CAR_Public/130805.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 5, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 152

                             Headlines


AVIS BUDGET: Shift Managers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
BAYER AG: Adelaide Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Yasmin Risks
BE AMAZING!: Recalls Monster Science & Super Star Water Balls
BMC SOFTWARE: Lead Plaintiff Agreed to Withdraw Injunction Bid
BP PLC: Law Firm Loses Bid to Get Clients Paid in Oil Spill Accord

CAMDEN HIGH SCHOOL: Hundreds Join Class Action Over Cancer Cluster
CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Hubba Tents
CHICAGO, IL: Sued by 300+ Retired Employees Over Benefit Cuts
CSX CORP: Summary Judgment Bids in Antitrust Suit Due October 2
DENSO CORP: Faces 2 Class Suits Alleging Price Fixing in Canada

DIRECTV INC: Arbitration Won't Include Best Buy, 9th Cir. Ruled
ELECTRONIC ARTS: May Be Sued by Ex-College Stars, Court Says
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action
ELMER'S PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Krazy Glue Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Supreme Court Review Sought for Cy Pres Settlement

FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Ladybug-Themed Kids' Outdoor Furniture
FIRST FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle SCBT Merger-Related Suits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Wachtell Replaces MoFo as Atty. in Autonomy Suits
INTUIT INC: Settles Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Class Action
JP BODEN: Recalls Kensington High Heels Shoes Due to Fall Hazard

KEYSTONE: Recalls 76 Laredo Model Trailers Over Defective Battery
MOSAIC CO: Has Final Approval of Potash Antitrust Suit Settlement
MURPHY USA: Continues to Defend Suits Over Hot Fuel
NATIONAL BEEF: Recalls Beef Products Due to E. Coli Presence
NULOOK BLINDS: Recalls Horizontal Venetian Blinds

PIAGGIO GROUP: Recalls Griso, Norge, and Stelvio NTX Models
SAFELITE: Judge Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement
SCBT FINANCIAL: Inks MOU to Settle First Financial Merger Suits
SUZUKI: Recalls 97 GSX1250FA Model Motorcycles
THOMAS M. COOLEY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action

TRADITIONS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Meals Due To Misbranding
UNITED STATES: Bernanke to Give Deposition in AIG Bailout Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Suits Over Fannie & Freddie Stock Agreements
WORLD FAMOUS: Recalls North 49 Air Horn
WYETH PHARMA: Settles Off-Label Marketing Suit for $490.9 Million

YUM! BRANDS: 9th Circuit Dismissed "Moeller" Suit Appeal in June
YUM! BRANDS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Kentucky
YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Rosales" Suit to Submit Settlement
YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Whittington" Suit to Submit Settlement
YUM! BRANDS: Still Finalizing List of Opt-ins in "Smith" Suit

YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.

* Judge Strikes Down Regulations on Debit-Card Transaction Fees
* Origin of Cyclospora-Linked Salad Mix Not in Iowa & Nebraska
* Severe NFL Injuries Rise From 2009 to 2012, NFL Data Show


                             *********


AVIS BUDGET: Shift Managers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Johnson and Jose Santiago, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion v. Avis
Budget Car Rental, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Corporation;
and Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Case
No. 1:13-cv-11796-JLT (D. Mass., July 29, 2013), is a collective
action brought on behalf of all "shift managers" and "operations
managers," who are or were employed by of the Defendants at one of
their Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, or Rhode Island
locations within the last three years to recover unpaid overtime
and similar relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs and the putative collective class contend that they
are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked
but not compensated at a rate not less than 1.5 times their
regular rate of pay, liquidated damages, and their reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA.  The Plaintiffs
also bring this action to recoup owed overtime compensation under
the Minimum Fair Wages Act, along with treble damages and their
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at their Boston's Logan
International Airport location.  Erica Johnson is a resident of
Essex County, Massachusetts.  She began her employment with the
Defendants in November 2011 as a Shift Manager at Boston-Logan,
and is currently employed by the Defendants in this capacity.
Jose Santiago is a resident of Bristol County, Massachusetts.  He
began his employment with the Defendants in 1988 at a non-airport
location.  In 1999, he began his employment as a Shift Manager at
the Boston-Logan, and is currently employed by the Defendants in
this capacity.

Avis and Budget Rent a Car are foreign for-profit corporations
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with their
principal place of business located in Parsippany, New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          Dale J. Morgado, Esq.
          FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
          100 North Biscayne Boulevard, 29th Floor, Suite 2902
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 222-7850
          Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
          E-mail: aortiz@ffmlawgroup.com
                  dmorgado@ffmlawgroup.com


BAYER AG: Adelaide Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Yasmin Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordanna Schriever, writing for The Advertiser, reports that an
Adelaide law firm is investigating the potential for a class
action on behalf of women who say they have suffered serious side
effects after taking popular contraceptive pill Yasmin.

In 2011, an American study of more than 800,000 women who took the
pill found that the risk of blood clots was up to three times
higher than other contraceptives.

Forty women from across Australia have contacted Tindall Gask
Bentley, and lawyers say they are surprised at the level of
interest.

Among them is Helen Beal, who was planning a nine-week holiday to
Canada to meet her future husband but instead spent her dream
getaway in hospital.  At the time, in August 2008, she had just
started taking the pill.

Mrs. Beal, 46, of Hawthorndene began experiencing pain and
swelling in her left arm about a week before her departure.

Within days of arriving in Canada she was in severe pain, her arm
became red and the swelling meant she was unable to fit into some
clothes.  She spent the entire visit in and out of hospital.

"About a week before I left my arms started hurting . . . then
about five days after arriving I went to hospital and they said it
was a blood clot that went from my elbow to my shoulder," she
said.

"The doctors in Canada deduced it was either the pill or the fact
I was going to the gym, but I'd only been to the gym once."

Mrs. Beal says she is one of the lucky ones, because there were
reports women had died after starting on Yasmin, or its sister
contraceptive, Yaz.

Yasmin was marketed as a "miracle" pill which did not cause weight
gain or mood swings while improving skin.  But for Mrs. Beal, who
began taking the pill on her GPs suggestion, it has caused ongoing
pain in her arm, which impedes her ability to lift of carry
objects using her left arm.  She cannot take the pill or any other
hormone treatment, cannot have IVF and must plan to inject
medication before any long-haul flight.

Tindall Gask Bentley partner Tim White said the law firm had
posted a form on its website at the end of May seeking interest in
a class action from women, but had not advertised its intention.

"We are really surprised at the level of interest," he said.

"We've certainly spoken to a number of women that have been
hospitalized or put in intensive care for several days."

He said that in most cases, women who were hospitalized suffered
pulmonary embolism, a life-threatening blockage in the lungs --
usually caused by a blood clot from another part of the body --
has moved into the lungs.

Mr. White said the firm began investigating the class action
potential after seeing similar actions overseas, particularly in
Canada and the US.

Media reports suggest the pharmaceutical company that produces the
drug, Bayer, has settled thousands of cases and paid out hundreds
of millions of dollars to women who claim they suffered blood
clots while on Yasmin and Yaz.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration said it closely monitored all
contraceptive medicines, including Yaz or Yasmin.

"There have been no new safety concerns identified for this
product," a TGA spokeswoman said.

She said product information documents outlined the risks and
possible adverse events, which may also be associated with other
oral combined contraceptives, and women should discuss any
concerned with their doctor.

"Both the Yas and the Yasmin Consumer Medicines Information
documents already include information to consumers to consumers
about these adverse events."

A spokeswoman for Bayer said the small risk of clots from combined
contraceptive pills had been "recognized for many years".

"Several large studies in the US and Europe have shown that the
risk of a clot during pregnancy and after delivery is considerably
higher than during the use of an oral contraceptive pill," she
said.

The spokeswoman said women who smoke, have high blood pressure or
cholesterol, were obese or have a family history of clotting
disorders have an increased risk of clots.

"All prescribing doctors should be aware of the risks associated
with combined oral contraceptives, and will need to take them into
consideration when discussing and prescribing the most appropriate
contraceptive."


BE AMAZING!: Recalls Monster Science & Super Star Water Balls
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Be Amazing! Toys, of Salt Lake City, announced a voluntary recall
of about 14,200 in the United States and 1,200 in Canada Water-
Absorbing Polymer Balls.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The soft and colorful product can be easily mistaken by a child
for candy.  When the marble-sized toy is ingested, it can expand
inside a child's body and cause intestinal obstructions, resulting
in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be life
threatening.  The toys do not show up on an x-ray and require
surgery to be removed from the body.

There were no incidents that were reported.  CPSC is aware of one
incident with a similar water-absorbing polymer ball product in
which an 8-month-old girl ingested the ball and it had to be
surgically removed.

The recall involves marble-sized toys that absorb water and grow
up to 400 times their original size.  They were sold as Monster
Science Colossal Water Balls (model #7255) and Super Star Science!
Colossal Water Balls (model #7704).  Monster Science packages
contain eight balls and "Growth Powder".  Super Star Science!
packages contain five balls.  The balls were sold in an assortment
of blue, green, orange, purple, red, yellow or clear colors.  The
"Be Amazing! Toys" star logo, "Ages 8+", the name of the toy,
"Colossal Water Balls" and a warning not to use without adult
supervision are on the front of each product's packaging.  Model
numbers are printed on the back of the packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/XFV1OL

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Specialty retailers and education centers nationwide and online at
Amazon.com, BeAmazingToys.com and WorldMarket.com from September
2010 through November 2012 for about $3 per package.

Consumers should immediately take this recalled toy away from
children and contact Be Amazing! Toys for a refund.


BMC SOFTWARE: Lead Plaintiff Agreed to Withdraw Injunction Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the consolidated merger-related lawsuit
pending in Delaware agreed to withdraw its motion for a
preliminary injunction, according to BMC Software, Inc.'s July 16,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On May 6, 2013, BMC Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which it
will be acquired by Boxer Parent Company Inc. (Parent), a Delaware
corporation formed by affiliates of investment funds advised by
Bain Capital, LLC, Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc. and Insight
Venture Management, LLC, and an entity affiliated with GIC Special
Investments Pte Ltd (together, the Sponsors), through a merger of
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent with and into the Company (the
Merger).  The Merger Agreement provides that, subject to the terms
and conditions thereof, at the effective time of the Merger (the
Effective Time), each outstanding share of common stock of the
Company, other than certain excluded shares, will cease to be
outstanding and will be converted into the right to receive $46.25
in cash, without interest (the Merger Consideration).

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by BMC on June 25,
2013 (the "proxy statement"), putative class action lawsuits
challenging the proposed transaction have been filed on behalf of
BMC stockholders in Texas and Delaware state courts.  The
outstanding Texas action is captioned Abekeian v. BMC Software,
Inc., No. ED101J017493759 (Tex. D. Ct., Harris Cty.).  The
consolidated Delaware action is captioned In re BMC Software, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8544-VCG (Del. Ch.).

On July 12, 2013, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated Delaware
action filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction against the
special meeting of the stockholders of BMC scheduled on July 24,
2013.  In its injunction application, the lead plaintiff argued
that the proxy statement omitted material information necessary
for the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction.  On July 15,
2013, the lead plaintiff in the Delaware action agreed to withdraw
its motion for a preliminary injunction in view of the
supplemental disclosures contained in the current filing.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, BMC Software, Inc., --
http://bmc.com/-- is one of the world's largest software
companies.  The Company provides IT management solutions for
large, mid-sized and small enterprises and public sector
organizations around the world.  The Company's extensive portfolio
of IT management software solutions simplifies and automates the
management of IT processes, mainframe, distributed, virtualized
and cloud computing environments, as well as applications and
databases.  The Company also provides its customers with
maintenance and support services for its products and assists
customers with software implementation, integration, IT process
and organizational transformation and education services.


BP PLC: Law Firm Loses Bid to Get Clients Paid in Oil Spill Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a law firm whose oil spill claims were halted as part of an
investigation into potential fraud in the administration of the
$7.8 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement has lost a bid to get
its clients paid while BP, which has asserted potential fraud in
the process, raised its estimated costs of the deal to $9.6
billion.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier hired former FBI director Louis
Freeh a month ago to investigate allegations that two former staff
attorneys for claims administrator Patrick Juneau had corrupted
the process by accepting payments from The Andry Law Firm in New
Orleans.  Pending that investigation, Mr. Juneau froze claims
payments to The Andry Law Firm and Andry Lerner, also in New
Orleans.

Andry Lerner had sought to lift the freeze on its clients'
payments, asserting that the decision, made without an opportunity
to defend against the allegations, violated due process and equal
treatment protections.

"The firm is concerned that there is an evolving perception that
this firm can't get their clients paid," said James Cobb Jr., a
solo practitioner in New Orleans who filed the motion for Andry
Lerner.  "And we need to address that on behalf of our clients,
which we're attempting to do."

On July 29, Judge Barbier denied Andry Lerner's request.

BP's fraud claims are tied to an investigative report citing an
unnamed "confidential source" who told a member of Mr. Juneau's
office that one of his staff attorneys, Lionel "Tiger" Sutton III,
had been in business with The Andry Law Firm and had originally
filed some of the claims.

Upon further investigation, Mr. Juneau discovered that
Mr. Sutton's wife, Christine Reitano, another of his staff
attorneys who previously ran a law firm with her husband, had
filed claims on behalf of oil spill victims, one of which was
passed along to The Andry Law Firm.  The search found evidence
that the firm represented 675 oil spill victims and had its own
claim for $7.6 million in economic losses.

Mr. Sutton resigned and Ms. Reitano was terminated.

Brothers Jonathan and Gilbert Andry, who once practiced together
at The Andry Law Firm, now insist they work at separate firms and
that BP, in attempting to back out of its settlement, has
purposely confused them to assert fraud in the claims process.

According to Andry Lerner's motion, which was filed July 29 with
numbers and names redacted, Juneau and Barbier had no authority to
freeze claims on behalf of its clients because, under the Fifth
Amendment's guarantee of due process, they should have had an
opportunity to defend themselves.  Further, according to the
motion, Andry Lerner's clients face unequal treatment because they
have been discriminated against as a group based entirely on the
fact that Andry Lerner represents them.

"The continued cessation of processing of AL clients' processing
will result in delayed awards of tens of millions of dollars to
deserving BP oil spill victims, many of whom urgently need their
awards to rebuild their lives, homes, and businesses," Cobb wrote
in court papers.  "The injury they are suffering is severe and
inexplicable."

On July 19, Judge Barbier rejected BP's request to halt all
payments in the claims process until Freeh's investigation was
completed.  He chastised BP's attorneys for their lack of
evidence.

BP has been pushing its fraud claims while also challenging the
method in which payments have been made.  Since Judge Barbier
approved the settlement December 21, BP has insisted that the
claims calculations have encouraged businesses to file for
"fictitious losses," resulting in "windfall" payments.  Judge
Barbier rejected that contention, and BP took its case to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which heard oral arguments
on July 8.

On July 30, BP CEO Robert Dudley took to the airwaves after the
company announced less than expected earnings for the second
quarter, in part due to an estimated increase in anticipated oil
spill costs that included upping the settlement's value to $9.6
billion.  In interviews with the business press, Dudley explained
that BP's settlement had been misinterpreted.

"The biggest beneficiaries I can see . . . are plaintiffs'
attorneys themselves, who are not just collecting fees on behalf
of claims that have been submitted but also their own firms are
submitting their own claims," he told CNBC.


CAMDEN HIGH SCHOOL: Hundreds Join Class Action Over Cancer Cluster
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden Cooper and Chloe-Amanda Bai, writing for 7.30, reports that
hundreds of former students and teachers of a Sydney high school
have added their names to a potential class action over toxic
contaminants.

The old Camden High School was moved in 2001 after dangerous
substances were discovered.  The school was built on top of an old
gasworks.

Now former students and teachers believe cases of cancer, tumours
and birth defects may have been caused by exposure to the
chemicals.

7.30 first reported that lawyers were preparing a class action
against the Education Department on behalf of a group of 70
people.  Now that number has grown to 195.

Leonie Curry, 41, is the lead plaintiff for the case.  She is
dying of a terminal brain tumour, and wants an investigation into
whether the school is to blame.

"There are so many people that are sick and died, they've died
already and there's a lot of people with brain tumours, it makes
you wonder," she said.

Mrs. Curry has already had one tumour removed, but doctors say
another tumour is inoperable.

"The prognosis is they just don't know because it's a very rare
tumour, it's a very rare position and even though it's a benign
tumour they still grow and because of the position it can grow and
your brain stem is where all the functions for your body are, your
breathing, your heart rate, all that kind of stuff, so if it takes
a function that's it," she said.

Mrs. Curry approached lawyers after hearing of many former
students of the school who were being diagnosed with serious
illnesses.

One of her closest friends, Raelean Borg, died of breast cancer
last year.

"When we discovered that I had a brain tumour and I wouldn't be
around much longer either we were having a bit of a joke about how
long we were going to last and then came round to how it was so
bizarre that the two of us were going to be dead very soon,"
Mrs. Curry said.

            Teachers, former students alike affected

Mrs. Curry set up a Facebook page and was swamped with feedback
from former students who suspect the contaminants at the site made
them sick.

Former teachers are also involved in the potential class action.

Art teacher Dale Hodges, 45, died in 2007 of thyroid and ovarian
cancer.  Her partner Glenn Carson says she was fit, and had no
family history of cancer.

"She trained hard, she worked hard, she wanted to live and she
wanted to teach and it didn't happen," he said.

Ms. Hodges taught at the school for 18 years.

For much of the time she taught in a classroom directly on top of
the site of the former gasworks.  She kept records of the
contamination uncovered in 1996.

The records include a letter from the Environmental Protection
Authority warning of high levels of contamination.

The letter was addressed to the NSW Education Department.

Some remediation work was done a year later, but the school was
not moved until 2001.

Mr. Carson says it should have happened sooner.

"You turn up to your workplace thinking it's safe -- which is what
a workplace should be -- but obviously this workplace wasn't
safe," he said.

"We just need answers.

"You need to be able to find out why in '96 they didn't do
something more drastic than wait until '97 for a start, wait
another year before they did anything at all, then wait another
four years until they got the land at Cawdor."

Another family of seven siblings has also added their names to the
case.

Mary Nolan says of her six brothers and sisters, two died of
cancer and tumours, and three more have had repeated tumours
detected and removed.  She wants the Education Department to
investigate.

"The Education Department should do a thorough investigation into
it yes.  Absolutely," she said.

"I mean we went to a rural community to have seven children raised
in a rural healthy environment.

"Our public school is absolutely the first place of safety that
you would think you would get a healthy upbringing from.

"What's the point of giving children milk every day when you're
going to actually have them sitting on toxic ground for six years
every day that they attend there, there is just no point to it."

7.30 asked the Education Department why it took five years to
close the school.

It ignored the question and instead sent this statement:

"The department is open to review any new information available in
relation to the former Camden High School site.  However, at this
time we have not received any complaints or claims.  If any
complaints or claims are received, the department will review the
information and work with the relevant government agencies to take
appropriate action."

Ms. Nolan says her mother is devastated by the doubts about the
school, and blames herself for sending her seven children there to
study.

"To watch them die one by one when you think you gave them the
best -- she was watching out for food and vitamins and all of
those sorts of things -- to find out she's been sending them to a
toxic waste dump everyday for so many years in their growth
periods, it is very heartbreaking for her, she'd like somebody
other than herself to take responsibility for it," she said.

Although almost 200 people have now joined the legal action -- it
remains just a small portion of the many students who went to the
school.

Those involved acknowledge that proving the cause of their
illnesses may be impossible.

Nonetheless, Glenn Carson, who is still struggling with the death
of his partner, also wants an official inquiry.

"It'd be nice just to be able to find out what happened, why it
happened and how it happened," he said.

"If it could've been prevented, why wasn't it prevented?"


CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Hubba Tents
----------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 31, 2013
Posting date:                         July 31, 2013
Type of communication:                Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:                          Outdoor Living
Source of recall:                     Health Canada
Issue:                                Product Safety, Flammability
                                      Hazard
Audience:                             General Public
Identification number:                RA-34775

Affected products: Hubba Solo backpacking tent, Hubba Hubba
2-person backpacking tent, Mutha Hubba 3-person backpacking tent

Health Canada's testing process revealed that the materials used
in these tents do not meet the requirements for tent flammability
under Canadian law.  The tents could easily catch fire if exposed
to a continuous flame or other ignition source and cause severe
burns to consumers.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/9GodDW

Neither Cascade Designs Inc. nor Health Canada has received any
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
tents.

Approximately 13,903 tents were sold by retailers across Canada.

The recalled tents were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from
June 20, 2011 to July 8, 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Tai Chung Canvas
                    Taiwan, Province of China

   Distributor      Cascade Designs Inc.
                    Seattle
                    Washington
                    United States

Consumers should stop using the tent immediately and return it to
the place of business for a full refund or replacement.


CHICAGO, IL: Sued by 300+ Retired Employees Over Benefit Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that more than
300 retired city employees sued Chicago, claiming the city is
cutting their medical coverage though they were promised lifetime
health benefits.

Lead plaintiff Michael C. Underwood and 331 others filed a class
action against the City of Chicago and trustees of the retirement
funds for Chicago Policemen, Firemen, Municipal Employees and
Laborers, in Cook County Court.

The retirees, all of whom were hired before 1986, seek "permanent
relief for annuitant healthcare participants in litigation that
has continued off and on for 26 years."

After the case was originally filed in 1987, the city and trustees
"entered into a 10-year class action settlement that was approved
by the circuit court over the participant class' objections, and
affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court," according to the new
lawsuit.

At the end of the 10 years, the class revived litigation, and the
parties eventually entered into another 10-year agreement that
expired in June this year.

Now that the second settlement has expired, the plaintiffs again
seek the health-care coverage they were promised.

From 1984 until 1987, Chicago held pre-retirement seminars that
informed employees "that they would be able to participate in the
health plan for life, that their own coverage was to be for life
at no cost; and that they would only have to pay for additional
coverage for spouse and dependents," the complaint states.

"It thus became widely understood among City employees that they
could rely on this subsidized fixed-rate plan for their lifetime
following retirement from their City employment; at no out-of-
pocket premium cost for police and fire annuitants own coverage,
subsidized at $25 per month for municipal and laborers annuitants.

"Many employees worked, retired and made plans on the basis of the
representations made to them in these seminars.  Additionally, it
was the common understanding among City employees that the City
would provide medical coverage for life upon retirement, and that
was a significant factor for many individuals in choosing to work
for the City, rather than work for a private sector employee.

"Many individual employees retired on the basis that this coverage
existed, and did not seek medical coverage elsewhere," the
plaintiffs say.

According to complaint: "Local government employees who were
originally hired and began their work prior to April 1, 1986
(federal Combined Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985)
cannot qualify for healthcare coverage under the Medicare plan by
their government employment, regardless of their length of
service."

The city recently announced that it intends to reduce
participants' benefits beginning in January 2014, according to the
complaint.

"Participants assert that the funds' obligations to provide and
subsidize healthcare coverage for annuitants are themselves
benefits of participation in their respective fund protected by
the Illinois Constitution Article XIII, Section 5 from being
diminished from the levels in existence during any participant's
lifetime," the complaint states.

The retirees add: "Each plaintiff and class member has a property
right to a lifetime healthcare plan unreduced from the best terms
during a person's participation in one of the retirement funds."

The retirees seek an injunction preventing Chicago from reducing
their retirement benefits below the level they were provided
during their employment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clinton A. Krisiov, Esq.
          Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          Civic Opera Building
          20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606-0500
          E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
                  ken@krislovlaw.com

The case is Underwood, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al., Case
No. 2013-CH-17450, in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County.


CSX CORP: Summary Judgment Bids in Antitrust Suit Due October 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Company's July 17, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 28, 2013, that motions for summary judgment and
expert exclusions in the fuel surcharge antitrust litigation are
due on October 2, 2013.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company's principal operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc.
("CSXT") and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging
that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract
and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.  In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated and are now pending in federal court in
the District of Columbia.  The lawsuit seeks treble damages
allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief.  The Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.  The
decision was not a ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims,
rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the
case as a class.  The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the
District Court's class certification decision.  In August 2012,
the Court of Appeals referred the petition to a merits panel, and
directed the parties to submit briefs addressing both the petition
and the merits of the appeal.  The Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on May 3, 2013, but has not issued a ruling as of
July 17, 2013.  Although the District Court issued an order to
delay dissemination of notice to members of the certified class
pending the outcome of the appeal, all other aspects of the
underlying case are moving forward.  Expert reports have been
filed and motions for summary judgment and expert exclusions are
due October 2, 2013.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.

CSX Corporation -- http://www.csx.com/-- based in Jacksonville,
Florida, is a transportation company providing rail, intermodal
and rail-to-truck transload services.  The Company's
transportation network spans approximately 21,000 miles with
service to 23 eastern states and the District of Columbia, and
connects to more than 70 ocean, river and lake ports.


DENSO CORP: Faces 2 Class Suits Alleging Price Fixing in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Denso, Mitsubishi and Hitachi
fixed prices on auto alternators and starters for more than 10
years in Canada, two class actions (one for each part) claim in
British Columbia Supreme Court.


DIRECTV INC: Arbitration Won't Include Best Buy, 9th Cir. Ruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that Best
Buy customers unhappy with the rental agreements for DirecTV
equipment must arbitrate with the television provider, not the
retailer, the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday, July 30, 2013.

In a putative class action, lead plaintiffs John Murphy, Greg
Masters and Roberta Weiss had claimed that both Best Buy and
DirecTV failed to make it clear that Best Buy leases, rather than
sells, DirecTV equipment.  They also alleged that those leases are
unfair and come with exorbitant fees.

U.S. District Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen in Los Angeles
compelled the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against
DirecTV, and that Best Buy must participate in the arbitration.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit agreed as to DirecTV but
let the retailer off the hook in a unanimous ruling, rejecting the
"imaginative" arguments of both parties.

"Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims against DirecTV,"
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the Pasadena-based panel
Tuesday, July 30, 2013.  "They did not agree to arbitrate their
claims against Best Buy.  Notwithstanding the parties' many
imaginative legal arguments, in this case they remain bound by the
agreements they made and not by any they did not make.  We affirm
the district court's order compelling plaintiffs to arbitrate with
DirecTV, and reverse its order compelling them to arbitrate with
Best Buy."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leslie Bailey, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC
          555 12th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 622-8150
          E-mail: lbailey@publicjustice.net

               - and -

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Sixth Avenue
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 579-4625
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com

               - and -

          F. Paul Bland, Jr., Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
          1825 K Street
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 797-8600
          E-mail: pbland@publicjustice.net

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          700 Larkspur Landing Circle
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          E-mail: gn@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90804
          Telephone: (562) 391-2487
          E-mail: gn@classcounsel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
                     (213) 680-8634
          E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Melissa Dawn Ingalls, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
                     (213) 680-8400
          E-mail: melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Geibelson, Esq.
          Roman M. Silberfeld, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
          Telephone: (310) 552-0130
          E-mail: mageibelson@rkmc.com
                  rmsilberfeld@rkmc.com

The appellate case is John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-57163, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The original case is John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06465-JHN-VBK, in the U.S. District
Court for Central California, Los Angeles.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: May Be Sued by Ex-College Stars, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Palazzolo at The Wall Street Journal reports that a federal
appeals court on July 31, 2013, cleared the way for a group of
college athletes to sue Electronic Arts Inc. for allegedly
stealing their likenesses for its videogames.

The ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco advanced a claim by former Nebraska and Arizona State
quarterback Sam Keller and other ex-athletes, who allege EA used
their attributes in its NCAA football and basketball games.

EA's videogames are coveted for their attention to detail.  "NCAA
Football" represents college players with look-alike avatars with
the same jersey number, height, weight, build, skin tone, hair
color and home state.  In the 2005 edition of the game, the
virtual starting quarterback for Arizona State shared the real Mr.
Keller's physical traits, play style and facial features.

EA's lawyers argued the depiction of college players in its games
amounts to expression protected by the First Amendment.  But to
earn that protection under California law, EA had to show its game
added creative elements that transformed the avatars into
something more than a "mere celebrity likeness or imitation,"
wrote Judge Jay Bybee for the majority.

EA's use of Mr. Keller's likeness, the judge said, "does not
qualify for First Amendment protection as a matter of law, because
it literally recreates Keller in the very setting in which he has
achieved renown."

A spokesman for EA said the company was disappointed by the ruling
and would seek "further court review."  EA could ask the Ninth
Circuit to rehear the case or petition the U.S. Supreme Court.  If
the courts decline, the lawsuit would go to trial.

The ruling was the second this year in which a federal appeals
court said the company couldn't use the First Amendment as a
shield against legal claims.

In May, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that former
Rutgers University quarterback Ryan Hart could sue EA in a bid to
collect some of the profits the company made from the 2004, 2005
and 2006 installments of "NCAA Football," which featured his
likeness without his permission.

The lawsuits are part of a broader legal campaign that, if
successful, could force the National Collegiate Athletic
Association to tweak its longstanding rule that college athletes
can't profit from their celebrity.  Electronic Arts pays the
Collegiate Licensing Co., the NCAA's licensing arm, to use school
and team names, uniforms and even fight songs.  But the company
doesn't compensate college players.

The NCAA declined to comment.  It is facing antitrust claims by
college athletes over the use of their names and likenesses.  The
association has denied any wrongdoing.  It announced in July that
it won't renew its contract with EA due to the "current business
climate and costs of litigation."

Ninth Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, who dissented Wednesday,
July 31, 2013, said the majority placed too much emphasis on the
individual likenesses of the virtual players and not enough on the
creative elements that comprise the game.  "I would not punish EA
for the realism of its games and for the skill of the artists who
created realistic settings for the football games," Judge Thomas
wrote.

Rob Carey, a lawyer at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
representing Mr. Keller, said, "You have a property right in your
image, and EA took it without permission."  Mr. Carey said his
next move would be to ask a federal judge to certify the case as a
class action, allowing him to draft thousands of current and
former NCAA athletes as plaintiffs.

                           *     *     *

Ross Todd, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
Electronic Arts Inc. and its lawyers at Davis Wright Tremaine and
Keker & Van Nest got mixed tidings on July 31 in a pair of
decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
But the news was mostly bad for the video game maker, and nothing
but good for plaintiffs lawyer Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro.

In a closely watched case Mr. Berman is spearheading on behalf of
a group of former NCAA college athletes, a divided Ninth Circuit
panel ruled 2-1 that EA's use of the athletes' likenesses in video
games isn't shielded by the First Amendment.  But in a separate
unanimous decision from the same Ninth Circuit panel, EA fended
off trademark claims from NFL legend Jim Brown, who accused the
company of misleading consumers about his involvement with the
Madden NFL series of games.

EA was represented by counsel from Davis Wright and Keker in both
cases.  Davis Wright Tremaine's Kelli Sager -- kellisager@dwt.com
-- argued the appeals before the Ninth Circuit last summer.  She
wasn't immediately available to comment on July 31.

Mr. Berman said he now plans to move for summary judgment as
quickly as possible in the underlying litigation.  "The First
Amendment defense was one of their strongest," Mr. Berman told us.
"There's not any serious dispute that they use the players
likenesses."

The challenge to EA's NCAA basketball and football game franchises
began in 2009, when former college athletes including ex-Arizona
State University quarterback Samuel Keller and former UCLA
basketball star Ed O'Bannon filed class actions claiming EA had
misappropriated their likenesses without compensation.  The Keller
and O'Bannon lawsuits were later consolidated before U.S. District
Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland.  Judge Wilken refused to toss the
cases in February 2010, rejecting EA's arguments that its
depiction of the players was "transformative" and thus protected
by the First Amendment.

Writing for the majority on July 31, Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee
affirmed Judge Wilken's ruling, finding that EA's First Amendment
argument failed because the company "literally recreates Keller in
the very setting in which he has achieved renown."

"In the 2005 edition of the game, the virtual starting quarterback
for Arizona State wears number 9, as did Keller, and has the same
height, weight, skin tone, hair color, hair style, handedness,
home state, play style (pocket passer), visor preference, facial
features, and school year as Keller," Judge Bybee wrote.

The July 31 decision follows a similar ruling by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in a case brought by former Rutgers
University quarterback Ryan Hart.  In May a split Third Circuit
panel agreed with EA that video games enjoy First Amendment
protections, but found that those free speech rights could be
trumped by an individual's intellectual property rights in some
instances.  The Litigation Daily named Hart's lawyer, Michael
Rubin of Altshuler Berzon, Litigator of the Week for the win.

In the second Ninth Circuit EA case decided on July 31, the court
sided unanimously with Electronic Arts.  "[Jim] Brown's likeness
is artistically relevant to the games and there are no alleged
facts to support the claim that EA explicitly misled consumers as
to Brown's involvement with the games," Judge Bybee wrote for the
panel.

Mr. Brown's lawyer, Ronald Katz -- rkatz@manatt.com -- of Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, declined to comment on his clients plans for
further appeals.

An EA spokesman said in a statement that the company was "pleased
with the outcome regarding Jim Brown's likeness, but equally
disappointed with the ruling against First Amendment protection in
the Keller case."

"We believe the reasoning in Judge Thomas' dissent in that
decision will ultimately prevail as we seek further court review,"
EA added.

In related news, the NCAA announced earlier in July that it was
not renewing its contract with EA, citing "the current business
climate and the costs of litigation."


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Conditt, writing for Joystiq, reports that EA asked a
judge to dismiss the latest complaint in a lawsuit brought on by
college athletes alleging EA, the NCAA and the Collegiate
Licensing Company used players' names and likenesses in games
without proper compensation.  EA motioned to dismiss the
plaintiffs' third amended complaint, which added six current NCAA
athletes with the goal of certifying it as a class action lawsuit.

EA argued that the plaintiffs' new complaint pleaded "no facts to
support their theory that EA participated in an antitrust
conspiracy with the NCAA and CLC."  This wasn't a new strategy --
EA and the CLC previously argued they were following NCAA rules
and were therefore not involved in an antitrust conspiracy, and EA
repeated this defense in the motion for dismissal.

This was the second lawsuit against EA from the law firm Hagens
Berman.  The first case alleged EA violated antitrust laws by
entering into exclusive deals with the AFL, NFL and NCAA.  EA
settled in this case in 2012 for $27 million and the loss of its
exclusive licensing deal with the NCAA.  In July, the NCAA
announced it would no longer work with EA, exclusively or
otherwise.

Steve Berman of Hagens Berman said he viewed the dead deal between
EA and the NCAA as a direct result of the pressure of litigation.
The court will rule on the class status of the current lawsuit,
and respond to EA's motion to dismiss, by September 5.

According to Game Informer's Mike Futter, if successful, EA and
the CLC will be removed from the suit before the group of athletes
even has a chance to be certified as a class.  The maneuver asks
the court to examine whether or not the plaintiffs' case has legal
merit.  The NCAA recently announced it would not renew EA's
license and has essentially removed itself from the video game
business.


ELMER'S PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Krazy Glue Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WKZO reports that two suburban Detroit residents are suing the
company that makes Krazy Glue in federal court over allegations of
false advertising.  The lawsuit argues that the front of the
packaging claims the adhesive works on wood, but the fine print on
the back instructs not to use the product on wooden surfaces.
Attorneys for Elmer's Products of Westerville, Ohio explained in a
federal court filing in Detroit that the words "wood" and
"leather" have been removed from the front of newer packages.


FACEBOOK INC: Supreme Court Review Sought for Cy Pres Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the doctrine of
cy pres -- from the French for 'cy pres comme possible,' or 'as
near as possible' -- may have originated in trust law, but it has
had its full flowering in class actions.  Both defendants and
plaintiffs lawyers have good reasons to resolve cases involving
potentially large numbers of claimants with minuscule damages by
directing money to charity instead of tracking down class members.
Cy pres settlements wipe cases off the docket, which is good for
defendants.  And they generate fee awards, which is good for the
class action bar.  Class actions are, of course, overseen by
federal judges, and the practice of naming a particular judge's
favorite charity as the recipient of cy pres funds in order to
boost the odds of court approval has fallen into disrepute.
Nevertheless, it's the rare cy pres settlement that is rejected.
Judges may ask for money to go to a different charity or may
restrict attorneys' fees, but courts usually conclude that there's
a benefit to class members in supporting charity rather than
risking a trial of their claims.

Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness is not so sure.
On July 26, Mr. Frank and lawyers from Baker Hostetler filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court,
asking the justices to review the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals'
approval of a $9.5 million settlement of class action allegations
that Facebook's now-dismantled "Beacon" program violated users'
privacy by revealing their online purchases.  More than $6 million
of that money was directed to the establishment of a new Internet
privacy foundation with an advisory board that includes a Facebook
representative and a plaintiffs' lawyer from the case. Class
counsel were also awarded $2.3 million in fees. Class members,
meanwhile, received no direct compensation at all from the
settlement.  The new cert petition contends that the 9th Circuit's
split ruling in the case conflicts with cy pres decisions from the
2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th Circuits.

"If allowed to stand, the circuit split created by the 9th
Circuit's decision creates an enormous incentive for forum-
shopping by plaintiffs' attorneys seeking to sue and settle
nationwide class actions like this one," the petition said.
"Bringing suit within the 9th Circuit's footprint now guarantees
that minor things like compensating class members for their
injuries, holding defendants liable to the extent the law allows,
and preventing defendants from injuring class members in the exact
same manner will not stand in the way of reaching a quick
settlement to the mutual benefit of defendants and class counsel,
at the expense of class counsel's putative clients.  The court
should grant certiorari to resolve this circuit conflict, provide
guidance to the lower courts on the use of cy pres awards, and
correct a serious abuse of the class action mechanism that puts
the interests of those it is intended to benefit, class members,
dead last."

There's a heavy dose of polemic in that paragraph, but it's
indisputable that other federal circuits have recently expressed
doubts about the cy pres mechanism.  In Klier v. Elf Atochem, the
5th Circuit ruled in 2011 that unclaimed funds from a toxic
exposure class action should have been disbursed to members of a
subclass rather than given to charity.  In April 2012, the 1st
Circuit held in In re Lupron that cy pres distributions must
"reasonably approximate the interests of class members," though it
found that the giveaway of unclaimed funds from the Lupron sales
and marketing case met that standard.  A few months after the
Lupron ruling, the 3rd Circuit found in In re Baby Products
Antitrust Litigation that cy pres distributions are constitutional
but present a potential conflict of interest between class counsel
and their clients because the lawyers get paid regardless of where
the money goes.  Courts, according to the 3rd Circuit, must
evaluate "whether the settlement provides sufficient direct
benefit to the class."

Even in the Facebook Beacon case (which is different from the
similar "Sponsored Stories" class action, in which a $10 million
cy pres settlement was rejected by U.S. District Judge Richard
Seeborg, who had previously approved the Beacon deal), 9th Circuit
Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said in a dissenting opinion that his
colleagues in the majority had failed to exercise adequate
judicial oversight. "The majority approves ratification of a class
action settlement in which class members get no compensation at
all," Judge Kleinfeld wrote.  "They do not get one cent.  They do
not get even an injunction against Facebook doing exactly the same
thing to them again.  Their purported lawyers get millions of
dollars.  Facebook gets a bar against any claims any of them might
make for breach of their privacy rights.  The most we could say
for the cy pres award is that in exchange for giving up any claims
they may have, the exposed Facebook users get the satisfaction of
contributing to a charity to be funded by Facebook, partially
controlled by Facebook, and advised by a legal team consisting of
Facebook's counsel and their own purported counsel whom they did
not hire and have never met."

Judge Kleinfeld's strong dissent helped persuade Mr. Frank and the
Center for Class Action Fairness that the Facebook Beacon case was
a good candidate for Supreme Court review of cy pres.  Mr. Frank,
who litigated the In re Baby Products case at the 3rd Circuit and
has written and spoken for years about what he considers the
dangerous conflicts inherent in cy pres settlements, wasn't
involved in the Facebook Beacon appeal at the 9th Circuit.
According to Mr. Frank, after the entire appellate court declined
to take the Beacon objectors' case en banc, he asked objectors'
counsel from Public Citizen if they were going to file a cert
petition and, if so, if he could help. "They didn't get back to us
with interest," he said.  So Mr. Frank spoke to John W. Davis of
the Law Office of John W. Davis, who represented a second group of
objectors.  Mr. Davis's clients agreed to proceed.

"This issue has been percolating, and we've been looking for an
opportunity to clarify the law," Mr. Frank said, "This was such a
delicious case -- so obviously a bad settlement."

Mr. Frank said he's actively seeking amicus support for his
Supreme Court bid from public interest groups along the political
spectrum.  He'd still like Public Citizen to get involved, and
he's hoping the U.S. Chamber of Commerce won't feel conflicted
because corporate defendants benefit from settling cases through
cy pres deals.  The Cato Institute, Mr. Frank said, has already
expressed interest in the Supreme Court appeal.

"This is not an ideological split," he said.  "We're just saying
class actions were not intended to be a free-floating, private AG
thing."

Reuters' Ms. Frankel left a message for Scott Nelson of Public
Citizen but didn't hear back.  Class counsel Scott Kamber of
Kamber Law -- skamber@kamberlaw.com -- and David Parisi --
dparisi@parisihavens.com -- of Parisi & Havens also didn't return
Ms. Frankel's calls.  Facebook counsel Michael Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- of Cooley referred Ms. Frankel's call to a
company representative who declined to comment.


FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Ladybug-Themed Kids' Outdoor Furniture
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Far East Brokers and Consultants Inc., of Jacksonville, Fla.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 14,000 Leisure Ways Brands
Kids Outdoor Furniture.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The red surface paint on the furniture contains excessive levels
of lead, a violation of the federal lead paint standard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves red ladybug-themed kids' metal-framed outdoor
furniture sold under the Leisure Ways brand.  The recalled items
have large ladybug images on the fabric and include a camp chair,
folding chair, moon chair, double-seat swing chair and patio set
that includes two chairs, a table and an umbrella.  A tracking
label sewn into the seat of each chair includes the production
date "December/2012" and the words, "Distributed by: Far East
Brokers and Consultants, Inc."

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Rsbac6

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Weis
Markets, wholesale distributors, grocery and drug stores
nationwide from January 2013 to May 2013 for between $10 and $50,
depending on the item.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled outdoor furniture
away from children and return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund.


FIRST FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle SCBT Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Financial Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its July 16, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that it entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle class
action lawsuits brought in connection with its proposed merger
with SCBT Financial Corporation.

On July 16, 2013, SCBT Financial Corporation, a South Carolina
corporation ("SCBT") and First Financial Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("First Financial"), entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other
named defendants regarding the settlement of a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court") in response to the announcement of the
execution of an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
February 19, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and between SCBT
and First Financial.  Pursuant to, and subject to the terms and
conditions of, the Merger Agreement, First Financial will merge
with and into SCBT, with SCBT as the surviving entity following
the merger (the "Merger").

On March 5, 2013, a purported shareholder of First Financial filed
a lawsuit in the Court, captioned Arthur Walter v. R. Wayne Hall
et al., No. 8386-VCN.  On March 25, 2013, another purported
shareholder of First Financial filed a lawsuit in the same court
captioned Emmy Moore v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8434-VCN.  On
April 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued an order
consolidating the two lawsuits into one action captioned In re
First Financial Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 8386-
VCN (the "Lawsuit").  On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of
First Financial's common shareholders (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint names as defendants First Financial, the current members
of First Financial's board of directors (the "Director
Defendants") and SCBT.

Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT, First Financial, the Director
Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Lawsuit
subject to the approval of the Court.  If the Court approves the
settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed
with prejudice and the defendants will be released from any claims
that plaintiffs and the alleged class of First Financial
shareholders may have based upon, arising out of, or related to
the Merger, Defendants' consideration of the Merger, and any
disclosures or public filings related to the Merger (other than
any claims of First Financial stockholders under the federal
securities law entirely unrelated to the Merger or any disclosures
related thereto).  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SCBT and
First Financial have agreed to make available additional
information to First Financial shareholders.  In return, the
plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Lawsuit with
prejudice and not to seek any interim relief in favor of the
alleged class of First Financial stockholders.  The parties to the
MOU have not had any discussions regarding potential fees and
expenses of the plaintiffs' attorneys; however, the parties have
agreed to engage in good faith negotiations regarding an award of
such fees and expenses.  The defendants have reserved all rights
to oppose the amount of any petition by the plaintiffs and their
attorneys for an award of fees and expenses (to the extent any
arguments do not contradict the MOU) in the event that the parties
are unable to reach agreement on such an award.  The parties to
the MOU have agreed that final resolution by the Court of any fee
petition will not be a precondition to the dismissal of the
Lawsuit.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
First Financial shareholders in connection with the Merger or the
timing of the special meetings of First Financial and SCBT
shareholders, which were scheduled on July 24, 2013, in
Charleston, South Carolina and Columbia, South Carolina,
respectively, to consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the
Merger Agreement, among other things.

SCBT, First Financial and the Director Defendants deny each of the
allegations in the Lawsuit and believe the prior disclosures in
the Definitive Proxy are adequate under applicable law.  First
Financial and the Director Defendants have informed SCBT that they
maintain that they have complied with their fiduciary duty and
other applicable legal duties in all respects in connection with
the Merger and any disclosure obligations in connection therewith.
SCBT, First Financial and the Director Defendants have agreed to
settle the Lawsuit in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce
the risk of any delay to the completion of the Merger.  Nothing in
this Current Report or any stipulation of settlement shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein or
therein.

First Financial Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.firstfinancialholdings.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation with its principal executive office located in
Charleston, South Carolina.  First Financial offers integrated
financial solutions, including personal, business and wealth
management services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Wachtell Replaces MoFo as Atty. in Autonomy Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that Hewlett-Packard
Co. is churning through outside counsel as it confronts an
avalanche of shareholder suits over its widely panned acquisition
of Autonomy.

The embattled personal computer maker has tapped New York's
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and San Francisco's Farella, Braun
& Martel to defend it, ousting its newly hired lawyers at Morrison
& Foerster, according to a substitution of counsel filed on
July 30 in federal court.  The team is the third in just more than
a month to represent HP in securities actions stemming from its
2011 purchase of Autonomy, a British software maker.  MoFo
partners Darryl Rains, Judson Lobdell and Mark Foster entered the
fray for HP in late June after the company ditched Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, a long-time favorite firm.

HP's lineup now consists of Wachtell partners Marc Wolinsky --
MWolinsky@wlrk.com -- George Conway III -- GTConway@wlrk.com --
and Rachelle Silverberg -- RSilverberg@wlrk.com -- along with
Farella partners Neil Goteiner -- ngoteiner@fbm.com -- and Thomas
Mayhew -- tmayhew@fbm.com

Lawyers at both firms referred requests for comment on the change
of counsel to HP, as did MoFo.  An HP spokeswoman wrote in an
email that the switch had nothing to do with the quality of
Morrison & Foerster's work.

"We've simply decided to go in a different direction with
Wachtell," she said.

HP announced the change on the eve of a key deadline in the
derivative shareholder suits.  A stay in that litigation was set
to expire on July 31.  In one of their first actions on behalf of
their new client, Wolinsky and Goteiner asked U.S. District Judge
Charles Breyer to renew the stay to give an independent committee
formed by HP's board of directors more time to investigate
potential claims by the company and make a recommendation to the
board about related litigation.

"It's very unusual to replace counsel at this stage of the case,
let alone twice," said Mark Molumphy -- mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com --
a principal at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, which has been named
lead counsel in the derivative shareholder suits.  "I'm kind of
scratching my head."

Both MoFo and Morgan Lewis had a hand in the HP-Autonomy merger.
Morgan Lewis handled antitrust work for Autonomy on the deal. MoFo
represented Qatalyst Partners, Autonomy's financial adviser in the
acquisition.  HP's spokeswoman declined to comment on whether
conflict concerns played a role in the latest switch.

Earlier this month, lawyers at MoFo filed a motion to dismiss the
shareholder class actions, attempting to discredit the plaintiffs'
theory that HP executives knew about improper accounting at
Autonomy but hid it from shareholders to push the acquisition
through.

"In an attempt to spin Autonomy's accounting fraud into an
investor class action, plaintiff has filed a complaint recasting
the victim -- HP -- as the perpetrator," Rains, Lobdell and Foster
wrote.


INTUIT INC: Settles Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Mintz, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
Intuit has become the third company to settle a class-action
lawsuit alleging its top executives were part of a Silicon Valley
conspiracy to not poach workers from rival tech companies,
according to a letter filed on July 30 with the federal judge
overseeing the case.

Lawyers for employees who sued over the anti-poaching allegations
informed U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the pact in a brief
letter.  The letter did not disclose the terms of the settlement
with Intuit, which has now joined Lucasfilm and Pixar in resolving
their part of the long-running legal battle.

Apple, Intel, Google and Adobe remain as defendants in the case,
and there is no indication those valley powerhouses have settled.
The case is set to go to trial next year.

The lawsuit alleges that by agreeing to not poach from rivals'
work forces, the companies doused competition, costing tens of
thousands of employees a chance to jump to more lucrative jobs in
the valley's competitive job market.

The companies are accused of cutting deals with each other to not
raid employees, particularly in the engineering ranks.  In
previous orders, Judge Koh has indicated the employees have
presented strong evidence that top executives, including late
Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Google CEO Eric Schmidt, had side
assurances to steer clear of raiding rival work forces.

The companies have repeatedly denied the allegations, which mirror
an antitrust case they've already settled with the U.S. Justice
Department.

The federal government has a separate case pending against eBay
involving the same allegations.


JP BODEN: Recalls Kensington High Heels Shoes Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JP Boden Services Inc., of Pittston, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 190 Kensington Court Women's Shoes.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The heel on the shoe can loosen with wear and become unstable,
posing a fall hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The Kensington Court 3 1/2 inch high heel patent leather shoes
were sold in four colors including dark blue with beige trim,
cream with tan trim, red with gray trim and turquoise blue with
beige trim.  The plain toe pump women's shoes were sold in sizes
5-1/2 to 10-1/2.  The Boden logo is printed on a label on the
inside sole of the shoe.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Spain and sold at Boden
catalog nationwide and online at http://www.bodenusa.comfrom
January 2013 through June 2013 for about $170.

Consumers should stop wearing the shoes and contact JP Boden to
receive postage paid label to return the shoes and receive a full
refund.


KEYSTONE: Recalls 76 Laredo Model Trailers Over Defective Battery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 29, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Subcategory:                          Travel Trailer
Notification type:                    Safety Mfr
System:                               Electrical
Units affected:                       76
Source of recall:                     Transport Canada
Identification number:                2013259
TC ID number:                         2013259
Manufacturer recall number:           13-194

Affected products:

   Make        Model     Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----     ----------------------
   KEYSTONE    LAREDO    2013, 2014

On certain fifth wheel travel trailers, the battery box may detach
from its supports.  This could cause the battery to fall from the
vehicle, resulting in property damage and a possible hazard to
other road users.

Dealers will install a reinforcement kit.


MOSAIC CO: Has Final Approval of Potash Antitrust Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company received in June 2013 final approval of its
settlement of the Potash Antitrust Litigation, according to the
Company's July 17, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31, 2013.

On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the
"September 11, 2008 Cases") were filed in the United States
District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the "Minn-Chem
Case") and the Northern District of Illinois (the "Gage's
Fertilizer Case"), on October 2, 2008, another complaint (the
"October 2, 2008 Case") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on November 10,
2008, and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together,
the "November 2008 Cases" and collectively with the September 11,
2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the "Direct Purchaser
Cases") were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Northern Illinois District
Court") by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft
Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature
Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic
Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated
defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout
the United States.  On November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the
cases in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois filed a consolidated class action complaint
against the defendants, and on December 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem
Case was consolidated with the Gage's Fertilizer Case.

On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser
Cases.  The amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed
and Seed, Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of
the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who
purchased potash in the United States directly from the defendants
during the period July 1, 2003, through the date of the amended
consolidated complaint ("Class Period").  The amended consolidated
complaint generally alleged, among other matters, that the
defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand;
allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold;
coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and
fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct.  The
plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally sought
injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages,
including treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged
combination or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and
commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
plaintiffs also sought costs of lawsuit, reasonable attorneys'
fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
by Gordon Tillman (the "Tillman Case"); Feyh Farm Co. and William
H. Coaker Jr. (the "Feyh Farm Case"); and Kevin Gillespie (the
"Gillespie Case;" the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together
with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the
"Indirect Purchaser Cases;" and the Direct Purchaser Cases
together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively
referred to as the "Potash Antitrust Cases").  The defendants in
the Indirect Purchaser Cases were generally the same as those in
the Direct Purchaser Cases.  On November 13, 2008, the initial
plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an
additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect
Purchaser Cases.  The factual allegations in the amended
consolidated complaint were substantially identical to those with
respect to the Direct Purchaser Cases.  The amended consolidated
complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was filed on behalf of
the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who
indirectly purchased potash products for end use during the Class
Period in the United States, any of 20 specified states and the
District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Indirect Purchaser States," any of 22 specified states and the
District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48 states and the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Unjust Enrichment States."  The plaintiffs generally sought
injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages,
including treble damages for violations of the antitrust laws of
the Indirect Purchaser States where allowed by law, arising from
defendants' alleged continuing agreement, understanding, contract,
combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the
Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair competition laws of the
Indirect Purchaser States and the consumer protection and unfair
competition laws of the Consumer Fraud States, as well as
restitution or disgorgement of profits, for unjust enrichment
under the common law of the Unjust Enrichment States, and any
penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or full consideration
where permitted by applicable state law.  The plaintiffs also
sought costs of lawsuit and reasonable attorneys' fees where
allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2009, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases.
On November 3, 2009, the court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a)
for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged
violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan
and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa,
claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law.  The
court denied the Company's and the other defendants' other motions
to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants'
motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state
a claim for relief under that section.  The court, however, stated
that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases
present a difficult question under the pleading standards
enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the
defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal.  On
January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court
issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of
(i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a
plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market
behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a
defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that
was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive
activity involving foreign markets, engaged in 'conduct involving
import trade or import commerce' under applicable law.

On September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") vacated the district
court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims.  On December 2, 2011,
the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and on
June 27, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of the
Northern Illinois District Court to deny the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  The decision was not a ruling on
the merits of the case, but the Seventh Circuit's decision allowed
pretrial discovery to proceed in this matter, and the Northern
Illinois District Court scheduled trial to begin February 10,
2014.  The Company sought U.S. Supreme Court review of the Seventh
Circuit's decision.

On January 30, 2013, the Company entered into agreements to settle
the Potash Antitrust Cases for an aggregate of $43.8 million.  The
Company chose to settle the Potash Antitrust Cases to avoid the
significant costs, burden and distraction of protracted litigation
and the Company did not admit any wrongdoing.  Following
preliminary approval by the Northern Illinois District Court on
January 30, 2013, the Company funded the settlement subject to
final court approval.  On June 12, 2013, the Northern Illinois
District Court entered an order of final approval of the
settlement.  The majority of the settlement was recorded in the
third quarter of fiscal year 2013.

The Mosaic Company -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is one of the
world's leading producers and marketers of concentrated phosphate
and potash crop nutrients.  The Company is the largest integrated
phosphate producer in the world and one of the largest producers
and marketers of phosphate-based animal feed ingredients in the
United States.  The Company mines phosphate rock in Florida and
process rock into finished phosphate products at facilities in
Florida and Louisiana.  The Company mines potash in Saskatchewan,
New Mexico and Michigan.  The Company has other production,
blending or distribution operations in Brazil, China, India,
Argentina, and Chile, and a strategic equity investment in a
phosphate rock mine in the Bayovar region in Peru.


MURPHY USA: Continues to Defend Suits Over Hot Fuel
---------------------------------------------------
Murphy USA Inc. continues to defend a subsidiary against class
action lawsuits brought by retail purchasers of motor fuel,
according to the Company's July 18, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  Murphy USA's subsidiary,
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., is a defendant in eight of these cases.
Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District
Litigation, all of the cases, including those in which Murphy Oil
USA, Inc. is named, have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all
pre-trial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants
agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of
motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons
which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These cases
seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to
install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel
dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases, including some of
the cases in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is named, plaintiffs also
have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.  The plaintiffs in these
cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and
punitive damages.  Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment
interest.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to
state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21,
2008.  A number of the defendants, including Murphy Oil USA, Inc.,
subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable
"political questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and
defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31,
2010.  In May 2010, in a lawsuit in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. was
not a party, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel
purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature
controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any
class for damages.  The Defendants sought permission to appeal
that decision to the Tenth Circuit in June 2010, and that request
was denied on August 31, 2010.  On November 12, 2011, the
Defendants in the Kansas case filed a motion to decertify the
Kansas classes in light of a new favorable United States Supreme
Court decision.  On January 19, 2012, the Judge denied the
Defendants' motion to decertify and granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class as to liability and injunctive relief aspects of
plaintiffs' claims.  The court has continued to deny certification
of a damages class.  On September 24, 2012, the jury in the Kansas
case returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendants finding
that defendants did not violate Kansas law by willfully failing to
disclose temperature and its effect on the energy content of motor
fuel.  On October 3, 2012, the judge in the Kansas case also ruled
that defendants' practice of selling motor fuel without disclosing
temperature or disclosing the effect of temperature was not
unconscionable under Kansas law.  On January 23, 2013, the judge
ordered that three cases venued in California be remanded for
trial.

At this stage of proceedings, losses are reasonably possible,
however, the Company cannot estimate its loss, range of loss or
liability, if any, related to these lawsuits because there are a
number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that will
impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without
limitation: (i) whether defendants are required, or even permitted
under state law, to sell temperature adjusted gallons of motor
fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual temperature of fuel purchased by
plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or not class certification is proper
in cases to which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is a party.  The Company
says an adverse outcome in this litigation could have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.

Upon completion of Murphy USA Inc.'s -- http://www.murphyusa.com/
-- separation from Murphy Oil Corporation, the Company's business
will consist primarily of marketing of retail motor fuel products
and convenience merchandise through a large chain of retail
stations owned and operated by the Company, almost all of which
are in close proximity to Walmart stores.  The Company's retail
stations under the brand name Murphy USA(R) participate in the
Walmart discount program that the Company offers at most
locations.  The Walmart discount program offers a cents-off per
gallon purchased for fuel when using specific payment methods as
decided by Murphy USA and Walmart.


NATIONAL BEEF: Recalls Beef Products Due to E. Coli Presence
------------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Packing Company, a Liberal, Kan., firm, is recalling
approximately 50,100 pounds of ground beef products that may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 10 lb. chub of "National Beef" 93/ 7 Fine Ground Beef,
     Product Code 0707;

   * 10 lb. chub of "NatureSource" 80/20 Fine Ground Chuck,
     Product Code 7031;

   * 10 lb. chub of "NatureSource" 85/15 Fine Ground Beef, Product
     Code 7054;

   * 10 lb. chub of "NatureSource" 90/10 Fine Ground Beef, Product
     Code 7344;

   * 10 lb. chub of "NatureSource" 93/ 7 Fine Ground Beef, Product
     Code 7004;

   * 10 lb. chub of "NatureWell" 80/20 Fine Ground Chuck, Product
     Code 7484;

   * 10 lb. chub of "NatureWell" 85/15 Fine Ground Beef, Product
     Code 7454;

   * 10 lb. chub of "NatureWell" 90/10 Fine Ground Sirloin,
     Product Code 7577; and

   * 10 lb. chub of "NatureWell " 93/7 Fine Ground Beef, Product
     Code 7404

All these products bear the establishment number "EST. 208A"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced on
July 18, 2013 and were shipped in 40 to 60 pound cases to
retailers, wholesalers, and food service distributors nationwide.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS monitoring which
confirmed a positive result for E.coli O157:H7.  An investigation
determined National Beef Packing Co. was the sole supplier of the
source materials used to produce the positive product.  FSIS and
the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of these products.  Individuals concerned about an
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers (including restaurants) of
the recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that
the product is no longer available to consumers.  When available,
the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website
at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney
failure.  The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune
systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160° F.  The only way to
confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to
kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature.

Media with questions regarding the recall should contact National
Beef's spokesperson, Keith Welty, at 816-713-8631.  Consumers can
call 1-866-761-9472 or go to http://www.nationalbeef.comfor the
link to details about the recall and the company's return and
reimbursement policy.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the
FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask
Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry
Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English
and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern
Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


NULOOK BLINDS: Recalls Horizontal Venetian Blinds
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 31, 2013
Posting date:                         July 31, 2013
Type of communication:                Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:                          Household Items
Source of recall:                     Health Canada
Issue:                                Product Safety, Labelling
                                      and Packaging
Audience:                             General Public
Identification number:                RA-34779

Affected products: Horizontal Venetian Blinds by Nulook Blinds
P.E.I.

The recall involves all horizontal venetian blinds manufactured by
Nulook Blinds P.E.I.  The products are custom made to order in
various dimensions and colors.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the recalled blinds pose a strangulation hazard by not having
an inner cord stop.  Inner cord stops are devices that prevent an
inner cord from being pulled and forming a loop in which young
children may pull around their neck, posing a risk of
strangulation.  The blinds also do not have the required hang tag
warnings, correct bottom rail labeling, company information or
year of manufacture listed on the product.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/8mGES9

Neither Health Canada nor Nulook Blinds P.E.I. has received
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
blinds.

Approximately 150 of the affected products were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at the
time the Corded Window Covering Products Regulations came into
force in April 2009 until February 2013.

Corded window covering products sold before 2009 may not have
safety devices, warning labels, and instructions to keep pull
cords out of the reach of children.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Nulook Blinds P.E.I
                    Charlottetown
                    Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately.


PIAGGIO GROUP: Recalls Griso, Norge, and Stelvio NTX Models
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 26, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Subcategory:                          Motorcycle
Notification type:                    Safety Mfr
System:                               Suspension
Units affected:                       107
Source of recall:                     Transport Canada
Identification number:                2013256
TC ID number:                         2013256

On certain motorcycles, the rear suspension double connecting rod
may have been manufactured incorrectly and could fail.  This could
result in a loss of vehicle control and increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace the double connecting rod.


SAFELITE: Judge Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES, reports that a judge for the
U.S. Northern District Court of California has given preliminary
approval for a settlement reached in a class action suit filed
against Safelite stemming from allegations related to overtime
pay.  In the deal, Safelite agreed to pay $1,097,000 to be
distributed among class members.

"The court conditionally approves the motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement," Judge Charles R. Breyer
writes in court documents.

The court extended the notice period for class members to submit
their claims from 60 to 90 days.  According to court documents,
the settlement class "means all persons employed in California by
[Safelite] as a windshield repair specialist or replacement
technician between November 14, 2007, and June 3, 2013."

In response to this preliminary decision and extension, attorneys
have submitted a deadline timetable to the court for the judge's
approval.  This proposed calendar includes:

   -- The deadline for mailing notices to class members is
      August 16.

   -- The deadline for claim members to submit claims forms to
      the administrator is November 14.

   -- The deadline for the claims administrator to provide final
      claims information to the parties is November 18.

   -- The deadline for the defendant to revoke the settlement is
      November 22.

   -- The deadline for the filing motion for final approval from
      the court for the settlement is November 29.

   -- The final approval hearing is December 13.

The court had not yet ruled on the proposed timetable at press
time.

The settlement agreement notes that Safelite "has asserted
defenses to the claims alleged in the class action [suit] and
expressly denies each of the claims asserted against it and any
and all liability arising out of the conduct and facts alleged in
the class action."

"Defendant nevertheless desires to settle the class action,"
writes counsel for Safelite.  "[Safelite] has concluded that
further defense of the class action would be protracted and
expensive.  Substantial amounts of time, energy and resources of
[Safelite] have been and, unless this settlement is made, will
continue to be devoted to the defense of the claims asserted in
the class action."

Demetriot Lewis, who worked as a mobile windshield repair
technician from April 2010 to December 2010 in the San Francisco
Bay area, filed the suit originally, alleging that he was
regularly scheduled to work eight hours per day, but that the
company "did not pay [him] wages for all the hours [he] worked."

"Defendant required plaintiff to clock in for work at a specified
time, but regularly suffered or permitted [him] to work prior to
the specified time for clocking in," alleged Mr. Lewis in the
original case.  "Tasks that defendant knowingly allowed or
required plaintiff to perform prior to the specified time for
clocking in included calling customers; retrieving paperwork,
supplies or equipment from defendant's warehouse; attending
meetings or taking tests at defendant's warehouse; and driving to
customer locations from defendant's warehouse."


SCBT FINANCIAL: Inks MOU to Settle First Financial Merger Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCBT Financial Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle class action lawsuits brought in
connection with its proposed merger with First Financial Holdings,
Inc., according to the Company's July 16, 2013, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 16, 2013, SCBT Financial Corporation, a South Carolina
corporation ("SCBT") and First Financial Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("First Financial"), entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other
named defendants regarding the settlement of a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court") in response to the announcement of the
execution of an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
February 19, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and between SCBT
and First Financial.  Pursuant to, and subject to the terms and
conditions of, the Merger Agreement, First Financial will merge
with and into SCBT, with SCBT as the surviving entity following
the merger (the "Merger").

On March 5, 2013, a purported shareholder of First Financial filed
a lawsuit in the Court, captioned Arthur Walter v. R. Wayne Hall
et al., No. 8386-VCN.  On March 25, 2013, another purported
shareholder of First Financial filed a lawsuit in the same court
captioned Emmy Moore v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8434-VCN.  On
April 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued an order
consolidating the two lawsuits into one action captioned In re
First Financial Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 8386-
VCN (the "Lawsuit").  On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of
First Financial's common shareholders (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint names as defendants First Financial, the current members
of First Financial's board of directors (the "Director
Defendants") and SCBT.

Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT, First Financial, the Director
Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Lawsuit
subject to the approval of the Court.  If the Court approves the
settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed
with prejudice and the defendants will be released from any claims
that plaintiffs and the alleged class of First Financial
shareholders may have based upon, arising out of, or related to
the Merger, Defendants' consideration of the Merger, and any
disclosures or public filings related to the Merger (other than
any claims of First Financial stockholders under the federal
securities law entirely unrelated to the Merger or any disclosures
related thereto).  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SCBT and
First Financial have agreed to make available additional
information to First Financial shareholders.  In return, the
plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Lawsuit with
prejudice and not to seek any interim relief in favor of the
alleged class of First Financial stockholders.  The parties to the
MOU have not had any discussions regarding potential fees and
expenses of the plaintiffs' attorneys; however, the parties have
agreed to engage in good faith negotiations regarding an award of
such fees and expenses.  The defendants have reserved all rights
to oppose the amount of any petition by the plaintiffs and their
attorneys for an award of fees and expenses (to the extent any
arguments do not contradict the MOU) in the event that the parties
are unable to reach agreement on such an award.  The parties to
the MOU have agreed that final resolution by the Court of any fee
petition will not be a precondition to the dismissal of the
Lawsuit.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
First Financial shareholders in connection with the Merger or the
timing of the special meetings of First Financial and SCBT
shareholders, which were scheduled on July 24, 2013, in
Charleston, South Carolina and Columbia, South Carolina,
respectively, to consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the
Merger Agreement, among other things.

SCBT, First Financial and the Director Defendants deny each of the
allegations in the Lawsuit and believe the prior disclosures in
the Definitive Proxy are adequate under applicable law.  First
Financial and the Director Defendants have informed SCBT that they
maintain that they have complied with their fiduciary duty and
other applicable legal duties in all respects in connection with
the Merger and any disclosure obligations in connection therewith.
SCBT, First Financial and the Director Defendants have agreed to
settle the Lawsuit in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce
the risk of any delay to the completion of the Merger.  Nothing in
this Current Report or any stipulation of settlement shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein or
therein.

Headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, SCBT Financial
Corporation -- http://www.scbtonline.com/-- operates as the
holding company for SCBT, N.A., that provides retail and
commercial banking services in the Carolinas.  The Company's
deposit products include checking accounts; savings and time
deposits; and certificates of deposit, as well as interest-bearing
transaction accounts, including NOW, HSA, IOLTA, and market rate
checking accounts.


SUZUKI: Recalls 97 GSX1250FA Model Motorcycles
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 29, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Subcategory:                          Motorcycle
Notification type:                    Compliance Mfr
System:                               Accessories
Units affected:                       97
Source of recall:                     Transport Canada
Identification number:                2013258
TC ID number:                         2013258

Affected products:

   Make      Model         Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----         ----------------------
   SUZUKI    GSX1250FA     2014

On certain motorcycles, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)
has an incorrect character in the 10th position, identifying the
model year of the vehicle as 2013 instead of 2014.  Note: This
does not pose a safety risk.

Owners will be sent a letter than can be presented to insurers or
future potential buyers explaining the discrepancy.


THOMAS M. COOLEY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
federal appeals court on July 30 affirmed dismissal of a fraud
class action against Thomas M. Cooley Law School, concluding that
Michigan's consumer protection law did not apply to the purchase
of a legal education and that Cooley's job placement claims were
not "objectively false."

Following the ruling by three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs attorney Jesse Strauss
said his team would consider whether to seek an en banc hearing.

"We're disappointed," Mr. Strauss said.  "We thought they would
reverse.  For the court to say [Cooley's claims] were not
misleading because of the fine print, or because this is a
business purchase instead of a personal purchase, is a bit of a
dodge, we think."

Cooley president and dean Don LeDuc said the ruling sends a strong
message.

"Now that a federal court of appeals has ruled in this matter, no
one can credibly say any longer that any accredited law school
that followed American Bar Association and National Association
for Law Placement guidelines in reporting the basic employment
status of its graduates, as Cooley did, was misleading anyone," he
said in a formal statement.

Twelve recent Cooley graduates -- many of them either unemployed,
working in solo practices or doing contract legal work --
initially sued Cooley in 2011 seeking $300 million for themselves
and other alumni.  They alleged the school misrepresented its job-
placement and salary statistics to lure students.

On July 20, 2012, U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist dismissed the
suit, ruling that the Michigan Consumer Protection Act did not
apply to education, which amounts to a business purpose.  The
appeals panel comprising appeal judges Boyce Martin Jr. and
Deborah Cook and U.S. District Judge James Graham agreed.  They
said that because the students attended Cooley to improve their
circumstances and snag a legal job, that equates to a business
purchase for which the consumer-protection law offers no remedy.

"If, for example, the graduates alleged that they attended Cooley
to get a legal education with no intention of using it to make
money, the district court might have erred in holding that the Act
did not apply," the opinion reads.  "But because the graduates
admitted in their complaint that they bought their legal education
for a business purpose, to make a living, the district court
concluded that they failed to state a claim under the Act."

The second part of the appeal focused on two specific claims made
by Cooley in 2010: That 76 percent of its graduates were employed
as of nine months after graduation and that graduates earned an
average salary of $54,796.  The plaintiffs argued that those
statistics were fraudulent because the first represented students
in all types of jobs -- not just full-time legal ones -- and the
second was based on the 83 percent of graduates who reported their
earning to the school rather than the entire class.

A reasonable person would assume that he or she had a high
likelihood of getting a fulltime legal job that paid close to
$55,000 a year by attending, the plaintiffs argued.

But the trial and appeals judges said the employment figure was
not technically false.  "The statistic does not say percentage of
graduates 'employed in full-time, permanent positions for which a
law degree is required or preferred,'" the appeals court wrote.
"It only says percentage of graduates 'employed.' "

Similarly, the court agreed that any reliance by the plaintiffs on
the average salary statistic was unreasonable because other data
in Cooley's employment report indicated that the figures were
based only on graduates who completed the school's job survey.

The plaintiffs alleged that Cooley's failure to explicitly state
that the average salary figure was based on information from only
a portion of the recent graduates and that the employment figure
included any type of job constituted a silent fraud.  The appeals
court rejected that argument, saying that they failed to establish
that Cooley had a duty to make that disclosure.

Cooley and New York Law School were the first targets of
plaintiffs represented by Strauss and David Anziska. (Thomas
Jefferson School of Law was hit with a similar suit filed by a
different attorney just weeks before the Cooley and New York suits
were filed.) Mr. Strauss and his team followed up three months
later with nearly identical actions against a dozen law schools
across the country.

Suits against schools in Illinois, Michigan and New York have
since been dismissed, but those against four law schools in
California -- California Western School of Law, Golden Gate
University School of Law, the University of San Francisco School
of Law and Southwestern Law School -- each survived initial
motions to dismiss and are in discovery.

Similarly, a suit targeting Widener University School of Law is in
discovery.  A court has yet to weigh in on a pending case against
Florida Coastal School of Law.

"Clearly, the courts don't want to grapple with this issue, but
we're hoping that the [U.S.] Department of Education of the
[American Bar Association] steps in to deal with schools like
Cooley and Florida Coastal, because they are doing a huge
disservice to their students," Mr. Strauss said.  He added that
while the attorneys haven't met their primary goal -- which is to
secure compensation for the plaintiffs -- they are proud that
their efforts have helped place a spotlight on the issue of law
school transparency.

But Mr. LeDuc insisted other motives are at play.  "From its
start, this case, and others like it, has been nothing more than a
misguided crusade, brought by lawyers who had to search for their
clients on social media, to shift blame onto law schools for the
difficulty of finding jobs in a recessionary economy," he said.
"And yet the legal profession always has been, and remains, one of
the most resilient professions with one of the lowest unemployment
rates of any profession."


TRADITIONS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Meals Due To Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Traditions, a Pearl, Miss., establishment, is recalling 2,486
pounds of frozen chicken meals because of misbranding and an
undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service announced.  The products contain
milk, a known allergen, which is not declared on the label.

The products subject to recall include:

A three-compartment tray containing "Lemon Pepper Chicken Breast
Filet with Rib Meat Smoke Flavor Added / Mixed Vegetables / Basil
and Garlic Fettuccine" bearing the establishment number "P-13850"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced
and packaged on Oct. 5, 2012, Dec 19, 2012 and Jan. 28, 2013
The products were distributed to food service institutions
nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the firm during a routine label
review.  Milk is a sub ingredient of butter flavoring used in the
product.  The problem occurred after a change in formulation which
resulted in milk being omitted from the label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a health care professional.

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

Media with questions about the recall should contact Greg
Shoemaker, Executive Vice President, at (601) 664-3107.  Consumers
should contact Sherry Goodwin, Customer Service Representative, at
(601) 420-8847.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


UNITED STATES: Bernanke to Give Deposition in AIG Bailout Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke can be questioned for a
class action challenging the government's 2008 bailout of American
International Group, a U.S. judge ruled.

Judge Thomas Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ordered
the deposition of Bernanke by lawyers for AIG shareholders,
including lead plaintiff Starr International Co.

The shareholders say the bailout constituted an unconstitutional
government "taking," and Bernanke's testimony would help unravel
the decision-making process leading up to the bailout.

Wheeler agreed.

"Mr. Bernanke repeatedly has acknowledged that he was a key
decision-maker on behalf of the government, and his testimony
unquestionably is relevant to the Fifth Amendment taking and
illegal exaction claims before the court," he wrote.

At the height of the financial crisis, the Government gave the
financial services company an $85 million revolving credit line in
exchange for a 79.9 percent equity stake in AIG.  The move came
amid fears that AIG would collapse and take other Wall Street
firms with it, causing unsustainable ripples in the U.S. economy.

Federally appointed trustees also oversaw a 1-for-20 reverse stock
split approved by AIG's board of directors.

Wheeler certified two classes in March: a credit agreement class
and a stock split class.

Shareholders sought to depose the Fed chairman, but the Government
asked for a protective order, claiming the plaintiffs needed to
show that the information he could give was "essential to his
case" and "not obtainable from another source."

Wheeler denied the Government's motion on July 29, 2013, and
ordered Bernanke's deposition.

"The court is persuaded that Mr. Bernanke is a key witness in this
case, and that his testimony will be highly relevant to the issues
presented," Wheeler wrote.  "Because of Mr. Bernanke's personal
involvement in the decision-making process to bail out AIG, it is
improbable that plaintiff would be able to obtain the same
testimony or evidence from other persons or sources."

He added that the court would "extend appropriate deference and
courtesies" to the Fed chairman, including "appropriate judicial
oversight" to ensure "that proper and efficient use of time is
maintained."

Starr International tentatively set the deposition for August 13,
though Wheeler told its lawyers to coordinate the date with
Bernanke.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Dwyer, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Gravante Jr., Esq.
          Alanna C. Rutherford, Esq.
          Julia C. Hamilton, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          E-mail: rdwyer@bsfllp.com
                  ngravante@bsfllp.com
                  arutherford@bsfllp.com
                  jchamilton@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Hamish P. M. Hume, Esq.
          Samuel C. Kaplan, Esq.
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
                  skaplan@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          John L. Gardiner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          E-mail: john.gardiner@skadden.com

The case is Starr International Company, Inc. v. The United States
of America and American International Group, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-
00779C, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.


UNITED STATES: Faces Suits Over Fannie & Freddie Stock Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, earlier in July, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Olson
made headlines when he filed a lawsuit accusing the federal
government of blocking private stockholders of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac from getting their fair share.  Since then, more than
a half dozen plaintiff firms have gotten into the game, filing
related cases in Washington's federal district court and in the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The cases challenge an August 2012 agreement between the
conservator of Fannie and Freddie -- the Federal Housing Finance
Agency -- and the U.S. Department of Treasury that changed the
structure of preferred stock purchase agreements held by Treasury.

According to the complaint, the 2012 agreement essentially
diverted Fannie and Freddie's net worth to the Treasury
Department, leaving no money to pay dividends on stocks held by
private companies and individuals.  The plaintiffs accused the
government of making the change just as Fannie and Freddie were
recovering from the economic downturn and posting profits.

Similar cases were also filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
although one of those lawsuits, filed by Seattle's Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro and Philadelphia's Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis
in June, is challenging the overarching legitimacy of the
conservatorships of Fannie and Freddie, as opposed to just the
August 2012 agreement.

Gibson Dunn kicked off the district court action July 7, filing a
case for investment fund manager Perry Capital LLC.  Three days
later, Washington's Cooper & Kirk sued on behalf of mutual fund
Fairholme Funds Inc. and a group of insurance companies that held
stock in Fannie and Freddie.  Cooper & Kirk also filed an action
in federal claims court on July 9.

Boies, Schiller & Flexner is also pursuing claims in federal
district and federal claims court.  With Radnor, Pa.'s Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check serving as co-counsel in both instances,
Boies Schiller filed complaints in the federal claims court on
July 10 and in district court on July 29.

"I think what happened is unprecedented," Boies Schiller's Hamish
Hume said.  "I really think it is about as egregious a case of
appropriation as we've seen in a while."

Finkelstein Thompson is representing plaintiffs in two separate
district court cases.  In the first, filed on July 16, the firm is
working with Los Angeles' Glancy Binkow & Goldberg to represent
individuals that owned Fannie and Freddie securities.  On July 30,
the firm filed another case, this time with New York's Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, on behalf of insurance
companies that held stock.

Pomerantz and Brower Piven in Stevenson, Md., also filed a case in
federal claims court on July 19.

Mr. Hume said that given differences in the cases, from the scope
of claims to the type of relief sought, he didn't think they would
be consolidated, although they might be coordinated under the same
judges; so far they've been assigned to Judge Robert Wilkins.  No
consolidation motion has been filed.

Hagens Berman is attempting to consolidate the cases in federal
claims court.  In its motion, the firm disputed a claim by
Mr. Hume's client that there were "important differences" between
the cases.  Those cases have all been assigned to Judge Margaret
Sweeney. (Partner Steven Berman could not be reached for comment.)

Also worth noting: the cases have brought together Gibson Dunn and
Boies Schiller with former foe Cooper & Kirk.  Gibson Dunn and
Boies Schiller sparred with Cooper & Kirk in the U.S. Supreme
Court legal fight last term over California's Proposition 8 ballot
initiative barring same sex marriage.  "We look forward to working
with both Gibson Dunn and Cooper & Kirk," Mr. Hume said.


WORLD FAMOUS: Recalls North 49 Air Horn
---------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 31, 2013
Posting date:                         July 31, 2013
Type of communication:                Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:                          Specialized Products
Source of recall:                     Health Canada
Issue:                                Product Safety, Labelling
                                      and Packaging
Audience:                             General Public
Identification number:                RA-34763

Affected products: North 49 Air Horn

The recall involves the North 49 Air Horn.  The product is used to
generate loud noise for different outdoor events such as sporting
events and marine use.  The product is sold in an aerosol can and
the contents are under pressure.  The product can be identified by
item number 2870 and UPC 069808028708.

The recalled products do not have the mandatory labelling required
under Canadian Law.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/o9JtiB

This consumer chemical product lacks the explosive hazard symbol
and warnings required by the Consumer Chemical and Container
Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
The lack of appropriate hazard symbol and bilingual warnings on
the label could result in improper handling and lead to serious
injury.

Health Canada received one incident report resulting in property
damage.  World Famous Sales of Canada Inc. also received one
incident report.  No injuries were reported related to the use of
this product.

Approximately 5,958 units of North 49 Air Horn were sold in Canada

The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from
September 2011 to June 2013.

Companies:

   Distributor     World Famous Sales of Canada Inc.
                   Concord
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and
return it to the store where it was purchased.  The store will
give a credit or an exchange for a replacement product with the
correct label.


WYETH PHARMA: Settles Off-Label Marketing Suit for $490.9 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Huisman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a Pfizer Inc. subsidiary on July 30 entered into a $490.9
million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve
civil and criminal allegations of off-label pharmaceutical
marketing abuses.

The complaint alleged that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., acquired by
Pfizer in 2009, illegally marketed its immunosuppressant drug
Rapamune, which is intended to help kidney patients accept
transplanted organs.  From 1998 through 2009, Wyeth allegedly
instructed sales representatives to promote the drug for
unapproved uses to boost sales.

"FDA's drug approval process ensures companies market their
products for uses proven safe and effective," Stuart Delery,
acting assistant attorney general for the civil division, said in
a written statement.  "We will hold accountable those who put
patients' health at risk in pursuit of financial gain."

Wyeth pleaded guilty to criminal misbranding under the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and will pay a criminal fine of
$157.58 million and forfeit $76 million.  A $257.4 million civil
settlement will go to the federal government and states including
Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and the District of
Columbia.

The complaint, filed in 2005 by whistleblowers Marlene Sandler and
Scott Paris, two former sales representatives, accused Wyeth of
hyping Rapamune for use in transplants of organs other than
kidneys and in place of or in combination with other
immunosuppressants.

In 2006, the DOJ declined to intervene in the case, a decision it
reversed in 2010 following an inquiry by the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.

Representing Sandler and Paris were Grant & Eisenhofer director
Reuben Guttman -- rguttman@gelaw.com -- and senior counsel Traci
Buschner -- tbuschner@gelaw.com

Wyeth and Pfizer were represented by Montgomery McCracken Walker &
Rhoads chairman Richard Scheff --
rscheff@mmwr.com -- and associate Erin Dougherty --
edougherty@mmwr.com

Neither Mer. Scheff nor Ms. Dougherty responded to a request for
comment.

"You've got a case that speaks to countless patients whose medical
regimens were dictated by marketing schemes and money as opposed
to being dictated solely by medical rationale," Mr. Guttman said
in an interview.  "It's not just about money, it's about people."

Mr. Guttman pointed to additional False Claims Act litigation
outcomes, including last year's $1.5 billion settlement with
Abbott Laboratories Inc., as evidence that problems persist in the
health care industry.  "It shows the vulnerability of the health
care system in the United States," he said.


YUM! BRANDS: 9th Circuit Dismissed "Moeller" Suit Appeal in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed in June
2013 the plaintiff's appeal in the class action lawsuit styled
Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2013.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant
in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint alleging, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 200
Company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
The Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural
and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to
the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S.
Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil
Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons
Act (the "CDPA").  The Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an
injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply
with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the
District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the
Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh
Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the
minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the
Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of
the class.  The Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of
100,000 individuals in the class.  In February 2004, the District
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
class included claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory
damages.

In May 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was
in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues:
indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  In August
2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to
dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion in part with regard to door opening force at some
restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to
queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered the plaintiffs to
select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial.  The trial for
the exemplar restaurant began on June 6, 2011, and on October 5,
2011, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide injunctive
relief was warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to
corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California.  The court declined
to order injunctive relief at the time, however, citing the
pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive
and damages class.  The court also found that twelve specific
items at the exemplar store were once out of compliance with
applicable state and/or federal accessibility standards.

Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011,
and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
decertify the previously certified state law damages class but
denied Taco Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief
class.  On September 13, 2012, the court set a discovery and
briefing schedule concerning the trials of the four individual
plaintiffs' state law damages claims, which the court stated will
be tried before holding further proceedings regarding the possible
issuance of an injunction.  On September 17, 2012, the court
issued an order modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law deleting the statement that an injunction was
warranted.  The Plaintiffs appealed that order, and on June 24,
2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's
appeal.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws.  The costs associated with addressing
these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results
of operations.  The Company has provided for a reasonable estimate
of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit.  However, in view
of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no
assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of
those currently provided for in the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements.  A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that
currently provided for in the Company's Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements cannot be made at this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action lawsuit against YUM!
Brands, Inc., is currently pending in Kentucky, according to the
Company's July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2013.

Beginning on January 24, 2013, four purported class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and certain of its executive
officers.  The complaints allege claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
purported class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's publicly traded securities between October 9, 2012,
and January 7, 2013 (the "class period").  The Plaintiffs allege
that during the class period, defendants purportedly made
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's current and future business and financial condition,
thereby inflating the prices at which the Company's securities
traded.  The complaints seek damages in an undefined amount.  On
March 25, 2013, two prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions
seeking consolidation of the four actions, appointment as lead
plaintiff, and approval of their selection of counsel.  In
addition, on March 26, 2013, the Company filed a motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky.  On May 1, 2013, the court granted: (1) the Company's
motion to transfer and (2) Frankfurt Trust Investment GMBH's
motions to be appointed lead plaintiff, for consolidation of the
cases and for approval of its selection of class counsel.  The
cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California were therefore closed, and the consolidated case is
now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky.  The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously
defend against all claims in these complaints.  A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Rosales" Suit to Submit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit initiated by Marisela
Rosales are in the process of submitting their settlement for
court approval, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 16, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 15, 2013.

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions.  Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer
the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case.  The state court granted Taco Bell's motion
to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010.  After the September
2011 denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her
lawsuit, which the plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012.
Taco Bell filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and
the plaintiff has since filed two additional amended complaints.
On May 22, 2013, the parties agreed to settle this matter.  The
parties are in the process of submitting the settlement to the
court for approval.  The Company says the costs associated with
the settlement were not material.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Whittington" Suit to Submit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit filed by Jacquelyn
Whittington are in the process of submitting their settlement for
court approval, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July 16, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 15, 2013.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado. The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week. The Company has been
dismissed from the case without prejudice. Taco Bell filed its
answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class
discovery. On September 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed their motion
for conditional certification under the FLSA. The court heard
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under the FLSA on
January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification and ordered
the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative class
members. Approximately 488 individuals submitted opt-in forms. On
June 14, 2013, the parties agreed to settle this matter. The
parties are in the process of submitting the settlement to the
court for approval. The costs associated with the settlement were
not material.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Still Finalizing List of Opt-ins in "Smith" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc., disclosed in its July 16, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 15, 2013, that parties in the class action
lawsuit commenced by Mark Smith against a subsidiary of YUM!
Brands, Inc., are still working to finalize the list of class opt-
ins.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.  The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did
not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile
costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to
represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.  On January 4,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification
of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc.
delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the court granted
Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but,
in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class
action claims under the laws of sixteen different states.  Pizza
Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and the
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.
On August 9, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend.  Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza
Hut's motion with respect to the plaintiffs' state law claims but
allowed the FLSA claims to go forward.  The Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, and the
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion April 21, 2012.  The opt-in
period closed on August 23, 2012, and the parties are working to
finalize the list of opt-ins.  The final number has yet to be
determined but is expected to be approximately 6,000.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary, Taco Bell Corp., was named as a
defendant in a number of putative class action lawsuits filed in
2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor
laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on
termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay
minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage
statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination,
discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200.  Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged
violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private
Attorneys General Act as well as statutory "waiting time"
penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair Business
Practices Act.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent a California
state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June
2009, and in March 2010, the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.  The
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the
vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on
September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the
certification of the vacation and final pay claims.  The
Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest
break classes.  On January 2, 2013, the District Court rejected
three of the proposed classes but granted certification with
respect to the late meal break class.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 16, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 15, 2013.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


* Judge Strikes Down Regulations on Debit-Card Transaction Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge on July 31 struck down federal regulations on debit-
card transaction fees, finding that the Federal Reserve adopted
rules that "inappropriately" inflated fees by billions of dollars.

The decision was a win for retailers and retail trade associations
that challenged the debit-transaction regulations adopted by the
Fed in 2011.  The agency, the retailers claimed, ignored Congress'
directives to consider only certain costs in setting the fee
standard and, as a result, set it too high.

The ruling won't change transaction fees just yet, though. U.S.
District Judge Richard Leon ordered the Federal Reserve to vacate
the rules, but simultaneously said he would stay that order to
give the agency time to replace the problematic sections.  Judge
Leon asked the parties to weigh in on the length of the stay,
noting that he was leaning towards "months, not years."

Steptoe & Johnson partners Shannen Coffin -- scoffin@steptoe.com
-- and Linda Bailey -- lbailey@steptoe.com -- were lead counsel
for the retailers.  Firm partner Douglas Kantor, who also serves
as general counsel for plaintiff NACS (formerly the National
Association of Convenience Stores) said the decision meant "the
reform of the interchange fees ought to be what it should have
been in the first place, which is a real change to allow for
merchants and consumers to save more money and transactions to be
more efficient."

A spokesperson for the Federal Reserve was not immediately
available for comment.

Under a provision of the Dodd Frank Act known as the Durbin
Amendment, the Federal Reserve was tasked in 2010 with developing
a new standard for debit-transaction fees and regulating the how
they are routed over networks. The Fed adopted a final rule
allowing financial institutions that issued debit cards to receive
up to 21 cents per transaction.

The fee covered costs related to the "authorization, clearance, or
settlement" of a debit transaction, as required by the Durbin
Amendment.  In addition, the Fed's standard included other costs
related to a transaction -- such as the software or hardware used
-- and transaction monitoring, as well as network processing fees.
In addition to the 21 cents, the issuers could recover a certain
percentage of the transaction's value to cover losses from fraud.

In November, a group of six retailers and trade association sued
the Federal Reserve.  The plaintiffs included NACS, the National
Retail Federation, the Food Marketing Institute, Miller Oil Co.
Inc., Boscov's Department Store LLC and the National Restaurant
Association.

The retailers argued that Congress only intended the Fed to
consider costs related to the "authorization, clearance, or
settlement" of a debit transaction and barred the agency from
considering "other costs."  The Fed said the Durbin Amendment was
silent on whether the agency could consider other costs specific
to a transaction but not "authorization, clearance, or settlement"
costs -- meaning it had discretion to decide.

The judge rejected the Fed's position, saying he had "no
difficulty" (emphasis in original) finding Congress explicitly
divided the costs associated with debit-card transaction fees into
two categories: the "authorization, clearance, or settlement"
costs, which the Fed could consider in setting the fee standard,
and all "other costs," which it could not.  The other costs
included in the Fed's standard, the judge wrote, from the fraud-
loss coverage to network processing fees, weren't what Congress
intended.

By including the other costs, Judge Leon said, the Fed's final
rule significantly increased rates for small-ticket debit
transactions under $12, which it wasn't supposed to do under the
Durbin Amendment.

"Ultimately, the Board asserts that it was given broad discretion
to fill statutory gaps in establishing the interchange transaction
fee standard," Judge Leon wrote.  "But even if this were true,
which it is not, such discretion does not give the Board the
authority to ignore the expressed will of Congress."

Judge Leon said the Fed also ran afoul of Congress' intent in how
it regulated the networks used in debit transactions.  Under the
Durbin Amendment, the Fed was supposed to come up with rules that
would give merchants more choices in what networks they could use
to process transactions.

The agency required at least two unaffiliated networks for each
debit card.  The plaintiffs argued Congress wanted merchants to
have more choices per transaction, and that requiring two
unaffiliated networks per debit card was too limiting because
there were multiple ways consumers could authenticate debit
transactions (entering a PIN or using a signature being the
primary methods).

"Congress adopted the network non-exclusivity and routing
provisions to ensure that for multiple unaffiliated routing
options were available for each debit card transaction, regardless
of the method of authentication," Judge Leon wrote.  "The Board's
Final Rule not only fails to carry out Congress's intention; it
effectively countermands it!"

A status conference is scheduled for August 14.


* Origin of Cyclospora-Linked Salad Mix Not in Iowa & Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Schultemary and Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated
Press, report that a food-safety inspector said on July 31 that
most, if not all, of the prepackaged salad mix that sickened
hundreds of people in Iowa and Nebraska wasn't grown in either
state.

Iowa Food and Consumer Safety Bureau chief Steven Mandernach said
at least 80 percent of the vegetables were grown and processed
outside both states' jurisdictions.  Mr. Mandernach said officials
haven't confirmed the origins of 20 percent and may never know
because victims can't always remember what they ate.

Officials have said the salad was infected with cyclospora, a rare
parasite that causes a lengthy gastrointestinal illness.
Outbreaks have been reported in 15 states, although it's not clear
whether they're connected.

Iowa law allows public health officials to withhold the identities
of any person or business affected by an outbreak.  However,
business names can be released to the public if the state
epidemiologist or public health director determines that
disclosing the information is needed to protect public safety.

Mr. Mandernach said there is no immediate threat, so his office is
not required to release information about where the product came
from.  He said state officials believe the affected salad has
already spoiled and is no longer in the supply chain.

Food-safety and consumer advocates say the agencies shouldn't
withhold the information.

"It's not clear what the policy is, and at the very least they owe
it to us to explain why they come down this way," said Sandra
Eskin, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts' food safety project.
"I think many people wonder if this is all because of possible
litigation."

Bill Marler, a Seattle attorney who specializes in class-action
food-safety lawsuits, said withholding the information can create
general fears that damage the reputation of good actors in food
production.  Mr. Marler said consumers should be allowed to decide
for themselves whether to shop and grocery stores or eat at
restaurants where tainted produce was sold.  Some states also are
slow to interview infected people, he said, which reduces the
chances that they remember where they ate.

"If you want the free market to work properly, then you need to
let people have the information they need to make informed
decisions," he said.

The Food and Drug Administration said on July 31 that it didn't
have enough information to name a possible source of the outbreak.
In the past, the agencies have at times declined to ever name a
source of an outbreak, referring to "Restaurant A" or using vague
terms.

                       Lack of Information

Nearly 400 people across the country have been sickened by
cyclospora, a lengthy intestinal illness usually contracted by
eating contaminated food.  But if you're looking to find out
exactly where it came from, you may be out of luck.

Federal officials warned on July 31 that it was too early to say
whether the outbreak of the rare parasite reported in at least 15
states was over.

Health officials in Nebraska and Iowa say they've traced cases
there to prepackaged salad.  They haven't revealed the company
that packaged the salad or where it was sold, explaining only that
most if not all of it wasn't grown locally.

The lack of information has fueled concern from consumers and food
safety advocates who argue that companies should be held
accountable when outbreaks happen and customers need the
information about where outbreaks came from to make smart food
choices.

Mark Hutson, who owns a Save-Mart grocery story in Lincoln, Neb.,
said he was unaware of customers who had raised concern about the
product, which was unusual in situations involving foodborne
illnesses.  But Mr. Hutson said the lack of specific brand
information threatened to hurt all providers, including the good
actors that did nothing wrong.

"I think there was so little information as to what was causing
the problem, that people just weren't sure what to do," he said.
"Frankly, we would prefer to have the names out there."

Authorities said they still hadn't determined whether the cases of
cyclospora in the different states are connected.

"It's too early to say for sure whether it's over, and thus too
early to say there's no risk of still getting sick," said María-
Belén Moran, spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Only Iowa and Nebraska officials had directly linked the outbreak
in their states to a salad mix of iceberg and romaine lettuce,
carrots and red cabbage.

Heath authorities in California, which provides much of the
nation's leafy green produce, said on July 31 the state had not
received any reports of cyclospora cases.

"Based on the most currently available information, the leafy
greens being implicated in this outbreak were not grown or
processed in California," added spokesman Corey Egel in a
statement to the Associated Press.

Still, grocery shoppers far from known outbreak areas acknowledged
it was a factor as they shopped for produce.

"I can't say I really want to go and buy particularly any lettuce
right now," said Laura Flanagan, 35, who was shopping at a Whole
Foods in Dallas with her two young children.  "I'm being pretty
cautious about it."

The product was widely distributed in Iowa by wholesalers who
could have supplied the bagged salad mix to all types of food
establishments, including restaurants and grocery stores, said
Iowa Food and Consumer Safety Bureau chief Steven Mandernach.

Nebraska public health officials said they still hadn't traced the
exact origins of the outbreaks.

"I am by no means giving all-clear, green light on the issue,"
said Dr. Joseph Acierno, the state's chief medical officer and
director of public health.  "We're encouraging the medical
community to stay vigilant."

Some states also are slow to interview infected people, he said,
which reduces the chances that they remember where they ate.

The Food and Drug Administration said on July 31 that it didn't
have enough information to name a possible source of the outbreak.
In the past, the agencies have at times declined to ever name a
source of an outbreak, referring to "Restaurant A" or using vague
terms.

Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest says that the decision to withhold a company's name may
not only hurt consumers but the food industry, as well.  When an
item is generally implicated but officials give few specifics,
like with the bagged salad, people may stop buying the product
altogether.

"I think consumers need more information to make good buying
decisions," she said.

Responsibility for disclosing the names of businesses involved
general falls to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because
their authority crosses state lines, said Doug Farquhar, a program
director with the National Conference of State Legislatures. Mr.
Farquhar said most states have laws that prohibit the disclosure
of businesses that are affected by a foodborne illness.

"In some cases, states go 'rogue' and release the names without
FDA approval, in the name of public safety," Mr. Farquhar said.
"But for the most part, states prefer to let the FDA release the
names and take the heat.


* Severe NFL Injuries Rise From 2009 to 2012, NFL Data Show
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fendrich, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
sure didn't take long for some significant injuries at NFL
training camps -- Philadelphia Eagles receiver Jeremy Maclin,
Baltimore Ravens tight end Dennis Pitta, Denver Broncos center Dan
Koppen, to name only three.

Immediately, some theories developed: Too much offseason work. Not
enough.  New labor-contract rules limiting padded practices to one
per day, while generally seen as helpful, are hardly a cure-all.

Washington Redskins linebacker London Fletcher thinks some guys
get hurt in camp because players are trying so hard to impress
coaches and earn a roster spot or a starting job.

"You know now coaches are really evaluating you," said Mr.
Fletcher, whose teammate, second-year linebacker Keenan Robinson,
tore his left pectoral muscle on Day 1 of training camp.  "You've
got guys with a competitive spirit and they're looking at it,
like, 'My job's on the line.  I need to make a play' and not
realizing there's going to be times to show that coaches that you
can hit, you can make plays in preseason games, but you don't want
to have a guy go down because of something that happened in
practice."

Whatever the cause, severe injuries are increasing in the NFL
lately.  The number of injuries that forced a player to miss at
least eight days jumped every year from 2009 to 2012, according to
an analysis of NFL injury data released on July 31.  The study by
Edgeworth Economics, based on information collected by the league,
also shows that players with concussions missed an average of 16
days last season, up from only four days in 2005, while the length
of time out for other types of injuries has been steadier.

"Severe injuries are increasing in frequency," Jesse David, the
economist overseeing the study, said in a telephone interview from
Pasadena, Calif.  "I know that's a very important issue for both
the players' association and the league -- trying to tweak the
rules and the equipment to deal with that.  But despite everything
they've been doing, it's still going on."

Mr. David said his company has done consulting for the NFL Players
Association in the past and received the data for this study from
the union, but wasn't paid by it.

The study says there were 1,095 instances of injuries sidelining a
player for eight or more days in 2009 -- including practices and
games in the preseason, regular season and postseason -- and that
climbed to 1,272 in 2010, 1,380 in 2011, and 1,496 in 2012.
That's an increase of 37 percent.

"The way I look at it, really, is that injuries are part of the
game," said cornerback Kyle Wilson of the New York Jets, who lost
another cornerback, Aaron Berry, for the season when he tore a
knee ligament on the first day of practice last week.

"Injuries happen sometimes.  They're unfortunate, but it really is
just part of the game."

Concussions have become a far-more-noticed part of football in
recent years, with more discussion of the links between head
injuries and brain disease, hundreds of lawsuits brought by
thousands of former players, and rules changes made by the NFL to
try to better protect players.

During the nine years examined in Mr. David's study, the average
number of days missed because of head injuries by players in the
league went from 4.8 in 2004, four in 2005, and 4.1 in 2006, to
10.9 in 2010, 12 in 2011, and 16 last season.

"We have experts at practice every day to let you know, as a
coach, if someone does have a concussion, so that makes it pretty
easy.  They leave it out of our hands; they put in the experts'
hands," Redskins coach Mike Shanahan said.  "But, yeah, I think
there's more awareness in a lot of different areas when it comes
to injuries over the last few years, and rightfully so."

Mr. David said "you now have more severe injuries overall" because
of the hike in lengthy absences for reported concussions.

"Are the brain injuries actually more severe now than they were
five years ago? Or is that players simply being held out longer
for the same injury? That we can't tell from the data," Mr. David
said.  "My guess is it's both, but how much of each factor, I
don't know."

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, who said the league will look at the
study's findings, attributed the longer absences for players with
concussions to more caution in the treatment of those types of
injuries.

"We do know that the game is safer now, but we still have work to
do.  We continue to work hard on many fronts to make the game
better and safer for our sport at all levels," Mr. McCarthy wrote
in an email.  "Our ongoing efforts include making rule changes
designed to take dangerous techniques out of the game and also
improving medical care to properly manage and treat concussions
and raise awareness of their seriousness."


                             *********

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  * * *