CAR_Public/130725.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 25, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 145

                             Headlines


ALLIANCE ONE: Brazilian Unit Still Faces Suit by Farmers Group
ALLIANCE ONE: Dismissed From "Aranda" Suit
AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Matrix Benefits in "Brown" Suit Affirmed
AMERICAN HONDA: Opposes Class Cert. Bid in "Grodzitsky" Suit
APPLE INC: May Face Class Actions After E-Book Antitrust Ruling

ARIZONA: Appellate Court to Consider Scope of Prison Class Action
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Accused of Charging Illegal Fees in Mass.
BBX CAPITAL: Lawsuit Over BFC-Bluegreen Merger Continues
BECK ENERGY: 7th Cir. to Hear Class Action Over Oil & Gas Leases
BMW AG: Recalls 15,294 Cars and SUVs Over Airbag Defect

CANADIAN RED CROSS: McMillan Discusses Class Action Ruling
CASH STORE: Amends Financial Statements Due to Misinterpretation
CASH STORE: Sued in B.C. Over Alleged Overcharges in Payday Loans
CASH STORE: Accrues C$100,000 in Relation to Interest Rate Suit
CASH STORE: Faces "Efthimiou" Suit in Alberta Over "Payday Loan"

CASH STORE: Faces "Ironbow" Payday Loan Suit in Saskatchewan
CASH STORE: Faces "Meeking" Suit in Manitoba Over "Payday Loan"
CASH STORE: Faces "Rehill" Suit in Manitoba Over "Payday Loan"
CASH STORE: Faces "Yeoman" Lawsuit in Ontario Over "Payday Loan"
CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Discharged From Stock Suit Upon Plan Approval

CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Discharged From "Grodko" Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal of Claims in Northstar Suit on Appeal
CHINA-BIOTICS: Still Faces Securities Lawsuits in Cal., N.Y.
CLEARWIRE CORP: Bid to Stay Order Over Appeal Bond Posting Denied
COCA-COLA CO: Vitaminwater Suit Can Proceed as Class Action

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
CR BARD: July 29 Trial Scheduled for Transvaginal Mesh Suit
CROWN CRAFTS: Suit Over Crib Bumper Products Removed to Calif.
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Lawsuits in California
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over "Hazardous" Waste in Calif. Plant

EXPRESSJET AIRLINES: Court Wants 2nd Amended Complaint in "Harris"
FINISAIR CORPORATION: Files New Motion to Junk Securities Lawsuit
GULF COAST: Securities Lawsuit Over FCX-MMR Merger Consolidated
HARRIS TEETER: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Kroger Acquisition
HEARST CORP: Mintz Levin Discusses Unpaid Internship Ruling

INSTAGRAM LLC: Suit Over Changes in Terms of Service Dismissed
KRAFT FOODS: Obtains Mixed Rulings in False Labeling Class Action
L.D. KICHLER: Recalls 200 Kichler Aztec Nine-Light Chandelier
LES PRODUITS: Recalls Printemps Brand Dressings
LIFE PARTNERS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Investors' Suit

LINNCO LLC: Faces IPO-Related Class Action Suit in New York
MEDICAL VISION: About 500 Australian Women Join Implant Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Firefighters' Securities Action for $85MM
MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Face Suit Over Defibrillation Leads
MEDTRONIC OF CANADA: Recalls Various MiniMed Insulin Reservoirs

MOLSON COORS: Recalls Canadian Cider in Glass Bottles
MOM'S UKRAINIAN: Recalls Brand Cabbage Rolls and Perogies
MTD PRODUCTS: Settles Lawn Mower Labeling Class Action in Canada
NAKED JUICE: Settles False Labeling Class Action for $9 Million
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: 6 Current Football Players Join O'Bannon Action

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seeks Partial Summary Judgment in Super Bowl Suit
NIAGARA SOCIAL SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Delayed Food Stamps
NISSAN MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Batter Capacity Loss
OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Earth's Pride Organics: Organic Oregano
PELAGIC PRESSURE: Recalls Hollis DG03 Due to Drowning Hazard

PIVOTAL PAYMENTS: "Sawyer" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
PRODUIT DE L'ERABLE: Recalls "Vinaigrette a l'erable" Dressing
RED LOBSTER: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Gratuities
RENAISSANCE HOSPITAL: Ex-Employees File ERISA Class Action
ROUGE CANADA: Recalls Maple & Maple Raspberry Dressings

SKADDEN ARPS: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
STANDARD FIRE: Strasburger Discusses Class Action Ruling
STAPLES: Recalls Bermond Manager's Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
SUBWAY SANDWICH: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Footlong Ads
TORN AND GLASSER: Recalls Pistachios Due to Salmonella Risk

TOTAL SYSTEM: Accord Over NetSpend Gift Card Suit Awaits Approval
TOYOTA MOTOR: Wins Final OK of $1.6BB Pact in Acceleration Suit
UNIPIXEL INC: Faces Securities Lawsuits in New York & Texas
UNITED STATES: EPIC's Telephone Surveillance Suit Faces Hurdles
UNITED STATES: Native Americans Seek Reparation for Broken Treaty

VESLON COSMETICS: Additional Unauthorized Health Products Recalled
WESTERN MIXERS: Recalls ARO and Treasured Harvest Pistachios
WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Seek Supreme Court Review of Washer Ruling
WOCKHARDT LTD: UK Medicines Regulator Recalls 16 Drugs
YAMAHA MOTOR: Sued for Failing to Disclose Outboard Motor Defects

* Lac-Megantic Class Action Spurs Railroad Safety Standard Review
* Mexico Allows Certain Class Actions in Federal Court
* Seven Supreme Court Rulings May Have Impact on Class Actions


                             *********


ALLIANCE ONE: Brazilian Unit Still Faces Suit by Farmers Group
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance One International, Inc.'s Brazilian subsidiary is still
awaiting a court ruling with respect to remaining claims brought
by the "Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco,"
according to the company's June 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 6, 2008, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary and a number
of other tobacco processors were notified of a class action
initiated by the ALPAG - Associacao Lourenciana de Pequenos
Agricultrores ("Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco").
The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of Sao Lourenco
do Sul.

On April 20, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss the class
action was granted in part and denied in part. Hearings with
respect to the remaining claims, which relate to practices
regarding the weighing and grading of tobacco, concluded on
January 23, 2013.  The outcome with respect to these remaining
claims is uncertain as to both timing and result. Due to the broad
scope of the pleading, the ultimate exposure if an unfavorable
outcome is received is not estimable.


ALLIANCE ONE: Dismissed From "Aranda" Suit
------------------------------------------
Alliance One International, Inc. was dismissed from Aranda, et al.
v. Alliance One International, Inc., et al., which is before the
New Castle County, Delaware state court, according to the
company's June 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company was named as one of several defendants in Hupan, et
al. v. Alliance One International, Inc., et al., Chalanuk, et al.
v. Alliance One International, Inc., et al.and Rodriquez Da Silva,
et al., which are distinct but related lawsuits respectively filed
in New Castle County, Delaware state court on February 14, 2012,
April 5, 2012 and October 25, 2012.

The lawsuits were brought by approximately 230 individuals
claiming to be tobacco farmers and their family members, all
residing in Misiones Province, Argentina. The complaints sought
compensatory and punitive damages from the Company, and from other
multinational defendants, under U.S. and Argentine law for alleged
injuries, including birth defects, purportedly caused by exposure
to agricultural chemicals in connection with the production and
cultivation of tobacco.

In December 2012, in each of these actions the Company was
dismissed without prejudice and without any cost to the Company.

The Company is also aware of a complaint filed March 1, 2013 in
New Castle County, Delaware state court captioned Aranda, et al.
v. Alliance One International, Inc., et al., which names the
Company as one of several defendants but which has not been served
on the Company. Such complaint names as plaintiffs 64 additional
individuals who are also alleged to be tobacco farmers and their
family members residing in Misiones Province, Argentina, and
alleges injuries and seeks remedies similar to the three actions
mentioned. In May 2013, the Company was dismissed from such action
without prejudice and without any cost to the Company.


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Matrix Benefits in "Brown" Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, District Judge Harvey Bartle, III,
issued a memorandum pertaining to the case, SHEILA BROWN, et al.
v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION.

Debbie Gordon, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the
AHP Settlement Trust. Based on the record developed in the show
cause process, the Court must determine whether Ms. Gordon has
demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support her claim for
Matrix Compensation Benefits and, if so, whether she met her
burden of proving that her claim was not based, in whole or in
part, on any intentional material misrepresentation of fact.

Earlier this month, Judge Bartle concluded that the claimant has
not met her burden of proving that there is a reasonable medical
basis for finding that she had moderate mitral regurgitation.
Therefore, the Trust's denial of Ms. Gordon's claim for Matrix
Benefits and the related derivative claim submitted by her spouse
is affirmed.

A copy of the District Court's July 11, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/yHuOjnfrom Leagle.com.

ANGELA JENSEN, Claimant, represented by STEVEN L. BUNOSKI.

JOANN READ, Claimant, represented by STEVEN L. BUNOSKI.

JOYCE MAUDIE, Claimant, represented by MICHAEL L. HODGES, at
HODGES LAW FIRM, CHARTERED.

CINDY SORENSON, Claimant, represented by WAYNE H. BRAUNBERGER --
wbraunberger@comcast.net -- at BRAUNBERGER BOUD & DRAPER PC.


AMERICAN HONDA: Opposes Class Cert. Bid in "Grodzitsky" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES, reports that Honda has filed a
response to an amended class action complaint, which alleges some
of the automaker's vehicles have defective window regulators. In
the case, Grodzitsky versus American Honda Motor Co., the
plaintiffs argue the window regulator defect results in the
sidelite falling into the door frame or becoming stuck in the
fully-open position.

Honda also terminated its motion to dismiss the second-amended
class it had filed in the U.S. Central District Court of
California.

Phyllis Grodzitsky, owner of a Honda Odyssey, and Jeremy Bordelon
of Tennessee, owner of a Honda Element, alleged in the original
complaint that they reported repeated failures of window
regulators in their vehicles.  Ms. Grodzitsky further claims that
she contacted her local Honda service manager and was told, "all
[Honda Odysseys] have that problem."

In its response to the amended complaint, the automaker's
attorneys write, "Honda expressly denies that 'all Honda Odysseys
have that problem."

Honda's attorneys deny most of the allegations, writing in court
documents, "Honda denies that class certification is appropriate
and expressly denies that any claims in this action are
appropriate for class treatment.  . . . Honda admits that within
some, but not all, vehicles that are part of plaintiffs' putative
class definition, side windows are moved up and down by a window
regulator that operates with a central track, a shuttle and a
cable, attached to a motor.  Honda denies that all 'class
vehicles' have a 'cable-style' window regulator assembly.

Honda demands a jury trial, as well as court costs.

THE Attorneys also ask, "That the proposed certification of any
class herein be denied."


APPLE INC: May Face Class Actions After E-Book Antitrust Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Wolverton and Heather Somerville at San Jose Mercury News
report that a federal court's ruling on July 11 that Apple
conspired to fix prices for e-books could end up being a costly
and enduring headache for the company, which now faces the
prospect of court-imposed penalties and class-action suits.  The
ruling could also lead to greater scrutiny of its other businesses
from regulators.

"Now the Department of Justice is emboldened to continue to
challenge what Apple does in the future, and so are the states,"
said Max Huffman, an associate professor at Indiana University's
Robert H. McKinney School of Law and an expert on antitrust
and consumer law.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan ruled that Apple
colluded with five of the six major book publishers to raise the
prices that consumers pay for e-books.  Citing damning emails from
late Apple CEO Steve Jobs and other executives, Cote ruled that
Apple, in the months before the launch of the first iPad,
conspired with the publishers to undermine Amazon, then the
dominant e-book seller, and ensure that there would be no price
competition among e-book retailers.

Amazon remains the largest e-book seller, but a spokesman at
Publishers Weekly said industry experts expect Apple will displace
Barnes & Noble for the No. 2 spot by the end of the year.

Apple, which all along has denied the price-fixing charges, vowed
to appeal the ruling.  "Apple did not conspire to fix e-book
pricing and we will continue to fight against these false
accusations," company spokesman Tom Neumayr said in an emailed
statement.

The antitrust case will now move to a penalty phase.  Apple is not
at risk of having to pay a fine but will have federal regulators
keeping close tabs on how it conducts business in the e-books
market.

Also, separate lawsuits against Apple by some 33 state attorneys
general will now go forward; several private consumer lawsuits
already are underway.  Those cases seek to recover for consumers
the excess amounts they paid for e-books as a result of Apple's
conspiracy with the book publishers.  If it loses those cases,
Apple could pay triple damages.

Meanwhile, Apple could see regulatory scrutiny go well beyond e-
books.  The company has already come under fire for the degree of
control it has in the digital music and smartphone apps markets
and could see antitrust regulators scrutinizing those businesses
more closely.

"Apple has to tread cautiously," said Eric Goldman, a professor at
Santa Clara University School of Law.  "People are watching what
they're doing."

The antitrust case stemmed from Apple's desire to showcase the
iPad as an e-reader when it launched the tablet in 2010.  In the
months before unveiling the device, Apple negotiated with the
major book publishers to get the rights to sell e-books in
iBookstore, a new digital bookstore it was creating for the
device.

Amazon at the time bought e-books wholesale from the publishers
and then set its own retail prices.  But Apple agreed to sell e-
books on an "agency" model, where the publishers would set prices
of their books and Apple would simply take a 30 percent
commission.

The agreements also included a so-called "most-favored nation"
clause that allowed Apple to match the lowest prices offered by
competing e-book stores.  That imposed significant financial costs
on the publishers if they didn't force Amazon and other e-book
sellers to switch over to an agency model like Apple's.

Thanks to such provisions, prices of e-books skyrocketed after
Apple's iBookstore launched, rising in some cases by more than 50
percent, Judge Cote said.  On average, according to the Justice
Department, e-book prices rose 18%.

"Those higher prices were not the result of regular market forces
but of a scheme in which Apple was a full participant," Judge Cote
wrote in her decision.

The Department of Justice, which previously secured settlements
with the five publishers accused of conspiring with Apple, lauded
the July 10 ruling.

"Companies cannot ignore the antitrust laws when they believe it
is in their economic self-interest to do so," Assistant Attorney
General Bill Baer said in a statement. "This decision by the court
is a critical step in undoing the harm caused by Apple's illegal
actions."

Law experts say Apple's chances of winning an appeal are slim.
Appeals courts almost always defer to trial courts in cases such
as these, which are based on a substantial amount of documented
evidence.

Apple has built a reputation as an aggressive negotiator with
companies that supply not just the books but the movies, music and
other media sold on Apple iTunes.  But the ruling may force it to
rethink the way it does business with media companies and
publishers, legal experts said.


ARIZONA: Appellate Court to Consider Scope of Prison Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appellate court will
consider whether 13 inmates' lawsuit over health care provided by
Arizona prisons and conditions of confinement should be expanded
into broader litigation on behalf of nearly 34,000 fellow
prisoners.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to accept a
pretrial appeal by the state, which wants to erase a class-action
certification granted by U.S. District Judge Neil Wake, the
Arizona Capitol Times reported.

In asking to be allowed to challenge the certification, the state
said the inmates' lawyers hadn't provided evidence of systemwide
shortcomings.

Citing lengthy class-action cases over conditions in California's
prison system, Arizona's request also urged the appellate court to
set a standard for allowing class-action cases alleging
unconstitutional conditions in state prison systems.

A ruling upholding the certification likely would mean many more
years of litigation, the state said in its motion.

Judge Wake certified the suit as a class action in March, saying a
case could be made that the Department of Corrections shows
"deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" and that
systemic problems expose all prisoners to a substantial risk of
serious harm.

Judge Wake ruled the class would include prisoners who are not
provided access to necessary and timely care.  He also included a
subclass of prisoners who are confined to their cells 22 hours a
day.

The state has a total inmate population of approximately 40,500.

Along with agreeing to hear the appeal, the 9th Circuit also
ordered that it be put on a fast track.  Written briefs from both
parties will be filed by Sept. 18, and the appeal will be put on
the first available calendar for oral argument.

Dan Pochoda, an American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona attorney
helping represent the inmates, expressed confidence in Wake's
ruling, which Mr. Pochoda called well-reasoned.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Accused of Charging Illegal Fees in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Vangelist, Jen Vangelist, Peter Roaf, Prudence Roaf,
Nicholas D'Amico, And All other persons who have been caused
similar injury and are similarly situated v. AvalonBay
Communities, Inc., Case No. ESCV2013-01157 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
July 19, 2013) accuses the Defendant of charging illegal fees.

The Plaintiffs allege that AvalonBay has charged them application
and reservation fees in violation of the Massachusetts General
Laws (MGL).  They argue that the MGL states that a lessor may not
charge a prospective tenant any fee except for the first month
rent, last month rent, a security deposit or a lock fee.

The Vangelists are residents of Georgetown, Massachusetts.  The
Roafs are residents of Newton, Massachusetts.  Nicholas D'Amico is
a resident of Beverly, Massachusetts.

AvalonBay is a foreign corporation incorporated in Maryland and
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.  AvalonBay is in the
business of real estate development, ownership and operation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Scott Dullea, Esq.
          Eitan Goldberg, Esq.
          Edward Roaf, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & DULLEA
          5 Briscoe St.
          Beverly, MA 01915
          Telephone: (978) 922-4025
          E-mail: scott@goldberganddullea.com
                  eitan@goldberganddullea.com
                  erroaf@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Jan Schlichtmann, Esq.
          PO Box 233
          Prides Crossing, MA 01965
          Telephone: (978) 927-1037
          Facsimile: (978) 232-9668
          E-mail: jan@schlichtmannlaw.com


BBX CAPITAL: Lawsuit Over BFC-Bluegreen Merger Continues
--------------------------------------------------------
The In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder Litigation continues
after the merger of BFC Financial Corporation (BFC) and Bluegreen
Corporation, according to BBX Capital Corporation's June 17, 2013,
Form 8-K/A Filing (Amendment No. 1) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Between November 16, 2011 and February 13, 2012, seven purported
class action lawsuits related to the previously proposed stock-
for-stock merger between BFC and Bluegreen were filed against
Bluegreen, the members of Bluegreen's board of directors, BFC and
BXG Florida Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodbridge
formed for purposes of the merger ("BXG Merger Sub").

Four of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action
in Florida, and the other three lawsuits have been consolidated
into a single action in Massachusetts and stayed in favor of the
Florida action.

The four Florida lawsuits, captioned and styled Ronald Kirkland v.
Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Richard
Harriman v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 22,
2011); Alfred Richner v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on
December 2, 2011); and BHR Master Fund, LTD et al. v. Bluegreen
Corporation et al. (filed on February 13, 2012), were consolidated
into an action styled In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder
Litigation.

On April 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint which alleged that the individual director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) agreeing to sell
Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and
maximum consideration, (ii) engineering a transaction to benefit
themselves and not the shareholders, and (iii) failing to protect
the interests of Bluegreen's minority shareholders.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs also alleged that BFC breached
its fiduciary duties to Bluegreen's minority shareholders and that
BXG Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by Bluegreen's directors and BFC. In addition, the
complaint included allegations relating to claimed violations of
Massachusetts law. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive
relief, along with damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On
September 13, 2012, Bluegreen's motion to dismiss the action was
denied. Bluegreen subsequently answered the complaint.

The three Massachusetts lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
for Suffolk County in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and styled
as follows: Gaetano Bellavista Caltagirone v. Bluegreen
Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Alan W. Weber and
J.B. Capital Partners L.P. v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed
on November 29, 2011); and Barry Fieldman, as Trustee for the
Barry & Amy Fieldman Family Trust v. Bluegreen Corporation et al.
(filed on December 6, 2011).

In their respective complaints, the plaintiffs alleged that the
individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure
adequate, fair and maximum consideration. The Fieldman and Weber
actions contained the same claim against BFC. In addition, the
complaints included claims that BXG Merger Sub, in the case of the
Fieldman action, BFC and BXG Merger Sub, in the case of the
Caltagirone action, and Bluegreen, in the case of the Weber
action, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. On January 17, 2012, the three Massachusetts lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action styled In Re Bluegreen Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, which is presently stayed in favor of the
Florida action.

Following the public announcement of the termination of the stock-
for-stock merger agreement and the entry into the previously
described agreement relating to Bluegreen's cash merger with
Woodbridge, the plaintiffs in the Florida action filed a motion
for leave to file a supplemental complaint on November 28, 2012 in
order to challenge the structure of, and consideration
contemplated to be received by Bluegreen's shareholders in the
cash merger.

On November 30, 2012, the Florida court granted the plaintiffs'
motion and the supplemental complaint was deemed filed as of that
date.  The supplemental complaint alleges that the merger
consideration remained inadequate and continued to be unfair to
Bluegreen's minority shareholders.

The cash merger was consummated on April 2, 2013.  However, the
actions related to the transaction remain pending, with the
plaintiffs seeking to recover damages in connection with the
transaction.  Woodbridge and Bluegreen believe that these lawsuits
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them.


BECK ENERGY: 7th Cir. to Hear Class Action Over Oil & Gas Leases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamison Cocklin, writing for Vindy.com, reports that the 7th
District Court of Appeals in Youngstown is expected soon to hear a
class-action lawsuit that could affect hundreds of property owners
in Ohio angered by long-term oil and gas leases that lock up their
land.

For some time now, courts across the state have heard from
landowners who say restrictive oil and gas leases signed for as
little as $50 per acre before the Utica Shale boom have prevented
them from pitching their land to larger companies -- offering
leases for thousands of dollars per acre with a chance to earn
lucrative royalties if their mineral rights are put into
production.

But those cases have proceeded with little success.  In most
instances, judges have upheld the contractual obligations of those
lease agreements and ruled in the companies' favor.

In 2011, though, a group of six landowners from Monroe County
filed a lawsuit against Ravenna-based Beck Energy Corp.  They
allege the company used a blanket oil and gas lease drafted in
1983 that tied up their mineral rights where the company initially
planned to drill into the Clinton Sandstone formation -- but never
did -- leaving the land undeveloped.

Rick Zurz -- rzurz@slaterzurz.com -- of the Akron-based law firm
Slater & Zurz, which represents the landowners, said it was
realized that hundreds of other property owners were leased under
the same standard lease across 21,000 acres and the case was
certified as a class- action suit.  Just two months after the suit
was filed, court documents show that Beck Energy sold the deep
mineral rights across some of the 21,000 acres to XTO Energy, a
subsidiary of the country's largest publicly traded oil and gas
company Exxon Mobil.

"The record makes clear that [Beck] sold the deep rights on a lot
of those leases for a lot of money," Mr. Zurz said.  "We don't
have the figure.  The company hasn't disclosed it, but it was
likely in the millions of dollars.  The landowners got nothing.
Beck kept it all."

The case has dragged on for nearly two years.  In 2012, a Monroe
County Common Pleas Court judge issued a summary judgment in favor
of the landowners, saying at the time that the leases "clearly,
unequivocally and seriously offend public policy."  The court
voided the 21,000 acres of leasehold and said Beck breached the
contract by failing to develop the land in a timely manner.

XTO purchased the deep mineral rights knowing that litigation was
pending, and it included a provision in the sales agreement
requiring Beck to defend title to the leases.

Neither Beck nor its attorney, Scott Zurakowski, could be reached
to comment.

XTO, which filed a motion to intervene and become a party in the
case, was denied by the Monroe County court.  It has since
declined to comment citing pending litigation.

Thomas Stewart, executive vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas
Association, which has filed a friend of the court brief along
with 13 other industry-affiliated groups supporting Beck's
argument that the leases must be reinstated, said if the lower
court's decision is upheld on appeal in Youngstown, it could put
the state's oil and gas industry at a disadvantage and disrupt the
way it negotiates for property.

"You take a lease for a primary term.  It's a contract between the
mineral owner and the producer," Mr. Stewart said.  "Apparently,
the judge in Monroe County didn't like the way that contract was
negotiated.  The primary term of the leases had not been reached
and the judge terminated it.  You can't do that."

Mr. Stewart added that when the leases were negotiated for $50 per
acre, most of which were signed between 2001 and 2006, neither the
company nor the landowners could have predicted that demand for
leasehold across the Utica Shale play would drive the price for
acreage up by thousands of dollars, saying that's "the nature of
the marketplace."

Don Fischbach, chair of the energy group and an attorney at the
Cleveland-based law firm Calfee, Halter & Griswold, which is not
involved in the class-action lawsuit, said the finer points of oil
and gas leases that involve operating expenses, revenue allocation
during production, the length of leases and what it takes to
extend them will continue to be addressed in Ohio courts in the
coming years.

Compared to other producing states where shale gas drilling has
occurred for longer, Ohio has little case law to address such
issues, Mr. Fischbach said.

"If the circuit court issues an appellate decision, it has weight
in lower courts that address similar issues in the future," he
said.

"The higher you go up the appellate ladder, those decisions get
more obligatory on the lower court judges that have to apply
them."


BMW AG: Recalls 15,294 Cars and SUVs Over Airbag Defect
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           15,294
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013238
TC ID number:             2013238

Affected products:

   Make          Model           Model year(s) affected
   ----          -----           ----------------------
   BMW           3 SERIES        2006, 2007
   BMW           7 SERIES        2006, 2007
   BMW           5 SERIES        2006, 2007
   BMW           X5              2006
   BMW           X3              2006, 2007
   BMW           Z4              2006, 2007
   BMW           6 SERIES        2006, 2007

On certain vehicles, the front passenger seat occupant detection
mat can fatigue over time.  As a result, the passenger airbag
could deactivate, illuminating the airbag warning lamp and the
passenger airbag ON/OFF lamp.  Failure of the passenger airbag to
deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could
increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant.

Vehicles will receive special extended warranty coverage of 10
years from first registration.  Under this special coverage
program, vehicles which experience this condition will have the
occupant detection mat replaced.


CANADIAN RED CROSS: McMillan Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Joan M. Young, Esq. -- joan.young@mcmillan.ca -- and Kaitlyn
Meyer, Esq. -- kaitlyn.meyer@mcmillan.ca -- at McMillan LLP,
report that in a recent ruling from the B.C. Supreme Court, Endean
v Canadian Red Cross, the Court considered the extent to which
judges can cooperate across provincial borders in jointly hearing
applications in parallel proceedings located in a single court
location.  The Endean case follows on a recent Ontario decision on
the same subject in Parsons v The Canadian Red Cross Society.

This case concerned six class proceedings brought in British
Columbia, Ontario and Quebec regarding persons who were infected
with Hepatitis C from the Canadian blood supply between January
1986 and July 1990.  A Settlement Agreement was approved in 1999
by orders of the B.C., Ontario and Quebec courts and was signed by
all of the Canadian provinces and territories.  The Settlement
Agreement provided ongoing jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of
B.C., the Quebec Superior Court and the Ontario Superior Court to
issue orders necessary to implement, enforce, and supervise the
performance of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement established a C$1.118 billion fund from
which claimants could receive compensation.  A court-appointed
Administrator was charged with reviewing and deciding claims.

In 2012, Class Counsel filed motions before superior court
justices in Ontario, B.C., and Quebec for approval of a protocol
extending the deadline for filing first claims for benefits from
the settlement funds in the Settlement Agreement.  Class Counsel
proposed that the motions be heard by the three superior court
justices in one location, Edmonton, Alberta, in order to increase
the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the process.

Then concurrent applications were brought by Class Counsel from
B.C., Ontario and Qu‚bec for directions from their respective
courts on whether a superior court judge could sit in another
province to hear an application under the Settlement Agreement.
This issue was raised when the Chief Justices of B.C., Ontario and
Quebec wished to sit together in one court location in Edmonton,
Alberta to hear applications brought in each of their respective
courts.

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that a superior court
justice lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing regarding the
Settlement Agreement outside of Ontario and that any order the
court made would be a nullity and could be set aside.

In reaching its decision, the B.C. Supreme Court ultimately agreed
with the parallel decision of Ontario's Chief Justice Winkler in
Parsons v The Canadian Red Cross Society.  Chief Justice Winkler
found that a court's inherent jurisdiction to control its own
process permits a superior court judge to preside over a hearing
conducted outside of its home province, provided it has personal
and subject-matter jurisdiction and if, in the particular case,
the interests of justice would be served.

The B.C. Supreme Court agreed with the submissions of B.C. Class
Counsel that permitting one hearing before the three independent
courts would lead to increased efficiency and avoid inconsistent
decisions.  This would also promote the Supreme Court Civil Rules
Rule 1-3(2) which encourages the just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every proceeding on its merits and in a manner
proportional to the amount involved, the importance of the issues
in dispute, and their complexity.

The B.C. Supreme Court further agreed with the Ontario court that
there was no constitutional principle or rule of law prohibiting
this conclusion.  Many cases promote an expansive view of a
superior court's inherent jurisdiction.4 Moreover, the Supreme
Court noted that technological advances have "fundamentally
altered commercial and societal realities in our federation" (at
para 13) such that "[a]ccommodating the flow of wealth, skills and
people across state lines has now become imperative".5

In the related Ontario case, that Court found that there was no
constitutional, statutory or common law provisions precluding
superior court justices from conducting a hearing outside of
Ontario (at para 56).  Specifically, historical limitations on
English courts' jurisdiction to sit outside of England did not
apply to prohibit superior courts from sitting outside of their
home provinces, especially where it would serve the interests of
justice to do so.  The Superior Court noted that Morguard
Investments v Savoie, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 is particularly
instructive on the need to shape the common law and the rules of
comity between provinces to accommodate the flow of people and
resources between provinces as well as Canada's federal structure.

The Parsons case highlighted that the Supreme Court of Canada has
found that a superior court's inherent jurisdiction includes the
power to fully control its own process.  There are four specific
functions of inherent jurisdiction: (i) ensuring convenience and
fairness in legal proceedings; (ii) preventing steps being taken
that would render judicial proceedings inefficacious; (iii)
preventing abuse of process; and (iv) acting in aid of superior
courts and in aid or control of inferior courts and tribunals.7
Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada has instructed that superior
courts are obliged to use their inherent power to fill any voids
in the rules of practice and procedure in order to fully address
these four functions.

The Ontario Class Proceedings Act, 1992 already reinforces the
inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to create procedures to
facilitate the efficient and effective resolution of nation-wide
class proceedings.  Specifically, section 12 empowers a court to
"make any order it considers appropriate respecting the conduct of
a class proceeding to ensure its fair and expeditious
determination".  This supervisory jurisdiction continues to exist
throughout "the implementation of the administration of a
settlement".  In the present case, this includes the
implementation of the Settlement Agreement.

The B.C. Court distinguished an earlier jurisdictional decision11
which concluded that the Law Society of British Columbia did not
have statutory authority to conduct part of a disciplinary hearing
outside of B.C.  The earlier decision did not directly address the
ability of a superior court judge to hear an application outside
of BC and thus, was not applicable to the present case.

The B.C. Court explained that section 9(2) of the Supreme Court
Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443 permits a superior court judge to
preside over a matter within its inherent jurisdiction "at any
time and at any place".  In R v Pilarinos and Clark ("Pilarinos"),
the Associate Chief Justice of BC, on an application before him in
California, issued an authorization to intercept private
communications in BC.  Pilarinos highlighted that a superior court
judge could exercise jurisdiction over persons, property or acts
within his or her territory while outside of his or her home
province, so long as he or she is not enforcing any order in the
foreign jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court also rejected the suggestion to use
videoconferencing in order to link the concurrent hearings in
different provinces.  The Supreme Court opined that "it appears
nonsensical that this would be acceptable but the physical
presence of the British Columbia and Quebec judges in [another
location] for the hearing would not be" (at para 15).

Ultimately, both the B.C. and Ontario courts considered what was
the most efficient and efficacious manner in which to resolve the
dispute, and concluded that allowing a joint hearing would meet
those objectives.


CASH STORE: Amends Financial Statements Due to Misinterpretation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed in a June 17,
2013 Amendment No. 1 to its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012 that:

The audited restated consolidated financial statements filed for
the Form 20-F/A on June 4, 2013 have been amended and restated to
correct for an error resulting from the misunderstanding of the
settlement terms and conditions of the March 5, 2004 British
Columbia Class Action claim, which resulted in the application of
an accounting principle to measure and record the liability as at
September 30, 2010 and subsequent reporting periods, that was not
appropriate in the circumstances. Consequently, amendments have
also been made in various sections of the Annual Report to conform
to the amendments to the consolidated financial statements which
are more fully described in Note 3 in those consolidated financial
statements and to update Item 15 Controls and Procedures. In
addition, the company made revisions to correct certain minor
typographical errors in various sections of the Annual Report.

On March 5, 2004, an action under the Class Proceedings Act was
commenced in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Andrew
Bodnar and others proposing that a class action be certified on
his own behalf and on behalf of all persons who have borrowed
money from the defendants, The Cash Store Financial and All Trans
Credit Union Ltd.

The action stems from the allegations that all payday loan fees
collected by the defendants constitute interest and therefore
violate s. 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Code"). On May
25, 2006, the claim in British Columbia was affirmed as a
certified class proceeding of Canada by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

In fiscal 2007, the plaintiffs in the British Columbia action
brought forward an application to have certain of the Company's
customers' third-party lenders added to the claim. On March 18,
2008, another action commenced in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia by David Wournell and others against The Cash Store
Financial, Instaloans Inc., and others in respect of the business
carried out under the name Instaloans since April 2005.
Collectively, the actions are referred to as the "British Columbia
Related Actions".

On May 12, 2009, the Company settled the British Columbia Related
Actions in principle and on February 28, 2010 the settlement was
approved by the Court. Under the terms of the court approved
settlement, the Company is to pay to the eligible class members
who were advanced funds under a loan agreement and who repaid the
payday loan plus brokerage fees and interest in full, or who met
certain other eligibility criteria, a maximum estimated amount
including legal expenses of $18.8 million, consisting of $9.4
million in cash and $9.4 million in credit vouchers.

The credit vouchers can be used to pay existing outstanding
brokerage fees and interest, to pay a portion of brokerage fees
and interest which may arise in the future through new loans
advanced, or can be redeemed for cash from January 1, 2014 to June
30, 2014. The credit vouchers are not transferable and have no
expiry date. After approved legal expenses of $6.4 million were
paid in March 2010, the balance of the settlement amount remaining
to be disbursed was $12.4 million, consisting of $6.2 million of
cash and $6.2 million of vouchers.

By September 30, 2010, the Company received approximately 6,300
individual claims representing total valid claims in excess of the
settlement fund. As the valid claims exceed the balance of the
remaining settlement fund, under the terms of the settlement
agreement, the entire settlement fund of $12.4 million will be
disbursed to claimants on a pro-rata basis.

In arriving at the liability recorded at the balance sheet date,
the voucher portion of the settlement fund of $6.2 million has
been discounted using a discount rate of 16.2%. During the year
ended September 30, 2012, the Company recorded accretion expense
of $716,000 (September 30, 2011 - $616,000) in interest expense.
The total liability related to the settlement at September 30,
2012 is $11.3 million (September 30, 2011 - $10.6 million).


CASH STORE: Sued in B.C. Over Alleged Overcharges in Payday Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. continues to face a suit in
British Columbia alleging it violated sections of the Payday Loans
Regulation and of the Business Practices Consumer Protection Act,
according to the company's June 17, 2013 Amendment No. 1 to its
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012.

On September 11, 2012, an action under the British Columbia Class
Proceedings Act was commenced in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia by Roberta Stewart against Cash Store Financial and
Instaloans Inc. claiming on behalf of the plaintiff and class
members that the Company charged, required or accepted an amount
that is in excess of 23% of the principal which is contrary to s.
17(1) of the Payday Loans Regulation and s. 112.02(2) of the
Business Practices Consumer Protection Act ("BPCPA") and charged,
required or accepted an amount in relation to each cash card
issued to a class member which is contrary to s. 112.04(1)(f) of
the BPCPA; made the provision of each payday loan contingent on
class members purchasing a cash card and services related thereto,
contrary to s. 19(1) of the Payday Loans Regulation and s.
112.08(1)(m) of the BPCPA; and discounted the amount in the payday
loan agreement to be the loan amount borrowed, by deducting and
withholding from the loan advance an amount representing a portion
of the total costs of credit, contrary to s.112.08(1)(e) of the
BPCPA.

The class members, in an order pursuant to s. 112.10(2) and s.
172(3)(a) of the BPCPA are seeking that the Company refund all
monies paid in excess of the loan principal of each payday loan,
including the cash card fee amounts, the loan fees, and any other
fees or changes collected by the Company in relation to the payday
loan, damages and interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest
Act at the rate of 30% compounded annually, as set out in the
payday loan agreements or such other rate as the Supreme Court of
British Columbia considers appropriate.

The Company believes that it has conducted its business in
accordance with applicable laws and is defending the action
vigorously. The likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at
this time.


CASH STORE: Accrues C$100,000 in Relation to Interest Rate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed in its June 17,
2013 Amendment No. 1 to its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012 that:

As at September 30, 2012, a total of $100,000 (September 30, 2011
- $100,000) has been accrued in relation to a suit alleging the
company breached the Criminal Code of Canada (the interest rate
provision).

The Company has been served in prior fiscal periods with a
Statement of Claim issued in Alberta alleging that it is in breach
of s. 347 of the Code (the interest rate provision) and certain
provincial consumer protection statutes.

On January 19, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Alberta action brought
forward an application to have a related subsidiary, as well as
certain third-party lenders, directors and officers added to the
claim.

The Company has agreed to a motion to certify the class proceeding
if the third-party lenders, officers and directors are removed as
defendants. Class counsel has agreed to the Company's proposal.
Consequently, the certification motion was granted in November of
2011.

As at September 30, 2012, a total of $100,000 (September 30, 2011
- $100,000) has been accrued related to this matter. However, the
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Faces "Efthimiou" Suit in Alberta Over "Payday Loan"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed in its June 17,
2013 Amendment No. 1 to its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012, that it faces a suit in the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench over "payday loan."

On September 18, 2012, an action under the Alberta Class
Proceedings Act was commenced in the Alberta Court of Queen's
Bench by Kostas Efthimiou against Cash Store Financial and
Instaloans Inc. on behalf of all persons who, on or after March 1,
2010, borrowed a loan from the Company that met the definition of
a "payday loan" proposing that the Company has violated s. 11 and
12 of the Payday Loan Regulations in that all amounts charged to
and collected from the plaintiff and class members by the Company
in relation to the payday loans advanced in excess of the loan
principal are unlawful charges under the Payday Loan Regulation
and therefore seek restitution of damages for unlawful charges
paid by the plaintiff and class members, repayment of unlawful
charges paid by the plaintiff and class members, damages, interest
on all amounts found to be owing and any such associated legal
costs.

The Company believes that it has conducted business in accordance
with applicable laws and will defend the action vigorously. The
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Faces "Ironbow" Payday Loan Suit in Saskatchewan
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed in its June 17,
2013 Amendment No. 1 to its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012, that it faces a suit in the Saskatchewan Court
of Queen's Bench over "payday loan."

On October 9, 2012, an action under the Saskatchewan Class Actions
Act was commenced in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench by
John Ironbow against Cash Store Financial and Instaloans Inc. on
behalf of all persons who, on or after January 1, 2012, borrowed a
loan from the Company that met the definition of a "payday loan"
proposing that the Company has violated s. 11 and 12 of the Payday
Loan Regulations in that all amounts charged to and collected from
the plaintiff and class members by the Company in relation to the
payday loans advanced in excess of the loan principal are unlawful
charges under the Payday Loan Regulation and therefore seek
restitution of damages for unlawful charges paid by the plaintiff
and class members, repayment of unlawful charges paid by the
plaintiff and class members, damages, interest on all amounts
found to be owing and any such associated legal costs.

The Company believes that it has conducted business in accordance
with applicable laws and will defend the action vigorously. The
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Faces "Meeking" Suit in Manitoba Over "Payday Loan"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed in its June 17,
2013 Amendment No. 1 to its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012, that it faces a suit in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench over "payday loan."

On April 23, 2010, an action under the Manitoba Class Proceedings
Act was commenced in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench by Scott
Meeking against Cash Store Financial and Instaloans Inc. proposing
that a class action be certified on his own behalf and on behalf
of all persons in Manitoba and others outside the province who
obtained a payday loan from The Cash Store Financial or Instaloans
Inc. The action stems from the allegations that all payday loan
fees collected by the defendants constitute interest and therefore
violate s. 347 of the Code.

On February 22, 2012, the Manitoba Court determined that large
portions of the plaintiff's claim could not proceed as they have
already been resolved in a judgment and settlement approved by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2008. To the extent that
limited portions of the Ontario judgment were not enforced in
Manitoba, the Company has appealed the Manitoba decision. The
Manitoba Court has not yet determined whether any remaining
portions of the plaintiff's claim should be certified as a class
proceeding.

To the extent any subject matter of the claim was not resolved by
the February 22, 2012 judgment, the Company believes that it has
conducted business in accordance with applicable laws and is
defending the action vigorously. The likelihood of loss, if any,
is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Faces "Rehill" Suit in Manitoba Over "Payday Loan"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed in its June 17,
2013 Amendment No. 1 to its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012 that it faces a suit in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench over "payday loan."

On November 1, 2012, an action was commenced in Manitoba under The
Class Proceedings Act by Sheri Rehill against The Cash Store
Financial Services Inc., The Cash Store Financial Inc., Instaloans
Inc. and other defendants, on behalf of all persons who, on or
after October 18, 2010, borrowed a loan from the Company in
Manitoba where that loan met the definition of a "payday loan" as
defined by the Payday Loans Act, S.S. 2007, c. P-4.3. The action
alleges that the Company charged amounts in excess of the maximum
allowable limit on the total cost of credit permitted by the
Consumer Protection Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. C-200, as am., and the
Payday Loan Regulation, Man. Reg. 99/2007, as am. The plaintiff
pleads for restitution and repayment of all amounts paid by
borrowers as a cost of credit for their payday loans, damages for
an alleged conspiracy, and interest on all amounts alleged to be
owing.

The Company believes that it has conducted business in accordance
with applicable laws and will defend the action vigorously. The
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Faces "Yeoman" Lawsuit in Ontario Over "Payday Loan"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed in its June 17,
2013 Amendment No. 1 to its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012, that it faces a suit in the Ontario Supreme
Court of Justice over "payday loan."

On August 1, 2012, an action under the Ontario Class Proceedings
Act was commenced in the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice by
Timothy Yeoman against Cash Store Financial and Instaloans Inc.
claiming on behalf of the plaintiff and class members who entered
into payday loan transactions with the Company in Ontario between
September 1, 2011 and the date of judgment, that the Company
operated an unlawful business model as the Company did not provide
borrowers with the option to take their payday loan in an
immediate liquid form and thereby misrepresenting the total cost
of borrowing as the cost of additional services and devices should
have been included.

The class members plead entitlement to damages and costs of
investigation and prosecution pursuant to s. 36 of the Competition
Act inclusive of the fees, interest and other amounts that the
Company charged to the class members.

The Company believes that it has conducted business in accordance
with applicable laws and will defend the action vigorously. The
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Discharged From Stock Suit Upon Plan Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Central European Distribution Corporation is discharged from its
obligations in In re Central European Distribution Corp.
Securities Litigation, 11-cv-6247 (JBS-KMW) after the confirmation
of the company's Second Amended and Restated Joint Prepackaged
Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, according to the company's June
18, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 24, 2011, a class action complaint titled Steamfitters
Local 449 Pension Fund vs. Central European Distribution
Corporation, et al., was filed in the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from August 5, 2010
through February 28, 2011 against the company and certain of the
company's officers.

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and alleges
violations of federal securities law in connection with alleged
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
regarding the company's business, financial results and prospects
in the company's public statements and public filings with the SEC
for the second and third quarters of 2010, relating to declines in
the company's vodka portfolio, the company's need to take an
impairment charge relating to the deterioration in fair value of
certain of the company's brands in Poland and negative financial
results from the launch of Zubrowka Biala.

Subsequent to the complaint, a second, substantially similar class
action complaint titled Tim Schuler v. Central European
Distribution Corporation, et al., was filed in the same court. By
court orders dated August 22, 2012, the Steamfitters action and
the Schuler action were consolidated and are now proceeding in the
District of New Jersey under the caption In re Central European
Distribution Corp. Securities Litigation, 11-cv-6247 (JBS-KMW).
The Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and the Fresno
County Employees' Retirement Association have been named lead
plaintiffs in this action.

Pursuant to an Order of the Court, on February 19, 2013, Lead
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of a purported
class of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 1, 2010, and February 28, 2011, advancing similar
allegations to those contained in the original complaints
concerning purported materially false and misleading statements
and/or omissions relating principally to the purported negative
financial results from the launch of Zubrowka Biala.

On April 10, 2013, the Court stayed the action as to CEDC pursuant
to section 362 of chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code
(the "Bankruptcy Code") as a result of its April 7, 2013 filing of
a voluntary petition (the "Petition") for relief under the
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court").

On May 13, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a hearing (the
"Confirmation Hearing") on (i) the adequacy of the Amended and
Restated Offering Memorandum, Consent Solicitation Statement and
Disclosure Statement Soliciting Acceptances of a Prepackaged Plan
of Reorganization, dated March 8, 2013, as supplemented by
Supplement No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Offering Memorandum,
Consent Solicitation, and Disclosure Statement Soliciting
Acceptances of a Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization, dated March
18, 2013 (Docket No. 10) (the "Disclosure Statement"), and (ii)
confirmation of the Company's Second Amended and Restated Joint
Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (Docket No. 126)
(the "Plan").

After the Confirmation Hearing the Bankruptcy Court entered its
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (I) Approving (A)
the Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Sections 1125 and 1126(c) of
the Bankruptcy Code, (B) the Prepetition Solicitation Procedures,
and (C) the Forms of Ballots, and (II) Confirming the Second
Amended and Restated Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of
Reorganization of Central European Distribution Corporation et al.
(Docket No. 166) (the "Confirmation Order"). Upon entry of the
Confirmation Order by the Bankruptcy Court, the Company's
obligations with respect to this action were discharged and
pursuant to the Plan (as modified by the Confirmation Order) and
section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code, continuation of this action is
permanently enjoined as to the Company.


CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Discharged From "Grodko" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Central European Distribution Corporation is discharged from its
obligations in Grodko v. Central European Distribution
Corporation, et. al, No. 12-cv-5530 (JBS-KMW) after the
confirmation of the company's Second Amended and Restated Joint
Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, according to the
company's June 18, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2012.

On June 8, 2012, a purported securities fraud class action titled
Grodko v. Central European Distribution Corporation, et al., was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, who is suing purportedly on behalf
of a class of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 1, 2010 and June 4, 2012, alleges that the Company made
false and/or misleading statements related to and/or failed to
disclose that (1) the Company's reported net sales in the years
ended December 31, 2010 and 2011 were materially inflated; (2) as
a result of a failure to account for retroactive trade rebates
provided to the customers of Russian Alcohol, the Company
anticipates restating its reported consolidated net sales,
operating profit and related accounts for these periods; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 7, 2012 a second, substantially similar class action
complaint titled Puerto Rico System of Annuities and Pension for
Teachers v. Central European Distribution Corporation, et al., was
filed in the same court. By court orders dated September 4, 2012,
the Grodko action and the Puerto Rico System of Annuities and
Pension for Teachers action were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, where the actions
have been consolidated and are proceeding under the caption Grodko
v. Central European Distribution Corporation, et. al, No. 12-cv-
5530 (JBS-KMW). The Puerto Rico System of Annuities and Pensions
for Teachers has been named Lead Plaintiff in this Action.

On February 15, 2013, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of a purported class of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock between March 1, 2010, and November
13, 2012, advancing similar allegations to those contained in the
original complaints concerning purported materially false and
misleading statements and/or omissions relating principally to
accounting practices at CEDC's Russian subsidiary Russian Alcohol
Group, and the Company's related restatements.

On April 10, 2013, the Court stayed the action as to CEDC pursuant
to section 362 the Bankruptcy Code, as a result of its April 7,
2013 filing of the Petition for relief under the Bankruptcy Code
in the Bankruptcy Court.

Upon entry of the Confirmation Order by the Bankruptcy Court, the
Company's obligations with respect to this action were discharged
and pursuant to the Plan (as modified by the Confirmation Order)
and section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code, continuation of this
action is permanently enjoined as to the Company.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal of Claims in Northstar Suit on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed on behalf of investors in the Schwab
Total Bond Market Fund (Northstar lawsuit) are appealing to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the dismissal of claims in the
suit, according to Exhibit 99.1 of The Charles Schwab
Corporation's June 24, 2013, Form 8-K filing (update on its Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012) with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund (Northstar
lawsuit). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants.

Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its
stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized
mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund
assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a
shareholder vote.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and rescission damages,
unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys'
fees. Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before
the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2011, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs
have again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is
currently pending.


CHINA-BIOTICS: Still Faces Securities Lawsuits in Cal., N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
China-Biotics, Inc. continues to face securities lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California and the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's June 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2011.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in three putative
shareholder class action lawsuits, one in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Mohapatra
v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-6954 (C.D. Cal.), the
"Mohapatra case"), and two in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Hill v. China-Biotics, Inc., et
al., No. 10-cv-7838 (S.D.N.Y.), the "Hill case", and Casper v.
Jinan, et al, No. 12-cv-4202 (S.D.N.Y), the "Casper case").

After certain shareholders filed motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff, the plaintiff in the Mohapatra case voluntarily
dismissed its case and the plaintiff in the Hill case, together
with another shareholder, were appointed as lead plaintiffs. The
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they allege
that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements
or failing to disclose certain material information regarding,
among other things, the Company's financial condition, operations,
and future business prospects, and the quality, nature, and
quantity of the Company's retail outlets. The lead plaintiffs seek
to represent a class of shareholders who bought the Company's
securities between July 10, 2008 and August 27, 2010.

On August 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint. The court dismissed the lead
plaintiffs' Section 11 claim, but gave them leave to replead. The
court did not rule on the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b)
claim. On January 9, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint that included a new named plaintiff and new
allegations for the Section 11 claim. On February 27, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended Section 11 claim.
Both that motion and the original motion to dismiss the Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) claims are currently pending before the
court. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

In the Casper case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making material misstatements and seeks to represent a
class of stockholders who bought the Company's securities between
February 9, 2011 and July 1, 2011. On October 18, 2012, the Hill
case and the Casper case were consolidated, but no consolidated
amended complaint has yet been filed. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Bid to Stay Order Over Appeal Bond Posting Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordan Morgan and Jeremy De La Garza, as objectors, seek to stay a
court order requiring them to post an appeal bond before
proceeding with their appeal of the court's order approving
attorney's fees in connection with a final settlement in the case,
DENNINGS v. CLEARWIRE CORPORATION.

Western District of Washington Judge James L. Robart denied the
motion to stay, ruling that the Objectors' arguments are spurious
and fail to show that the appeal bond or its amount are
inappropriate under the circumstances.  Judge Robart said the
Objectors characterize the "additional costs of settlement
administration" as "costs of delay," and contend that such costs
"are not available under Fed. R. App. Proc. 7," but provide no
binding authority to support this contention.

"The Objectors also fail to provide any meaningful argument as to
why these costs should be characterized as "costs of delay," which
refer to the interest that accrues during the time between the
settlement agreement and its distribution when the distribution is
delayed by an appeal," Judge Robart added.

The case is ANGELO DENNINGS, Kyle WILLIAMS, BRIAN CRAWFORD,
JOHANNA KOSKINEN, DAN DAZELL, ROBERT PRIOR, STEVEN COCKAYNE,
CHEYENNE FEGAN, ELAINE POWELL, ELENA MUNOZ-ALAZAZI, MICHAEL
BOBOWSKI, ALIA TSANG, GREGORY GUERRIER, ALYSON BURN, SHARON FLOYD,
Plaintiffs, v. CLEARWIRE CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. C10-
1859JLR, (W.D. Wash.).  A copy of the District Court's July 11,
2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/vUA7iKfrom Leagle.com.

Angelo Dennings, Plaintiff, is represented by Andrei Rado,
MILBERG, Joshua Keller, MILBERG, Michael R. Reese, REESE RICHMAN
LLP & Clifford A Cantor -- cliff.cantor@comcast.net

Robert Prior, Plaintiff, appeared Pro Se.

These plaintiffs are represented by Clifford A Cantor: Kyle
Williams, Brian Crawford, Johanna Koskinen, Dan Dazell, Steven
Cockayne, Cheyenne Fegan, Elaine Powell, Elena Munoz-Alazazi,
Michael Bobowski, Alia Tsang, Gregory Guerrier, Alyson Burn, and
Sharon Floyd.

Clearwire Corporation, Defendant, is represented by John Goldmark
-- johngoldmark@dwt.com -- at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Kenneth E
Payson -- kenpayson@dwt.com -- at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Stephen
M. Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com -- at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.

Chad Minnick, Interested Party, is represented by Jonathan K
Tycko, at TYCKO & ZAVAREEL LLP & Felix G Luna -- luna@pwrlk.com --
at PETERSON WAMPOLD ROSATO LUNA KNOPP.

Gordan B. Morgan and Jeremy De La Garza are represented by
Christopher A Bandas -- cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com -- at BANDAS LAW
FIRM PC & Donald W Heyrich, at HEYRICH KALISH MCGUIGAN PLLC.


COCA-COLA CO: Vitaminwater Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge on July 18 recommended
that a case challenging the claims on popular Vitaminwater drinks
as misleading move forward as a class-action lawsuit.

Attorneys representing the health-advocacy group Center for
Science in the Public Interest and consumers from California and
New York have accused Coca-Cola Co. of using deceptive labeling on
Vitaminwater beverages, including claims that they reduce risks of
eye disease and boost the immune system.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Levy said in a ruling in New York
that the lawsuit can proceed as a class-action lawsuit.  The
plaintiffs can seek injunctive relief, which would prevent
Coca-Cola from making certain claims for the product.  The judge
said the parties cannot seek financial damages.

The case now returns to U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, where Judge Dora Irizarry had requested the
magistrate judge's opinion. District court judges typically accept
such recommendations.

Coca Cola Communications Director Lindsey Raivish said the company
is "very gratified" that Judge Levy denied the monetary damage
claims against the company.

"We firmly believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
will ultimately be rejected," Ms. Raivish said in a statement.

In 2010, another New York judge denied Coca-Cola's attempts to
have the lawsuit dismissed on technical grounds.  At that time,
Judge John Gleeson said Vitaminwater's use of the word "healthy"
violates Food and Drug Administration labeling rules.  In a 55-
page opinion, Gleeson also took issue with Vitaminwater's name,
which fails to identify sugar as a key ingredient in the drink,
though it is listed in nutrition information on the bottles.

The Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest
hailed the opinion as a major victory.

"[The] decision puts this case on a glide path toward a jury trial
where Coca-Cola will have to defend under penalty of perjury the
deceptive claims it has made and continues to make in connection
with Vitaminwater," said Steve Gardner, lawyer for the Center for
Science in the Public Interest.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Corinthian Colleges and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 13 CV
4308, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
Corinthian between August 23, 2011 and June 10, 2013 both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Corinthian securities
during the Class Period, you have until August 19, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Corinthian is a publicly traded, for-profit education company
headquartered in Santa Ana, CA.  Corinthian operates a total of
105 campuses in 25 States, along with an online division, and
offers diploma and degree programs in health care, business,
criminal justice, transportation technology and maintenance,
construction trades, and information technology.  Approximately 34
percent of Corinthian students are enrolled online, and 64 percent
are enrolled in diploma (non-degree) programs.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants manipulated federal
student loan and grant programs in order to appear to be in
compliance with new federal regulations enacted in June 2011; (ii)
defendants' predatory and deceptive recruiting and enrollment
practices violated federal regulations enacted beginning in June
2011; and (iii) the Company engaged in systemic grade
falsification at the Company's campuses in order to appear to be
in conformance with the new regulations enacted beginning in 2011.

On June 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that the SEC was
conducting an investigation into the Company, and that the SEC has
requested documents and communications related to student
recruitment, attendance, completion, placement, and defaults on
loans, along with information on other corporate and financial
matters.  On this news, Corinthian securities declined $0.32 per
share or nearly 11.47%, to close at $2.47 per shar1e on June 11,
2013.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago,
Florida, and San Diego.


CR BARD: July 29 Trial Scheduled for Transvaginal Mesh Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Donna Cisson already had lost some control of her bladder.
But when her problems began interfering with her sex life, she
turned to a specialist who diagnosed her with pelvic organ
prolapse -- a condition that can cause urinary incontinence or
pain, sometimes during sex.

In 2009, Ms. Cisson underwent surgery in Georgia to implant a
transvaginal mesh device to solve the problem.  Instead, she began
suffering from bleeding and pain during sex, plus bladder spasms,
and had to undergo another two surgeries to remove the device.
She and her husband sued the device manufacturer, C.R. Bard Inc.,
in 2011, claiming the company knew about the problems associated
with its product but failed to adequately warn doctors.

The case is the first to go to trial of about 20,000 lawsuits
filed over transvaginal mesh products, which are used to treat
stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.  The cases
are pending in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge
Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, W.Va. Goodwin will oversee Ms.
Cisson's trial, which was scheduled to begin on July 8.

The litigation has expanded significantly during the past year.
Goodwin, who has had the Bard cases since 2010, was handed four
additional MDLs last year against defendants Ethicon Inc., a
division of Johnson & Johnson; American Medical Systems Inc.; and
Boston Scientific Corp.  On August 6 of last year, Goodwin
received another group of cases against Coloplast Corp., and on
June 11, a sixth against Cook Medical Inc.

The next status conference in all the litigation is scheduled for
August 1.

In addition to the federal docket, thousands more cases are
pending in state courts across the country, two of which have
resulted in jury verdicts during the past year.

"There are a number of problems with these products in a number of
areas," said Harry Bell of The Bell Law Firm in Charleston, who is
co-liaison counsel.  "I have heard this is the largest MDL ever,
when you consider all six of them together, with the number of
cases.  So it's pretty significant in size."

                         Federal warnings

The litigation accelerated after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration issued a safety warning in 2011 that "serious
complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal
repair of POP are not rare," referring to pelvic organ prolapse.
The FDA had issued a public health notification about the products
in 2008.  The FDA asked manufacturers to submit additional studies
of the safety and effectiveness of the products.

In the Bard MDL, Goodwin has separated the trials into groups
based on the medical problems the devices were designed to treat.
There are four trials in the first group, starting with
Ms. Cisson's case, all involving Bard's Avaulta Plus or Avaulta
Solo polypropylene mesh devices, used to treat pelvic organ
prolapse.  The women in all four cases allege they had to undergo
revision surgeries to remove the devices.  The second trial,
scheduled for July 29, involves a North Carolina woman, and a
third, scheduled for August 19, was brought by a woman in
Wisconsin.  The fourth case, scheduled for trial on September 9,
involves a Mississippi woman.

A second group of trials against Bard involve women who were
implanted with devices to treat stress urinary incontinence.


CROWN CRAFTS: Suit Over Crib Bumper Products Removed to Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Crafts, Inc. and Crown Crafts Infant Products, Inc. (CCIP)
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California a suit alleging CCIP's crib bumper products
put children at risk of suffocation or crib death, according to
the company's June 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2013.

On March 27, 2013, an alleged California purchaser of a bedding
set of Crown Crafts Infant Products, Inc. filed a complaint
against the Company and CCIP in the Superior Court for the County
of Riverside, California, purportedly on behalf of herself and
similarly situated California consumers.

The complaint generally alleges that CCIP's crib bumper products
put children at risk of suffocation or crib death and that the
Company and CCIP concealed and failed to disclose these purported
risks through allegedly false and misleading advertising and
product packaging. The complaint does not allege that any child
has actually been harmed by these products. The complaint alleges
violations of various consumer protection laws in California.

The purported class is defined in the complaint as "All California
consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations,
purchased a Crown Craft [sic] crib bumper, either alone or as part
of a bedding set." The complaint seeks damages for the purported
class in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief, restitution and
disgorgement of all monies acquired by the Company and CCIP by
means of any act or practice the Court finds to be unlawful, a
Court-ordered corrective advertising campaign, and an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs.

On April 29, 2013, the Company and CCIP removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to the claims asserted in the complaint, and the Company intends
to defend itself vigorously against all such claims.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Lawsuits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies faces securities lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the company's June 17, 2013, Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska,
R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of
certain federal securities laws.

On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf filed a nearly identical complaint
against the same named defendants in the same court.  These cases
were filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013.

On June 4, 2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a
substantially similar action in the same court, purportedly on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between June 1,
2011 and April 24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch,
Damaska, Hirt and Lou Martinez.  The complaints allege that
certain public statements made by the Company and its officers
during the respective time periods constituted material
misstatements in violation of Rule 10b-5 under the Securities
Exchange Act. The complaints do not specify an amount of damages
sought. The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and
intends to vigorously pursue its defense.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over "Hazardous" Waste in Calif. Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies faces a lawsuit alleging physical or
neurological injury or toxic exposure as a result of hazardous
waste or chemicals from the Company's facility located in Vernon,
California, according to the company's June 17, 2013, Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and
medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los
Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or
neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of
the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the
Company's facility located in Vernon, California.


EXPRESSJET AIRLINES: Court Wants 2nd Amended Complaint in "Harris"
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK CHAPMAN HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL BERRY, WARREN
SILBERMAN, STEPHEN GOODMAN, SANDY CLYMER, BRAD SHEEHAN, JAMES
BRIMBERRY, EXPRESSJET AIRLINES, TERRY SATURDAY, THE ATLANTIC
SOUTHEAST AIRLINES, MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE AIRLINE PILOTS
ASSOCIATION, and FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND ITS
ADMINISTRATOR, MICHAEL HUERTA, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-
CV-260-RWS, (N.D. Ga.), was commenced on November 5, 2012, and
sets forth six claims: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
for deprivation of civil rights; (2) a claim under the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552; (3) a claim under the
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a; (4) a claim under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section
1320d et seq.; (5) a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-1968; and (6) a
claim for retaliation, although the Complaint does not state under
which federal retaliation statute Plaintiff's claim is based.

On November 5, 2012, Magistrate Judge James Clay Fuller entered an
Order permitting the Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in the
action.  The case was then referred to the Senior District Judge
William C. O'Kelley for a frivolity determination.  On November 6,
2012, the case was then reassigned to District Judge Richard W.
Story.

On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed what is styled as an
"Amended Complaint," which names three individuals -- Brad
Sheehan, James Brimberry, and Terry Saturday -- and three entities
-- ExpressJet Airlines, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, and the
Master Executive Council of the Airline Pilots Association.  None
of the Defendants named in the initial complaint are named in the
Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaint sets forth six causes of
action: (1) negligence; (2) breach of contract; (3) invasion of
privacy; (4) denial of fair representation; (5) breach of
fiduciary duty; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional
distress.  None of the causes of action alleged in the Complaint
appear in the Amended Complaint.

In a July 11, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/azz6Nrfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Story said that given the current state of the
pleadings in the case, it is impossible for the Court to conduct a
frivolity review at this time.  "The Court is unable to exactly
determine the causes of action that Plaintiff intends to assert
and against whom those claims are asserted. As such, Plaintiff is
ORDERED to file a Second Amended Complaint that incorporates all
the causes of action against all the Defendants that Plaintiff
wishes to pursue at this time within thirty days of the date of
this order. The Court will then review the Second Amended
Complaint for frivolity and determine at that time which claims
shall proceed," said Judge Story.


FINISAIR CORPORATION: Files New Motion to Junk Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation filed a renewed motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities suit over its March 8, 2011 earnings
announcement, according to the company's June 24, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 28, 2013.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To
date, no specific amount of damages have been alleged.

The cases have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been
appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and granted
the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An
amended consolidated complaint was filed February 6, 2013. The
Company has filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case and a
hearing on this motion is scheduled for June 28, 2013.


GULF COAST: Securities Lawsuit Over FCX-MMR Merger Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated
actions over the proposed merger of Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold
Inc. (FCX) with McMoRan Exploration Co. (MMR) into a single
action, In re McMoRan Exploration Co. Stockholder Litigation, No.
8132-VCN, according to Gulf Coast Ultra Deep Royalty Trust's June
17, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Between December 11, 2012 and December 26, 2012, ten putative
class actions challenging the proposed merger of FCX and MMR were
filed on behalf of all MMR stockholders by purported MMR
stockholders. Nine were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the Court of Chancery). On January 9, 2013, one
of the actions was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On January 25, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the
remaining eight actions into a single action, In re McMoRan
Exploration Co. Stockholder Litigation, No. 8132-VCN.

One action was also filed on December 19, 2012 in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans of the State of
Louisiana: Langley v. Moffett et al., No. 2012-11904. The actions
name some or all of the following as defendants: MMR and its
directors, FCX, the Royalty Trust, subsidiaries of FCX, and Plains
Exploration & Production Company. The lawsuits allege, among other
things, that members of MMR's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to MMR's stockholders because they, among other
things, pursued their own interests at the expense of
stockholders, failed to maximize stockholder value with respect to
the merger, and failed to disclose material facts regarding the
merger. These lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction
barring or rescinding the merger, damages, and attorney's fees and
costs. The MMR and FCX defendants believe the lawsuits are without
merit and intend to defend vigorously against them.


HARRIS TEETER: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Kroger Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen Wilson, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports that a
class-action lawsuit seeking to stop the acquisition of Harris
Teeter Supermarkets Inc. by The Kroger Co. has been filed on
behalf of shareholders of the Matthews-based grocery chain.

Named among the defendants are Harris Teeter, its CEO Thomas
Dickson and members of its board, and Kroger.  The lawsuit alleges
the board failed to adequately consider the shareholders in the
merger agreement, and that the deal includes unreasonable
protections that serve to prevent competing offers.

Kroger said on July 9 that it had agreed to buy Harris Teeter for
$49.38 per share.  The price represents a premium of about 1.8%
over the closing price of Harris Teeter's stock on the day before
the deal was announced -- but it's 33.7% higher than the closing
share price on Jan. 18, the day before it was reported that Harris
Teeter might be eyeing a sale.

Harris Teeter's shares are now trading higher than the sale price,
climbing as high as $49.55 earlier on July 18 after closing at
$49.46 on July 17.

The lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the transaction or, if the
sale is completed before a judgment is entered, to rescind it or
award damages to the shareholders.

The complaint was filed on July 16 in Mecklenburg County Superior
Court.  Charlotte attorney Gary Jackson of The Jackson Law Group
is representing the lead plaintiff, Priscilla Gerlach, with the
law firm of Levi & Korsinsky of Washington, D.C., acting as of
counsel.


HEARST CORP: Mintz Levin Discusses Unpaid Internship Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Arnold, Esq. -- MArnold@mintz.com -- at Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., reports that as the law
firm wrote about previously, the legality of unpaid internships is
a hot issue this summer, with courts struggling over two issues:
(1) whether employers must classify entry-level "interns" as
employees under the law, and therefore pay them at least minimum
wage and overtime, and (2) whether the job conditions of groups of
interns are similar enough so that class action treatment is
appropriate.  Nowhere is this debate more pronounced than in the
Southern District of New York.

In May, Judge Baer, in Wang v. Hearst Corporation, found that
interns utilized by Hearst were not necessarily employees under
the law, so it would be for a jury to resolve the underlying
factual disputes and, in any case, class treatment was
inappropriate because the interns' working conditions differed
across the group.  One month later, a different Southern District
judge, Judge Pauley, in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.,
(which we wrote about here) reached a different result finding, as
a matter of law, that Fox should have classified its interns as
employees, and granted class status to all interns working for
four of Fox Entertainment's subsidiary corporations, including Fox
Searchlight.

The Wang plaintiffs and the Glatt defendants both sought
permission to immediately appeal those decisions to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals so that the Second Circuit could clarify
the proper test for courts to apply in conducting any unpaid
intern (mis)classification analysis.  While the Glatt petition
remains outstanding, Judge Baer recently granted the Wang petition
citing in part the divergent result with Glatt on the unpaid
internship classification analysis.

What Mintz, Levin's Mr. Arnold found more interesting however --
and the focus of the remainder of this blog entry -- is that Judge
Baer's order also appears to seek for the Second Circuit to
address how the United States Supreme Court's Comcast decision
should impact the class certification analysis -- an issue neither
the Wang plaintiffs nor the Glatt defendants raised in their
petitions.

Comcast is the much talked about decision that the Supreme Court
issued in March invalidating a certified class in an anti-trust
matter in part because the plaintiffs could not show that damages
were capable of measurement on a class-wide basis.  The following
month, and in light of its Comcast decision, but without any
written analysis, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals decision (RBS Citizens N.A. v. Ross) that
had previously certified an overtime class.  The Comcast decision
coupled with the Ross remand has left courts (and commentators)
split over Comcast's import.

Some view the Comcast decision as relatively non-controversial: If
the plaintiffs can show that the proposed class was damaged in the
same way (i.e. they did not receive overtime payments) because of
the employer's actions that created the legal liability (i.e. the
employer misclassified the employees as overtime exempt) -- even
if the specific damage amounts vary from class member to class
member (i.e. because each class member worked a different number
of hours) -- then, consistent with Comcast, a court should grant
certification.  This was the exact view the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals took in a May 28, 2013 decision (Leyva v. Medline Indus.,
Inc.).  Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit concluded, the very fact that
each class member's actual damage amounts may vary, even though
each class member was damaged from the employer's single act,
would effectively sound the death knell of the wage and hour class
action.

Others view the Comcast decision as significant: If the plaintiffs
must rely on individualized proof to prove each class member's
damages (i.e. individualized proof regarding the number of
overtime hours worked by each class member), even though each
class member was damaged by the employer's single act, then the
court should deny class certification -- so, yes, something like a
possible death-knell of a plaintiff's ability to certify a wage
and hour class.  For example, a Northern District of New York
court in Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp. adopted this argument in
denying class certification.  There, even though the employer
failed to factor "spread of hours pay" into the weekly wage
calculation, the plaintiffs would have to rely on individualized
proof to demonstrate entitlement to spread of hours pay on
different shifts worked.

In April, the Roach plaintiffs petitioned the Second Circuit to
review the Northern District's class certification denial, and in
turn, address Comcast.  And now Judge Baer, by permitting the Wang
plaintiffs to appeal his order, appears to want the Second Circuit
to do just that.  To date, the Second Circuit has only made a
passing comment on Comcast (see Cuevas v. Citizens Fin. Group,
Inc.), but in another context.  Hopefully, in light of Roach and
now Wang, the Second Circuit will offer a full interpretation of
Comcast -- one that could significantly impact wage and hour
litigation in this Circuit for years to come.


INSTAGRAM LLC: Suit Over Changes in Terms of Service Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that
Instagram LLC should not face a federal class action over its
controversial changes to the photo-sharing Web site's terms of
service, a federal judge ruled.

Initial uproar over the changes Instagram proposed on December 17,
2012, actually led the Company to backpedal and remove the
ambiguous language that many feared would let it sell photos that
users uploaded for profit to third-party advertisers.

Lucy Funes had filed the putative federal class action against
Instagram on December 21, 2012, just one day after the Company
announced the revised changes, which ultimately took effect
January 16, 2013.

The new terms included an arbitration agreement with an opt-out
process and modified Instagram's license over users' pictures and
other content.  The terms of service also included a provision
citing California as choice-of-law.

Lucy Rodriguez substituted for Funes as the lead plaintiff in the
first amended complaint filed with the Northern District of
California in March, but Instagram said Rodriguez failed to plead
injury-in-fact under Article III to give the court subject-matter
jurisdiction.

Rodriguez requested to file a second amended complaint that would
remove the promissory estoppel claim and seek relief on behalf of
a nationwide class, with a California subclass.

U.S. District William Alsup concluded Friday, July 12, 2013,
however, that "the sole purpose of the amendment would be to
contrive federal subject-matter jurisdiction."

Under the home state controversy exception to the Class Action
Fairness Act, U.S. district courts must decline to exercise
jurisdiction over cases where two-thirds of the proposed plaintiff
class and the primary defendant are citizens of the state where
the action was filed.

Here, the operative complaint asserts a class of California
residents and Instagram is headquartered in San Francisco, the
court found.

"This order finds that a consumer class defined as California
residents is, by and large, a class of California domiciles and
that the aberrated case wherein a California resident is domiciled
elsewhere is so rare as to fall far short of the one-third needed
to defeat the exception," Alsup wrote.  "The aberrated case could
be, for example, a soldier stationed in California (and thus a
resident) but whose domicile is New Mexico," Alsup wrote.  "Yes,
there will be some of those but they will be few and far between.
The idea that at least one-third of all California residents claim
a domicile elsewhere is fanciful.  This order holds that for a
class of consumers residing in California, at least two out of
three are also California citizens."

Letting Rodriguez allege a nationwide class in a second amended
complaint "would skirt around the home-state controversy," Alsup
added.

The amendment in question is not aimed at the merits, but instead
"at contriving subject-matter jurisdiction where none previously
existed," according to the ruling.  "The contrived character of
the amendment seems plain.  It is one thing to apply California
law to adjudicate the claims of a California class (this is a
normal occurrence) but quite another to apply California law to
adjudicate the rights of the residents of the other 49 states."

Although Instagram's new terms of use select California as the
choice of law, the old terms of use did not, the court found.

"The putative nationwide class would therefore likely require a
choice-of-law analysis for all 50 states and would further
necessitate the application of contract law for all 50 states,"
Alsup wrote.  "As such, it would be futile to allow plaintiff to
amend to a putative nationwide class where plaintiff's
overreaching will almost certainly be denied at the class
certification stage."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          William R. Restis, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619)238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  mlk@classactionlaw.com
                  wrr@classactionlaw.com

The case is Rodriguez vs. Instagram, LLC, Case No. CGC-13-532875,
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.


KRAFT FOODS: Obtains Mixed Rulings in False Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, chief counsel for Washington Legal Foundation's
Legal Studies Division, in an OP/ED article for Forbes, wrote that
in a March post, "Another Grocery Basket Full of Lawsuit Claims
for The Food Court", he examined a U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California decision on Kraft's motion to
dismiss a false labeling suit aimed at a slew of Kraft products.
Some claims survived outright while others were temporarily
rejected; for the rejected claims, Judge Ronald Whyte drafted a
road map for plaintiffs to follow for their forthcoming amended
complaint.

Ruling on the Amended Complaint. Ms. Ivie's lawyers not only
reasserted the rejected claims, but also took the opportunity to
accuse countless other Kraft products (which she had never
actually purchased) of being misbranded.  On June 28, Judge Whyte
issued his latest ruling in Ivie v. Kraft on that amended
complaint.

Regarding Ms. Ivie's unpurchased products, Judge Whyte threw out
(with prejudice) each claim on products which featured only
"similar" packaging to those she had bought.  He allowed her to
pursue new claims involving gum which had "essentially identical"
packaging to gum targeted in her first complaint.

On the claims involving certain purchased products that Judge
Whyte previously preempted, Kraft again received mixed results.
The amended claim involving "natural lemon flavor" for Crystal
Light packets met the same fate as the original claim: preempted.
Judge Whyte reversed his previous rulings on allegations involving
nutrient content claims for a Planter's nut mix and for a Mexican-
style cheese blend.  He permitted those amended allegations to
proceed.  Because rulings on the nutrient content claims would
merely parallel, not exceed, what federal labeling rules require,
Judge Whyte rejected Kraft's express preemption arguments.

No Implied Preemption.  More importantly, the judge also addressed
implied preemption.  Kraft argued that a March 2013 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling, Perez v. Nidek, created a
"narrow gap" through which a state lawsuit must navigate to avoid
conflicting with the relevant federal regulatory scheme.  Kraft
argued that Ms. Ivie's claims did not thread that needle.

Judge Whyte disagreed, writing that "nowhere in its opinion did
the Ninth Circuit argue that allowing plaintiffs to bring state-
law claims that parallel federal requirements would constitute
'private enforcement' of FDA regulations that would conflict with
the FDA's regulatory authority."

Because Ms. Ivie's allegations on the nut mix and cheese labeling
arose under California's Sherman Act, whose requirements parallel
FDA regulations, Judge Whyte found no implied preemption.

In a June 18 ruling from the same district court, Samet v. Procter
& Gamble Co., Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal addressed the same
implied preemption argument that Kraft made in Ivie.  The judge
construed the Perez precedent this way:

" [T]he plaintiff must not be suing to enforce provisions of the
FDCA, which would be impliedly preempted under Section 337(a) of
the FDCA, but rather to vindicate an independent right under state
law."

Just as Judge Whyte did in Ivie, Judge Grewal found that the
state-law claims parallel federal regulations, and that "Congress
and the FDA intended that the states would be free to adopt a
statutory scheme paralleling the FDCA and offer a private suit of
enforcement."

Private Enforcement of Federal Law Achieved. The implied
preemption rationale offered in Ivie and Samet reflect the
perverse reality that processed food makers face in state-law
labeling class actions.

Only FDA can enforce federal laws and regulations.  Federal laws
provide no private right of action.  The California Sherman Act
incorporates every federal food labeling law and rule,
transforming federal rules into state law.  The Sherman Act
similarly lacks a private enforcement mechanism, but California
plaintiffs get around that by bringing a private action under the
state Unfair Competition Act (UCA), with Sherman law violations as
predicates for UCA liability.

This double boot-strapping thus requires federal judges in
California to determine whether a food label complies with federal
law (or, as Judge Grewal put it in Samet, "with state common-law
duties that also happen to coincide with the federal statutory
scheme" [our emphasis]) even though the supposedly harmed
consumers could not sue to enforce those federal laws directly.
And those judges' decisions, if they survive appeal, theoretically
will impose labeling requirements for products not just in The
Food Court's jurisdiction, but throughout the nation.

Is that really what Congress intended?


L.D. KICHLER: Recalls 200 Kichler Aztec Nine-Light Chandelier
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 12, 2013
Posting date:             July 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34519

Affected products: Kichler Aztec Nine-Light Chandelier

The recalled product is a Aztec nine-light chandelier sold under
the Lowe's Portfolio brand as model number 34330.  The chandeliers
are metal with an "olde bronze" finish and measure about 79
centimetres (31 inches) wide and 79 centimetres (31 inches) high.
The chandelier comes with etched amber glass shades and a
decorative faux marble ball in the center.  The upper arms of the
fixture have single long curves and the lower arms of the fixture
are "S" shaped.  "Aztec" and model number 34330 are printed on a
sticker located inside the ceiling canopy at the top of the
chandelier.

The chandelier's fixture loop that connects the hanging chain to
the lamp can fail during use, causing the chandelier to fall
creating a risk of injury to bystanders under or near the
chandelier.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/8L5wxr

Kichler has received six reports of chandeliers falling from
ceilings in the United States, with no injuries reported.  No
reports of incidents or injuries have been reported in Canada.

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

Approximately 200 units of the affected chandeliers were sold in
Canada at Lowe's stores under the Portfolio brand as model number
34330.

The affected chandeliers were manufactured in China and sold from
July 2006 through August 2011.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Chain Lighting Co., Ltd.
                    Dongguan City
                    China

   Importer         The L.D. Kichler Co.
                    Independence Ohio
                    United States

Consumers should contact Kichler Lighting's Home Center Division
(Aztec) to receive a free repair kit or replacement for
chandeliers that have fallen.

For more information, consumers may contact Kichler Lighting's
Home Center Division (Aztec) by telephone at 1-800-554-6504
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's website.


LES PRODUITS: Recalls Printemps Brand Dressings
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 11, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Mustard,
                                      Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Les Produits de l'Erable
                                      Cumberland Inc.
Distribution:                         Quebec
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected Products:

   Brand name         Common name                    Size
   ----------         -----------                    ----
   Printemps          Maple Raspberry Dressing       250 mL
   Printemps          Maple Dijon Mustard Dressing   250 mL

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Les Produits de
l'Erable Cumberland Inc. are warning people with allergies to
mustard or sensitivities to sulphites not to consume the Printemps
brand Dressings.  The affected products contain mustard and/or
sulphites which are not declared on the label.

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

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to mustard or
sensitivities to sulphites.

The manufacturer, Les Produits de l'Erable Cumberland Inc., La
Guadeloupe, Quebec, is voluntarily recalling the affected products
from the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of
the recall.


LIFE PARTNERS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Investors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn denied a motion for class
certification in SEAN TURNBOW, WILLIAM RICE, MARY RICE, ROBERT
YOSKOWITZ, FREDERICK VIEIRA, and ANTHONY TAYLOR, Plaintiffs, v.
LIFE PARTNERS, INC., LIFE PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INC., BRIAN D. PARDO,
and R. SCOTT PEDEN, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-1030-M,
(N.D. Tex.).

The Court concludes that after conducting a rigorous analysis of
the requirements of Rule 23, the developed factual record does not
support class certification. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
that the issues pertaining to liability and damages are
susceptible to resolution using class-wide proof and thus, the
Court concludes that the common questions, to the extent they
exist, do not predominate, making a class action an inferior
method of adjudicating the case.

The Court directs the parties to confer and submit a joint status
report no later than July 30, 2013, informing the Court whether
Plaintiffs intend to proceed with their claims individually or to
file an interlocutory appeal.

A copy of the District Court's July 9, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/ujmJKjfrom Leagle.com.

William Rice, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric G Calhoun,
Travis Calhoun & Conlon PC, Steven G Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP,
Amy T Brantly, Susman Godfrey LLP, Bruce K Packard, Riney Packard
PLLC, Craig J Geraci, Jr, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Elaine T
Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kim E Miller, Kahn
Swick & Foti LLC, Leonard W Aragon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Lewis Kahn, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Steve W Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrell W Oxford, Susman Godfrey LLP,
Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jonathan
Bridges, Susman Godfrey.

Robert Yoskowitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Bridges,
Susman Godfrey, Amy T Brantly, Susman Godfrey LLP, Bruce K
Packard, Riney Packard PLLC, Craig J Geraci, Jr, Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC, Kim E Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Lewis Kahn, Kahn
Swick & Foti LLC, Steven G Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP & Terrell W
Oxford, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Frederick Vieira, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Steven G Sklaver,
Susman Godfrey LLP, Amy T Brantly, Susman Godfrey LLP, Bruce K
Packard, Riney Packard PLLC, Craig J Geraci, Jr, Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC, Jonathan Bridges, Susman Godfrey, Kim E Miller, Kahn
Swick & Foti LLC, Lewis Kahn, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Roland W
Riggs, IV, Milberg LLP & Terrell W Oxford, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Mary Rice, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric G Calhoun, Travis
Calhoun & Conlon PC, Steven G Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP, Amy T
Brantly, Susman Godfrey LLP, Bruce K Packard, Riney Packard PLLC,
Craig J Geraci, Jr, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Elaine T Byszewski,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kim E Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti
LLC, Leonard W Aragon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lewis
Kahn, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Terrell W Oxford, Susman Godfrey LLP, Thomas E
Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jonathan Bridges, Susman
Godfrey.

William Bell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric G Calhoun, Travis
Calhoun & Conlon PC, Leonard W Aragon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E
Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Peggy Beverage, as Trustee for the Ralph E Hanken Living Trust, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Consol
Plaintiff, represented by Eric G Calhoun, Travis Calhoun & Conlon
PC, Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kim E
Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Leonard W Aragon, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lewis Kahn, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Bryan Springston, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Richard F
Gutierrez, Attorney at Law, Alessandra C Phillips, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, Derrick L Morton, Nelson Roselius Terry &
Morton, Douglas A Terry, Whitten McGuire Terry & Roselius, Gregory
M Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Guy R Wood, Nelson
Roselius Terry & Morton, Jason E Roselius, Nelson Roselius Terry &
Morton, Naumon A Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Ryan T
Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP & Sean M Handler,
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP.

James Connell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Richard F Gutierrez,
Attorney at Law, Alessandra C Phillips, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, Derrick L Morton, Nelson Roselius Terry & Morton,
Douglas A Terry, Gregory M Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, Guy R Wood, Nelson Roselius Terry & Morton, Jason E Roselius,
Nelson Roselius Terry & Morton, Naumon A Amjed, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, Ryan T Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP & Sean M Handler, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP.
Ida Y. Patterson, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Brad N
Friedman, Milberg LLP, Andrei V Rado, Milberg LLP, George Pressly,
Kyros & Pressly LLP, Richard F Gutierrez, Attorney at Law & Roland
W Riggs, IV, Milberg LLP.

Sean T. Turnbow, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Eric G Calhoun,
Travis Calhoun & Conlon PC, Amy T Brantly, Susman Godfrey LLP,
Bruce K Packard, Riney Packard PLLC, Craig J Geraci, Jr, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC, James L Ward, Jr, Richardson Patrick Westbrook
& Brickman LLC, Kim E Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Lewis Kahn,
Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Robert S Wood, Richardson Patrick Westbrook
& Brickman LLC, Stuart H McCluer, McCulley McCluer PLLC, Terrell W
Oxford, Susman Godfrey LLP & Jonathan Bridges, Susman Godfrey.

Masako H. Turnbow, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Eric G
Calhoun, Travis Calhoun & Conlon PC, James L Ward, Jr, Richardson
Patrick Westbrook & Brickman LLC, Robert S Wood, Richardson
Patrick Westbrook & Brickman LLC & Stuart H McCluer, McCulley
McCluer PLLC.

Michael Jackman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Charles W
Branham, III, Branham Law, LLP, Hamilton Philip Lindley, Deans &
Lyons, LLP & Stuart H McCluer, McCulley McCluer PLLC.

Life Partners Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L Yingling,
Baker & McKenzie LLP, Colin H Murray, Baker and McKenzie, Kimberly
F Rich, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Laura J O'Rourke, Baker & McKenzie
LLP, Meagan Elizabeth T Garland, Baker & McKenzie LLP & Will R
Daugherty, Baker & McKenzie LLP.

Life Partners Holdings Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L
Yingling, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Colin H Murray, Kimberly F Rich,
Baker & McKenzie LLP, Laura J O'Rourke, Baker & McKenzie LLP,
Meagan Elizabeth T Garland, Baker & McKenzie LLP & Will R
Daugherty, Baker & McKenzie LLP.

R. Scott Peden, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L Yingling,
Baker & McKenzie LLP, Kimberly F Rich, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Laura
J O'Rourke, Baker & McKenzie LLP & Will R Daugherty, Baker &
McKenzie LLP.

Brian Pardo, Consol Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L
Yingling, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Kimberly F Rich, Baker & McKenzie
LLP, Laura J O'Rourke, Baker & McKenzie LLP & Will R Daugherty,
Baker & McKenzie LLP.

Nina Piper, Consol Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L Yingling,
Baker & McKenzie LLP, Kimberly F Rich, Baker & McKenzie LLP & Will
R Daugherty, Baker & McKenzie LLP.

David M. Martin, Consol Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L
Yingling, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Kimberly F Rich, Baker & McKenzie
LLP & Will R Daugherty, Baker & McKenzie LLP.

Frederick Vieira, Consol Defendant, represented by Roland W Riggs,
IV, Milberg LLP & Terrell W Oxford, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Anthony Taylor, Consol Defendant, represented by Roland W Riggs,
IV, Milberg LLP & Terrell W Oxford, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Life Partners Inc, Consolidated Respondent per 2/28/2012 Order,
Respondent, represented by Elizabeth L Yingling, Baker & McKenzie
LLP, Kimberly F Rich, Baker & McKenzie LLP & Will R Daugherty,
Baker & McKenzie LLP.

John Willingham, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Marilyn Steuben, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Stephen Eccles, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Daryl Eccles, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood Orr
& Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Dwayne Blackwell, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Patricia Blackwell, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr,
Heygood Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Charles Contella, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Richard Jacobi, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Anna Jacobi, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood Orr &
Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Bill Cotten, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood Orr &
Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Nancy Cotten, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood Orr
& Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Jamieson Reader, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Misti Reader, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood Orr
& Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Richard Walker, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Judy Walker, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood Orr &
Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

Helen McDermott, Movant, represented by James C Orr, Jr, Heygood
Orr & Pearson & Michael E Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson.

ADR Provider, Mediator, represented by Ross W Stoddard, III, Ross
W Stoddard III, Attorney-Mediator.


LINNCO LLC: Faces IPO-Related Class Action Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Luciano, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. LinnCo, LLC, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov,
David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S.
Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland,
Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner, & Smith Incorporated, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Raymond James & Associates, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Robert W. Baird & Co.,
Incorporated, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Credit Agricole
Securities (USA) Inc., CIBC World Markets Corp., Howard Weil
Incorporated, and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), Inc., Case No.
1:13-cv-04790-CM (S.D. N.Y., July 10, 2013) is a federal
securities class action lawsuit brought behalf of a class
consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired LinnCo shares pursuant or
traceable to its alleged false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus through July 1, 2013.

On October 12, 2012, LinnCo filed its Prospectus for its initial
public offering, which forms part of the Registration Statement
that became effective on October 11, 2012.  Pursuant to the IPO,
34,787,500 shares of LinnCo were sold at a price of $36.50 per
share, raising approximately $1.2 billion in net proceeds for the
Company after underwriting discounts, commissions, and fees.
LinnCo used the net proceeds from the IPO to acquire units in Linn
Energy, LLC equal to the number of shares sold in the IPO.

In two articles published in February 2013 and in May 2013, Linn's
aggressive accounting practices are questioned.  On February 20,
2013, Linn and LinnCo announced an agreement to merge with
Berry Petroleum Company by issuing LinnCo shares to Berry
shareholders.  On July 1, 2013, Linn and LinnCo disclosed that the
SEC had opened an informal inquiry into LinnCo's proposed merger
with Berry, and Linn and LinnCo's hedging strategies and use of
non-GAAP financial measures.  On this news, LinnCo shares dropped
$10.12 per share to close at $26.95 per share on July 3, 2013.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about LinnCo's business and financial condition.
Specifically, he contends, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to LinnCo investors
that Linn was overstating the cash flow available for distribution
to Linn unitholders by, among other things, excluding the cost of
certain hedging transactions from its calculation of Adjusted
EBITDA, a metric highlighted as important in the Prospectus.

David Luciano purchased LinnCo shares in or traceable to the
Offering Documents and suffered economic damages when the price of
LinnCo shares declined.

LinnCo is a Delaware limited liability company, whose sole purpose
is to own units representing limited liability company interests
in Linn, an independent natural gas exploration and production
company.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
LinnCo.

Barclays Capital Inc. is a global investment bank headquartered in
New York and served as underwriter for LinnCo's IPO.  Citigroup
Global Markets is the brokerage and securities arm of Citigroup,
Inc., and provides investment banking services to corporate,
institutional, government, and retail clients.  RBC Capital
Markets is a global investment bank.  Wells Fargo is a provider of
capital markets and investment banking services, and a division of
Wells Fargo & Company.  Merrill Lynch is a registered broker-
dealer and investment adviser and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Bank of America Corporation.  Credit Suisse provides investment
banking services in the United States.  Raymond James & Associates
is a diversified financial services holding company engaged
primarily in investment and financial planning, investment banking
and asset management.  UBS is an investment banking and securities
firm.  Goldman Sachs is a full-service global investment banking
and securities firm.  J.P. Morgan is a leading financial services
firm.  Robert W. Baird is a wealth management, capital markets,
asset management and private equity firm.  BMO is a leading, full-
service North American financial services provider offering, among
other services, equity and debt underwriting.

Credit Agricole is a full service institutional broker/dealer.
CIBC is the investment banking subsidiary of the Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce, and provides a variety of financial services,
including investment banking advisory services.  Howard Weil is an
energy investment boutique that provides investment banking
services.  Mitsubishi provides investment banking and brokerage
products and services to institutional clients, and is a member of
the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., a global Japan-based
financial services company.  Barclays, CGMI, RBC, Wells Fargo,
Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, Raymond James, UBS, Goldman Sachs,
J.P. Morgan, Robert W. Baird, BMO, Credit Agricole, CIBC, Howard
Weil and Mitsubishi were underwriters for LinnCo's IPO, helping to
draft and disseminate the offering documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Jessica Sleater, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com
                  jsleater@milberg.com

               - and -

          J. Elazar Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          570 Lexington A venue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 758-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 758-4004
          E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com


MEDICAL VISION: About 500 Australian Women Join Implant Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Wallace, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that about 500 Australian women who had faulty PIP breast implants
have joined thousands of other victims in an overseas class action
in a last-ditch bid for compensation.

The silicone-gel implants were banned in April 2010 after the
French manufacturer was found to have been using significantly
cheaper, unapproved industrial-grade silicone.  They are at least
twice as likely as other brands to rupture.

The 500 women are part of a class action against Poly Implant
Prothese involving 5127 mostly French and Colombian victims in
criminal proceedings against PIP's former owner Jean-Claude Mas,
who is facing at least four years' jail.

About 1,300 Australian women of the estimated 5,000 who have had
the implants had signed up to a class action against the Adelaide-
based distributor of the implants, Medical Vision Australia, but
that collapsed in March after it was discovered MVA did not have
adequate product liability insurance and the case was unviable.
Law firm Tindall Gask Bentley (TGB) is claiming compensation for
surgery costs and pain and suffering.

"The whole PIP implants fiasco has been extremely traumatic for
the Australian women who were innocently caught up in the
scandal," TGB partner Tim White said.  "They spent thousands of
dollars on a product that they were told and expected was of high
quality, authorized and safe.

"Many experienced physical issues such as pain, swelling, lymph
node damage, illness and infection. Almost all women spoke of the
psychological toll which ranged from stress and anxiety to
depression."

Bronwyn Pereira, 47, of Mona Vale and who is part of the overseas
class action, had the PIP implants seven years ago to correct a
congenital deformity, pectus excavatum (hollow chest), but one
ruptured so badly she has suffered a litany of serious health
problems.

"Obviously I would like some form of compensation for what I've
lost, being a business, my personal health.  But most of all I
want retribution," she said.

Medical Vision Australia is in liquidation and its owner,
Stan Racic, has set up other companies and is still selling breast
implants.

Liquidators Anthony Phillips and Andrew Heard have referred MVA to
corporate watchdog ASIC for investigation.

"We have secured the key financial records of the company and our
investigations to date have focused on the sale of the company's
business assets to Medical Vision Australia Holdings Pty Limited,
a related entity, and other transactions entered into prior to our
appointment," Mr. Phillips said.

Mr. Racic did not return Fairfax Media calls.


MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Firefighters' Securities Action for $85MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
During fiscal year 2012, Medtronic, Inc. recorded certain
litigation charges, net of $90 million related to the agreement to
settle the federal securities class action initiated in December
2008 by the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association.  During
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, Medtronic settled all of
these class claims for $85 million and incurred $5 million in
additional litigation fees, according to the company's June 24,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 26, 2013.


MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Face Suit Over Defibrillation Leads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial proceedings are underway in Medtronic Inc.'s Fidelis
product liability matters, according to the company's June 24,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 26, 2013.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


MEDTRONIC OF CANADA: Recalls Various MiniMed Insulin Reservoirs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 12, 2013
Posting date:                         July 12, 2013
Type of communication:                Information Update
Subcategory:                          Medical Device
Source of recall:                     Health Canada
Issue:                                Product Safety
Audience:                             General Public
Identification number:                RA-34599

Affected products:

   Model            Volume     Lot Numbers Affected
   -----            ------     --------------------
   MMT-326A         1.8 ml     H8500423
                               H8500472
                               H8503728
                               H8539013
                               H8510440
                               H862775

   MMT-332A         3.0 ml     H8471745
                               H8469703
                               H8473106
                               H8473271
                               H8476270
                               H8492449
                               H8492449
                               H8496561
                               H8517079

Medtronic of Canada Ltd., in consultation with Health Canada, is
recalling select lots (see list below) of Paradigm Medtronic
MiniMed Insulin Reservoirs, model # MMT-326A and MMT-332A,
manufactured by Medtronic MiniMed.  These insulin reservoirs are
used with Paradigm insulin infusion pumps.

Medtronic is recalling these lots due to the potential risk of a
leak in the reservoir that may result in under-delivery of
insulin.  As well, if there is an obstruction in the infusion set,
the pump alarm may not be triggered.  The under-delivery of
insulin may cause hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), and in extreme
cases may cause loss of consciousness or death.

Medtronic of Canada Ltd is notifying all customers who have
purchased products from them of this recall and advising them to
check their supplies to see if they have received affected lots.
The lot number can be found on the side panel of the reservoir box
and on the packaging of each individual reservoir.

Patients who have devices from the affected lots or who are
concerned about this device should contact Medtronic of Canada
Ltd.'s Diabetes Consumer Care line immediately at 1-800-284-4416
or email medtronicdiabetescc@medtronic.com.  Patients who have
health concerns related to their use of this device should speak
with their health care professional.

Complaints involving medical devices can be reported to the Health
Products and Food Branch Inspectorate by calling the toll-free
hotline at +1 (800) 267 9675, or by writing to:

   Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate
   Health Canada
   Address Locator: 2003D
   Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9


MOLSON COORS: Recalls Canadian Cider in Glass Bottles
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 10, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:                          Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:                Class 2
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Molson Coors Canada
Distribution:                         Ontario, Nova Scotia
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail
CFIA reference number:                8147

The following Molson Canadian Cider, sold in glass bottles, is
affected by this alert:

   Common name         Size         Code(s) on product
   -----------         ----         ------------------
   Molson Canadian   341 mL           Bottle codes:
   Cider             bottle           L314821 1001 hh:mm*
                                      54 WL 1140

                                      L314921 1001 hh:mm*
                                      54 WL 1140

                                      L315021 1001 hh:mm*
                                      54 WL 1140

                                      *hh:mm indicates the time

   Molson Canadian   6 x 341 mL       Bottle codes:
   Cider             bottles          L314821 1001 hh:mm*
                                      54 WL 1140

                                      L314921 1001 hh:mm*
                                      54 WL 1140

                                      L315021 1001 hh:mm*
                                      54 WL 1140
                                      *hh:mm indicates the time

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Molson Coors Canada
are warning the public not to consume the Molson Canadian Cider
because this product may contain harmful glass fragments.

There have been no reported injuries associated with the
consumption of this product.

The distributor, Molson Coors Canada, Toronto, Ontario is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

For more information, consumers and industry can contact:
Molson Coors at 1-800-665-7661; or, CFIA by filling out the online
feedback form.


MOM'S UKRAINIAN: Recalls Brand Cabbage Rolls and Perogies
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 12, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Milk,
                                      Allergen - Mustard,
                                      Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Mom's Ukrainian Homestyle
                                      Foods
Distribution:                         Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected products:

   Brand name                  Common name                  Size
   ----------                  -----------                  ----
   Mom's Ukrainian Homestyle   Regular Cabbage Rolls        1 kg
   Mom's Ukrainian Homestyle   Sour Cabbage Rolls           1 kg
   Mom's Ukrainian Homestyle   Perogies Potato with         750 g
                               Process Cheese Spread

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Mom's Ukrainian
Homestyle Foods are warning people with allergies to milk, soy, or
mustard not to consume the Mom's Ukrainian Homestyle brand
products.  The affected products contain milk, soy, and/or mustard
which are not declared on the label.

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

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk, soy, or
mustard.

The manufacturer, Mom's Ukrainian Homestyle Foods, Pelly,
Saskatchewan, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from
the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the
recall.


MTD PRODUCTS: Settles Lawn Mower Labeling Class Action in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Pensa LLP on July 19 disclosed that two settlement
agreements have been reached in class actions brought in Ontario
and Quebec concerning allegations pertaining to horsepower
labeling of certain lawn mowers in Canada.

Under the first agreement, MTD Products Limited and MTD Products
Inc (collectively "MTD") has agreed to pay C$300,000.00 for the
benefit of settlement class members and to provide evidence and
co-operation to the plaintiffs in pursuing their claims against
the remaining non-settling defendants (the "MTD Settlement
Agreement"). The MTD Settlement Agreement also resolved the
allegations and litigation against Sears Canada Inc., Sears
Holdings Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. (collectively
"Sears").  See: http://is.gd/ClkHIy

Under the second agreement, Briggs & Stratton Canada Inc., Briggs
& Stratton Corporation (collectively "Briggs"), Electrolux Canada
Corp., Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (collectively "Electrolux"),
John Deere Canada ULC, Deere & Company (collectively "John
Deere"), Husqvarna Canada Corp., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor
Products N.A. Inc, (collectively "Husqvarna"), Kohler Canada Co.,
Kohler Co. (collectively "Kohler") and The Toro Company (Canada),
Inc. and the Toro Company (collectively "Toro") together have
agreed to pay C$4,200,000.00 for the benefit of Settlement Class
Members (the "Briggs & Stratton et al. Settlement Agreement").
See: http://is.gd/vBPOkI

In exchange, the Settling Defendants will be provided with a full
release of claims against them in the Lawn Mowers Class Action.
The Settling Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability
in connection with the case.

The litigation continues as against all Non-Settling Defendants to
the Proceedings.

As the litigation is ongoing against the Non-Settling Defendants,
there will be no distribution of settlement funds at this time.
The continuing litigation may or may not result in further
settlements or judgments.  If there is a further recovery, it will
be added to the present settlement monies, which will be held in
an interest-bearing trust account and an efficient distribution
will be made at an appropriate time.  The Courts will approve when
and to whom the settlement funds are distributed.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the Lawn Mowers
Class Action must do so by September 17, 2013.

Hearings have been set in Ontario and Quebec courts for settlement
approval.  The Ontario hearing will be held on September 20, 2013
at 10:00 a.m. at 80 Dundas Street, London, Ontario and the Quebec
hearing will be held on September 25, 2013 at 9:30am at 1, rue
Notre-Dame Est, Montreal, Quebec.


NAKED JUICE: Settles False Labeling Class Action for $9 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Follmer, writing for TakePart, reports that Pepsi's popular
Naked Juice line has been forced to strip the words "all natural"
from its labels after a class-action suit determined the claim was
misleading and false.

Naked Juice Co. agreed to pay $9 million to settle the suit, which
was brought by a group of consumers who alleged the juices and
smoothies could not be called natural and GMO-free.  Under the
terms of the settlement, Naked Juice can continue to deny that
they misled the public, but they are changing the labels
nonetheless.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleged that Naked Juice couldn't
call their products all natural because they contained Archer
Daniels Midland's Fibersol-2 ("a soluble corn fiber that acts as a
low-calorie bulking agent"), fructooligosaccharides (an
alternative sweetener), and genetically modified soy.

Naked Juice laid the blame for the labeling confusion at the feet
of the Feds, saying there's not enough "guidance" as to what can
be called "natural."

"[U]ntil there is more detailed regulatory guidance around the
word 'natural,' we've chosen not to use 'all natural' to describe
our juices and smoothies," the company told BeverageDaily.com.

And to the layperson, the company could be right.

According to the FDA website: "From a food science perspective, it
is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because
the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product
of the earth.  That said, FDA has not developed a definition for
use of the term natural or its derivatives.  However, the agency
has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not
contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: 6 Current Football Players Join O'Bannon Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Brady and Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports,
report that six football players on July 18 became the first
current athletes to join a lawsuit against the NCAA pertaining to
the use of college athletes' names and likeness.

Arizona linebacker Jake Fischer, Arizona place kicker Jake Smith
and Clemson defensive back Darius Robinson joined a lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in California against video game manufacturer
Electronic Arts and the nation's leading collegiate trademark
licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co.

Also added to the case are Vanderbilt senior linebacker Chase
Garnham, Minnesota senior tight end Moses Alipate and Minnesota
senior wide receiver Victor Keise.

The addition of the new players came as part of filing in which
lawyers for the plaintiffs also amended their complaint with the
inclusion of a series of new and scathing allegations against each
of the defendants.  Among them are that:

     -- Then-NCAA president Myles Brand in "public remarks" in
2008, "conceded" that "(t)he right to license or sell one's name,
image, and likeness is a property right with economic value."

     -- EA and CLC "actively lobbied for, and obtained,
administrative interpretations of those rules that permitted
greater uncompensated exploitation of student-athletes' names,
images, and likenesses.  Where their formal efforts were
unsuccessful, EA and CLC obtained agreement from the NCAA to
permit greater uncompensated exploitation of student-athletes'
names, images, and likenesses notwithstanding the rules."

     -- In August 2007, when licensing of video games was being
negotiated, EA "offered to establish a 'players' fund' for the use
of the (student-athletes') names, images, and likenesses.  CLC,
negotiating on the NCAA's behalf, instead suggested that the money
should go to the NCAA. EA agreed to pay a kicker to NCAA in order
'to align interests and incentivize all parties to help build the
category with new rights.' EA made this offer contingent on 'no
royalties . . . to a player fund.' "

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said via text message the
association "will reserve comment until we have had time to read
the amended complaint."

Until July 18, the named plaintiffs in the case were a group of
former college athletes, headed by former UCLA basketball star Ed
O'Bannon and including all-time greats Oscar Robertson and Bill
Russell.

Mr. Fischer is a 6-0, 222-pound senior from Oro Valley, Ariz., who
led the Wildcats with 119 tackles last season, 76 of them solo.
He was an all-Pacific-12 Conference honorable mention selection on
the field and a Pac-12 first-team all-academic honoree off it.

Mr. Smith is a junior kicker from suburban Philadelphia who began
his college career at Syracuse and transferred to Youngstown State
before coming to Arizona, where he is expected to compete for the
starting role.

Mr. Robinson is a 5-10, 170-pound senior cornerback from College
Park, Ga., who missed half of each of the last two seasons with
injuries.  He has 33 tackles and 3 interceptions in 25 games,
including 12 as a starter.

Mr. Garnham is a 6-3, 236-pound middle linebacker who led
Vanderbilt in 2012 with seven sacks, and has been a key member on
defense the past two seasons.

Mr. Alipate is a 6-5, 281-pound senior who has never appeared in
game for the Gophers.  His father, Tuineau, played in 24 games for
the New York Jets and Minnesota Vikings from 1994-95.

And Mr. Keise is a 6-1, 188-pound senior who has played in 14
games in his career, catching one pass during his freshman season.

None of the athletes could be reached for immediate comment.

"We are aware that Jake Smith and Jake Fischer are now plaintiffs
in the lawsuit," Arizona AD Greg Byrne said in a statement.
"While we do not support the lawsuit, we support their right to be
involved and express their opinion.  They are two fine young men
and we are glad they are part of our program and University."

Arizona spokeswoman Molly O'Mara said Messrs. Fischer and Smith
would not do any interviews immediately and that Mr. Fischer will
address the matter at the Pac-12 media day July 26.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled earlier this month that
the suit could be amended to add new plaintiffs who are current
players.  She discussed granting permission for that at a June
hearing on whether to certify the suit as a class action. She has
not yet ruled on that question.

The July 18 news came one day after the NCAA said it would not
renew its licensing agreement with EA Sports.  The NCAA said it
was confident of its legal position for use of its name and logo,
but "given the current business climate and costs of litigation"
it won't enter a new deal after the current one expires in 2014.

That doesn't necessarily mean that NCAA Football 2014 will be the
video game's final edition, as NCAA member schools license their
own trademarks for it.

In the O'Bannon suit, he and the other plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated anti-trust law by conspiring to fix at zero
the amount of compensation athletes can receive for the use of
their names, images and likenesses in products or media while they
are in school and by requiring athletes to sign forms under which
they allegedly relinquish in perpetuity all rights pertaining to
the use of the names, images and likenesses in ways including TV
contracts, rebroadcasts of games, and video games.

If Judge Wilken certifies the suit as a class action, it could
allow thousands of former and current football and men's
basketball players to join the case.  That could create the
possibility of a damages award in the billions of dollars.  In
addition, if the plaintiffs were to get everything they have said
they are seeking, it would force the establishment of an entirely
new compensation arrangement for current NCAA Bowl Subdivision
football players and Division I men's basketball players -- one
under which "monies generated by the licensing and sale of class
members' names, images and likenesses can be temporarily held in
trust" until their end of their college playing careers.

          Ruling May Spur Showdown With Current Athletes

Roger Groves, director of the Center for Law and Sports, in an
OP/ED article for Forbes, says it's one thing to have a federal
lawsuit by former so-called student athletes against the NCAA.
It's quite another to have current players suing the premier
college sports regulator.  And it is even more cataclysmic if the
case is certified as a class action allowing innumerable student
athletes to share the consequences.  That is the revolution that
some have advocated for decades.  Yet an unceremonious court
ruling days ago lighting a match to this war has been little more
than a back page blurb or a verbal footnote in talk radio and
sportscasts.

The discreet little ruling was from Federal Judge Claudia Wilken
in a case where the lead plaintiff is former UCLA star basketball
player Ed O'Bannon.  He and several other former players claim the
NCAA has been fixing the price of an athlete's image and likeness
in a way that virtually eliminates a player from sharing in the
value they created.  The suit alleges the NCAA colludes with its
member schools, TV networks and videogame manufacturers in
violation of anticompetitive provisions of federal antitrust law.
The claimed relief includes a share of the billions in revenue
generated from the current system.

The jump ball was on June 20 when Judge Wilken asked the
plaintiffs why a current athlete was not one of the plaintiffs.
That prompted an ill-advised public statement issued by the NCAA
that the lack of a current athlete is a "fatal defect" to the
plaintiffs' request for class action certification.   Well,
consider the angst the NCAA must now experience when Judge Wilken
issued an order granting the plaintiffs an opportunity to do just
that -- add a current player.

The implications have been understated.  A current player adds
muscularity to one of the elements necessary for a class action --
a group too numerous to be practicably joined as individuals.
Current players will grow each year while the case is pending, and
affect many more sports than basketball.

Who will be the current player? What criteria should be used to
select that player? And what current player will want to square
off against the hand that feeds them room and board and training?
Surely there is an unwritten NCAA commandment: "Thou Shall Not Sue
The NCAA and Play".  College players have organized before to
state their case.  There have been settlements, but no litigated
class action showdown that could legally change the intellectual
property rights and revenues of an entire class of college
athletes.

Any current player joining the suit has risks.  That player would
be in the uncomfortable position of playing legal sport against
his or her own school before knowing if the class action status
will even be granted.  The judge has ordered the complaint to be
amended within two weeks, but may not rule on the certification
until much later this summer or fall.  And once the player is
announced, the blackballing would start rolling and a later
withdrawal from the case is probably of little consequence.  If I
were advising the targeted player, I would have to ask, "Are you
willing to be a non-scholarship martyr?"

And while a ruling favorable to the plaintiffs could bring damages
in the billions, the current player would not be a major
recipient.  The player can only hope for future returns.

The showdown appears likely.  After all, this judge apparently is
interested in reaching the merits of the substantive claims.  She
initiated an inquiry that appears to have helped the plaintiffs
perfect the complaint in furtherance of that quest.  There are
similar cases in the federal pipeline but only this one has
judicially authorized current players to rise from the bench to
the starting lineup in what may be a monumental class action suit.

Now the case cannot be part of mere reparations of past players.
If the case affects the current college players, it will get the
attention of current players and their parents.  That raises their
intellectual conscience of this revenue sharing -- exploitation
issue.  They will likely be more emboldened than embarrassed by
pursuing such claims.  Mr. Groves said "For the NCAA I suspect the
showdown is not high on the Christmas list".


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seeks Partial Summary Judgment in Super Bowl Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mosier, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that the
Dallas Cowboys and National Football League are looking to build
on their recent courtroom success, when a federal judge ruled the
Super Bowl XLV seating lawsuit wouldn't receive class-action
status.

The Cowboys -- which had already been dismissed from the lawsuit
-- are demanding $196,584.44 in reimbursement for complying with
subpoenas issued last September.  According to the Cowboys, they
had to review more than 23 gigabytes of data and produced more
than 85,000 pages of documents.

The NFL's newest demands are more ambitious.  The league is
seeking a partial summary judgment and partial dismissal.  Instead
of having to defend itself against classes of plaintiffs, the NFL
is now attacking the claims of the eight named plaintiffs who were
at the 2011 championship game at Cowboys Stadium.  That included
pinpointing how long individual plaintiffs were delayed getting
into the stadium, the difference in value of their original and
replacement tickets, and other factors.

A judge had yet to rule on the proposed motions and might not side
with the NFL.  But the denial of class-action status gives the
current and former plaintiffs new angles of attack.

The plaintiffs do still have the option of asking a higher court
for the right to appeal, but time is short.  They have only 14
days from the judge's ruling, which happened on July 9.

On the other side, the recent victory the plaintiffs can point to
is a judge's ruling saying they can get a deposition from NFL
commissioner Roger Goodell.  The plaintiffs lawyers can only ask
about the stadium's temporary seating, the video board, the goal
of breaking an attendance record and communications he had with
affected fans.

The league had been fighting that request for months.  A law
professor previously mentioned that in class-action cases,
companies hate having their CEO deposed that they'll settle rather
than submit.  There's no indication that'll happen here.


NIAGARA SOCIAL SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Delayed Food Stamps
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Niagara County Department
of Social Services unreasonably delays processing of food-stamp
applications for more than 30 days, a class action claims in New
York Federal Court.


NISSAN MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Batter Capacity Loss
------------------------------------------------------------
David Herron, writing for Torque News, reports that Nissan Leaf
owners facing battery capacity loss stand to gain some relief
thanks to a class action lawsuit settlement in which Nissan Motor
Co. Ltd. will extend the battery warranty to cover this condition.

This time last year a hot item of concern among Nissan Leaf owners
was the phrase "premature battery capacity loss."  Several owners,
especially in Phoenix, complained of rapid loss of battery
capacity, a Leaf-owner-organized battery capacity test was
performed, and eventually several Leaf owners filed a class action
lawsuit.  A settlement was reached in that lawsuit, with Nissan
agreeing to expand battery warranties for the 2011-12 Leaf's,
while not admitting the suit had any merit.

At issue is Nissan's claims concerning the useful lifetime of the
Leaf battery pack, versus actual battery pack behavior in the
field.  Specifically, Nissan claims the Leaf will have 80%
remaining capacity after 5 years, and 70% remaining capacity after
10 years.  However, some Leaf owners were seeing degradation at a
faster rate than this.  A stink was raised via online message
boards, which rose to become news coverage, even involving a
Nissan Executive Vice President (Andy Palmer) answering questions
from Leaf owners.

The worry is that in some cases battery degradation would render
affected Leaf's useless, and those Leaf owners owning an expensive
paperweight in their driveway.  The degradation seemed to be worse
for those who used their cars heavily, frequent fast charging, or
frequent fast driving, or even just hot weather.

In making the settlement, Nissan maintains the class action
lawsuit had no merit.  In any case, the company is extending the
warranty to add battery capacity loss to its existing limited
warranty for up to 60 months or 60,000 miles, require Nissan to
repair the battery to at least 70 percent of its full capacity,
and if repair is not possible to replace the pack with a newly
manufactured or reconditioned one.

About 18,588 people are covered by the class action settlement,
and all will be automatically included in the extended warranty
unless they choose to opt out.  For example, if they're unhappy
with the terms.

Curiously the settlement terms are identical with a warranty
modification Nissan had previously announced on the MyNissanLeaf
forum.  That announcement also included news of a software upgrade
that improves the accuracy of the in-dash battery gauge.  This
lead some to wonder which came first, the warranty upgrade, or the
class action lawsuit settlement? Maybe Nissan was going to offer
an extended warranty anyway, because it was facing a Leaf owner
community where some had become outright hostile and the company
needed a way to sooth the hostilities.


OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Earth's Pride Organics: Organic Oregano
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olde Thompson Inc. in Oxnard, CA, in cooperation with the FDA is
recalling Earth's Pride Organics: Organic Oregano packaged in a
2.2 oz. glass jar with cork closure, Lot #: 060367, 060692, 061252
and 061864 due to possible contamination by Salmonella.  The
consumer is advised to dispose the recalled product and its
container.

Salmonella is known to cause salmonellosis in humans and animals.
Symptoms of salmonellosis include diarrhea, abdominal cramps and
fever and are known in some cases to be severe enough to require
hospitalization and can cause serious complications or death in
young children, the elderly, or a person with a compromised immune
system.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers immediately.

The recalled product is identified and distributed as follows:

Earth's Pride Organics: Organic Oregano 2.2 oz. in glass jar
UPC code: 400000290942.  The recall affects 1,075 cases Earth's
Pride Organics: Organic Oregano 2.2 oz in glass jar.  Lot # (s):
060367, 060692, 061252 and 061864 located on the bottom of the
jar.  Pictures of the Products are available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm360720.htm

The recalled product is sold exclusively at BJ's Wholesale Club in
CT, DE, FL, GA, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, and VA,
between January 1, 2013 and July 10, 2013

No illnesses have been reported.

The bacterium was discovered during routine sampling of raw
materials.

Customers who have purchased these products and have any questions
should contact a BJ's Wholesale Club Member Care Representative at
1-800-BJS-CLUB (800-257-2582) available Monday - Friday, 9AM - 7PM
E.D.T., Saturday, 9AM - 6PM E.D.T. and Sunday, NOON - 6PM E.D.T.


PELAGIC PRESSURE: Recalls Hollis DG03 Due to Drowning Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pelagic Pressure Systems, announced a voluntary recall of 1,000
pieces of Hollis DG03 Dive Computers.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The dive computer, when used with an optional integrated
transmitter, can malfunction and display an incorrect tank
pressure reading to the diver.  A diver could unknowingly deplete
their air supply based on the reading, resulting in drowning.

Hollis has received two reports of dive computers malfunctioning.
No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes Hollis brand DG03 dive computers with serial
numbers 100 through 1142 that may be used with integrated
transmitters that monitor tank pressure.  The round black 2-1/2
inch diameter computer has a digital screen and is worn on the
diver's wrist like a watch.  The name of the product, Hollis DG03,
is printed on the front of the unit and the serial number is
printed on the back of the unit.  These computers allow scuba
divers to measure the time and depth of a dive.  Only dive
computers with software labeled Revision 1A, viewed on the
computer's display are included in the recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/dC1aLb

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and were
sold at authorized Hollis dealers nationwide from July 2011
through May 2013 for about $500.

Consumers should stop using the recalled dive computers until the
unit's operating system is upgraded to revision 1B.  Consumers can
download the upgrade from the firm's website or contact an
authorized Hollis dealer for assistance.


PIVOTAL PAYMENTS: "Sawyer" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael M. Anello granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned STANLEY SAWYER d/b/a SAN DIEGO CARBURETOR & SAN
DIEGO FUEL INJECTION, Plaintiff, v. PIVOTAL PAYMENTS, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 13-CV-802-MMA (MDD), (S.D. Cal.).

Defendant Pivotal Payments, Inc., moved to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). The
Defendant averred that a valid forum selection clause in the
parties' contract precludes suit in this District. The Defendant
further averred that this clause's choice of law provision
precludes the Plaintiff from pursuing its sole claim under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Judge Anello agreed, and dismissed the Complaint without
prejudice.

"Because venue is not proper in this District, Plaintiff cannot
allege facts the cure the deficiencies in his Complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is denied leave to amend. The Clerk of
Court shall terminate the matter," Judge Anello concluded.

A copy of the District Court's July 11, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/ZzRGQffrom Leagle.com.

Stanley Sawyer, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Leland Knutson --
mlk@classactionlaw.com -- at Finkelstein and Krinsk LLP.

Pivotal Payments, Inc., Defendant, represented by Drew Robert
Hansen -- dhansen@tocounsel.com -- at Theodora Oringher PC.


PRODUIT DE L'ERABLE: Recalls "Vinaigrette a l'erable" Dressing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 12, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Mustard
                                      Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Produit de l'erable St-
                                      Ferdinand B
Distribution:                         Quebec, May be National
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected products:

   Brand name                Common name              Size
   ----------                 -----------             ----
   Produit de l'erable    "Vinaigrette a l'erable"   250 mL
   St-Ferdinand B

   Produit de l'erable    "Vinaigrette a l'erable    250 mL
   St-Ferdinand B         et moutarde de Dijon"

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Produit de l'erable
St-Ferdinand B are warning people with allergies to mustard or
sensitivities to sulphites not to consume the Produit de l'erable
St-Ferdinand B brand Dressings.  The affected products contain
mustard and/or sulphites which are not declared on the label.

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

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to mustard or
sensitivities to sulphites.

The distributor, Produit de l'erable St-Ferdinand B, Irlande,
Quebec, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the
marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the
recall.


RED LOBSTER: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Gratuities
---------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Swanson, writing for KWCH-TV, reports that some well-known
restaurant chains face a class-action lawsuit in New York.  The
suit claims adding automatic gratuities to diners' checks is a
form of deceptive billing.

Red Lobster, Olive Garden and Applebees are some of the
restaurants named in the lawsuit.

"If you want to raise the prices, just raise the prices," says
Evan Spencer, the lawyer who filed the class action lawsuit.
"They'll have an automatic gratuity included in the price and then
they'll have a line for an optional tip, but a tip and a gratuity
are exactly the same thing."

Restaurant owners say customers have the option to change the tip,
paying all, or part of the included gratuity.  Customers can also
leave no tip.

In New York, it is only legal for restaurants to add gratuity on
checks for parties of eight or more.  But the lawsuit says it's
common practice for many New York restaurants to include
gratuities of 17-20% on every check.

David Mittleman, writing for The Legal Examiner, reports that the
big restaurant chains aren't the only ones guilty of adding an
automatic gratuity.  Smaller restaurants like Per Se, Lavo and
Morton's in NYC also do so, and the class action lawsuit could
affect up to 2,000 restaurants in the city.  Ted Dimond, a tennis
professional who brought the lawsuit, says that NYC's Department
of Consumer Affairs doesn't have the staff to enforce the rule of
an automatic gratuity for only those parties 8 or larger.  He says
that's why he decided to take up the cause, and stated that he
wants to see every consumer who ate at the named restaurants to
receive $50 plus $1,000.

Experts like CBS travel editor, Peter Greenburg, argue that the
definition of a tip is about a "reward" for good service and a
choice to determine what that reward should be.  Although the
chain restaurants in NYC are the first to add the automatic
gratuity, hotels have been doing this across the country for
years.  For those like Mr. Dimond who filed the $5.5 million suit,
the automatic gratuity is just another method of restaurants
attempting to sock it to consumers and squeeze them of their hard
earned dollars, often without their realization.


RENAISSANCE HOSPITAL: Ex-Employees File ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Meaux, writing for The Port Arthur News, reports that two
former employees of the now-closed Renaissance Hospital in Groves
have filed a class-action suit against the hospital and its
administrator.

The hospital faces another lawsuit that was filed by Anesthesia
Associates in 60th District Court.

Former employees Tiffany Aaron and Eboni Horn-Watson filed the
class-action suit on behalf of themselves and all other employees
against Jason LeDay, hospital administrator, and the hospital for
violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
because employees were not provided with 60 days notice of the
hospital closure, violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act for failure to provide continuing health benefits and
notification of COBRA rights after termination, breach of contract
for failure to pay accrued paid time off and violation of Fair
Labor Standards for unpaid wages due for their last week of work.

Their attorney, Nitin Sud of Houston, said the defendant's answer
is not due until next month.

On April 26, Aaron and Horn-Watson and a number of other employees
at the hospital were "abruptly and involuntarily terminated
without any warning and the hospital was shut down," according to
the court document, filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The City of Groves was not notified of the closure either, Groves
City Manager D. Sosa said in a story that ran in the May 31
edition of The Port Arthur News.

The suit goes on to state that approximately three employees
continue to work at Renaissance Hospital even though the facility
has been shut down.  After the shut-down, Mr. LeDay reportedly
indicated that the hospital was temporarily shut down to
reorganize, deal with internal construction and for purposes of
changing focus to behavioral health and senior care.

Mr. Sosa told The News in the May 31 edition that he had received
a phone call from a person identifying himself as Jason LeDay,
hospital administrator.  Mr. LeDay reportedly apologized for not
letting the city know sooner of the issue and promised to send a
press release several weeks ago.  The press release never arrived.

Jason Cansler, representing Anesthesia Associates, said his client
"rendered good and valuable services to Renaissance Hospital and
never received compensation due."

"Also, they (Anesethia Associates) tried to work with them for a
long period of time to give them the opportunity," Mr. Cansler
said.

The hospital had been in a flux for some time.  In January 2012,
J. Shane Howard, Jefferson County tax assessor-collector, led a
multi-agency effort to seize personal property from the hospital
associated with the non-payment of thousands in current and
delinquent property taxes. At that time the hospital was under the
ownership of Steve and Eileen Nguyen. The Nguyen's were later
terminated from their positions.

Foundation Surgical Hospital Affiliates, an Oklahoma City, Okla.,
hospital management company, which also has several Texas-based
facilities, came on board in early February and worked with state
departments to correct a number of deficiencies and by May 2012,
while under the direction of FSHA, a new administration was
brought in -- the new leadership made a positive impact, according
to Aaron, who was interviewed for a story that ran in the May 18
edition of The Port Arthur News.


ROUGE CANADA: Recalls Maple & Maple Raspberry Dressings
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 12, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Mustard,
                                      Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Rouge Canada S.E.N.C.
Distribution:                         Quebec, Alberta, Ontario,
                                      May be National
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected products:

   Brand name      Common name                         Size
   ----------      -----------                         -----
   Rouge           Maple Raspberry Dressing            250 mL
   Rouge           Dijon Mustard and Maple Dressing    250 mL

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Rouge Canada
S.E.N.C. are warning people with allergies to mustard or
sensitivities to sulphites not to consume the Rouge brand
Dressings.  The affected products contain mustard and/or sulphites
which are not declared on the label.

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

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to mustard or
sensitivities to sulphites.

The distributor, Rouge Canada S.E.N.C., head office located in
Montreal, Quebec, is voluntarily recalling the affected products
from the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of
the recall.

For more information, consumers and industry can contact: Rouge
Canada S.E.N.C., Julie DeBlois at (514) 544 4131; or,
CFIA by filling out the online feedback form.


SKADDEN ARPS: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The Am Law Daily reports that the success or failure of a proposed
class action filed on July 18 in New York federal court against
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Tower Legal Staffing
hinges on a seemingly simple question: Is working on a document
review considered practicing law?

It's a question that New York plaintiffs lawyer D. Maimon
Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jhllp.com -- has been trying to have a
court answer since 2010, when he filed his first of three suits
claiming document reviewers should be paid overtime under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act because the routine nature of the
work requires no legal analysis whatsoever and therefore qualifies
the reviewers as nonexempt employees under the law.

Mr. Kirschenbaum's first such suit, brought against plaintiffs
firm Labaton Sucharow, settled in 2010 for undisclosed terms.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and legal staffing agency
Providus -- the targets of his second FLSA suit against a law
firm, which was filed in New York federal court in March -- have
requested that the case be dismissed based on the argument that
document review is inarguably legal work, "because an attorney
properly performing such review necessarily brings his training,
knowledge, and judgment to bear on the task."

Mr. Kirschenbaum's latest client is David Lola, a University of
San Diego School of Law graduate who became a lawyer in California
in 2004.  Now living in North Carolina, Lola began working on a
document review for Skadden in April 2012 for an unspecified
multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio.  He
routinely worked 45-55 hours a week, according to the suit, and
received base pay of $25 an hour even for time in excess of 40
hours a week, for which he thinks he should have been paid time
and a half.

The complaint, filed on behalf of Lola and others "similarly
situated," takes pains to place document review outside the
practice of law, describing the assignment as requiring Lola to
follow "extremely detailed protocols" that did not allow or
require him to "exercise any judgment."

Mr. Kirschenbaum, known to New York restaurateurs for his frequent
lawsuits challenging the dining industry's adherence to wage and
hour laws, says the suits are a response to what he sees as law
firms' practice of taking advantage of a legal market overrun with
out-of-work law school graduates.

"They're exploiting the prestige of the profession to screw a
lawyer out of his rightful wages," says Mr. Kirschenbaum, a
partner at Joseph & Kirschenbaum.  "I think there's a general
sense that if we're a law firm and we're doing it, then it's
legal."

Representatives for Skadden and Tower Legal did not return
requests for comment on July 18.

Unlike the Quinn Emanuel case, which involves a plaintiff who is
licensed to practice law in the state where the document review
took place, Lola is not yet a licensed lawyer in North Carolina.
(Last summer, soon after beginning work on the Skadden assignment,
Lola received a public reproval from the State Bar of California
for a run-in with police that involved carrying a concealed
firearm without a license, according to public records.  The
disciplinary action makes the misdeed public but does not require
any period of suspension, and Mr. Kirschenbaum says it has no
bearing on the case.)

In Quinn Emanuel's challenge to the overtime suit it faces, Quinn
partner Peter Calamari maintains that document review is in fact
legal work and to argue otherwise cuts against the entire history
of the practice.

The plaintiff's position, according to Quinn, "discredits the work
of thousands of contract attorneys who are engaged in document
review."  The response continues: "It would also call into
question the work of full-time first- and second-year associates
in large law firms, some of whom spend large portions of their
time conducting document review."


STANDARD FIRE: Strasburger Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Judith R. Blakeway, Esq., at Strasburger & Price, L.L.P. reports
that can you avoid removal by stipulating to damages below the
jurisdictional amount in a state class action? That is the
question the Supreme Court recently answered in Standard Fire
Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 133 S.Ct. 1345 (2013).  The Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 gives federal district courts original
jurisdiction over class actions in which, among other things, the
matter in controversy exceeds $5 million.  To determine whether a
matter exceeds this jurisdictional amount, claims of individual
class members must be aggregated.

Greg Knowles filed a class action in which he alleged that
Standard Fire Insurance Company underpaid claims for real property
damage to Arkansas homeowners.  To forestall removal, he
stipulated that he and the class would seek less than $5 million
in damages.  Standard nevertheless removed the case to federal
court.  The district court remanded to state court in light of
Knowles' stipulation.  The Eighth Circuit declined to exercise its
discretion to hear an appeal from the remand order.  The Supreme
Court granted writ of certiorari to resolve a split in the courts
of appeal.

In non-class litigation, state court plaintiffs can prevent
removal by limiting damages to below the jurisdictional threshold.
That is the tactic Knowles attempted to use in the class action
context.  His attempt failed for the simple reason that a
plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind
members of the proposed class before the class is certified.
Because his pre-certification stipulation did not bind anyone but
himself, Knowles did not reduce the value of the putative class
members' claims.  Thus, the amount to which Knowles had stipulated
was contingent.  For example, a state court might certify the
class and permit it to proceed on the condition that the
stipulation be excised, or a court might find that Knowles was an
inadequate representative due to the artificial cap he purported
to impose on the class recovery, or another class member could
intervene without a stipulation and the district court might
permit the action to proceed with a new representative.  In short,
there was a possibility that the non-binding amount-limiting
stipulation might not survive the class certification process.
Thus, Knowles' attempt to stipulate his case out of federal court
was unsuccessful.


STAPLES: Recalls Bermond Manager's Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Staples the Office Superstore LLC, of Framingham, Mass., announced
a voluntary recall of 3,350 Bermond Fabric Manager's Chairs.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The base of the chair can break, posing a fall hazard.

Staples has received 41 reports of the chairs' base breaking,
including three from consumers who reported falling out of the
chairs with one receiving a scratched leg and bump to the back of
the head.

The office chairs with unpadded arms have a five-wheel base and
come in two colors: gray and burgundy.  A tag on the bottom of the
seat cushion has the SKU and item numbers printed on it: the gray
SKU is 924204 with item number 21084; and the burgundy SKU is
924203 with item number 21083.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/LK52sg

The recalled products were manufactured in China.  Bermond Fabric
Manager's Chairs are sold at Staples.com and online via Staples'
in-store kiosks, Staples Advantage, Quill.com and Medical Arts
Press between July 2011 and May 2013 for about $50 to $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and contact the
firm for instructions on returning the chairs for a full refund.
Staples is contacting all known customers directly to provide this
information.


SUBWAY SANDWICH: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Footlong Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for BlueMauMau, reports that seven putative
class action lawsuits against Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc. over
misleading advertising of its "Footlong" sandwich have now been
centralized in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Customers claim
the size of the sandwich does matter.  It is not the twelve inches
the sandwich chain advertises it to be.  It is one inch shorter.

The consumer complaints allege that Subway's uniform standards and
practices with respect to the manufacturing process and franchisee
training result in a sandwich that is shorter than a foot long
measurement.  The lawsuits state that Subway is in violation of
state consumer protection laws.

The decision to centralized the litigation came from a transfer
order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistirct Litigation on June
10, 2013.  The lawsuits were filed last January and are now under
Subway Footlong Sandwich Marketing. & Sales Practices Litig. (E.D.
Wis. June 10, 2013).

Past news reports stated that Subway balked at the first sign of
trouble when customers began complaining and posting photos about
the sandwich shortage on Facebook in Australia.  The company gave
the excuse that its baking process among thousands of franchises
around the country can result in different lengths of bread.

After several lawsuits were filed, Subway changed its tune.  The
sandwich giant offered its apology and stated, "We have redoubled
our efforts to ensure consistency and correct length in every
sandwich we serve."


TORN AND GLASSER: Recalls Pistachios Due to Salmonella Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Torn and Glasser, Inc of Los Angeles, CA  90021 is voluntarily
recalling some packaged Pistachios because it has the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

This decision to recall was made due to the expanded recall of
pistachio products by ARO pistachio (Upgraded from a Class II to a
Class I) due to the potential of contamination with Salmonella.
The Torn and Glasser recalled products contain pistachios supplied
by the ARO processing plant located in Terra Bella Ca 93270.

The recalled product was distributed from February 21, 2012 to
April 29, 2013 in CA, AZ, and HI.

This recall affects Torn and Glasser label PISTACHIOS NATURAL,
Roasted and Salted Lot code # 3402, Hilo Label PISTACHIOS NATURAL,
Roasted and Salted Lot code # 0923, Sun Harvest Label PISTACHIOS
NATURAL, Roasted and Salted JD:1133, and Sprouts Label PISTACHIOS
NATURAL, Roasted and Salted JD:0563.  Pictures of the Products are
available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm360726.htm

To date, Torn and Glasser, Inc. has not received any complaints
concerning illness on any of these lot numbers.  Consumers who
have purchased any of the recalled products are urged not to eat
them and to return products to the place of purchase for a full
refund.

Consumers can contact the Company at 1-310-605-4900/1-800-282-6887
for information regarding this recall.  The phone will be manned
from 7am to 3:30pm (Pacific Standard Time) Monday - Friday.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Accord Over NetSpend Gift Card Suit Awaits Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NetSpend Holdings, Inc. is awaiting approval of a settlement
reached in a suit filed by Frederick J. Baker over the company's
gift card product, according to NetSpend Holdings, Inc.'s Annual
Report on Form 10-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 22, 2013, which is included as attachment
to a May 22, 2013 8-K/A SEC filing by Total System Services, Inc.

Frederick J. Baker filed a purported consumer class action case
against NetSpend Holdings, Inc. as well as one of its Issuing
Banks and card associations (collectively, the "Defendants"), in
the U.S District Court (the "Court") for the District of New
Jersey in November 2008 seeking damages and unspecified equitable
relief.

In May 2009 Baker filed an amended complaint alleging that the
Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the
New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act
(TCCWNA) and claiming unjust enrichment in connection with the
Defendants' alleged marketing, advertising, sale and post-sale
handling of NetSpend's gift card product in the State of New
Jersey.

In March 2011, the court heard oral arguments on Defendants'
motion to dismiss Baker's amended complaint. In January 2012, the
court granted Defendants' motion in part and dismissed all claims
except for the cause of action based on the alleged violation of
the CFA. NetSpend filed its answer and affirmative defenses in
February 2012.

NetSpend has reached an agreement in principle with the attorneys
representing the purported plaintiffs in this case to contribute
approximately $0.1 million to a fund that would be used to
reimburse the consumers who may have been inadvertently
overcharged and to reimburse the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs for up to $0.3 million in fees. This settlement is
subject to approval by the Court.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Wins Final OK of $1.6BB Pact in Acceleration Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District Judge
James Selna in California on Friday gave final approval to the
settlement of a class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp by
plaintiffs who claimed design defects caused some of the company's
vehicles to accelerate without warning.

Judge Selna gave final approval during a court hearing on Friday,
lawyers for the plaintiffs said. The settlement was initially
approved in December.

The terms include direct payments to customers as well as free
installation of brake-override systems in an estimated 3.25
million eligible vehicles, and the establishment of a customer
support program, according to court filings.

Plaintiffs' lawyers valued the deal at more than $1.6 billion,
calling it "a landmark, if not a record, settlement in automobile
defect class action litigation in the United States," according to
court filings. The lawsuit was filed in 2010.

Toyota, which has the third largest share of the U.S. auto market,
announced in December that it would take a one-time pre-tax charge
of $1.1 billion to cover the estimated settlement costs. It has
denied any wrongdoing.

"This agreement allows us to resolve a legacy legal issue in a way
that provides significant value to our customers and demonstrates
that they can depend on Toyota to stand behind our vehicles,"
Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore said in a statement following
the hearing Friday.

Concerns about potential unintended acceleration issues caused
Toyota to recall more than 10 million vehicles between 2009 and
2011. Plaintiffs said in the lawsuit that media reports and
consumer complaints about the alleged defects caused the trade-in
value for their vehicles to plummet.

The settlement of the lawsuit covers economic losses stemming from
the alleged safety defects, but does not include claims of
wrongful death, personal injury or property damage.

More than 22 million potential class members have been notified of
the settlement, according to court filings. Owners of affected
Toyota, Lexus and Scion models sold in the United States have
until July 29 to decide whether to participate in the settlement
and file claims, according to court filings.

Plaintiffs' lawyers are seeking $200 million in fees and $27
million for their expenses, the filings said.

                           *     *     *

CBSLA.com, in an earlier report, said the settlement is believed
to be the largest of its kind in value and number of customers
affected, according to Steve W. Berman, one of the lead attorneys
for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges that Toyota owners lost money in the resale of
their vehicles because of bad publicity surrounding the
acceleration issues.

Executives with the Torrance-based automaker are reportedly so
eager to repay customers that Toyota's attorneys asked Judge Selna
to finalize the settlement by July 19, rather than waiting until
August as originally proposed.  Toyota attorney John Hooper said
about 500,000 Toyota owners are expected to file a claim.

Under the terms of the settlement, checks will be sent to those
customers covered in the class-action suit, with first priority
going to those customers who have already filed a claim.
Executives plan to provided payouts to customers who do not file
claims, though the terms and amounts are unknown.

In addition to payouts, Toyota customers will also receive brake-
override systems for their car, Mr. Berman said.

Plaintiffs alleged that the car maker was aware of problems with
its electronic throttle-control systems and failed to address them
by installing brake-override systems. The car maker had previously
maintained that sticky gas pedals and ill-fitted floor mats were
to blame in incidents of sudden acceleration.

The $1.6 billion settlement includes an estimated $406 million
plan to install brake-override systems for some Toyota owners, and
another $250 million available for current owners who are
ineligible for the brake system. The car maker has also agreed to
a $250 million fund for owners who lost money on their vehicles
from Sept. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2010 due to negative publicity
surrounding acceleration issues.

Negotiations for the settlement took about two years, according to
J. Gordon Cooney, an attorney for Toyota.  Cooney said that while
the company maintains that Toyota vehicles are "safe, properly
designed" and have "robust" systems in place to override sudden
acceleration, the company sought to avoid a lengthy litigation
process and felt it best to "put this behind" them.

Wrongful death and personal injury cases have yet to be decided,
according to Attorney Mark Robinson, who is the lead attorney on
those cases.  One case is set to go on trial before Judge Selna in
November, and another to go before a Michigan jury the same month.
A third case is schedule to be tried in Los Angeles County
Superior Court this summer.


UNIPIXEL INC: Faces Securities Lawsuits in New York & Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
In June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
against UniPixel, Inc. and its CEO, CFO, and chairman, according
to Exhibit 99.1 of the company's June 17, 2013, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaints allege the company and its officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making
purportedly false and misleading statements concerning its
licensing agreements and product development.

The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of its common stock during the period from
December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013. UniPixel believes the complaints
are without merit and it will vigorously defend against them. The
company has directors' and officers' and corporate liability
insurance to cover risks associated with securities claims filed
against the company or its directors and officers, and has
notified its insurers of the complaints.


UNITED STATES: EPIC's Telephone Surveillance Suit Faces Hurdles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
privacy-rights organization faces an uphill battle to persuade the
U.S. Supreme Court to halt the National Security Agency's
surveillance of domestic telephone records.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a Washington-
based nonprofit public-research center, on July 8 filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus, or, in the alternative, a petition for
review, with the justices.  It charged that the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) exceeded its statutory
authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when it
ordered "production of millions of domestic telephone records that
cannot plausibly be relevant to an authorized investigation."

"It makes a compelling case for review," said Dean Erwin
Chemerinsky of the University of California Irvine School of Law.
"Yet the procedural posture is unusual."

A "jurisdictional pickle," said Stephen Vladeck of American
University Washington College of Law.

The FISC on April 25 ordered Verizon Business Network Services to
turn over to the NSA all telephone records for calls made "wholly
within the United States, including local telephone calls."  The
order was issued by Senior District Judge Roger Vinson of
Tallahassee, Fla., a member of the surveillance court, who was
acting on an application by the FBI.

"Telephone records, even without the content of the calls, can
reveal an immense amount of sensitive, private information," EPIC
president Marc Rotenberg said in a written statement.  "There are
no reasonable grounds for the NSA to have access to every call
record of every Verizon customer.  The FISC has applied the FISA
in a way that is contrary to both the text and purpose of the
statute."

EPIC, a Verizon customer, contends that to compel production of
"tangible things," the FISA requires the items sought to be
relevant to an authorized investigation.

"It is simply not possible that every phone record in the
possession of a telecommunications firm could be relevant to an
authorized investigation," the petition argues.  "Such an
interpretation of Section 1861 would render meaningless the
qualifying phrases contained in the provision and eviscerate the
purpose of the Act."

Under U.S. Supreme Court rules, the writ of mandamus is an
extraordinary writ issued as a matter of discretion "sparingly
exercised."  The justices in a 1980 decision quoted lyrics by
Gilbert & Sullivan to describe the chances of winning mandamus as
"What never? Well, hardly ever!"

To justify granting the writ, the petitioning party must show
"that the writ will be in aid of the court's appellate
jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise
of the court's discretionary powers, and that adequate relief
cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court,"
according to the rules.

In its petition, EPIC says that the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
of Review only have jurisdiction to hear petitions by the
government or the recipient of a FISA order.  "Other federal
courts have no jurisdiction over the FISC, and thus cannot grant
the relief that EPIC seeks," the organization says.

Writs of mandamus in aid of appellate jurisdiction, it also
argues, are traditionally used to confine a lower court to the
lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.  "Such a jurisdictional
correction is required here," it contends.  "The Business Records
provision does not enable this type of domestic programmatic
surveillance."

And as for "exceptional circumstances," the petition states, "This
case involves a far-reaching FISC order that gives the NSA access
to the telephone call records of millions of Americans on an
ongoing basis.  Such a broad grant of executive power is not
permitted under the FISA and cannot be justified by a non-
particularized connection to general national security threats."

The petition raises "a crucial question" about the scope of the
FISC's authority, Mr. Chemerinsky said, but two concerns might
cause the justices to hesitate.

In the high court term just ended, the justices, in a 5-4 decision
in Clapper v. Amnesty International, ruled that a group of civil
and human rights organizations, lawyers, writers and others lacked
standing to challenge the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Amendments Act of 2008.

EPIC's claim that the FISC order violates its First Amendment-
protected advocacy with members of Congress, journalists and
others, "seems very similar to what the [Supreme] Court just said
was insufficient for standing in Clapper," Mr. Chemerinsky said.

He also found "interesting" that the petition's claim was not
based primarily on a Fourth or Fifth Amendment violation, but
instead on a statutory claim.  "That might make the court less
inclined to take it," he said.

The Clapper decision was "very much in our mind" as the petition
was being drafted, EPIC's Rotenberg said.

"We think we have a couple of key facts that give us the prospect
of a better outcome in the Supreme Court," he said, explaining
that in Clapper, the actual scope of the surveillance activity was
not known.  "In the absence of an actual demonstration of
activity, there was not sufficient basis to prove standing.  In
our case, we have the plain text of Judge Vinson's order, and it
is the text that provides the basis for our standing."

He also said that much of Clapper involved foreign-intelligence
collection.  In EPIC's case, "I have never seen a court order as
broad as the one issued.  That is so far removed from the
authority granted that court."

The petition exposes a real problem, Mr. Vladeck said: the
inability of third parties to challenge decisions of the FISA
court.  "They want to challenge this order and yet they are not a
party to the order," he said.

EPIC might have been on stronger jurisdictional grounds, he added,
had it challenged the order in both the FISA court and the court
of review, "and have those courts tell it to go away, which they
would."

Although sympathetic to EPIC's cause, Mr. Vladeck was not sure the
Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was the answer.

The justices may act on EPIC's petition or request a response from
the government.

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union, also a Verizon
customer, filed a lawsuit challenging the phone program in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
suit charges that the program violates constitutional rights of
free speech, association and privacy.


UNITED STATES: Native Americans Seek Reparation for Broken Treaty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
thousands of descendants of Arapahoe and Cheyenne Indians, who the
U.S. Army slaughtered at the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado,
never received the land and property promised them by treaty, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Homer Flute claims the United States has treaty
obligations to as many as 15,000 descendants of the victims.  He
and three other named plaintiffs sued the United States, the
Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
an accounting of what is owed to each victim's family under the
Treaty of Little Arkansas.

The Treaty, signed in 1866, came after Army Col. John Chivington
mercilessly attacked hundreds of unarmed men, women and children
who were encamped peacefully at Sand Creek.

The 21-page complaint portrays Chivington, a Christian pastor, as
a bloodthirsty Indian-hater who defied orders so he could
brutalize the helpless tribes.

After he was put in command of the First Colorado Cavalry,
Chivington declared: "I have come to kill Indians, and believe it
is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill
Indians," according to the complaint.

It adds: "On the march, Chivington also commented on how he
'long[ed] to be wading in gore' at Sand Creek.  Other officers
under Chivington's command talked about the scalps they would take
and how they would be arranged and displayed."

On Nov. 29, 1864, Chivington and his 800 cavalrymen came upon the
encampment at Sand Creek, where Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle was
flying an American flag with a white flag beneath it, "signifying
that the encampment was under the United States' protection and
under a flag of truce," the class says in the complaint.

The soldiers ignored the chief's peaceful overtures and opened
fire.

"With the United States military firing on the Sand Creek
encampment, [Cheyenne] Chief White Antelope ran towards the troops
and tried to convince them to cease fire.  As shots rang out, the
elderly Cheyenne Chief stood in the middle of the village with his
arms folded, signifying that the Indians at Sand Creek did not
want to fight the United States troops.  Unarmed, White Antelope
was shot down in the bed of the creek.  The plaintiffs still have
the bullet hole-ridden blanket Chief White Antelope wore when he
was murdered," the complaint states.

"As the shooting intensified, the Indians attempted to flee.  Many
ran up the creek bed, where the bank offered some protection from
the soldiers' bullets.  Those Indians frantically began digging
into the ground to make holes in which to hide.  Approximately two
hundred soldiers surrounded those Indians seeking to hide --
mostly unarmed women and children -- and slaughtered them.

"As the massacre progressed, the United States cavalry scattered
in different directions, chasing down small parties of Indians
trying to escape.

"The massacre was over by 3 o'clock in the afternoon of
November 29, 1864.

"The exact number of dead is unknown, but eyewitnesses stated that
two-thirds of the dead were women and children."

What followed was just as bad.

"Simply murdering the Indians was not enough; next, the soldiers
began looting, pillaging, and scalping plaintiffs' ancestors'
remains.

"Indians' fingers and ears were cut off and made into jewelry.

"According to eyewitnesses, Colonel Chivington's soldiers cut dead
Indians' bodies open, mutilated them, cut out private parts, and
clubbed and knocked the brains out of the heads of women and
children.

"The body of White Antelope was completely mutilated.  The
soldiers scalped him and cut off his nose, ears, and testicles.
His scrotum was reportedly later used as a tobacco pouch.  A
child, only a few months old, was thrown into the feed box of a
wagon and, after being carried some distance, left on the ground
to perish.

"On the evening of November 29, 1864, Colonel Chivington wrote a
dispatch to General Samuel Curtis reporting that he attacked a
village of nine hundred to one thousand warriors, killed between
four hundred and five hundred Indians, 'and all of this was done
nobly.'"

Chivington resigned his commission on Jan. 4, 1865, and his
conduct at Sand Creek was then investigated by a military
commission and by Congress.  No charges were brought against him,
but the investigations ended what he hoped would be a political
career.

In the 1866 Treaty of Little Arkansas, the United States
acknowledged "gross and wanton outrages perpetrated against
certain bands of Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians" and agreed to
provide reparations to the surviving families of the massacre, the
complaint states, quoting from the treaty.

The Treaty reserved 320 acres of land apiece for four Indian
chiefs, including Black Kettle, and 160 acres for family members
who had been "made a widow, or who lost a parent upon that
occasion," the complaint states, quoting the treaty.  The treaty
also promised "securities, animals, goods, provisions, or such
other useful articles" in exchange for property that was destroyed
by the Army.

But little land or property was ever offered to the families of
the victims, the plaintiffs say.

"On July 26, 1866, Congress appropriated money to reimburse the
'members of the bands of Arapaho and Cheyenne Indians who suffered
at Sand Creek.'  On information and belief, the money appropriated
was not sufficient to compensate those individual members of
'certain bands,' who were to be identified by the Secretary of the
Interior under the terms specified in the Treaty.

"Of the money appropriated by Congress, only some part of it was
alleged to be disbursed by the defendant DOI.  None of those
monies were distributed to individual Indians, as required by the
Treaty of Little Arkansas, but at the direction of Special Indian
Agents, those monies were instead disbursed to the Cheyenne and
Arapahoe Tribes of Indians jointly with the Apache Tribe of
Indians.

"The money that was not paid to the Tribal entities was not
distributed to individual Indians, but was returned to surplus on
August 30, 1872.

"On information and belief, no effort has been made by defendants
to identify those individuals to whom reparations are owed, as
required by the Treaty of Little Arkansas.

"Although appropriated by Congress for that specific purpose, none
of the fund making up the reparations has been distributed to
individual Indians, as required by the Treaty of Little Arkansas.

"On information and belief, some of the lands within the
reparation fund were given to some individuals in the State of
Colorado, in accordance with Article V of the Treaty of Little
Arkansas. Aside from the transfer of those lands -- which may or
may not have occurred -- no other effort was made to transfer
lands to individual Indians, as required by the Treaty of Little
Arkansas.  No accounting of any disbursements of lands within the
reparation fund has ever been conducted."

Class representatives Homer Flute, Robert Simpson Jr., Thompson
Flute Jr. and Dorothy Wood demand an accounting of reparations
owed and identification of those "to whom reparations are still
due and owing."  They also want an explanation for the non-
payments.

"If the accounting and audit demonstrates that the defendants
failed to abide by defendants' duties established in the Treaty of
Little Arkansas, or any other relevant provision of federal law
mandating trust duties to the class, the plaintiffs demand that
the defendants be ordered to reform and make whole plaintiffs' and
class members' trust funds, including all money, goods and
property owed to plaintiffs and their ancestors pursuant to the
Treaty of Little Arkansas, which defendants managed or
controlled," the complaint states.

The class cites numerous breaches of federal trust responsibility,
failure to account and violations of the Administrative Procedure
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Ford Askman, Esq.
          HUNSUCKER GOODSTEIN, P.C.
          1400 16th Street, Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 932-8126
          E-mail: daskman@hgnlaw.com

The case is Flute et al. v. United States of America, The, et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-01836-PAB-CBS, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado (Denver).


VESLON COSMETICS: Additional Unauthorized Health Products Recalled
------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting date:                         July 13, 2013
Type of communication:                Advisory
Subcategory:                          Natural health products
Source of recall:                     Health Canada
Issue:                                Unauthorized products
Audience:                             General Public
Identification number:                RA-34623

Following up on a previous advisory, Health Canada has identified
additional unauthorized products that may have been sold by Veslon
Cosmetics and/or Super Discount Distributing.  These products are
not authorized and may have invalid Drug Identification Numbers
(DIN) on their labels.

As unauthorized products, the safety, quality and effectiveness of
these products is in question Health Canada also has significant
concerns about Veslon's manufacturing facility, as it has not been
licensed or inspected by Health Canada for compliance with Good
Manufacturing Practices and required in the Food and Drug
Regulations.  As a result, these products may pose a risk for
patients and consumers.

Products affected:

Products are indicated to be used as a topical skin antiseptic,
for the treatment of superficial skin infections, preparation of
patients for surgery or preparing the skin for injection, for
dressing wounds, burns, storage of clinical thermometers or
preparation for catheterization.

Any consumers or health care facilities that may have purchased
products manufactured or packaged by Veslon Cosmetics and/or Super
Discount Distributing.  At this time, it appears most of the
distribution of these unauthorized products is limited to
facilities in Ontario, such as hospitals, and health care clinics.
However, distribution outside of Ontario is possible.  The
distribution of unauthorized products may have also occurred to a
small number of pharmacies.

Do not purchase or use drugs or natural health products (NHPs)
sold by Veslon Cosmetics and/or Super Discount Distributing.
Contact your healthcare professional with any questions or
concerns regarding the use of these products.  Report any adverse
reaction potentially related to Health Canada.

Industry professionals should do not purchase or use any of the
products sold by Veslon Cosmetics and/or Super Discount.  Contact
Health Canada if you have purchased any products from Veslon
Cosmetics and/or Super Discount Distributing to assist Health
Canada in tracking the distribution of these unauthorized
products.

Ensure that the products you purchased have a valid eight-digit
Health Canada market authorization (DIN, NPN or DIN-HM).
Consult the publicly available database of all authorized drug
products, available on the Health Canada website.  A similar
database for natural heath products (NHPs) is also available.

Veslon Cosmetics has no active product licences in Canada, and
does not have the necessary licences to manufacture or package
drugs or NHPs.

The majority of the products identified by Health Canada as
potentially having been sold by Veslon Cosmetics are antiseptic
solutions and gels, and similar products.

Report health or safety concerns to:

   Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate
   e-mail: DCVIU_UVECM@hc-sc.gc.ca
   Telephone: +1 (800) 267 9675
   Facsimile: (613) 946 5636


WESTERN MIXERS: Recalls ARO and Treasured Harvest Pistachios
------------------------------------------------------------
Western Mixers Produce & Nut Company of Los Angeles, California is
recalling ARO and/or Treasured Harvest Pistachios, because it has
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The recall is a voluntary recall of the Pistachio products
processed by ARO Pistachio during the 2012 harvest year.  The
recall was initiated because the Recalled Product has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.  Western Mixers is
taking an extremely proactive approach to protecting the public by
recalling the products produced at their facility during the
timeframes subject of this recall to ensure public health and
safety.  While neither Western Mixers nor the FDA have found
Salmonella in any of their finished products distributed in
commerce, they are undertaking this action in full cooperation
with the Food and Drug Administration and the California
Department of Public Health.  The company has ceased the
production and distribution of the product as FDA, ARO and Western
Mixers continue with their investigations.

This recall affects Treasured Harvest Lot # 123050, 123140,
123320, 123450, 123360, 130150, 130240, 130350, 130290, 123100,
122960 and 123040.  Pictures of the Products are available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm360344.htm

Pistachios were distributed in: California, Nevada, Ohio and Utah;
through Retail Stores, Mail Order and various Distributors during
the dates of: October 17, 2012 - April 29, 2013.

Consumers who have purchased Treasured Harvest Pistachios with
reference to the above Lot numbers, are urged to destroy the
product and/or return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact Western Mixers
Produce & Nuts, Inc. at: 1-877-230-8449, Monday through Friday,
between the hours of 7:00 am (PST) and 2:00 pm (PST).


WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Seek Supreme Court Review of Washer Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals
court reinstated a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corp. on
July 18 in a victory for consumers whose group lawsuit had been
wiped out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in April reversed an earlier ruling from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that consumers could
proceed as a group, known as class action certification, and asked
the Sixth Circuit to reconsider its decision.

Plaintiffs in the Whirlpool lawsuit had alleged that design flaws
in the front-loading washing machines caused certain mold to
develop and give off a musty odor.

Whirlpool had argued against certifying a class action because
there was too much variation between individual plaintiffs,
including which models they had purchased and to what extent they
were affected.

A federal judge in Ohio certified a class of Whirlpool customers
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld that
decision.  Whirlpool appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the
Sixth Circuit and asked it to reconsider in light of the Supreme
Court's ruling this year in another consumer class action
involving Comcast Corp.

In the Comcast case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the cable
company, saying that two million subscribers in the Philadelphia
area did not have enough in common to sue as a group.

On July 18, the Sixth Circuit affirmed its original decision and
said that the Whirlpool plaintiffs could proceed as a class
because they shared common issues about alleged design flaws.

The appeals court ruling could affect the owners of nearly 163,000
Whirlpool washing machines sold in Ohio from 2002 until 2009.  The
case will now go back to the U.S. District Court, where it had
been halted during the appeal.

A lawyer for the consumers, Jonathan Selbin, said he was pleased
with the Sixth Circuit's "careful and thorough analysis of the
facts of the case."

But Whirlpool spokeswoman Kristine Vernier later said the company
planned to ask the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit's
ruling.

"(T)he Sixth Circuit has taken a direct shot, not just at one
company or one industry, but also at American manufacturing as a
whole, inventing a rule of liability that will severely damage
manufacturing in our country," Ms. Vernier said in a statement.

The case is nearly identical to another class action that was
reversed and sent back to the lower court by the Supreme Court
earlier this year over the same legal questions.  That case, which
is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, involves a lawsuit by consumers against Sears
Roebuck & Co alleging it sold mold-prone washing machines made by
Whirlpool.


WOCKHARDT LTD: UK Medicines Regulator Recalls 16 Drugs
------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Whalen and Anirban Chowdhury, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, reported that The Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the U.K.'s medicines regulator said it
was recalling 16 drugs made by Wockhardt Ltd. after finding
"manufacturing deficiencies" at one of the company's factories in
India.

According to the report, MHRA called it a "precautionary recall,"
as there is no evidence that the medicines are defective.  The
agency said it is recalling the drugs from pharmacies and
wholesalers but isn't asking patients to return their Wockhardt
medicines.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Sued for Failing to Disclose Outboard Motor Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. and Yamaha Motor Corporation,
U.S.A., Case No. 2:13-cv-05066-BRO-VBK (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2013)
alleges that the Defendants' failure to disclose an alleged defect
in their products constitutes both an actionable misrepresentation
and an unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and deceptive business
practice.

An inherent design and manufacturing defect in the Defendants'
Yamaha four stroke outboard motors, specifically, first-generation
(2000 to 2004 model year) four stroke F-Series outboards, caused
an almost immediate onset of corrosion to internal component
parts, which gradually worsened, Mr. Williams alleges.  He
contends that the corrosion buildup forced owners, like him, to
undergo significant repair or replacement of the internal corroded
parts typically after 500 to 700 hours of use, even if the engines
were properly serviced and maintained.  He adds that he and other
Class members were misled into purchasing Yamaha outboard motors
of a quality and value different than they were promised.

Mr. Williams is a resident of Seattle, Washington.

Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation whose principal
place of business is in Shizuoka, Japan, which has at all times
material to the lawsuit transacted substantial business within the
United States and within the state of California.  Yamaha Motor
Corporation, U.S.A. operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of YMC
for the importing and marketing of Yamaha Motor products.  YMUS is
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state
of California and has its principal place of business in Cypress,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: mmueke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Van Bunch, Esq.
          T. Brent Jordan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, #300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com
                  bjordan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Debra Brewer Hayes, Esq.
          Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
          REICH BINSTOCK, LLC
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 622-7271
          Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
          E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
                  chunter@rbfirm.net

               - and -

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
          1821 Dock St., Unit 103
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955


* Lac-Megantic Class Action Spurs Railroad Safety Standard Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Solarina Ho and Julie Gordon, writing for Reuters, report that
Canada's two big railroads are reviewing safety standards after
the deadly train crash on July 6 that killed some 50 people and
destroyed the center of a small Quebec town.

Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd., Canada's No. 2 operator, said on
July 18 it has already made some changes to its operating rules.
It will no longer park unattended trains hauling hazardous
materials on main lines, and is bringing in tougher rules on
setting the brakes that hold a stationary train in place.

The runaway train that smashed into the town of Lac-Megantic,
Quebec, had been parked on a main line after the engineer, its
only crew member, finished his shift.

The train, operated by the Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway
(MMA), rolled down the track, gained speed, and derailed in the
center of the lakeside town, with some of the 72 oil tanker cars
it was hauling exploding into a wall of fire.

Investigators say the way in which the train's crucial hand brakes
were set is one focus of their probe.

"The recent situation gave us a chance to thoroughly review our
safety procedures, as we do on an ongoing basis," CP Rail
spokesman Ed Greenberg said in a statement.

"We have now strengthened our operating procedures in some key
areas that were identified from what recently occurred."

Canadian National Railway Co, the country's biggest railroad, has
also started reviewing its policy for securing trains to
strengthen its safety protocols, spokesman Mark Hallman said. It
expects to complete the review shortly.

                          Class Action

The use of the hand brakes when the engineer parked his train for
the night a few miles outside Lac-Megantic is also a crucial point
in a class action suit being pursued by residents of the town of
about 6,000 people.

The crash was North America's deadliest rail accident in more than
20 years.

The suit's preliminary document, filed in a Quebec court earlier
last week, alleges that MMA and its affiliates cut costs to the
point where safety was compromised, including replacing two-men
crews with a single train operator, cutting wages and not ensuring
company policy and regulations were followed.

The suit was updated late on July 17 to also name Irving Oil Ltd.,
whose Saint John, New Brunswick, refinery was the destination of
the crude oil shipment, and World Fuel Services Inc., which
supplied the crude.  It alleges the two companies failed to take
appropriate measures to ensure that the crude oil was properly and
safely transported.

Neither company responded to requests to comment, and MMA has also
not commented on the suit.

"It was a highly flammable type of oil," said Jeff Orenstein of
Consumer Law Group, one of the firms behind the class action suit.
"They did not arrange for proper transport of the oil knowing the
containers were insufficient for the purposes of this flammable
oil."

The case, No.450-06-000001-135, was filed in the District of
Saint-Fran‡ois in Sherbrooke, to the east of Montreal, because the
courthouse in Lac-Megantic is in an off-limits zone where
investigators are still searching for bodies and evidence.

"We couldn't get into the building, so we filed in Sherbrooke,"
said Mr. Orenstein, adding the legal team will request a transfer
as soon as the Lac-Megantic court reopens.

Separately, Canada's Transportation Safety Board said two wheels
of a freight car operated by MMA came off the rails on July 18
near Farnham, east of Montreal.

No one was injured and no cargo spilled from the train, which was
not on the main track, a safety board spokesman said.

According to The Morning Sentinel's Tom Bell, the plaintiffs filed
a motion on July 15 in Quebec Superior Court seeking to authorize
a class-action suit against the railway company.  On July 17, the
plaintiffs amended the motion to add as defendants Irving Oil,
World Fuel Services and its subsidiary Dakota Plains Holdings.

Dakota Plains Holdings extracted the oil that was being carried
east by the train to an Irving Oil refinery in Saint John, New
Brunswick.

The motion claims that the companies failed to ensure the oil was
properly secured and safely transported. The lawsuit would seek
compensation for any person or business affected directly or
indirectly by the disaster.

It was not known on July 18 when the court will rule on the
motion.

Three law firms are working on the case.  Mr. Orenstein of
Consumer Law Group Inc. in Montreal, one of the firms, said the
claim could be among the largest ever filed in Canada.

Mr. Orenstein told Postmedia News that the disaster affected
everyone in Lac-Megantic, a town of 6,000 residents just 10 miles
from Maine's western border.

Canadian courts typically set a lower bar for certification of
class-action lawsuits than U.S. courts.  But the awards, including
punitive damages, are much lower in Canada, according to an
analysis by McCarthy Tetrault, a large Canadian law firm.

Laurence Leavitt, a trial lawyer in Yarmouth, Maine, who usually
represents defendants in cases involving explosions, said it's
clear from news accounts that the disaster occurred when an
unattended, parked train was not adequately secured.

"I would say the railroad certainly has a big problem on their
hands," he said.  "The case has no mystery. Everyone knows what
happened."

The railroad's chairman, Edward Burkhardt, previously apologized
to the residents of Lac-Megantic.  He said the engineer who parked
the train in a nearby town uphill from Lac-Megantic likely failed
to set sufficient hand brakes.

The lawsuit quotes a statement that Burkhardt made during an
impromptu news conference in the town on July 10, after a reporter
asked him if he accepted full responsibility for the disaster.

Mr. Burkhardt replied: "I didn't say that, you see people are
always putting words in my mouth, please, I did not say that.  We
think we have plenty of responsibility here, whether we have total
responsibility is yet to be determined.  We have plenty of it."

It makes sense for the plaintiffs to add Irving Oil to the lawsuit
because it has "much deeper pockets" than the railroad, said
Chalmers "Chop" Hardenbergh of Freeport, who publishes Atlantic
Northeast Rails & Ports, a trade publication.  He said he wonders
how long the cash-strapped Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway can
survive before it files for bankruptcy.  The company is based in
Hermon, outside Bangor.

Because Canadian authorities consider the disaster area a crime
scene, the railroad has been unable to repair the track.  As a
result, its lines in Maine have been severed from its lines in
Quebec and Vermont, and the company has lost much of its freight
business.

On July 16, the company laid off 79 of its 179 employees, with its
work force in Maine bearing 60 of the layoffs.

Mr. Hardenbergh said Montreal, Maine & Atlantic will go bankrupt
if it is not allowed to fix its rails and resume its normal
freight business.  He said the railroad would probably run out of
money in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Hardenbergh said Mr. Burkhardt will likely try to sell the
railroad before it goes bankrupt to keep the business intact.  He
said it's complicated to sell a railroad after a bankruptcy case
is filed.

"Ed is a guy who is concerned about his employees and his
customers," he said.  "He would not want the railroad to go
through the trouble of bankruptcy if he can avoid it."

The most likely buyer, he said, is Irving Oil.  Irving owns the
Eastern Maine Railway Co., which connects with the Montreal, Maine
& Atlantic Railway at Brownville Junction in Maine.

A spokeswoman for Irving Oil told The Associated Press that the
company sent personnel to the crash site and provided firefighting
foam within hours of the disaster.

"We did not own or control the crude oil or its transportation at
any time," Carolyn Van der Veen said in an email.

Officials at World Fuel Services and Dakota Plains didn't return
messages seeking comment on July 18.


* Mexico Allows Certain Class Actions in Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------
According to Homex Development Corp.'s May 22, 2013 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on July
29, 2010, Article 17 of the Mexican Constitution was amended in
order to authorize class actions to be brought in federal courts
in connection with civil actions on matters related, among others,
with consumer protection, economic competition, and environmental
law.

Consequently, on August 30, 2011, the Federal Code of Civil
Procedure (Codigo Federal de Procedimientos Civiles), the Federal
Antitrust Law (Ley Federal de Competencia Economica), the Federal
Law for Consumer Protection (Ley Federal de Proteccion al
Consumidor) and the General Environmental Protection Law (Ley
General del Equilibrio Ecologico y la Protreccion al Medio
Ambiente) were amended to incorporate class actions; such
amendments were effective as of March 1, 2012.


* Seven Supreme Court Rulings May Have Impact on Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Bundy, III, Esq. -- thomas.bundy@sutherland.com --
Thomas M. Byrne, Esq. -- tom.byrne@sutherland.com -- Thomas W.
Curvin, Esq. -- tom.curvin@sutherland.com -- Peter N. Farley, Esq.
-- peter.farley@sutherland.com -- Cheryl L. Haas-Goldstein, Esq.
-- cheryl.haas@sutherland.com -- and Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy,
Esq. -- allegra.lawrence-hardy@sutherland.com -- at Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan LLP, report that during its recently concluded
October 2012 term, the Supreme Court of the United States decided
seven cases that are likely to have a significant impact on class
action practice.  This term's decisions addressed evidentiary
standards for class certification, materiality in securities fraud
class actions, jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act,
offers of judgment, the enforceability of class action waivers in
arbitration clauses, and the use of state DMV databases to
identify and solicit potential class action plaintiffs.

The October 2012 term decisions impacting class actions are
discussed briefly below, followed by a summary of several cases
the Supreme Court will hear during its October 2013 term that
could resolve circuit splits on issues affecting class actions and
derivative actions.

October 2012 Term

Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No.
11-1085

The Supreme Court affirmed certification of a federal securities
fraud class action in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans
and Trust Funds.  The Court held that, in a securities fraud class
action based on the "fraud on the market theory," class plaintiffs
are not required affirmatively to prove materiality at the class
certification stage.  Rather, materiality is a question common to
all members of the class in determining whether common issues
predominate.

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450

In Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, the Court unanimously
held that a damages-limiting stipulation by the named plaintiff in
a putative class action is not binding on absent class members
before class certification and therefore cannot defeat removal
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, No. 11-864

In Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, the Court held that
certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class was improper when
the plaintiffs' damages model fell short of establishing that
damages were capable of measurement on a class-wide basis.  The
impact of this decision on class certification is likely to be the
most debated of the group in coming years.

Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, No. 11-1059

In a narrowly crafted decision, the Court held in Genesis
HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk that, if an unaccepted offer of
judgment moots an individual claim (a question the Court expressly
declined to reach), then the individual's would-be collective
action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act is also moot.

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135

In Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, the Court unanimously held
that when an arbitrator determines that the parties intended to
authorize class-wide arbitration, that determination survives
judicial review under Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration
Act as long as the arbitrator was arguably construing the
contract.

Maracich v. Spears, No. 12-25

In Maracich v. Spears, the Court held that the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2721-2725, does not allow
attorneys to mine databases maintained by state departments of
motor vehicles for the purpose of client solicitation, even when
such solicitation is meant to locate additional plaintiffs for a
class action.

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133

In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, potentially
the most far-reaching decision of the group, the Court held that a
court cannot invalidate a class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement on the ground that it may leave a party unable to
vindicate its statutory rights economically, even if the
plaintiff's cost of individual arbitration would exceed the
potential recovery.

October 2013 Term Preview

Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado
Inc. v. Troice, No. 12-86; and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice, No.
12-88 (consolidated)

In the consolidated cases Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, Willis
of Colorado Inc. v. Troice, and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice, the
Supreme Court has been asked to resolve a circuit split and
clarify when the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act (SLUSA) preempts state law securities class actions.

The plaintiffs in all three cases bought certificates of deposit
(CDs) from entities that were allegedly part of a Ponzi scheme.
SLUSA precludes most state-law class action claims that allege "a
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection
with the purchase or sale of covered securities," and CDs are not
"covered securities" under the statute. 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78bb(f)(1)(A).  The defendants argued that SLUSA barred the
plaintiffs' state law claims because (1) plaintiffs had alleged
that a representation that the CDs were backed by a diversified
portfolio of marketable securities helped induce the CD purchases
and (2) some buyers sold covered securities to fund their CD
purchases.

The district court agreed with the defendants, but the Fifth
Circuit reversed.  Adopting the Ninth Circuit's test, the Fifth
Circuit held that "the fraudulent schemes of the [defendants], as
alleged by the [plaintiffs], are not more than tangentially
related to the purchase or sale of covered securities and are
therefore not sufficiently connected to such purchases or sales to
trigger SLUSA preclusion."  Roland v. Green, 675 F.3d 503, 522
(5th Cir. 2012).  Regarding the plaintiffs' second argument, the
Fifth Circuit held that "the fact that some of the plaintiffs sold
some 'covered securities' in order to put their money in the CDs
was not more than tangentially related to the fraudulent scheme
and accordingly, provides no basis for SLUSA preclusion." Id. at
523.  The "tangentially related" standard adopted by the Fifth and
Ninth Circuits conflicts with the standards adopted by the Second,
Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, which, although different, are all
broader and require the dismissal of a larger group of cases.

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., No.
12-1036

The question presented in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics
Corp. is whether a state's parens patriae action seeking recovery
on behalf of individual consumers is removable as a "mass action"
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) when the state is
the sole plaintiff and the claims arise under state law.  The
Supreme Court is again poised to resolve a circuit split, as the
Fifth Circuit held in Hood that such a case is removable, while
the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held to the contrary.

In Hood, the State of Mississippi sued a group of liquid crystal
display manufacturers and claimed that they harmed consumers by
conspiring to fix prices.  The State sought monetary recoveries on
behalf of individual consumers.  The defendants jointly removed
the case and asserted that federal jurisdiction was established
under CAFA.

The State moved to remand the case to state court on the ground
that its claims were asserted on behalf of the general public,
which precluded federal jurisdiction.  The district court granted
the motion.  The defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which
reversed, holding that the action qualified as a CAFA "mass
action" and that the State brought the case in the interest of
individual citizens, so CAFA's "general public" exception was not
applicable.

UBS Financial Services v. Union de Empleados, No. 12-1208

The question presented in UBS Financial Services v. Union de
Empleados is whether the proper standard of review for a dismissal
of a derivative action for failure to adequately allege demand
futility under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 is de novo or
abuse of discretion.

The plaintiff filed a shareholder's derivative action against the
defendant alleging wrongdoing in connection with various
investment funds that the defendant managed.  The defendant moved
to dismiss the action under Rule 23.1 because the plaintiff had
not made a pre-suit demand on each of the fund's board of
directors to remedy the wrongdoing, and because the plaintiff had
not pled sufficient facts to show that making such a demand would
be futile.  The district court agreed and dismissed the
plaintiff's claim.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the First Circuit should
review the district court's dismissal de novo, while the defendant
argued that the proper standard of review was abuse of discretion.
The First Circuit held that de novo review was the proper standard
and, applying that standard, determined that the plaintiff had
adequately pled demand futility.

In the Supreme Court, the defendant-petitioner argues that the
proper standard of review is abuse of discretion, consistent with
decisions of the Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh,
and D.C. Circuits.


                             *********

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  * * *