CAR_Public/121113.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 13, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 225

                               Headlines

ALAMEDA, CA: ACLU, EFF File Class Action to Challenge Prop 35
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Apple TV's Wireless Streaming
ASTRAZENECA AB: Settles Toprol XL(R) Class Action for $11 Mil.
BEST BUY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Alter IBEW Suit Dismissal
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action

BP PLC: Urges Court to Approve Class Action Settlement
BRIGHTPOINT INC: Signed MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
CASH STORE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest Rate
CITIBANK: Judge Dismisses Text-Spam Class Action
COMVERSE INC: Optionholder Suit Plaintiffs to Appeal July Order

DIAMONDBACK BICYCLES: Recalls 40 2013 Steilacoom RCX Bicycles
E.I. DUPONT: Recorded $615-Mil. Charge for Imprelis(R) Claims
FINISAR CORP: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls 9 oz. Spinach Due to Possible Health Risk
FU XIANG: Recalls Fu Xiang "Lily Dry" Due to Undeclared Sulfites

FULTON BANK: Faces Class Action Over Auto Repossessions
GENESCO INC: Unit Continues to Face Employees' Suits in Illinois
GENESCO INC: Deal in Song-Beverly Act Violations Suit Approved
GOLDMAN SACHS: Urges Court to Allow Arbitration in Parisi Suit
KIA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Gas Mileage Claims

LAKELAND, FL: Fla. Sup. Ct. to Decide on Red Light Camera Suit
LAJOBI INC: Recalls 38,600 Glider Rockers Due to Fall Hazard
LG ELECTRONICS: Recalls 161,000 Electric Ranges Due to Fire Risk
MADISON-KIPP: Faces Additional Class Action Over Pollutants
MONESSEN HEARTH: Recalls 15T Fireplaces, Inserts Due to Fire Risk

MONSTER BEVERAGE: Sued Over Toxic Energy Drink Ingredient
NAVISTAR INT'L: Dismissed From 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine MDL
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 4 Securities Lawsuits in Calif.
RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York
ROBBINS & MYERS: Defends Two Merger-Related Suits in Texas, Ohio

STANDARD & POOR'S: Muswellbrook Optimistic on Class Action
ULTA SALON: Defends Employment Class Action Suit in California
VERINT SYSTEMS: Pre-trial Hearing in "Deutsch" Suit in Late Dec.
VOLKSWAGEN: Quebec Court Approves Jetta Class Action Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal in "Braun/Hummel" Suit Pending in Penn.

WAL-MART STORES: Defends Various Suits Over New York Times Story
WHIRLPOOL: Washing Machine Class Action May Proceed to Trial
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $339-Mil. Expense in Embraco Matters
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Product Liability Lawsuits Still Pending
WINNEBAGO COUNTY, IL: To Settle Strip-Search Class Action


                          *********

ALAMEDA, CA: ACLU, EFF File Class Action to Challenge Prop 35
-------------------------------------------------------------
AVN reports that opponents of Proposition 35, the flawed human
trafficking initiative that was approved by California voters by a
wide margin, have already filed a class action suit to block
implementation of provisions contained in the measure that
allegedly violate the First Amendment rights of people on the
state's sex offender list.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation filed the lawsuit on Nov. 7 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of "two individuals required to register as sex offenders and a
non-profit organization, California Reform Sex Offender Laws -- a
group that believes that no sexual abuse is ever acceptable and
that laws that paint all sex offenders with one broad brush are
counter-productive."

According to the complaint, "Plaintiff Doe is an unnamed
individual who, according to the complaint, resides "in the City
of Alameda, in Alameda County, California, who is required to
register with Defendant City of Alameda under Penal Code 15 Sec.
290 because he was convicted of two registerable offenses in 1986.
Neither of them involved the Internet or a stranger.  Doe has not
been arrested or convicted of any crime since he was released from
custody for those offenses in 1991.  He is currently 75 years
old."

"Plaintiff Roe," the complaint continues, "is an individual who is
required to register under Penal Code Sec. 290 when he resided in
California because of convictions that occurred before 1993.
Neither of them involved the Internet or a stranger.  Since his
release from custody in the late 1990s he has never been arrested
or convicted of any crime."

"Plaintiff California Reform Sex Offender Laws ("California
Reform")," it adds, "is a California tax-exempt corporation
organized under 501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code" whose
"mission is to protect the rights of those accused or convicted of
sex crimes.  . . . California Reform has members who are
registrants throughout the state."

According to a press release issued on Nov. 7 by the filing
entities, the lawsuit was filed to "block implementation of
unconstitutional provisions of Proposition 35."

More specifically, the release adds, "Proposition 35 requires
anyone who is a registered sex offender -- even people with
decades-old, low-level offenses like misdemeanor indecent exposure
and people whose offenses were not related to the Internet -- to
turn over a list of all their Internet identifiers and service
providers to law enforcement.  While the law is written very
unclearly, this likely includes email addresses, usernames and
other identifiers used for online political discussion groups,
book and restaurant review sites, forums about medical conditions,
and newspaper or blog comments.  Under the law, more than 73,000
Californians must immediately provide this information to law
enforcement, and must report any new account or screen name within
24 hours of setting it up, even if the new screen name is their
own real name.  Violations can result in years in prison."

The suit, which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, argues
that "Proposition 35's online speech regulations are overly broad
and violate the First Amendment, both because they prohibit
anonymous speech and because the reporting requirements burden all
sorts of online speech, even when the speaker is using his own
real name as a screen name."

Michael Risher, a staff attorney at ACLU-NV, commented, "The
ability to speak freely and even anonymously is crucial for free
speech to remain free for all of us.  Stopping human trafficking
is a worthy goal, but this portion of Prop 35 won't get us there."


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Apple TV's Wireless Streaming
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Apple failed to disclose that
its Apple TV's wireless streaming of TV and high-definition movies
is limited by consumers' Internet connection speed, a class action
claims in Santa Clara County Court.


ASTRAZENECA AB: Settles Toprol XL(R) Class Action for $11 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Fine, Kaplan and Black R.P.C.,
and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 8
issued a statement regarding the Toprol XL(R) Class Action
Settlement.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving
the heart medication, Toprol XL(R), and its generic equivalent,
metoprolol succinate.  Defendants AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca LP,
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and Aktiebolaget Hassle will pay
up to $11 million.  Approximately half of the Settlement fund will
be used to pay consumer claims and the other half will be used to
pay insurers and employee welfare benefit plans claims. Claims
will be paid after the payment of any fees and expenses.

The lawsuit claims that manufacturers violated antitrust and
consumer protection laws by keeping lower cost generic versions of
Toprol XL(R) off the market.  The defendants deny these claims.
No one is claiming that Toprol XL(R) or its generic are unsafe or
ineffective.

Class Members include consumers and third party payors that
purchased, paid for and/or reimbursed others for Toprol XL(R) or
its generic equivalent any time from May 5, 2005 to September 27,
2012.  Third party payors include insurers and employee welfare
benefit plans.  Purchases made directly from the manufacturers are
not included in this Settlement.

Payments will be based on the total number of valid claims filed
(that is, how much consumers and third party payors paid for
Toprol XL(R) or its generic and when they paid for it).  More
details are available in the Plan of Allocation, which is
available at http://www.ToprolSettlement.comor by calling 1-877-
854-3273.

Consumers and third party payors must submit a Claim Form to
receive a payment.  The Claim Form, and instructions on how to
submit it, is available at http://www.ToprolSettlement.com
The deadline to submit a Claim Form is April 1, 2013.

Class Member rights will be affected if they do nothing.  Class
Members that do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement
must exclude themselves from the Settlement by January 18, 2013.
Class Members that do not exclude themselves will not be able to
sue for any claim relating to the lawsuit.  Class Members that
stay in the Settlement may object to it by January 18, 2013.

The Court will hold a hearing on March 7, 2013 to consider whether
to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees up to
$3.5 million, reimbursement of costs, and incentive awards.  Class
Members can appear at the hearing, but they do not have to.  Class
Members can hire their own attorney, at their own expense, to
appear or speak for them at the hearing.


BEST BUY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Alter IBEW Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. continues to await a court decision on a motion
to alter or amend the dismissal of a consolidated complaint
captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., according to the Company's September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended August 4, 2012.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  This federal
court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made
available to the public.  Additionally, in March 2011, a similar
purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene
LeBlanc, against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the same court.  In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated
complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co.,
Inc., et al., was filed and served.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March
2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a
decision dismissing the action with prejudice.

In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the
court's decision on the Company's motion to dismiss.  An
opposition to the plaintiffs' motion was filed, with argument
heard on June 8, 2012, and the Company awaits the court's
decision.  As a result, the court's decision on the motion to
dismiss is not final, and the time period for an appeal thereof is
delayed until 30 days after a court order disposing of the
plaintiffs' new motion.

In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned,
Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co.,
Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy
Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and
former members of the Company's Board of Directors serving during
the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and the Company as a nominal
defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota.
The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to
correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements
and/or omissions regarding the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings
projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in
possession of material adverse non-public information.
Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the same court.  In
November 2011, the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto and
Daniel Himmel were consolidated into a new action captioned, In
Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and a
stay ordered until after a final resolution of the motion to
dismiss in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy
Co., Inc., et al. case.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions seek damages, including
interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and
expenses they incurred in the lawsuits.  The Company believes the
allegations in the securities actions are without merit, and the
Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  Based on the
Company's assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
securities actions, their respective procedural litigation
history, and the degree to which it intends to defend itself in
these matters, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses,
if any, cannot be estimated.


BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that publishers
of "World of Warcraft" and other blockbuster video games make
millions by "deceptively and unfairly" charging customers for an
after-sale security product to protect their private information
from hackers, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Benjamin Bell sued Blizzard Entertainment, of
Irvine, and its corporate parent, Santa Monica-based Activision
Blizzard.

Mr. Bell seeks class damages for consumer fraud, unjust
enrichment, negligence, breach of contract and bailment.  He
claims that the same security problem, and after-market fix,
occurs in defendants' games "Starcraft" and "Diablo."

Mr. Bell claims that game players have to pay $6.40 for a product
called the Authenticator to protect their private information from
hackers.

Sales of Authenticators, which come as a physical product or
download, have brought in $26 million, according to the complaint.

Mr. Bell claims that Activision and Blizzard require gamers to use
online accounts at the Battle.net Web site, which collects and
stores customers' private information.

Blizzard puts the onus on gamers to buy additional products or
tighten security on their devices, rather than making customer
accounts more secure, Mr. Bell claims.

"Defendants negligently, deliberately, and/or recklessly fail to
ensure that adequate, reasonable procedures safeguard the private
information stored on this Web site.  As a result of these acts,
the private information of plaintiffs and class members has been
compromised and/or stolen since at least 2007," according to the
33-page complaint.

"Most recently, on or about May 19, 2012, reports proliferated
that class members' Battle.net accounts had suffered a security
breach ('hack') at the hands of unknown parties ('hackers'), and
on or about August 4, 2012, hackers massively breached
Battle.net's security and acquired the private information of all
of defendants' customers in the United States, as well as the
remainder of North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand,
and Southeast Asia."

Though account details for millions of gamers were compromised or
stolen, Mr. Bell says, neither Activision nor Blizzard took "the
legally required steps to alert" gamers.

Mr. Bell seeks class damages and an injunction to bar the
defendants from "tacking on" undisclosed costs after customers
have bought games, and from requiring them to sign up for
Battle.net accounts.

The class is represented by:

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS
          11311 Arcade Drive
          Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: hbates@carneywilliams.com

Activision Blizzard did not immediately respond to an e-mailed
request for comment.


BP PLC: Urges Court to Approve Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
BP and attorneys for businesses and people who lost money in the
Gulf oil spill urged a federal judge Nov. 8 to give his final
approval to a class-action settlement.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier heard arguments from lawyers who
negotiated the deal as well as other attorneys who have objected
to parts of it.  BP PLC estimates it will pay $7.8 billion to the
resolve claims, but the settlement is not capped and BP could pay
out more or less.

Judge Barbier, who didn't immediately rule, said the hearing was
designed to help him determine if the settlement is "fair,
reasonable and adequate" and that he doesn't have the authority to
rewrite or renegotiate it.  Judge Barbier said he would rule in
the coming days.  However, he said some of the objections he heard
were "frankly, not made in good faith and bordered on being
frivolous."

Judge Barbier preliminarily approved the agreement in May.  Since
then, thousands of people have opted out of the deal to pursue
their claims individually.  BP attorney Rick Godfrey said fewer
people opted out than the company had expected.

Jim Roy, a lead plaintiffs' attorney, said the settlement could
resolve more than 100,000 claims.

"This settlement provides the class with an opportunity to try to
put this behind them and get on with their lives," he said.

BP has agreed to pay $2.3 billion for seafood-related claims by
commercial fishing vessel owners, captains and deckhands.  The
amount is nearly five times more than the average industry revenue
between 2007 and 2009, Mr. Godfrey said.

"It was a generous program, and it was designed to account for
future risk," Mr. Godfrey said.

Joel Waltzer, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys who filed an
objection, said the seafood program doesn't adequately compensate
some kinds of commercial fishermen.

"We don't need to hit a homerun, but we need to get on base," he
said.  "It doesn't justify the rights that they're giving up."

Judge Barbier told Mr. Waltzer he was "too focused on what
somebody else is getting compared to your clients."

"You're comparing apples to oranges," the judge said.

The agreement also calls for paying medical claims by cleanup
workers and others who say they suffered illnesses from exposure
to the oil or chemicals used to disperse it.  In addition, BP has
agreed to spend $105 million over five years to set up a Gulf
Coast health outreach program and pay for medical examinations.

The settlement doesn't resolve separate claims brought by the
federal government and Gulf Coast states against BP and its
partners on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.  Those claims
involve environmental damage from the nation's worst offshore oil
spill.

It also doesn't resolve claims against Switzerland-based rig owner
Transocean Ltd. and Houston-based cement contractor Halliburton.

A trial next year is designed to identify causes of BP's well
blowout and assign percentages of fault to the companies involved
in the disaster.

The April 2010 blowout of BP's Macondo well triggered an explosion
that killed 11 rig workers and spilled more than 200 million
gallons of oil into the Gulf.

In the aftermath, BP created a $20 billion compensation fund for
Gulf Coast residents and businesses.  The Gulf Coast Claims
Facility paid out more than $6 billion to about 221,000 claims
before a court-supervised administrator, Patrick Juneau, took over
the process earlier this year. BP agreed to continue paying claims
as Judge Barbier decides whether to approve the settlement.

Mr. Juneau said his team has received more than 79,000 claims and
made offers to claimants worth a total of more than $1.3 billion
as of Nov. 6.  Roughly 95 percent of people who received offers
have accepted them, Mr. Juneau added.

BP agreed to pay up to $600 million in fees, costs and expenses to
a team of plaintiffs' attorneys who brokered the settlement.


BRIGHTPOINT INC: Signed MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Brightpoint, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding in
September 2012 to settle merger-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's September 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 29, 2012, Brightpoint, Inc., Ingram Micro Inc., (Ingram
Micro) and Beacon Sub, Inc., (Merger Sub), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) providing for
the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the Merger),
with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Ingram Micro.

BrightPoint received notice of the filing of two putative class
action complaints commenced in the District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.  In the first action, the plaintiff sued
BrightPoint, its directors, Ingram Micro and Merger Sub for
alleged violations of Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on alleged omission of certain
information contained in the preliminary filing of this proxy
statement.  In the second action, two plaintiffs sued BrightPoint
and its directors alleging the same federal securities claims and
asserting that BrightPoint's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, purportedly failing to conduct a
fair process for the sale of BrightPoint and accepting a purchase
price that was too low.  These plaintiffs also allege that
BrightPoint aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches of
their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs in both putative class
actions seek, among other things, monetary damages, injunctive
relief (including enjoining the merger) and attorneys' and other
fees and expenses.  On August 10, 2012, BrightPoint moved to
dismiss the first action for failure to state a claim under the
federal securities laws.

BrightPoint has also received a letter on behalf of a BrightPoint
shareholder that requests that BrightPoint incorporate certain
disclosures relating to the merger into the definitive proxy
statement.

On September 4, 2012, BrightPoint entered into a memorandum of
understanding memorializing the terms of a settlement of all
litigation, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of
all claims against all of the defendants.  The proposed settlement
is conditional upon, among other things: the dismissal with
prejudice of the litigation without the award of any damages,
costs, fees or the grant of any other further relief, except for
the award of fees and expenses pursuant to the memorandum of
understanding; the entry of a final judgment in the actions (i)
approving the settlement (including a provision enjoining all
members of the class from asserting any of the released claims),
(ii) providing for the dismissal of the actions and (iii)
approving the release by the class to the defendants; and
consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the court.  In connection with the settlement and as
provided in the memorandum of understanding, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement. There can
be no assurance that the merger will be consummated, that the
parties ultimately will enter into a settlement or that the court
will approve the settlement.  In such event, the memorandum of
understanding and the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding shall be null and void.  The
settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration
that BrightPoint shareholders are entitled to receive in the
merger.

The defendants deny that they have committed any violations of law
or otherwise failed to act in a proper manner with respect to the
facts and claims alleged in the actions and specifically deny that
any further supplemental disclosure was required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.  The defendants have
entered into the memorandum of understanding because the proposed
settlement would eliminate the risk, burden and expense of further
litigation, would resolve all of the claims and permit the merger
to be consummated as scheduled without risk of delay and would
permit BrightPoint's shareholders to receive the consideration
provided for in the merger agreement.


CASH STORE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest Rate
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that two payday loan companies that operated in
Manitoba are facing a potential class-action lawsuit that claims
customers were overcharged even after the provincial government
introduced tough rules in 2010.

A statement of claim filed with the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench this month alleges that The Cash Store and sister company
Instaloans found ways to charge customers beyond the maximum
interest rate set by the province.

Class-action lawyer Paul Bennett of the Vancouver firm Hordo
Bennett Mounteer, which is involved in the lawsuit, says payday
lenders in Manitoba are allowed to charge a maximum of 17 per cent
in interest and fees.

The lawsuit alleges that the two companies found a way around that
rule, by charging fees related to cash debit cards, which
customers must use to access their loans.

The lawsuit claims that in one Winnipeg woman's case, the debit
card fees meant a C$170 loan cost her $84, when the province only
allows for a C$36 fee.

"For the most part, it's people who are struggling to make ends
meet from paycheck to paycheck, and often some sort of
circumstance arises where they need a little bit more than they
have," Mr. Bennett told CBC News.

"Once you're into these loans, it's very difficult to get out of
them.  They become pretty much an endless cycle of borrowing and
re-borrowing."

Officials with parent company Cash Store Financial did not return
calls from CBC News seeking comment on Nov. 7.

As of Oct. 1, all of The Cash Store's Manitoba locations stopped
offering payday loans.

Officials with Manitoba's Consumer Protection Office say they
cannot comment on a case that is before the courts.

But Beatrice Dyce, the office's acting director, says a debit card
would not change the province's payday loan rules, which took
effect in October 2010.

The province imposed a cap on the fees that can be charged,
meaning the maximum rate that can be charged for a payday loan is
$17 per $100.

"If they have no choice in the purchase of that card, then . . .
whatever fees go along with the payday loan at that time, they
would have to roll all those fees in the 17 per cent," Ms. Dyce
said.

Mr. Bennett said if the lawsuit is classified as a class action
and if the court rules in their favor, all borrowers would get
back the money they paid in fees on their loans.


CITIBANK: Judge Dismisses Text-Spam Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a judge has
dismissed a potential class-action lawsuit alleging that Citibank
violated a consumer protection law by texting a user to confirm
that he wanted to opt out of receiving future messages.

"Imposition of liability . . . for a single, confirmatory text
message would constitute an impermissibly 'absurd and unforeseen
result,'" U.S. District Court Judge Irma Gonzalez wrote in a
decision issued last week.

The ruling threw out a lawsuit by a consumer, Boqdan Ryabyshchuck,
who alleged that Citibank violated the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  That law prohibits companies from using an
automated dialing service to send SMS messages to people without
first obtaining their consent.

The statute provides for damages of up to $1,500 per violation.
Mr. Ryabyshchuck alleged that he contacted Citibank in May of 2011
to apply for a credit card.  He gave his cell phone number to the
bank as part of the application, according to the court papers.  A
few days later, he received an SMS message instructing him to call
Citi Cards.

That message said he could opt out of future text messages by
replying "stop."  He did so, spurring Citibank to send him a final
message confirming that it would no longer send him texts. Mr.
Ryabyshchuck then filed suit in the Southern District of
California, where he unsuccessfully argued that the final
confirmatory text message was illegal.

News of Judge Gonzalez's decision was reported by Venkat
Balasubramani on the Technology & Marketing Law Blog.  Judge
Gonzalez's decision to toss the lawsuit is in line with a ruling
issued earlier this year by U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Huff
in a case against Taco Bell.  In that case, Judge Huff wrote that
imposing liability for a confirmatory text message "would
contravene public policy and the spirit of the statute-prevention
of unsolicited telemarketing in a bulk format."

Jason Ibey, the consumer who sued Taco Bell, recently filed an
appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Facebook, MySpace and Twitter also faced similar lawsuits last
last year.  But those cases were all withdrawn shortly after they
were filed, and prior to any rulings about whether sending a text
in order to confirm an opt-out request violated the law.


COMVERSE INC: Optionholder Suit Plaintiffs to Appeal July Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated optionholder class action lawsuit
pending in Israel are seeking leave to appeal a July 25, 2012
order, according to Comverse, Inc.'s September 6, 2012, Form 10-
12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's parent, Comverse Technology, Inc. (CTI) and certain
of its subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary of the
Company's), were named as defendants in four potential class
action litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to
recover damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or
breach of contract that allegedly prevented certain current or
former employees from exercising certain stock options.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.  On April 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the stay based on the resolution of the actions in the United
States.  On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action.  The
defendants' deadline to respond was October 24, 2012.  On July 13,
2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order that CTI hold
back $150 million in assets as a reserve to satisfy any potential
damage awards that may be awarded in this case, but does not seek
to enjoin the share distribution.  The Company does not believe
that the motion has merit.  On July 25, 2012, the court ordered
that CTI's deadline to respond was September 20, 2012, and that
the court will not rule on the motion until after it rules on
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of plaintiffs.  On August
16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the
court's order to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on
March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation
(Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  These cases have been consolidated with the Tel
Aviv District Court cases.

Additional cases have been filed by individual plaintiffs
similarly seeking to recover damages up to an aggregate of $3.5
million allegedly incurred as a result of the inability to
exercise certain stock options.  The cases generally allege the
same causes of actions alleged in the potential class action.

The Company says it did not accrue for these matters as the
potential loss is currently not probable or estimable.


DIAMONDBACK BICYCLES: Recalls 40 2013 Steilacoom RCX Bicycles
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 40 2013 Diamondback Steilacoom RCX bicycles were voluntarily
recalled by importer, Diamondback Bicycles, of Kent, Washington,
and manufacturer, Universal Cycle Corp., of Guang Zhou, China, 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.

Bicycles assembled with incorrect headset parts could cause the
steerer tube to fail, causing the rider to lose control and fall
or crash.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Bicycles included in the recall are the 2013 Diamondback
Steilacoom RCX, which are black in color and sold in various sizes
ranging from 50-cm to 59-cm.  "RCX" is printed on the top tube of
the bicycle.  The bicycle is for use on or off-road.  A picture of
the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13705.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
through Promotive.com and 3point5.com, as well as through
authorized Diamondback retailers nationwide from August 2012
through September 2012 for between $900 and $1100.

Consumers should stop riding their bicycle and take it to an
authorized Diamondback dealer to have it inspected.  Bicycles
found to have the incorrect headset parts will have the fork
replaced and assembled with the correct headset parts at no
charge.  Diamondback Bicycles: (800) 222-5527 from 8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.diamondback.com/and click the Support tab to get to
the recall information.


E.I. DUPONT: Recorded $615-Mil. Charge for Imprelis(R) Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company has recorded $615 million in
charges relating to claims on the use of the herbicide
Imprelis(R), the Company disclosed in its October 23, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company has received claims and been served with multiple
lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused
damage to certain trees.  The lawsuits seeking class action status
have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal
court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  In addition, about 80
individual actions on behalf of approximately 180 plaintiffs have
been filed in state court in various jurisdictions.  DuPont has
removed most of these cases to federal court in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

In August 2011, the company suspended sales of Imprelis(R) and in
September 2011, began a process to fairly resolve claims
associated with the use of Imprelis(R).  The company believes that
the number of unasserted claims is limited due to the fact that
sales were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last
applied during the 2011 spring application season.

The Company has established review processes to verify and
evaluate damage claims.  There are several variables that impact
the evaluation process including the number of trees on a
property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of
the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to
naturally recover over time.  Upon receiving claims, DuPont
verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical
review of the property.

At September 30, 2012, DuPont had recorded charges of $615 million
related to the Imprelis(R) matter, which included charges of $125
million and $440 million recorded during the third quarter and
year-to-date 2012, respectively.  It is reasonably possible that
additional charges could result related to this matter.  While
there is a high degree of uncertainty, total charges could range
up to $700 million.  DuPont has submitted and will continue to
submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs
associated with this matter in excess of $100 million.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (NYSE: DD), commonly referred
to as DuPont, is an American chemical company founded in July
1802.  In the 20th century, DuPont developed many polymers such as
Vespel, neoprene, nylon, Corian, Teflon, Mylar, Kevlar, Zemdrain,
M5 fiber, Nomex, Tyvek, Sorona and Lycra. DuPont developed Freon
(chlorofluorocarbons) for the refrigerant industry, and later more
environmentally friendly refrigerants. It developed synthetic
pigments and paints including ChromaFlair.


FINISAR CORP: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several securities class action lawsuits related to Finisar
Corporation's March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 have been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of
persons who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010, through
March 8, 2011.  The named defendants are the Company and its
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer.  To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged.
The cases have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been
appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed.  The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the case and this motion is
pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 29, 2012.


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls 9 oz. Spinach Due to Possible Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express Incorporated is conducting a voluntary,
precautionary recall of a limited quantity of Fresh Express
Spinach with a Use-by Date of November 7 and Product Code of
S299B25 due to a possible health risk from Salmonella.

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

The recall notification is being issued out of an abundance of
caution due to an isolated instance in which a random sample
yielded a positive result for Salmonella under U.S. Department of
Agriculture's random sample testing program.  Fresh Express is
coordinating closely with regulatory officials.

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

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

Specific recall information follows:

   * Product Being Recalled: Fresh Express Spinach in 9 oz.
     package

   * Product Code: S299B25 (located in upper right corner on
     front of package)

   * Use-by Date: November 7 (also located in upper right hand
     corner of package)

   * Distribution: Primarily in the Western region of the U.S.

Salmonella is an organism that may cause fever, nausea, vomiting,
abdominal pain and possibly bloody diarrhea in healthy
individuals.  It can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems.  Consumers with these symptoms should
consult their health care provider.

        Fresh Express Precautionary Salad Recall-11/7/12
   (No other Fresh Express Salads are included in this recall)

                  Product           Production   Best If Used
  Brand           Name      Size    Code         By Date
  -----           -------   ----    ----------   ------------
  Fresh Express   Spinach   9 OZ.    S299B25         NOV7

  UPC: 0 71279-13204 4
  POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION STATES: AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MO, MT,
                        NE, NV, NM, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY


FU XIANG: Recalls Fu Xiang "Lily Dry" Due to Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Darrel J. Aubertine
alerted consumers that Mayflower International Inc, aka Fu Xiang
Yuan Trading Inc, located at 220 Ingrahm St. in Brooklyn, New
York, is recalling Fu Xiang Yuan Trading Inc brand "Lily Dry" due
to the presence of undeclared sulfites.  No illnesses have been
reported to date to this Department in connection with this
product.

The recalled Fu Xiang Yuan Trading Inc brand "Lily Dry" is
packaged in a 3.5 oz. (100 gram) plastic and foil bag.  There is a
UPC code of 6-944295-300176 located on the back of the package but
there is no other coding on the product.  The product was
distributed throughout the United States and is a product of
China.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm327365.htm

Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by
Food Laboratory personnel revealed the product contained high
levels of sulfites which were not declared on the label.  People
who have severe sensitivity to sulfites may run the risk of
serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this
product.  In addition, the consumption of 10 milligrams of
sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions
in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain
sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more
of sulfites.

Consumers who have purchased the Fu Xiang Yuan Trading Inc brand
"Lily Dry" should contact Liu Min at 917-642-8322.


FULTON BANK: Faces Class Action Over Auto Repossessions
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania woman
hit Fulton Bank NA with a class action suit in state court on
Nov. 5, contending that the lender routinely repossessed cars from
consumers who have defaulted on automobile loans without providing
proper notices.

The woman, Jessica Rodriguez, seeks to represent a class of
Pennsylvania borrowers who were never sent repossession notices or
received incomplete notices before the Lancaster-based bank seized
their cars.

"When Fulton believes that a consumer has defaulted on a secured
automobile loan, it repossesses and then resells the vehicle," the
complaint said.


GENESCO INC: Unit Continues to Face Employees' Suits in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc.'s subsidiary continues to face class action lawsuits
brought by retail store employees, according to the Company's
September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.

On May 14, 2012, a putative class and collective action, Maro v.
Hat World, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The action alleges that the
Company failed to pay the plaintiff and other, similarly situated
retail store employees of Hat World, Inc., for time spent making
bank deposits of store collections, and seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys fees,
and costs pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.  On July 16, 2012, and July 30, 2012, additional
putative class and collective actions, Chavez v. Hat World, Inc.
and Dismukes v. Hat World, Inc., were filed in the same court,
alleging that certain Hat World employees were misclassified as
exempt from overtime pay, and seeking similar relief.  The Chavez
and Dismukes actions have been consolidated.  The Company disputes
the material allegations in these complaints and intends to defend
the matters and thus has no accrual.


GENESCO INC: Deal in Song-Beverly Act Violations Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc.'s settlement of two class action lawsuits in
California was approved in August, according to the Company's
September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.

On March 3, 2011, there was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California a putative class action styled
Fraser v. Genesco Inc.  On March 4, 2011, there was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco a
putative class action styled Pabst v. Genesco Inc. et al.  The
Pabst action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 1, 2011.  Both complaints
allege that the Company's retail stores in California violated the
California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 and other
California law through customer information collection practices,
and both seek civil penalties, damages, restitution, injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, and other relief.  The
Company and plaintiffs' counsel have reached an agreement to
settle both actions.  The court approved the settlement on August
24, 2012.  The Company expects that the settlement will not have a
material effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Urges Court to Allow Arbitration in Parisi Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a lawyer for
Goldman Sachs urged a U.S. appeals court on Nov. 7 to send a
former employee's gender discrimination dispute to arbitration
rather than allow her to proceed with a proposed class action.

The case is being watched closely because it could help other
employers avoid discrimination class actions like the one filed by
Lisa Parisi, a former Goldman Sachs managing director.

Robert Giuffra, a lawyer for Goldman Sachs, told a three-judge
panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that a
lower court was incorrect in deciding last year not to send Ms.
Parisi's case to arbitration.

"When she signed the agreement and became one of the more highly
paid people at Goldman, she agreed to arbitration as the forum,"
Mr. Giuffra said.

But Paul Bland, a lawyer for Ms. Parisi, argued that arbitration
clauses can't prohibit employees from bringing class actions
alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination at a company
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

"This is a substantive right," he said.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have favored arbitration.

In April 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a unit of AT&T
Inc. could enforce a class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement signed by a plaintiff bringing a proposed consumer class
action.

While the AT&T case focused on consumer rights, corporations have
since last year sought to extend the reach of the ruling to
employment law, in efforts to avoid discrimination and wage-and-
hour lawsuits.

The Goldman case at issue on Nov. 7 was filed in 2010 by three
women, including Ms. Parisi.  The lawsuit accused Goldman of
gender bias and an "outdated corporate culture" favoring men over
women for pay and promotions.

The lawsuit, which sought class action status, demanded punitive
and other damages as well as a change in Goldman's policies toward
women.

Soon after the lawsuit was filed, Goldman asked the court to
enforce Ms. Parisi's arbitration agreement and require her to
proceed by herself rather than in a class action.

In April 2011, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis denied
Goldman's motion. Goldman urged Judge Francis to reconsider his
ruling in light of the Supreme Court's AT&T decision, but he
declined in July 2011. U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand affirmed
the magistrate's ruling in November 2011.

At the hearing on Nov. 7, three federal appeals court judges
grilled both sides over the extent to which the legal rights
Ms. Parisi would lose if sent to arbitration would be procedural,
which can be waived by contract, rather than substantive, which
can't.

"I'm still not clear, what do you think you're losing there?"
Circuit Judge Barrington Daniels Parker asked Ms. Parisi's lawyer.

Both sides in the Goldman dispute have prominent backers in their
corners.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association both filed friend-of-the-court
briefs urging the 2nd Circuit to uphold Goldman's arbitration
rights.

The former employees are meanwhile supported by groups including
the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Women's
Law Center, the National Employment Lawyers Association and Public
Citizen.

The case is Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, 11-5229.


KIA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Gas Mileage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that numerous class
actions claim that Kia and Hyundai misled consumers about their
vehicles' gas mileage.

Kia has been hit with at least five class actions around the
nation since Nov. 1, when the Environmental Protection Agency
complained that it exaggerated its vehicles' mileage.

The EPA also complained about Hyundai, which faces at least six
class actions, some of them as co-defendant with Kia.

In St. Louis this week, lead plaintiff Brian Reeves said he bought
a 2012 Kia Soul based on Kia's claim that it got 26 MPG in the
city and 34 MPG on the highway.  Mr. Reeves sued only Kia, for the
class.

Mr. Reeves said he bought the car on June 9, almost 5 months
before the EPA released the results of an audit of Kia vehicles.

"The EPA audit found that the gas mileage for many Kia models were
lower than Kia had represented," the complaint states.

"Specifically, the audit found that mileage ratings were lower
than previously represented for the following models:

     (a) Optima;
     (b) Rio;
     (c) Sorento;
     (d) Soul and Soul ECO; and
     (e) Sportage.

"With respect to the particular Kia Soul that plaintiff purchased,
the mileage ratings were actually 23 miles per gallon for city
driving and 28 miles per gallon for highway driving."

Mr. Reeves seeks damages and punitive damages for violations of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented in St. Louis County Court by:

          Jason Charpentier, Esq.
          GROWE EISEN KARLEN
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 325
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone:(314) 725-1912
          E-mail: jason@groweeisen.com


LAKELAND, FL: Fla. Sup. Ct. to Decide on Red Light Camera Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Elmhorst, writing for BayNews9, reports that the Florida
Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether red light cameras used
prior to their approval by the Florida Legislature in 2010 were
legal.

Class action lawsuits were filed against the cameras and lower
courts have made conflicting rulings about them.  Millions of
dollars are at stake for cities that started handing out fines
before state approval.

Lakeland used red light cameras to hand out more than $2 million
in citations between 2009 and July 2010.  A first offense brought
a citation of $125.

"All the people that paid should get their money back," said
Julius Aulisio, who received a citation after a camera showed his
wife driving through a red light at Cleveland Heights Blvd and
Edgewood Drive.

Mr. Aulisio is part of a class action lawsuit seeking refunds for
people who got a citation before the cameras were approved by the
Legislature.

Aside from the question of whether the cameras were legal for the
city to use back then, Mr. Aulisio doesn't like the idea of red
light cameras.

"Personally I really don't like the red light cameras," he said.
"It's kind of like the Big Brother."

Lakeland has already agreed to pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars to settle one class action lawsuit.  But lawyers who had
filed a separate suit have tried to block that settlement. There
are other suits against cameras in other cities still pending.

With all of the uncertainty, Lakeland has been keeping most of the
rest of its challenged revenue unspent.

"We have always maintained we'll just keep the money in the bank
until it's all through with the courts," city spokesperson Kevin
Cook said.

Despite all the controversy, Lakeland is considering adding red
light cameras to more intersections since the cameras are now
authorized by the state.  The city claims the cameras improve
traffic safety with about 800 citations being handed out each
month.


LAJOBI INC: Recalls 38,600 Glider Rockers Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LaJobi, Inc., of Cranbury, New Jersey, announced a voluntary
recall of about 33,000 Graco(R)-branded Avalon Glider Rockers with
Ottoman and 5,600 Complete Nursery Solution (CNS) Box 2/Katelyn
Nursery Solution Glider Rockers.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The base of the glider rocker can crack or break, posing a fall
hazard.

CPSC and the firm have received 26 reports of the Avalon glider
rockers breaking.  In one incident, the occupant fell to the
ground and sustained a minor injury.  CPSC and the firm have
received two reports of the CNS Box 2 glider rocker breaking with
no injuries.

This recall involves two models of wooden glider rockers: Graco-
branded Avalon and CNS Box 2/ Katelyn Nursery Solution Glider.
Both products were sold in classic cherry, classic white and
espresso wood finishes with sandstone colored fabric covered
seats.  The Avalon model comes with an ottoman.  Only the rockers
are affected by the recall.  The Graco logo, products' item
numbers, name and the place of manufacture are printed on the
label located underneath the front part of the seat.

    Glider        Model #        Wood Finish
    ------        -------        -----------
    Avalon        1062335-065    Espresso
    Avalon        1062335-071    Espresso
    Avalon        1062381-065    Classic White
    Avalon        1062381-071    Classic White
    Avalon        1062384-065    Classic Cherry
    Avalon        1062384-071    Classic Cherry
    Avalon        5827914        Classic Cherry
    Avalon        8529752        Classic White
    Avalon        9382976        Espresso
    CNS/Katelyn   7822758        Classic Cherry
    CNS/Katelyn   6858104        Classic White
    CNS/Katelyn   8971382        Espresso

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13032.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Vietnam.  The
Avalon model was sold at Burlington and other mass retail stores
nationwide and online at Amazon.com, Target.com and Walmart.com
from December 2009 to October 2012 for about $170.  The CNS Box
2/Katelyn model was sold exclusively online at Walmart.com from
November 2011 to October 2012 for about $135.

Consumers should immediately stop using the glider rockers and
contact LaJobi to receive a free replacement base for the glider
rocker.  LaJobi toll free at (888) 266-2848 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or Web site at
http://www.lajobi.com/and click on Recalls for more information.


LG ELECTRONICS: Recalls 161,000 Electric Ranges Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LG Electronics Inc., of South Korea, announced a voluntary recall
of about 161,000 LG Electric Ranges.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Burners on the electric ranges can fail to turn off after being
switched off and the temperature setting can increase unexpectedly
during use, posing burn and fire hazards to consumers.

LG has received 80 reports of incidents involving burners failing
to turn off or the temperature setting increasing unexpectedly
during use.  No fires or injuries have been reported.

The recalled ranges involve models LRE30451, LRE30453, LRE30755,
LRE30757, and LRE30955ST.  They were sold in black, white and
stainless steel and with a smooth black ceramic glass top cooking
surface.  The recalled ranges have serial numbers starting with
512, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612,
701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 801,
802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 901, 902, 903, 904,
905, and 906.  The model and serial numbers can be found on a
label that can be seen by opening the storage drawer at the base
of the unit.  The electric ranges are about 47 1/2 inches tall to
the top of the backguard, 29 inches wide and 28 inches deep.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13031.html

The recalled products were manufactured in South Korea and Mexico
and sold at Best Buy, Home Depot, Sears, and regional appliance
retailers nationwide from January 2006 to June 2010 for between
$800 and $1999.

Consumers should immediately contact LG to schedule a free in-home
repair.  Consumers whose burner heat setting cannot be regulated
by using the controls or who experience problems with a cooktop
burner remaining on, should immediately stop using the recalled
electric range until it is repaired.  LG; toll-free at (855) 400-
4638, from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Saturday, or
http://www.LG.com/us/and click on Public Notices in the Customer
Services section for more information.


MADISON-KIPP: Faces Additional Class Action Over Pollutants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that
another set of Madison-Kipp's neighbors has filed a class-action
lawsuit against the company seeking compensation for pollutants
that they allege have diminished the value of their homes.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 6 by Nancy Sorenson and Richard
Johnson, who own a home on South Marquette Street, and Ashley
Anderson, who lives on Waubesa Street, in the same block where
Kipp is located.

Last year, seven families sued in U.S. District Court in Madison
charging that chemicals from the firm, which manufactures
precision-machined parts for vehicles, have contaminated their
homes.  That lawsuit encompasses the owners and residents of 34
properties on the west side of South Marquette Street and the east
side of Waubesa Street adjacent to Kipp.

This lawsuit, filed in Dane County Circuit Court, would involve 52
properties located adjacent to the area defined in the federal
lawsuit.  The same lawyers represent homeowners in both lawsuits.

According to the lawsuit, hazardous substances including
tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, and tricholoroethlyene, or TCE, were
used and disposed of at the plant over several decades and have
migrated in vaporous form into adjacent properties.

Homeowners in the area covered by the lawsuit first learned this
year that their properties were threatened by the vapors, the
lawsuit states.  That contamination has hurt property values, the
lawsuit states, and endangers the health of those living in homes
within the area.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
and asks that the court order Kipp to stop any further
contamination.

In September, the state Department of Justice sued Kipp for
allegedly violating state laws on the reporting and disposal of
hazardous wastes.


MONESSEN HEARTH: Recalls 15T Fireplaces, Inserts Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Monessen Hearth Systems Co., of Paris, Kentucky, announced a
voluntary recall of about 15,000 units of Signature Command(TM)
(electronically) Controlled Direct and B-Vent Gas Fireplaces and
Inserts.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A control component in the fireplaces and inserts can prevent the
unit from lighting though gas continues to flow, posing a fire
hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves electronically controlled Majestic, Monessen
and Vermont Castings direct-vent and B-vent gas fireplaces and
inserts.  Models included in the recall have serial numbers range
from 11-X-027322 to 11-X-031501; 12-X-000275 to 12-X-015206, 11-P-
032597 to 11-P-059389; and 12-P-000202 to 12-P-037583.  The first
two digits represent the year of manufacture, the letter
represents the facility and the last six digits are sequential
numbers, randomly selected.  The serial number is printed on a
rating plate, affixed to a cable inside the lower or side control
door.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13033.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States of
America and Mexico and sold at hearth dealers and distributors
nationwide between October 2011 and October 2012 for between
$1,030 and $8,160.

Consumers should immediately stop using and turn off the fireplace
using the master control switch on the command center which is
located inside the control door.  Consumers should contact
Monessen Hearth Systems Company to arrange a free repair.
Monessen Hearth Systems; toll-free at (877) 406-9180, from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or Web site
http://www.mhsc.com/and click on "Recall Notice: Signature
Command Defect" for more information.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Sued Over Toxic Energy Drink Ingredient
---------------------------------------------------------
Food Product Design reports that Monster Beverage Corp. is facing
a class action lawsuit in California in the latest blow to the
energy drink maker.  Filed in Orange County Superior Court, the
complaint contends Monster has failed to warn consumers about "a
toxic and potentially lethal ingredient": epigallocatechin-3-
gallate (ECGC).

Medical literature shows that the substance -- found in "Monster
Rehab Green Tea + Energy" -- has been linked to liver injuries and
could cause adverse side effects, plaintiff Jennifer Wooding
asserts on behalf of the class.

"Instead of being the safe energy drink that Defendants promised,
the subject product causes dangerous hepatotoxic side effects,
including without limitation, death, acute liver failure,
hepatitis and other liver injuries," the complaint alleges.
"Despite knowing that the subject product could result in severe
injury and even death in susceptible users, Defendants marketed
and sold the subject product to millions of unsuspecting consumers
without any warning whatsoever."

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Unfair Competition Law,
violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment.

It is just the latest development in a series of grim news facing
Coroner, Calif.-based Monster.  San Francisco's city attorney,
Dennis J. Herrera, raised concerns over the caffeine levels of
Monster Energy drinks, requesting evidence the beverages are safe
for consumption.

The FDA is investigating five deaths and one non-fatal heart
attack in connection with Monster Energy drinks.  Monster also is
a defendant in a lawsuit in connection with the death of a 14-
year-old girl.  Monster has denied any wrongdoing.

"The company monitors consumer communications it receives, is
unaware of any fatality anywhere that has been caused by its
products, and has never before been the subject of any lawsuit of
this nature," recently stated the company, which has sold roughly
eight billion cans of Monster Energy drinks over the last decade.

The class action lawsuit is Jennifer Wooding vs. Monster Energy
Company, Monster Beverage Corporation F/K/A Hansen Natural
Corporation, and DOES 1-10.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Dismissed From 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine MDL
----------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation was dismissed in June 2012 from
the 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine Litigation, according to the Company's
September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

On May 20, 2011, 9046-9478 Quebec Inc. ("Quebec Inc.") filed a
motion to authorize the bringing of a class action against the
Company, as well as Ford and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
(collectively, "Ford Defendants") in Superior Court (the "Superior
Court") in Quebec, Canada (the "Quebec Action").  The Quebec
Action seeks authorization to bring a claim on behalf of a class
of Canadian owners and lessees of model year 2003-07 Ford vehicles
powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine that the Company
previously supplied to Ford.  Quebec Inc. alleged that the engines
in question have design and manufacturing defects, and that the
Company and Ford Defendants are solidarily liable for those
defects.  For relief, the Quebec Action seeks monetary damages
sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the alleged
damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate plaintiffs'
counsel.  The Quebec Action also asks the Superior Court to order
the Company and the Ford Defendants to recall, repair, or replace
the Ford vehicles at issue free of charge.  In December 2011, the
Company and Quebec Inc. reached an agreement in principle whereby
the Company voluntarily would produce certain documents to Quebec
Inc. pursuant to a protective order and Quebec Inc. voluntarily
would dismiss the Company from the Quebec Action without
prejudice.  In June 2012, the Company was dismissed without
prejudice from the matter.


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 4 Securities Lawsuits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Questor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is defending itself against four
securities class actions in California, according to the Company's
October 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals,
et al., No. SACv12-1623 DMG (FMOx).  The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012.  The
complaint generally asserts that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Acts, by making
allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications
other than infantile spasms; the promotion of the sale and use of
Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome, and the
Company's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar.  The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable
relief against the defendants.  Three additional putative
securities class actions were subsequently filed by alleged
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, asserting substantially similar claims
against the same defendants.

The Company believes that the probability of unfavorable outcome
or loss related to this litigation and an estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, from an unfavorable outcome are not
determinable at this time.

Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the treatment of patients with serious, difficult-to-
treat autoimmune and inflammatory disorders.  Its primary product
is H.P. Acthar(R) Gel (repository corticotropin injection), or
Acthar, an injectable drug that is approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, or FDA, for the treatment of 19 indications,
which include nephritic syndrome, multiple sclerosis, infantile
spasms, and rheumatology-related conditions.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Radioshack Corporation is defending itself against two securities
class action lawsuits in New York, according to the Company's
October 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In July and August 2012, two purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York against the Company and its former Chief Executive
Officer.  The complaints allege that the Company and its former
CEO violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making
purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the adverse
impact of a corporate strategy to transform ourselves from a
seller of consumer electronics and accessories into a reseller of
wireless products.  The complaints seek unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from July 26, 2011 to July 24, 2012.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
Based on the stage of the litigation, it is not possible to
estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result
from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this matter, the
Company relates.

RadioShack sells consumer electronics and peripherals, including
cellular phones.  It operates roughly 4,700 stores in the U.S. and
Mexico.


ROBBINS & MYERS: Defends Two Merger-Related Suits in Texas, Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins & Myers, Inc. is defending itself against two class action
lawsuits in Texas and Ohio relating to its merger agreement with
National Oilwell Varco, Inc., according to the Company's October
23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2012.

On August 8, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with National Oilwell Varco, Inc. ("NOV") in an all-cash
transaction.  Under the terms of the proposed transaction, which
has been approved by the Boards of Directors of both Robbins &
Myers, Inc. and NOV, upon the closing of the merger, the Company's
shareholders will receive $60.00 in cash for each common share of
Robbins & Myers they own.  Consummation of the transaction is
subject to customary closing conditions, including obtaining
certain regulatory approvals, as well as approval from the
shareholders of Robbins & Myers, Inc.  On October 9, 2012, the
Company received a request for additional information and
documents from the U.S. Justice Department in connection with the
proposed merger.

In connection with the proposed merger, on August 13, 2012, August
17, 2012, and October 5, 2012, respectively, shareholder
derivative and class action complaints were filed in the District
Court of Montgomery County, Texas, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the
Company, its directors, and National Oilwell Varco, Inc. and its
affiliate.  The complaints allege, among other things, that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company
and its shareholders and that National Oilwell Varco aided and
abetted the Company's directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties.  The complaints seek, among other things,
injunctive relief, rescission of the merger agreement and the
plaintiffs' costs and disbursements in pursuing the actions,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.  On October 22,
2012, the plaintiff dismissed the action pending in Texas State
Court with prejudice.  The Company, its directors and each of the
other named defendants are defending and will continue to defend
the remaining lawsuits.

The Company does not expect that these lawsuits will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations or completion of the merger.

Robbins & Myers, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a supplier of
engineered equipment and systems for critical applications in
global energy, industrial, chemical and pharmaceutical markets.


STANDARD & POOR'S: Muswellbrook Optimistic on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that Muswellbrook Shire Council says it is
confident it can win a class action, stemming from losses suffered
as a result of so called toxic investments.

The Council is the lead claimant in legal action launched in the
Federal Court against international ratings agency Standard and
Poor's and investment bank ABN Amro over the purchase of an
investment product in 2007.

The product was marketed as Rembrandt notes which were the subject
of another class action recently won by 13 local councils.

Muswellbrook Mayor Martin Rush says it is sensible for council to
pursue the matter.

"The advice that we have from councils lawyers is that the
prospects are very good of recovering the small amount of money
involved," he said.

"It does seem to be a sensible decision to try and recover it."

Class action funder IMF Australia has taken on the legal battle
and has announced it is also starting litigation around the world
which could recoup billions.

Muswellbrook Shire Council says any compensation it may receive
for loss and damage suffered as a result of the investments will
go back into the community.

"It might not sound like a lot of money in the context of things
but even $100,000 will make a difference to some community project
being pursued by council I'm sure," Councillor Rush said.


ULTA SALON: Defends Employment Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. is defending an employment
class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's
September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.

On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and certain unnamed defendants in state
court in Los Angeles County, California.  On April 12, 2012, the
Company removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.  The plaintiff and members of
the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt
hourly employees.  The lawsuit alleges that Ulta violated various
provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide
plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and
penalties as a result of these alleged practices.  The Company
denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the
matter.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Pre-trial Hearing in "Deutsch" Suit in Late Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A pre-trial hearing in the class action lawsuit brought by Orit
Deutsch in Tel Aviv has been scheduled for late December 2012,
according to Verint Systems Inc.'s September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2012.

On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class action lawsuit (the
"Labor Motion"), and the class action lawsuit itself (the "Labor
Class Action") (Labor Case No. 4186/09), were filed against the
Company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), by a former
employee of VSL, Orit Deutsch, in the Tel Aviv Labor Court.  Ms.
Deutsch purports to represent a class of the Company's employees
and ex-employees who were granted options to buy shares of Verint
and to whom allegedly damages were caused as a result of the
blocking of the ability to exercise Verint options by its
employees or ex-employees during its previous extended filing
delay period.  The Labor Class Action seeks compensatory damages
for the entire class in an unspecified amount.  On July 9, 2009,
the Company filed a motion for summary dismissal and alternatively
for the stay of the Labor Motion.  On February 8, 2010, the Tel
Aviv Labor Court dismissed the case for lack of material
jurisdiction and ruled that it would be transferred to the
District Court in Tel Aviv.  On October 11, 2011, the District
Court in Tel Aviv ordered a stay of proceedings until legal
proceedings in the United States brought by stockholders of the
Company's controlling stockholder, Comverse Technology, Inc.
("CTI"), who had opted-out of CTI's class action settlement were
concluded.  On December 7, 2011, Ms. Deutsch sought,
unsuccessfully, to consolidate her action with a related action
against CTI filed by another plaintiff in Israel.

Following the settlement of the CTI opt-out proceeding in the
United States, Ms. Deutsch and the other Israeli plaintiff filed
motions on March 23, 2012, and April 4, 2012, respectively, to (a)
consolidate and amend their claims and (b) lift the stay on their
proceedings before the District Court in Tel Aviv.  The Company
did not contest this motion but plan to continue to vigorously
defend the action on the merits.

On July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that
the District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150 million in
assets to secure any future judgment.  The District Court ruled
that it would not rule on this motion until the Labor Motion is
heard.

On August 12, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with CTI providing for the
merger of CTI with and into a new, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Verint (the "Merger"), which, if completed as contemplated in the
Merger Agreement, would eliminate CTI's majority ownership in and
control of Verint.

On August 16, 2012, in light of the announcement of the signing of
the Merger Agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
appeal the District Court ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.
The Company and the other defendants were obligated to respond to
this latest motion on September 6, 2012.  The Company and the
other defendants are obligated to respond to the Labor Motion and
the Labor Class Action by October 24, 2012.  A pre-trial hearing
for the case has been scheduled for late December 2012.


VOLKSWAGEN: Quebec Court Approves Jetta Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Quebec has approved an Agreement that
settles a class action against Volkswagen concerning 2006 Jetta
vehicles.

The Agreement covers problems resulting from the premature wear
and severing of left front driver door wiring harness which causes
intermittent or permanent problems related to the use of
accessories and/or use of power from the electrical system.

The Agreement provides for a reimbursement to those who repaired,
replaced or purchased the wiring harness of the left front driver
door.  The reimbursement is of C$320.00 or a lesser amount if
Volkswagen or one of its authorized dealers has previously granted
a credit or paid a reimbursement, less deductions for fees and
statutory withholdings.

The Agreement also provides for a warranty extension relating to
the problem part, up to 8.5 years (102 months) or 165,000 km from
the in-service date, whichever comes first, the whole subject to a
deductible of C$60.00 plus taxes.

To be compensated

The persons who repaired, replaced or purchased the wiring harness
in question may submit a claim for compensation.  To do so, they
must complete the Claim Form and send it to the Claims
Administrator before March 29, 2013:

Bruneau Group Inc.
Volkswagen Claim
C.P. 20187 - 390, rue Rideau
Ottawa (Ontario) K1N 9P4
Tel.: 1 (866) 288-3683
Fax: (613) 562-0321
Email: info@vwclaim.ca
Web site: http://www.vwclaim.ca

You can obtain a Claim Form by visiting the Web site
http://www.vwclaim.ca


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal in "Braun/Hummel" Suit Pending in Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal in the lawsuit captioned
Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., remains pending before the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s
September 6, 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 Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., a class action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court
of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs
allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours
worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and
rest breaks.  On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages
to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for
off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks.  The jury found in
favor of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.  On
November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the
approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees.  By operation of law, post-judgment interest
accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per
annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was November
14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set
aside on appeal.  On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its
Notice of Appeal.  The Company filed its opening appellate brief
on February 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed their response brief on
April 20, 2009, and the Company filed its reply brief on June 5,
2009.  Oral argument was held before the Superior Court of Appeals
on August 19, 2009.  On June 10, 2011, the Superior Court of
Appeals issued an opinion upholding the trial court's
certification of the class, the jury's back pay award, and the
awards of statutory penalties and prejudgment interest, but
reversing the award of attorneys' fees.  On September 9, 2011, the
Company filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

On July 2, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the
Company's Petition.  The Company's opening brief was due to be
filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on October 22, 2012.  The
Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to
the claims at issue, and plans to continue pursuing appellate
review.


WAL-MART STORES: Defends Various Suits Over New York Times Story
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is defending class action and derivative
lawsuits, which closely track the allegations set forth in a news
story that appeared in the New York Times, according to the
Company's September 6, 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 several lawsuits in which the
complaints closely track the allegations set forth in a news story
that appeared in the New York Times (the "Times") on
April 21, 2012.  One of these is a securities lawsuit that was
filed on May 7, 2012, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, and subsequently transferred to the
Western District of Arkansas, in which the plaintiff alleges
various violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the
"FCPA") beginning in 2005, and asserts violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or acquired stock of the Company between December 8,
2011, and April 20, 2012, and seeks damages and other relief based
on allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the value of
such stock.  In addition, a number of derivative complaints have
been filed in Delaware and Arkansas, also tracking the allegations
of the Times story, and naming various current and former officers
and directors as additional defendants.  The plaintiffs in the
derivative lawsuits (in which the Company is a nominal defendant)
allege, among other things, that the defendants who are or were
directors or officers of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with oversight of FCPA compliance.

Management does not believe any possible loss or the range of any
possible loss that may be incurred in connection with this matter
will be material to the Company's financial condition or results
of operations.


WHIRLPOOL: Washing Machine Class Action May Proceed to Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein on Nov. 7 released a statement
regarding the Whirlpool Front-Loading Washing Machines Class
Action Lawsuit.

A lawsuit involving Whirlpool Duet(R), Duet HT(R), or Duet
Sport(R) Front-Loading Automatic Washers ("Washers") has been
certified as a Class Action, and may be proceeding to trial.  The
lawsuit claims that the Washers have a design defect that causes
the machines to accumulate mold, resulting in unpleasant odors and
ruined laundry.  The lawsuit further claims that Whirlpool knew
about this design defect and failed to inform customers before
they bought their machines. Whirlpool denies these claims.

Class Members include individuals who:

   * Currently live in Ohio,

   * Bought a Whirlpool Duet(R), Duet HT(R), or Duet Sport(R)
Front-Loading Automatic Washer in Ohio, and

   * Bought the Whirlpool Washer primarily for personal, family,
or household purposes.

Resellers and distributors of Washers as well as government
entities are not included in this lawsuit.  Additionally, Washers
that were bought through Whirlpool's Employee Purchase Program are
not included.

There is no money or benefits available now because the Court has
not yet decided whether Whirlpool did anything wrong, and the two
sides have not settled the case.  If the Class is successful at
trial, Class Members will need to present evidence that they have
damages as a result of their purchase of the Washers to recover
any money or other benefit from Whirlpool.

Some Class Members may have received a notice about the lawsuit in
the mail.  For those people who believe they are Class Members,
but did not receive a notice, they can register at
http://www.WhirlpoolClass.comor by calling 1-888-538-5793 to
receive future information about the lawsuit.

Class Members have a choice whether to remain members of the Class
or exclude themselves.  Class Members can obtain more information
by visiting http://www.WhirlpoolClass.comor calling 1-888-538-
5793.  Those Class Members who choose to exclude themselves must
do so by January 7, 2013.

If the case is not dismissed or settled, Plaintiffs will have to
prove their claims at a trial that will take place at the Carl B.
Stokes United States Courthouse, 801 West Superior Avenue,
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1838.  The trial date has not been set.
Once a trial date has been set, that information will be posted on
the Web site, http://www.WhirlpoolClass.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $339-Mil. Expense in Embraco Matters
------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation disclosed in its October 23, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it has incurred, in the
aggregate, charges of approximately $339 million in connection
with antitrust lawsuits and investigations relating to its Embraco
business in Brazil.

Beginning in February 2009, the Company's compressor business
headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations
of the global compressor industry by government authorities in
various jurisdictions.  In 2011, Embraco sales represented
approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales.

Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and
other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and
concluded their investigations.  In connection with these
agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust law
with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from 2004
through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments.

Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009,
Embraco has been named as a defendant in related antitrust
lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection
with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009.  Several other
compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the government
investigations have also been named as defendants in the
litigation.  United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf
of purported purchasers and containing class action allegations
have been combined in one proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Lawsuits containing
class action allegations are also pending in Canada. Additional
lawsuits may be filed by purported purchasers.

In connection with these agreements and other Embraco antitrust
matters, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate, charges of
approximately $339 million, including fines, defense costs and
other expenses.  These charges have been recorded within interest
and sundry income (expense).  At September 30, 2012, $119 million
remains accrued, with installment payments of $93 million, plus
interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at
various times through 2015.

The Company continues to work toward resolution of ongoing
government investigations in other jurisdictions, to defend the
related antitrust lawsuits and to take other actions to minimize
our potential exposure.   The final outcome and impact of these
matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be
brought in the future are subject to many variables, and cannot be
predicted.  The Company establishes accruals only for those
matters where it determines that a loss is probable and the amount
of loss can be reasonably estimated.  While it
is currently not possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate
amount of costs which the Company may incur in connection with
these matters, such costs could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, liquidity, or results of
operations.

Whirlpool Corporation is an American multinational manufacturer
and marketer of home appliances headquartered in Benton Charter
Township, Michigan, United States, near Benton Harbor, Michigan.
The company markets Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, Jenn-Air,
Amana, Gladiator GarageWorks, Inglis, Estate, Brastemp, Bauknecht
and Consul.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Product Liability Lawsuits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending itself against
numerous class action lawsuits in various jurisdictions in the
United States and Canada relating to certain of its front load
washing machines.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally
allege violations of state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment,
and breach of warranty.  The complaints generally seek unspecified
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages.  The Company
believes these suits are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend them.  At this point, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a possible range of loss, if any.

In addition, the Company is currently defending a number of other
class action suits in federal and state courts related to the
manufacturing and sale of its products and alleging claims which
include breach of contract, breach of warranty, product defect,
fraud, violation of federal and state consumer protection acts and
negligence.  It is also involved in various other legal actions
arising in the normal course of business.  The Company disputes
the merits of these suits and actions, and intend to vigorously
defend them.  Management believes, based upon its current
knowledge, after taking into consideration legal counsel's
evaluation of such suits and actions discussed, and after taking
into account current litigation reserves, that the outcome of
these matters currently pending against Whirlpool should not have
a material adverse effect, if any, on its Consolidated Financial
Statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 23,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


WINNEBAGO COUNTY, IL: To Settle Strip-Search Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Haas, writing for Rockford Register Star, reports that
Winnebago County is ready to settle a five-year-old lawsuit
brought by a South Beloit woman who said she was strip-searched
after being brought to the jail for failure to appear on traffic
charges.

The county was scheduled to appear in federal court on Nov. 9 to
present a settlement agreement in the class-action lawsuit to U.S.
Judge P. Michael Mahoney.

Winnebago County Board members have already signed off on the
agreement, which would pay $30,000 to Rosemary Raymundo, who
brought the lawsuit on behalf of herself and others booked into
the jail and searched on minor crimes.

The county would also pay $5,000 to witness Christine Marks,
$10,000 to Raymundo's attorneys for their costs and up to $495,000
in attorney fees.  The cost of attorney fees will be determined by
Judge Mahoney.

On top of that, the county would be required to pay $850 to each
temporary detainee that files a claim in the class action suit and
$50 to each general population detainee that files a claim.

The lawsuit was filed after Raymundo was arrested Jan. 8, 2007, in
her South Beloit home on a warrant for failing to appear on
charges of transporting a child without a proper child restraint
system.  The lawsuit said the Winnebago County policy to strip
search people booked into the jail with minor crimes is illegal,
insensitive and unnecessary.  The policy has since changed.

"The county was following the state statute for searching
prisoners.  Unfortunately, the federal government came in and the
Supreme Court found that those actions violated a person's
Constitutional right," said Attorney Michael Meyer, who
represented the county on the case.  "It was sort of a Catch-22
situation which we're following what we think is the law at the
point in time and then the federal government steps in and says,
'no, sorry, you're violating a Constitutional right.'"

"This litigation is basically nationwide because a lot of the
states had the same statutes on the books to allow the searches of
prisoners," Mr. Meyer said.

Notices will be sent out to potential litigants in the class-
action suit.  The county doesn't have an estimate on total cost of
the settlement, which will depend on how many participate in the
class-action suit.


                           *********

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  * * *