CAR_Public/130708.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 8, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 133

                             Headlines


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Holland & Knight Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
ANGEL'S TOUCH: Recalls Decorative Lamps Due to Exposed Wiring
ASIAINFO LINKAGE: Being Sold to CITIC for Too Little, Suit Says
BANK OF NEW ZEALAND: Refunds $4MM to Customers After Fee Errors
BANKSIA SECURITIES: Sued Over Discrepancies in Bad Debt Figures

CARLYLE GROUP: Awaits Ruling in Sherman Act Violations Suit
CARLYLE GROUP: Continues to Defend Suits Over CCC Insolvency
CASH STORE: Faces Securities Class Action in New York Court
CHATT TOWN: Customers Mull Class Action Over Scooter Scam
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Requires Class to Work Off-the-Clock, Suit Says

CONSTELLIUM HOLDCO: Continues to Defend Retirees/USW Suit v. Unit
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over ECD Bankruptcy
DEL MONTE: Court Refuses to Dismiss Dog-Poisoning Claims vs. Unit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Audet & Partners Files FLSA Class Action in Tenn.
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over 2012 IPO

FIRST DATA: Antitrust Class Suit Remains Pending in California
GEICO INDEMNITY: Accused of Withholding Arbitration Awards
GLOBE ELECTRIC: Recalls 1,000 Halogen Telescopic Desk Lamp
GOOGLE INC: Claims Over Spam Texts Will Cost Up to $6 Million
GOOGLE INC: Authors' Guild Faces Setback in Class Action

HEB GROCERY: Recalls Hammock with Sunshade Due to Fall
HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 2,382 Dynamite Prophet Peak Charger
IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Accounting Problems
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Has Yet to Submit Definitive Settlement Deal

INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Bids for Judgment and to Strike Pending
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Sued Over Luon Yoga Pants Quality Defects
MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
MCDONALD'S CORP: Settles Hepatitis A Class Action for $85,000
MYERS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 6,573 Heat Accelerator Mat

NEW CENTURY: Recalls Brand Cakes Over Allergen
NEW JERSEY: $100-Mil. Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
OCEAN STATE JOB LOT: Recalls Bel Frantoio Mediterranean Olives
PALATINE: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Parking Ticket Suit
PARTY CITY: Recalls 35,929 Fancy Heat 2.5 Hour Methanol Gel

PARTY CITY: Recalls 9,084 Fancy Heat 6 Hour Wick Fuel
PARTY CITY: Recalls Serve-Rite Buffet Set With Chafing Fuel
PIONEER FOODS: Dismissal of Bread Price-Fixing Suit Reversed
ROYAL BANCSHARES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Gibbons Discusses Ruling in Washer Class Action

SERAPHIM FILMS: Sued by "Reach Me" Crew Workers for Unpaid OT Pay
SOLVAY CHEMICALS: 10th Circuit Tosses ERISA Class Action
SOMERSAULT SNACK: Recalls 1 oz. Pacific Sea Salt Products
STATER BROS: Full Amount of "Lunsford" Suit Accord Paid in 2013
TANDY LEATHER: Awaits Final Okay of "Barnes" Suit Settlement

TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls YARIS Model
TOYS R US: Recalls Remote-Controlled Helicopters
UNITED STATES: FBI No Contact Yet With Groups in IRS Class Action
UNITED STATES: Sen. Paul's NSA Class Action Sparks Political Issue
VICTORY SECURITY: Faces Second Possible Overtime Class Action

VISION QUEST: Recalls 2,400 Van Gogh Plasma Television
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Can Stay in Federal Court
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Big Bear ATVs Due to Crash Hazard

* Eastern Cape Teachers Mull Class Action Over Back-pay
* New Zealand Woman Joins Class Action Over Surgical Mesh Risks


                             *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Holland & Knight Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrold J. Ganzfried, Esq. -- jerry.ganzfried@hklaw.com -- and
John F. Stanton, Esq. -- john.stanton@hklaw.com -- at Holland &
Knight, report that the United States Supreme Court recently
decided American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant and affirmed
the right of parties to agree to class action waivers in
arbitration contracts.

The underlying dispute between the parties involved alleged
antitrust violations stemming from American Express' "Honor All
Cards" contract, which required participating restaurants to
accept both American Express credit and debit cards -- the latter
of which carried higher fees.  The plaintiffs claimed the contract
imposed an unlawful tying arrangement in violation of federal
antitrust law.  The contract also contained an arbitration clause
that: (1) required all disputes between the parties to be resolved
by bilateral arbitration, and (2) said no claims could be
arbitrated on a class action basis.

The plaintiffs contended that because hiring an economic expert
would cost more than any individual claimant's potential recovery,
the only feasible way to seek vindication would be for the
proceeding to be conducted on a class-wide basis.  For that
reason, the plaintiffs urged that enforcing the class waiver of
the arbitration agreement would effectively preclude pursuit of
their federal antitrust claims.

After the plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court,
American Express moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. Sec. 1 et seq.  The district
court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A panel of the Second Circuit eventually reversed the dismissal,
agreeing with plaintiffs that the class action waiver was not
enforceable.  The Second Circuit distinguished recent Supreme
Court decisions of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct.
1740 (2011) and Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International
Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) -- both of which upheld mandatory
bilateral arbitration clauses against challenges -- on the grounds
that they involved state law claims (rather than federal) and
because neither case involved a plaintiff who lacked the economic
means to bring his case other than as a class action.

American Express sought rehearing en banc, but the Second Circuit
denied the petition.  Several judges dissented from that denial,
observing that the panel's attempts to distinguish Concepcion and
Stolt-Nielsen were unconvincing and that arbitration agreements
should be enforced as written under the FAA.  The dissenting
judges further explained that the panel had adopted positions that
were expressed by the dissenting justices in Concepcion, and thus,
rejected by the Court's majority.  The dissenting judges also
noted that the panel's decision was in direct conflict with
decisions from several other circuits that enforced class action
waivers in similar disputes.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Second
Circuit's decision.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was a member of
the Second Circuit panel that heard the case, recused herself from
the Supreme Court proceedings.

                      The Court's Ruling

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the
Supreme Court held by a vote of 5-3 that Concepcion and Stolt-
Nielsen control.  Therefore, the contractual waiver of class
arbitration is enforceable.  The Court further noted that while it
has previously commented in dicta about "effective vindication" of
statutory claims in arbitration, there is a difference between a
claim being too expensive to prove, and a claim being too
expensive to pursue.  Because the alleged expenses here (i.e., the
costs of an expert) implicated the former -- and would be the same
whether the case proceeded in court or in arbitration --
plaintiffs were not being denied the right to pursue their claim
(i.e., costs of filing a lawsuit), the Court said.  The Court
pointed out that Rule 23 class actions did not even exist for
lawsuits in federal court until long after the Sherman Act was
passed in 1890, and that no one could contend that the Sherman Act
lacked any means of "effective vindication" until the advent of
modern Rule 23.

The analysis in the majority opinion begins with the text of the
Federal Arbitration Act, which reflects "the overarching principle
that arbitration is a matter of contract."  Accordingly, courts
must "'rigorously enforce' arbitration agreements according to
their terms," including the contractual terms describing "'with
whom'" to arbitrate and "'the rules under which that arbitration
will be conducted.'"  In this case, as the majority opinion
explains, enforcement of the class action waiver does not
contravene substantive federal statutory policy: "the antitrust
laws do not guarantee an affordable procedural path to the
vindication of every claim."

As in several prior cases, the majority opinion further elaborated
on the practical differences between bilateral and class
arbitration.  In this regard, the Court noted that class
arbitration "'sacrifices the principal benefit of arbitration --
its informality -- and makes the process slower, more costly, and
more likely to generated procedural morass than final judgment.'"
In contrast, the now-reversed Second Circuit holding would have
imposed a "judicially created superstructure" of expensive,
protracted skirmishing "before a plaintiff can be held to
contractually agreed bilateral arbitration."

Justice Scalia's majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel
Alito.  In addition, Justice Thomas wrote a separate concurring
opinion stating that result is compelled by the plain meaning of
the Federal Arbitration Act.

In a dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Stephen Breyer) Justice Elena Kagan urged application of a
rule that arbitration clauses cannot thwart "effective
vindication" of statutory rights by such devices as requiring
overly high fees for entry into arbitration.  In Justice Kagan's
view, the majority opinion could allow a party to make it
impossible for a contractual partner to bring a Sherman Act claim
against it.  She opined that (among other things) an arbitration
agreement could impose an absurdly short statute of limitations to
bring a claim, could bar the use of economic expert testimony
altogether, or require the defendant's CEO to preside over any
arbitration hearing.  She also commented that the arbitration
agreement in this case would preclude plaintiffs from any form of
cost-sharing among themselves -- not simply utilization of Rule 23
procedures.

The American Express decision may be construed as a victory for
freedom of contract.  Along with other recent Supreme Court
holdings on class arbitration issues, the result also indicates
that a majority of the Court believes that the freedom to agree to
arbitration provisions carries with it the responsibility to draft
those provisions carefully, precisely and unambiguously.
Subsequent cases will have to deal with some of the alternate
scenarios mentioned by the majority and dissenting opinions,
permutations that were not presented in this case.  In some
respects, therefore, the outer boundaries of class action waivers
will be calibrated more finely in the future.  But American
Express provides a valuable roadmap to the analysis that will
guide that process of achieving the long-recognized benefits of
arbitration: lower costs, greater efficiency, speed and the
ability to choose expert adjudicators to resolve specialized
disputes.


ANGEL'S TOUCH: Recalls Decorative Lamps Due to Exposed Wiring
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Angel's Touch Collections Co., Ltd. announced a voluntary recall
of 8,000 decorative lamps.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lamps have exposed wiring at the base.  This poses shock and
fire hazards to consumers.

There were no incidents/injuries that were reported.

This recall involves "Butterfly Clip Light" (SKU# 416593) and
"Shell Clip Light" (SKU #416955) lamps that feature a Tiffany-
style stained glass shade resembling a seashell or a multicolored
butterfly.  The seashell lamps measure 5.5-inches tall and 1.5-
inches wide, and weigh around 1.5 pounds.  The butterfly lamps
measure 10.5-inches tall and 7.5-inches wide, and weigh around 2
pounds.  Both lamps use a 7-watt type C bulb and have a plug-in
cord with a cord-mounted on/off thumb-switch.  The SKU number can
be found on the product's packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/RpTE3I

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store locations
nationwide and online at http://www.crackerbarrel.comfrom
November 2012 through February 2013 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled decorative
lights, unplug and return them to any Cracker Barrel Old Country
Store or by mail to Angel's Touch Collections, 2732 Teaster Lane,
Suite 119, Pigeon Forge, TN 37868, for a full refund, including
shipping.


ASIAINFO LINKAGE: Being Sold to CITIC for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AsiaInfo-Linkage Inc. is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to CITIC
Capital Partners, for $12 a share or $890 million, a class action
claims in Delaware Chancery Court.

On May 13, 2013, AsiaInfo-Linkage announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement under which the Company will be
acquired by a private investor consortium led by CITIC Capital
Partners and Edward Tian, co-founder and a significant stockholder
of AsiaInfo-Linkage.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, upon completion of the
acquisition the stockholders of AsiaInfo-Linkage will receive $12
in cash for each AsiaInfo-Linkage share of common stock they hold.
This per share price values AsiaInfo-Linkage at approximately $890
million, represents a 52% premium over the closing price on
January 11, 2012, the last trading day prior to AsiaInfo-Linkage's
receipt of a "going private" proposal from CITIC Capital Partners,
and represents a 53% premium over the 30-trading day volume
weighted average price as of the same date.

Phil Milford of Bloomberg News reports that a shareholder of
AsiaInfo-Linkage, Guanghui Cai, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware
Chancery Court (Wilmington) to ask a judge to stop the buyout
under its present terms and to award damages and court costs.  The
Plaintiff alleges that AsiaInfo-Linkage's directors are violating
their duty to get the best price for the stock in the $12-a-share
cash deal.

The Shareholders Foundation, Inc., has also announced that an
investor, who holds AsiaInfo-Linkage shares filed a lawsuit to
stop the proposed takeover of the Company by CITIC Capital.

Investors, who purchased shares of AsiaInfo-Linkage, Inc. prior to
May 13, 2013, and currently hold any of those shares, have certain
options and should contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc. at
mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1 (858) 779-1554.

The plaintiff, according to the Shareholders Foundation, alleges
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to
AsiaInfo-Linkage stockholders by agreeing to sell the Company too
cheaply via an unfair process.  The plaintiff contends that the
$12.00-offer is too low and undervalues the Company.  Indeed,
AsiaInfo-Linkage shares traded in 2012 as high as $13.75 and in
2011 as high as $22.65, and that at least one analyst has set the
high target price at $16.00 per share.

Those who currently are investors in AsiaInfo-Linkage, Inc. shares
and purchased the AsiaInfo-Linkage shares before the announcement
have certain options and should contact the Shareholders
Foundation at:

          Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
          Trevor Allen
          +1 (858) 779-1554
          mail@shareholdersfoundation.com
          3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 423
          San Diego, CA 92108

Following the announcement that AsiaInfo-Linkage will be acquired
by CITIC Capital and others, several shareholder litigation firms
issued press statements declaring that they are investigating the
proposed acquisition and going private transaction.  Among other
things, the Firms assert that their investigations concern whether
the AsiaInfo-Linkage directors are breaching their fiduciary
duties by failing to adequately shop the Company and maximize
shareholder value, and whether the directors obtained full and
fair consideration for Company shareholders.

The Firms said that AsiaInfo-Linkage shareholders have the option
to file a class action lawsuit to secure them the best possible
price.  AsiaInfo-Linkage shareholders are encouraged to seek
information about their rights and potential remedies.
Shareholders may contact the Firms at:

          U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
                     (877) 779-1414
          E-mail: Ottensoser@bernlieb.com

               - and -

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4568
          E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (877) LEGAL-90
          E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com
                  esmith@brodsky-smith.com
                  investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Sachs-Michaels, Esq.
          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (877) 935-7400
                     (212) 935-7400)
          E-mail: bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (888) 508-6832
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM
          18 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 213-6222
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com
                  info@jlclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Willoughby, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100 or 1-888-4-POMLAW
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Zach Groover, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR, LLP
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 North Central Expy., Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (877) 728-9607
          E-mail: zach@powerstaylor.com

               - and -

          Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
                     (800) 350-6003
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com

                  About AsiaInfo-Linkage, Inc.

AsiaInfo-Linkage, Inc. is a leading provider of high-quality
software solutions and IT services to the telecommunications
industry.  Headquartered in Beijing, China, AsiaInfo-Linkage
employs more than 11,000 professionals worldwide.  AsiaInfo-
Linkage provides a full suite of business and operational support
solutions (BSS/OSS) and associated professional services.
AsiaInfo-Linkage's core Veris product line includes billing and
customer care systems that serve nearly a billion subscribers
globally -- almost one seventh of the world's population -- plus
business intelligence, network management, and security solutions.


BANK OF NEW ZEALAND: Refunds $4MM to Customers After Fee Errors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tamsyn Parker, writing for NZ Herald News, reports that The Bank
of New Zealand has refunded $4 million to 90,000 customers after
an internal review found its terms and conditions had not spelled
out certain fees associated with foreign currency transactions.

The error relates to fees charged to some Visa and personal loan
customers who bought overseas products but then had the money
refunded.

BNZ's head of corporate affairs, Mark Watts, said some Visa
customers may have been charged a foreign currency service fee of
2.25 per cent on their transactions.

The bank had also charged interest on foreign currency service
fees for personal loans when its documentation had said it would
not.

Mr. Watts said the bank had not received any complaints, but had
picked up the issue as part of a regular review of its business.

The bank changed its terms and conditions in January to correct
the problem, but took until June 27 to work through the accounts
of its customers.

Mr. Watts said the Visa issue dated back to 2009, and problems
went back as far as 2004 for some personal loans.

The money being paid back covered those periods up until June 27
as well as interest. The average amount being paid out was $43.

Mr. Watts said the bank had "stuffed up" and paying the money put
the situation right.

In a letter sent to customers, BNZ's head of retail banking, Andy
Symons, apologized for the mistake.  "We apologize should this
have caused any problems for you."

Lawyers recently filed action against the ANZ over penalty fees,
charged when people going into unarranged overdraft, have bounced
payments, make late credit card payments or exceed card limits.

Fair Play on Fees lawyer Andrew Hooker has said all the main
banks, including the BNZ, are in its sights.  More than 32,000
Kiwis have registered to join the legal action.

The case follows legal action in Australia against the banks.  A
test case began against the ANZ in 2010 and is ongoing.  A further
11 cases against banks, including BNZ's parent the National
Australia Bank, are on hold pending the ANZ outcome.

                          Scam Warning

The New Zealand Bankers Association is warning people to watch out
for fraudsters capitalizing on publicity about the legal action on
bank fees.

Lawyers for Fair Play on Fees recently began legal action against
the ANZ over penalty fees.

Kirk Hope, chief executive of the Bankers Association, says a
similar class action case against the banks in Australia resulted
in fraudsters targeting customers.

Typically those fraudsters claim to be from the bank and say they
will release the fees customers are claiming in the class action
for a small payment.

Mr. Hope says customers should never disclose their PIN numbers or
passwords.


BANKSIA SECURITIES: Sued Over Discrepancies in Bad Debt Figures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everard Himmelreich, writing for The Standard, reports that a
large and ongoing gap between what Banksia Securities told
investors about its level of bad debts and its actual, much worse
financial situation is alleged in the class action's latest
statement of claim.

According to the statement of claim lodged in the Victorian
Supreme Court, a large discrepancy between Banksia's real and
reported financial situation opened up in 2009.  That was soon
after the parent company of Banksia Securities, Securities Holdco,
took over another investment company, Statewide Secured
Investments, which had a similar Kyabram background to that of
Banksia Securities.

The recent statement of claim, lodged on behalf of about 1600
investors in the failed Banksia Securities and associated Cherry
Fund, adds much more detail to the writ lodged by the class action
in December last year and gives more evidence of alleged improper
management of the business.

It said that six months after Securities Holdco's acquisition of
Statewide, it was apparent that more than 34 per cent of Statewide
loans were subject to legal action or were non-performing.

The substantial shortfall between Statewide's loan assets and its
debenture liabilities forced Banksia Securities managing director
Patrick Godfrey to seek $53.2 million from Banksia in August 2009
to cover the deficit.

Despite this, Banksia made provision for less than $2 million of
bad and doubtful debts in October 2009.

The claim said the lack of disclosure of the company's true
financial position continued from 2009 until 2011.

In October 2010, the company made provision for bad and doubtful
debts of only $3.845 million when its June 30, 2010 accounts
showed $30 million of its loans were past due and impaired.

The high value of Banksia's past due loans exceeded investors' net
equity in the company, the statement said.

Again in October 2011, Banksia's provision for bad and doubtful
debts was only $4.146 million when it had more than $28.5 million
of past due and impaired loans, again exceeding investors' net
equity in the company.  By August 2011, when Banksia had absorbed
the vast majority of Statewide's loan portfolio, its total loans
in legal action were more than $130 million, comprising more than
21 per cent of the Banksia Group's total loan portfolio.

Banksia's management will again be in the spotlight this month
when Banksia's directors and others will be questioned in the
Supreme Court about their conduct by the company's receivers,
McGrathNicol.

The hearings are scheduled to take place on July 22.


CARLYLE GROUP: Awaits Ruling in Sherman Act Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group L.P. is awaiting a court decision on its
consolidated motion in the class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Sherman Act, according to the Company's May 14,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging
"club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC).  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that certain global alternative asset firms,
including Carlyle, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
forming multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose of bidding
collectively in company buyout transactions in certain going
private transactions, which the plaintiffs allege constitutes a
"conspiracy in restraint of trade."  Count One of the complaint
alleges an overarching conspiracy relating to certain large buyout
transactions.  Count Two of the complaint alleges a conspiracy
with regard to the buyout of Healthcare Corporation of America.
The plaintiffs seek damages as provided for in Section 4 of the
Clayton Act and an injunction against such conduct in restraint of
trade in the future.  The defendants moved for summary judgment on
both counts.  On March 13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed
on Count One solely on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to
refrain from "jumping" announced proprietary (i.e., non-auction)
deals.  The Court stated that it would entertain further summary
judgment motions by the individual defendants as to their
participation in the more narrowly-defined alleged conspiracy.
The Court also denied summary judgment as to Count Two.

On April 16, 2013, Carlyle filed a consolidated motion, renewing
its motion for summary judgment on Count One, and moving for
reconsideration on Count Two.  On April 22, 2013, Carlyle joined a
motion seeking reconsideration on Count Two filed on behalf of all
Count Two defendants.  The U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts has not set a schedule for class certification
proceedings.

The Carlyle Group L.P. -- http://www.carlyle.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, is one of the world's largest
global alternative asset management firms that originates,
structures and acts as lead equity investor in management-led
buyouts, strategic minority equity investments, equity private
placements, consolidations and buildups, growth capital
financings, real estate opportunities, bank loans, high-yield
debt, distressed assets, mezzanine debt and other investment
opportunities.  The Washington, D.C.-based Partnership is managed
and operated by its general partner, Carlyle Group Management
L.L.C., which is in turn wholly-owned and controlled by Carlyle's
founders and other senior Carlyle professionals.


CARLYLE GROUP: Continues to Defend Suits Over CCC Insolvency
------------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group L.P. continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits arising from the insolvency of Carlyle Capital
Corporation Limited, according to the Company's May 14, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited ("CCC") was a fund sponsored
by Carlyle that invested in AAA-rated residential mortgage backed
securities on a highly leveraged basis.  In March of 2008, amidst
turmoil throughout the mortgage markets and money markets, CCC
filed for insolvency protection in Guernsey.  Several different
lawsuits developed from the CCC insolvency.

On June 21, 2011, August 24, 2011, and September 1, 2011,
respectively, three putative shareholder class actions were filed
against Carlyle, certain of its affiliates and former directors of
CCC alleging that the fund offering materials and various public
disclosures were materially misleading or omitted material
information.  Two of the shareholder class actions (Phelps v.
Stomber, et al. and Glaubach v. Carlyle Capital Corporation
Limited, et al.) were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.  Phelps v. Stomber, et al. was also
filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The two original D.C. cases were
consolidated into one case under the caption of Phelps v. Stomber
and the Phelps named plaintiffs were designated "lead plaintiffs"
by the Court.  The New York case was transferred to the D.C.
federal court and the plaintiffs requested that it be consolidated
with the other two D.C. actions.  The plaintiffs were seeking
compensatory damages sustained as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations, costs and expenses, as well as reasonable
attorney's fees.  On August 13, 2012, the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both the D.C. and New
York shareholder class actions.  The plaintiffs have moved for
leave to amend their complaint and/or for amendment of the Court's
decision and the defendants have opposed these motions.  The
plaintiffs also have noticed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, but that appeal is being held in
abeyance until the District Court resolves the pending motions.

The Carlyle Group L.P. -- http://www.carlyle.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, is one of the world's largest
global alternative asset management firms that originates,
structures and acts as lead equity investor in management-led
buyouts, strategic minority equity investments, equity private
placements, consolidations and buildups, growth capital
financings, real estate opportunities, bank loans, high-yield
debt, distressed assets, mezzanine debt and other investment
opportunities.  The Washington, D.C.-based Partnership is managed
and operated by its general partner, Carlyle Group Management
L.L.C., which is in turn wholly-owned and controlled by Carlyle's
founders and other senior Carlyle professionals.


CASH STORE: Faces Securities Class Action in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. on July 4 disclosed that a
proposed class action proceeding for violation of U.S. federal
securities laws has been commenced in the United States District
Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company and
certain of its present and former officers.  The claim is
substantially similar to the recently announced proposed class
action proceedings in Alberta and Ontario and the previously
disclosed complaint filed by Globis Capital Partners L.P.

The proposed U.S. class action concerns alleged misrepresentations
made in the Company's quarterly and annual financial statements
between November 24, 2010 and May 13, 2013.  In particular, the
U.S. complaint alleges that Cash Store Financial overvalued the
consumer loan portfolio acquired from third party lenders,
overstated its net income, understated losses on its internal
consumer loan portfolio, and understated its liabilities
associated with the settlement of the British Columbia class
action.

The Company will defend itself vigorously against what it believes
are unfounded allegations.


CHATT TOWN: Customers Mull Class Action Over Scooter Scam
---------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Barbour, writing for WRCB, reports that customers of a
Chattanooga scooter shop say they were scammed.  The man they paid
hundreds of dollars to is out of business and they say now they're
left with stripped down shells of scooters they're unable to ride.
They're trying to join forces to file a class action lawsuit
against the owner.

Owner Carter Todd opened Chatt Town Scooters in 2008.  He's moved
locations a couple times since then.  He most recently closed up
shop across from Coolidge Park, but several customers say he
didn't warn them he was closing, didn't do the repairs they'd paid
for, and returned the scooters in worse condition.

A couple of abandoned scooters are all that's left of Chatt Town
Scooters on River Street across from Coolidge Park.

"Text after text, call after call, just unanswered, and now he's
out of business," Chatt Town Scooters customer Mark McCormack
said.

Multiple customers say they paid to have their scooters repaired
there several months ago.

"We were just always put off by some little excuse," Chatt Town
Scooters customer Collene Perry said.

Now they've discovered the shop isn't even there anymore, and
what's left of their scooters is sitting in the gravel parking
lot.

Ms. Perry says it was supposed to be her son's birthday present.

"This is how we got it, completely stripped of every usable part,
the seats, the windshield, everything that makes this bike run is
gone," Ms. Perry said.

Mr. McCormack says he traded in his old scooter and $900 for a new
customized one, but says Todd donated his old one to a charity
auction and gave him a 2011 model in return, without several key
parts, including the keys.

"I took it to him in good faith, and this is what I get in
return," McCormack said.

"We saw a moving van and then there was nobody else and they just
left, no sign, no anything saying 'oh yeah, by the way, we're
moving,'" Thrive cafe manager David Snyder said.

Neighboring businesses say a lot of people have come by looking
for owner Carter Todd but can't seem to track him down.  Channel 3
called both his work number and cell phone number but only
received automated messages saying he wasn't accepting calls.

Channel 3 talked to the building's owner, Joe Degaetano; he says
Mr. Todd was on a month by month lease, and he asked him to leave
toward the end of June because he was getting complaints from his
other tenants of loud noises and bad smells from the repair shop.

Several customers are trying to join forces to file a class action
lawsuit against Chatt Town Scooters.

"My hope is that he won't be able to open another shop and do this
to a lot more people," Perry said.

Chatt Town Scooters is not accredited by the Better Business
Bureau.  The BBB says it is investigating complaints against Chatt
Town Scooters.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Requires Class to Work Off-the-Clock, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Harris and Julius Caldwell, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case
No. 0:13-cv-01719-SRN-SER (D. Minn., July 2, 2013), is a federal
collective and state class action brought to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other unpaid wages owed to the
Plaintiffs and all others, who are former or current hourly-paid
employees of Chipotle.

The Plaintiffs allege that Chipotle routinely requires its hourly-
paid employees to work "off the clock," without pay, and utilizes
timekeeping devices that automatically punch employees off the
clock, even if they are still working.  The Plaintiffs seek unpaid
overtime, unpaid regular wages, liquidated damages and pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest and attorneys fees and
costs.

Messrs. Harris and Caldwell are residents of Hennepin County,
Minnesota, and are current covered, non-exempt employees of
Chipotle.  Chipotle employed them as hourly-paid employees to work
in its restaurants preparing, serving, and selling its food
products, and to perform other related tasks, including cleaning.

Chipotle is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of
business located in Denver, Colorado.  Chipotle has fast food
Mexican restaurants throughout the United States, including in
Minnesota, where the Plaintiffs worked during the applicable time
period.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kent M. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
          1632 Homestead Trail
          Long Lake, MN 55356
          Telephone: (612) 940-4452
          Facsimile: (763) 473-0314
          E-mail: williamslawmn@aol.com

               - and -

          Colleen T. Calandra, Esq.
          BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC
          1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 893-9800
          Facsimile: (303) 893-9900
          E-mail: colleen.calandra@coloradolaw.net

               - and -

          Adam S. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADAM S. LEVY, LLC
          P.O. Box 88
          Oreland, PA 19075
          Telephone: (267) 994-6952
          Facsimile: (215) 233-2992
          E-mail: adamslevy@comcast.net


CONSTELLIUM HOLDCO: Continues to Defend Retirees/USW Suit v. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellium Holdco B.V. continues to defend a subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit brought by retirees and the United
Steelworkers union, according to the Company's May 14, 2013, Form
F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 20, 2013, five retirees of Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union filed a
class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products-
Ravenswood LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,
alleging that Ravenswood improperly modified retiree health
benefits.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Constellium
Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC was obligated to provide retirees
with health benefits throughout their retirement at no cost, and
that the Company improperly capped, through changes that went into
effect in January 2013, the amount it would pay annually toward
those benefits.  In 2013, the caps will result in additional costs
of $5 per month for approximately 1,800 retiree health plan
participants.  The Company believes that these claims are
unfounded, and that Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC had
a legal and contractual right to make the applicable
modifications.

Constellium Holdco B.V. -- http://www.constellium.com/-- is a
global leader in the development, manufacture and sale of a broad
range of highly engineered, value-added specialty plate, coil,
sheet and extruded aluminum products to the aerospace, packaging,
automotive, other transportation and industrial end-markets.  The
Company is headquartered in Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands.


CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over ECD Bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------
Nassiri & Jung LLP on July 2 disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Energy Conversion Devices,
Inc. common stock on or after June 18, 2008.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 2.  Any member of the putative class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

The complaint charges defendants Credit Suisse International and
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (together, "Credit Suisse")
with violations of Section 9 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants, through two prospectus supplements filed with
the SEC, issued materially false and misleading statements
concerning a public offering of 4,714,975 shares of Energy
Conversion Devices common stock on June 18, 2008.  The common
stock prospectus supplement, along with a "3.00% Convertible
Senior Notes due 2013" prospectus supplement, disclosed that some
investors might take advantage of a share lending agreement to
short Energy Conversion Devices common stock as a "hedge" against
their investment in convertible notes.

According to the complaint, defendants' statements were false and
misleading because defendants knew or deliberately disregarded and
failed to disclose that the convertible notes were in fact
designed to facilitate market manipulation and a net short
position by some investors participating in the notes offering.
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of these misrepresentations
and/or omissions, Energy Conversion Devices common stock traded at
artificially-inflated prices during the Class Period. Plaintiff
alleges that the manipulative short selling caused the stock price
to drop from $72 per share in June 2008 to less than $1 per share
in February 2012, when Energy Conversion Devices was finally
forced into bankruptcy.

The suit is entitled Leevan v. Credit Suisse International et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-2783-SBA, filed June 17, 2013.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained from the Court clerk, or online through
PACER.

CONTACT: Nassiri & Jung LLP
         Kassra Nassiri
         Telephone: 415-762-3100


DEL MONTE: Court Refuses to Dismiss Dog-Poisoning Claims vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Del Monte
subsidiary Milo's Kitchen cannot dismiss claims that its Chinese
chicken jerky treats poisoned and killed dogs, a federal judge
ruled.

Lisa Mazur filed a federal class action against Del Monte and
Milo's Kitchen in Pittsburgh in 2012.  She claimed that her
healthy 7-year-old dog, Riley Rae, suffered kidney failure and had
to be euthanized after eating the Chinese-made treats from time to
time for about a month.  Mazur claims that despite a U.S. Food and
Drug Administration warning about the treats, the defendants did
not recall the dangerous products or put warnings on the packages.

"Defendants intentionally concealed known facts concerning the
safety of their dog treats in order to increase or maintain
sales," Mazur said in the complaint.

Del Monte is one of a dozen manufacturers in a $24 million
settlement in 2011 for wet pet food contaminated with melamine and
cyanuric acid.  The settlement, however, was not the end of Del
Monte's legal troubles.

Another dog owner sued Milo's in June 2012 in Los Angeles,
claiming that her dog came "close to death" from kidney failure
because of the bad dog biscuits.  Christopher V. Langone filed a
similar claim in San Francisco in September 2012, but voluntarily
dismissed his case in February 2013.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White agreed in April 2013 to transfer
two other Northern California cases to Pittsburgh, where Mazur's
is pending.

Mazur seeks punitive damages for the class for common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, negligence, product liability, unfair trade,
breach of warranty, failure to warn and defective manufacture or
design.

Del Monte and Milo's moved to dismiss in September 2012, and U.S.
Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly recommended that only the unjust
enrichment claim be dismissed.

Mazur's claims "appear sufficient to permit the inference that a
defect exists in Milo's chicken jerky treats and that the defect
is the most likely explanation for the illness suffered by
plaintiff's dog by eliminating other reasonable causes," Judge
Kelly wrote.  Kelly found the claims under Pennsylvania's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law are "more than
sufficient to place defendants on notice of the precise misconduct
with which they are charged."

Kelly added that the allegations "more than adequately set forth
losses suffered by plaintiff and the putative class members that
are distinct from the disappointed expectations evolving solely
from the purchase of defendants' products; they clearly articulate
property damage in the form of harm to their pets."

But Kelly tossed Mazur's unjust enrichment claim.  "Here, it is
apparent from plaintiff's allegations in the complaint that, while
she is dissatisfied with the chicken jerky treats, she
nevertheless purchased, received and used the product," Kelly
wrote.  "It therefore cannot be said that the benefit bestowed on
defendants in the form of a profit from the sale was 'wrongly
secured.'"

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon adopted Kelly's recommendation
on June 25, 2013.

Del Monte is one of the nation's largest producers and
distributors of pet foods, netting $3.7 billion in fiscal 2012,
according to the complaint and the Company's Web site.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIM, PC
          304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-1250
          Facsimile: (412) 386-3184
          E-mail: cmorrow@allconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Catherine A. Ceko, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          120 S LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 917-4521
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: cceko@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Soule, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS & LATTURNER
          120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  tsoule@edcombs.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anita B. Weinstein, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1900 Market Street
          The Atrium, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2059
          E-mail: aweinstein@cozen.com

               - and -

          F. Brenden Coller, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1900 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-5518
          E-mail: bcoller@cozen.com

               - and -

          Maria Ciccia, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          45 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 908-1273
          Facsimile: (212) 509-9492
          E-mail: mciccia@cozen.com

               - and -

          Richard Fama, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          45 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 908-1229
          Facsimile: (866) 263-1334
          E-mail: rfama@cozen.com

The case is Mazur v. Milo's Kitchen, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:12-
cv-01011-CB-MPK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Audet & Partners Files FLSA Class Action in Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Audet and Partners, LLP on July 3 disclosed that it has filed a
class action against Dollar General Corp. in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Case No.
3:13-cv-00652, alleging violations of the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as specific employment statutes within the
State of Tennessee.

The lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that while working
between 32-40 hours per week, they were given meal breaks but as
supervisory "keyholders" they were not allowed to leave work
premises during these meal periods.  The class of employees
represented in this action includes all hourly "non-exempt" Dollar
General employees whose pay is/was subject to an automatic meal
break deduction but who, nevertheless, are/were forced to perform
compensable work during meal periods in violation of federal and
state laws*.

Headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, Dollar General
Corporation is one of America's largest retail companies with more
than 10,000 stores throughout the United States.

Attorney William Audet whose law firm Audet and Partners, LLP is
representing the plaintiffs in this lawsuit against Dollar
General, stresses that the allegations set forth in this class
action complaint are squarely at odds with applicable federal and
state employment laws and regulations.  "The law is amply clear
that non-exempt employees entitled to a statutory meal break
during their shift must be allowed to leave their place of
employment during this break. Requiring employees to remain on
premises during a statutory meal period wholly fails to comply
with these statutory mandates.  If Dollar has restricted the
ability of employees to use meal periods as their own time as
alleged, the company may be held to answer for back pay and
penalties dating back up to six years."

If you are or have been a non-exempt Dollar General employee who
was forced to remain on store premises or perform work during meal
breaks, you are urged to contact Audet and Partners, LLP at (800)
965-1461, or for more information, you can visit our website at
http://www.audetlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over 2012 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Nasdaq OMX
Group Inc. asked a judge to throw out lawsuits against it by
investors and traders over its role in Facebook Inc.'s May 2012
initial public offering.

Nasdaq asked U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet in Manhattan to
dismiss a group of consolidated class actions claiming it violated
securities laws and mishandled the first day of public trading in
Facebook, the world's biggest social network.  Nasdaq claimed its
legal status as a self-regulatory organization, or SRO, shields it
from being sued for actions taken as part of its regulatory
responsibilities.

"SRO immunity protects Nasdaq from liability for claims relating
to its allegedly negligent handling of the commencement of trading
in Facebook stock and alleged misrepresentations because all of
those claims arise out of Nasdaq's regulatory functions," the
exchange said in a court filing on July 2.

Nasdaq also argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a
sufficient legal claim that it was negligent or that it violated
securities laws.

The plaintiffs suing Nasdaq seek to hold it responsible for
technical and other trading-related errors that created market
uncertainty and caused losses to traders and investors following
the start of trading.

                        SEC Settlement

In May, Nasdaq agreed to pay $10 million to settle claims by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it broke securities
laws in its handling of the Facebook IPO.  The SEC cited Nasdaq
for "poor systems and decision-making."  In the settlement, Nasdaq
neither admitted nor denied fault.

Also in May, Facebook and a group of banks that underwrote the
Menlo Park, California-based company's IPO, including Morgan
Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., asked
Sweet to dismiss claims against them growing out of the stock
offering.

Vincent Cappucci, a lawyer for the plaintiffs suing Nasdaq, didn't
immediately return a voice-mail message on July 2 after regular
business hours seeking comment on the motion to dismiss the case.

Facebook fell 1.6 percent to $24.41 in Nasdaq Stock Market trading
on July 2 in New York.  The shares have fallen 36 percent from the
$38 IPO price.

The case is In Re Facebook Inc. IPO Securities and Derivative
Litigation, 12-md-02389, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan).


FIRST DATA: Antitrust Class Suit Remains Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust class action lawsuit against First Data Corporation
and its subsidiary remains pending in California, according to the
Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.  The Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  The
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief
as the nature of the case may require or as may seem just and
proper to the court.  Similar lawsuits were filed and served in
July, August and October 2004 (referred to collectively as the
"ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation").  The Court granted judgment in
favor of the defendants, dismissing the case on September 17,
2010.  On October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the summary
judgment.  On July 12, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District Court of
California's dismissal of all the claims against the defendants.
On July 26, 2012, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for
rehearing en banc and on March 13, 2013, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing.

The Company continues to believe the complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend them.

First Data Corporation -- http://www.firstdata.com/-- is a
provider of electronic commerce and payment solutions for
merchants, financial institutions and card issuers globally and
has operations in 34 countries, serving approximately 6.2 million
merchant locations.  FDC was incorporated in Delaware in 1989 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Accused of Withholding Arbitration Awards
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Sutton, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. GEICO Indemnity Company,
Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO General Insurance
Company, GEICO Casualty Company, business entities, form unknown,
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC513912 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2013), is brought on behalf of all
persons, who had an Uninsured Motorist ("UM")/Underinsured
Motorist ("UIM") arbitration resulting in a monetary award for
which the Defendants withheld payment and for which no post-
arbitration interest was paid.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached the insurance
contract and violated the Interest Statutes by wrongly withholding
payment of their adverse first-party UM/UIM arbitration awards to
the Plaintiff.  He asserts that the Defendants withheld his
payment for 45 days, and he believes that the Defendants have done
the same to numerous other plaintiffs in the class.  He adds that
the Defendants also failed and refused to pay any post-arbitration
interest for the time that they withheld payment on each adverse
UM/UIM arbitration award, or to pay any continuing interest on the
unpaid post-judgment interest amount.

Mr. Sutton is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.  Since
at least 2009, he was insured under an automobile insurance policy
with the Defendants.

The Defendants are corporations, authorized to do and doing
business in the consumer automobile insurance business throughout
the United States of America.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve A. Hoffman, Esq.
          4929 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 410
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 937-1537
          Facsimile: (323) 937-1539
          E-mail: hoffpi@sbcglobal.net


GLOBE ELECTRIC: Recalls 1,000 Halogen Telescopic Desk Lamp
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 2, 2013
Posting date:             July 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items,
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34357

Affected products: Halogen Telescopic Desk Lamp

The recalled product is a black halogen telescopic desk lamp
identified by model number 52251.

It has been determined that the recalled lamps with the date codes
06/11 and 08/10 are not authorized to bear the Underwriters
Laboratory (UL) certification mark.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/A61v9b

Neither Health Canada nor Globe Electric Company has received any
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these lamps.

Approximately 1,000 units of the recalled lamps were sold at
Canadian Tire stores across Canada.

The affected lamps were manufactured in China and were sold in
August 2011.

Companies:

   Importer         Globe Electric Company Inc.
                    Pointe-Claire
                    Quebec, CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamps and
contact Globe consumer service to receive a certified replacement.

For more information, consumers may contact Globe Electric
customer service by telephone at 1-800-361-6761.


GOOGLE INC: Claims Over Spam Texts Will Cost Up to $6 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Google
Inc. can pay $6 million to settle claims that it jammed cellphones
by sending unsolicited messages through its group messaging
service, Disco, a federal judge ruled.

The Disco service was a joint project from Google and its
subsidiary Slide, but its launch in early 2011 led to several
class action lawsuits from unhappy consumers who alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Slide closed
later that year and shut down its various projects, including
Disco and Photovine.

Companies could allegedly use Disco to register up to 99 phone
numbers in a chat group, leaving consumers with no choice but to
"opt out" of receiving a barrage of messages.

Group members who received a message allegedly wound up replying
to the whole group as they tried to sort out why they were
receiving the messages in the first place.

Consumers said they also received advertisements about Disco from
Google once an entity had registered their phone numbers without
permission.

Google and Slide settled one such class action filed by Nicole
Pimental and Jessica Franklin in the Northern District of
California, agreeing to create a $6 million common fund for the
benefit of the class.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the deal final
approval on June 26, 2013.  The eight-page ruling states that
"only a small portion of the settlement class is expected to file
claims," and will thus likely obtain the maximum statutory
recovery of $500 each.

Since Google and Slide sent about 400,000 spam text messages to
more than 185,000 phone numbers, "a $6 million common fund
achieves approximately 3% of the maximum possible recovery,"
Rogers found.

As such, Rogers determined that class counsel did achieve results
that are "exceptional" enough to justify an award of attorneys'
fees higher than the 25 percent benchmark in common fund cases.
That figure works out to $1.5 million.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bobbie J. Wilson, Esq.
          Joshua A. Reiten, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4131
          Telephone: (415) 344-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 344-7050
          E-mail: BWilson@perkinscoie.com
                  JReiten@perkinscoie.com

The case is Pimental v. Google Inc. et al., Case No. 4:11-cv-
02585, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GOOGLE INC: Authors' Guild Faces Setback in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Out-Law.com reports that a US district court is to rule on whether
Google's copying of snippets from books is protected by the right
to make 'fair use' of copyrighted content.

The US Court of Appeals said that a district court had been
"premature" in ruling last year that individual authors could
group together to bring a 'class action' lawsuit against Google
for copyright infringement.

The Court said that a district court must first determine whether
Google has a 'fair use' defense to the infringement claims facing
it before any 'class action' lawsuit is sanctioned.

"On the particular facts of this case, we conclude that class
certification was premature in the absence of a determination by
the District Court of the merits of Google's 'fair use' defense,"
the Court said.  "Accordingly, we vacate the June 11, 2012 order
certifying the class and remand the cause to the District Court,
for consideration of the fair use issues, without prejudice to any
future motion for class certification."

Class action lawsuits are common in the US, where lawyers organize
many similarly-affected people into large lawsuits against
companies or organizations that have allegedly breached the law.

US trade association the Authors Guild has long challenged
Google's right to digitize books as part of its Google Books
projects.  Last year it won the right to bring a lawsuit against
Google on behalf of US authors whose works were digitized in the
Google Books project, but the US Court of Appeals has now
overturned that ruling.

As part of its Google Books project, Google scanned the contents
of entire libraries.  It allows users to search for snippets of
the material to see whether the publication has the information
they are looking for.  The Authors Guild has claimed that Google
is guilty of copyright infringement, but the technology giant has
refuted the claims and said that many, if not a majority, of the
authors that would make up the 'class' bringing a lawsuit against
it benefit from its project and do not support the Authors Guild's
action.

The US Court of Appeals has ruled that a district court should
evaluate Google's claimed 'fair use' defense to the infringement
claims before it decides on whether to allow a class action to
proceed.

"We believe that the resolution of Google's fair use defense in
the first instance will necessarily inform and perhaps moot our
analysis of many class certification issues, including those
regarding the commonality of plaintiffs' injuries, the typicality
of their claims, and the predominance of common questions of law
or fact," the Court said.

"Moreover, we are persuaded that holding the issue of class
certification in abeyance until Google's fair use defense has been
resolved will not prejudice the interests of either party during
the projected proceedings before the District Court following
remand," it added.

In the US the 'fair use' exemption in copyright law allows
copyright material to be reproduced for the purposes of research
and education, commentary, criticism and reporting.

Whether reproduction of copyrighted works is defensible in the US
by the 'fair use' defense depends on the consideration of certain
factors, including the purpose and character of use and whether it
was for commercial gain or not, the nature of the copyrighted work
itself, how much of the copyrighted work was reproduced and the
effect of that use on the potential market for or value of the
work.

Annalisa Quinn, writing for WESM, reports that Matt Kallman, a
Google spokesperson, said in a statement, "We are delighted by the
court's decision.  The investment we have made in Google Books
benefits readers and writers alike, helping unlock the great pool
of knowledge contained in millions of books."

James Grimmelmann, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that the
Google Books litigation, now in its eighth year, is not so much
out of gas as low on motor oil.  It grinds on, with more smoke and
noise than forward progress.  Last May, Judge Denny Chin certified
the case as a class action, setting it on a track to resolve, at
long last, Google's liability in one fell swoop.  The Second
Circuit appeals court vacated Judge Chin's order, decertifying the
class and sending the case back to him to consider Google's fair
use defense.

The Second Circuit decision has its roots in 2011, when Judge Chin
rejected the initial proposed settlement, which would have turned
Google's book-scanning program into a giant online bookstore.  The
Authors Guild picked up the scraps and went back to pressing its
case against its erstwhile settlement partner, Google.  By moving
to certify the case as a class action, the Guild and its lawyers
hoped to do two things. First, bringing in millions of authors and
their millions of books would scale up the stakes, exposing Google
to immense damages and giving the authors more leverage.  Second,
bringing a class-wide case would emphasize the massive, shelf-
clearing scale of Google's scanning program

Google, on the other hand, has argued from the start that its
scanning and searching are fair uses, and fair use is always fact-
intensive.  Thus, Google maintained, class treatment was
inherently inappropriate, because it would deprive Google of its
day in court: the chance to argue the fair use factors for each
individual book.  In Google's view, fair use preempts copyright
class actions.

Judge Chin's ruling, however, was optimistic that the class action
procedure could accommodate these complexities.  For one thing,
Google's "uniform, widespread practice of copying entire books
without permission" could be evaluated without needing to look at
"any individualized considerations."  And for another, fair use
could be evaluated at the level of "a particular type of book,"
rather than book-by-book.

On appeal, the Second Circuit's short five-page opinion didn't
quite play Google's fair-use ace, but didn't quite discard it
either.  The court agreed with Google in saying that fair use
bears on many of the perquisites to class certification, such as
whether the common questions in the case predominate over the
individual ones.  But instead of holding that the looming shadow
of fair use makes class certification impossible, the Second
Circuit sent the case back for Judge Chin "for consideration of
the fair use issues."

The difference is one of those procedural distinctions that
lawyers love to hate, and everyone else simply hates: the proper
sequencing of issues.  Judge Chin put class certification first,
and would have gone on to consider fair use at a later date.  But
the Second Circuit held that fair use is a horse, not a cart, so
it must come first.  In theory, Judge Chin is free to recertify
the class once he deals with fair use.

In practice, though, it's unusual in class actions to insist on
dealing with the defenses first. Google and the Authors Guild
didn't even ask Judge Chin to rule in their respective favor on
fair use until after his class certification decision was in.  At
the most, an appeals court would tell the trial court to consider
the defense as part of class certification.  Indeed, if you take
seriously Google's argument about individual books, it's
impossible to resolve the fair use issues until you know which
books are in the class.

The only good countervailing reason to take up fair use first is
if you think that Google's fair use defense is so compelling that
it will win on every book, from AC1 to ZA5190, thereby ending the
lawsuit and making it unnecessary to deal with the complexity,
expense, and aggravation of a class action.

Indeed, the court wrote that the fair use question could "perhaps
moot our analysis of many class certification issues."  Since this
was a class certification appeal, the Second Circuit couldn't just
decide the fair use question itself.  And the opinion doesn't tell
Judge Chin what to do, or even strongly suggest.  But it does,
perhaps, suggest what three judges of the Second Circuit, Pierre
Leval, who wrote the leading article on fair use think of it.

Judge Chin may not be inclined to move quickly on the fair use
ball that has just been lobbed back into his court.  The authors'
related lawsuit against Google's library partners, which led to a
fair use ruling in favor of the libraries last fall, is ongoing.
That case is now also before the Second Circuit, and whatever it
decides there will be highly relevant, perhaps even conclusive, in
determining whether Google itself is engaged in fair use.  Judge
Chin might well slow-walk the fair use remand in the hopes that
the Second Circuit will decide the issue for him in the near
future.

The July 2 ruling, in other words, is good news for Google
straight down the line.  The one remaining advance the Authors
Guild had made in the past eight years of litigation has now been
beaten back.  Judicial assessments of Google Books have tipped, if
ever so slightly, towards finding it definitively legal.  And
Google's defense team has run another year off the clock.  The
grinder grinds on.


HEB GROCERY: Recalls Hammock with Sunshade Due to Fall
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
HEB Grocery Company LLC, announced a voluntary recall of 700
Outdoor Solutions Hammock with Sunshade.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The seam in the lounge of the hammock can open and rip, posing a
fall hazard.

The firm received two reports of seams tearing.  Bruising and
discomfort were reported in one incident.

The Outdoor Solutions Hammock and Sunshade is a stand-alone,
light-brown canvas hammock that sits inside a steel and plastic
frame.  It has a detachable sunshade affixed to the hammock.  The
product was sold in a light brown canvas bag with handles.  A tag
affixed to the outside of the canvas bag includes the product
name, model number 147184 and UPC number 4122088609.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/fjIPU3

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Texas H-E-B stores between February 2013 and June
2013 for about $76.

Consumers should contact H-E-B at (800) 432-3113 between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or online at:
http://www.heb.comand go to "About Us" and click on "Our Company"
and then "Recalls" for more information.


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Crush Partners LP is defending a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's
May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Following Hi-Crush Partners LP's (together with its subsidiaries,
the "Partnership's") November 2012 announcement that its
subsidiary, Hi-Crush Operating LLC, had formally terminated its
supply agreement with Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., in
response to the repudiation of the agreement by Baker Hughes, the
Partnership, its general partner, Hi-Crush GP LLC, certain of its
officers and directors and its underwriters were named as
defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits brought
by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On February 11,
2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, styled In
re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557
(CM).  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 15,
2013.  That complaint asserts claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Partnership's Registration Statement and a subsequent
presentation.  Among other things, the consolidated amended
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to the market
certain alleged information relating to Baker Hughes' repudiation
of the supply agreement.  The Partnership believes the case is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.  The
Partnership cannot provide assurance, however, as to the outcome
of this lawsuit.  The SEC has also asked the Partnership to
provide information regarding the Baker Hughes dispute.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Hi-Crush Partners LP is a pure
play, low-cost, domestic producer of premium monocrystalline sand,
a specialized mineral that is used as a proppant to enhance the
recovery rates of hydrocarbons from oil and natural gas wells.
The Company's reserves consist of "Northern White" sand, a
resource existing predominately in Wisconsin and limited portions
of the upper Midwest region of the United States, which is highly
valued as a preferred proppant because it exceeds all American
Petroleum Institute specifications.  The Company owns, operates
and develops sand reserves and related excavation and processing
facilities.


HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 2,382 Dynamite Prophet Peak Charger
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 2, 2013
Posting date:             July 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34359

Affected product: Dynamite Prophet Plus AC/DC Peak Charger

The recalled product is a Dynamite Prophet Plus AC/DC peak charger
identified by product number DYN4036.  The AC/DC 4- to 7-Cell Ni-
Cd and Ni-MH peak prediction fast charger is used for 7.2-8.4V
Sub-C Ni-Cd and Ni-MH battery packs.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/VvgjXT

The affected product has not been tested to determine whether it
is compliant with the Canadian Standards for electrical product
safety and may pose a safety hazard.

Horizon Hobby has received five reports in the United States where
batteries were either damaged or smoke was emitted from the
charger.  No injuries were reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries to Canadians related to the use of these chargers.

Approximately 2,382 units of the recalled chargers were sold at
hobby stores across Canada.

The recalled chargers were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from
2008 (or prior) to June 2013.

Companies:

   Importer         Horizon Hobby Inc.
                    Champaign
                    Illinois, UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chargers and
return the product to Horizon Hobby for a refund.  Consumers may
return the charger to Horizon Hobby by filling out the firm's
electronic return request.

For more information, consumers may contact Horizon Hobby by
telephone at 1-877-504-0233 or by email from 8:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m.  CST Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.  CST
on Saturday and 12:00 pm to 5:00 p.m. CST on Sunday.


IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Accounting Problems
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daneman, writing for Democrat and Chronicle, reports that
an IEC Electronics Corp. shareholder is suing the Newark, Wayne
County, company and its top executives over accounting problems
and the subsequent tumble in its stock price.

The suit, filed on June 30 in U.S. District Court, alleges that
between early 2012 and this spring, when the company announced it
had accounting problems, IEC and its top executives misled
investors about the company's financial results, with the end
result being the price of IEC stock was artificially high.

The suit, seeking class-action status, names IEC, CEO W. Barry
Gilbert and Chief Financial Officer Vincent A. Leo as defendants.
And it asks for unspecified damages.

IEC closed on July 2 at $3.18, down 12 cents or 3.6 percent for
the day.  It had been averaging closer to $5.80 in the days just
prior to its May 1 announcement that it would have to restate
multiple quarters of financial results after discovering an
accounting problem at one of its subsidiaries.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Has Yet to Submit Definitive Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit against
Imperial Holdings, Inc. have yet to file their definitive
settlement agreement, according to the Company's May 14, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

                     Class Action Litigation

On September 27, 2011, the Company was informed that it was being
investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New
Hampshire (the "USAO Investigation").  At that time, the Company
was informed that, among other individuals, its former president
and chief operating officer, former general counsel, three former
life finance sales executives, two vice presidents and a funding
manager were considered "targets" of the USAO Investigation.  The
USAO Investigation focused on the Company's premium finance loan
business.

Initially on September 29, 2011, the Company, and certain of its
officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, entitled
Martin J. Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc. et al. Also named as
defendants were the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  That complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, alleging that
the Company should have, but failed to disclose in the
registration statement for its initial public offering purported
wrongful conduct relating to its life finance business that gave
rise to the USAO Investigation.  On October 21, 2011, an amended
complaint was filed that asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on similar allegations.
On October 25, 2011, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On October 31, 2011, another putative class action case was filed
in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida, entitled City of Roseville Employees
Retirement System v. Imperial Holdings, et al, naming the same
defendants and also bringing claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act based on similar allegations.  On
November 28, 2011, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
plaintiffs in the Fuller and City of Roseville cases moved to
remand their cases back to state court.  Those motions were fully
briefed and argued.

On November 18, 2011, a putative class action case was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, entitled Sauer v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al, naming
the same defendants and bringing claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on similar allegations.

On December 14, 2011, another putative class action case filed in
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
entitled Pondick v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the
same defendants and bringing claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on similar allegations.

On February 24, 2012, the four putative class actions were
consolidated and designated: Fuller v. Imperial Holdings et al. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and lead plaintiffs were appointed.

In addition, the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering have asserted that the Company is required by its
Underwriting Agreement to indemnify the underwriters' expenses and
potential liabilities in connection with the litigation.

         Insurance Coverage Declaratory Relief Complaint

On June 13, 2012, Catlin Insurance Company (UK) Ltd. ("Catlin")
filed a declaratory relief action against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The complaint seeks a determination that there is no coverage
under Catlin's primary Directors, Officers and Company Liability
Policy (the "Policy") issued to the Company for the period
February 3, 2012, to February 3, 2012, based on a prior and
pending litigation exclusion (the "Exclusion").  Catlin also seeks
a determination that it is entitled to reimbursement of the
approximately $800,000 in defense costs and fees advanced to the
Company in the first quarter of 2012 under the Policy if it is
determined that the Exclusion precludes coverage.  As of the
filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company has not
yet been served with the complaint.

                       Derivative Demands

On November 16, 2011, the Company's Board of Directors received a
shareholder derivative demand from Harry Rothenberg (the
"Rothenberg Demand"), which was referred to the special committee
for a thorough investigation of the issues, occurrences and facts
relating to, connected to, and arising from the USAO Investigation
referenced in the Rothenberg Demand.  On May 8, 2012, the
Company's Board of Directors received a derivative demand made by
another shareholder, Robert Andrzejczyk (the "Andrzejczyk
Demand").  The Andrzejczyk Demand, like the Rothenberg Demand was
referred to the special committee, which determined that it did
not contain any allegations that differed materially from those
alleged in the Rothenberg Demand.  On July 20, 2012, the Company
(as nominal defendant) and certain of the Company's officers,
directors, and a former director were named as defendants in a
shareholder derivative action filed in the Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida,
entitled Robert Andrzejczyk v. Imperial Holdings, Inc. et al.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Special
Committee's refusal of the Andrzejczyk Demand was improper.

                       Proposed Settlement

On December 18, 2012, attorneys for the Company signed a Term
Sheet for Global Settlement Regarding Imperial Holdings, Inc.
Matters (the "Term Sheet") setting forth the terms upon which each
of the parties in the "Class Action Litigation, Derivative Demands
and the Insurance Coverage Declaratory Relief Complaint" would be
willing to settle the class action litigation and derivative
actions as well as the declaratory relief action filed by Catlin,
respectively.  In addition to the Company's attorneys, the Term
Sheet was signed by attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuits and derivative actions instituted against
the Company, as well attorneys for the Company's director and
officer liability insurance carriers ("D&O Carriers"), certain
individual defendants named in the class actions and the
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering.

While non-binding and subject to certain contingencies, the Term
Sheet provides that each of the parties will endeavor to enter
into definitive settlement agreements in respect of the class
action litigation, derivative action and insurance coverage
declaratory relief complaint.  Although definitive settlement
agreements have not been executed as of the filing of this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company does expect to continue
to work in good faith with the other parties to the Term Sheet to
execute settlement agreements as soon as is practicable.

The terms of the class action settlement include a cash payment of
$12.0 million, of which $11.0 million is to be contributed by the
Company's primary and excess D&O Carriers and the issuance of two
million warrants for shares of the Company's stock with an
estimated value of $3.1 million at the date of the signing of the
Term Sheet.  The value of the warrants were reassessed at
March 31, 2013, and resulted in an increase of $2.3 million.  The
estimated fair value at March 31, 2013, was $5.4 million.  The
warrants will have a five-year term with an exercise price of
$10.75 and will be issued when the settlement proceeds are
distributed to the claimants.  In addition, the underwriters in
Company's initial public offering are to waive their rights to
indemnity and contribution by the Company.  The Company
established a reserve related to the proposed settlement of $15.1
million, which is included in other liabilities and a receivable
for insurance recoverable from the Company's D&O Carrier of $11.0
million, which is included in prepaid and other assets.  The $4.1
million net effect of the proposed settlement is included in legal
fees in the statement of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2012, and an additional $2.3 million is included in
the three month period ended March 31, 2013.

The derivative actions would be settled for implementation of
certain compliance reforms.  The Term Sheet also contemplates
payment by the Company's primary D&O carrier of $1.5 million for
legal fees in respect of the derivative actions and the
contribution of $500,000 in the Company's stock.

In addition, the Term Sheet contemplates that the Company will
contribute $500,000 to a trust to cover certain claims under its
director and officer liability insurance policies.

The Company established a reserve to the proposed derivative
settlement and insurance trust of $2.5 million, which is included
in other liabilities and a receivable for insurance recoverable
from the Company's D&O Carrier of $1.5 million, which is included
in prepaid and other assets.  The net effect of the settlement of
$1.0 million is included in legal fees in the settlement of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The proposed settlement also requires the Company to advance legal
fees to and indemnify certain individuals covered under the
policies.  The obligation to advance and indemnify on behalf of
these individuals, while currently unquantifiable, may be
substantial and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position and results of operations.

Founded in 2006 and headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, Imperial
Holdings, Inc., succeeded to the business of Imperial Holdings,
LLC and its assets and liabilities.  The Company operates in two
reportable business segments: life finance, in which the Company
earns revenue/income from changes in the fair value of life
insurance policies that the Company acquires; and and structured
settlements, in which the Company purchases structured settlement
receivables at a discounted rate and sells these receivables to
third parties.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Bids for Judgment and to Strike Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile Group, Inc. and other defendants' motions
for partial summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs' request
for punitive damages remain pending, according to the Company's
May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Three substantially identical lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South Carolina,
related to the merger of the Company and a company formerly known
as International Textile Group, Inc. ("Former ITG") in late 2006
(the "Merger").  The first lawsuit was filed in 2008 and the
second and third lawsuits were filed in 2009, all by the same
attorney.  These three lawsuits were consolidated in 2010.  The
actions name as defendants, among others, certain individuals who
were officers and directors of Former ITG or the Company at the
time of the Merger.  The plaintiffs have raised purported
derivative and direct (class action) claims and contend that
certain of the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger.  The plaintiffs have also made certain
related claims against a former advisor of a defendant.  Discovery
in the case has now concluded pursuant to the existing scheduling
order with the trial of the case to be scheduled.

On January 10, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of shareholders and denied a motion filed by
certain defendants seeking the disqualification of the named
plaintiffs to serve as derivative representatives.  That same
month, certain defendants filed motions for partial summary
judgment and to strike the plaintiffs' request for punitive
damages.  Those motions remain pending.

While the Company is a nominal defendant for purposes of the
derivative action claims, the Company is not aware of any claims
for affirmative relief being made against it.  However, the
Company has certain obligations to provide indemnification to its
officers and directors (and certain former officers and directors)
against certain claims and believes the lawsuits are being
defended vigorously.  Certain fees and costs related to this
litigation are to be paid or reimbursed in part under the
Company's insurance programs.  Because of the uncertainties
associated with the litigation, management cannot estimate the
impact of the ultimate resolution of the litigation.  It is the
opinion of the Company's management that any failure by the
Company's insurance providers to provide any required insurance
coverage could have a material adverse impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

International Textile Group, Inc., is a global, diversified
textile manufacturer headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina,
with operations principally in the United States, Mexico and
China.  The Company is one of the world's largest and most
diversified producers of denim fabrics and the largest producer of
better denim fabrics for products distributed through department
stores and specialty retailers.  The Company is also one of the
largest worsted wool manufacturers and commission printers and
finishers in North America, and is a leading developer, marketer
and manufacturer of other fabrics and textile products.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Sued Over Luon Yoga Pants Quality Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a U.S. investor has launched a
class action lawsuit alleging Lululemon Athletica Inc. failed to
disclose that quality defects in its Luon yoga pants, which were
later recalled for being too sheer, were the result in part of
cost cutting.

Plaintiff Houssam Alkhoury accused the company of making
misleading statements and omissions that caused its stock price to
become artificially inflated.

The lawsuit also alleges the company was selling its yoga pants at
a discounted price to hold onto market share, and that there were
ongoing discussions about the departure of CEO Christine Day, who
announced plans in June to step down once a successor is named.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

Vancouver-based Lululemon was not immediately available for
comment.  Shares in athletic clothing retailer fell sharply after
Day announced her pending departure on June 10.

The lawsuit, which was filed in a New York district court, is on
behalf of all buyers of Lululemon shares between March 21 and
June 10.  It is the second lawsuit that has been filed against
Lululemon after the recall of its black Luon pants.

In May, the Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters'
Personnel Retirement Fund sued Lululemon over its decision to
increase potential bonuses for executives prior to announcing the
recall.

Lululemon began pulling the its black Luon pants, which
represented 17 per cent of its woman's pants inventory, off
shelves on March 18.  Since then, Lululemon has said that the
fabric used in the pants did not meet their standards.

Chief product officer Sheree Waterson also left the company in
April.

The company has said it is testing and assessing all Luon products
to ensure they meet "revised specifications for modulus (stretch),
weight and tolerances."  It has also stationed employees at
factories to ensure that the new tests and standards are being
met.


MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Taylor, writing for TuscaloosaNews.com, reports that a
Northport man has filed a class-action lawsuit against Mapco
Express, nearly two months after hackers gained access to the
company's credit card payment processing systems.

The Brentwood, Tenn.-based convenience store chain announced in
May that customers who made credit or debit card purchases at
certain times this year might be at risk.

The lawsuit filed by an attorney for Northport resident Ian Yeager
claims that the company was negligent by allowing customers'
financial information to be compromised and seeks compensation for
those affected.  The complaint names Mapco Express Inc. and owner
Delek U.S. Holdings Inc. as defendants.  It does not state whether
Yeager was a victim of fraud.

Mapco announced the security breach on May 6. Extensive
information remains on the company website www.mapcoexpress.com
under the category "Security Alert."  According to the company,
third-party hackers used malware to access the payment card
processing systems in all of its stores between March 19-25 and
April 20-21.  Data transmitted from two stores in Goodlettsville
and Nashville, Tenn., was accessed between April 14 and April 15.

"When we discovered the malware, we took steps to disable the
malware and hired a nationally-recognized forensics security
investigations firm to determine whether an information breach had
occurred, the nature of this malware and whether payment card
information may have been compromised," the company posted in a
statement on its website.  "We also took steps to further
strengthen the security of our payment card processing systems to
block information security attacks . . . We truly regret any
inconvenience this may have caused you, and we have implemented
further security measures designed to prevent these incidents in
the future."

The locations involved Mapco Express, Mapco Mart, East Coast,
Discount Food Mart, Fast Food and Fuel, Delta Express and Favorite
Markets.

The stores are located in northern and central Alabama, northern
Georgia, northern Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Attorneys from the Birmingham firm Pittman Dutton & Hellums are
representing the plaintiffs.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Settles Hepatitis A Class Action for $85,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Taylor, writing for TuscaloosaNews.com, reports that
McDonald's customers who may have been exposed to hepatitis A
after eating at the Northport restaurant could receive up to
$125 as part of a proposed $85,000 class action settlement.

Customers who ate at the restaurant on McFarland Boulevard in
Northport on March 14, 2012 or during breakfast hours on March 16
are eligible to receive the payout.  The deadline for applicants
who wish to receive part of the settlement passed in June.

Tuscaloosa County Circuit Judge Jim Roberts will consider granting
final approval to the settlement at a hearing next week.

The Alabama Department of Public Health notified the public in
March 2012 that a McDonald's employee may have exposed customers
to the disease.  People were urged to receive a vaccine and immune
globulin to prevent infection.

The proposed $125 settlement per customer is intended as
compensation for the cost of the vaccine, lost time and anxiety
and concern caused by potential exposure.  Only customers who
provide proof that they were vaccinated qualify to receive the
settlement.

Hepatitis A is a contagious liver disease that can range in
severity from a mild illness that lasts a few weeks to a severe
illness that lasts months, according to the Centers for Disease
Control.  Symptoms can include fever, loss of appetite, nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, tiredness, pain in the upper right side of the
abdomen, dark urine, light stools and jaundice.

Hepatitis A is usually spread when a person ingests fecal matter,
even in microscopic amounts, from contact with food, drink or
objects contaminated by feces from an infected person.

Contamination of food can happen at any point, while it's growing,
being harvested, processed, being prepared or being cooked.

The Department of Public Health did not report that anyone
contracted the disease after being exposed.  It is unclear how
many people have qualified to receive compensation.

According to the proposed settlement each person will receive an
equal share of the $85,000 if more than 980 claims are submitted.
Any part of the $85,000 not paid to claimants will be returned to
company RPH Management Inc., which owns the McDonald's.  The
settlement proposes that the plaintiffs' attorney receive $15,000
compensation and that he anonymously donate an additional $10,000
to a charity.  William D. Marler of the Seattle, Wash. firm Marler
Clark, who has extensive experience with food-borne illness
litigation, is representing the plaintiffs.


MYERS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 6,573 Heat Accelerator Mat
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 2, 2013
Posting date:             July 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Outdoor Living
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34375

Affected product: Heat Accelerator Mat

The recalled product involves heat accelerator mats used to hasten
seed germination and root development.  The mats come in three
sizes and have the "Planters Pride" logo on the surface along with
the relevant part and model numbers.  The packaging describes the
product as "Heat Accelerator Mat" and also has the "Planters
Pride" logo on it.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/HZxBmv

The following three products are included in this recall

   Product Description          Part Number        Model Number
   -------------------          -----------        ------------
HEAT MAT 10 X 20 W/RET PKG      RZ.HEAT1           JC-HM-001
HEAT MAT 20 X 20.75 W/RET PKG   RZ.HEAT2           JC-HM-002
HEAT MAT 48 X 20 W/RET PKG      RZ.HEAT4           JC-HM-003

The mats can overheat and melt when the mats have been folded for
storage, posing a fire hazard.

Myers LGG and Health Canada have received one report of melted hot
spots forming on four separate mats with no subsequent injury or
damage.

The recalled mats were manufactured in China and were sold between
2010 and 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Ningbo Jinchun Electrical Appliances
                    CHINA

   Importer         Myers Industries Lawn & Garden Group
                    Middlefield
                    Ohio
                    UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mats and
contact Myers LGG directly for an exchange of a certified product
or refund.

For more information, consumers may contact the Myers LGG retail
line by telephone at 1-800-225-7712 or visit the firm's website.


NEW CENTURY: Recalls Brand Cakes Over Allergen
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:                         July 3, 2013
Type of communication:                 Recall
Alert sub-type:                        Updated Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                           Allergen - Milk, Allergen -
                                       Tree Nut, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:                 Class 1
Source of recall:                      Canadian Food Inspection
                                       Agency
Recalling firm:                        New Century Food Inc.
Distribution:                          Ontario
Extent of the product distribution:    Retail

Affected products:

   Brand name       Common name      Size        UPC
   ----------       -----------      ----        ---
New Century Food    Longan Cake   Not declared   0 12345 67890 5
New Century Food    Butter Loaf Cake   350 g.    0 776544 9
New Century Food    Butter Loaf Cake   400 g     0 776583 7
New Century Food    Mango Loaf Cake    400 g     0 776581 4
New Century Food    Banana Loaf Cake   400 g     0 776584 7
New Century Food    Lemon Loaf Cake    400 g     0 776582 3

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and New Century Food
Inc. are warning people with allergies to milk, wheat and/or tree
nuts not to consume the New Century Food brand cakes described
below.  The affected products contain milk and wheat and may
contain tree nuts which are not declared on the label.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk, wheat
and/or tree nuts.

The manufacturer, New Century Food Inc., Scarborough, ON, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/IUrGOq


NEW JERSEY: $100-Mil. Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Fitzgerald, writing for NJBIZ, reports that a class-action
lawsuit led by the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund has received
preliminary approval from a federal judge in New York for a $100
million settlement of losses on mortgage-backed securities that
lost value in the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, according to
attorney Joel Laitman.

Mr. Laitman, of the New York firm Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll,
said Judge Harold Baer gave preliminary approval on July 1 to the
$100 million settlement.  Mr. Laitman said Baer has set an Oct. 7
final approval hearing of the settlement with an issuer of
mortgage-backed securities, Residential Accredit Loans Inc., which
filed for bankruptcy in May 2012.

Mr. Laitman said if Baer gives final approval, the $100 million
will be held in escrow, pending a resolution of the entire case.

Mr. Laitman said the case has been ongoing since 2008 on behalf of
thousands of investors with estimated losses of more than $5
billion on mortgage-backed securities that lost value during the
financial crisis.

The lead plaintiff, the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, had
invested about $1 million in mortgage-backed securities and lost a
significant amount of that investment, Mr. Laitman said.  The
defendants in the suit include several underwriters of mortgage-
backed securities: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, UBS and Deutsche
Bank.  A spokesman for Goldman Sachs declined to comment on the
case.

"New Jersey Carpenters brought this case not only on behalf of
themselves but on behalf of everybody who bought into these public
offerings," Mr. Laitman said.

The Edison-based New Jersey Carpenters Funds is a group of
pension, annuity and health funds established through collective
bargaining agreements between the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
& Joiners of America and the carpenters' employers throughout New
Jersey.


OCEAN STATE JOB LOT: Recalls Bel Frantoio Mediterranean Olives
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rhode Island Department of Health (HEALTH) advises consumers
not to eat Mediterranean Olives: Calcidica Sweet (Brand: Bel
Frantoio) sold at any Ocean State Job Lot (OSJL) stores.  OSJL is
voluntarily recalling the product after HEALTH staff discovered
that these products were not handled appropriately to prevent
production of the toxin that causes botulism.

Mediterranean Olives: Calcidica Sweet, produced by Bel Frantoio
and packaged in 34-oz. plastic containers, were sold in OSJL
stores in New York and throughout the Northeast (Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine).
This product is being voluntarily recalled because it is labeled
"Keep Refrigerated," but was sold at room temperature, making it
susceptible to contamination with Clostridium botulinum.  The Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that DMAA is potentially
dangerous to health.  See
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm359438

Other olive products produced by Bel Frantoio that were sold at
Ocean State Job Lot, as well as other brands of olives, do not
currently pose a safety issue.  This recall applies only to this
product sold at Ocean State Job Lot.  Pictures of the Products are
available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm359444.htm

This product sold elsewhere, where refrigerated, is safe for
consumption.

Ingestion of botulinum toxin from improperly stored foods can lead
to serious illness and death.

Anyone who has eaten this product and has experienced abdominal
cramps; difficulty breathing, speaking or swallowing; double
vision; muscle weakness; muscle aches; nausea; vomiting; diarrhea;
or fever should contact their healthcare provider immediately for
evaluation and treatment.  The young, elderly, immune-compromised,
and pregnant women are especially susceptible to foodborne
illness.

No illnesses associated with this recall have been reported at
this time.

Consumers should discard this product or return it the store for a
refund.  For more information, contact the Ocean State Job Lot
Customer Service Center at (401) 295-2672, Option 6.


PALATINE: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Parking Ticket Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Pohl, writing for Daily Herald, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to hear a proposed class-action lawsuit
over Palatine's practice of printing personal information on
parking tickets.

Though the high court's decision sends the case back to the
district court to proceed, several municipalities across the
country already have taken the pre-emptive step of redacting
information that previously appeared in public view.

The case dates back to August 2010, when motorist Jason Senne sued
the village after receiving a $20 parking ticket for illegally
parking overnight in the area of Hawk Street and Heron Drive.  It
had been on his windshield for about five hours.

According to his complaint, Palatine's citations include drivers'
names, addresses, dates of birth, heights, weights, sexes,
driver's license numbers, vehicle identification numbers, years,
makes, models, colors and tag numbers.  Mr. Senne's lawsuit claims
the village's practice violates the federal Driver's Privacy
Protection Act.

In an earlier decision, the district court granted Palatine's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The dismissal was affirmed by a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
2011.  In August 2012, however, the entire appellate court in a
further review voted 7-to-4 to reinstitute the suit. The majority
raised concerns over safety.

"There are very real safety and security concerns at stake here,"
Judge Kenneth Ripple wrote.  "For example, an individual seeking
to stalk or rape can go down a street where overnight parking is
banned and collect the home address and personal information of
women whose vehicles have been tagged."

Both village attorney Patrick Brankin and Mr. Senne's attorney
Martin Murphy declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

Due to the four-year statute of limitations for private lawsuits,
Palatine in theory could face $80 million in penalties since every
privacy violation carries a $2,500 fine.  On July 1, the village
filed a response asking the court to deny Mr. Senne's motion for
class-action status.

After Mr. Senne's lawsuit was filed, Palatine suspended its
practice of printing personal information on the copy of the
ticket that motorists receive.


PARTY CITY: Recalls 35,929 Fancy Heat 2.5 Hour Methanol Gel
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 3, 2013
Posting date:             July 3, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34341

Affected products: Fancy Heat 2.5 Hour Methanol Gel

The recalled product is a Fancy Heat 2.5 Hour Methanol Gel.  The
product is used to generate instant clean fire for cooking in
various environments.  The product contains methyl alcohol and is
sold in small metal containers as a single unit and as pack of 12.
The products can be identified by the UPC 685100178004 for the
single unit and UPC 685100174778 for the pack of 12.

The recalled products do not meet the labeling requirements for
Consumer Chemical Products under Canadian Law.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/4VzECt

Neither Health Canada, Party City, or the Manufacturer has
received any reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related
to the use of these products.

30,935 units of Fancy Heat 2.5 Hour Methanol Gel and 4,944 units
of Fancy Heat 2.5 Hour Methanol Gel 12 pack were sold in Canada
from February 2012 to May 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     FancyHeat Corp.
                    Somerset
                    New Jersey
                    UNITED STATES

   Retailer         Party City Canada
                    Downsview, Ontario
                    CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products.
Products can be returned to Party City retail stores for a refund
or the products can be disposed of by following Municipal
Hazardous Waste Guidelines.


PARTY CITY: Recalls 9,084 Fancy Heat 6 Hour Wick Fuel
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 3, 2013
Posting date:             July 3, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34345

Affected products: Fancy Heat 6 Hour Wick Fuel

The recalled product is the Fancy Heat 6 Hour Wick Fuel.  The
product is used to generate instant clean fire for cooking in
various environments.  The product contains diethylene glycol and
is sold in small metal containers with the UPC 685100177007.

The recalled products do not meet the labeling requirements for
Consumer Chemical Products under Canadian Law.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/E6QX6O

Neither Health Canada, Party City, or the Manufacturer has
received any reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related
to the use of these products.

9,084 units of Fancy Heat 6 Hour Wick Fuel were sold in Canada.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     FancyHeat Corp.
                    Somerset
                    New Jersey
                    UNITED STATES

   Retailer         Party City Canada
                    Downsview
                    Ontario
                    CANADA


PARTY CITY: Recalls Serve-Rite Buffet Set With Chafing Fuel
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 3, 2013
Posting date:             July 3, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34347

Affected products: Serve-Rite Buffet Set w/ Blaze Jelled Chafing
                   Fuel

The recalled product involves the 8 piece and 24 piece Serve-Rite
Buffet Sets.  The chafing fuels that come with the buffet sets are
used to generate instant clean fire for cooking in various
environments.

The 8 piece buffet set has the UPC 094922637260 and the 24 piece
set has the UPC 094922637635.  Both buffet sets come with small
metal containers of Blaze Jelled Chafing Fuel which contains
methyl alcohol.  The Blaze Jelled Chafing Fuel has the UPC
794666721002.

The recalled products do not meet the labelling requirements for
Consumer Chemical Products under Canadian Law.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/F9vatw

The lack of labeling information, including appropriate warnings,
may lead to serious injury or property damage.

Neither Health Canada, Party City, or the Manufacturer(s) has
received any reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related
to the use of these products.

7,577 units of the 8 piece Serve-Rite Buffet Set and 1,647 units
of the 24 piece Serve-Rite Buffet Set were sold in Canada.  The
products were sold from February 2012 to May 2013.

The products were manufactured in the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Serve-Rite, LLC
                    Bohemia
                    New York
                    UNITED STATES

   Manufacturer     Blaze Products Corp.
                    Shelbyville
                    Kentucky
                    UNITED STATES

   Retailer         Party City Canada
                    Downsview
                    Ontario
                    CANADA


PIONEER FOODS: Dismissal of Bread Price-Fixing Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, reports that South Africa's
highest court on June 29 overturned a ruling barring a bread
distributor from bringing a class action against several food
companies accused of price-fixing, ruling that the lower courts
had set too high a bar for class certification.

The country's Constitutional Court ruled that an intermediate
appellate court had erred in holding a case brought by a direct
purchaser against Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd., Tiger Consumer Brands
Ltd. and Premier Foods Ltd. to a different standard than a similar
putative class action brought by consumers.


ROYAL BANCSHARES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust class
action lawsuit pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's
May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary Royal Bank
America, holds a 60% ownership interest in Crusader Servicing
Corporation ("CSC").  On November 17, 2006, the Company, through
Royal Bank, formed Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC ("RTL").  Royal
Bank holds a 60% ownership interest in RTL.

On March 13, 2012, March 30, 2012, April 20, 2012, May 2, 2012,
May 11, 2012, May 18, 2012, June 18, 2012, and June 29, 2012, the
former President of CSC and RTL, CSC, RTL and the Company were
named defendants, among others, in putative class action lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
("Court") on behalf of a proposed class of taxpayers who became
delinquent in paying their municipal tax obligations: Boyer v.
Robert W. Stein, Crusader Servicing Corp. Royal Tax Lien Services
LLC, Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., et al., Superior
Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division ("the Boyer Action"),
Contarino v Robert W. Stein, Crusader Servicing Corp. Royal Tax
Lien Services LLC, Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., et al.,
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; MSC LLC v
Robert W. Stein, Crusader Servicing Corp. Royal Tax Lien Services
LLC, Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., et al., U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey; English v Robert W. Stein,
Crusader Servicing Corp. Royal Tax Lien Services LLC, Royal
Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey; Ledford v Robert W. Stein, Crusader
Servicing Corp. Royal Tax Lien Services LLC, Royal Bancshares of
Pennsylvania, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey; T&B Associates v Robert W. Stein, Crusader
Servicing Corp. Royal Tax Lien Services LLC, Royal Bancshares of
Pennsylvania, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey; Jacobs et al v Robert W. Stein, Crusader Servicing
Corp. Royal Tax Lien Services LLC, Royal Bancshares of
Pennsylvania, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey; Senatore Builders, LLC  v Robert W. Stein, Crusader
Servicing Corp. Royal Tax Lien Services LLC, Royal Bancshares of
Pennsylvania, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, respectively alleging a conspiracy to rig bids in
municipal tax lien auctions.

On June 12, 2012, the Court entered an Order consolidating for
pretrial purposes the actions with all subsequently filed or
transferred related actions, collectively referred to as In re New
Jersey Tax Sale Certificates Antitrust Litigation.  On October 22,
2012, the Court appointed two law firms as interim class counsel
and another law firm as liaison class counsel and further ordered
appointed counsel to a master complaint for the consolidated
action.  On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") against numerous
defendants, including the former President of CSC and RTL, Royal
Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., Royal Bank America, CSC and RTL.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on March 8,
2013, which is currently pending before the Court.  As of May 14,
2013, Royal Bancshares and Royal Bank cannot reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of loss that may result from these
actions or proceedings.

Headquartered in Narberth, Pennsylvania, Royal Bancshares of
Pennsylvania, Inc.'s principal activity is supervising Royal Bank
America, formerly known as Royal Bank of Pennsylvania.  Royal Bank
engages in a general banking business principally in Montgomery,
Chester, Bucks, Philadelphia and Berks counties in Pennsylvania
and in northern and southern New Jersey and Delaware.  The Company
also has a wholly owned non-bank subsidiary, Royal Investments of
Delaware, Inc., which is engaged in investment activities.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Gibbons Discusses Ruling in Washer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin T. Quinn, Esq. -- JQuinn@gibbonslaw.com -- at Gibbons
reports that a New Jersey moldy washing machine class action
suffered a big pleading setback after the District of New Jersey
held that the lengthy complaint still contained insufficient
detail to place the defendant on notice of the precise misconduct
alleged.  But even if plaintiffs replead their case, their
ultimate goal of class certification may be stymied in light of
the Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, and its
collateral effect upon other defective washing machine putative
class actions.

In Fishman v. General Electric Company, plaintiffs filed a 39-page
amended complaint that contained 152 paragraphs, based upon
alleged design defects in the "drums," "doors," and "door seals"
of their "front-loading washer machines."  The defect, according
to plaintiffs, caused mold and mildew to accumulate in their
machines, which, in turn, produced a foul and noxious odor.
Plaintiffs brought suit against General Electric asserting causes
of action for violations of consumer fraud statutes, breach of
express and implied warranty, and unjust enrichment.  Thereafter,
General Electric moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint
arguing, inter alia, that plaintiffs' allegations were legally
deficient.

The Court agreed and concluded that plaintiffs' amended complaint
was "woefully" inadequate.  First, plaintiffs did not identify
which products were involved, the dates the plaintiffs discovered
the alleged defect in their washing machines, and what express
representations, if any, General Electric made.  Put simply,
"plaintiffs failed to provide basic information about key aspects
of their claims."  Second, plaintiffs' amended complaint was
devoid of any description of, or reference to, plaintiffs'
warranties.  And finally, plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment
could not be sustained because "plaintiffs purchased the goods in
question from a third-party," i.e., not General Electric.

The Fishman case is on track to mirror defective washing machine
litigations in Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Glazer v.
Whirlpool, where the Supreme Court vacated decisions from the
Sixth and Seventh Circuits that allowed defective washing machine
cases to proceed as class actions, and directed the Courts of
Appeals to reconsider their opinions in light of its Comcast
decision.  In Comcast, the Supreme Court rejected a decision
upholding class certification faulting the District Court and
Court of Appeals for not determining whether plaintiffs' damages
calculation was "susceptible of measurement across the entire
class."  The Supreme Court, thus, concluded that the District
Court and Court of Appeals failed to conduct a "rigorous analysis"
rendering "Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement to a nullity."
The Supreme Court's vacatur of class certification orders in
Butler and Glazer emphasizes that the predominance requirement is
indeed demanding, and suggests a much wider impact for the Court's
Comcast decision.

Accordingly, even if plaintiffs in Fishman are able to plead a
viable cause of action, this litigation may face the same
certification hurdles as Butler and Glazer.


SERAPHIM FILMS: Sued by "Reach Me" Crew Workers for Unpaid OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Seraphim Films Productions
and Rebekah Chaney stiffed crew workers for overtime on the movie
"Reach Me," a class action claims in Superior Court.


SOLVAY CHEMICALS: 10th Circuit Tosses ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the Tenth Circuit on
July 2 scrapped a class action alleging that Solvay Chemicals Inc.
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when the
company implemented a new retirement plan, ruling that it didn't
intentionally misinform employees about their benefits.

A three-judge panel said that Solvay executives didn't
deliberately fail to state how early retirement benefits were
calculated under the old pension plan when it informed employees
of changes in January 2005.  Finding that the company's conduct
wasn't egregious and that a district court didn't misread ERISA
lawsuits, the panel denied the employees' appeal of the lower
court's dismissal of the suit.

The employees argued that they only had to prove that Solvay
deliberately held off making disclosures required under ERISA,
while the district court required them to prove that Solvay
intended to break the law.  But the panel said the district court
correctly determined that Solvay's failure wasn't intentional,
even according to the way the employees read the law.

"The district court found that the company wanted to make all the
disclosures the law required, that the company's omission was
accidental, no more than an oversight in the process of drafting a
complex statutorily mandated notice," the opinion said.

The suit, filed in 2006, claimed Solvay violated ERISA and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act when it switched to a pension
plan that reduced benefit accruals for older employees.  In
September 2010, the Tenth Circuit found that Solvay gave its
employees fair notice of benefit changes and didn't violate the
age discrimination law by cutting the rates of future accruals
more severely for older employees than younger ones.

However, the appeals court revived the employees' claim that
Solvay failed to mention how early retirement benefits were
calculated under the old plan.  The old plan subsidized early
retirement, the court ruled, while the new one provided no
subsidies, and Solvay could have spelled that out better.

The Tenth Circuit remanded the matter to the Wyoming federal court
to determine whether Solvay's notice constituted an "egregious
failure" to comply with ERISA, which would entitle the plaintiffs
to relief.

Solvay executives testified that they didn't purposely omit the
benefits information, while employees claimed that management knew
they were obligated to provide the details and had a financial
incentive to hide them.

The Wyoming federal court found that, even if Solvay didn't meet
all the notification requirements under ERISA, employees weren't
entitled to equitable relief because they knew the effects of the
new benefits plan and the company didn't act in bad faith.

In their appeal, plaintiffs alleged that the lower court
improperly used character evidence provided by a Solvay employee
who testified that the company wouldn't intentionally break the
law, court documents said.  But the Tenth Circuit said that even
if that claim were true, the error wasn't significant, as
additional evidence suggested that the company intended to comply
with the law.

The appeals court also shot down the plaintiffs' allegation that
Solvay's misconduct was egregious because the company didn't
immediately rectify the benefits omission, ruling that the
district court correctly found that Solvay didn't discover the
mistake until the litigation started.

The panel further held that while the employees might have been
entitled to some equitable remedies due to their benefits losses,
the plaintiffs never specified what those forms of relief might
be.

"The employees may secretly harbor a wish for some form of
equitable relief not foreclosed by the district court's findings,
but they have yet to identify it to anyone else after 6 1/2 years
of litigation and to know that much is to know it is time to call
this matter to a close," the opinion said.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately respond to requests
for comment July 2.

Judges Paul J. Kelly Jr., Michael R. Murphy and Neil M. Gorsuch
sat on the panel for the Tenth Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen R. Bruce and Allison C.
Pienta of Stephen R. Bruce Law Offices and Richard H. Honaker of
Honaker Law Offices.

The defendants are represented by J. Richard Hammett and Scott M.
Nelson of Baker & McKenzie LLP and Paul J. Hickey and O'Kelley H.
Pearson of Hickey & Evans LLP.

The case is Jensen et al. v. Solvay Chemicals Inc. et al., case
number 11-8092, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.


SOMERSAULT SNACK: Recalls 1 oz. Pacific Sea Salt Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Somersault Snack Co., LLC, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), is voluntarily recalling a limited
number of packages of 1 ounce Somersault Pacific Sea Salt
products, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service announced.

The product subject to recall were distributed to Target Stores in
6-Count Multi-Packs, and which were inadvertently mispackaged --
limited quantities of Somersault Santa Fe Salsa flavored product
were inadvertently commingled with Somersault Pacific Sea Salt
flavored product in packages labeled as Somersault Pacific Sea
Salt 1oz.  The inadvertent commingling of these two products
introduced another allergen (milk) to the Somersault Pacific Sea
Salt 1oz. packages, and that allergen (milk) is not listed on the
packaging as either an ingredient or an allergen.

All of the affected product was distributed to Target Stores
through their distribution centers in California, Ohio, Georgia,
Kansas and South Carolina.  No affected product was distributed to
or received by any other customer of Somersault Snack Co., LLC.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of an allergic reaction if they consume these products.  No
allergic reactions have been reported.

Somersault Snack Co. has taken the precautionary measure of
notifying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is
voluntarily recalling approximately 712 cases of the affected
product -- all from Target Stores.

Somersault Snack Co. is working with Target Stores to ensure that
the recalled products are removed from store shelves. In the event
that consumers believe they have purchased products affected by
this voluntary recall, they should return the product to the store
where it was purchased for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may call 415-407-1247 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
PST, Monday through Friday, for more information.


STATER BROS: Full Amount of "Lunsford" Suit Accord Paid in 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. disclosed in its May 14, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that the full amount of its
settlement of the class action lawsuit commenced by Harold F.
Lunsford, et al., was paid in fiscal 2013.

In May of 2011, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Stater
Bros. Markets ("Markets"), was served with an action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside ("Harold F. Lunsford et al. v. Stater Bros. Markets")
seeking individual and potential class action damages including
associated penalties for Markets' alleged failure to provide meal
periods, rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof and alleged
failure to pay certain wages for terminated employees.  On
January 26, 2012, following a mediation, this case was settled
which settlement was approved by the court.  The full settlement
amount was recorded in the Company's consolidated financial
statements for fiscal 2012 and the full amount was paid in fiscal
2013.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. is the largest privately owned
supermarket chain in Southern California.  The Company's revenues
are generated primarily from retail sales through its
supermarkets.  The Company is headquartered in San Bernardino,
California.


TANDY LEATHER: Awaits Final Okay of "Barnes" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Tandy Leather Factory, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Mark Barnes and
Jerry Mercante, according to the Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 16, 2011, two former employees of the Company filed a
lawsuit, entitled Mark Barnes and Jerry Mercante on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. Tandy Leather
Company, Inc., Tandy Leather Factory, and Does 1-50, in the US
District Court for the District of Nevada.  The lawsuit was
subsequently amended on May 9, 2011, to add another former
employee, Donna Cavota, as a third named plaintiff.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) as well as various state wage laws.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly situated
U.S. current and former store managers of the Company.  The
Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  On May 17, 2011, the district court in Nevada granted the
Company's request to transfer venue to the Northern District of
Texas.

On September 24, 2012, an agreement was reached and preliminarily
approved by the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division, to settle all federal and state claims
asserted by the plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement").  At all
times during the pendency of this litigation, the Company has
vigorously denied all of the plaintiffs' allegations.  As part of
the settlement, the Company continues to deny any violation of any
statute, law, rule or regulation, any liability or wrongdoing, and
the truth of all of the plaintiffs' allegations.  The Company has
agreed to enter into the Settlement Agreement to avoid further
expense and inconvenience, end the disruption and burden of the
litigation, avoid any other present or future litigation arising
out of the facts that gave rise to the litigation, avoid the risk
inherent in uncertain complex litigation, and put to rest the
controversy underlying the litigation.

The Settlement Agreement required the Company to establish a
$993,386 escrow account to fund (1) settlement payments to the
plaintiffs, (2) settlement payments to the other members of the
settlement class who join the class action, (3) attorneys' fees
and expenses, and (4) escrow agent fees and expenses.  The
plaintiffs and each other member of the settlement class who joins
the class action release any and all claims against the Company
related to the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit.  The Settlement Agreement includes a formula to
determine the amount of settlement payments payable to each
claimant.  If the aggregate amount of settlement payments
determined by such formula exceeds the remaining balance in the
escrow fund, the Company will have no further liability.  Instead,
the amount of settlement payments payable to the claimants will be
reduced proportionately.  To the extent that any funds remain in
the escrow fund after payment of all required claims, fees and
expenses, the remaining funds will be returned to the Company.

A Fairness Hearing was held on February 11, 2013, to make final
determinations as to whether the settlement described in the
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, whether it
should be finally approved by the Court, and whether an Order and
Final Judgment should be issued dismissing the lawsuit with
prejudice.  At the hearing, the Court expressed concern regarding
certain aspects of communications to the potential opt in class
members, and therefore, delayed ruling on the final approval of
the settlement and dismissal of the case.  The Court directed
class counsel to prepare correspondence to be submitted and
approved by the Court and then to be resubmitted to the remaining
potential opt in class members before the Court makes a final
ruling on the fairness of the settlement and issuance of an order
of final dismissal.  Said correspondence was mailed to the
remaining potential opt in class members on April 23, 2013.  Based
on the Court's earlier Order Preliminarily Approving the
Settlement, the Company is optimistic that the Court will
ultimately issue a Final Order approving the settlement and
dismissing the case with prejudice.

In connection with the settlement, the Company recorded a charge
to operations of $993,386 during the quarter ended September 30,
2012, as this amount, as ordered by the court, will cover the full
settlement of all claims of opt in claimants, class counsels'
attorneys' fees, and class administration costs in accordance with
the terms of the agreement.

Tandy Leather Factory, Inc., is an international specialty
retailer and wholesale distributor of leather and leathercraft
related items.  The Company markets its products through company-
owned retail and wholesale stores.  The Company is a Delaware
corporation based in Fort Worth, Texas.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls YARIS Model
---------------------------------
Starting date:                 July 3, 2013
Type of communication:         Recall
Subcategory:                   Car
Notification type:             Safety Mfr
System:                        Steering
Units affected:                16
Source of recall:              Transport Canada
Identification number:         2013227
TC ID number:                  2013227
Manufacturer recall number:    212

Makes and models affected

   Make        Model         Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----         ----------------------
   TOYOTA      YARIS         2012

The Wall Street Journal reported that Toyota is recalling about
185,000 vehicles world-wide due to a faulty computer system in the
power steering.

Toyota will recall about 109,000 Vitz compacts -- known as the
Yaris overseas -- in Japan, North America, Europe, the Middle
East, Latin America and Africa, according to the WSJ.


TOYS R US: Recalls Remote-Controlled Helicopters
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Toys R Us, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,500 in the U.S.
and 900 in Canada remote-controlled 3 channel helicopters.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The rechargeable battery inside the helicopters can overheat,
posing fire and burn hazards to consumers or nearby items.

Toys R Us has received 11 reports worldwide of the rechargeable
battery overheating.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Fast Lane FA-005 Radio Control 3-Channel
Helicopter with Gyro Stabilizer and Charger, model number 5F5F2F5.
The model number is printed on the front of the product packaging
and on the underside of the helicopter.  The double-rotor
helicopters are blue and white, approximately 9-inches high and
have the Fast Lane logo on the top of the helicopter.  They were
sold with a remote control unit, a battery charger and a carrying
case.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/4LbEdF

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys R Us stores nationwide and online at
http://www.toysrus.comfrom September 2012 through January 2013
for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the remote-controlled
helicopter and return all components to a Toys R Us store for a
full refund or store credit.


UNITED STATES: FBI No Contact Yet With Groups in IRS Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Howley, writing for The Daily Caller, reports that Federal
Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service investigators
working on the federal government's probe into the IRS targeting
scandal have not contacted any of the conservative groups involved
in a class-action lawsuit against the tax agency.

"No one from the FBI or the IRS investigative team has contacted
any of the 41 conservative groups we represent or any of our
attorneys," American Center for Law and Justice spokesman Gene
Kapp told The Daily Caller.  ACLJ is representing tea party and
other conservative groups in the lawsuit.

At least five different IRS offices in Cincinnati, Ohio;
Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Laguna Niguel and El
Monte, California; improperly demanded extensive information from
conservative groups applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status
between 2010 and 2012.  The IRS demanded copies of training
materials distributed by conservative groups, as well as personal
information on college interns and even the contents of a
religious group's prayers.

FBI director Robert Mueller and acting IRS commissioner
Danny Werfel have both launched investigations into the matter,
but have not contacted any of the conservative groups involved in
the ACLJ's class-action suit.

The IRS targeting scandal broke in the media in early May.
Mr. Mueller was excoriated by Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio
at a June 13 hearing for knowing very little about his own
bureau's investigation into IRS conduct.

"You've had a month now to investigate.  This has been the biggest
story in the country and you can't even tell me who the lead
investigator is.  You can't tell me the actions the inspector
general took which are not typically how speculation.  This is
what happened," Mr. Jordan said to Mr. Mueller.

Acting IRS commissioner Werfel also garnered criticism from
congressional investigators at a June 6 hearing for knowing little
about the scandal he is investigating.

"I have been here for two weeks.  There is a lot to cover.  I am
not ready to make assurances because I have not completed the
review," Mr. Werfel said at the hearing in response to a tough
line of questioning from North Carolina congressman Mark Meadows.


UNITED STATES: Sen. Paul's NSA Class Action Sparks Political Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe A. Wolverton, II, writing for The New American, reports that
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is actively seeking co-plaintiffs in a
class action suit he plans to file against the National Security
Agency (NSA).

In a press conference held earlier this month, Paul explained the
central charge in his complaint:

The fourth amendment states clearly that warrants must be specific
to the person and the place.  A court order that allows the
government to obtain a billion records a day and does not name an
individual target is clearly beyond the scope of the fourth
amendment.  So far we have over 250,000 people who have signed up
to challenge the constitutionality of the generalized warrants.
If anyone with a cellphone wants to be part of the lawsuit they
should go to RandPac.com.

Today, anyone looking up RandPac.com will be presented with a pop-
up offering the opportunity to join the lawsuit.

Paul is not new to the defense of the Fourth Amendment.  Since
arriving in the Senate in 2011, the son of former congressman Ron
Paul, has made a habit of championing the Constitution and
challenging violations of that document.

Something that is new to the senator, however, is campaigning for
president.  If the reports are to be believed, though, he will
soon become very familiar with the rigors of running that
particular gauntlet.

During a recent appearance at a Republican event in West Columbia,
South Carolina, Paul demonstrated a deftness that should serve him
well come 2015.

Part of the presidential pas de deux that Paul will need to
perfect before officially putting his name on the ballot for 2016
is distinguishing himself from his famous father without
alienating the elder Paul's legions of faithful followers.

On July 29, the Daily Beast reported on Paul's speech in the
Palmetto State.  The political blog played up the distinctions
between Ron and Rand.  In the story, the Daily Beast said the
"undertones" of the address were "unmistakable" and that Paul's
primary point was to declare to the 100 GOP activists in
attendance: "Rest assured: I'm not my father."

Of course, Senator Paul said no such thing.  What is unmistakable
is that the overtone of the Daily Beast article is meant to create
a chasm between son and sire -- a chasm that doesn't exist.

Consider this sample paragraph from the piece:

Paul is well-aware of his dad's reputation in the Palmetto State.
Former Rep. Ron Paul barely competed in the 2012 primary here
largely because his isolationist worldview was deemed a non-
starter in a place home to eight military bases.  In order to be
competitive here three years from now, Rand knows he needs to
vanquish Ron's long shadow.

The Daily Beast claims that "gone were Paul's barbs about the IRS,
his musings about diversifying the party and his lengthy critique
of the immigration bill that's dominated Congress for the first
half of the year.  Even his standard line of attack against
Hillary Clinton was subdued."

Logically, then, the Daily Beast is asserting that burdensome
taxes, the conversion of the IRS into a political torture device,
and Hillary Clinton's failure to protect U.S. diplomats and
servicemen serving at the Benghazi, Libya, consulate would not
play well in a state renown for its long history of military
service.

Yet, the Daily Beast reports, Paul "earned audible accolades for
his call to sever foreign aid to hostile countries."

Has such a call not been a plank in the Ron Paul platform for
decades?

"We rarely seem to hear the view of those who support the US side
and US interests.  I am on that side. I believe that we can no
longer police the world.  We can no longer bribe the Israelis and
Palestinians to continue an endless "peace process" that goes
nowhere.  It is not in our interest to hector the Palestinians or
the Israelis, or to "export" democracy to the region but reject it
when people vote the 'wrong' way," Ron Paul wrote in 2011.

If Rand Paul were trying to run from his libertarian leanings,
standing up for 13 hours in the Senate and demanding due process
for those being targeted in the U.S. drone war is probably not the
way to do it.

And, the fact is, that during his speech in South Carolina, Rand
Paul didn't pander or pretend he favors cutting defense spending.

"People say, you're not going to go to South Carolina and talk
about waste in the military, are you? There's waste everywhere.
Anybody's ever been in the military knows there's waste. Doesn't
mean I'm against national defense.  National defense is the most
important thing we spend money on," Paul explained.

The author of the Daily Beast piece is not convinced.  David
Catanese claims that Paul's speech in South Carolina exposes a
potential weakness that can be exploited by rivals in 2016.  The
flaw, Mr. Catanese says, is that "Paul has morphed into a
panderer, all too willing to tweak his positioning in the pursuit
of politics."

What the Daily Beast seems not to understand is that when it comes
to delivering the message of constitutional conservatism, focusing
is not the same as faking.

In not one of the excerpts of Paul's speech reprinted in the Daily
Beast piece does Rand Paul retreat from any of his policy
positions -- even the most libertarian ones.

For example, the blog post tries to distinguish Paul's South
Carolina talking points from those delivered in early primary
states, Iowa and New Hampshire.

In May, Paul began the 2016 tour with an appearance at a Lincoln
Day dinner in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Throwing substantial slabs of red meat to the GOP activists
gathered to hear the senator, Paul took aim at an easy target:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Speaking of the Benghazi
terrorist attack that resulted in the death of four Americans,
Paul said, "First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell
were the Marines?" Paul's pillorying of Clinton demonstrates an
impressive political savvy.  A new Quinnipiac poll shows Clinton
leading Iowa voters by a narrow 46-42 percent margin.

Regarding a potential Clinton-Paul contest in 2016, Quinnipiac
reports: "In general Sen. Paul appears to be the better GOP
candidate at this point in Iowa.  Part of the reason may be the
publicity from his recent high-profile visit to the state, but
more likely is that he begins with a solid base of support -- the
folks who voted for his father in the 2008 and 2012 caucuses."

First-in-the-nation primary state New Hampshire was the second
stop on Paul's tour to soften the beach for a White House invasion
in 2016.  As with Iowa, Paul can likely count on his father's
supporters in the Granite State as well.  The senator seemed to
recognize this, claiming, "We've had a lot of friends up here for
years."

Curiously, CNN accuses Senator Paul of trying to ride his father's
coattails.  CNN reckons that the friends referenced in Paul's New
Hampshire statement "are likely the libertarian minded activists
who backed his father's campaign for president -- many of whom
attended the fundraiser."  In 2012, Paul's iconic father -- Ron
Paul -- finished second behind eventual Republican nominee Mitt
Romney in the GOP New Hampshire primary, garnering nearly 57,000
votes or 22.89 percent of the total votes cast.

The bottom line is Rand Paul is not his father, never claimed to
be his father, and voters shouldn't expect him to be.  Regardless,
there will always be platoons in the Ron Paul army that are on the
verge of not only deserting the Rand Paul camp, but of trying him
for treason.

One unapproved comment, one word of perceived partisanship, one
hint of straying from the Ron Paul party line and this group
charges Senator Paul with neocon sympathies and calls for his head
on a silver charger.

Rand Paul isn't flying under false colors.  He is a self-described
"constitutional conservative" who has a record to run on, and it's
a record that holds undeniable appeal to a burgeoning battalion of
Americans tired of a president and a Congress determined to race
toward tyranny.

There's no denying, however, that those who prefer their
presidents "progressive" will print anything that will paint Paul
as an apple that has fallen far from the tree.

In a statement to The New American in May, Senator Paul said he
will not make a decision on 2016 until sometime in 2014.


VICTORY SECURITY: Faces Second Possible Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling and David Conti, writing for TribLIVE, report that a
company owned by a Carnegie businessman whose dealings with
Pittsburgh police helped touch off a federal investigation now
faces a second possible class-action suit from some current and
former employees.

A former road supervisor for Victory Security Agency claims the
company illegally avoids paying overtime through a bookkeeping
practice.

Mark A. Thomas of Pittsburgh says in the proposed federal class-
action lawsuit filed on July 2 that he worked for Victory Security
for six years.  He and more than 100 others weren't paid overtime
because the company didn't combine hours they worked at different
sites in the same week, the lawsuit says.

Mr. Thomas' lawyer, Gary Lynch, couldn't be reached for comment.

Mr. Thomas is suing Victory Security Agency L.P., Victory Security
Agency Inc., Victory Security Agency II LLC and Victory Security
Agency III LLC.

The lawsuit says Arthur Bedway owned and controlled those
companies until recently when Aaron Kellington, president of
Victory Security Agency III, bought the subsidiary and converted
it to Kellington Protection Service LLC.  The name changed on
Dec. 17, according to Department of State records.

A spokesman for Mr. Kellington couldn't be reached, nor could
Anthony Patterson, the lawyer who handles Mr. Bedway's civil
cases.

A pending federal class-action lawsuit against Victory Security
claims the company requires employees to work without pay before
and after regular shifts by having them do such things as check
equipment and meet with supervisors. The company denies it
required employees to work without pay.

A grand jury indicted Mr. Bedway, 63, of Robinson in November on
seven charges, conspiracy, bribing a city official and five counts
of mail fraud.  Prosecutors say Mr. Bedway in 2006 set up Alpha
Outfitters LLC as a female-owned business so he could obtain a
city contract to install computers in police cruisers.  He paid a
city official to help him rig the bid, prosecutors say.

His lawyer in the case, Martin Dietz, has said Mr. Bedway and
prosecutors are negotiating details of a guilty plea.

An investigation of the contract led to an investigation of the
Mayor Luke Ravenstahl administration and city police department.
A grand jury in February indicted former police Chief Nate Harper,
60, of Stanton Heights for using public money for personal
expenses and failing to file income tax returns.

Mr. Harper's attorneys have said he intends to plead guilty and is
cooperating with investigators.


VISION QUEST: Recalls 2,400 Van Gogh Plasma Television
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 2, 2013
Posting date:             July 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34361

Affected product: Van Gogh Plasma Television

The recalled product is a Van Gogh 42-inch plasma television
identified by model number 1700 and product number PVQ42VGB.  The
televisions were manufactured in October 2007.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/TDV2PZ

The recalled products are not authorized to bear the TUV Rheinland
certification mark.

Vision Quest has not received any reports of injuries or damage.

Health Canada has received one report of a melted plug with no
subsequent injury or damage.

Approximately 2,400 units of the recall televisions were sold in
Canada at Wacky's, Future Shop and Staples.

The affected televisions were manufactured in China and sold from
2007 through 2009.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Dolby Laboratories
                    San Francisco
                    California
                    UNITED STATES

   Importer         Vision Quest
                    Hagersville
                    Ontario, CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled televisions
and contact Vision Quest by telephone at 1-800-665-8505 for more
information.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Can Stay in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit
ruled on July 2 that a putative class action alleging Vital
Pharmaceuticals Inc. falsely marketed its Zero Impact protein bars
can stay in federal court, saying Vital showed there was at least
$5 million in controversy as required by the federal Class Action
Fairness Act.

A three-judge panel's published ruling reversed a California
federal judge's order that remanded Gabe Watkins' suit back to
state court, with Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas and Barry G.
Silverman siding with Vital's argument that a declaration by
Vital's controller stating that nationwide sales of Zero Impact
bars for the past four years exceeded $5 million was enough to
establish that CAFA's $5 million requirement for establishing
federal court jurisdiction was met.

Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher concurred in part and dissented in
part, saying it was not clear that the lower court had even
considered the controller's declaration and that he did not
believe the declaration was sufficient, as a matter of law, to
establish that Vital "met its burden of proving the amount in
controversy by a preponderance of the evidence."

Judge Fisher said he would vacate the lower court's order and
remand the case for the federal court to determine whether, in
light of the controller's declaration, Vital had met its burden on
CAFA's $5 million floor.

In the suit he lodged in state court in September, Mr. Watkins
alleges that Vital improperly marketed its Zero Impact protein
bars as having little to no impact on consumers' blood sugar and
insulin.

The complaint says the bars actually contain large amounts of
undisclosed sugars and carbohydrates, and that Vital's alleged
failure to properly label those components made the Zero Impact
products' labeling false and misleading, as well as dangerous to
diabetics.

Mr. Watkins brought his suit on behalf of a nationwide class of
thousands of consumers, according to his complaint, which stated
that the aggregate damages the proposed class sustained "are
likely in the millions of dollars."  The complaint seeks damages,
restitution, disgorgement and attorneys' fees and costs.

Vital removed the case to federal court in October, and filed two
declarations in support of its assertion that CAFA's $5 million
amount in controversy requirement was satisfied, the July 2 ruling
said.

One declaration was from Vital's controller and the other was from
its trial counsel, who said there was a legal certainty that there
was more than $5 million at stake because the complaint alleges
that the likely aggregate damages were in the millions and sought
restitution, disgorgement of profits and attorneys' fees based on
bar sales to thousands of U.S. consumers.

The district court remanded the action to state court, saying that
Vital had just said in its notice of removal that sales of the
bars for the last four years exceeded $5 million and that the
trial counsel's affidavit only vaguely and conclusorily alleged
that the $5 million requirement was met.  The order made no
mention of the declaration submitted by Vital's controller, the
July 2 ruling said.

The Ninth Circuit panel reversed the remand order and sent the
suit back to the federal court with instructions to exercise
jurisdiction over the case.

Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to requests
for comment on July 2.

Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Barry G. Silverman and Raymond C. Fisher
sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.

Vital is represented by Richard H. Nakamura Jr. --
rnakamura@mpplaw.com -- Anthony G. Brazil -- abrazil@mpplaw.com --
and David J. Vendler -- dvendler@mpplaw.com -- of Morris Polich &
Purdy LLP.

Watkins is represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Mark L. Godino and Casey E. Sadler --
csadler@glancylaw.com -- of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

The case is Watkins v. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc., case number
13-55755, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Big Bear ATVs Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Yamaha announced a voluntary recall of about 100 Yamaha All-
Terrain Vehicles (ATVs).  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The front shock absorber can break apart and cause the driver to
lose control of the vehicle, posing a crash hazard.

Yamaha is aware of 14 incidents of the front shocks braking apart.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled vehicles are four-wheeled 2012 Yamaha Big Bear 400
ATVs.  The model numbers YFM40FBBGR, YFM40FBBL and YFM40FGBGR can
be found on the left and right side panels of the unit.  The ATVs
are blue, green or camouflage and have black gear racks on the
front and back.  The words Yamaha Big Bear can be found on both
sides of the ATV and the fuel tank.  The VIN number is stamped on
the frame just behind the front left wheel.  The letter "C" in the
10th position of the VIN indicates the ATV was made in 2012.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/QWukuJ

The recalled products were manufactured in United States.  Yamaha
ATV is sold at dealers nationwide from August 2012 to May 2013 for
between $6,500 and $7,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ATVs and
contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair.
Yamaha is contacting its registered owners directly.  Contact
Yamaha immediately at (800) 962-7926 anytime or online at
http://www.yamahamotorsports.comand under the Outdoors tab click
on Parts and Service, and then click Factory Modification
Campaigns and select the Big Bear 400.


* Eastern Cape Teachers Mull Class Action Over Back-pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Legalbrief Today, citing Daily Dispatch, reports that unpaid
teachers in the Eastern Cape are contemplating class action to
force the department to cough up for years of back-pay.

"The department has delayed paying and does not communicate with
us or the schools to indicate when they will be paid," Grahamstown
Legal Resource Centre attorney Sarah Sephton said.  "The biggest
losers are the teachers, especially in the poorer schools which
could not afford to pay a normal teacher's salary."  She said some
teachers worked almost an entire year for R11 000 or less.  "The
only option is for teachers to claim for unpaid salaries and we
are considering a class action to address this issue."  According
to the report, Ms. Sephton said the department was doing the same
thing this year as last -- leaving thousands of unfilled posts,
forcing teachers to either work for nothing or get a small
stipend.  "The biggest winner is the department, which boasts
about saving money and not paying teachers as being a good thing.
It is a disgrace."


* New Zealand Woman Joins Class Action Over Surgical Mesh Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nita Blake-Persen, writing for NewstalkZB, reports that a New
Zealand woman is taking legal action after suffering complications
from surgical mesh that was inserted inside her during surgery.

Since 2010 ACC has received 341 claims for compensation after
people who had the mesh used on them and endured major
complications.

Carmel Berry has now joined a class-action lawsuit in the United
States, which is taking action against five different
manufacturers of the surgical mesh.

Ms. Berry's lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan says the product didn't come
with the appropriate warnings.  She says women who were implanted
with the product weren't properly warned about the risks involved,
and therefore weren't able to make an informed decision about its
use.


                             *********

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  * * *