CAR_Public/130710.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 10, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 134

                             Headlines


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Claims for $54.5-Mil.
AUSTRALIA: Court Dismisses Bushfire Class Action Appeal
BEL AIR LIGHTING: Recalls 1,540 Portfolio Nine-Light Chandeliers
BISON: Recalls 19 Multiple Trailer Models
BRE BANK: Polish Consumers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Suit

CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Howard" Suit
CHINA EDUCATION: Has Paid All Payments Required Under Settlement
CHINA NATURAL: Defends "Kousa" Shareholder Suit in Delaware
CHINA NATURAL: Securities Suit Administratively Closed in April
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 311 Units of 4500 and 5500 4WD Models

CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 25,546 Units of Cars, SUVs
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 105 SUV COMPASS Model
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 20,895 Units of Light Trucks & Vans
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 216 Units of Grand Cherokee
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 49,282 Minivans

CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 40 Grand Caravan, and Town & Country
COSTA CONCORDIA: Suits Remain in Miami-Dade Circuit Court
CR BARD: Vaginal-Mesh Devices Unsuitable for Humans
CRAVE BROTHERS: Recalls Les Freres Cheese Products
DUTCHMEN: Recalls 49 Aspen Trail, Coleman and Dutchmen Trailers

E-SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Illegal Software Installation
EMERALD GRAIN: Grain Growers Mull Class Action Over Pool Estimates
ESEA: Faces Class Action Over Bitcoin Malware Scandal
FLEETWOOD: Recalls 4 Units of American Eagle Motorhomes
FORD MOTOR: To Recall 13,100 Vehicles Over Door Latch Safety Risk
GOOGLE INC: Judge Okays $6-Mil. Spam SMS Class Action Settlement

HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Gets Favorable Ruling in Accutane Class Action
HOME HARDWARE: Recalls 1,500 GBG Power Pressure Washers
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
HUBBARD FEEDS: Recalls Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125
JP MORGAN: Court Overturns FX Rate Class Action Ruling

KANEBO: Recalls 450,000 Blanchir Superior Range
KBR SPORTS: Recalls 750 Hockey Hot Locker & Allsport Hot Locker
MADISON, AL: Clerk Faces Class Action Over $150 Filing Fee
MCDONALD'S CORP: Payroll Cards Under Scrutiny by New York's AG
MEDTRONIC INC: Study Raises Questions on Previous Infuse Research

MILO'S KITCHEN: Judges Refuses to Dismiss Dog Treats Class Action
MONSTER ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Energy Drink-Related Deaths
NAGLE & ZALLER: Settles Debt Collection Class Action for $300,000
NBC UNIVERSAL: Unpaid Interns File Class Action
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Justice Officials to Tackle Letter Issue

OLIVE HILL, KY: Class Action Oral Arguments Scheduled for Aug. 19
OVERHILL FARMS: Appeal From Denial of Class Cert. Remains Pending
OVERWAITEA FOOD: Recalls Western Family Seasoned Stuffing Mix
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Unused Vacation Time
QC HOLDINGS: Awaits Appellate Decision in North Carolina Suit

QC HOLDINGS: Defends "Stemple" Class Action Suit in California
QC HOLDINGS: Direct Credit Still Defends "Lee" Suit in Canada
RADIOSHACK: Settles Class Action for $5.3 Million
RIDEAU REGIONAL: Ontario Gov't Drags Heels on Abuse Class Action
ROSS STORES: Faces $3.9MM Fine Over Defective Children's Clothing

SAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: DOJ Files Suit Over Unapproved Drugs
STANDARD & POOR'S: Faces Class Action Over Inflated RMBS Ratings
SUBAYE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SWEDISH HEALTH: Uninsured ER Patients' Class Action Can Proceed
TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Awaits Ruling in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit

TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Bid for Review in NJ Carpenters Suit Denied
TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Bond Suit Settlement Hearing on July 23
TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Dismissal of Two Antitrust Suits Affirmed
THE HARTFORD: Dickinson Wright Discusses Class Action Ruling
TRANS1 INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit

TULSA, OK: Families of Jail Inmates Join Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Les Freres Cheese Over Listeria Presence
ZERO: Recalls 13 FX and XU Motorcycle Models

* FDA Issues Warnings About Dangerous Slimming Products
* Firms May Use Well-Crafted Arbitration Clause v. Class Actions
* Hamburg Files Suit v. Sanford Over Class Action Fee Deal
* Major Food Companies Face Class Actions Over Labeling
* NBC Lists Notable Recalls in Recent History

* Third-Party Telemarketers Still Liable Under New TCPA Rules
* Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Also Causes Nonphysical Complications


                             *********


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Claims for $54.5-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a unit of Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. said it has agreed to pay $54.5 million to
settle some of the thousands of lawsuits in North America that it
is facing over injury claims stemming from the use of transvaginal
surgical mesh products.

Endo unit American Medical Systems Inc. announced the settlement
in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 20.  The company did not disclose how many
cases would be resolved by the agreement, in which the company did
not admit any liability or fault.

AMS estimated its potential liability as of March 31 from all
current and future vaginal mesh cases to be at least $160 million,
according to another SEC filing.  Settlement details were not
disclosed.

AMS is one of several companies facing thousands of lawsuits over
transvaginal mesh devices in U.S. state and federal courts, as
well as Canada. The devices are designed to treat pelvic organ
prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

Market data submitted to the FDA showed that in 2010,
approximately 300,000 women underwent surgery for pelvic organ
prolapse, and roughly one in three of those used mesh.  That same
year, about 260,000 women underwent surgery for stress urinary
incontinence, 80 percent of which involved transvaginal mesh.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits have alleged a variety of injuries
stemming from the devices, including chronic pain and
incontinence.

In 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notified
transvaginal mesh manufacturers about reports of potential
complications stemming from the devices.  In 2012, the agency
ordered AMS and other transvaginal device makers to conduct post-
market safety studies and monitor the rate at which adverse events
were reported.

AMS said it has been hit with thousands of lawsuits since 2008 and
expects the number to climb, according to a regulatory filing from
May.  As of April 26, there were approximately 7,700 mesh cases
pending against AMS, Endo and certain subsidiaries, an SEC filing
said.

A spokesman for Endo did not immediately return a request for
comment on June 21.


AUSTRALIA: Court Dismisses Bushfire Class Action Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Port Lincoln Times reports that the Full Court of the Supreme
Court of South Australia has dismissed an appeal against a Supreme
Court decision to allow the Black Tuesday class action.

Marko Visic appealed a decision by Supreme Court Justice Malcolm
Blue authorizing farmer Robert Proude to bring an action against
the County Fire Service and Mr. Visic -- whose car exhaust is
believed to have started the fire -- as a class action on behalf
of all of the landholders who suffered property loss or damage
caused by the Wangary bushfire.

Mr. Visic submitted that Mr. Proude had only started a personal
action within the six year limit of action and the authorization
of the class action was made more than six years after the fire.

However the Full Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with Justice
Blue that the action commenced when Mr. Proude filed the
originating process.


BEL AIR LIGHTING: Recalls 1,540 Portfolio Nine-Light Chandeliers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2013
Posting date:             June 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Tools and Electrical
                          Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34289

Affected products: Portfolio nine-light chandelier


BISON: Recalls 19 Multiple Trailer Models
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Recalls Audit
System:                   Other
Units affected:           19
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013237TC
ID number:                2013237

Affected products:

   Make            Model           Model year(s) affected
   ----            -----           ----------------------
   BISON           STRATUS         2013, 2013, 2013
   BISON           STRATUS LITE    2013
   BISON           STRATUS MS      2013
   BISON           TRAIL EXPRESS   2013
   BISON           TRAIL HAND      2013
   BISON           TRAVELER        2013

On certain horse trailers with living quarters, the electrical
motor for the awning could become damaged, allowing the awning to
unfurl unexpectedly.  As a result, the awning could strike another
vehicle, a stationary object, or a bystander, causing property
damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the awning motor.


BRE BANK: Polish Consumers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eversheds International disclosed that in the judgment announced
on July 3 in the case brought by a group of 1,247 consumers
against BRE Bank, one of the leading banks in Poland, the court
found that BRE Bank collected some portions of loan installments
from the consumers in the group unlawfully, and such amounts must
be refunded with statutory interest.

After a 2 1/2 year dispute, the court issued a judgment that will
surely bring well-deserved satisfaction to the consumers who are
members of the group involved in the case.  The group members
consistently and patiently sought to vindicate their rights, which
were upheld today by the court.

Iwo Gabrysiak -- iwo.gabrysiak@eversheds.pl -- attorney at law,
comments: "Although the judgment is not yet legally final, it
demonstrates that thanks to the new Class Action Act, consumers
can appear in court as the equals of institutions such as banks
and other large companies."


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Howard" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Francis Howard,
according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On October 12, 2012, Francis Howard ("Howard"), individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. (The "Company"), Michael D. Pruitt,
Eric S. Lederer, Michael Carroll, Paul I. Moskowitz, Keith Johnson
(The "Individual Defendants"), Merriman Capital, Inc., Dawson
James Securities, Inc. (The "Underwriter Defendants"), and Creason
& Associates P.L.L.C. (The "Auditor Defendant"), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The class
action lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against all Defendants, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act against only the Underwriter Defendants, and
violations of Section 15 against the Individual Defendants.
Howard seeks unspecified damages, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, and such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.  On October 15, 2012, the Honorable
Judge James I. Cohn filed an Order setting the Calendar Call for
the case for June 13, 2013, and the Trial Date for the trial
period commencing on June 17, 2013.  On October 31, 2012, the
Company and the Individual Defendants retained Stanley Wakshlag at
Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. to represent them in this litigation.
Requests by the Underwriting Defendants for indemnification were
denied.  On November 2, 2012, the Company filed a Joint Motion to
Extend Deadline to Respond to Class Action Complaint, requesting
that the Company's responsive pleading deadline be delayed until
after a lead Plaintiff is named.  That Motion was approved, and on
December 12, 2012, Howard filed a Motion to Appoint himself Lead
Plaintiff and to Approve his Selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
as his Counsel.  An Order appointing Francis Howard and the Rosen
Law Firm as lead Plaintiff and lead Plaintiff's Counsel was
entered on January 4, 2013.  Therein, Judge Cohn also reset
Calendar Call for October 10, 2013; trial was reset for the two-
week period commencing October 15, 2013.

On February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
On April 5, 2013, the Company, Individual Defendants, and the
Auditor Defendant (separately) filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Action; the Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Chanticleer
Defendant's (and Auditor Defendant's) Motions to Dismiss on
April 22, 2013.  On May 9, 2013, the Company and Individual
Defendants filed a Reply Memorandum of Defendants Chanticleer
Holdings, Inc., Michael D. Pruitt, Eric S. Lederer, Michael
Carroll, Paul I. Moskowitz, and Keith Johnson in Support of Their
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.  Judge Cohn
has yet to make a ruling on the Motions.

Given that the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, and
the early stage of this class action, the Company can neither
comment on the probability of potential liabilities, nor provide
an estimate of such.  As of March 31, 2013, no amounts have been
accrued for related to this matter.

Charlotte, North Carolina-based Chanticleer Holdings, Inc., owns
and operates Hooters franchises internationally.  Hooters
restaurants are casual beach-themed establishments with sports on
television, jukebox music, and the "nearly world famous" Hooters
Girls.


CHINA EDUCATION: Has Paid All Payments Required Under Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Education Alliance, Inc., disclosed in its May 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that all payments required
under its settlement of a consolidated securities lawsuit have
been made by its insurance carrier.

The Company was named as a defendant in two putative class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The first action, Apicella v. China Education
Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS)(JCx), was filed on
December 2, 2010; the second action, Clemens v. China Education
Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09987 (JFW) (AGRx), was filed on
December 28, 2010.  On March 2, 2011, the two actions were
consolidated as In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS) (JCx) (C.D. Cal.).  The
plaintiffs alleged that the Company and certain of its past and
present officers and directors were liable under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions in the
Company's public filings between 2008 and 2010 and in an investor
conference call in December 2010.  The plaintiffs also asserted
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the individual defendants as persons who allegedly
controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions were made.  The Company and
the individual defendants denied these allegations.  The Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on October 11, 2011, but subsequently dismissed one of the
Company's directors.

The parties agreed to settle the consolidated class action
lawsuit, and the Court entered an order granting final approval to
the parties' settlement agreement on March 13, 2013.  The time to
appeal from the Court's final approval order has expired, with no
appeals having been taken.

All payments required under the settlement agreement have been
made by the Company's insurance carrier.

China Education Alliance, Inc. -- http://www.edu-chn.com/--
formerly known as ABC Realty Co., was organized in North Carolina
in 1996 and is headquartered in Harbin, China.  The Company
distributes educational resources through the Internet.  The
Company's Web site is a comprehensive education network platform,
which is based on network video technology and large data sources
of education resources.  The Company also provides on-site
teaching and training services and have training facilities in
Heilongjiang and Beijing, in China.


CHINA NATURAL: Defends "Kousa" Shareholder Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Natural Gas, Inc., is defending itself against a shareholder
class action lawsuit brought by Kousa, Mallano and Steinmetz,
according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On May 22, 2012, Kousa, Mallano and Steinmetz, shareholders of the
Company ("Delaware Plaintiffs"), filed a putative Shareholder
Class Action and Derivative Complaint ("Delaware Complaint")
against the Company and certain members of the Company's Board
("Delaware Director Defendants") in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  The Delaware Complaint alleges a direct class
action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Delaware
Director Defendants, a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Delaware Director Defendants, and a separate
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Qinan Ji,
the Company's former chief executive officer.  The Delaware
Complaint alleges that the Delaware Director Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by
preserving Ji's control over the Company despite his alleged
wrongdoing and the threatened delisting of the Company's shares by
NASDAQ, thereby causing the Company's shares to be delisted.  The
Delaware Complaint separately alleges that Ji engaged in self-
dealing and other conduct that breached his fiduciary duties to
the Company and its shareholders.  The Delaware Complaint seeks
certification of a class action, authorization to proceed as a
derivative action, and unspecified money damages, including
attorneys' fees and costs.  The claims are directed against the
individual defendants and not against the Company.

China Natural Gas, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware
on March 31, 1999.  The Company through its wholly owned
subsidiaries and variable interest entity (VIE), Xi'an Xilan
Natural Gas Co., Ltd. (XXNGC) and subsidiaries of its VIE, which
are located in Hong Kong, Shaanxi Province, Henan Province and
Hubei Province in the People's Republic of China (PRC), engages in
sales and distribution of natural gas and gasoline to commercial,
industrial and residential customers through fueling stations and
pipelines, construction of pipeline networks, installation of
natural gas fittings and parts for end-users, and conversions of
gasoline-fueled vehicles to hybrid (natural gas/gasoline) powered
vehicles at automobile conversion sites.


CHINA NATURAL: Securities Suit Administratively Closed in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuit against China Natural Gas,
Inc., was administratively closed in April 2013, according to the
Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 26, 2010, an individual investor filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors alleging that the defendants
violated the U.S. securities laws.  The lawsuit is captioned
Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., et al. (Skeway v. China
Natural Gas, Inc.) (Case No. 1:10CV00728, United States District
Court for the District of Delaware).  The Court appointed another
individual investor as lead plaintiff, and he then filed an
amended complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss which,
on July 6, 2012, the Court granted in its entirety.  In its order,
the Court also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  In the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege
that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder), the defendants made false or
misleading statements in the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K
for the years ended December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010, and
in various quarterly reports, by purportedly failing to disclose a
series of loans and related party transactions.  The second
amended complaint also asserts claims against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors for violations
of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.  On September 25,
2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

On April 1, 2013, the Company notified the Court that certain of
the Company's creditors had filed an involuntary petition for
bankruptcy and that, under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the filing of
that petition operates as an automatic stay of the lawsuit.  On
April 12, 2013, the Court entered an order administratively
closing the case and directing the parties to notify the Court
when either the bankruptcy litigation had been resolved or one of
the individual defendants was served, so that the Court could
reopen the case or take other appropriate action.

At the time the Court administratively closed the case, the
Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was fully
briefed but had not yet been decided by the Court.  The Company
cannot at this time provide any assurance that the outcome of this
lawsuit will not be materially adverse to its financial condition,
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or business
prospects.

China Natural Gas, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware
on March 31, 1999.  The Company through its wholly owned
subsidiaries and variable interest entity (VIE), Xi'an Xilan
Natural Gas Co., Ltd. (XXNGC) and subsidiaries of its VIE, which
are located in Hong Kong, Shaanxi Province, Henan Province and
Hubei Province in the People's Republic of China (PRC), engages in
sales and distribution of natural gas and gasoline to commercial,
industrial and residential customers through fueling stations and
pipelines, construction of pipeline networks, installation of
natural gas fittings and parts for end-users, and conversions of
gasoline-fueled vehicles to hybrid (natural gas/gasoline) powered
vehicles at automobile conversion sites.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 311 Units of 4500 and 5500 4WD Models
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               July 4, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:           Safety Mfr
System:                      Suspension
Units affected:              311
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013232
TC ID number:                2013232
Manufacturer recall number:  N41

Affected products:

   Make     Model     Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----     ----------------------
   RAM      4500      2013
   RAM      5500      2013

On certain four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicles, incorrect fasteners
may have been used to secure the rear suspension track bar to the
chassis during the assembly process.  As such, the fasteners may
break or detach from the vehicle while driving.  This could result
in a loss of vehicle control and a crash causing property damage
and/or personal injury.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the track bar
fasteners at the chassis connection.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 25,546 Units of Cars, SUVs
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               July 4, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 Car, SUV
Notification type:           Safety Mfr
System:                      Airbag
Units affected:              25,546
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013231
TC ID number:                2013231
Manufacturer recall number:  N38

Affected products:

   Make         Model         Model year(s) affected
   ----         -----         ----------------------
   DODGE        AVENGER       2011, 2012, 2013
   CHRYSLER     SEBRING       2011, 2012, 2013
   DODGE        NITRO         2011, 2012
   JEEP         LIBERTY       2011, 2012
   CHRYSLER     200           2011, 2012, 2013

On certain vehicles, the airbag warning lamp may illuminate due to
an electrical fault within the Occupant Restraint Control (ORC)
module.  As a result, the Active Head Restraints (AHR) may not
deploy during a rear impact collision (where deployment is
warranted), which could increase the risk of personal injury to
the front seat occupants.

Dealers will reprogram the Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM)
or replace the ORC module, as required.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 105 SUV COMPASS Model
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:               July 4, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 SUV
Notification type:           Compliance Mfr
System:                      Lights and Instruments
Units affected:              105
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013233
TC ID number:                2013233
Manufacturer recall number:  N43

Affected products:

   Make    Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----    -----        ----------------------
   JEEP    COMPASS      2014

Certain vehicles equipped with bi-function halogen projector
headlamps fail to comply with the requirements of Canada Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective
Devices.  The Daytime Running Lamp (DRL) function may have been
incorrectly configured during the vehicle assembly process.  A
lack of DRL illumination could render the vehicle less visible to
other motorists and to pedestrians during daylight hours, possibly
resulting in a crash causing property damage and/or personal
injury.

Dealers will modify the Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM)
configuration settings.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 20,895 Units of Light Trucks & Vans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               July 4, 2013
Starting date:               July 4, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 Light Truck & Van
Notification type:           Safety Mfr
System:                      Other
Units affected:              20,895
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013230
TC ID number:                2013230
Manufacturer recall number:  N37

Affected products:

   Make       Model            Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----            ----------------------
   RAM        1500             2013

On certain four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicles, the Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) module was incorrectly configured during
the manufacturing process.  This could cause a loss of ESC
function and trigger the ESC warning lamp to illuminate.  Loss of
ESC could increase the risk of a crash, which may result in
property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will reprogram the ESC module with updated software


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 216 Units of Grand Cherokee
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               July 4, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 SUV
Notification type:           Compliance Mfr
System:                      Lights And Instruments
Units affected:              216
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013234TC
ID number:                   2013234
Manufacturer recall number:  N42

Affected products:

   Make       Model            Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----            ----------------------
   JEEP       GRAND CHEROKEE   2014

Certain vehicles equipped with premium headlamps fail to comply
with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108
Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices.  The headlamp LED
signature ring parking lamp function may inadvertently be disabled
by the Central Body Controller (CBC).  A lack of park lamp
illumination could render the vehicle less visible to other
motorists and to pedestrians, possibly resulting in a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will reprogram the CBC with updated software.

Affected products:

   Make           Model              Model year(s) affected
   ----           -----              ----------------------
   CHRYSLER       TOWN & COUNTRY     2013
   DODGE          GRAND CARAVAN      2013
   RAM            CARGO VAN          2013

Certain vehicles may experience unintended airbag deployment in
some side impact collisions. The airbag on the side opposite to
the collision could deploy and could increase the risk of occupant
injury.

Dealers will reprogram the Occupant Restraint Control (ORC) module
with updated software.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 49,282 Minivans
---------------------------------------
Starting date:                July 4, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Minivan
Notification type:            Safety TC
System:                       Airbag
Units affected:               49,282
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013235TC
ID number:                    2013235
Manufacturer recall number:   N44

Affected products:

   Make        Model               Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----               ----------------------
   CHRYSLER   TOWN & COUNTRY       2013
   DODGE      GRAND CARAVAN        2013
   RAM        CARGO VAN            2013

Certain vehicles may experience unintended airbag deployment in
some side impact collisions.  The airbag on the side opposite to
the collision could deploy and could increase the risk of occupant
injury.

Dealers will reprogram the Occupant Restraint Control (ORC) module
with updated software.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 40 Grand Caravan, and Town & Country
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                 July 4, 2013
Type of communication:         Recall
Subcategory:                   Minivan
Notification type:             Safety Mfr
System:                        Airbag
Units affected:                40
Source of recall:              Transport Canada
Identification number:         2013236
TC ID number:                  2013236
Manufacturer recall number:    N48

Affected products:

   Make          Model             Model year(s) affected
   ----          -----             ----------------------
   CHRYSLER      TOWN & COUNTRY    2013
   DODGE         GRAND CARAVAN     2013

On certain vehicles, the Occupant Restraint Control (ORC) module
was configured with incorrect software during the manufacturing
process.  As a result, airbags may not deploy as intended during a
crash (where deployment is warranted), which could increase the
risk of personal injury to the seat occupant.

Dealers will replace the ORC module.


COSTA CONCORDIA: Suits Remain in Miami-Dade Circuit Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Otero Valdes, writing for The Maritime Executive, reports
that after Carnival's cruise ship Costa Concordia ran aground off
the coast of Italy, two separate actions were filed by groups of
56 and 48 plaintiffs in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit of Florida (Miami state court).

Carnival removed both actions to the federal district court,
claiming that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction
under the mass-action provision of the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4.  The Plaintiffs moved
for remand to the state court on the ground that the district
court lacked jurisdiction and the district court granted the
motion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Scimone v.
Carnival Corp., Docket No. 13-12291 (Jul. 1, 2013) affirmed the
federal district court, concluding that the cases were
improvidently removed and should have been remanded where, under
the plain language of CAFA and 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(11), the district
court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' two
separate actions unless they proposed to try 100 or more persons'
claims jointly.

As noted by Judge Marcus, the plaintiffs "never filed a single
complaint naming 100 or more plaintiffs and never moved for
consolidation or a joint trial on part or all of their two
separate actions."  Without meeting those conditions, Judge Marcus
found the district court had no federal subject matter
jurisdiction.


CR BARD: Vaginal-Mesh Devices Unsuitable for Humans
---------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Murray Hill-based CR Bard Inc. sold
vaginal-mesh devices made of a plastic that its manufacturer
warned wasn't suitable for human implantation, according to
unsealed court records.

Managers at Bard's Davol unit used a resin-based plastic made by a
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. unit to produce hernia-repair mesh
after the material's supplier officially registered a warning that
it shouldn't be permanently implanted in people, according to
e-mails and documents in a lawsuit over Bard's implants.
Plaintiffs suing Bard contend the same mesh was used in some of
Davol's vaginal-mesh products.

In 2004 and 2007 e-mails filed in federal court in West Virginia,
a Davol executive warned colleagues not to tell Chevron Phillips
or other resin makers that the company was using the material in
medical devices placed in humans.

Suppliers such as Chevron Phillips "will likely not be interested
in a medical application due to product-liability concerns," Roger
Darois, the Davol executive, now a Bard vice president, said in a
March 2004 e-mail.  "It is likely they do not know of our implant
application.  Please do not mention Davol's name in any discussion
with these manufacturers."

Lawyers for thousands of women who blame Bard's Avaulta line of
implants for their injuries said the files show Davol officials
knew the resin-based mesh wasn't proper for human implantation and
tried to cover up their use of the material.

In a statement on June 25, Bard, which is located in Union County,
didn't respond to a question about its desire to keep the
information from suppliers.  Company officials declined to
elaborate on the statement.

Bard faced a July 8 trial in Charleston, West Virginia, over
claims its mesh device harmed Donna Cisson, 54.

"During the upcoming trial, Bard will provide all the relevant
evidence for the jury to consider and render a decision, which
will demonstrate that Bard acted appropriately in its acquisition
of polypropylene resin," Scott Lowry, a Bard vice president, said
in the June 25 e-mailed statement.

"We believe that the Avaulta polypropylene mesh implant is a safe
and effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse when used in
accordance with its instructions," Mr. Lowry said.  "To this day,
after more than 50 years of use, polypropylene remains one of the
most widely implanted and best materials for mesh products in
medical applications in the human body."

Mr. Lowry didn't comment on the e-mails filed in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled June 4 that the e-mails
regarding the resin-based mesh raised "a genuine issue of material
fact about whether Bard was aware its conduct was practically
certain to cause injuries."

Lawyers for Ms. Cisson, who lives in Georgia, planned to use the
e-mails in the July trial over whether the Avaulta design was
defective and Bard failed to warn of the risks.  Ms. Cisson claims
the device caused her pain, bleeding and bladder spasms that
required follow-up surgeries.

She can seek punitive damages if jurors hold Bard liable for
compensatory damages and find the company's conduct justifies the
additional award, the court ruled.

Judge Goodwin is overseeing 20,000 lawsuits against Bard, Johnson
& Johnson, Endo Health Solutions Inc.'s American Medical Systems,
Boston Scientific Corp., Coloplast Corp. and Cook Medical Inc.
alleging injuries from vaginal mesh implants.  The companies have
denied wrongdoing in court filings.

Ms. Cisson's case will be the first against any of those companies
to go to trial before Judge Goodwin, who is coordinating the
pretrial exchange of information.

Three more "bellwether trials" involving Bard's vaginal inserts
are scheduled before Goodwin after Ms. Cisson's case.  The trials
will be used to gauge the validity of the two sides' conflicting
claims.

The women who sued contend erosion of the inserts, designed to
shore up weakened pelvic muscles and treat urinary incontinence,
can cause organ damage and bleeding and make sexual intercourse
painful.  They said the meshes, threaded in place through vaginal
incisions, degrade and shrink over time.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials estimate that 300,000
women had pelvic organ prolapse surgery in 2010 and mesh was used
in a third of the procedures.  Agency data showed more than
250,000 incontinence surgeries for women that year, about 80
percent involving vaginal-mesh implants, the FDA said.

The agency last year ordered Bard, J&J and other mesh makers to
make three-year studies of rates of organ damage, infection and
painful sex linked to the devices after women's groups called for
their removal from the market.

J&J, based in New Brunswick, said last year it would stop selling
four lines of vaginal-mesh implants after complaints and lawsuits
about the devices. The company acted for reasons unrelated to
safety concerns, it said at the time.

A jury in Atlantic City decided in February that J&J and its
Ethicon unit must pay more than $11 million in damages to a woman
who blamed the company's Gynecare Prolift implant for her
injuries.

A California state court jury last year awarded $3.6 million to a
woman who blamed Bard's Avaulta Plus implant for injuring her.  It
was the first such case to be tried in any court.  The Avaulta
inserts, sold in the U.S. since 2005, were pulled off the market
last year.

A Bard official said in a January 2012 internal e-mail that, in
response to the FDA ordering safety studies on vaginal- mesh
devices, the company planned to pull Avaulta devices off the
market that year.

The company "is simply making a business decision not to invest in
clinical trials on this product," Brenda Hammans, a vice
president, said in the e-mail.

In Ms. Cisson's case, the Georgia woman alleged the Avaulta
device, inserted in May 2009, caused pelvic and rectal pain,
bleeding and bladder spasms and required surgeries to remove.

Goodwin unsealed Bard documents and witness depositions about how
its vaginal-mesh products were designed, tested and marketed.
Ms. Cisson's lawyers fault Bard for not testing the mesh on people
before selling it. Plaintiffs' lawyers obtained e-mails in the
pretrial exchange of information with the company.

Medical companies have used polypropylene for years to make items
such as sutures, catheters and artificial-heart components because
the material is considered to be "biocompatible" and won't be
rejected by the human body.

Ms. Cisson's lawyers said in court papers that Phillips Sumika, a
Woodlands, Texas-based unit of Chevron Phillips Chemical, filed a
required safety data document, called a "Material Safety Data
Sheet," with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration about the Marlex polypropylene used in some Bard
hernia and vaginal implants.

On the 2007 document's front page, Phillips Sumika put a "Medical
Application Caution" about the product.  Chevron Phillips is a
petrochemical venture involving U.S. oil producer Chevron Corp.
and refiner Phillips 66.

"Do not use this Phillips Sumika Polypropylene Co. material in
medical applications involving permanent implantation in the human
body or permanent contact with internal body fluids or tissues,"
according to the disclosure unsealed in Ms. Cisson's case.

"Do not use this Phillips Sumika Polypropylene Co. material in
medical applications involving brief or temporary implantation in
the human body or contact with internal body fluids or tissues
unless the material has been provided directly from Phillips
Sumika Polypropylene Co. under an agreement that expressly
acknowledges the contemplated use," according to the warning.

The caution stated that the resin-based plastic "may react with
oxygen and strong oxidizing agents, such as chlorates, nitrates
and peroxides."  Ms. Cisson's lawyers said human bodies can
produce such oxidizing agents and the reaction can cause the mesh
to erode.

Despite the warning, officials of Cranston, Rhode Island- based
Davol purchased Phillips Sumika's resin-based plastic from other
companies that bought it in their own names, according to Ms.
Cisson's lawyers.  Davol used the material as the base for hernia-
repair and vaginal-mesh devices, the attorneys said in court
papers.

Mr. Darois, the Davol executive, told colleagues in a Nov. 27,
2007, e-mail that a Jarden Corp. unit involved in the mesh
manufacturing process refused to continue working on the material
once it learned Phillips Sumika barred its use in medical devices.

Managers at the Jarden unit "obtained a copy of Phillips MSDS data
sheet which specifically discloses that this resin should not be
used for medical implants," Mr. Darois said in the e- mail,
referring to the material safety data sheet.

That prompted the company to renege "on a prior verbal commitment
to supply one last run" of material used in the mesh, he said.
Jarden's Shakespeare Co. subsidiary, based in Columbia, South
Carolina, makes materials used in fishing line and other products
containing polypropylene.

In another e-mail the same day, Jim Brann, now Bard's director of
business development, told Mr. Darois and other company officials
that Shakespeare's managers refused to continue working on the
Phillips Sumika plastic even after Davol executives agreed to
cover any resulting legal costs or damages.

The Jarden unit's officials "responded that under no circumstance,
even with indemnity from us" would they produce another shipment
of the mesh material, Brann said.

Alecia Pulman, a spokesman for Rye, New York-based Jarden, didn't
immediately return a call and an e-mail seeking comment on the
refusal to continue working with Bard's mesh.  Jarden is the maker
of Crock-Pot Slow cookers and Mr. Coffee machines.

Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan business professor, said the
Avaulta case shows an abuse of the 510(k) process.

"The alleged conduct is unconscionable," Mr. Gordon said in an e-
mail. "How can anyone ever trust a company that knowingly
disregards safety warnings from its own supplier and covers up its
conduct?"

The judge also unsealed Bard officials' and medical experts'
pretrial testimony on the lack of human testing of the mesh before
the company began selling it in the U.S. in 2005.

The mesh was cleared through the FDA's 510(k) system, which allows
medical devices to reach the market without human testing if
regulators decide they're similar to products already for sale.
JNJ, Bard and other competitors already had vaginal-mesh inserts
on the market when the Avaulta Plus insert Ms. Cisson received was
approved in 2007, according to court filings.

"The FDA cleared Bard's mesh devices after scrutiny of Bard's
submission, including substantial biocompatibility testing, just
as the FDA had already cleared dozens of other companies' mesh
products made of polypropylene," Mr. Lowry, the Bard spokesman,
said in the company's statement.

Jim Ross, a Salinas, California-based gynecologist who worked as a
Bard consultant on the vaginal implants, testified in a deposition
that he suggested clinical trials of the devices, to no avail.

"I felt at least a pilot study would have been good to do," he
said.

Mr. Ross said he and Bard officials concluded the vaginal-mesh
technology was developing so quickly that a multiyear clinical
trial wouldn't be worthwhile.

"We were able to determine that it was going to cost several
million dollars and there was no way that we could do it, collect
the evidence, write it up and get it in publication for probably
three to four years minimum," Ross said. "The field was moving so
rapidly" that the results would be outdated by that time, he said.

Melissa Johnson, a Bard manager involved in the marketing of
vaginal-mesh implants, testified that doctors and company
salespeople asked for clinical-trial results showing Avaulta was
superior to competing implants.

"There wasn't anything published that I was at liberty to
provide," she said.

Robert Orr, a Bard manager who helped oversee product research,
said in a deposition that a company study of vaginal mesh in sheep
didn't yield needed data on its use in women.

"I would say it gives you an indication of how the body will
incorporate it and the type of response that you will achieve,"
Orr testified, referring to a clinical trial.  "Does it totally
simulate the clinical response? No, it's not the whole product."


CRAVE BROTHERS: Recalls Les Freres Cheese Products
--------------------------------------------------
Crave Brothers Farmstead Cheese Company is issuing a voluntary
recall for three specialty cheese products while regulatory
agencies continue a multi-state investigation of Listeria
monocytogenes.  This organism can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

The products recalled are:

Les Freres (LF225 2/2.5#) with a make date of 7-1-13 or prior,
packaged in white plastic with a green and gold label.  Petit
Frere (PF88 8/8 oz) with a make date of 7-1-13 or prior, packaged
in small round wooden boxes.  Petit Frere with Truffles
(PF88T 8/8 oz) with a make date of 7-1-13 or prior, packaged in
small round wooden boxes.  These products were distributed
nationwide through retail and foodservice outlets as well as by
mail orders.

Crave Brothers was informed by regulatory agencies of an ongoing
investigation related to potential health risks associated with
Listeria monocytogenes.  The company immediately ceased the
production and distribution of the products.  Pictures of the
Products are available at:

                         http://is.gd/X0gMXZ

"We are cooperating with the regulatory agencies' ongoing
investigation of the cause of the potential health risks," said
George Crave, president.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged not
to consume them.  They can return the cheese to the place of
purchase for a full refund or discard it.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 920-478-4887, Monday-Friday
from 8 am to 5 pm.


DUTCHMEN: Recalls 49 Aspen Trail, Coleman and Dutchmen Trailers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                July 3, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Travel Trailer
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Fuel Supply
Units affected:               49
Source of recall:             Transport CanadaI
Identification number:        2013228TC
ID number:                    2013228
Manufacturer recall number:   13-195

   Make        Model         Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----         ----------------------
   DUTCHMEN    DUTCHMEN      2013, 2014
   DUTCHMEN    COLEMAN       2013, 2014
   DUTCHMEN    ASPEN TRAIL   2013, 2014

On certain travel trailers, the propane hose inside the cooktop
may suffer heat damage and melt.  This could result in a propane
gas leak which, in the presence of an ignition source, could
result in a fire or an explosion, causing property damage and/or
personal injury.

Dealers will replace the rubber propane hose with a copper line.


E-SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Illegal Software Installation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gallette, Jackson Smith, and Roy Han, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. E-Sports Entertainment,
LLC, and Does 1-20, Case No. CGC-13-532593 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., July 3, 2013) is brought for the alleged
fraudulent and illegal installation of damaging software onto the
Plaintiffs' computer systems, the harm done to their computers,
the conversion of their compute resources, trespass to chattels,
and fraud in connection with computers.

The Defendants surreptitiously and without permission installed on
the Plaintiffs' computers software used to mine the electronic
currency Bitcoin, the Plaintiffs allege.  By doing so, the
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants used, without permission
and without recompense, the Plaintiffs' compute resources to
enrich themselves at the expense of the Plaintiffs, and damaging
the Plaintiffs' computers in the process.

Kevin Gallette is a citizen of California was a resident of the
City and County of San Francisco during all times relevant to the
action.  He is currently a resident of Los Angeles County.
Jackson Smith is a resident of Lancaster, located in Los Angeles
County in California.

Roy Han is a citizen and resident of the city of Murrieta, located
in Riverside County in California.  The Plaintiffs are registered
account holders with esea.net

E-Sports is a New York corporation that operates the Web site
http://www.esea.net/throughout California and the United States,
and the world.  ESEA provides, among other services, computer
software and online gaming services targeted to online gaming
enthusiasts.  The Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
          E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
                  jed@arnslaw.com
                  srw@arnslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jaffe, Esq.
          JONATHAN JAFFE LAW
          3055 Hillegass Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94705
          Telephone: (510) 725-4293
          E-mail: jmj@jaffe-law.com


EMERALD GRAIN: Grain Growers Mull Class Action Over Pool Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Annabelle Homer, writing for ABC Rural, reports that a group of
Western Australian grain growers has called on legal experts to
investigate the possibility of a class action against grain
marketing company Emerald Grain.

Growers are upset that the pool estimates were vastly different to
payments made by the company in the 2011/2012 pool.

Growers who deliver to a pool receive average price estimates
throughout the season, but its exposed to market fluctuations that
effect the end payment.

Earlier this year Emerald's general manager Tom Howard admitted
the pool had underperformed and the losses had run into millions
of dollars.

It's not just an issue in Western Australia, as Emerald's dealings
spread right across the eastern states including South Australia.

Lawyer with Granich Partners Nathan Draper says some growers have
lost up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The legal firm is
now asking farmers to contribute $1000 each to continue the case
and take it to the next step.

A number of South Australian growers have contacted Grain
Producers SA over the matter.

GPSA did not want to comment at this time but has recommended that
growers seek all avenues to find out what they're entitled to.

Grain market strategist Malcolm Bartholomeaus says it wasn't just
Emerald that was offering payments much lower than they're
estimates in the 2011/2012 pool, other pool operators were in the
same position.

Emerald Grain supplied a statement saying "We accept that it is a
pool participant's right to seek whatever recourse they consider
appropriate."

"From a legal perspective it is important to note that pools don't
guarantee a return and an EPR is only ever an estimate, this is
made very clear in the terms and conditions.

"Our only advice would be that any growers seeking this course of
action to seek independent legal advice before spending
significant money on legal costs.

"Because some of the initial reporting in the media misrepresented
the actual pool returns we have been communicating directly with
growers to make them aware of their individual position.

"We remain available to discuss these matters with any of our
customers.

"We remain committed to supporting our grower customers in Western
Australia and will continue to work with growers in whatever way
we can."


ESEA: Faces Class Action Over Bitcoin Malware Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Peel, writing for PCGamesN, reports that long-serving
eSports organization ESEA tarnished its name earlier this year by
allowed unsuspecting players using their client to host bitcoin
mining malware.  The incident, which admins originally dismissed
as an April Fools gone wrong, went on for more than two weeks
before players began to notice their graphics cards were melting.

Co-founder Eric Thunberg initially pleaded ignorance, before
owning up and pledging any cash made via the malware to the
American Cancer Society.  But users were understandably none too
happy, and have pushed ahead with legal proceedings against the
service.

The lawsuit has been drawn up for three claimants, Kevin Gallette,
Jackson Smith and Roy Han, "on behalf of all others similarly
situated" in California.

Though the exact nature of the claim isn't apparent from its first
page, the three men are seeking damages and demanding a trial by
jury, citing laws including the Californian Consumer Protection
Against Computer Spyware Act, Unfair Competition, Fraud,
Conversion and Product Liability, among others.

The total value of the bitcoins mined during the course of the
scam was $3,713.55.  ESEA have since promised to add the same
amount to their Season 14 League prize pot, and will donate double
that to the American Cancer Society.

In his final statement on the matter in May, Mr. Thunberg admitted
that ESEA had been testing the malware, but blamed its actual use
on an errant employee.

"What transpired the past two weeks is a case of an employee
acting on his own and without authorization to access our
community through our company's resources," he wrote.  "We are
extremely disappointed and concerned by the unauthorized actions
of this unauthorized individual.  As of this morning, ESEA has
made sure that all Bitcoin mining has stopped.

"ESEA is also in the process of taking all necessary steps
internally to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again."


FLEETWOOD: Recalls 4 Units of American Eagle Motorhomes
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              June 25, 2013
Starting date:              July 3, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Motorhome
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Steering
Units affected:             4
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013226TC
ID number:                  2013226
Manufacturer recall number: RSB13-250-001

Affected products:

   Make        Model              Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----              ----------------------
   FLEETWOOD   AMERICAN EAGLE     2012, 2013

On certain motorhomes, incorrect front outer wheel bearings may
have been installed during the assembly process.  This may result
in excessive movement of the wheel hub, which could cause the
bearing to become overheated and worn.  Bearing failure can cause
a wheel-end fire, which could result in property damage and/or
personal injury.

Spartan authorized repair facilities will inspect and, if
necessary, replace the front outer wheel bearings.


FORD MOTOR: To Recall 13,100 Vehicles Over Door Latch Safety Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Henkel and David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News,
report The Ford Motor Co. said on June 27 it will recall about
13,100 vehicles for door latches that may fail and cause child
safety locks to deactivate.

The Dearborn automaker will recall three 2013 model-year vehicles
-- the Explorer SUV, Taurus sedan and Lincoln MKS sedan -- built
at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant.

Upon opening or closing a door, the child safety lock may change
from "activated" to "deactivated."

Ford said that no accidents or injuries have been reported.

As part of the recall, dealers will test rear door latches and
child safety locks, and replace the latch if necessary.  The
affected vehicles, sold in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, were built
between Nov. 29 and Dec. 12, 2012.

The problem was first discovered on Dec. 6 during a routine audit,
the latch supplier identified a latch with lower-than-expected
child safety lock retention torque.  On Dec. 7, Ford's Chicago
Assembly Plant was notified of the condition and a stop-ship was
issued.

Ford spent months testing the issue, using accelerated testing on
each vehicle line.

This is not the first time that Ford has recalled model year 2013
Explorer, Taurus and Lincoln MKS vehicles.  In May, those three
vehicles -- plus other 2013 models including the Ford Flex, Fusion
and Police Interceptor utilities and sedans, and the Lincoln MKT
and MKZ -- were among 465,000 vehicles recalled after 600 fuel
leak complaints.  Approximately 390,000 of those recalled vehicles
were sold in the U.S.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Okays $6-Mil. Spam SMS Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that a
federal judge has approved a class-action settlement requiring
Google to pay $6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that its
apps company, Slide, spammed people with SMS messages.

The deal calls for Google to pay up to $500 to people who received
unwanted messages, and $1.5 million to the class-action lawyers
who brought the case.  Any leftover money will be donated to the
International Association of Privacy Professionals.

"The settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in
the best interests of the settlement class," U.S. District Court
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, Calif. wrote in an order
granting final approval to the deal.  "The complex legal and
factual posture of this case, and the fact that the settlement
agreement is the result of arms' length negotiations presided over
by a neutral mediator support this finding."

The settlement stems from a class-action filed by consumers Nicole
Pimental and Jessica Franklin, who alleged that Disco (Slide's
group messaging app) violates the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by using an automated dialing service to send SMS messages to
people without first obtaining their consent.  Disco allows
individuals to send group texts to up to 99 people at one time.

Recipients can opt out, but can't prevent the initial message from
arriving.  The company allegedly sent a total of 400,000 spam SMS
messages to around 186,000 telephone numbers, according to the
court papers.  Ms. Pimental and Ms. Franklin were represented by
attorney Jay Edelson, who has filed privacy lawsuits against
numerous Web companies.

Before signing off on the deal, Judge Rogers questioned why the
IAPP should receive any surplus funds.  Trevor Hughes, President
and CEO of the IAPP, responded in court papers that the group
intends to use the funds to create a compliance guide to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Numerous companies --
including Viacom, Facebook, Yahoo and Coca-Cola -- currently face
lawsuits for allegedly sending SMS messages without users'
permission.


HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Gets Favorable Ruling in Accutane Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that a Canadian court has
refused to certify a class action against Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
claiming the acne drug Accutane causes inflammatory bowel disease,
saying plaintiff Yann Lebrasseur had not demonstrated a causal
link between the drug and the condition.

In a June 27 opinion, Judge Manon Savard denied certification to a
proposed class of Quebec citizens who used Accutane and allegedly
suffer from Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, proctitis, rectal
bleeding or certain other bowel diseases.


HOME HARDWARE: Recalls 1,500 GBG Power Pressure Washers
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 5, 2013
Posting date:             July 5, 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-34389

Affected products: GBG Power Pressure Washer

The recall involves GBG Power brand 1500 PSI high pressure washers
with the model number MU1003 and UPC 6943237100010.  The pressure
ashers are yellow and black in colour, with "1500 PSI" marked on
the top of the product in large letters.

The serial numbers affected include 2011090001B to 2011091400B and
from 2012040001B to 2012040400B.

The affected product has a defective carbon brush component in the
motor assembly which could cause the product to overheat and may
pose a fire hazard.

Health Canada and Home Hardware have received one report of a GBG
Power pressure washer overheating and catching fire during use.

Approximately 1,500 units of the affected pressure washers were
sold at Home Hardware stores across Canada.

The affected pressure washers were manufactured in China and sold
from August 2011 to June 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Zhejiang Kingwash Electromachinery Co., Ltd.
                    Juanqiao Jinqing Luqiao Taizhou City
                    CHINA

   Importer         Home Hardware Stores Ltd.
                    St. Jacobs
                    Ontario
                    CANADA

Consumers should stop using the pressure washer immediately and
exchange it a Home Hardware store.

For more information, consumers may contact their local Home
Hardware store. Please visit the firm's website for individual
store hours and contact information.


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On April 27, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company and certain of its executive officers: Steve Silverman
v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-1332.
The complaint generally alleges that, between March 29, 2010 and
April 18, 2012, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making materially false and misleading statements including
certain statements related to the status and viability of the
Tamandua #1 well.  Two additional class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in May 2012.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.  On
September 20, 2012, the court consolidated the class action
lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and on November 15, 2012,
the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On January 14,
2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which remains pending
before the court.

The Company believes all of the claims in the consolidated class
action lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims. It is not possible at this time to predict
the timing or outcome of the class action lawsuits that have or
may be filed.  The Company expects to incur costs and to devote
management time and resources to defending such lawsuits.

Based in Houston, Texas, Houston American Energy Corp. --
http://www.houstonamericanenergy.com/-- engages in the
acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and
production of natural gas and crude oil properties in the U.S.
Gulf Coast region and South America.  The Company's oil and gas
properties are located primarily in the South American country of
Colombia; and in the onshore Gulf Coast region of Texas and
Louisiana.


HUBBARD FEEDS: Recalls Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hubbard Feeds Inc. announced a voluntary recall of one lot of
Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125 NAP/NAB MEDICATED because
of the elevated calcium and phosphorus levels which may be harmful
to chickens and turkeys.  Chickens and turkeys exposed to this
product may exhibit decreased feed intake, decreased growth rate
or death.  If poultry producers observe animals that have consumed
product from this particular lot number and have any of these
symptoms, producers should contact their local veterinarian for
assistance.

The recall is limited to the following item and lot number:

Item No.: 34739-2

Description: Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125 NAP/NAB
MEDCATED (Complete Chicken Starter/Grower/Finisher/Broiler Feed,
Complete Turkey Grower/Finisher).  Pictures of the Products are
available at:

                       http://is.gd/TfYwU9

Lot Number: B00570987

This product was sold in the northern Indiana and Michigan areas
through retail feed stores.  The Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW
AM.0125 NAP/NAB MEDICATED is packaged in 50 lb. bags.  The lot
number B00570987 will be found on the bottom of the label.

Packages associated with this lot number contained levels of
calcium and phosphorus that exceeded formulated nutrient levels.
Several hundred young birds were reported to have died after
consuming product from this lot.  Poultry producers who have
purchased Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125 NAP/NAB
MEDICATED with lot number B00570987 should discontinue use of the
product and return the unused portion to the place of purchase for
a full refund.  Poultry producers with questions may contact
Hubbard Feeds Inc., during normal business hours, Monday through
Friday 8 am - 5 pm, Central Time, 507-388-9645.


JP MORGAN: Court Overturns FX Rate Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Saks McLeod, writing for Forex Magnates, reports that the
July 3 ruling by Senior US Judge Denise Cote to overturn a
putative class action case against JP Morgan Chase & Co represents
a considerable turn of events in favor of the North American
financial giant.

Back in September last year, the State of Louisiana Municipal
Police Employee's Retirement System, the State's police pension
fund referred to by the acronym LAMPERS, filed a class action law
suit against JP Morgan Chase in Manhattan District Court in New
York City, alleging that it manipulated foreign exchange trades in
order to profit commercially to the tune of several million
dollars from the pension fund.

During this period, attorneys acting on behalf of the pension fund
stated that the financial institution abused its superior position
and disregarded its fiduciary duties by extracting inappropriate
fees from its custodial clients, and that rather than disclosing
the profits made from FX trading, the bank combined the exchange
rate and its profit with the conversion rate that it provided to
its clients.

On this basis, it was alleged by the plaintiff that it was
impossible for the pension fund administrators to know that JP
Morgan Chase was extracting profits from indirect FX trading as
well as the actual amount of the profit from such trading that JP
Morgan Chase was extracting for its own benefit.

                   Victory for JP Morgan Chase

In Judge Cote's 44 page ruling, it was added that LAMPERS claims
that it had a reasonable expectation that the bank would not
misrepresent the currency rates were implausible.

Judge Cote dismissed the case against JP Morgan Chase explaining
that "the bank did not misrepresent the rates for the foreign
exchange transactions" during the court hearing.

She continued: "LAMPERS identifies no foundation for its
reasonable expectation that, in addition to reporting the charged
exchange rate, JP Morgan Chase would also reveal its markup on the
indirect FX transactions."

            No Central Location - All Trades Disclosed

According to Judge Cote, "currency trading is a decentralized,
over-the-counter market, which means there is no central location
for buyers and sellers of currencies to do business.  There is
nothing secret about these particular markups, because JP Morgan
Chase disclosed them in public databases as well as on trade
confirmations".

"The relationship of a custodial bank to its client is one of a
depositor to its customer, a relation that does not, without more,
give rise to fiduciary duty" ruled Judge Cote.

The judge also found that the "conclusory allegation that the bank
had substantial discretion in connection with clients' assets is
also unsupported by factual allegations".

Subsequent to the ruling, a jubilant JP Morgan spokesman stated
publicly: "We are gratified by the court's decision and believe it
vindicates our position and our business. The opinion speaks for
itself and we have no further comment".

Conversely, Attorney John C. Browne, acting on behalf of the
plaintiff, has thus far declined comment.

This is the second law suit on the same grounds that has been
dismissed from court.  Senior US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
recently tossed a shareholder derivative suit out of court in a
multidistrict litigation accusing BNY Mellon Corporation of
manipulating FX transactions, ruling that the complaint failed to
demonstrate the bank's executives knew of and allowed the alleged
manipulation.


KANEBO: Recalls 450,000 Blanchir Superior Range
-----------------------------------------------
Japanese cosmetics maker Kanebo has recalled an estimated 450,000
items in Japan after some users complained of white blotches
appearing on their skin, Wall Street Journal reports.

According to the report, the company is also set to take action in
10 other Asian territories where some of these products have been
sold, including Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea, pending
consultations with local authorities.

Kanebo said it was informed in May by a dermatologist that a
female patient who had used one of the products was suffering from
patchy whitening of her skin.  The cosmetics maker looked into the
matter and found that there have been 39 such cases, WSJ said.

WSJ added that the 54 product lines in question, including items
in the Kanebo Blanchir Superior range, all contain an active
ingredient called Rhododenol, developed by Kanebo.  The company
said Japan's health ministry had cleared Rhododenol as a quasi-
drug after extensive testing.


KBR SPORTS: Recalls 750 Hockey Hot Locker & Allsport Hot Locker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 5, 2013
Posting date:             July 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34339

Affected products: Hockey Hot Locker, Allsport Hot Locker

The recall involves the Hockey Hot Locker (also called the
Allsport Hot Locker) used for drying sports equipment (Model
number ASHL-10-01).

The plastic fan blade can separate from the fan motor shaft and
come into contact with the heating element, posing a fire hazard.

KBR Sports Inc. has received two incidents involving minor
property damage with the Hockey Hot Locker product.  No injuries
were reported.

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

Approximately 750 units of the affected products were sold online
through Costco.ca and Walmart.ca and at Jorgenson Companies in the
U.S.A.

The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from
May 2011 to November 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Luoyang Jin Feng Office Furniture Co., Ltd.
                    China

   Distributor      KBR Sports Inc.
                    Milton
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should stop using the Hockey Hot Locker product
immediately and contact KBR Sports.

For more information, consumers may contact KBR Sports by
telephone at 1-888-375-2588 or by e-mail.


MADISON, AL: Clerk Faces Class Action Over $150 Filing Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gattis, writing for AL.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed against Madison County Circuit Clerk Jane Smith
objects to a $150 fee associated with each civil court filing and
argues the fee was ended by the state legislature nine years ago.

The suit was filed in Madison County circuit court.

Ms. Smith's office, however, is continuing to collect the fee even
though the plaintiff, Becky S. McCafferty of Madison County,
contends a 2004 law passed by the legislature ended the practice,
the lawsuit states.

The suit is seeking class action status because more than 1,000
people paid the fee in making initial civil court filings since
Jan. 1, 2006, according to the six-count lawsuit.

With at least 1,000 plaintiffs paying the $150 fee, the collection
would be at least $150,000 that has been funneled to the Madison
County district attorney's office and the Administrative Office of
Courts, the lawsuit said, to pay for personnel and court
officials.

Ms. Smith defended the fee in an email on July 3 to The Huntsville
Times/al.com.

"The Alabama legislature passed the law establishing this fee,"
Smith said in the email. "The Circuit Clerk was not given the
authority to determine if or when this fee was to be lifted. The
Circuit Clerk merely collects and disburses filing fees."

The lawsuit states that an act passed by the legislature on
May 26, 2004, raised filing fees for certain civil cases.  The
same act repealed the $150 fee collected by the Madison County
circuit clerk.

The fee collections would end once the Madison County Commission,
which had advanced $114,406 to the district attorney's office as
well as undetermined funds to the Administrative Office of Courts
to help pay for court officials, was repaid.

That repayment should have been completed by Jan. 1, 2006, the
lawsuit states, but the fees have still been collected ever since.
Ms. McCafferty's complaint with the $150 collection fee stemmed
from a civil court filing she made last month in which she was
required to pay the fee, according to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit
characterized the collection of the fee from Ms. McCafferty as
"contrary to state law, unauthorized, illegal and unconstitutional
and must be refunded."

The lawsuit also asked that a mandatory injunction be issued to
immediately stop the collection of the $150 fee.

Last year, Ms. Smith pleaded guilty to three federal misdemeanor
charges for granting unauthorized access to the Alabama state
court computer system.  She was sentenced to probation for one
year and a $5,000 fine.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Payroll Cards Under Scrutiny by New York's AG
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Silver-Greenberg, writing for The New York Times'
DealBook, reported that New York's top prosecutor is investigating
some of the state's largest employers over their use of A.T.M.-
style cards to pay their hourly employees.

According to the report, the New York attorney general, Eric T.
Schneiderman, has sent letters seeking information to about 20
employers, including McDonald's, Walgreen and Wal-Mart, say people
briefed on the matter.

The inquiry by Mr. Schneiderman comes as a growing number of
companies are abandoning paper paychecks and direct deposit to
offer prepaid cards, the report said.  But consumer lawyers,
employees, and state and federal regulators have said that in the
vast majority of cases, use of the cards can generate a range of
fees -- 50 cents for a balance inquiry and $2.25 for an out-of-
network A.T.M.  Those fees can quickly devour the pay of part-time
and low-wage workers.

And many employees say that they have no alternative, the report
added.  Even at companies where there is a choice, it is often
elusive.  Worried about imperiling their jobs, some employees say
they are terrified of requesting another option, according to
interviews with consumer advocates.  Other employees say that they
are automatically enrolled in the payroll-card programs and forced
to navigate a bureaucratic maze if they want to opt out.

The surge in payroll cards and the problems associated with them
were the subject of an article in The New York Times last week.


MEDTRONIC INC: Study Raises Questions on Previous Infuse Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Walsh, writing for Star Tribune, reports that for years,
spine surgeons praised Medtronic's Infuse in helping to speed
healing and reduce pain after spinal fusion surgeries, saying it
was better than alternatives.  Turns out, they were wrong,
according to a review by Yale University.

Medtronic Inc., the world's largest device maker, commissioned
Yale researchers to oversee two independent reviews of its spinal
fusion product after spine experts and U.S. lawmakers charged that
Medtronic-sponsored studies had overstated benefits and downplayed
the product's risks.

To blunt such criticism, Medtronic offered complete access to its
data and paid $2.5 million to have Yale lead an independent review
of its spinal product, called Infuse.  Yale contracted with
researchers at the University of York in England and at Oregon
Health and Science University (OHSU) to conduct independent
studies.  Both concluded in a report published on June 15 in the
journal Annals of Internal Medicine that there is little to no
difference in effectiveness between Infuse and an older method for
spurring bone growth.

"The review also found 'substantial evidence of reporting bias' in
the previous studies on the product," officials at Oregon Health
and Science University said in a statement.  "The review found
that Medtronic-sponsored publications analyzed or reported results
in biased ways to indicate that it was more effective."

Medtronic said on June 15 that the analyses confirm what the
company has long claimed -- that Infuse is a safe and effective
product for patients, though it emphasized that it poses some
risks that must be considered by patients and physicians.

"We recognize that our products and therapies must have the public
and medical community's trust, and so we will continue to create,
test and explore new ways to make our clinical research
available," Medtronic CEO Omar Ishrak said in a statement.

The FDA approved Infuse spinal fusion in 2002 for use in the lower
back and it has been used on more than 1 million patients.  The
approach  involves the removal of a degenerated disc and the
fusing of adjacent vertebrae to improve stability.  Since its
introduction, sales of Infuse quickly soared, reaching nearly $1
billion a year before falling to $528 million, according to the
most recent company report.

What remains to be seen is whether the Yale project's findings
will further erode Infuse sales.

Findings and ramifications

In fusion surgeries, doctors have typically used graft material
taken from the patient's hip -- called an iliac crest bone graft
-- to promote bone growth and improve stability.

Infuse uses recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-
2), a genetically engineered protein, to stimulate bone growth
instead.  The bioengineered material is inserted into a thimble-
like cage between the vertebrae.

The York and OHSU studies both determined that Infuse did not show
significantly different results from the use of a hip graft.  OHSU
researchers concluded that Infuse has "no proven clinical
advantage," while York researchers found Infuse increased fusion
rates, reduced pain by "a clinically insignificant amount and
increases early post-surgical pain."  There may also be an
increased risk of cancer associated with Infuse, although the risk
was deemed very low.

Officials at the Spine Journal released a statement on June 15,
calling the Yale study the "latest shock" involving Infuse.

"The take-home message from this debacle . . . is that the public
needs better safeguards against conflicted and tainted medical
research," said Dr. Eugene Carragee, editor-in-chief of the
Journal.  He added: "At present, Medtronic-sponsored surgeons may
have to finally retire the line that 'this product is completely
safe, don't worry about it,' but I would not count on it."

Chris O'Connell, Medtronic executive vice president and president
of its restorative therapies group, said the company will continue
to invest in Infuse and that the Yale results are consistent with
Medtronic's original studies -- studies that led to FDA approval
of the product.

There remains an advantage to using Infuse, he said -- the
advantage of not having to do the second surgery to take bone from
the hip. That often leads to more pain and longer recovery for
patients, he said.

When asked what type of impact the Yale study could have on sales,
O'Connell said he expects it to create a discourse among
physicians "so they can use their expertise in the real world and
apply it.  Our belief is that this will generate a very balanced
view."

Dr. Brian Zubac, a spine surgeon in Reston, Va., has used and
researched Infuse.

"It has been the single greatest thing for my practice and my
patients," he said.  "It has revolutionized what I do."

It substantially increases the fusion rate for his patients who
need multiple vertebrae fused, said Dr. Zubac, who added that he
is not compensated by Medtronic and owns no stock.  He has had
good success using it on patients who have had poor surgery
outcomes using a hip bone graft. Now, with the Yale results saying
there is no difference between Infuse and the less expensive hip
graft, he said he worries that insurance won't pay for it. That,
he said, will take a tool out of his hands.

"I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to chop a lot more hip bone
out," he said.

A new fusion option

Trouble emerged for Infuse when allegations surfaced that
Medtronic was coaxing doctors to use it in ways regulators hadn't
approved -- such as in neck surgery. In fact, Infuse was used more
often in such "off-label" procedures, researchers said.  In 2008,
the FDA issued a warning after reports of excessive bone growth
harming patients surfaced. While it isn't illegal for doctors to
use devices as they see fit, companies cannot market unapproved
uses.

Several former Medtronic employees, including the spine business'
onetime general counsel, filed whistleblower lawsuits alleging
that the company courted doctors with rich consulting deals and
perks.

In 2006, Medtronic paid $40 million to settle with the Justice
Department but admitted no wrongdoing. In May 2012, federal
prosecutors closed an investigation of Infuse after finding no
wrongdoing.

In the summer of 2011, a panel of spine experts reviewed the 13
original studies of Infuse and found that authors with financial
ties to the company reported 10 to 50 times fewer complications
with Infuse than were found in FDA reports and in other documents
. Complications include different types of cancer, male sterility,
infection and inappropriate bone growth.  That review was
published in the Spine Journal.  Congress later launched an
investigation.

In October, a U.S. Senate Finance Committee report alleged that
Medtronic was heavily involved in shaping the content of medical
journal articles about Infuse. The report raised questions about
research conducted by physicians who received $210 million in
royalties and consulting fees over 15 years from the Fridley-based
company.

Medtronic denied it improperly influenced peer-reviewed reports or
that it sought to underreport harm.  Medtronic also called the
report's characterization of payments to physicians "misleading
and unfair."  The company said most payments were made to
compensate physicians for their intellectual property rights.

In August 2011, after the Spine Journal published its study,
Medtronic agreed to grant Yale University researchers $2.5 million
to determine the safety and effectiveness of Infuse.  Dr. Harlan
Krumholz, a nationally known physician and advocate of patient
safety and transparency in clinical studies, led the effort as
part of the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) Project.  He
said Medtronic's decision to share its data was unprecedented.
The review raises questions over "how much we know and who is
clearly benefiting from it."

Many clinical studies do not give the whole story about a product,
Dr. Krumholz said.  He hopes that Medtronic's action is repeated
by others as a way to increase transparency and gain public trust.

"My hope is that this catches on.  That this serves as a
catalyst," Dr. Krumholz said.  "My hope is that this can restore
public trust in these companies."

In addition to giving access to its data, Medtronic agreed with
Yale to develop a new program that would publish Infuse data on a
website for use by researchers.


MILO'S KITCHEN: Judges Refuses to Dismiss Dog Treats Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that a federal
judge has refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit that charges
Del Monte subsidiary Milo's Kitchen produced chicken jerky treats
that poisoned and killed dogs, a claim also leveled in many
ConsumerAffairs postings.

"I just had to put my beautiful Shayna down from kidney failure,
and am so irate to find out that it could have been my fault
feeding her something that I thought was natural and from a
company I thought was trustworthy," Leslie of Davie, Fla., said in
a June 2012 posting.

Del Monte recalled the "home-style" dog treats in January after
the New York State Department of Agriculture found trace amounts
of antibiotics in several lots of chicken jerky treats.

The lawsuit, however, concerns a more wide-ranging problem -- one
that the Food and Drug Administration warned pet owners about back
in 2008 and on several occasions since then.  In February, the FDA
said it had received reports of 360 dogs dying and 2,200 becoming
ill after eating jerky treats.

                         Chinese Chickens

Many of the suspect treats are made with chicken from China, which
is not approved for human consumption but can be legally fed to
pets.

In the lawsuit, Lisa Mazur says that her healthy seven-year-old
dog, Riley Rae, suffered kidney failure and had to be euthanized
after eating the Milo's Kitchen treats, and she charges that
despite the FDA warnings, Del Monte did not recall the treats or
put warnings on the packages, Courthouse News Service reported.

"Defendants intentionally concealed known facts concerning the
safety of their dog treats in order to increase or maintain
sales," Ms. 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 company also faces other law suits from pet
owners.

The company moved to have the case dismissed in September 2012 but
U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly recommended that the case
proceed and U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon adopted Judge
Kelly's recommendation.

In the lawsuit, Lisa Mazur says that her healthy seven-year-old
dog, Riley Rae, suffered kidney failure and had to be euthanized
after eating the Milo's Kitchen treats, and she charges that
despite the FDA warnings, Del Monte did not recall the treats or
put warnings on the packages, Courthouse News Service reported.

"Defendants intentionally concealed known facts concerning the
safety of their dog treats in order to increase or maintain
sales," Ms. 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 company also faces other law suits from pet
owners.

The company moved to have the case dismissed in September 2012 but
U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly recommended that the case
proceed and U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon adopted Judge
Kelly's recommendation.


MONSTER ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Energy Drink-Related Deaths
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that a new lawsuit alleges Monster Energy Drink
was involved in a 19-year-old man's death.

The mother of teenager Alex Morris, who died from a cardiac
arrhythmia last year, is blaming his death on Monster Beverage
Corp., alleging in the lawsuit filed on June 25 that his death was
caused by habitually drinking the company's energy drink.  Mr.
Morris went into cardiac arrest during the early morning hours of
July 1 and was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The lawsuit filed in Alameda County Superior Court alleges Morris
would not have died if he did not drink two cans of Monster's
energy drink every day for the three years before his death,
including the day he died.

Mr. Morris' mother, Paula Morris, is listed as a plaintiff in the
case.

An arrhythmia is an electrical problem with the rate or rhythm of
the heartbeat in which the heart can beat too slow or too fast.
During that time, the heart may not pump enough blood to the brain
and other organs, which could result in the loss of consciousness
or death.

The lawsuit comes after the family of 14-year-old Anais Fournier,
of Maryland, also sued the company last year after she consumed
two 24-ounce cans of Monster and died.

"Our allegations in the lawsuits are the same and that's the
peoples deaths were caused by these energy drinks and, more
specifically, the defendants failure to warn about the dangers,"
said Alexander Wheeler, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in
both cases.

Monster representatives did not immediately respond to a message
seeking comment.

The Corona-based company said in March that in Fournier's case, no
blood test was performed to confirm that the girl died of
"caffeine toxicity" as the lawsuit claimed.  The company said it
hired a team of physicians that reviewed her records, and found
she likely died of natural causes brought on by pre-existing heart
conditions.

Monster and other energy drinks have received increased scrutiny
in recent months.  The Food and Drug Administration is
investigating reports of deaths linked to energy drinks, including
five that cite Monster beverages, but the agency noted that the
reports don't prove the drinks caused the deaths.

The agency also has been investigating at least 13 deaths linked
to 5-hour Energy drink.

San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera is also suing Monster
Beverage for marketing its energy drinks to children, saying the
products pose severe health risks.

The American Medical Association last week voted to adopt a policy
supporting a ban of the marketing of energy drinks or shots to
children and adolescents under 18 years old.

"Energy drinks contain massive and excessive amounts of caffeine
that may lead to a host of health problems in young people,
including heart problems, and banning companies from marketing
these products to adolescents is a common sense action that we can
take to protect the health of American kids," AMA board member Dr.
Alexander Ding said in a June 18 statement.


NAGLE & ZALLER: Settles Debt Collection Class Action for $300,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Lavoie, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a
Columbia-based law firm accused of illegally collecting debts from
Maryland residents has agreed to a class action settlement in U.S.
District Civil Court resulting in the total distribution of
$300,000 to approximately 4,000 state residents.

The class action suit claims the law firm, Nagle & Zaller P.C.,
did not have a proper license to collect debts in the state and
conducted "other misleading or improper conduct in the collection
of debts."

The settlement agreement, which was filed on Feb. 4, received
preliminary approval from U.S. District Court Judge William
Quarles Jr. on Feb. 20.  A final approval hearing, where the court
will hear the two objections to the settlements filed by class
members, is scheduled for July 25.

This suit was brought by Elissha Castillo, of Germantown, who
claims she is one of approximately 4,000 state residents Nagle and
Zaller attempted to illegally collect debts from between 2009 and
2012.

All class members are automatically included in the settlement
unless they opt out through written notice.

While Ms. Castillo's original class action complaint sought
damages in excess of $5 million, both parties agreed in February
-- following mediation in December -- that the firm would place
$300,000 in a trust fund to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to
the class action members, according to court records.

In the suit, class members are defined as state residents Nagle &
Zaller collected debts or attempted to collect a debt from between
Aug. 7, 2009 and Aug. 7, 2012.

According to Scott Borison, Ms. Castillo's attorney, the
settlement must receive final approval before the funds can be
distributed.

Phone calls to Nagle & Zaller seeking comment earlier last week
went unreturned.

According to Ms. Castillo's complaint, filed in August of 2012,
the law firm filed a debt collection suit against Castillo in
Frederick County District Court on behalf of Avington Park
Condominium, Inc., in October 2011.

Nagle & Zaller did not hold a collection agency license in the
state at the time the complaint was filed, according to the state
Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.  The law firm
obtained its license, which is required by the Maryland Collection
Agency Licensing Act, on Sept. 28, 2012.

Although the law firm has agreed to the terms of the settlement,
they still deny any wrongdoing, according to court documents.


NBC UNIVERSAL: Unpaid Interns File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
avalanche of lawsuits on the internship front keeps coming.

The latest is a proposed class action against NBCUniversal from
Jesse Moore, who says he worked 24-hour-or-more weeks in the
booking department at MSNBC in 2011, and Monet Eliastam, who says
she worked 25-hour-or-more weeks on the staff of Saturday Night
Live in 2012.

They are being represented by Outten & Golden, the same law firm
that represented two former Black Swan interns in a summary
judgment win against Fox Searchlight last month.

According to the complaint, "By misclassifying Plaintiffs and
hundreds of workers as unpaid or underpaid interns, NBCUniversal
has denied them the benefits that the law affords to employees,
including unemployment, workers' compensation insurance, social
security contributions, and, most crucially, the right to earn a
fair day's wage for a fair day's work."

The plaintiffs believe that the amount of money in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

The latest lawsuit adds to the growing intern-lawsuit canon.  In
recent weeks, Conde Nast, Gawker, Warner Music and others have
been sued for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay minimum wage to interns.  The timing of these
lawsuits is no coincidence after the Fox litigation broke ground
on the subject.  Since then, Hollywood attorneys have been
preparing.

This class action against NBCU alleging violations of the FLSA and
New York Labor Laws estimates hundreds of interns in the proposed
class.  The complaint seeks unpaid wages, interest, and attorneys
fees and costs for interns who worked at NBCUniversal between
July 3, 2010, and the date of a final judgment.

Justin Swartz, attorney for the plaintiffs, says, "We hope that
this case will send a clear message that private companies cannot
rely on unpaid interns to perform entry-level work that
contributes to operations and reduces their labor costs.  Our
clients and other unpaid interns seem to have been as integral to
NBCUniversal's business as other employees, but are different in a
crucial way -- NBCUniversal didn't pay them."

The Labor Department has set forth a six-factor test to determine
whether an internship might be unpaid.  According to the criteria,
employers are supposed to make sure that an internship is similar
to what is given in an educational environment, be for the benefit
of the intern, not displace regular employees, do work that is not
of immediate advantage to the employer, not give any expectation
of job, nor any understanding of entitlement to wages.

In this lawsuit, Mr. Moore says her job responsibilities included
booking cars and travel arrangements for correspondents and guests
on MSNBC's morning programs, answering phones, greeting guests,
researching segment details and providing guests with "dub copies"
of the shows in which they appeared.

Ms. Eliastam, who claims she regularly worked more than 10 hours
in a single day, says her job responsibilities included obtaining
and completing paperwork for "extras" and background actors,
filing, processing petty cash envelopes, going on errands for food
and coffee, locking down the set to make sure there were no
disturbances and assisting at shoots of SNL skits.

Hollywood Reporter reached out to NBCU and will provide any
comment they have.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Justice Officials to Tackle Letter Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Eva Hoare, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that Justice
officials say they'll address a new development in the proposed
class action case involving former residents of the Nova Scotia
Home for Colored Children in court this week, as opposed to filing
written briefs.

A spokesperson for the provincial Justice Department confirmed on
July 4 -- shortly after the 4:30 p.m. court deadline for filing
documents -- that nothing would be entered into the public record.

At issue are two letters, one from the province's own lawyer
fighting the class action, that lawyers for the former residents
want admitted into evidence.

One letter, from government lawyer Peter McVey, dated June 30,
2011, states that the province oversees children's aid societies,
seemingly contradicting the government's main argument against
certifying the former residents' class action.

"Child protection agencies are an administrative agency of
government," Mr. McVey wrote two years ago.

The province has consistently argued that it isn't responsible for
any alleged abuses at the Dartmouth orphanage, suggesting that
children's aid societies were responsible for overseeing the home.
And the province has also said it wasn't responsible for the
societies, which have since been dissolved.

Mr. McVey's letter, which appears to be in direct contrast to
those government arguments, could have a detrimental effect on the
government's case if it's admitted into evidence, legal expert
Wayne MacKay said in an interview last week.

Mr. MacKay, a professor at Dalhousie University's Schulich School
of Law, said it would seem the government is talking out of "two
sides of its mouth."

The McVey letter was written in response to a letter from Ray
Wagner, a Halifax lawyer whose firm, Wagners, represents former
residents.

Mr. Wagner had written to the provincial Community Services
Department expressing concerns about a former staffer from the
home, an alleged abuser, who was driving a day-care bus in East
Preston.

Mr. Wagner said he was worried about the man's proximity to young
children.

Mr. McVey, who received Mr. Wagner's letter from Community
Services, wrote back to say that Mr. Wagner should go to police if
he had such concerns.  But in the same letter, he also spelled out
provincial child protection agencies' domain.

A separate letter, written by a lawyer who formerly represented
the home but is now a judge, reinforced the residents' contention
that the government was in charge.  The home has since settled the
residents' class action lawsuit against it, paying out $5 million.

Mr. MacKay reasoned that Justice Arthur LeBlanc should admit both
letters into evidence as they're "clearly" relevant to the
residents' case.  He said there could be no argument of surprise
as the government has been in possession of both letters since
2011.

           Letter Contradicts Gov't Stand in Abuse Suit

Eva Hoare, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that
provincial lawyers could ultimately put a major dent in their own
case against a proposed class action involving former residents of
the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children, says a legal expert.

The potential ammunition is contained in a letter written by the
same provincial lawyer arguing the province's case against the
residents' claims.

The province has always argued it has never been responsible for
alleged sexual and physical assaults against the children who once
lived at the orphanage, placing any blame on now-dissolved
children's aid societies in Nova Scotia.  And the government has
contended it had no liability for those agencies.

But a letter that provincial lawyer Peter McVey penned in June
2011 appears to directly contradict the crux of the government's
class-action argument when it states the province is in charge of
the societies.

"I am a child-protection lawyer advising and acting for the
minister of community services," Mr. McVey wrote to Halifax lawyer
Ray Wagner, whose firm represents the home's former residents.

"Child protection agencies are an administrative agency of
government, operating solely under the statutory mandate provided
for in the Children and Family Services Act."

Wagners law firm, which represents the former residents will try
this week to have Mr. McVey's and another letter admitted into
evidence as part of their attempts to have the class action case
against the government certified.

Wayne MacKay, a law professor at Dalhousie University's Schulich
School of Law, said if the letters are allowed into court records
they could have a legal impact.

"At a minimum what I think these would do, would at least raise
some reasonable arguments that the position Mr. (Ray) Wagner takes
on behalf of his clients is a legitimate one," Mr. MacKay said in
an interview on July 3 after reading Mr. Wagner's submissions.

"I think it is a blow, because, on a class action certification,
(the justice) doesn't have to decide who is right on this.  McVey
himself, in one letter, (is) suggesting . . . the agencies do seem
to be controlled by the government."

To the public at the least, Mr. MacKay said, the letters would
again place the government "in the position where they seem to be
talking out of both sides of their mouth."

"It certainly leaves the impression that they're contradicting
themselves."

Mr. McVey, one of two government lawyers fighting the proposed
class action in the province's highest court, wrote the letter in
response to Mr. Wagner's concerns about a former staffer of the
home who was discovered to be driving a daycare bus in East
Preston in 2011.

That staffer has been targeted in numerous lawsuits as an alleged
abuser at the orphanage.

Mr. Wagner had written to a Community Services Department worker
that spring to say he was worried about the man's proximity to
young children.  He asked the department to look into the
situation.

Mr. McVey said in his June 30, 2011, letter that any concerns
should go through him and not be directed at the social worker.
Mr. McVey also said if Mr. Wagner was fearful about the well-being
of children, he should go to the RCMP.

In a brief submitted to the court on June 28, Mr. Wagner argued
that the letter proves the province's arguments are in direct
conflict with the sentiments expressed in the letter.

The former residents' lawyers also ask that another separate
letter, from a lawyer then acting for the home, which stated the
provincial Community Services Department would be responsible for
establishing "appropriate standards" at the orphanage. (The home
itself has since settled a class action with the former
residents.)

"The plaintiffs believe it to be in the interests of justice that
two such letters be introduced into evidence for the court's
consideration into whether there is 'some basis in fact' upon
which former residents of the NSHCC (home), placed there by
children's aid societies, can pursue their common issues against
the province," states the Wagners' motion to include the letters.

In an interview, Mr. Wagner said on July 3 "the former residents
welcome any clarification on why the government changes its
position on children's aid societies between 2011 and 2013.  In
our view, the documents speak for themselves."

Mr. MacKay said both letters appear to reinforce the contention
that the government was in charge.  The province cannot likely
raise arguments against admissibility based on the element of
surprise since they've been in the government's possession since
2011, said the law professor.

"They had those documents, (they) were available to them . . .
ever since they were written," he said.  "They should be
admitted."

Mr. MacKay said the documents appear to have "clear relevance and
importance to the plaintiff."

It's possible the provincial lawyers could argue the views
expressed in McVey's letter were purely his own.  But his letter
states McVey is "acting for the Minister Community Services."

Wagners lawyers have asked that the admissibility question be
decided July 9.

The province had until the end of July 3 to respond, but on
July 2, provincial Justice Department officials said they had no
comment, adding the issue would be addressed in court.

The entire case was set to go back to court on July 8 before
Justice Arthur LeBlanc and is expected to last the week.


OLIVE HILL, KY: Class Action Oral Arguments Scheduled for Aug. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Bellamy, writing for Journal-Times, reports that oral
arguments for class action status in a lawsuit filed against the
City of Olive Hill will take place Aug. 19.

Attorneys Mike Fox and Reid Glass are representing those seeking
class action certification in the legal claims of 32 plaintiffs
asking reimbursement from the city because of unlawfully adjusted
electric rates since 2000.

The request for class action status made by Fox and Glass was
heard on July 1 during motion hour in Carter Circuit Court.

Attorneys Jim Deckard and Patrick Flannery, who represent a
separate group in an identical case, also asked to be considered
for class counsel.

The oral argument date was set for summer's end in order to allow
an extension for discovery for the defense, meaning the collection
of supportive evidence.  They were granted 30 additional days to
produce the requested information.

The main source of concern for the discovery period for the
plaintiffs involved the collection of electronic data from two
city employees who recently resigned.

Mr. Deckard requested a motion be filed for preservation of
evidence that may be stored on the work computers of the two
employees in question.  The issue was resolved when it was agreed
that the computers and existing files would be shelved and
secured.

According to the complaint filed in February, the plaintiffs were
unaware that they were being charged excessive fees until the fall
of 2012.

Both suits came in the wake of a Jan. 14 opinion handed down by
the Attorney General's Office of Rate Intervention (ORI).

In that report, ORI Director Jennifer Black Hans asserted that the
city's electric rate ordinance, which had been in effect since
2000, violates KRS 96.534 which requires city-owned utility
companies to hold public hearings before increasing electric
rates.

The suit alleges, among other violations, that the city committed
fraud and violated the Consumer Protection Act by not following
established state law in the setting and adjustment of electric
rates, specifically alleging that the city sought to "evade a
public hearing on proposed increases in rates or fees for electric
utility services."

The complaint requests that all excess fees paid to the city be
returned to the plaintiffs, in addition to their attorney fees,
the cost of the lawsuit, and anything else to which the plaintiffs
are entitled.


OVERHILL FARMS: Appeal From Denial of Class Cert. Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the denial of class certification in a consolidated
class action lawsuit commenced in California remains pending,
according to Overhill Farms, Inc.'s May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On July 1, 2009, Bohemia Agustiana, Isela Hernandez, and Ana Munoz
filed a purported "class action" against the Company, captioned
Agustiana, et al. v. Overhill Farms, in which they asserted claims
for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to furnish wage and hour
statements, waiting time penalties, conversion and unfair business
practices.  The plaintiffs are former employees who had been
terminated one month earlier because they had used invalid social
security numbers in connection with their employment with the
Company.  They filed the case in Los Angeles County on behalf of
themselves and a class which they say includes all non-exempt
production and quality control workers who were employed in
California during the four-year period prior to filing their
complaint.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the conversion claim, and
the motion was granted by the court on February 2, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, Alma Salinas filed a separate purported "class
action" in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company
in which she asserted claims on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated current and former production workers for
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to make payments within the
required time, unfair business practice in violation of Section
17200 of the California Business and Professions Code and Labor
Code Section 2698 (known as the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA")).  Salinas is a former employee who had been terminated
because she had used an invalid social security number in
connection with her employment with the Company.  Salinas sought
allegedly unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, PAGA penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees, the amounts of which are
unspecified.  The Salinas action has been consolidated with the
Agustiana action.  The plaintiffs thereafter dropped their rest
break and PAGA claims when they filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

In about September 2011, plaintiffs Agustiana and Salinas agreed
to voluntarily dismiss and waive all of their claims against the
Company.  They also agreed to abandon their allegations that they
could represent any other employees in the alleged class.  The
Company did not pay them any additional wages or money.

The remaining plaintiff added four former employees as additional
plaintiffs.   Three of the four new plaintiffs are former
employees that the Company terminated one month before this case
was filed because they had used invalid social security numbers in
connection with their employment with the Company.  The fourth new
plaintiff has not worked for the Company since February 2007.

On June 26, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action, and it dismissed the class
allegations.  The five remaining plaintiffs can pursue their
individual wage claims against the Company, but the court has
ruled that they cannot assert those claims on behalf of the class
of current and former production employees they sought to
represent.  The Company believes it has valid defenses to the
plaintiffs' remaining claims, and that the Company paid all wages
due to these employees.

On September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the
denial of class certification.  The case is stayed while their
appeal is pending.

Overhill Farms, Inc. is a Vernon, California-based value-added
manufacturer of high quality, prepared frozen food products for
branded retail, private label and foodservice customers.  The
Company's product line includes entrees, plated meals, bulk-packed
meal components, pastas, soups, sauces, poultry, meat and fish
specialties, and organic and vegetarian offerings.


OVERWAITEA FOOD: Recalls Western Family Seasoned Stuffing Mix
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                     July 5, 2013
Type of communication:             Recall
Alert sub-type:                    Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                       Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:             Class 2
Source of recall:                  Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:                    Overwaitea Food Group
Distribution:                      Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Affected Products: Western Family Seasoned Stuffing Mix

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Overwaitea Food
Group are warning people with allergies to milk not to consume the
Western Family brand Seasoned Stuffing Mix.  The affected product
may contain milk which is not declared on the label.

There has been one reported illness associated with the
consumption of this product.

Consumption of this product may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk.

The importer, Overwaitea Food Group, Vancouver, BC, is voluntarily
recalling the affected product from the marketplace.  The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Unused Vacation Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Taube, writing for Law360, reports that a former Philips
Electronics NA Corp. employee filed a proposed class action
against the electronics and medical technology giant on July 2,
accusing the company of failing to pay former California employees
money they were owed before they were fired or laid off.

Todd O. Crow said in his Los Angeles Superior Court complaint that
his former employer made a habit of failing to pay its employees
for unused vacation time in violation of the California Labor
Code.


QC HOLDINGS: Awaits Appellate Decision in North Carolina Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision in its appeal from
the denial of its motion to enforce its class action waiver and
arbitration provisions in the class action lawsuit pending in
North Carolina, according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr.
Don Early, the Company's Chairman of the Board, were sued in
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by James B. Torrence, Sr., and Ben
Hubert Cline, who were customers of a Delaware state-chartered
bank for whom the Company provided certain services in connection
with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina,
prior to the closing of the Company's North Carolina branches in
fourth quarter 2005.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company
violated various North Carolina laws, including the North Carolina
Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the
North Carolina Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices
statute and the state usury statute, in connection with payday
loans made by the bank to the two plaintiffs through the Company's
retail locations in North Carolina.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company made the payday loans to the plaintiffs in violation of
various state statutes, and that if the Company is not viewed as
the "actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans, its services
to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina
statutes.  The Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class,
unspecified monetary damages, and treble damages and attorney fees
under specified North Carolina statutes.  The Plaintiffs have not
sued the bank in this matter and have specifically stated in the
complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-
state banks to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at
such rates as the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized
by North Carolina and federal law.

In July 2011, the parties completed a weeklong hearing on the
Company's motion to enforce its class action waiver provision and
its arbitration provision.  In January 2012, the trial court
denied the Company's motion to enforce its class action and
arbitration provisions.  The Company has appealed that ruling to
the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  It was expected that the
court will have issued a decision by June 2013.

There were three similar purported class action lawsuits filed in
North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to the
Company.  The plaintiffs in those three cases were represented by
the same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
Company.  Settlements in each of the three companion cases were
reached by the end of 2010; however the settlements do not provide
reasonable guidance on settlements in the Company's case.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, QC Holdings, Inc.,
operates primarily through its wholly-owned subsidiaries.  The
Company derives its revenues primarily by providing short-term
consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The Company earns fees for
various other financial services, like installment loans, credit
services, check cashing services, title loans, open-end credit,
debit cards, money transfers and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: Defends "Stemple" Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., is defending itself from a class action lawsuit
commenced by Paul Stemple in California, according to the
Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 13, 2012, the Company was sued in the United States
District Court for the South District of California in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by Paul Stemple.  Mr. Stemple alleges
that the Company used an automatic telephone dialing system with
an "artificial or prerecorded voice" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.  The complaint
does not identify any other members of the proposed class, nor how
many members may be in the proposed class.  This matter is in the
early stages of litigation.  The Company has filed an answer
denying all claims.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, QC Holdings, Inc.,
operates primarily through its wholly-owned subsidiaries.  The
Company derives its revenues primarily by providing short-term
consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The Company earns fees for
various other financial services, like installment loans, credit
services, check cashing services, title loans, open-end credit,
debit cards, money transfers and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: Direct Credit Still Defends "Lee" Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2011, QC Holdings, Inc. acquired all the
outstanding shares of Direct Credit Holdings Inc., a British
Columbia company engaged in short-term, consumer Internet lending
in certain Canadian provinces.  On October 18, 2011, Matthew Lee,
an alleged Alberta, Canada resident sued Direct Credit, all of its
subsidiaries and three former directors of those subsidiaries in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a purported class action.
The plaintiff alleges that Direct Credit and its subsidiaries
violated Canada's criminal usury laws by charging interest on its
loans at rates higher than 60%.  The plaintiff purports to
represent all Canadian borrowers of the subsidiary who resided
outside of British Columbia.

The Plaintiff seeks (i) class certification for the class, (ii) a
declaration that loan fees collected in excess of the 60% limit in
the cited usury statute are held by the defendants in constructive
trust for the benefit of the class members, (iii) an accounting
and restitution to plaintiff and class members of all loan fees
received by the defendants, (iv) a declaration that the collection
of the loan fees in excess of 60% per annum constitutes an
unconscionable trade act or practice under the Canadian Business
Practices Consumer Protection Act, (v) an order to restore to the
class members the loan fees collected by defendants in excess of
60% per annum, and (vi) interest thereon. Direct Credit has not
yet answered the civil claim of the plaintiff, but intends to
defend itself, its subsidiaries and its former directors
vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, QC Holdings, Inc.,
operates primarily through its wholly-owned subsidiaries.  The
Company derives its revenues primarily by providing short-term
consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The Company earns fees for
various other financial services, like installment loans, credit
services, check cashing services, title loans, open-end credit,
debit cards, money transfers and money orders.


RADIOSHACK: Settles Class Action for $5.3 Million
-------------------------------------------------
Mark Seavy, writing for Consumer Electronics Daily, reports that
RadioShack agreed to pay up to $5.3 million to settle alleged
violations of a federal law barring a credit card's expiration
date from being printed on a sales receipt, according to court
records.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago in September
2011, potentially covers up to 16 million members of the class-
action suit and requires RadioShack initially to pay $3.25 million
into an escrow account, court records say.  The suit, filed by
Scott Redman, covered a purchase made with a MasterCard credit
card on Sept. 23, 2011, during which the card's expiration date
was printed on the sales receipt, the suit said.  Mr. Redman was
later joined by Mario Aliano and Victoria Radaviciute as lead
plaintiffs in the suit.


RIDEAU REGIONAL: Ontario Gov't Drags Heels on Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Gardiner, writing for QMI Agency, reports that the Ontario
government is dragging its heels on three class-action lawsuits by
developmentally challenged residents of former provincial
institutions, the claimants and their lawyers say.

"People are getting older and dying," said Vicky Clarke, a
litigation guardian for 62-year-old David McKillop, who is the
lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits.

Mr. McKillop lived at Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls,
Ont., for 17 years, from 1955-'72, and says residents suffered
emotional, physical and psychological abuse at the home for
mentally and physically challenged residents.  His $1-billion suit
seeks compensation for thousands of former residents.

Class-action lawsuits were also filed by former residents of the
Huronia residence in Orillia and the Southwest Regional Centre
near Chatham.  All three residences were closed in 2009.

Ms. Clarke said the province refused to consider mediation in
May and is also seeking to obtain individual assessments of each
claimant, which runs counter to the spirit of a class-action claim
and will only serve to further drag out the case.

"We want an aggregate assessment, not an individual assessment,"
said Ms. Clarke said.  "That would prolong the matter for a
vulnerable population."

She said many of the former residents do not communicate verbally
and would find it difficult and stressful to undergo an assessment
that would determine their eligibility for benefits from the
lawsuit.

"We are committed to working with the plaintiffs to move this
matter forward towards a timely resolution of the issues in the
claim," said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Attorney
General's office.

Mr. Cawley said the Huronia suit is scheduled to begin Sept. 16,
during which the question of individual assessments may be settled
and a timetable will be set out for the Rideau Regional case.

Jody Brown, of the Toronto firm of Koskie-Minsky, which is
handling all three lawsuits, said they are "pretty much identical"
and need to be dealt with urgently because the residents are
getting older and often suffer from pre-existing conditions that
make their life-expectancy shorter.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.


ROSS STORES: Faces $3.9MM Fine Over Defective Children's Clothing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Nixon, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
Consumer Product Safety Commission said on June 18 that a leading
discount department store had agreed to pay a $3.9 million fine
for failing to report that it continued to sell defective
children's clothing after the agency warned that the clothes could
cause injuries or deaths.

Ross Stores has agreed to pay a $3.9 million fine for failing to
report that it continued to sell defective children's clothing
after being warned the clothing could cause injuries or
strangulation deaths.

According to the settlement, Ross Stores, a discount department
store with headquarters in Pleasanton, Calif., knowingly failed to
report to the commission within 24 hours that it sold or kept in
its stores from January 2009 to February 2012 about 23,000
children's jackets and sweatshirts that had drawstrings at the
neck or around the waist.

The company had previously paid a $500,000 fine for not reporting
that it was selling the defective clothing.  The commission said
the current penalty is the second-largest in its history.  The
agency said there were no reported injuries or deaths from the
Ross clothing sales.

The commission is increasing its efforts to go after firms for not
reporting problems with defective products.  A 2008 law passed by
Congress gave the agency authority to increase penalties.

"Companies should know that there are serious consequences for not
telling C.P.S.C. about a product that can put a child in harm's
way," said Inez M. Tenenbaum, chairman of the commission.  "Ross
is being held accountable for not following the law and for not
complying with a federal standard that is child-protective."

Connie Wong, a spokeswoman for the company, said: "Ross Stores has
a deep commitment to customer safety in all that we do.  We
cooperated fully with the C.P.S.C. on this matter and did not
knowingly violate any laws, rules or regulations."

The commission said it warned clothing stores as far back as 1996,
after the deaths of several children, that children's clothing
with the drawstrings were defective and present a substantial risk
of injury to young children.

One child died after a drawstring got caught on a playground
slide.  Another died after a drawstring was caught in a school bus
door and the child was dragged to death.  The commission said that
since 1985 it has received reports of 84 injuries to children,
including 26 who died, after the drawstrings on their clothing got
stuck.

ASTM International, an organization that develops and publishes
voluntary technical standards for a wide range of products,
followed up with additional voluntary standards in 1997.

In 2011, the commission created mandatory rules for the clothes,
which called the drawstrings a substantial product hazard.  The
rule allowed the commission and the Customs and Border Protection
to stop shipments of potentially hazardous children's clothing at
ports of entry.

The commission said that even under the old voluntary standards,
firms were still required by federal law to report problems,
complaints and injuries resulting from defective products.

In agreeing to the settlement, Ross denied that it knowingly
failed to inform the commission about the clothes.  The store has
agreed to create a compliance plan to keep similar incidents from
happening.


SAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: DOJ Files Suit Over Unapproved Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Schwitzerlett, writing for Ring of Fire, reports that the
Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit on behalf of the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) against Sage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The
company has been accused of distributing misbranded and unapproved
medications.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, including Sage's
president, Dr. Jivn-Ren Chen, and Director of Corporate Quality,
Charles L. Thomas, violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FDCA) when they manufactured and distributed unapproved and
misbranded drugs.

The FDCA requires that all drug companies seeking to sell a new
drug apply for approval from the FDA and receive that approval
before selling the drug.

"The protections that the review process from the FDA confer to
consumers and patients cannot be overstated.  Companies that seek
to subvert those protections and move forward with selling a
product before the FDA has made its decision put the public and
patients at risk," commented Daniel Nigh, an attorney with the
Levin, Papantonio law firm, who practices in the areas of
pharmaceutical, bad drug litigation and defective device
litigation.

According to the DOJ's press release on the case, this is the
second lawsuit that has been brought against the pharmaceutical
company for the sale of illegal drugs.  The company has been
stopped in the past for manufacturing and selling unapproved
drugs.  In the course of its investigations, the FDA found that
the defendants, despite a court injunction in 2000, continued to
make and sell painkillers, over-the-counter cough and cold
remedies and wound cleaners.

At this time, the government is seeking to stop all production
from the company until it changes its ways and complies with
applicable laws.  According to the Shreveport Times, the company
has been warned multiple times throughout the past decade to bring
its practices into compliance with applicable law but, as the
current lawsuit would indicate, has failed to do so.

Running afoul of the law is not something reserved for small
pharmaceutical companies, however.  Johnson & Johnson faced
similar lawsuits from federal and state government parties
regarding its false marketing of Risperdal.  Johnson & Johnson
ended up settling those various lawsuits for a total of $2.2
billion. In addition, Johnson & Johnson has been sued by over
11,000 patients who received a now-recalled DePuy ASR implant.
The lawsuits allege that the metal-on-metal implant causes metal
ions to be shed from the implant and circulated throughout the
body.  DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, has subsequently
withdrawn production of the metal-on-metal implant.


STANDARD & POOR'S: Faces Class Action Over Inflated RMBS Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that The First National
Bank and Trust Co. of Rochelle, Illinois, hit McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc., McGraw business unit Standard & Poor's Ratings
Services and Moody's Corp. with a putative class action in state
court, saying the credit rating agencies issued inflated ratings
on residential mortgage-backed securities.


SUBAYE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
investors who purchased the securities of Subaye, Inc. during the
period from December 29, 2009 to April 7, 2011, seeking remedies
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Subaye class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

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

The Complaint alleges that DNTW Chartered Accountants LLP,
Subaye's auditor, falsely issued clean audit reports for Subaye's
2009 and 2010 10-Ks that stated that DNTW conducted its audits of
Subaye in accordance with PCAOB standards.  In reality, nearly all
of Subaye's customers and business operations did not exist.  In
May 2013, the SEC filed a civil action against Subaye and others,
indicating that DNTW knowingly issued false audit reports.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 3, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free,
at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

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

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, New York 10016
         Tel:  (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 kchan@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


SWEDISH HEALTH: Uninsured ER Patients' Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Lerman, writing for Puget Sound Business Journal, reports
that a lawsuit involving claims that uninsured emergency-room
patients were overcharged by Swedish Health Services has been
certified to proceed as a class action in King County Superior
Court.

The case was brought by Chad Humphrey, who was uninsured when he
visited the emergency room at Swedish hospital in Issaquah twice
in May 2012, and was charged a total of more than $10,000.  The
lawsuit contends that Humphrey was asked to pay gross charges,
which amounted to significantly more than what a public or private
insurance company would have paid.

The suit claims that Swedish breached its contracts with uninsured
patients and violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
according to a press release from the plaintiff's attorney.

King County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell ordered on
July 2 that the case, Humphrey vs. Swedish Health Services, will
proceed as a class action.

One of Humphrey's attorneys, Adam Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com --
of Seattle law firm Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, said the lawyers
and client pushed for the class-action designation because the
case represents an issue that affects more people than Humphrey
and should be "addressed for all uninsured patients that have been
overcharged."

Potential class members will be notified and can decide to join
the case to seek reductions or reimbursements of some of the
amounts charged at Swedish emergency rooms.

Mr. Berger said Swedish emergency rooms, of which there are seven
in the Puget Sound area, see thousands of uninsured patients each
year.  Some receive charitable discounts on their bills and would
not qualify for the suit.  He said it is too early to tell how
much money could potentially be involved.

In response to discovery requests, Mr. Berger said, Swedish
reported that Medicare or Medicaid would have paid about $1,200
for the treatments Humphrey received, and a private insurer would
have paid about $3,500.

Swedish representatives declined to comment on July 3.  A
spokesman said the hospital group does not comment on pending
litigation.

Uninsured patients should have to pay a "reasonable amount" for
emergency room services, which can be determined by referring to
what insurance companies pay, Mr. Berger said.

Mr. Berger said the suit could cover people who were treated at
the emergency rooms during a period of, at the most, six years
before the lawsuit filing date of July 31, 2012.


TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Awaits Ruling in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is awaiting a court
decision on a motion for summary judgment in the class action
lawsuit styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley
& Co. Inc., et al., according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
acts as the general partner (the "General Partner") and commodity
pool operator of Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the
"Partnership").  The General Partner is wholly owned by Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC ("MSSB Holdings").  Morgan
Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority
equity interest in MSSB Holdings as well as Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, a commodity broker for the Partnership ("MS&Co.").  Citigroup
Inc. indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings.
Citigroup Inc. also indirectly owns Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), the commodity broker and a selling agent for the
Partnership.  Prior to July 31, 2009, the date as of which MSSB
Holdings became its owner, the General Partner was wholly owned by
Citigroup Financial Products Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., the sole owner of which is
Citigroup Inc.

As of March 31, 2013, all trading decisions are made for the
Partnership by Drury Capital, Inc., ("Drury"), Graham Capital
Management, L.P., ("Graham"), Willowbridge Associates Inc.
("Willowbridge"), Aspect Capital Limited ("Aspect"), Krom River
Trading AG and Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited
(collectively, "Krom River"), Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited
("Altis"), Boronia Capital Pty. Ltd. ("Boronia") and Kaiser
Trading Group Pty. Ltd. ("Kaiser") (each an "Advisor" and
collectively, the "Advisors"), each of which is a registered
commodity trading advisor or exempt from registration.  Each
Advisor is allocated a portion of the Partnership's assets to
manage.  The Partnership invests the portion of its assets
allocated to each of the Advisors indirectly through investments
in these funds -- CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P., CMF Drury Capital
Master Fund L.P., CMF Willowbridge Master Fund L.P., CMF Graham
Capital Master Fund L.P., CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P., KR
Master Fund L.P., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Boronia I, LLC and
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Kaiser I, LLC.

On August 25, 2008, MS & Co. and two ratings agencies were named
as defendants in a purported class action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV").  The case
is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley &
Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY").  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned
to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and
misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately
reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential
mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne SIV.  The plaintiffs
currently assert allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and
negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million
of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV.  The plaintiffs' motion
for class certification was denied in June 2010.  The court denied
MS & Co.'s motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting
fraud claim in August 2012.  MS & Co.'s motion for summary
judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, filed on
November 30, 2012, is pending.  The court has set a trial date of
May 6, 2013.  There are currently 14 named plaintiffs in the
action claiming damages of approximately $638 million.  The
Plaintiffs are also seeking punitive damages.

Based on currently available information, MS & Co. believes that
the defendants could incur a loss up to approximately $638
million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV").
The case was styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the
Cheyne SIV were false and misleading, including because the
ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the
subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne
SIV. The plaintiffs asserted allegations of aiding and abetting
fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately
$852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. On April 24,
2013, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case, and on
April 26, 2013, the court dismissed the action with prejudice. The
settlement does not cover certain claims that were previously
dismissed.

Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership
organized and based in New York, and engages in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.
The commodity interests that are traded by the Partnership
directly and through its investments in these funds -- CMF Aspect
Master Fund L.P., CMF Drury Capital Master Fund L.P., CMF
Willowbridge Master Fund L.P., CMF Graham Capital Master Fund
L.P., CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P., KR Master Fund L.P.,
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Boronia I, LLC and Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney Kaiser I, LLC -- are volatile and involve a high
degree of market risk.


TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Bid for Review in NJ Carpenters Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition
for review of an order granting class certification in the
coordinated lawsuit titled New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund V.
Residential Capital LLC, et al., according to Tactical Diversified
Futures Fund L.P.'s May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
acts as the general partner (the "General Partner") and commodity
pool operator of Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the
"Partnership").  The General Partner is wholly owned by Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC ("MSSB Holdings").  Morgan
Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority
equity interest in MSSB Holdings as well as Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, a commodity broker for the Partnership ("MS&Co.").  Citigroup
Inc. indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings.
Citigroup Inc. also indirectly owns Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), the commodity broker and a selling agent for the
Partnership.  Prior to July 31, 2009, the date as of which MSSB
Holdings became its owner, the General Partner was wholly owned by
Citigroup Financial Products Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., the sole owner of which is
Citigroup Inc.

As of March 31, 2013, all trading decisions are made for the
Partnership by Drury Capital, Inc., ("Drury"), Graham Capital
Management, L.P., ("Graham"), Willowbridge Associates Inc.
("Willowbridge"), Aspect Capital Limited ("Aspect"), Krom River
Trading AG and Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited
(collectively, "Krom River"), Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited
("Altis"), Boronia Capital Pty. Ltd. ("Boronia") and Kaiser
Trading Group Pty. Ltd. ("Kaiser") (each an "Advisor" and
collectively, the "Advisors"), each of which is a registered
commodity trading advisor or exempt from registration.  Each
Advisor is allocated a portion of the Partnership's assets to
manage.  The Partnership invests the portion of its assets
allocated to each of the Advisors indirectly through investments
in these funds -- CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P., CMF Drury Capital
Master Fund L.P., CMF Willowbridge Master Fund L.P., CMF Graham
Capital Master Fund L.P., CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P., KR
Master Fund L.P., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Boronia I, LLC and
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Kaiser I, LLC.

Beginning in July 2010, Citigroup Inc (the ultimate parent of
Tactical Diversified's general partner) and certain of its
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in complaints filed by
purchasers of mortgage-backed security ("MBS") and collateralized
debt obligation ("CDO") sold or underwritten by Citigroup and
certain of its subsidiaries.  The MBS-related complaints generally
assert that the defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions about the credit quality of the mortgage loans
underlying the securities, such as the underwriting standards to
which the loans conformed, the loan-to-value ratio of the loans,
and the extent to which the mortgaged properties were owner-
occupied, and typically assert claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, state blue sky laws, and/or common-law
misrepresentation-based causes of action.  The CDO-related
complaints further allege that the defendants adversely selected
or permitted the adverse selection of CDO collateral without full
disclosure to investors.  The plaintiffs in these actions
generally seek rescission of their investments, recovery of their
investment losses, or other damages.  Other purchasers of MBS and
CDOs sold or underwritten by Citigroup and certain of its
subsidiaries have threatened to file additional lawsuits, for some
of which Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries has agreed to
toll (extend) the statute of limitations.

The filed actions generally are in the early stages of
proceedings, and certain of the actions or threatened actions have
been resolved through settlement or otherwise.  The aggregate
original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the filed
lawsuits is approximately $12 billion, and the aggregate original
purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements
with investors threatening litigation is approximately $6 billion.
The largest MBS investor claim against Citigroup and certain of
its subsidiaries, as measured by the face value of purchases at
issue, has been asserted by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as
conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  This lawsuit was
filed on September 2, 2011, and has been coordinated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York with
fifteen other related lawsuits brought by the same plaintiff
against various other financial institutions.  Motions to dismiss
in the coordinated lawsuits have been denied in large part, and
discovery is proceeding.  An interlocutory appeal currently is
pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on issues common to all of the coordinated lawsuits.

On October 15, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted lead plaintiffs' amended
motion for class certification in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH
FUND V. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL LLC, ET AL., having previously denied
the lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification on January 18,
2011.  The Plaintiffs in this action allege violations of Sections
11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and
assert disclosure claims on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of mortgage-backed securities issued by Residential
Accredited Loans, Inc. pursuant or traceable to prospectus
materials filed on March 3, 2006, and April 3, 2007.  Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. ("CGM") is one of the underwriter defendants.

On March 26, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit denied defendants' petition for review of the
district court's October 15, 2012 order granting lead plaintiffs'
amended motion for class certification in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS
HEALTH FUND V. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL LLC, ET AL.

Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership
organized and based in New York, and engages in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.
The commodity interests that are traded by the Partnership
directly and through its investments in these funds -- CMF Aspect
Master Fund L.P., CMF Drury Capital Master Fund L.P., CMF
Willowbridge Master Fund L.P., CMF Graham Capital Master Fund
L.P., CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P., KR Master Fund L.P.,
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Boronia I, LLC and Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney Kaiser I, LLC -- are volatile and involve a high
degree of market risk.


TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Bond Suit Settlement Hearing on July 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for the approval of a $730 million settlement
in the consolidated case styled In Re Citigroup Inc. Bond
Litigation is scheduled for July 23, 2013, according to Tactical
Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
acts as the general partner (the "General Partner") and commodity
pool operator of Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the
"Partnership").  The General Partner is wholly owned by Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC ("MSSB Holdings").  Morgan
Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority
equity interest in MSSB Holdings as well as Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, a commodity broker for the Partnership ("MS&Co.").  Citigroup
Inc. indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings.
Citigroup Inc. also indirectly owns Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), the commodity broker and a selling agent for the
Partnership.  Prior to July 31, 2009, the date as of which MSSB
Holdings became its owner, the General Partner was wholly owned by
Citigroup Financial Products Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., the sole owner of which is
Citigroup Inc.

As of March 31, 2013, all trading decisions are made for the
Partnership by Drury Capital, Inc., ("Drury"), Graham Capital
Management, L.P., ("Graham"), Willowbridge Associates Inc.
("Willowbridge"), Aspect Capital Limited ("Aspect"), Krom River
Trading AG and Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited
(collectively, "Krom River"), Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited
("Altis"), Boronia Capital Pty. Ltd. ("Boronia") and Kaiser
Trading Group Pty. Ltd. ("Kaiser") (each an "Advisor" and
collectively, the "Advisors"), each of which is a registered
commodity trading advisor or exempt from registration.  Each
Advisor is allocated a portion of the Partnership's assets to
manage.  The Partnership invests the portion of its assets
allocated to each of the Advisors indirectly through investments
in these funds -- CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P., CMF Drury Capital
Master Fund L.P., CMF Willowbridge Master Fund L.P., CMF Graham
Capital Master Fund L.P., CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P., KR
Master Fund L.P., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Boronia I, LLC and
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Kaiser I, LLC.

On September 30, and October 28, 2008, Citigroup Inc., certain
Citigroup entities, certain current and former directors and
officers of Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain
underwriters of Citigroup notes (including Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. ("CGM")) were named as defendants in two alleged
class actions filed in New York state court but since removed to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Citigroup is the ultimate parent of Tactical Diversified's
general partner.  These actions allege violations of Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising out
of forty-eight corporate debt securities, preferred stock, and
interests in preferred stock issued by Citigroup and related
issuers over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008.  On December 10,
2008, these two actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, and lead plaintiff and counsel
were appointed.  On January 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

On March 13, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On July 12, 2010, the court issued an opinion and
order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, but denying defendants' motion
to dismiss certain claims under Section 11.  On September 30,
2010, the district court entered a scheduling order in IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION.  Fact discovery began in November
2010, and the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class was fully
briefed.

On March 25, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered an order preliminarily
approving the parties proposed settlement of IN RE CITIGROUP INC.
BOND LITIGATION, pursuant to which Citigroup and certain of its
subsidiaries will pay $730 million in exchange for a release of
all claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class.  A fairness
hearing is scheduled for July 23, 2013.

Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership
organized and based in New York, and engages in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.
The commodity interests that are traded by the Partnership
directly and through its investments in these funds -- CMF Aspect
Master Fund L.P., CMF Drury Capital Master Fund L.P., CMF
Willowbridge Master Fund L.P., CMF Graham Capital Master Fund
L.P., CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P., KR Master Fund L.P.,
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Boronia I, LLC and Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney Kaiser I, LLC -- are volatile and involve a high
degree of market risk.


TACTICAL DIVERSIFIED: Dismissal of Two Antitrust Suits Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of two antitrust class action lawsuits was affirmed
in March 2013, according to Tactical Diversified Futures Fund
L.P.'s May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
acts as the general partner (the "General Partner") and commodity
pool operator of Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the
"Partnership").  The General Partner is wholly owned by Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC ("MSSB Holdings").  Morgan
Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority
equity interest in MSSB Holdings as well as Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, a commodity broker for the Partnership ("MS&Co.").  Citigroup
Inc. indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings.
Citigroup Inc. also indirectly owns Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), the commodity broker and a selling agent for the
Partnership.  Prior to July 31, 2009, the date as of which MSSB
Holdings became its owner, the General Partner was wholly owned by
Citigroup Financial Products Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., the sole owner of which is
Citigroup Inc.

As of March 31, 2013, all trading decisions are made for the
Partnership by Drury Capital, Inc., ("Drury"), Graham Capital
Management, L.P., ("Graham"), Willowbridge Associates Inc.
("Willowbridge"), Aspect Capital Limited ("Aspect"), Krom River
Trading AG and Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited
(collectively, "Krom River"), Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited
("Altis"), Boronia Capital Pty. Ltd. ("Boronia") and Kaiser
Trading Group Pty. Ltd. ("Kaiser") (each an "Advisor" and
collectively, the "Advisors"), each of which is a registered
commodity trading advisor or exempt from registration.  Each
Advisor is allocated a portion of the Partnership's assets to
manage.  The Partnership invests the portion of its assets
allocated to each of the Advisors indirectly through investments
in these funds -- CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P., CMF Drury Capital
Master Fund L.P., CMF Willowbridge Master Fund L.P., CMF Graham
Capital Master Fund L.P., CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P., KR
Master Fund L.P., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Boronia I, LLC and
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Kaiser I, LLC.

Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup Inc. (the ultimate parent of
Tactical Diversified's general partner) and certain of its
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in numerous actions and
proceedings brought by Citigroup shareholders and purchasers or
issuers of auction rate securities ("ARS"), asserting claims under
the federal securities laws, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act (the "Sherman Act"), and state law arising from the collapse
of the ARS market in early 2008, which plaintiffs contend
Citigroup and other ARS underwriters foresaw or should have
foreseen but failed adequately to disclose.  Most of these matters
have been dismissed or settled.

Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Maryland V. Citigroup Inc., et
al. and Russell Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al., are
lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of ARS issuers and investors, respectively,
against Citigroup, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM") and
various other financial institutions.  In these actions, the
plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
arising out of defendants' alleged conspiracy to artificially
restrain trade in the ARS market.  On January 15, 2009, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in these
actions.  On January 26, 2010, both actions were dismissed.

On March 5, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the two
putative class actions.

Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership
organized and based in New York, and engages in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.
The commodity interests that are traded by the Partnership
directly and through its investments in these funds -- CMF Aspect
Master Fund L.P., CMF Drury Capital Master Fund L.P., CMF
Willowbridge Master Fund L.P., CMF Graham Capital Master Fund
L.P., CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P., KR Master Fund L.P.,
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Boronia I, LLC and Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney Kaiser I, LLC -- are volatile and involve a high
degree of market risk.


THE HARTFORD: Dickinson Wright Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Burns, Esq. at Dickinson Wright PLLC reports that in a
closely-watched Connecticut state court action that has dragged on
for almost ten years, on June 5, Waterbury Superior Court Judge
Alfred Jennings ordered The Hartford to pay $20 million in
punitive damages to a class of auto body shops, finding that the
insurer had "knowingly and purposefully" violated the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The punitive damages award is in
addition to an award of $14.7 million in compensatory damages
awarded to the plaintiffs during a jury trial in the matter
conducted in 2009, and is reportedly the largest award ever under
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The case, Artie's Auto Body v. The Hartford, centered upon a claim
that The Hartford had influenced insurance appraisers, who are
required by statute to provide unbiased estimates of repair costs,
to utilize below-market hourly labor rates in their calculations.
The appraisers' conduct resulted in a reduction in the
compensation paid to the plaintiffs when making repairs for the
insurer's insureds.  Plaintiffs alleged that the Hartford's
conduct violated public policy and thus was unlawful under the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The court's punitive damages ruling comes approximately four years
after a jury found that The Hartford's efforts to induce the
appraisers to violate the "code of ethics" that Connecticut law
imposes upon them constituted "unfair" conduct under the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Notably, pretrial, the
court had rejected The Hartford's argument that because the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act is based upon Section 5 of
the FTC Act, and the FTC has issued enforcement guidelines
indicating that a Section 5 violation should require a showing of
"substantial injury to consumers," this requirement should be
implied into the Connecticut statute as well. (The FTC's
modification to its Section 5 enforcement guidelines occurred
almost twenty years after the Connecticut statute was enacted; no
corresponding change to the Connecticut statute was subsequently
made.)

The Hartford filed a series of post-trial motions and motions for
reconsideration seeking to have the 2009 jury verdict vacated,
ultimately without success.  In May of this year, Judge Jennings
issued his final ruling on the motions, setting the stage for the
court's consideration of plaintiffs' request for punitive damages.
Finding that The Hartford had exhibited a "heavy dose of control"
over the erstwhile independent appraisers and that The Hartford's
acts reflected a "knowing and purposeful disregard" of the
Connecticut statute prohibiting efforts to influence them, in a
June 5 opinion Judge Jennings awarded plaintiffs $20 million in
punitive damages.  In deciding upon this amount, Judge Jennings
explained that he was taking into account "the large net worth of
The Hartford" and that the award needed to be large enough to have
meaningful "deterrent motivation" going forward.

In response to the court's ruling, The Hartford immediately filed
an appeal with the Connecticut appellate court.  In its appeal,
The Hartford is likely to renew the argument that, because the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act is patterned on Section 5,
it should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with
current Section 5 jurisprudence (a view that has been embraced by
the courts in several other states in similar circumstances).
Given the significance of the case, and the issue generally, it
can be expected that the matter will ultimately be required to be
heard by the Connecticut Supreme Court.


TRANS1 INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TranS1 Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 24, 2012, the Company received notice that a putative
class action lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of all persons,
other than defendants, who purchased TranS1 securities between
February 21, 2008, and October 17, 2011.  The complaint alleges
violations of the Exchange Act based upon purported omissions
and/or false and misleading statements concerning TranS1's
financial statements and reimbursement practices.  The complaint
seeks damages sustained by the putative class, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs.  On
September 7, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, among
other grounds; the motion is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest filing.

The Company says it is unable to predict what impact, if any, the
outcome of this matter might have on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.

TranS1 Inc. -- http://www.trans1.com/-- is a medical device
company focused on designing, developing and marketing products to
treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting the lumbar
region.  The Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Raleigh, North Caroline.


TULSA, OK: Families of Jail Inmates Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Lacie Lowry, writing for News On 6, reports that families of
inmates who died at the Tulsa County jail have joined in on a
class action lawsuit.  They're suing the sheriff and the jail's
healthcare provider over what they call a "who cares" attitude for
inmates with medical and mental health needs.

The lawsuit involves four people.  Three of them died at the jail
and one nearly died.  It's one of several lawsuits involving 10
total inmates, who are suing for cruel and unusual punishment.

This suit, filed on May 31, is completely separate from the civil
rights lawsuit filed against the sheriff's office on behalf of
Elliot Williams, who died in Tulsa County jail in 2011.

The class action lawsuit says three inmates needlessly died at the
Tulsa County jail from inadequate medical care.

It details the death of Lisa Salgado, who was taken to the
hospital for a cardiac work-up, then cleared to be booked into
jail.  The lawsuit says she notified the medical staff of her
prescriptions and her coronary artery disease, high blood
pressure, diabetes, pancreatitis, and alcohol abuse.  She
immediately complained of chest and stomach pain, but according to
the lawsuit, received little to no treatment.  When a nurse
checked on her, he found Ms. Salgado unresponsive, no pulse and
not breathing.

The lawsuit says she had been dead for four to six hours and rigor
mortis had set in, however the suit claims the defendants lied on
the medical records to show Ms. Salgado died after the ambulance
picked her up, to avoid having the jail death count go up.

The lawsuit makes the same allegations of falsified medical
records, involving a woman who died from a heart attack at the
jail in February of this year.

In February 2012, Gregory Brown was booked in and asked to see a
doctor, but had to wait four days.  During that time, his blood
pressure, pulse and respiratory rate all plummeted and he vomited
all night, the suit claims.  The doctor's diagnosis was kidney
stones.

Mr. Brown was never sent to the hospital and eventually developed
a fever, swollen abdomen, black stomach fluid and dark urine,
according to the lawsuit.  When he was finally taken to the
hospital, it was too late.  He died from bacterial contamination,
after holes opened up in his bowel, the suit claims.

The Tulsa County Sheriff's office serves 32,000 inmates a year.
It says the death rate should be higher than one or two deaths a
year, considering the poor physical state many of the inmates are
already in before they're booked.  It says sometimes inmates come
in with conditions out of the jail's control.

News On 6 called and emailed the attorneys for Correctional
Healthcare Management and still haven't heard back.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Les Freres Cheese Over Listeria Presence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling Crave Brothers Les Freres cheese
in response to a recall by the Crave Brothers Farmstead Cheese
Company of Waterloo, Wisconsin.  The cheese is being recalled
because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.  To date, one illness and one death have been reported.
Crave Brothers was informed by regulatory agencies of an ongoing
investigation related to potential health risks associated with
Listeria monocytogenes.  The company immediately ceased the
production and distribution of the products.

The recalled Crave Brothers Les FrŠres cheese was cut and packaged
in clear plastic wrap and sold with Whole Foods Market scale
labels.  Below is a list of how the cheese was labeled, including
PLU code, according to the state in which it was sold.  Pictures
of the Products are available at:

                        http://is.gd/2FMPt5


ZERO: Recalls 13 FX and XU Motorcycle Models
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:              June 25, 2013
Starting date:              July 3, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Motorcycle
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Electrical
Units affected:             13
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013229
TC ID number:               2013229

   Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----       ----------------------
   ZERO      XU          2013
   ZERO      FX          2013

On certain motorcycles, a manufacturing defect could allow water
to penetrate the batteries, resulting in cell corrosion.  This
could cause an electrical short resulting in a rapid temperature
increase, off-gassing of the battery, and possible injury and/or
damage to property.

Affected battery modules will be replaced by dealers or authorized
personnel.


* FDA Issues Warnings About Dangerous Slimming Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Fox, writing for NBC News, reports that Fat Zero sounds
like a safe, natural product, containing bee pollen and other
ingredients like green tea and lotus seed.  But it also contains
sibutramine, a prescription diet drug that was so dangerous it's
been pulled off the U.S. market, the Food and Drug Administration
says.

The FDA issued warnings about a batch of similar slimming products
-- all claiming to be natural, and all containing not only
sibutramine, but phenolphthalein, a laxative that's also been
pulled out of pills because it might cause cancer.

This product claims to be all-natural, but it contains a dangerous
controlled drug, the FDA says.

"Fat Zero will give your body the jump start it needs to lose
those unwanted pounds," the maker's website promises.

It sure will, says the FDA.  But not because of its so-called
natural ingredients.  The sibutramine in it can damage the heart.

"Sibutramine is a controlled substance that was removed from the
market in October 2010 for safety reasons," FDA says in a notice
to consumers.  "The product poses a threat to consumers because
sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressure
and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant
risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease,
congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, or stroke.  This product
may also interact, in life-threatening ways, with other
medications a consumer may be taking."

Other products tagged by the FDA on June 18 include Fruit & Plant
Slimming, which also contains sibutramine and phenolphthalein and
Extreme Body Slim, which tests found contains sibutramine.

Sibutramine affects several brain chemicals, including serotinin
and norepinephrine.  Scientists don't quite understand how it
causes weight loss -- but in some people it can actually increase
appetite.

FDA also issued a warning on June 18 about a different "natural"
product that contains a prescription drug ingredient.  This one,
Royal Dragon Herbal Tonic Balls, is sold for sexual enhancement
and contains vardenafil, the active ingredient in the erectile
dysfunction drug Levitra.  "This undeclared ingredient may
interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs, such as
nitroglycerin, and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels,"
FDA cautions.

"Consumers should stop using this product immediately and throw it
away.  Consumers who have experienced any negative side effects
should consult a health care professional as soon as possible."

Unlike prescription drugs, supplements and herbal products are not
regulated by the FDA before they are sold.  So long as makers
don't make specific healthy claims, they can sell products made
with ingredients that are "generally recognized as safe".  But the
FDA can test these products and if prescription drugs or other
potentially dangerous ingredients are found, it can warn the
public.


* Firms May Use Well-Crafted Arbitration Clause v. Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven T. Catlett, Esq., at Schiff Hardin LLP, reports that as the
Supreme Court winds down its current term with the usual flurry of
decisions, employers should make sure not to ignore two decisions
on arbitration: American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant,
issued June 20, and Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, issued
June 10.  Neither is an employment case, but particularly taken
together, they have critical importance for employers, strongly
suggesting that properly crafted and updated arbitration clauses
can be a powerful tool for employers looking to insulate
themselves from employment class actions.

Oxford Health involved a contract between a health insurance
company and physicians regarding rates of reimbursement for
certain health care services to members of the insurance company's
network.  The contract included an arbitration clause that did not
expressly address class actions, but did broadly route "any
dispute arising under th[e] Agreement" into arbitration.  A group
of physicians sought to bring a class arbitration, and the Supreme
Court unanimously affirmed the arbitrator's decision that the
contract permitted class arbitrations.  The Court noted that the
judicial review for an arbitrator's decision was quite narrow and
that since the parties had agreed to permit the arbitrator to
decide the scope of the arbitration, his ruling that a class
arbitration was permitted should be upheld.  Thus, Oxford Health
emphasizes the critical importance of careful drafting, since
general arbitration language could be read to permit class
arbitrations.  Employers with general arbitration clauses should
have them reviewed to ensure that the subject of class actions is
expressly addressed, or they risk having their own arbitration
clauses used against them to force class action arbitrations.

The importance of such drafting was highlighted just a few days
later when Court returned to the subject of class actions and
arbitrations in American Express.  In that case, which was an
antitrust claim brought by putative class of merchants who
accepted American Express cards, the Court ruled 5-3, with Justice
Sotomayor not participating, that an arbitration clause that
compelled arbitration of all disputes but prevented any
arbitration "on a class action basis" was enforceable under the
Federal Arbitration Act.  The merchants had argued that the bar of
class actions would prevent vindication of the underlying
antitrust claims since the cost of individual arbitration exceeded
the potential recovery.  The Court majority emphatically rejected
this argument, ruling over a strong dissent that the antitrust
laws "do not guarantee an affordable procedural path to the
vindication of every claim."

Particularly taken together, Oxford Health and American Express
suggest that a well-crafted arbitration clause can be a powerful
tool and may even help insulate employers from class actions
entirely.  While American Express involved antitrust, not
employment, claims, it strongly rejects many of the precise
arguments that have been used by employees in employment cases to
attempt to circumvent class action waivers.  The issue is far from
settled, particularly in the wage-hour context (where statutory
provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act have been relied upon
by employees and courts as a basis to reject class action
waivers).  Nonetheless, American Express continues the growing
trend of court decisions approving class action waivers.  Thus,
employers looking for ways to limit exposure to employment class
actions should give careful consideration to implementing an
arbitration program.  But in doing so, careful drafting is
critical, as is active monitoring of ongoing developments in what
remains a fluid area.


* Hamburg Files Suit v. Sanford Over Class Action Fee Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that class-action
boutique Sanford Heisler LLP cut Philadelphia-based Hamburg &
Golden PC out of a contingency fee that Sanford won after settling
a gender discrimination case that Hamburg originated, according to
a suit brought on July 2 in a Pennsylvania court.

The suit, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, alleges
that Hamburg shepherded an unnamed client's claims through U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proceedings for three
years and obtained findings from the agency that allowed the
client's suit to move forward before Sanford took over the case.


* Major Food Companies Face Class Actions Over Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Rick Shapiro, Esq. at Shapiro Lewis Appleton & Favaloro, P.C.
walks through three of the highest profile actions that have food
conglomerates across the country anxiously awaiting a final
result.

The issue in many of these lawsuits is over food labels that
appear to have been purposely designed to conceal important
information about the product.  One common problem is that
companies misapply a "natural" label to products that contain
suspiciously unnatural sounding ingredients.  Attorneys say
companies are eager to declare their products natural and healthy
in an attempt to gain new consumers, but in their rush to do so
many companies fudge the truth.

This leads to the first big food labeling case currently underway,
a class action filed against Campbell's Soup in Florida.  The case
arose after plaintiffs complained about labels on the company's
popular soups which refer to the ingredients as "natural" yet
contain items like genetically modified corn.  The suit argues
that Campbell's purposely mislabeled ingredients that it knew were
genetically modified in an attempt to mislead consumers.

Campbell's tried to have the suit thrown out of court, claiming
that the FDA approval of the soup prevented the lawsuit from
moving forward, however, a recent ruling out of a federal court
judge rejected this argument.  At the end of May, Judge
Dimitrouleas found that there was no evidence the FDA, when it was
reviewing the soups, even understood that GM corn was contained in
the product given no mention on the label.  As a result, the case
was allowed to proceed.

Ben & Jerry's was sued late last year by a plaintiff from New York
who thought the "all natural" label applied to the company's ice
cream was inappropriate given the presence of hydrogenated oils
and genetically modified ingredients.  Ben & Jerry's recently
announced it would begin phasing out the use of genetically
modified ingredients in its ice creams, perhaps in an attempt to
better comply with the words on its own labels.

Finally, Trader Joe's has been sued in California after plaintiffs
complained about the company's use of the term "evaporated cane
juice" on products it claimed were not only natural, but also
healthy and did not contain added sweeteners.  The plaintiffs in
the case say that even the FDA has come down against Trader Joe's
on this issue, with a guideline that clearly states industries
should avoid listing ingredients such as "evaporated cane juice"
because the term suggests that the ingredient is juice rather than
the truth which is that it is merely sugar by a different name.

The movement to hold food companies accountable is important so
that consumers can have faith that labels mean what they say.  For
too long companies have been allowed to slap meaningless labels on
products without much opposition and the increase in lawsuits will
hopefully put an end to that practice.


* NBC Lists Notable Recalls in Recent History
---------------------------------------------
Gillian Spear, writing for NBC News, reports that following a
public spat between Chrysler and the National Highway Traffic and
Safety Administration, the maker of the Jeep Cherokee on June 18
finally agreed to recall millions of vehicles.  But it's not the
biggest recall ever, and it's really just one more in a string of
high-profile companies that have been forced to admit their
products were faulty.  Here's a look at some of the more notable
recalls in recent history.

Tylenol - 1982

In 1982, seven people in the Chicago area died suddenly after
taking cyanide-laced Extra Strength Tylenol.  The company took
immediate action and quickly recalled 31 million units of the
product.  The individual(s) responsible for the poisoning,
however, were never caught.  The incident prompted the food and
drug industries to develop tamper-resistant packaging and product
tampering was made a federal crime.

Tylenol - 2010

Nearly three decades later, McNeil Healthcare -- Tylenol's
manufacturer -- took much longer to respond to complaints of
nausea and other side effects from consumers taking Tylenol
products.  After 20 months of receiving these complaints, the
company took action and recalled about 60 million bottles of
various Tylenol products.

Spinach - 2006

In 2006, at least three deaths and nearly 200 illnesses resulted
from infections tied to E. coli-contaminated spinach linked back
to a farm in central California.  The outbreak cost the industry
more that $350 million and greatly affected the sales of spinach
for the years to follow.

Volkswagen - 1972

In 1972, Volkswagen recalled all of their beloved Beetles, made
1949-1969, for problems regarding their windshield wipers.  At the
time, VW's wipers were notorious for loosening and falling off.
After years of complaints, the company agreed to replace the
windshield wipers on 3.7 million Beetles with an improved design.

Ford Pinto - 1978

In 1978, Ford recalled 1.5 million Pintos after an investigation
by the NHTSAn proved that the Pinto's gas tank was susceptible to
explosion and fire after minor collisions.  Three people died
before the recall and six died in Pinto fires during the time
following the recall but before the parts to repair the vehicle
were made available.

Ford - 1980

During the 1970s, Ford battled with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration regarding alleged defects in Ford's
transmissions, which caused some vehicles to reverse rather than
park.  But the NHTSA was unable to successfully recall the 23
million Ford vehicles believed to have this transmission fault.
In 1980, the Department of Transportation agreed to close its
investigation in exchange for Ford's pledge to send notification
and warning labels to the owners of the 23 million Fords.

Firestone Tires - 2000

Firestone voluntarily recalled 6.5 million tires in 2000 after the
NHTSA began an investigation linking the tire company to nearly
300 tire failures.  The government investigation linked Firestone
tires to at least 46 deaths between the years 1997-2000.

Easy-Bake Ovens - 2007

Hasbro and the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled almost
1 million Easy-Bake Ovens after finding that children could get
their fingers caught and burned in the oven's opening.  At the
time of the recall, the CPSC reported five cases of burns,
including one 5-year-old girl who was burned severely enough to
need to have one of her fingers partially amputated.

Toyota cars - 2009-2010

Toyota made headlines in 2010 when the company recalled 5.6
million Toyota and Lexus vehicles for problems linked to sudden
unstoppable acceleration.  It's estimated that the recall cost
Toyota $2 billion, which includes the costs incurred by Toyota's
decision to halt both production and US sales during the
investigation.  The recall was the largest ever for Toyota and
among the largest in automobile history.

Drop-Side Cribs - 2009

The Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled 2.1 million
Generation 2 Worldwide and "ChilDesigns" drop-side cribs after the
cribs were linked to the deaths of four infants and toddlers by
suffocation.  In December 2010, the government made the decision
to outlaw drop-side cribs after 30 children died during the years
2001-2010from problems with the cribs.

Peanut Corporation of America - 2009

In January 2009, the Peanut Corporation of America issued one of
the largest food recalls in history.  The Peanut Corporation
recalled more than 3000 products from 200 companies after their
peanuts were linked to salmonella.  Ultimately the outbreak caused
a total of nine deaths and over 700 infections.

Ford Motor Company - 2009

In 2009, Ford completed a series of recalls totaling 14 million
cars.  According to the National highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the cars recalled had a faulty cruise control
deactivation switch that lead the cars to leak hydraulic fluid,
overheat, and eventually smoke and burn.  It remains the largest
recall in US automaker history.


* Third-Party Telemarketers Still Liable Under New TCPA Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Buyer, writing for No Jitter, reports that anyone who has
clients or customers that might even consider making any form of
robocalls or texts -- even to important customers for "all the
right reasons," is well-advised to pay careful attention to not
only the FCC's and FTC's enforcement of the TCPA
(Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act), but also to the
recent successes of the class action bar in securing mighty
settlements from, among others, Steve Madden [Shoes], Coca Cola
and Papa John's.  Anyone who thinks the class action bar isn't
hungry for this (more on that in a minute), hasn't been paying
attention.  And entities that send blanket texts from automated
systems, as well as those who support and advise these senders,
need to know what's going on.

The revised TCPA Enhanced Rules will take effect on October 16 of
this year, and apply to both unwanted and unsolicited calls and
texts.  There have been some important changes, in terms of both
practical applications and potential pitfalls.  Among other
things, the newly revised rules provide both plaintiffs and class
action attorneys with the incentive of securing damages of $500
for each TCPA violation and $1,500 for each willful violation.

However, while the opportunity is there for recovery from
violators, another recent decision may serve to make willing
plaintiffs and their attorneys a bit more circumspect before
beginning the process of creating classes and trying to get them
certified for subsequent litigation.

Also of note is the FCC's recent determination that sellers who
use third-party telemarketers may still be vicariously liable for
the third parties' violations of the TCPA.  In English, this means
companies that hire third-party marketers to promote on their
behalf can still be liable for unauthorized conduct of that third
party, "if the seller knew (or reasonably should have known) that
the telemarketer was violating the TCPA on the seller's behalf and
the seller failed to take effective steps within its power to
force the telemarketer to cease that conduct."

Content of such communications is also considered by the new
rules.  The revised rule does not apply to debt collection calls
or texts, unless such calls or texts include or introduce any type
of advertisement or marketing materials.

Here is a quick cheat sheet on the new rules, courtesy of
http://is.gd/JxasM2

How courts will enforce the FCC's new interpretation remains to be
seen.  While courts are required to give deference to an agency's
interpretation of a statute, such deference applies only if the
statute is unclear.

                        The Pizza Decisions

Recently, as was mentioned at the outset, there have been some
costly decisions against entities that have chosen to either
ignore the rules or remain ignorant of them.  Costly mistake.

Most notably, Papa John's is waiting for court approval of its
offer to pay $16.5 million to resolve a "text spamming" nationwide
class action suit that was certified in November.  The proposed
settlement, which has yet to be approved by the federal judge
overseeing the case, provides that each class member who submits a
claim will receive not only a $50 payment from Papa John's, but a
voucher for a free Papa John's pizza as well.

While Papa John's waits, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Riedlinger
has granted preliminary approval to another popular pepperoni
pizza purveyor, Domino's, over similar violations of the TCPA that
occurred in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.  In this case,
members of the class received prerecorded robocalls advertising
. . . you guessed it . . . pizza.  As a result of the settlement,
members of the class will receive either $15 in cash or a voucher
for . . . you guessed it again . . . a free pizza.

However, the news is not all good for would-be suers, and seekers
of free pizza.  The Supreme Court's recent decision in Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend may dampen the enthusiasm for plaintiffs and
counsel in going after alleged TCPA violators.

This case involves the eligibility of plaintiffs, and the ability
and/or inability to certify a class (and has nothing to do with
the telecom portion of Comcast's business).  However, while the
Comcast decision is likely to have a significant impact on TCPA
cases going forward, this recent decision does not affect those
that are already in the pipeline.

Class action litigation is always tricky business.  Recently, a
California federal judge denied class certification in a lawsuit
in which plaintiffs alleged that Network Telephone Services
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages.  According
to a document published by well-respected law firm Arnold &
Porter, the court held that "the class was unascertainable and
that individual issues, such as whether class members had seen
disclosures of text message practices and whether the class member
had attempted to opt-out, predominated."

On the other hand, a Florida judge recently strongly rejected a
reconsideration request made by a TCPA defendant; that defendant
had argued that the Comcast decision justified revisiting the
court's prior decision in favor of certifying a class.

The bottom line is that court is the last place you or your
clients want to go.  By being familiar with these rules and the
changes, telecom consultants and professionals can provide
invaluable advice and guidance to their clients or employers.


* Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Also Causes Nonphysical Complications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Product Liability Lawyer Philadelphia, complications
from transvaginal mesh surgery cause serious physical injuries to
women, including infections, significant pain, urinary problems,
prolapse recurrence and incontinence.  But the story doesn't end
there.

Take, for example, Debbie.  Debbie is a woman from Seattle,
Washington, who was forced to cancel her wedding because she could
not have sex without immense pain.

"Because of the inability to have sexual intimacy with my fiance,"
she told legal news source Lawyers & Settlements, "I am also
suffering from depression and weight gain -- this transvaginal
mesh has caused my life to become a physical and psychological
downward spiral."

Debbie is not alone.  Surgical mesh problems have affected
thousands of women.  In fact, up to 10 percent of all women who
have undergone the procedure have experienced mesh erosion, which
can cause pain for women and men during intercourse.  Other women
cannot have sexual intercourse or experience pain because their
meshes have contracted.  One of the only solutions to fix the
problem is to remove the mesh, but in many cases, the mesh has
broken into pieces and it can take multiple surgeries and years of
recovery to find relief again.

Transvaginal mesh was created to cure two issues in women --
pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence -- both of which can
interfere with sexual activity.  Yet, transvaginal mesh surgery
complications leave many women worse off than they were prior to
their surgeries.

Recovering Compensation for All TVM Injuries

Besides problems with sexual intercourse, the immense pain caused
by transvaginal mesh surgery complications can affect women in
other ways, including causing:

    Depression
    Weight gain
    Loss of income
    Inability to care for children
    Loss of enjoyment in life

If you have experienced physical problems caused by TVM defects,
chances are you have also experienced psychological challenges.
Those nonphysical complications should not be overlooked.  In an
injury lawsuit against a transvaginal mesh manufacturer, you may
be able to recover compensation for both your physical and
psychological injuries.

Even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned
surgeons about the serious complications caused by transvaginal
mesh surgeries, it has not issued a recall of the meshes.  It
appears that the only way to hold these companies accountable for
the injuries they have caused is through the court system.  Women
across the U.S. are filing lawsuits against transvaginal mesh
manufacturers such as Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon division, Boston
Scientific, American Medical Systems and C.R. Bard.


                             *********

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  * * *