---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 26

                             Headlines



ABX LOGISTICS: Settles US Class Action for $3.5 Million
ARIZONA: ADC Appoints Corizon to Provide Healthcare to Prisoners
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Workers File Overtime Class Action Suit
BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Malfunctioning Machine
CHRYSLER GROUP: Judge Trims Claims in Defective Brake Class Action

DAIRY FARMERS: Avoids Class Action Trial Following Settlement
EHEALTH ONTARIO: Settles Employees' Class Action for C$7.16MM
ELAN CORP: Dismissal of Bapineuzumab Drug Securities Suit Upheld
FOODSTATE INC: Recalls 7,400 Bottles of MegaFood Supplements
HARBORTOUCH: Charges Bogus Regulatory Compliance Fee, Suit Claims

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Plaintiffs' Firms Eye Lead Counsel Role
HIPSTER: Faces Privacy Invasion Class Action Suit
HOWREY: Trustee Seeks Information on Assignment After Dissolution
ISABELLA FOODS: Recalls 685 Lbs. of Chicken/Pork Tamale Products
JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action For Collecting "False" Debts

KRAFT FOODS: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of False Labeling Suit
KRINGLES TOYS: Recalls 4,200 Nanospheres Magnetic Desk Toys
LOS ANGELES: Faces Class Action For Constitutional Violations
MAINE: Class Action Seeks to Expand Support Services for Disabled
MICROSOFT: Parents File Fraud Suit Over X-Box Add-On Charges

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Bounty Probe
NCAA: June 20 Class Cert. Hearing in Athletes' Suit Set
NESTLE: Faces $5-Mil. Class Action Over Trans Fat in Frozen Pizza
NOVARTIS CONSUMER: Recalls 2.3MM Units of Triaminic Syrups
NUESKE'S APPLEWOOD: Recalls 4,454 Pounds of Liver Pate Products

PARKER HANNIFIN: Faces Overtime Class Action in Orange Cty.
SCS DIRECT: Recalls 106,000 Magnet Balls(R) Sets
SERGEANT'S PUR LUV: Faces Class Suit Over Indigestible Dog Treats
STAPLES: Faces Class Action Over Ambiguous "Protection Plan"
SYNGENTA CROP: Carthage Gets Share in Atrazine Settlement

VENEREAL DISEASE: "Roses" Has Full Immunity from Suit, Ct. Rules
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Food Items With Circle Sea Salmon Lox Trim
WORLD IMPORTS: Recalls 8,600 Bunk Beds Due to Safety Violation
WYETH: Third Circuit Enforces Fen-Phen Settlement Agreement

* Michael Hausfeld Responds to Wrongful Termination Suit


                           *********



ABX LOGISTICS: Settles US Class Action for $3.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
ABX LOGISTICS Worldwide NV/SA has entered into an agreement to
settle a US class action lawsuit alleging anticompetitive
practices in relation to certain surcharges for freight forwarding
services.  The class action lawsuit is related to ABX LOGISTICS
Worldwide NV/SA, a subsidiary taken over in 2008 in connection
with DSV's acquisition of ABX LOGISTICS.

The settlement, which is subject to US court approval, provides
that ABX LOGISTICS Worldwide NV/SA will pay an amount of $3.5
million.

DSV intends to seek reimbursement of the financial loss from the
previous owners of ABX LOGISTICS in accordance with the agreements
made with these parties.  On this basis, DSV believes that the
case will have no impact on the financial position of the Group.


ARIZONA: ADC Appoints Corizon to Provide Healthcare to Prisoners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that the Arizona
Department of Corrections said it will replace its for-profit
prison health care company with another profit-seeking firm, after
a federal class action that claimed the state provides "grossly
inadequate" medical care to prisoners.

Corizon Inc., of Brentwood, Tenn., "will be responsible for the
provision of health care to inmates at the Arizona Department of
Corrections' ('ADC') state-run facilities" beginning March 4,
according to a filing in the pending court case.

Corizon will replace Pittsburgh-based Wexford Health Sources.

The ACLU, which filed the class action nearly a year ago, was not
impressed.

"Merely replacing one for-profit prison contractor with another
will only prolong the crisis in Arizona's prisons.  There is no
reason to think that anything will change under Corizon Inc.,"
ACLU of Arizona Legal Director Dan Pochoda said in a statement.

The ACLU of Arizona filed the class action with the Prison Law
Office of Berkeley, Calif., attorneys with Perkins Coie of Phoenix
and Jones Day of San Francisco, and Jennifer Alewelt, with the
Arizona Center for Disability Law.

According to the lawsuit: "For years, the health care provided by
defendants in Arizona's prisons has fallen short of minimum
constitutional requirements and failed to meet prisoners' basic
health needs."

Named as defendants were Arizona Department of Corrections
Director Charles Ryan and the state's Interim Director of Health
Services Richard Pratt.

"Critically ill prisoners have begged prison officials for
treatment, only to be told 'be patient,' 'it's all in your head,'
or 'pray' to be cured," the complaint stated.  "Despite warnings
from their own employees, prisoners and their family members, and
advocates about the risk of serious injury and death to prisoners,
defendants are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of
pain and suffering to prisoners, including deaths, which occur due
to defendants' failure to provide minimally adequate health care,
in violation of the Eighth Amendment."


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Workers File Overtime Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ashley Furniture Industries
dba Furniture Direct stiffed warehouse workers for overtime, a
class action claims in Federal Court.


BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Malfunctioning Machine
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Brother International
Multi-Function Center machine squirts ink so fast "it can
literally deplete the entire cartridge without printing a single
page," a class claims.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Judge Trims Claims in Defective Brake Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge trimmed substantial claims on Jan. 29 from a
putative class action alleging that Chrysler Group LLC concealed a
defect in its 2009 and 2010 Dodge Journeys that causes premature
brake wear, but refused the automaker's bid to have the suit
tossed completely.

U.S. District Judge James V. Selna dismissed without prejudice
plaintiff Ronald Coleman's claims under California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and its Unfair Competition Law, finding he had
failed to show that he met those statutes' residency requirements.


DAIRY FARMERS: Avoids Class Action Trial Following Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Shepel, writing for Wisconsin State Farmer, reports that the
Dairy Farmers of America board and management recently announced
that the cooperative had reached a settlement in a class action
lawsuit in the southeastern United States.  The case had accused
them of being part of a plan to control the raw milk market,
eliminate competition in that region and fix the price paid to
farmers.

The fact that a settlement was reached means DFA will avoid a
trial that was scheduled to begin this month in Tennessee.

Under the terms of the settlement, which must be approved by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, DFA
will pay $140 million to the plaintiffs.

The co-op also agreed to an additional, refundable $9.3 million
per year for two years, which will be placed in a fund to
"incentivize stronger Class 1 utilization rates in Federal Orders
5 and 7."

That brings the total of the settlement to $158.6 million.

Avoiding a trial meant that certain sealed documents would not
become public.  There was also the possibility that the price tag
could have been tripled in case a jury found for the plaintiffs.

In its statement announcing the settlement, DFA said it makes "no
admission of wrongdoing in the case," which was brought by
plaintiffs -- a group of farmers who are members and another group
of non-members of DFA -- who said the country's largest dairy
cooperative had colluded to fix prices for milk in the
southeastern region of the United States.

Plaintiffs filed the suit in 2007, accusing DFA and others of
taking actions to control the price of raw milk.

Among the claims: that DFA had signed exclusive, secret supply
contracts with Dean Foods, selling milk to Dean cheaper.  The
plaintiffs alleged that those deals prevented competition from
other cooperatives, dairy farmers and other milk suppliers in the
14-state region of the Southeast.

According to Julia Walker, a reporter in Tennessee who has covered
the litigation, total payments to farmers who were party to the
suit are estimated to average $13,000 per claimant when payments
are completed, following a five-year tiered payment plan.

She said payments will range from less than $200 to more than
$20,000 per farm, depending on the qualified milk pounds belonging
to each producer; an approximate net of 10-12 cents per eligible
hundredweight.

Almost 73 billion pounds of milk was affected by the price schemes
included in the lawsuit during the first five months of 2001 --
the period covered by the court action.

The DFA settlement was the third and final part of litigation
brought by a group of dairy farmers.  Dean Foods settled for $140
million in July 2011 and the Southern Marketing Agency and one of
its managers settled for $5 million.

Other settling defendants in the most recent agreement included
National Dairy Holdings LP; Dairy Marketing Services LLC; and Mid-
Am Capital LLC.  Gary Hanman, the former CEO of the Dairy Farmers
of America, was also part of the settlement.

Under terms of the settlement, DFA also agreed to some changes in
business practices regarding reporting, accounting and
communication of certain information and operations.

In its statement, co-op officials said many of these components
are consistent with new policies they had voluntarily developed
and implemented to "emphasize a culture of openness and
transparency within the cooperative."

"Our board and management team have worked diligently to put
certain old issues behind us," said Rick Smith, DFA president and
chief executive officer.  "This outcome positions DFA to fulfill a
commitment to our members to resolve pending litigation, to remove
a source of distraction for our leadership and to avoid additional
legal fees."

Mr. Smith said the payment of the settlement will not affect DFA's
day-to-day operations or its ability to market member milk or pay
them a competitive price for that milk.  Member milk checks and
the member equity program will not be impacted, he said.

"The Cooperative remains healthy and poised for a bright future,"
Mr. Smith said.  "We continue to develop new member programs and
invest in plants and new products.  We also continue to seek out
new opportunities and innovative ways to increase value to our
dairy farmer owners."

Pete Hardin, editor and publisher of "The Milkweed" a dairy
industry publication, said dairy farmers in Wisconsin should
recognize that it is the competition for their milk that keeps the
state's marketplace honest.

"Competition is the best thing Wisconsin dairy farmers have," he
said, adding that in other parts of the country things like price
fixing can occur because there is no competition.


EHEALTH ONTARIO: Settles Employees' Class Action for C$7.16MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Benzie, writing for Toronto Star, reports that hundreds of
eHealth Ontario employees will share a C$7.16 million windfall
after settling their class-action lawsuit against the province's
electronic health records agency, the Star has learned.

The workers sued their employer for C$11 million after eHealth
reneged on promised 1.9 per cent merit raises and bonuses
averaging 7.8 per cent in the wake of a media firestorm.

On May 18, 2011, the Star revealed that every eHealth staffer had
been promised in writing a pay hike despite a government wage-
freeze edict.

With the Oct. 6, 2011 election looming, Premier Dalton McGuinty's
government slammed the brakes on a scheme designed to keep
eHealth's specialized workforce from being poached by high-paying
private-sector information-technology firms.

Because eHealth had been plagued by a 2009 expenses scandal
involving well-paid consultants, the Liberals were worried the
revelations would reignite the controversy.

Under terms of the proposed settlement, which is subject to a
"fairness hearing" on March 28 with Justice Paul Perell, 738
eligible eHealth Ontario employees will receive their performance
incentive award for the fiscal year 2010-11, but no merit
increase.

For 2011-12, the workers will get half of their performance
incentive award, but no merit raises.

As well, eHealth will pay C$115,000 in legal costs, though law
firms in such class action suits can be eligible for up to 30 per
cent of the settlement.

The agency's vice-president Rob Mitchell declined to comment on
the settlement beyond confirming "there is an agreement in
principle subject to court approval."

Employees said management had no choice but to settle since each
of them had received a letter detailing their merit increase and
bonuses at a morale-boosting ceremony in a rented auditorium in
May 2011.

Health Minister Deb Matthews said it was smart to avert costly
litigation.

"Based on legal advice, eHealth has made the responsible decision
to reach a negotiated settlement that looks out for taxpayers by
avoiding lengthy and costly litigation, which could have cost
millions more," said Ms. Matthews.

She noted "eHealth Ontario has made phenomenal progress over the
last few years" and more than nine million Ontarians now have
electronic health records.


ELAN CORP: Dismissal of Bapineuzumab Drug Securities Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In KLEINMAN v. ELAN CORPORATION, PLC, Gary Kleinman alleges that
Elan Corporation, plc, Pfizer, Inc. (as successor-in-interest to
Wyeth, Inc.), G. Kelly Martin, and Lars Ekman violated Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing a misleading press release on June 17, 2008, concerning
the results of a clinical trial for a drug called bapineuzumab
(then under joint development by Elan and Wyeth).  Mr. Kleinman
brought his putative class action on behalf of all those who
purchased Elan's call options during the Class Period -- June 17,
2008, to July 29, 2008.  He alleges the press release omitted
several facts that, in his view, were necessary to prevent the
press release from being misleadingly optimistic.

The district court dismissed the case but invited Mr. Kleinman to
submit supplementary papers, offering any new allegations that
could cure the deficiencies identified by the court.  Mr. Kleinman
responded that if leave to amend were granted, he would add
allegations to the complaint.  The district court issued a summary
order denying leave to amend, stating that the new allegations "do
nothing to disturb the decision" it reached at oral argument.

Mr. Kleinman took an appeal from the district court's judgment
dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice for failure to
state a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and denying
leave to amend.

Judge Peter W. Hall, writing for a three-judge panel at the United
States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the district
court's judgment on February 1, 2013.

The Appeals Court concluded that in the context of the full
presentation of the details surrounding the study of the drug,
nothing omitted from the June press release rendered it false or
misleading to a reasonable investor.  Moreover, Mr. Kleinman
offered insufficient additional allegations to cure this
deficiency.

The case before the second circuit is captioned GARY W. KLEINMAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELAN CORPORATION, PLC, PFIZER, INC., AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO WYETH, INC., G. KELLY MARTIN, LARS EKMAN,
Defendants-Appellees, Docket No. 11-3706-cv.

A copy of the Court's February 1, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/Euuvojfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Gary W. Kleinman:

          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, P.C.
          New York, N.Y.
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com
                  brower@browerpiven.com

Counsel for Elan Corp., G. Kelly Martin, and Lars Ekman:

          Jaculin Aaron, Esq.
          Stuart J. Baskin, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          New York, N.Y.
          E-mail: jaaron@shearman.com
                  sbaskin@shearman.com

Counsel for Pfizer, Inc.:

          John K. Villa, Esq.
          George A. Borden, Esq.
          David R. Riskin, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          Washington, D.C.
          E-mail: jvilla@wc.com
                  gborden@wc.com
                  driskin@wc.com


FOODSTATE INC: Recalls 7,400 Bottles of MegaFood Supplements
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
FoodState Inc., of Derry, New Hampshire, announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,400 MegaFood One Daily Supplement Bottles.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The packaging is not child-resistant as required by the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act.  The supplement tablets inside the
bottle contain iron, which can cause serious injury or death to
young children if multiple tablets are ingested at once.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled supplement bottles are brown glass bottles that
contain MegaFood One Daily Tablets.  The bottles have a yellow
label on the front with the words "MegaFood," "Fresh From Farm To
Tablet," "One Daily," "Nourish," "Balance" and "Replenish" printed
above a picture of vegetables.  Recalled bottles have the
following amounts, product codes and lot numbers:

   Amount         Product Code    Lot Numbers
   ------         ------------    -----------
   60 tablets     51494 10151     10613, 10724 through
                                  10728, 11246 and 12191
   90 tablets     51494 10152     10613, 10724 through
                                  10728, 11246 and 12191
   180 tablets    51494 10153     10613, 10724 through
                                  10728, 11246 and 12191

The amount is on the bottom right of the front label.  The product
code and lot numbers are on the left side of the front label.  A
picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/oBEpzo

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Sprouts Farmers Market, Vitamin Cottage, Whole
Foods Market and other natural food stores nationwide from June
2012 to October 2012 for between $39 and $90.

Consumers should immediately place bottles of this product out of
reach of children and return any recalled bottles to the original
place of purchase for a full refund or replacement.  FoodState,
d/b/a MegaFood, may be reached toll free at (866) 234-2668, from
9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or by
e-mail at productintegrity@megafood.com; or online at
http://www.megafood.com/,then click on "Read More" in the Safety
Notice section of the page.


HARBORTOUCH: Charges Bogus Regulatory Compliance Fee, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Harbortouch, a
payment processor that handles more than $9 billion in
transactions a year, charges a bogus "Regulatory Compliance Fee"
of $89 a month, a dentist claims in a class action.

Dr. Suzanne Degnen sued United Bankcard dba Harbortouch in
St. Louis County Court.

She claims Harbortouch charged her dental office $89 for the bogus
fee in December 2012, automatically withdrawing the money from her
bank account.

"Plaintiff had not entered into any contract under which defendant
had the right to withdraw the Regulatory Compliance Fee from
plaintiff's checking account," Dr. Degnen says in the complaint.
"Defendant had no right to take the Regulatory Compliance Fee from
plaintiff."

Dr. Degnen says in the complaint that "such a fee was not
authorized by contract or by law."

Citing the Harbortouch website, Dr. Degnen says the company touts
itself as "'a leading national supplier of point of sale (POS)
systems, serving thousands of businesses across the nation' and
'[a]s of the largest . . . payment processors in the United
States, Harbortouch currently handles the merchant accounts for
over 110,000 business locations and processes in excess of $9
billion annually, with those numbers constantly increasing.'"
(Parentheses, brackets and ellipsis in complaint.)

Speaking for the class, Dr. Degnen's office says it "wants -- and
it entitled to -- the return of its money and an injunction
prohibiting defendant's wrongful conduct."

The class consists of all people who had the fee automatically
taken from their bank accounts by Harbortouch in the past five
years. Dr. Degnen seeks money had and received, with interest, and
punitive damages for conversion.

She is represented by Ronald J. Eisenberg, with Schulz &
Associates, of Chesterfield, Mo.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Plaintiffs' Firms Eye Lead Counsel Role
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that more than a
dozen plaintiffs firms are jockeying for lead counsel appointments
in shareholder litigation spurred by Hewlett-Packard Co.'s $8.8
billion write down of its acquisition of British software firm
Autonomy.

At least seven derivative actions and three shareholder class
actions have been filed in the Northern District of California and
consolidated before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San
Francisco.

Serving as lead counsel is a coveted position because it provides
greater control over litigation strategy and ultimately a greater
share of attorneys' fees.  Often, parties named as lead plaintiffs
also receive financial bonuses for their contributions.

Burlingame-based Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, counsel for a Silicon
Valley investment advisor, is among firms eyeing the lead role for
derivative litigation, where investors take action on behalf of
the company.

The lawyers, led by principals Joseph Cotchett --
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- and Mark Molumphy --
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- emphasized their experience trying large
fiduciary duty cases in the Northern District and pledged an
inclusive approach.

Mr. Cotchett's primary competition comes from San Diego-based
Robbins Arroyo, counsel to the City of Birmingham retirement
system and the first firm to file a derivative lawsuit following
the Autonomy write down.

Birmingham is the only institutional investor among the plaintiffs
and has the largest financial stake in the litigation, the Robbins
Arroyo lawyers asserted in their pitch to share lead counsel ranks
with Saxena White, a Florida-based firm.

"Plaintiff Birmingham is precisely the type of sophisticated
institutional investor, with a large financial stake in the
litigation, that Congress envisioned leading shareholder-initiated
actions," the Robbins Arroyo lawyers wrote.

The suits, filed from late November through January, contend HP
executives paid too much for Autonomy and covered up problems with
the deal.

On the shareholder class action side, several more firms are
maneuvering for position, with San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd asserting the firm's pension fund clients suffered the
greatest hit with estimated losses in the tens of millions of
dollars.

Robbins Geller, previously lead counsel in securities litigation
related to Enron Corp., has teamed up with Philadelphia's Barrack,
Rodos & Bacine.

Under federal securities laws, a plaintiff with the largest
financial interest has a presumptive claim to the lead plaintiff
spot.  But the status of biggest loser in the HP-Autonomy deal is
hotly contested.

Lawyers from Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman insist their clients lost the most -- by some
calculations as much as $119 million.  The two firms represent
public retirement funds in Oregon and Oklahoma and PGGM
Vermogensbeheer, the Dutch pension fund manager.

The pension funds have experience managing litigation and can draw
on state government resources, argued Kessler Topaz partner Ramzi
Abadou -- rabadou@ktmc.com -- who heads the firm's San Francisco
office.

"The significant resources available to the funds ensure that
proposed lead counsel's prosecution of this action will be
overseen by attorneys and other professionals who are highly
experienced in conducting and supervising complex litigation,"
Mr. Abadou wrote.

Other firms gunning for lead counsel positions include Kaplan Fox;
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross; Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro; Newman Ferrara; and Berman & DeValerio.


HIPSTER: Faces Privacy Invasion Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that the Hipster
app that turns pictures into postcards swipes users' address books
and passwords and sends them to a third-party server that uses the
information without consent, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

Lead plaintiff Francisco Espitia sued Hipster for privacy
invasion, computer crimes and other charges, on behalf of everyone
who has downloaded the app since Jan. 1, 2011.

The app allows users to create postcards from photos they take on
mobile phones.  The postcards are attached to the locations from
which they were sent, to make documenting memories easier.  Users
are given the option to share the postcards with others through
their mobile devices.

But when users download it, the app, "without seeking to obtain
consent, and without notice to the user, sought out and retrieved
the list of personal contacts on the user's mobile device.  This
list of personal contacts was copied and surreptitiously uploaded
to Hipster's third-party servers.  In addition to the list of
personal contacts of the user, other highly sensitive information
such as passwords and geo-locations were also obtained by the
Hipster App.  All of this information was sent unencrypted over
publicly accessible data channels," according to the 67-page
complaint.

The class claims that Hipster's actions "involved the deliberate
and intentional circumvention of technical measures within the
mobile computing device in order to bypass the technical and code
based barriers, including the plaintiffs' and class members'
privacy settings which were intended to limit access by anyone
other than the owner of the device."

The class claims that Hipster then accessed and used the data
without authorization or consent.

The class seeks restitution, accounting, damages and punitive
damages for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, the Stored Communications Act, the California Computer Crime
Law, invasion of privacy, unfair competition, bailment,
conversion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence,
trespass to personal property and unjust enrichment.

They also seek an injunction, disgorgement of profits, deletion of
all the information Hipster downloaded illegally, and a way for
users to decline participation in its data collection activities.

The class is represented by David Parisi, of Parisi & Havens, in
Sherman Oaks.


HOWREY: Trustee Seeks Information on Assignment After Dissolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Baxter, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that with a
long-awaited $158.6 million dairy class action settlement finally
agreed upon, and a bankruptcy judge in California certifying a
class of former employees seeking to pursue claims against Howrey,
a trustee for the defunct Am Law 100 firm's estate is now seeking
information on an assignment that Howrey sought to pursue after
its 2011 dissolution.

Howrey bankruptcy trustee Allan Diamond of Diamond McCarthy
recently filed papers with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali in
San Francisco seeking information from James Monroe and Robert
Best Jr., both of whom were key local political players that
signed a legal services contract with Howrey worth up to $15.5
million if the firm was successful in creating a municipal power
grid in upstate New York.

The Am Law Daily reported in May 2011 on Howrey's effort to
continue its work representing the Alliance for Municipal Power
(AMP), an organization that pushed for the creation of the North
Country Power Authority (NCPA), a public utility system for 24
municipalities in Franklin and St. Lawrence counties adjoining New
York's northern border with Canada.

Howrey, which had formally dissolved in March 2011, found two of
its most senior lawyers caught in the middle of a power play
between competing interests seeking to either scrap the contract
with the firm or keep it intact while moving forward with the
formation of the NCPA, according to previous reports.  Howrey,
which had just began bankruptcy proceedings at the time, claimed
that it could proceed with the work necessary to bring about the
NCPA, citing in part the increased legal costs the municipalities
might face if they sought to retain another firm.

But last year The Am Law Daily reported that the lights finally
went out on the NCPA, seemingly ending efforts by the Howrey
estate to score a payday for its work on the scuttled power plant
project.  A potential fee claim might now be revived based on the
ex parte application recently filed by Diamond seeking documents
from Best and Monroe related to Howrey's work on behalf of AMP and
the NCPA.

"The Trustee believes that Howrey may have a substantial claim for
fees from either one or both of these entities, their
constituents, or their successors for the extensive legal work
[the firm] performed relating to the creation of a municipal power
authority in northern New York," writes Mr. Diamond in the filing.

Mr. Diamond, who served as litigation counsel to Diamond McCarthy
partner Sheila Gowan in her role as trustee in the bankruptcy of
now defunct Dreier LLP, was chosen as trustee for the Howrey case
in October 2011.  Mr. Diamond, whose firm has offices in Denver,
New York, and Texas, noted at the time of his appointment that the
Howrey bankruptcy would get litigious.

Mr. Diamond was out of the office on Jan. 23 and unavailable for
immediate comment about how much he might seek for Howrey's work
for AMP and the NCPA, which began in 2007.

However, in an interview with The Am Law Daily about the Howrey
estate's get-tough effort to recover tens of millions of dollars
from former partners, Mr. Diamond reiterated his plans to monetize
the former firm's contingency fee cases to the extent that he
still can.  An interim report filed this month by Mr. Diamond
lists Howrey's contingency fee cases and other potential
recoveries for creditors.

The filing made by Mr. Diamond seeking information from Monroe and
Best, which has already been approved by the bankruptcy court,
notes that Howrey would be paid a contingency fee as part of the
costs included in the bond that would have eventually been issued
to fund the construction of the power plants.  Mr. Diamond claims
that Howrey could also "demand reimbursement from AMP for fees and
expenses actually incurred by Howrey in the event" that the NCPA
did not move forward.  The filing further states that by January
2011, Howrey's fees and expenses invested in the matter totaled
$3.2 million.


ISABELLA FOODS: Recalls 685 Lbs. of Chicken/Pork Tamale Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isabella Foods, an El Paso, Texas establishment, is recalling
approximately 685 pounds of tamale products because of misbranding
and undeclared allergens.  The products contain wheat or soy,
known allergens which are not declared on the label.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 36-oz. packages containing 12 "Isabella Foods of El Paso
     Green Chicken Tamales" and bearing the establishment number
     "P-13389" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

   * 36-oz. packages containing 12 "Isabella Foods of El Paso Red
     Pork Tamales" and bearing the establishment number "EST.
     1960" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The products were produced through January 18, 2013, and
distributed and sold to institutions and retail stores in the El
Paso, Texas area.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://is.gd/sC9CB2

The problem was discovered by FSIS in-plant personnel during a
routine label review.  An FSIS inspector determined that soy was a
subcomponent of the textured vegetable protein ingredient in the
green chicken tamale product but not declared on the label.
During the same review, FSIS also found that wheat was a
subcomponent of the masa flour ingredient in the red pork tamale
product but not declared on the label.  FSIS and the company have
received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact
a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall
should contact the Company's Owner, Nielson Guerra, at (915) 590-
1899.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action For Collecting "False" Debts
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that JP Morgan Chase
abusively extracted tens of millions of dollars from debtors, and
people who do not owe debts, through robo-signing, "intentionally
inaccurate record-keeping," and all the abuses of the mortgage and
foreclosure catastrophes, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Johanna Sierra sued JP Morgan Chase & Co.; its
collections subsidiary the NCO Group; and the Austin-based debt-
collection law firm Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado & Acosta, in
Manhattan Federal Court.

She claims the defendants "unlawfully obtained hundreds of
millions, if not billions, of dollars from consumers," through
fabricated evidence, lack of evidence, and outright fraud.

Just as in the mortgage and foreclosure crises, Ms. Sierra claims,
Chase and its allies took advantage of an unregulated debt market
to prey on consumers with procedural shortcuts and hound them for
false or inaccurate debts.

"Defendants systematically and willfully violate the law in their
efforts to mass-generate judgment accounts from consumer
collection accounts, while knowing, or intentionally failing to
know, that the consumers do not owe the underlying debt, in whole
or in part," the complaint states.  "Defendants intentionally do
not obtain, or cannot obtain, proof that the consumers actually
owe the alleged debt, in whole or in part.

"Defendants' unlawful scheme enables sophisticated corporate
entities to improperly collect vast sums of money from consumers
who are usually unaware that they do not owe the money defendants
seek or who lack the resources to defend themselves from
defendants' predatory behavior.  As a result of this scheme,
defendants unlawfully obtained hundreds of millions, if not
billions, of dollars from consumers."

Ms. Sierra calls the scheme "corporate greed at its worst."

"Chase, one of the nation's largest credit card issuers with more
than $137 billion in loans and over 90 million open accounts, and
NCO, the Chase subsidiary tasked with collecting on Chase's and
other creditors' past due bills, have instituted a debt collection
system designed, not to ensure that the so-called 'debts' on which
it attempts to collect are in fact past due amounts owed by its
customers, but instead to ensure that it can collect on as many
debts as possible regardless of their validity," the complaint
states.  "Chase and NCO do this by maintaining a haphazard and
intentionally inaccurate record-keeping system that results in the
creation of bogus debts, either by failing to recognize payments
or discharges, by falsely debiting multiple accounts for the same
charges, by attributing past due balances to accounts the alleged
debtor never actually opened, by fabricating accounts with
balances that were never opened by the alleged debtor, by ignoring
expired statute of limitations, and/or by other means.

"In fact, Chase conceded that huge numbers of the so-called debts
upon which it tries to collect are bogus when it labeled billions
of dollars in 'debt' as 'toxic' because the documentation of the
'debt' was so deficient that it could make no valid claim.
Notwithstanding the fact that defendants know that Chase's records
are an insufficient basis to conclude that a consumer owes them a
valid debt, defendants systematically bring debt collection
actions without undertaking even a rudimentary investigation to
determine whether a 'debt' is in fact owed.

"More troubling, Chase and NCO engage in the deliberate
fabrication of evidence supporting debts they know are not valid.
Taking a page from the foreclosure crisis, Chase and NCO engage
fleets of 'robo-signers' who execute affidavits attesting to the
validity of debts without making any effort to actually validate
the debts, or even to review a single document or the contents of
the affidavits they are signing.  These affidavits are filed in
courts across the nation in what is nothing less than a massive
fraud on the courts.

"Notwithstanding the fact that it knew the toxic debts were
invalid, Chase sent many allegedly past due accounts to NCO. NCO
then engaged in a sham verification process before attempting to
collect on the debt through its network of law firms and
collection agencies.  In fact, NCO's 'verification process' is
incapable of uncovering Chase's errors and exists primarily to
provide a false appearance of credibility to Chase's fraudulent
acts.

"Defendants also collected on debts they purchased from creditors
such as American Express, Citigroup, Bank of America and Capital
One (the 'Other Creditors').  As with Chase's bogus debts,
defendants had good reason to know that many of the 'debts' they
bought from Other Creditors were not valid.  Indeed, Chase and NCO
managers meet with employees of the Other Creditors, and through
these monthly meetings, defendants learned that these companies
were sending inaccurate account information to NCO that falsely
identified nonexistent 'debts.'  Nonetheless, NCO included those
accounts in its computerized collection platform and subsequently
bought collection actions on the bogus 'debts' of the Other
Creditors.  NCO is an indirect majority owned and controlled
subsidiary of Chase; thus defendants Chase and NCO benefitted
equally from engaging in their unlawful activities regardless of
the identity of the original creditor.

"In order to maximize its profits, and with complete disregard to
the rights of its customers or to its obligations, NCO set up a
system whereby the debts upon which it attempted to collect were
not (and could not be) properly verified, affidavits 'verifying'
the debts were systematically falsified, and false 'debts' were
created.  NCO and its affiliates then misuse the legal system to
bully innocent consumers into paying hundreds of millions of
dollars in un-owed 'debt.'  Chase also sold to third party debt
buyers billions of dollars worth of 'delinquent' credit card
accounts, despite knowing that many of these accounts did not
actually exist, or had incorrect or overstated balances.
Defendants' scheme represents corporate greed at its worst."
(Parentheses in complaint.)

The defendants' scheme has been extensively documented, Ms. Sierra
says.

In February 2012, attorneys general in 19 states entered a
settlement with NCO to resolve allegations of unfair debt
collection practices.  Former Chase employee Linda Almonte outed
the defendants to Congress and the SEC, Ms. Sierra says.

"Ms. Almonte alleges that Chase required its employees to bundle
and sell for further debt collection consumer debts that did not
have adequate documentation, debts that listed incorrect balances,
debt subject to bankruptcy proceedings, and debts identified as
having been reduced to judgment, but which were missing the
judgments or were otherwise defective," the complaint states.
"The district court denied a motion by Chase to dismiss that
lawsuit, after which the parties reached a confidential
settlement.

"Since her firing, Ms. Almonte has described to Congress, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the media the massive
robo-signing of affidavits and other unlawful practices relating
to the creation of false or inaccurate 'debts' that she witnessed
at Chase and NCO.  During her time at Chase and NCO, Ms. Almonte
witnessed the systemic creation and collection of false debts
described in detail herein."

The class consists of all people from whom the defendants tried to
collect a debt with false or misleading information by the
defendants.

Ms. Sierra seeks restitution, statutory damages, compensatory
damages and treble damages for RICO violations, Fair Credit
Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations,
unjust enrichment, breach of contract and tortious interference
with contract.

She is represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, with Meiselman,
Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker, of White Plains, N.Y.


KRAFT FOODS: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of False Labeling Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed a district court ruling dismissing with prejudice Brad
Kuenzig's claims against Kraft Foods Global, Inc. and Hormel Foods
Corporation.

Mr. Kuenzig's putative class-action complaint alleged that the
Defendants misled consumers into believing their lunch meat
products contained fewer fat-calories than they actually did.
The district court dismissed Mr. Kuenzig's complaint saying his
state law claims were preempted by federal law, and his complaint
failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The
district court also dismissed all of Mr. Kuenzig's labeling claims
with prejudice, but granted him leave to file an amended complaint
to assert a Little Federal Trade Commission Act claim based on
non-label advertising.

Mr. Kuenzig filed an amended complaint alleging that the
Defendants' advertisements misled consumers regarding the amount
of fat-calories in their lunch meat products.  The district court
dismissed the amended complaint holding that the Defendants did
not violate Florida's Little FTC Act, because they were protected
under the safe harbor provision of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and Mr. Kuenzig again failed
to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Circuit Judges Frank M. Hull, Beverly B. Martin, and Susan H.
Black affirm the dismissal of Mr. Kuenzig's claims against Kraft
and Hormel for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough
and well-reasoned orders.

According to the three-judge panel, Mr. Kuenzig's state law
labeling claims are preempted by federal law.  Alternatively, Mr.
Kuenzig's state law labeling claims were properly dismissed for
failure to state a claim.  Mr. Kuenzig's Little FTC Act claims are
also barred by the safe harbor provision of the FDUTPA.

The case before the Appeals Court it styled BRAD KUENZIG,
CHRISANNE OLIVER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HORMEL FOODS CORP., KRAFT
FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Defendants-Appellees, No. 12-11180.

A copy of the Court's February 1, 2013 Order is available at from
http://is.gd/fkofaCLeagle.com.


KRINGLES TOYS: Recalls 4,200 Nanospheres Magnetic Desk Toys
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kringle Toys and Gifts, of American Fork, Utah, announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,200 Nanospheres Magnetic Desk Toys.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

If two or more magnets are swallowed, they can link together
inside a child's intestines and clamp onto body tissues, causing
intestinal obstructions, perforations, sepsis and death.  Internal
injury from magnets can pose serious lifelong health effects.

The firm has received no reports of incidents or injury.  CPSC has
received 80 reports of incidents involving ingestion of other high
powered magnets, resulting in 79 reports seeking medical
intervention.

The products were sold for use as an adult novelty item or desk
toy with appropriate hazard warnings and stating the intended age
level as 14 years and older.  Nanospheres is a mass of 231 small
powerful magnets that are either silver, gold or black in color.
Each magnet is about 5mm in diameter.  The magnets come in a
circular metal canister approximately 2.5 inches in diameter and
1.5 inches tall with a black and blue label displaying the product
name "Nanospheres."  A picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/k1gmtA

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Amazon.com from November 2010 through December 2011 for about $25
to $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
the company to arrange for return and a full refund.  Kringles
Toys and Gifts may be reached toll-free at (888) 801-1649 from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday, e-mail
customerservice@kringlestoysandgifts.com, or Web site
http://www.kringlestoysandgifts.com/and click on Product Recall
for more information.


LOS ANGELES: Faces Class Action For Constitutional Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles
deprived millions of harried drivers of the right to contest
parking tickets by illegally contracting the collections process
to a Xerox subsidiary, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Jeff Galfer sued the City of Los Angeles, Xerox
State and Local Solutions, and three L.A. Department of
Transportation executives, alleging state and federal
constitutional violations, conversion, trespass to chattels, civil
rights violations, unfair business practices and other charges.

Los Angeles collects more than $150 million in parking fines every
year, from the nearly 3 million citations it issues, according to
the 47-page complaint.

Budget problems have led Los Angeles to run its parking system "as
a profit center for the city, rather than a mechanism for
enforcing parking restrictions."  The system has "the greatest
impact on low-to-moderate income residents who live in densely
populated areas with inadequate street parking," according to the
complaint.

And, Mr. Galfer claims, "The city has also admitted that a
significant percentage of those citations are issued in error."

The city outsourced its "review, collection and processing" of
parking tickets in March 2006, to ACS State and Local Solutions,
nka Xerox State and Local Solutions.  Together, the city and its
creature "implemented a parking ticket review and collection
process in a way that assures that motorists cannot meaningfully
contest citations," Mr. Galfer says.

The city pays the private contractor $20 million a year, plus up
to another $10 million in "contingency fees" depending on how much
it rakes in, the class claims.

Mr. Galfer claims the city pays a $21 contingency fee for each
citation it collects that's older than 79 days.

But the city takes away the contingency fee, which account for
half of ACS's revenue, if a citation is thrown out, and hits the
company with a $200 penalty if it mishandles a dismissed citation,
according to the complaint.

Accordingly, ACS has an incentive to make sure "as many motorists
as possible fail to obtain adequate review of their citations,"
the complaint states.

Parking collections are just one aspect of wide-ranging problems
stemming from government handing over its powers to private
contractors.  Los Angeles in effect, and illegally, allows Xerox
and ACS to impersonate government agencies, according to the
complaint: "In all written communications with motorists and the
public, including notices sent to motorists and on websites
maintained by ACS, ACS refers to itself as the Parking Violations
Bureau and uses the city's name, seal and other information.  In
communicating with motorists in person and over the phone, ACS
employees and contractors represent themselves as employees of the
Los Angeles Parking Violations Bureau, and fail to disclose that
they are employees or contractors of ACS," the complaint states.

Mr. Galfer claims that ACS fails to "consider the merits" of
contested tickets, delays reviews, and sends out identical form
letters upholding citations.

From 2009-2012, ACS dismissed just 2 percent of citations on
initial review, the complaint states.

The city delegates administrative hearings to ACS, but nearly 40
percent of the hearings are dismissed, according to the complaint.
Most motorists never make it that far because of what Mr. Galfer
calls "coercive conduct."

Motorists are hit with late fees while they hold out for a review,
their vehicle registrations are held up at the Department of Motor
Vehicles, and the city boots their cars.

"ACS also frequently threatens motorists with these actions unless
those motorists give up their rights to review of their
citations," the complaint states.  Mr. Galfer claims that ACS
admitted that such tactics helped the city collect more than $6.2
million a year.

"Both the city and ACS are complicit in this misconduct.  Although
California Vehicle Code ('vehicle code') section 40200.6 makes the
city responsible for ACS and requires the city to exercise
'effective oversight' and to implement effective policies
governing ACS, the city has failed to do so," the complaint
states.

Mr. Galfer claims that mayoral candidate and City Controller Wendy
Greuel stated in a 2011 audit that the city had "'insufficient
policies and poor contract oversight' under the 2006 contract, and
'poor internal policies and citation management.'"

The city "tacitly" rewards ACS and Xerox for their bad behavior
because of the millions of dollars they collect, Mr. Galfer says.

"Based on the city's and ACS pervasive pattern and practice of
depriving motorists of fair, impartial and adequate review,
motorists issued citations by the city have been given no
mechanism to meaningfully challenge those citations.  As a result,
millions of motorists every year simply decline to contest
citations, rather than risk adverse actions by defendants," the
complaint states.

The class seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, refunds of
fees and penalties, return of impounded vehicles, removal of wheel
clamps and registration holds, and fair initial reviews and
administrative hearings, plus restitution, penalties, punitive
damages and costs.

It alleges due process violations, Bane Act violations, violations
of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, failure to comply with mandatory duty,
unfair business practices, and negligence.

The plaintiffs are represented by Damion Robinson of Van Vleck
Turner & Zaller.

Neither Xerox nor the city immediately responded to requests for
comment.


MAINE: Class Action Seeks to Expand Support Services for Disabled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patty B. Wight, writing for Maine Public Broadcasting Network,
reports that a group of 18 men and women with intellectual
disabilities has filed a class action lawsuit against Gov. Paul
LePage, Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary
Mayhew, and DHHS Director of Disability Services Ricker Hamilton
over lack of access to support services required under MaineCare.
The lawsuit charges that the state of Maine has let down not only
them, but dozens of other impaired adults as well.

Currently in Maine the waiting list for adults with disabilities
to receive housing and other support services contains more than a
thousand names.  This lawsuit deals with 176 of them.  They're in
the "Priority One" section, which means they have mental
impairments so severe -- from Down Syndrome to psychological
disorders -- that they are at risk for abuse, exploitation, and
neglect.

Some, for example, have aging parents who are no longer capable of
caring for them.  The attorney who represents 18 of these adults
in the class action suit is Gerald Petruccelli.

"These are people with acute, present needs," he says.  "We are
not talking about unemployment benefits, we are not talking about
welfare benefits.  We are talking about caring for some people who
actually cannot care for themselves in the most basic way, and in
some cases even feed themselves."

Mr. Petrucelli says this isn't a question of should the state
provide support.  He says the state is legally required to do so.
That's because these adults are covered under MaineCare, the state
version of the federal Medicaid program.  And back in the '80s,
Maine received federal approval to provide residential and
community services to a select number of severely disabled adults.
Currently, that number is set at nearly 3,000.

But Mr. Petruccelli says Maine isn't filling -- or paying for --
more than 100 of those slots.  "And so we have brought this suit
to ask the court to order the state to appropriate the money to
fill the slots it has committed to fill.  That won't take care of
all the need, but at least they should do what they're legally
obligated to do."

This problem actually began during the Baldacci administration.
In 2008, facing state revenue problems, the waiting list for these
services was closed.  It re-opened within the past year or so, and
Gov. LePage plans to provide funding to take 85 people off the
waiting list.

Mary Lou Dyer applauds Gov. LePage's plan.  She's managing
director for the Maine Association of Community Service Providers,
which serves people with intellectual disabilities.  But she says
the state has already slashed over $3 million from the program,
and at the same time Gov. LePage is pledging to take 85 people off
the waiting list, the program is facing an additional $850,000
cut.

"It's a very complicated situation where there's aspects of the
budget that put money into the waiver for the wait list, but then
other parts of it take money completely out of the system," she
says.

No one from the LePage administration was available to discuss the
waiting list, and it's state policy not to comment on pending
litigation.  Attorney Gerald Petruccelli says similar cases around
the country have required states to pay their Medicare
obligations.  But this lawsuit intends to go a step beyond:  It
also wants to expand the number of slots the state funds.  The
precedent for that, says Mr. Petrucelli, is less clear.


MICROSOFT: Parents File Fraud Suit Over X-Box Add-On Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Microsoft
tells parents "Too bad, so sad," after defrauding them by letting
their children run up massive charges for add-ons to play X-Box
Live games online, parents claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Norma Roy claims that Microsoft saves parents'
credit card numbers and bills them -- and breaks a slew of laws --
by letting kids buy extra weapons and other tools in multiplayer
online games.

It cost her $508.33, Ms. Roy says, part of the more than $1.2
billion Microsoft made from X-Box Live video games.  Many of those
dollars came from children, who cannot legally contract with
Microsoft, Ms. Roy says.

Microsoft is a sneak, Ms. Roy says in effect: "To verify that its
users under 18 years have their parents' consent, X-Box Live asks
for the input of a valid credit card to authenticate address and
name information.  This also allows children to subscribe to the
X-Box Live gaming service, with payments processed through
parents' credit cards.

"What Microsoft fails to disclose is that once the credit card
info is input into the system, the credit card info is saved and
used to pay for purchases that children and those under 18 years
make.  These purchases are made without parents' consent or
verification.  These purchases are for up-armor, extra lives,
increased health, or more powerful weaponry.

"These purchases are made through controller inputs on a screen
and take several seconds.  These purchases are typically made to
beat or continue in unbeatable games, whereas the player cannot
continue in a game without the additional purchases.  As the
purchases can be made rapidly, a child can quickly charge hundreds
of dollars to the parents' credit cards, without the parent's
consent or knowledge."

The complaint continues: "To fix the problem would be extremely
easy and Microsoft could mitigate the defect by requiring the user
to input the CCV code from the back of the credit card or input of
the parents' Personal Identification Number (PIN) code.  Yet,
Microsoft through its X-Box LIVE service chooses not to do this.

"Allowing children to purchase additional features and/or gameplay
through their parents saved credit card information is illegal in
the United States, insofar that minors cannot contract for non-
essential or non-life threatening services.  Nor can minors use
parents' credit cards in a retail, brick-and-mortar setting,
without parents' permission.

"Microsoft is and was aware of this substantial defect in its
online gaming system, but failed to disclose it or warn plaintiffs
and the class of the defect.  Prior to the introduction of its
arbitration clause in October 2012, Microsoft continued to market
and sell additional features such as up-armor,' lives, and weapons
to minors, where parent's credit card accounts are covertly
charged.  Despite numerous complaints, Microsoft refuses to fix
the system, or offer refunds to parent cardholders.

"If Microsoft Customer Service is called and a refund is
requested, Microsoft will say, 'Too bad, so sad' and 'Sorry,
that's the policy.'  These responses show that Microsoft had
knowledge of the defect, yet willfully and intentionally decided
to hide the defect, resulting in continuing damage to the class."

X-Box Live, introduced in 2002, is "the only online gaming service
on consoles that charges users a fee to play multiplayer gaming,"
Ms. Roy says in the complaint.

"(T)he X-Box Live gaming area is constructed so that portions of
the game, levels, characters, etc. cannot be beaten without the
purchase of additional skills, weaponry, armor, health points, and
lives.  That is, although parts of the gameplay are advertised as
free, the consumer must purchase additional things to beat or win
the game such as 'up-armor', increased-skill, more lives, or
stronger weapons.  The games are unbeatable without these
purchases."

Microsoft dinged Ms. Roy's credit card for $508.33 in less than a
month, she says, in nine charges ranging from $5.40 (two times) to
$81.18 (six times).

She seeks compensatory and punitive damages for fraud, deceptive
trade, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

She is represented by Omar Rosales, of Harlingen, Texas.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Bounty Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
New Orleans Saints ticket holders who blame NFL Commissioner Roger
Goodell for the team's disappointing season aren't entitled to
special compensation for their suffering, a federal judge ruled on
Jan. 30.

U.S. District Judge Helen "Ginger" Berrigan dismissed a class-
action lawsuit that a Saints season-ticket holder, David Mancina,
filed against the NFL and Mr. Goodell over the league's bounty
investigation, which led to suspensions of players, coaches and
its general manager.

The suit claimed the NFL's sanctions against the team over its
alleged system of offering cash bonuses to Saints players for big
hits punished ticket holders more than anyone else and sought more
than $5 million in damages.

Judge Berrigan rejected the notion that Saints ticket holders were
the only ones who could have experienced "mental suffering" from
the team's 7-9 record this season.

"Rather, that agony has been much more widely felt by the Who Dat
Nation," Judge Berrigan wrote in her ruling, which came only days
before New Orleans hosts Sunday's Super Bowl between the San
Francisco 49ers and the Baltimore Ravens.

Mr. Mancina, 56, of Mandeville, claimed he and other ticket
holders were entitled to compensation for the diminished vale of
their tickers and their "personal emotional reaction to the
unwarranted penalties inflicted on their beloved team, players,
coaches, and executives."

Judge Berrigan, however, said Mr. Mancina hadn't provided any
legal support for the argument that a "sport fan has rights
greater than those of a spectator, regardless of how ardent his
team devotion may be."

Judge Berrigan also presided over lawsuits that Saints players
filed against Mr. Goodell and the league over their suspensions.
The player suspensions eventually were overturned, but the coaches
served their punishments.

Earlier this month, Judge Berrigan dismissed Saints linebacker
Jonathan Vilma's defamation lawsuit against Mr. Goodell.  She
referenced the other cases in her ruling on Jan. 30.

"First, as this court has previously stated, even if the process
surrounding 'Bountygate' was initially procedurally flawed, it
resulted in a revised discipline accepted by those involved based
on the finding that 'conduct detrimental' to the game of football
had occurred," she wrote.  "In addition, the only distinction
between a ticket holder who is a fan and a ticketless fan is the
ticket holder's right to entry and seating at the game granted by
the license."

Mr. Mancina and his attorney, Lawrence Wiedemann, said they hadn't
discussed whether to appeal her ruling.

"I really do believe the season-ticket holders were affected, and
that's a number you can quantify," Mr. Mancina said.  "It was
suffering, particularly at the front end of the season with the
way we were losing."

Mr. Wiedemann said the suit wasn't a publicity stunt and that he
still believes the law is on their side.

"I thought there was a legitimate right to recover or I wouldn't
have filed the lawsuit," he said.

Even if the case ends with Judge Berrigan's ruling, Mr. Mancina
said he doesn't regret suing.

"I can't tell you the number of people who said, 'I'm so glad you
did that,'" he said.


NCAA: June 20 Class Cert. Hearing in Athletes' Suit Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that college
athletes can fight to certify a class allegedly shut out of
revenue from live television game broadcasts.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Electronic
Arts Inc. and Collegiate Licensing Company had to strike the
motion for class certification in the antitrust action led by
former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon.

Mr. O'Bannon's 2009 complaint claimed that the NCAA forces
athletes to sign away the rights to their own images, cheating
them out of a share in the profits from DVD and video game sales.

In late 2012, the athletes sought to amend their class
certification terms.  The newly defined class seeks to cover both
former and current NCAA athletes, and to award football and men's
basketball players 50 percent of all revenues earned by the NCAA
or its member schools for live broadcasts of games.

In an ensuing objection, the NCAA said that the class
certification motion "profoundly changes every significant aspect
of the antitrust claims" originally brought by the athletes.

The certification motion "introduces a new, much broader class
definition, new allegations of illegal conduct, new products
supposedly affected by that illegal conduct, and new relevant
markets," the NCAA claimed.

U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken refused to strike the
certification motion but said the defendants can file an
additional opposition brief.

"Defendants argue that the motion for class certification should
be stricken because antitrust plaintiffs are precluded from
prosecuting the claims for which they seek certification," she
wrote.  "However, this is not reason to preclude antitrust
plaintiffs from moving for class certification; instead, these
contentions are more properly considered as arguments supporting
denial of the motion for class certification on its merits.
Accordingly, the court denies defendants' motion to strike and
construes their brief as opposition to antitrust plaintiffs'
motion for class certification."

A hearing on the class certification motion is scheduled for
June 20.


NESTLE: Faces $5-Mil. Class Action Over Trans Fat in Frozen Pizza
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gio Benitez, writing for ABC News, reports that a $5 million
battle over frozen pizza could heat up a California courtroom
after a woman takes on Nestle over the company's pizza brands,
claiming they are a danger to public health.

Nestle's DiGiorno, Stouffer's and California Pizza Kitchen frozen
pizzas are under fire in a new class-action lawsuit brought by
Katie Simpson of San Diego.  In the lawsuit, filed Jan. 21, she
argues that the company is "placing profits over public health" by
not removing trans fat from its pizzas.

"Katie has two young children and she likes to make pizza for
them, and all kids love pizza," her attorney, Greg Watson, told
"Good Morning America."

"It shouldn't have a toxic food additive that's been banned all
around the world."

California, New York City, Philadelphia and other local
governments have banned trans fat in foods served in restaurants.
Trans fat raises bad cholesterol and lowers the good kind of
cholesterol.

But there are no bans on trans fat in packaged foods.  The Food
and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
only require that companies list all the ingredients on the label.

When Ms. Simpson was buying her favorite frozen pizzas, she says,
she had no idea they contained what the suit calls "a toxic
carcinogen."

"We want all the money they have ever made from the frozen
pizzas," Mr. Watson said.

This is not the first trans fat lawsuit.  McDonald's paid $8.5
million to settle two lawsuits in 2005 alleging the company misled
consumers about trans fat levels in its food.

Some lawyers wondered whether this latest suit will be tossed out
of court.

"It's clear that these companies haven't broken any rules," ABC
News legal analyst Sunny Hostin said.

Nestle, a Swiss multinational food company, said it is looking at
the $5 million suit.

"Nestle recently received a copy of the lawsuit, and we are in the
process of reviewing it," the company said in a statement.  "We
will vigorously defend ourselves against all baseless allegations.
All of our pizza products are in strict compliance with both FDA
and USDA regulations."

California Pizza Kitchen released a statement saying that the case
does not apply to the restaurants that bear the same name, but to
the pizzas purchased at supermarkets.

"This lawsuit does not pertain to California Pizza Kitchen
restaurants," the company said in a statement.  "It pertains only
to several lines of frozen pizzas manufactured and distributed by
Nestle."

Mike Wille, writing for CNS, reports that no hearing date has been
set in the case, which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge
Janis Sammartino.


NOVARTIS CONSUMER: Recalls 2.3MM Units of Triaminic Syrups
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Novartis Consumer Health Inc., of Parsippany, New Jersey,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2.3 million units of
Triaminic(R) Syrups and Theraflu Warming Relief(R) Syrups.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

These child-resistant caps can fail to function properly and
enable the cap to be removed by a child with the tamper-evident
seal in place, posing a risk of unintentional ingestion and
poisoning.  These products contain acetaminophen and
diphenhydramine which are required by the Poison Prevention
Packaging Act to be sealed with child-resistant packaging.

The firm has received 12 reports of children unscrewing the locked
caps, including four reports of children ingesting the product.
One child required medical attention.

This recall involves Triaminic(R) Syrups and Theraflu Warming
Relief(R) Syrups for coughs, colds and fevers.  There are 24 types
of these two products included in the recall.  A complete list of
products, lot numbers and National Drug Codes (NDC) can be found
at http://www.novartisOTC.com/. Lot numbers are located on the
bottom panel of the box and on the left side of the label on the
bottle.  The NDC number is located on the upper right corner of
the front panel of the Triaminic Syrups box and the upper left
corner of the Theraflu Warming Relief Syrups bottle.

A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/qnLrRQ

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Food, drug, mass merchandise and club stores
nationwide between May 2010 and December 2011 for about $5.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Novartis for instructions on how to return the product for
a full refund.  Novartis Consumer Healthcare may be reached toll-
free at (866) 553-6742 from 8:00 a.m. to midnight Eastern Time,
Monday through Saturday, or online at http://www.novartisOTC.com/
for more information.


NUESKE'S APPLEWOOD: Recalls 4,454 Pounds of Liver Pate Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nueske's Applewood Smoked Meats, a Wittenberg, Wisconsin
establishment, is recalling approximately 4,454 pounds of liver
pate products because they are misbranded in that they contain the
milk protein sodium caseinate, a known allergen, which is not
declared on the product label, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 10-oz. vacuum packed packages of "Nueske's Applewood
     Smoked Liver Pate"

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 8926" inside the
USDA mark of inspection. The packages can be further identified by
the use by dates "2/13/13C," "2/19/13C," "2/20/13C," or
"3/16/13C," or the Julian code dates "200350C," "200357C,"
"300015C," or "300022C."  The products were produced on various
dates between December 15, 2012, and January 22, 2013 and were
distributed for retail sale nationwide.

Nueske's Applewood Smoked Meats discovered in a label review that
a new shipment of labels incorrectly omitting the sodium caseinate
ingredient had been in use since the December 15, 2012 production
date.  The Company then informed FSIS.  FSIS and the company have
received no reports of adverse reactions associated with
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an adverse
reaction should see a health care professional.

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

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Tammy Beran, Nueske's Applewood Smoked Meats Quality Assurance
Director at (715) 253-4058.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.
"Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  For
information on how to report a problem with a meat, poultry or
processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Problems_With_Food_Products


PARKER HANNIFIN: Faces Overtime Class Action in Orange Cty.
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Parker Hannifin misclassifies
employees to stiff them for overtime and violates other labor
laws, a class action claims in Orange County Court.


SCS DIRECT: Recalls 106,000 Magnet Balls(R) Sets
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SCS Direct Inc., of Stratford, Connecticut, announced a voluntary
recall of about 106,000 Magnet Balls(R) Manipulative Magnet Sets.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

When two or more magnets are swallowed, they can link together
inside a child's intestines and clamp onto body tissues, causing
intestinal obstructions, perforations, sepsis and death.  Internal
injury from magnets can pose serious lifelong health effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported to SCS Direct.  CPSC
has received 80 reports of incidents involving ingestion of other
high powered magnets, resulting in 79 reports seeking medical
intervention.

This recall involves all Magnet Balls(R) The Original and Rainbow
Bright interactive magnet sets sold in a cylindrical silver tin.
Each puzzle set contains 216 spherical high-powered magnets that
are 5 mm in diameter.  The magnets were sold in silver and multi-
color sets.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2013/High-Powered-Magnet-Balls/

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Amazon.com from August 2010 through May 2012 for
about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled magnets and
contact SCS Direct for instructions on returning the product for a
$20 store credit.  SCS Direct may be reached toll-free at (888)
749-1387, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday.  Consumers can also e-mail the firm at
recall@scsdirectinc.com


SERGEANT'S PUR LUV: Faces Class Suit Over Indigestible Dog Treats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that
Sergeant's Pur Luv dog treats can leave indigestible "rock-hard
chunks" inside a dog, injuring or killing it, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Edgardo Duran sued Sergeant's Pet Care Products.

The complaint states: "Sergeant's manufactures, markets, and sells
Pur Luv pet treats, a semi-soft chew treat for dogs.  In marketing
materials and packaging for Pur Luv treats, Sergeant's describes
itself as 'providing the products you need for the health, well-
being and happiness of your pet' and describes the treats
themselves as 'nutritious.' Sergeant's website depicts
stethoscope-adorned veterinarians and claims to be 'pet health
central.'

"In truth, however, Pur Luv pet treats are not wholesome and
healthy for dogs.  The treats can cause serious injury, illness,
and even death in dogs.  Specifically, certain parts of the treat
tend not to dissolve or otherwise break down after dogs ingest
them, but instead persist as rock-hard chunks which can cause
bowel obstructions and other serious injuries.

"Many dog owners have watched their pets suffer after consuming
Sergeant's Pur Luv treats, and many dogs have required expensive,
life-saving veterinary care.  Despite these widespread problems,
Sergeant's continues to sell Pur Luv pet treats without any
warnings or notice of the treats' inherent danger."

The complaint cites numerous bad reviews on Amazon.com.  It cites
one Amazon reviewer as saying: "After hundreds of dollars on X-
rays, urgent care vet visits, etc. -- we finally found out the
source for all my pup's pain were these treats.  The centers DO
NOT dissolve in their stomach, and if they do not vomit them back
up, they get constipated and cannot excrete, which leaves them in
tremendous pain.  [. . . ] I thought it'd be a good alternative,
as he likes to chew and there is no rawhide in them, but the
center does not break down, and he had one part lodged in his
small intestine and another stuck in his stomach.  I cannot
express how awful it is to see your pup in pain, and it is not
worth the risk to try these products.  I hope in some way I can
save another pup from having to go thru the pain and experience
mine went thru - and the owner lots of spendy vet bills."
(Brackets and ellipsis in complaint.)

Mr. Duran claims that "no reasonable person would feed treats to
their dog knowing that doing so would lead to a substantial risk
of injury to, or death of their dog.  Pur Luv treats are
accordingly worthless, and any consumer who purchased Pur Luv
treats has sustained economic damages in the amount of the
purchase price."

The complaint does not say if Mr. Duran has a dog, or whether his
dog suffered from eating Pur Luv treats, only that he purchased
the product.

He seeks an injunction, restitution and damages for violations of
consumer laws.

Mr. Duran is represented by Joseph Siprut.


STAPLES: Faces Class Action Over Ambiguous "Protection Plan"
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Staples sells an extended-warranty "protection plan" without
specifying the restrictions, terms and conditions.


SYNGENTA CROP: Carthage Gets Share in Atrazine Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Stuntz, writing for Tri States Public Radio, reports that
under a recent class-action lawsuit, agricultural chemical company
Syngenta will have to pay cities and towns across the Midwest for
contaminating water supplies with the herbicide atrazine.  This
includes several in Western Illinois.

Carthage is receiving over 100 thousand dollars under the
settlement.  City Attorney Stanley Tucker said in the late 90s the
city actually paid farmers not to use Atrazine to help lower the
amount of herbicide in the water.

He said the money will help pay for some of the program, but
without the class action suit, Mr. Tucker said Carthage would not
have received anything.

"A small place like Carthage or Macomb, or a town that size really
doesn't have the ability to go against a national or multinational
corporation on such a technical matter," Mr. Tucker said, "that's
the great utility of a class action."

Mr. Tucker added that communities like Carthage that get their
water from lakes or ponds are more at risk for atrazine exposure.

Unlike the large Mississippi River which can carry away atrazine,
ponds and lakes concentrate the herbicide as it runs off from
nearby farmland.

Warsaw, Hamilton, Nauvoo, Carthage, La Harpe, Blandinsville,
Macomb, Vermont, and Canton also received money from the suit.

Syngenta will pay a total of 105 million dollars, 15 of which will
go to communities in Illinois, and 10 million to those in Iowa.


VENEREAL DISEASE: "Roses" Has Full Immunity from Suit, Ct. Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a woman
accused of helping the U.S. government infect hundreds of
Guatemalans with syphilis has full immunity from a class action, a
federal judge ruled.

During the 40 years that the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory
within the U.S. Public Health Service conducted limited
experiments on black men already infected with syphilis in
Tuskegee, Ala., it also secretly infected other human subjects.
The agency set its sights on Guatemala after unsuccessfully trying
to infect prisoners at a Terre Haute, Ind., federal penitentiary
with gonorrhea, according to the March 2011 complaint.

A Presidential Commission of the Study of Bioethical Issues,
convened by President Barack Obama in 2010, confirmed these
claims.

One of the defendants, Mirta Roses Periago, director of the Pan-
American Health Organization, formally the Pan-American Sanitary
Bureau, had been served with a default after she had inexplicably
failed to respond to the complaint within 60 days, ultimately
waiting 10 months to make her first appearance in the case.

In June 2012, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton found that all of
the defendants, including Roses, had immunity.

Though he concluded that Roses' delay had not prejudiced the case,
Judge Walton set a condition on clearing Roses, saying she would
have to reimburse the plaintiffs' reasonable fees and costs before
he would vacate the clerk's entry of default.

He removed that condition Tuesday after Roses argued that the
court lacked authority to impose costs on her.

"Upon consideration of the parties' supplemental briefs, the court
concludes for the following reasons that the clerk's entry of
default against Roses was void from the outset based on Roses's
statutory immunity, and that the court therefore erred in
attempting to place conditions on its vacatur of the entry of
default," he wrote.  "Accordingly, the court will vacate in part
its June 13, 2012 memorandum opinion and order and strike the
clerk's entry of default from the docket.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Food Items With Circle Sea Salmon Lox Trim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling four items made with Circle Sea
Salmon Lox Trim sold in Oregon and Washington state store seafood
departments due to possible Listeria Monocytogenes contamination.
Listeria is an organism which can cause a sometimes fatal
infection in young children, frail or elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals may
suffer short term symptoms, such as high fever, severe headaches,
nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled products were sold before January 29, 2013, in all
Whole Foods Market stores in Oregon and Washington.  No illnesses
have been reported related to the recalled products.

The salmon lox trim products (cold smoked salmon lox trim -- PLU
97629, Bagel Half with Lox Cream Cheese w/ Capers -- PLU 92811,
Whole Bagel with Lox Cream Cheese with Capers -- PLU 98437,
Gravlox Cream Cheese Spread -- PLU 95307) were sold in clear
plastic containers or plastic wrapped with the label "Whole Foods
Market."  The recall includes all of these products sold before
January 29, 2013.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm337725.htm

Signage is posted in Whole Foods Market stores to notify customers
of this recall.  Consumers who have purchased these products in
these two states should discard them, and may bring their receipt
to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact 206-854-9880 Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.


WORLD IMPORTS: Recalls 8,600 Bunk Beds Due to Safety Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, World Imports, LTD., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and
manufacturer, Zhangzhou Sanchuan Steel Pipe Goods Co., Ltd., of
China, announced a voluntary recall of about 8,600 bunk beds.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The openings between the metal rails of the end structures are
greater than allowed in the standard and pose a risk of entrapment
or asphyxiation hazard.

No injuries were reported.

This recall involves a Twin-over-Twin model 341-33, and a Twin-
over-Futon model 344-54 bunk beds.  Both models have wooden corner
posts in a dark finish with wrought iron end structures on the
headboards and footboards.  A label on the interior surface of the
corner post has "DISTRIBUTOR: WORLD IMPORTS" and the model number
printed on it.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://is.gd/vRfMEX

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
independent juvenile and other furniture stores in the eastern
United States between August 2009 to February 2012 for about $250
to $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
the firm for a free repair kit with instructions.  World Imports
may be reached toll free at (855) 473-9992 anytime Monday through
Friday or online at http://www.worldimportsltd.com/click on
Contact-us for more information.


WYETH: Third Circuit Enforces Fen-Phen Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enforced
the letter of a settlement agreement involving fen-phen users,
affirming the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of a
suit alleging that use of the diet drug cocktail led to primary
pulmonary hypertension.  The plaintiff was part of a class action
settlement with Wyeth a decade ago but she sought to exercise an
exception to the agreement's bar on further litigation.


* Michael Hausfeld Responds to Wrongful Termination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that Michael Hausfeld hasn't wasted
any time responding to a juicy wrongful termination suit filed by
one of his former law partners, who says he was fired after
speaking out about a raft of alleged ethics violations at
Hausfeld's eponymous antitrust class action firm, Hausfeld LLP.



                           *********

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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *