SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International
Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The lawsuits were filed following the theft of
computer backup tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee.  The
employee was transporting the backup tapes between federal
facilities under an IT services contract the Company was
performing in support of TRICARE, the health care program for
members of the military, retirees and their families.  The tapes
contained personally identifiable and protected health information
of approximately five million military clinic and hospital
patients.  There is no evidence that any of the data on the backup
tapes has actually been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized
person.  In order for an unauthorized person to access or view the
data on the backup tapes, it would require knowledge of and access
to specific hardware and software and knowledge of the system and
data structure.  The Company has notified potentially impacted
persons by letter and is offering one year of credit monitoring
services to those who request these services and in certain
circumstances, one year of identity restoration services.

The complaints in the seven lawsuits vary in their allegations and
causes of action against the Company and include allegations of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact
contract, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private
facts and statutory violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, California data breach notification requirements,
the California Unfair Competition Law, the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and the Privacy Act of 1974.  The complaints seek monetary
relief, including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages,
statutory damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorney's
fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.  The Company
filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) to transfer the seven pending cases, plus a
related case, to a single court for consolidated or coordinated
pretrial proceedings.  In June 2012, the JPML granted that motion
and transferred the related actions to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, where they have since been consolidated
for pretrial purposes.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
the claims made in the class action lawsuits.  The Company has
insurance coverage against judgments or settlements relating to
the claims being brought in these lawsuits, with a $10 million
deductible.  The insurance coverage also covers the Company's
defense costs, subject to the same deductible.  As of July 31,
2012, the Company has recorded a loss provision of $10 million
related to these lawsuits, representing the low end of the
Company's estimated gross loss.  The Company believes that, if any
loss is experienced by the Company in excess of its estimate, such
a loss would not exceed the Company's insurance coverage.  As
these lawsuits progress, many factors will affect the amount of
the ultimate loss resulting from these claims being brought
against the Company, including the outcome of any motions to
dismiss, the results of any discovery, the outcome of any pretrial
motions and the courts' rulings on certain legal issues.


SNAP-ON INC: Screwdrivers Emit Corrosive Substance, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Gaglioti, on behalf of himself and the putative class v.
Snap-On Incorporated, Case No. L-007957-12 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
Bergen Cty., October 12, 2012) is brought on behalf of
consumers/purchasers of Snap-On brand screwdrivers.

Unknown to him and the Class, Snap-On screwdrivers contain a
latent defect causing the handle of the screwdriver itself to
degrade and decompose, rendering the screwdriver completely
useless, Mr. Gaglioti alleges.  He adds that the handle of the
screwdriver emits a corrosive and toxic substance that eats away
anything with which it comes into contact, including paint, chrome
finish, and other plastics.

Mr. Gaglioti is a resident of New Jersey.  He periodically
purchased Snap-On screwdrivers from a Snap-On Tools representative
during the years from 1975 to 1983.  He paid approximately $4,000
in total for the screwdriver sets.

Snap-On Incorporated is a foreign profit limited liability company
with a principal business in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  The Defendant
makes, promotes, markets, distributes and sells Snap-On tools,
including Snap-On screwdrivers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          DISABATO & BOUCKENOOGHE LLC
          4 Hilltop Road
          Mendham, NJ 07945
          Telephone: (973) 813-2525
          Facsimile: (973) 900-8445
          E-mail: ddisabato@disabatolaw.com


SOVEREIGN GRACE: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuses
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that Sovereign
Grace Ministries church allowed sexual predators to molest
children for more than 20 years while telling the victims they
were "sinners" and intimidating their families to avoid "secular"
prosecution, three alleged victims claim in a class action
lawsuit.

In some cases, the church in Gaithersburg, Md. forced the victims
to forgive their attackers, according to the complaint.

The class, led by Jane Doe, Norma Noe and Robin Roe, sued
Sovereign Grace Ministries and eight of its officials in
Montgomery County Court.

Ms. Doe, a high school student, says she was sexually assaulted
when she was 3 years old.

Ms. Roe, a college student, says she was sexually assaulted when
she was 2.

Sovereign Grace Ministries operates churches in Gaithersburg, in
Louisville, and in 21 countries, according to the complaint.

The women claim the church "failed to report known incidences of
sexual predation to law enforcement, encouraged parents to refrain
from reporting the assaults to law enforcement, and interposed
themselves between the parents of the victims and law enforcement
in order to mislead law enforcement into believing the parents had
'forgiven' those who preyed on their children."

The women say the abuses occurred under the auspices of the
church, which was "responsible for more than 800 children at its
Gaithersburg church, many hundreds of others elsewhere."

The church's home schooling groups and babysitting services
facilitated the abuse, the women say.  For instance, the church
did not require that its pastors be licensed or ordained, and did
not have any policies to deal with sexual predation, the complaint
states.

Sovereign Grace's home schooling groups require members to attend
meetings each week, at homes where the church "directed members to
unquestioningly 'obey' the church in all matters, including
methods of parenting, place of residence and employment."

The women say the church knew as early as 1987 that there was a
sexual abuse problem in its congregation.  But rather than report
the sexual abuse to authorities, the church handled its problem
internally, teaching its members to "fear and distrust all secular
authorities, and expressly directed members not to contact law
enforcement to report sexual assaults," the plaintiffs say.

Ms. Doe says she was repeatedly assaulted when she was 3 by a
church member who was babysitting her.

"Upon learning of the crimes, the church failed to report the
crimes to the secular authorities.  Instead, the church engaged in
a lengthy pattern of fraud and deception to try to prevent anyone
from learning the full extent of the ongoing criminal activity,"
according to the complaint.

Ms. Doe says the church let her molester continue babysitting
while it told police that it was providing accountability measures
to ensure that the member was not given access to other children.

"In fact, the church did not put any 'accountability measures' in
place, but instead permitted a known child molester to frequent
the 'children's ministry' without any supervision, babysit
children of members, and otherwise interact with children at
church events, including a weekend retreat, without any
supervision whatsoever," Ms. Doe said.

Ms. Noe says she was molested when she was 2, and when her parents
reported it to the church, a church official, defendant John
Loftness, told them not to call police.

When the parents told Mr. Loftness they already had contacted
police, he said, "that is going to be a problem," and that such
matters were handled internally, not by secular authorities,
according to the complaint.

Ms. Noe says Mr. Loftness tipped off her molester that her parents
had reported the abuse, and "took steps to ensure that other
church members in the neighborhood were not alerted to the crime."

Then the church forced her to be "reconciled" with her predator at
a meeting, traumatizing her and her parents, Ms. Noe says.  She
says the family was told not to tell other members about the abuse
or the identity of her attacker, and that church officials let him
continue working with children.

The third plaintiff says she reported the abuse of her sister by
her stepfather, a Sovereign Grace member, to a church leader, who
reported it to defendant church leaders Gary Ricucci and Loftness,
who went to the aid of the predator, not the victim.

"Rather than assisting the victims, the church retained a lawyer
for the sexual predator," plaintiff Ms. Roe says.

"The church even suggested to Robin Roe's mother that she send
Robin Roe's sister, the victim, out of the house in order to
'bring' the predator home as 'head of the household.'"

Ms. Roe says the church booted her out after she told another
member about the assault.  She claims the church's conduct and
misrepresentations landed her in a juvenile halfway house.

Ms. Roe says the church kicked her mother out, too, for refusing
"to acquiesce in the church's attempt to obstruct justice."
The complaint contains numerous other allegations of sexual abuse
and the church's alleged coverups, including the mother of a 10-
year-old girl who had been abused by her father for years being
reprimanded "for the sin of 'gossiping,'" after she turned to her
friends for support.

"The church also told the 10-year-old victim that she was a
'sinner' for having been victimized.

"The church blamed the mother for the father's pedophilia and
instructed her to engage in sex with her husband more frequently
to prevent him from 'being tempted,'" the complaint states.

Also named as defendants are Sovereign Grace officials Charles
Mahaney, David Hinders, Louis Gallo, Frank Ecelbarger, Grant
Layman and Lawrence Tomczak.

They are accused of covering up numerous allegations of sexual
assault and refusing to cooperate with police.

The women say they continue to suffer physical and emotional
distress, shock, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace,
humiliation and the loss of enjoyment of life.  And they say the
bills for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and
counseling are adding up.

They seek damages for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent hiring, conspiracy to obstruct justice and
fraud.

The class is represented by Susan Burke of Washington, D.C.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fee Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Valencia writing for Journal of Business, reports that
class-action lawsuits in Washington and Oregon against Spokane-
based Sterling Financial Corp. were dropped voluntarily Oct. 16,
the company says.

The lawsuits claimed Sterling Bank, for which Sterling Financial
is the parent company, improperly listed debit-card transactions
from highest to lowest dollar amount, instead of chronologically,
leading to a greater number of overdraft fees.


SYMANTEC CORP: May 6 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California disclosed that a notification program began on Oct. 25,
as ordered by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, to alert people who purchased Norton
antivirus software from Symantec Corporation about a proposed
class action settlement.

This settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether Symantec
Corporation improperly charged customers for the automatic renewal
of a prior Norton software subscription after they purchased
another Norton product.

Eligible claimants may receive a $10 cash refund or two-month
Norton subscription extension for each eligible pair of Norton
purchases.  The settlement also provides that Symantec will make
certain Web site disclosures and other changes to its business
practices.

The following products are included in the settlement: Norton
AntiVirus, Norton Internet Security, Norton 360, Norton Personal
Firewall and Norton SystemWorks ("Eligible Products").

The Settlement Class includes all individuals, businesses and
other entities in the United States who between October 1, 2005
and May 23, 2012: (a) purchased an Eligible Product, and (b)
enrolled in Norton's automatic renewal service for that product,
and (c) purchased (or renewed) a second Eligible Product either
during the term of a subscription to the first Eligible Product or
within 60 days after being charged an automatic renewal charge for
that first Eligible Product, and (d) installed the second Eligible
Product on the same computer as the first Eligible Product, and
(e) have not received a refund of the automatic renewal charge.
Each pair of product purchases is an "Eligible Transaction."

Class Members who submit valid claims by May 6, 2013, may receive
a $10 cash refund or two-month Norton subscription extension for
each Eligible Transaction.  Claims for a single Eligible
Transaction do not require proof from the claimant -- the claim is
based on their knowledge and recollection.  Claims for multiple
Eligible Transactions require that the claimant provide proof-of-
purchase documentation.  Class Members can request a Claim Form,
Detailed Notice and postage prepaid envelope by calling the toll
free number or visiting the Web site.  Claims may be submitted by
postal mail, e-mail or fax.

Notices will be sent to potential Settlement Class Members and are
scheduled to appear in nationwide print and online media leading
up to a hearing on April 4, 2013, when the Court will consider
whether to grant final approval to the settlement.

The Court has appointed the law firms of The Law Offices of Thomas
M. Mullaney in New York, NY, and Larry D. Drury, Ltd., in Chicago,
IL, as Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class.

Those affected by the settlement can ask to be excluded from, or
object to, the settlement and its terms.  The deadline for
exclusions and objections is February 26, 2013.

A toll free number, 1-877-853-3045, has been established in the
case known as Marolda v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 08-5701 (EMC),
along with a Web site -- http://www.NortonSettlement.com-- where
the notice, claim form and other information may be obtained.
Those affected may also send an e-mail to
info@NortonSettlement.com or write to Norton Upgrade Settlement,
P.O. Box 3170, Portland, OR 97208-3170.


SYNGENTA: Settles Atrazine Class Action for $105 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Syngenta will
pay $105 million to settle a class action that claimed its
atrazine herbicide polluted water supplies.

The settlement ends nearly 8 years of litigation.

It covers the City of Greenville and several other Midwestern
water providers' 2010 federal lawsuit, and similar claims filed in
Madison County Court in 2004.

The plaintiffs claimed that atrazine, a popular agricultural
herbicide, polluted groundwater and forced them to spend money to
test, monitor and filter their water.

U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert approved the settlement, which
will provide $5,000 to each water provider, to cover about 20
water tests.

The plaintiffs will split the rest of the settlement, minus $8
million for litigation costs and $32 million for attorneys' fees,
based on the amount of atrazine found in their water and the
population they serve.


SYNOPSYS INC: Awaits OK of Magma Acquisition-Related Suits Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsys, Inc. is awaiting preliminary approval of its settlement
of acquisition-related lawsuits, according to the Company's August
31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

On February 22, 2012, the Company acquired all outstanding shares
of Magma Design Automation, Inc., a chip design software provider,
at a per-share price of $7.35. Additionally, the Company assumed
unvested restricted stock units (RSUs) and stock options,
collectively called "equity awards."  The aggregate purchase price
was approximately $550.2 million.  The Company says this
acquisition will enable it to more rapidly meet the needs of
leading-edge semiconductor designers for more sophisticated design
tools.

In connection with the Company's agreement to acquire Magma, four
putative stockholder class actions were filed against Magma,
Magma's board of directors, the Company and its merger subsidiary
on December 5, 2011, December 9, 2011, December 13, 2011, and
December 19, 2011, in state court in California and Delaware
(collectively, the Magma Lawsuits).  The Magma Lawsuits allege,
among other things, that Magma and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Magma's stockholders in negotiating and
entering into the definitive merger agreement and by agreeing to
sell Magma at an unfair price, and that Magma and the Company
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On February 10, 2012, the parties to the Magma Lawsuits entered
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which they agreed on
the terms of a proposed settlement of the lawsuits, which would
include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of
the defendants.  Pursuant to the MOU, Magma agreed to make certain
additional disclosures concerning Magma's acquisition by the
Company, which supplemented the information provided in Magma's
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 10, 2012, and to pay certain legal fees and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel, which would be immaterial to Synopsys'
financial results.  As contemplated by the MOU, the parties
entered into a stipulation of settlement, which is subject to
customary conditions including court approval following notice to
Magma's former stockholders.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion
for preliminary approval of such proposed settlement.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Suits Over Chrome 6 Exposure Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc. continues to defend lawsuits arising from
exposure to chrome 6, according to the Company's September 27,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2012.

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.  The
lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant.  The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.  The suit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same
court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury
and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs
who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful
substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the
Crestmore plant.  The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.
from the suits, and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been
dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs.  Most of the Company's
subsidiaries operating in California remain as defendants.  The
court has dismissed from these suits plaintiffs that failed to
provide required information, leaving approximately 2,000
plaintiffs.

Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries in the
same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and
requests for relief, but with respect to the Company's Oro Grande,
California cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant.  The suits
involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs. Texas Industries,
Inc. and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been similarly
dismissed from these suits. The court has dismissed from these
suits plaintiffs that failed to provide required information,
leaving approximately 250 plaintiffs. Prior to the filing of the
lawsuits, the air quality management district in whose
jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from locations
around the plant. None of the samples contained chrome 6 levels
above 1.0 ng/m3.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from suit
to suit. Following dismissal of certain causes of action by the
court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the remaining causes of
action typically include, among other things, negligence,
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress,
trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability, willful
misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices,
wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs generally
request, among other things, general and punitive damages, medical
expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and medical
monitoring costs. As of September 27, 2012, none of the plaintiffs
in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any specific amount
or range of damages. Some of the suits include additional
defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant located
approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or former owners
of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants.

The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these suits but
it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from them.
It also cannot predict whether any other suits may be filed
against it alleging damages due to injuries to persons or property
caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.

In the Company's judgment, the ultimate liability, if any, from
such legal proceedings will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Texas Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries is a supplier of heavy
construction materials in the southwestern United States through
its three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer
products.  Its principal products are gray portland cement,
produced and sold through its cement segment; stone, sand, gravel
and lightweight, produced and sold through our aggregates segment;
and ready-mix concrete, produced and sold through its consumer
products segment. The Company's facilities are concentrated
primarily in Texas, Louisiana and California.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Awaits Final OK of FEMA Trailer Dispute Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thor Industries, Inc. is awaiting a final court order on a
settlement resolving a FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Litigation,
according to the Company's September 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended July, 31, 2012.

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed against
numerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, including
complaints against the Company.  The complaints were filed in
various state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama,
Texas and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who lived
in travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homes
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The complaints
generally allege that residents who occupied FEMA supplied
emergency housing units, such as travel trailers, were exposed to
formaldehyde emitted from the trailers.  The plaintiffs allege
various injuries from exposure, including health issues and
emotional distress.  Most of the initial cases were filed as class
action suits.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"MDL panel") has the authority to designate one court to
coordinate and consolidate discovery and pretrial proceedings in a
proceeding known as multidistrict litigation ("MDL").  The MDL
panel transferred the actions to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court") because
the actions in different jurisdictions involved common questions
of fact.  The MDL Court denied class certification in December
2008, and consequently, the cases are now being administered as a
mass joinder of claims (the "MDL proceeding").  There are
approximately 4,100 suits currently pending in the MDL Court.

The number of cases currently pending against the Company is
approximately 500.  Many of these lawsuits involve multiple
plaintiffs, each of whom have brought claims against the Company.
A number of cases against the Company have been dismissed for
various reasons, including duplicative and unmatched lawsuits and
failure of plaintiffs to appear or prosecute their claims.  In the
event a case does not settle or is not dismissed during the MDL
proceeding, it is remanded back to the original court for
disposition or trial.  In September 2009, the MDL Court commenced
hearing both bellwether jury trials and bellwether summary jury
trials.  The summary jury trial process is an alternative dispute
resolution method which is non-binding and confidential.  The
Company has participated in one confidential summary jury trial.

On December 21, 2011, the MDL Court issued an Order that, among
other matters, mandated certain manufacturing defendants in the
litigation, including the Company and several of its RV
subsidiaries, to participate in mediation in January 2012.  The
Company's Heartland subsidiary participated in a mediation on
January 27, 2012, and reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the pending claims against it on February 2, 2012.  The other Thor
RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding collectively
participated in a mediation on January 19, 2012 and during a
second mediation session held on February 10, 2012 reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the litigation.  On March 27,
2012, Heartland and its insurance carriers entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") memorializing the February 2,
2012 settlement.  On March 30, 2012, Thor Industries, Inc., for
itself and on behalf of its other RV subsidiaries involved in the
MDL proceeding, and its insurance carriers, entered into an MOU
memorializing the settlement reached on February 10, 2012.

As previously reported on April 19, 2012 by the Company on its
Form 8-K, the Company and its RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL
proceeding, their respective insurance carriers, several
unaffiliated manufacturers of RVs and their insurers, and legal
representatives of the plaintiffs each executed a Stipulation of
Settlement in April 2012.  As set forth more fully in the
Stipulation of Settlement, if the MDL Court grants final approval,
the claims against the Company will be dismissed with prejudice
and released, such that every member of the settlement class will
be forever barred from asserting against the Company any claims
alleged in the MDL proceeding.  In furtherance of the settlement,
a payment of $6,250 was made by the Company and its insurance
carriers for the benefit of the settlement class into the registry
of the court, and a payment of $553 was made by Heartland, a
subsidiary of the Company, and its insurance carriers for the
benefit of the settlement class.

On May 31, 2012, the MDL Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement class.  The Company had previously recorded
adequate amounts for this settlement and paid $4,700 into the
Registry of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on June 1, 2012.

On September 6, 2012, pursuant to an Order of the MDL Court,
counsel for the plaintiffs produced the list of members of the
class who requested exclusion from the proposed settlement.  Only
one individual making a claim against the Company and/or its RV
subsidiaries requested to be excluded from the proposed class
settlement.

The MDL Court was scheduled to conduct a Fairness Hearing on
September 27, 2012, during which final approval of the proposed
settlement was to be evaluated.  In the event that the MDL Court
finds the proposed settlement to be reasonable, it is expected
that all claims made in the litigation, excepting only the single
claim that requested exclusion from proposed settlement, will be
finally resolved in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation
of Settlement identified above.

Founded in 1980, Thor Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells a
wide range of recreation vehicles and small and mid-size buses in
the United States and Canada.  The Company's principal recreation
vehicle operating subsidiaries are Airstream, Inc. (Airstream),
CrossRoads RV (CrossRoads), Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc.
(Dutchmen), Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (Thor Motor Coach), Keystone RV
Company (Keystone) and Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC
(Heartland).  Its principal bus operating subsidiaries are
Champion Bus, Inc. (Champion), ElDorado National California, Inc.
(ElDorado California), ElDorado National Kansas, Inc. (ElDorado
Kansas) and Goshen Coach, Inc. (Goshen Coach).


TRICAM INDUSTRIES: Recalls 84,000 Easy Reach Step Stools
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tricam Industries Inc., of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, announced a
voluntary recall of about 84,000 Step Stools.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The top step/standing platform can break, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

Tricam has received five reports of the standing platform
breaking, one of which included a report of scrapes and abrasions
to a consumer.

The recalled products are Easy Reach by Gorilla Ladders 3-Step Pro
Series step stools, model number HB3-PRO.  The step stools have
three plastic steps, a steel tubular frame and a plastic-molded
tool holder.  The model number is located on the underside of the
middle step on a blue label.  The label also states that the step
stools are rated to support 225 lbs.  Recalled step stools have a
"J" stamped into the underside of the top step and/or the
underside of the tool holder.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13020.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at The Home Depot from April 2012 through August 2012
for about $27.

Customers should immediately stop using the recalled step stools
and contact Tricam Industries for a full refund.  Tricam
Industries; toll-free (855) 336-0360, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or
http://www.gorillaladders.net/,then click on Recall for more
information.


TROPICAL VALLEY: Recalls Dark Chocolate and Trail Mix Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Valley Foods is alerting customers that because of a
label error, Dark Chocolate, Organic Dark Chocolate and Trail Mix
items which were sold in bulk quantities contain undeclared
allergens.  Consumers who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
wheat, soy or tree nuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The following products are included in the recall:

Undeclared tree nuts, wheat, and/or soy:

   * Organic Appalachian Adventure Mix - Bulk - UPC# 817582000091
   * Organic Cedar Creek Country Mix - Bulk - UPC # 817582000092
   * Rocky Mountain Mix - Bulk - UPC # 817582000093
   * Organic Rocky Mountain Mix - Bulk - UPC # 817582000093
   * Organic Yellow Stone Hiking Mix - Bulk - UPC # 817582000094
   * Yellow Stone Hiking Mix - Bulk - UPC # 817582000094
   * Organic Sequoia Trail Mix - Bulk - UPC # 817582000095
   * Sequoia Trail Mix - Bulk - UPC # 817582000095

Undeclared wheat and soy:

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Pretzels - Bulk - UPC # 817582600090
   * Natural Dark Chocolate Pretzels - Bulk - UPC # 817582600090

Undeclared soy:

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Cranberries - Bulk - UPC #
     817582510092

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Cherries - Bulk - UPC # 817582520091

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Goji Berries - Bulk - UPC #
     817582540092

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Coconut - Bulk - UPC # 81758250000

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Banana Coins - Bulk - UPC #
     817582560000

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Apricots - Bulk - UPC # 817582570090

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Ginger Cubes - Bulk - UPC #
     81758270081

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Almonds - Bulk - UPC # 817582610090

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Walnuts - Bulk - UPC # 817582620090

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Cashews - Bulk - UPC # 81758263009

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Hazelnuts - Bulk - UPC # 817582650090

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Macadamias - Bulk - UPC #
     817582640090

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Pecans - Bulk - UPC # 817582660090

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Brazil Nuts - Bulk - UPC #
     817582670090

   * Organic Dark Chocolate Goji Mix - UPC # 817582540093

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Cranberries - Bulk - UPC #
     817582510092

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Orange Cranberries - Bulk - UPC #
     817582510093

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Cherries - Bulk - UPC # UPC #
     817582521091

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Blueberries - Bulk - UPC #
     817582530091

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Goji Berries - Bulk - UPC #
     817582540092

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Coconut - Bulk - UPC # 817582550000

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Banana Coins - Bulk - UPC #
     817582561000

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Apricots - Bulk - UPC # 817582570090

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Ginger Cubes - Bulk - UPC #
     817582710081

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Almonds - Bulk - UPC # 817582611090

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Walnuts - Bulk - UPC # 817582621090

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Cashews - Bulk - UPC # 817582631090

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Brazil Nuts - Bulk - UPC #
     817582671090

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Lemon Peel - Bulk - UPC #
     817582590090

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Orange Peel - Bulk - UPC #
     817582580090

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Quinoa - Bulk - UPC # 817582720086

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Espresso Bean Blend - Bulk - UPC #
     817582730092

   * Natural Dark Chocolate Goji Mix - Bulk - UPC # 817582540093

   * Milk Chocolate Cherries - Bulk - UPC # 817582520090

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

    http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm325796.htm

The products were shipped to distributors and retailers in
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin, Quebec City, Hong Kong and Dubai UAE.

This recall was initiated after an FDA inspection found that the
Company's bulk labels for Dark Chocolate, Organic Dark Chocolate,
Milk Chocolate and Trail Mix bulk items had undeclared allergen
information on its bulk labels.  The Company has initiated a
recall of the bulk and partial bulk products which were shipped
from Tropical Valley Foods during the time frame of 09/26/2011
through 09/25/12.

There have been no illnesses reported in connection with this.
Customers who purchased these products may return to the store for
the correct allergy information.  Consumers with questions may
contact Tropical Valley Foods at (518) 314-7162, Monday - Friday;
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Defends Two Shareholder Class Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on September 7, 2012, two purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.,
certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of its
initial public offering in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, the Company disclosed in its
September 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012.

The complaints purport to bring claims under the Securities Act of
1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on
behalf a class of purchasers of its common stock from October 14,
2011 through August 9, 2012 and/or who acquired their stock
pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement for the
IPO.  The complaints seek, among other things, compensatory
damages, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaints are without
merit and intend to vigorously contest the litigation. However,
there can be no assurance that it will be successful in its
defense and it cannot currently estimate a range of possible
losses it may experience in connection with the litigation.

Ubiquiti Networks (NASDAQ: UBNT) is a multinational technology
company started in 2005.  Based in San Jose, California, the
Company is a manufacturer of wireless products whose primary focus
centers on underserved and emerging markets.


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Faces New Hepatitis C Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a new complaint filed against a
Pittsburgh hospital over possible exposure to hepatitis C by a
jailed radiology technician is seeking class-action status.

The estate of a man who was diagnosed with cirrhosis following
surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is among
the plaintiffs who filed suit on Oct. 23 against UPMC and the
temporary staffing agency that employed David Kwiatkowski.

The suit alleges they failed to report Mr. Kwiatkowski to
authorities after UPMC discovered he was swiping needles.

Mr. Kwiatkowski is facing federal drug charges in New Hampshire.
He has pleaded not guilty to stealing drugs and tampering with
needles.

Of the 17 plaintiffs in the latest suit, three have tested
positive for hepatitis C.  One is awaiting test results.

UPMC officials didn't immediately return an e-mail message on
Oct. 24.


VISA INC: Settlement Appears to Meet Prelim. Approval Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that a
federal judge on Oct. 24 said a pending $7.25 billion settlement
between merchants and Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and several large
banks appears to meet requirements for preliminary approval.

U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson, though, noted in an order
the threshold for preliminary approval of proposed class-action
settlements is "meaningfully lower" than that for final approval.

"I have reviewed the settlement agreement, and at first blush it
appears to satisfy the threshold requirements for preliminary
approval," Judge Gleeson wrote, though he didn't actually grant
preliminary approval to the deal yet.

The deal, announced in July, would allow the payment networks and
several banks that issue their cards to resolve litigation that
has lingered since 2005 over the fees merchants pay to accept
credit cards, known as interchange or swipe fees.

But the settlement has reignited a long-standing battle between
merchants and the credit-card industry.  Several retail trade
groups, including the National Retail Federation, have said the
deal is flawed because it won't stop swipe fees from increasing in
the future, and more than half of the 19 named plaintiffs involved
in the suit have said they oppose it.  Supporters say critics are
trying to drum up support for legislation that would address the
fees.

Attorneys who negotiated the deal on behalf of a proposed class of
up to 8 million merchants asked for Judge Gleeson's preliminary
approval of the settlement in a motion filed Friday in the
Brooklyn court.

Judge Gleeson's order Wednesday denied requests by attorneys
representing some of the merchants who oppose the deal to allow
for the formation of a committee to represent objectors and to
specify whether he will set procedures for absent class members
who oppose the deal to make their concerns known.

Judge Gleeson said parties who oppose preliminary approval have
until Oct. 31 to make their positions known in writing.

Objections "deserve, and will get, careful consideration by the
court," he wrote.

Judge Gleeson also said he will allow for oral argument on the
motion for preliminary approval on Nov. 9, a move he said isn't
ordinary, noting "it seems clear that there is an expectation
among some interested parties that the preliminary approval
process should be more involved in this case than in the usual
class action."

Jeff Shinder, managing partner with the law firm Constantine
Cannon LLP, represents several of the named plaintiffs who oppose
the deal, including the National Association of Convenience Stores
and National Grocers Association, and has said he plans to file a
motion to deny preliminary approval.

"The proponents of this settlement have done nothing to address
the concerns of the increasing number of objectors to this deal,"
Mr. Shinder wrote in an e-mail on Oct. 19 after co-counsel for the
class filed for preliminary approval.

If the deal is approved, up to 8 million retailers could receive
payments totaling $6.05 billion.  In addition, the settlement also
calls for Visa and MasterCard to temporarily reduce swipe fees by
an amount equal to $1.2 billion and would allow merchants to
surcharge customers who pay with cards, a practice Visa and
MasterCard have long banned.

Mr. Shinder and other critics argue that releases from future
litigation that would be granted to Visa and MasterCard under the
settlement are too broad and say the ability to surcharge comes
with too many strings attached to make it a plausible option for
merchants.

Supporters of the deal have accused critics of trying to use their
opposition to drum up support for new legislation that would limit
credit-card swipe fees.  Such rules for debit-card swipe fees took
effect in October 2011 as per a provision of 2010's Dodd-Frank
financial overhaul legislation.  The provision, known as the
Durbin amendment, didn't address credit-card swipe fees.

Craig Wildfang, partner with law firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi LLP is serving as co-counsel to the proposed class of
merchants.  He said in an interview recently that the settlement
represents a best-case outcome for merchants that will result in
new abilities for merchants to drive down their costs of card
acceptance.

Some objectors are trying to "hold the settlement hostage" to
persuade "Congress to enact some kind of interchange system,"
Mr. Wildfang said.  But "dissenters haven't identified any
additional relief . . . that we could have obtained under
antitrust laws."


WAL-MART STORES: Temporary Workers File Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that discount
giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is facing a lawsuit seeking class-
action status for temporary workers who claim the retailer and its
staffing agencies violated federal overtime and minimum wage laws.

Filed in the U.S. District Court of Illinois, the suit accuses the
world's largest retailer of requiring employees to work during
meals and breaks and show up early and stay late without pay.

The suit alleges that Wal-Mart did not accurately keep records of
how much time workers put in.  The discounter is also accused of
neglecting to compensate temporary workers for a minimum of four
hours of work on days they were assigned to a store but then
worked less than four hours, violating Illinois labor laws.

The suit claims that two of its staffing agencies, Labor Ready and
QPS, did not give employees who worked at Wal-Mart stores proper
employment data.  Therefore, temporary workers were therefore
unable to prove that they were not paid fairly for all the hours
they worked, the lawsuit alleges.

The violations began in early 2009 and continue up to the present,
the suit alleges.  The suit is looking to recover all unpaid wages
to workers and an injunction against Wal-Mart and its temporary
staffing agencies to bar them from future violations of Illinois
labor laws.

Wal-Mart has been dealing with other high-profile labor issues
recently.  Last month, 88 employees in a dozen cities walked off
the job and protested at the company's Arkansas headquarters.  The
organizers said they may plan further action on this year's Black
Friday, possibly including strikes and rallies.

Dan Fogleman, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said the company was still
reviewing the complaint.

"One thing is clear, this litigation is being driven by the same
union organizations that have been mischaracterizing several
issues about Wal-Mart and are more concerned with creating
publicity than with improving workers' rights," Mr. Fogleman said.


WILDWOOD SEED: Recalls Pet Bird and Small Pet Animal Foods
----------------------------------------------------------
Wildwood Seed & Specialties, of Monroe, Oregon, is voluntarily
recalling a limited supply of their Sleek and Sassy brand bird and
small animal foods that contain raw in-shell peanuts due to their
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.  These products
contain peanut ingredients recalled by Sunland Inc.


                           *********

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  * * *