CAR_Public/130812.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 12, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 157

                             Headlines


1ST CENTENNIAL: Class Action May Require More Representatives
AIR CANADA: US Transportation Tax Class Action Partially Stayed
APPLE INC: Still Faces iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation
APPLE INC: Publishers Object to Agency Agreement Ban
AT&T PENSION: Motion for Payment of Attorney's Fees Approved

BMW AG: Recalls 541 X5 Model SUVs in Canada
BP PLC: Ordered to Pay $130MM to Settlement Administrator
BP PLC: Ordered to Explain Refusal to Pay Settlement Administrator
BP PLC: Asks Judge to Halt Settlement Payments for Third Time
CHOBANI INC: Judge Denies Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel

CLIC: Sesame Paste Tahina Recalled in Canada Due to Salmonella
CONAIR CONSUMER: Recalls Cuisinart 7-Cup (1.75 L) Food Processor
CR BARD: Sept. Hearing Set for Suit Over Composix Kugel in Canada
CR BARD: Trial in Women's Health Product Claims to Continue
CR BARD: Filter Product Claims Hearing Expected in Coming Months

DJO FINANCE: Defends Product Liability Suits Over Pain Pumps
EQUINIX INC: Plaintiffs Agree Not to Appeal Suit Dismissal
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
EXPEDIA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Hotel Booking Practices
FANNIE MAE: Bid to Alter Judgment in "Vadnais" Case Denied

FISHER COMMUNICATIONS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
GRUPO AVAL: Defends Suits Over Pension and Severance Funds
JAGUAR: Recalls 183 XK Model Cars in Canada
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Aluminum Antitrust Class Action
LOAD SYSTEMS: Recalls Wind Speed Sensors Due to Injury Risk

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accord in Suit by Retirement System Now Approved
MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Schneider Foods Brand Chicken Wings
MASS MUTUAL: "Boys" Suit Transferred to N.J. District Court
MCDONALD'S CORP: Disputes Class Action Over Debit Payroll Cards
MEDTRONIC INC: Aug. 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

MITCHELL STAVE: Patient Sustained Permanent Injuries, Suit Says
MOD-PAC CORP: Four Merger-Related Class Suits Consolidated
NAVISTAR INT'L: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Stockholders' Suit
NEW YORK, NY: NYPD to Purge Stop-Frisk Database Under Settlement
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Certification of Fuel Surcharges Suit on Appeal

OLAM TOMATO: Recalls Salsa After Glass Found in Some Jars
OMNICARE INC: Dismissal of Kentucky Securities Suit Under Appeal
OMNICARE INC: Petition for Rehearing of Pension Fund Suit Denied
OMNICOM GROUP: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Publicis Merger
PANERA BREAD: Pays $3.7MM Part of Accord in Calif. Labor Suit

PENGUIN GROUP: Wants Class Action Over Armstrong's Book Dismissed
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
SAM'S CLUB: Federal Appeals Court Vacates Class Certification
SEI INVESTMENTS: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of ETF-Related Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Class Suit

SUPERVALU INC: 8th Cir. Remands Suit by Consumer Goods Maker
SUPERVALU INC: Court Certifies Suit Over FWW Pay v. Save-A-Lot
SYSTEM4 LLC: Employment Lawyer Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 342,000 Vehicles Over Seat Belt Flaw
TOYSMITH OF SUMNER: Recalls Light-Up Toy Frogs and Ducks

UNITED STATES: Suit v. Black Farmers Class Action Lawyers Nixed
UNITIL CORP: "Bellerman" Plaintiffs Appeal Class Cert. Denial
US AIRWAYS: Faces Suits Over Planned Merger With AMR Corporation
WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Continues to Defend Iowa Suit
ZEALANDIA HOLDING: Timeshare Owners File Class Action

* Oyster and Clam Products Recalled in the U.S., Canada


                             *********


1ST CENTENNIAL: Class Action May Require More Representatives
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2011, shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo
LLP disclosed that an investor commenced a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired 1st
Centennial Bancorp common stock between March 9, 2007 and
January 23, 2009, against certain of 1st Centennial's former
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  This press release is being published to alert
shareholders about recent events in the Action.

The Action Seeks Redress for 1st Centennial's Alleged False and
Misleading Statements Made By the Company's Officers and Directors

The complaint alleges that certain of 1st Centennial's former
officers and directors made materially false and misleading
statements during the class period in press releases and filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding 1st
Centennial's financial health and business prospects.  On June 25,
2013, the Court held that a statement made on August 7, 2008,
satisfied legal standards for stating a securities fraud claim,
but dismissed the remaining class claims, potentially narrowing
the class to shareholders who purchased 1st Centennial common
stock between August 7, 2008 and January 23, 2009.

The Claims Asserted on Behalf of 1st Centennial May Be Stronger if
Another 1st Centennial Shareholder Is Substituted as Class
Representative

The Action and the likelihood of a class being certified may be
considered stronger if another 1st Centennial shareholder is
substituted and/or added as a class representative in the lawsuit.
Dismissal of the Action may bar any other action bringing the same
claims asserted in this Action because the applicable limitation
periods may have expired.

If you purchased 1st Centennial stock between August 7, 2008 and
January 23, 2009, and wish to serve as a class representative,
please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003,
ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the shareholder information form
on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
securities litigation and shareholder rights law firm.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped
its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested.


AIR CANADA: US Transportation Tax Class Action Partially Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos P. Martins, Esq. -- cmartins@lexcanada.com -- at Bersenas
Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP reports that on several
occasions US resident Teri Prince purchased tickets on the Air
Canada website for travel exclusively within Canada.  On each
occasion she was charged the "US transportation charge" and the
"US flight segment tax" because she was resident in the United
States.

Matthew Wallach, another Air Canada customer, booked a ticket from
Los Angeles to Calgary while he was in Canada.  He was charged the
US transportation charge and the "US passenger facility service
charge" (although the latter charge should have been identified as
"international travel facilities tax").

The following issues should be noted:

   * The US transportation tax and US flight segment tax are
imposed under Sections 4261(a) and (b) of the US Internal Revenue
Code on taxable transportation.

   * 'Taxable transportation' is defined as transportation that
begins and ends in the United States or the 225-mile zone. The
term '225-mile zone' means the portion of Canada and Mexico that
is no more than 225 miles from the nearest point in the
continental United States.

   * Section 4261(e)(2) of the Code provides that where amounts
are "paid outside the United States for taxable transportation,
the taxes imposed by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if
such transportation begins and ends in the United States".

Class action

The plaintiffs commenced a prospective class action, alleging
that:

   * with respect to tickets purchased in Canada:

        Air Canada collected taxes under the code when flights did
not begin and end in the United States (the 'improper collection'
argument); and

        Air Canada collected US taxes on tickets purchased in
Canada, thereby giving unlawful extraterritorial effect to the US
tax laws in Canada (the 'extra-territorial' argument); and

   * with respect to tickets purchased in the United States, only
the extraterritorial argument was advanced.

The plaintiffs further alleged that Air Canada negligently
misrepresented that the US taxes had to be paid as a condition of
carriage.

Decision

In response, Air Canada brought a motion before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice seeking a declaration that the court had
no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and, in the alternative,
that it should exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction.

In making this argument, Air Canada conceded that it carried on
business in Ontario and that there was a real and substantial
connection to Ontario such that the court could assume
jurisdiction (as in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17).

However, Air Canada argued that the court was precluded from
hearing the case as a result of the 'revenue' rule, which arose in
United States of America v Harden ([1963] SCR 366).  In that case,
the Supreme Court held that Canadian courts should not enforce
foreign revenue laws or judgments either directly or indirectly.

The court did not accept Air Canada's argument.  Rather, it held
that Harden was an "enforcement rule", and that it stood only for
the proposition that foreign states may not sue in Canada for
taxes due under the law of a foreign state.

As a result, the court held that the revenue rule did not apply
because the court was not being asked to enforce a claim by the US
government for the recovery of taxes.  Rather, the issue was
whether Air Canada was entitled to and had properly collected
amounts from its customers on ticket purchases.

The issue then turned to whether the action should be stayed in
any event on the basis of forum non conveniens (ie, inconvenient
forum).  Air Canada argued that the case should be dealt with by
the US courts because they are the experts on their own tax
legislation.  The court noted that this is no different from other
cases where a Canadian court is called on to consider a foreign
law to determine a Canadian dispute.

In any event, the court conducted a Van Breda analysis to
determine this portion of the motion.

In the case of tickets that were purchased in Canada, the court
found that the action could proceed before the Ontario courts
because:

   * it was not more appropriate for a foreign court to determine
whether Air Canada's charges to its customers in Canada were
lawful in Canada;

   * the court found that a US court would not be better suited to
determine whether the amounts collected were "paid outside the
United States" or whether "transportation begins and ends in the
United States";
   * Air Canada is located in Canada and carries on business in
Ontario;

   * one of the plaintiffs was a Canadian resident;

   * witnesses were located in both Canada and the United States;

   * the tickets were purchased in Ontario; and

   * Air Canada's expert testified that if the case were
transferred to the United States, each of the plaintiffs and each
of the class members would have to apply for an administrative
refund from the Internal Revenue Service -- which would subject
them to an additional procedural step before they could commence
their improper collection portion of the claim.

As a result, the court found that the claims for the tickets
purchased in Canada could proceed in the Ontario courts.

As to the claims for tickets purchased in the United States, the
court reached a different conclusion.  It should be recalled that
these claims advanced only the extraterritorial argument.

The plaintiffs argued, with no supporting jurisprudential
authority, that the matter was suitable for the Canadian courts
because the ticket related to travel within Canada.  Moreover, the
issue of whether Air Canada had authority to collect this tax was
a matter of Canadian law.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' framing of issues in this
manner and held that "a Canadian court should not be adjudicating
any matters relating to the imposition and collection of taxes on
transactions occurring within the United States.  To do so would
constitute an interference with U.S. tax sovereignty."

The court also rejected the argument that the extraterritorial
argument should also be heard in Canada to avoid a multiplicity of
proceedings.  The court found that the improper collection and
extraterritorial arguments were fundamentally different -- and
therefore there was no unfairness in severing them.  The claims
relating to tickets purchased in the United States was stayed
(Prince v ACE Aviation and Air Canada, 2013 ONSC 2906 (CanLII)).


APPLE INC: Still Faces iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. continues to face the suits: The Apple iPod iTunes
Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc.
and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.) and Somers v. Apple Inc.,
according to Apple Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
29, 2013.

These related cases were filed on January 3, 2005, July 21, 2006
and December 31, 2007 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of
direct and indirect purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content,
alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music
and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods
and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power
under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act,
California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 (unfair
competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California monopolization law.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for the class, treble damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys fees.

Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights management free
versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an order requiring
the Company to license its digital rights management to all
competing music players. The cases are currently pending.


APPLE INC: Publishers Object to Agency Agreement Ban
----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that publishers who settled an
electronic book pricing dispute with the federal government say
they object to penalties the government wants to impose on Apple
Inc.

A judge ruled in an antitrust case last month that Cupertino,
Calif.-based Apple joined a conspiracy to inflate e-book prices.
The trial revealed prices rose after Apple signed so-called agency
agreements with publishers in 2010.  In such agreements,
publishers set prices for each title, rather than retailers.

The publishers submitted papers on Aug. 7 in Manhattan federal
court that challenge the government's proposed remedy against
Apple in the case.

The government seeks to ban Apple from entering into agency
agreements for five years.  The publishers say that penalizes
them, not Apple.

A government spokeswoman defended the proposed deal, saying
settlements with publishers would not be affected.


AT&T PENSION: Motion for Payment of Attorney's Fees Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the plaintiff's motion for
attorney's fees in the case captioned QUILLER BARNES, Plaintiff,
v. AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN -- NONBARGAINED PROGRAM Defendant,
NO. C-08-4058 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Quiller Barnes initiated this action on behalf of
himself and a class, asserting that Defendant AT&T Pension Benefit
Plan -- Nonbargained Program owed them additional benefits. Mr.
Barnes asserted five claims for relief. On May 10, 2012, the Court
addressed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on three
of the claims. The Court granted Mr. Barnes summary judgment on
Count I of the complaint but granted the Defendant Plan summary
judgment on Counts II and V. Subsequently, the parties stipulated
to dismissal of Counts III and IV.

Mr. Barnes has appealed, inter alia, the Court's summary judgment
order to the Ninth Circuit. In the meantime, currently pending
before the Court is Mr. Barnes's motion for attorney's fees and
nontaxable costs. Mr. Barnes is asking for more than $1.3 million
in fees and $75,000 in costs.

The Court grants Mr. Barnes's motion, and costs in the amount of
$75,867.85 are awarded.  However, the Courts orders the parties to
provide supplemental briefing so that the Court may determine what
the exact amount of fees awarded should be. Accordingly, the Court
deferred a ruling on the specific amount until after the parties
have filed supplemental briefs.

The Court said it will advise the parties if an additional hearing
is needed after it has had an opportunity to review the
supplemental briefs.

A copy of the District Court's July 26, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/8xJvMBfrom Leagle.com.

Quiller Barnes, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Frank Rinaldi --
brinaldi@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Cassie Springer -- css@ssrlawgroup.com -- at Springer &
Roberts LLP, Michelle Lee Roberts -- michelle@ssrlawgroup.com --
at Springer & Roberts LLP & R. Joseph Barton --
jbarton@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.

AT&T Pension Benefit Plan-NonBargained Program, Defendant,
represented by M'Alyssa Christianne Mecenas --
malyssa.mecenas@gmail.com -- at Paul Hastings LLP, Patrick W. Shea
-- patrickshea@paulhastings.com -- at Paul Hastings LLP, Regan
A.W. Herald -- reganherald@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP &
Stephen Henry Harris -- stephenharris@paulhastings.com -- at Paul
Hastings LLP.


BMW AG: Recalls 541 X5 Model SUVs in Canada
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           541
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013266
TC ID number:             2013266

Affected products:

   Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----      ----------------------
   BMW       X5        2009, 2010

On certain vehicles equipped with a diesel engine, the fuel filter
heater (used for warming diesel fuel during vehicle operation at
low ambient air temperature) could malfunction.  This could allow
permanent activation of the fuel filter heater, including
activation on a parked vehicle with the ignition in the OFF
position, which could drain the battery.  A discharged battery
would prevent engine start-up.  In certain cases the heater unit
could overheat, which could result in a vehicle fire causing
property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the fuel filter heater assembly.


BP PLC: Ordered to Pay $130MM to Settlement Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal magistrate on Aug. 7 ordered BP to pay more than $130
million in fees to the court-supervised administrator of its
multibillion-dollar settlement with Gulf Coast businesses and
residents after the company's 2010 oil spill.

The ruling comes as BP tries to temporarily block claims payments
while former FBI Director Louis Freeh investigates allegations of
misconduct by an attorney who worked on the settlement program.
BP also has complained of broader problems in the program run by
court-appointed claims administrator Patrick Juneau.

U.S. Magistrate Sally Shushan ruled that BP is obligated to fund
the settlement program's third-quarter budget even though she
concluded the company raised "legitimate concerns" about Juneau's
operations.  But Judge Shushan also ordered BP to pay for the
first month of Juneau's fourth-quarter expenses.

Only hours later, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is
overseeing the oil spill settlement, upheld her ruling, after BP
filed an appeal.  Judge Shushan had given both sides until 2 p.m.
to appeal her ruling.

In a letter on Aug. 5, BP claims official Maria Travis said
Juneau's office hasn't provided adequate documentation for the
money it requested.  Travis also alleged that the program has been
plagued by poor productivity and excessive costs.

Judge Shushan said that while the dispute over claims
documentation was regrettable, that there was no way she could cut
off funding for administration of the program on such short
notice.  "People are dependent. Jobs are dependent. We just can't
have that happen," she said.

In ordering BP to pay for the first month of the claim center's
fourth-quarter expenses, the judge said that would give the
parties more time to resolve BP's complaints about Juneau's
budgeting process.  She ruled that Juneau must start submitting
budget proposals 60 days before the start of a quarter, beginning
with his budget for the first quarter of 2014.

BP attorney Keith Moskowitz said it is "patently unreasonable" to
expect BP to pay more than $130 million without a more detailed
budget proposal from Juneau. He said the one Juneau submitted in
June was "in summary form without any backup."


"That's simply not how budgets are created. That's now how
businesses are operated," he told Judge Shushan.

Moskowitz said BP is not trying to shut down the program, but
Juneau said the program would be in jeopardy if BP did not cover
its expenses. "We've got bills that are due today," he said.

Juneau also defended his operation and claimed BP's
characterization of his budget request was distorted.  "We give
them what they ask for," he said. "We give it to them in a format
they ask for."

In a separate request, BP has asked a second time for Barbier to
suspend settlement payments until Freeh's investigation is
completed. The federal judge has not yet ruled on that request.
Barbier appointed Freeh, now a private consultant, to investigate.

Lionel H. Sutton III, who resigned from Juneau's office on June
21, has been accused of receiving a portion of settlement proceeds
for claims he referred to a law firm before he went to work for
Juneau.

In a court filing on Aug. 5, BP said there was evidence of
additional fraud: The company said at least two lawyers who have
ruled on appeals of disputed settlement awards were partners at
law firms that have represented claimants and filed claims of
their own for the firms to be compensated. BP also said it
recently learned of allegations that someone employed by the
settlement program at its Mobile, Ala., center helped people
submit fraudulent claims in exchange for a portion of the awards.
Juneau's office suspended that employee and a co-worker who
allegedly helped that employee access claims data.

Based on the fresh allegations, BP renewed its request to delay
claims, which Barbier had previously rejected.


BP PLC: Ordered to Explain Refusal to Pay Settlement Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schleifstein, writing for NOLA.com, reports that a U.S.
magistrate judge has ordered BP to appear in federal court on
Aug. 7 to explain why the company should not be directed to pay a
$130 million bill it was sent to underwrite the cost of operating
the center that is processing billions of dollars in economic
claims covered by a settlement between BP and private claimants
last year.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan issued the "show cause" order
late on Aug. 6, after being forwarded a BP letter sent to the
Deepwater Horizon Settlement Program that says BP won't pay the
third-quarter advance payment of $130.3 million to operate the
office, until the company is convinced the claims program is being
operated properly.

The refusal to pay the bill was contained in an Aug. 3 letter from
Maria Travis, BP's Gulf Coast Restoration Office claims
administrator, to Bob Levine, a senior official with the claims
office.

It was filed the same day that BP warned the U.S. 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals that a decision by that court upholding U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier's interpretation of rules governing
the payment of business economic claims, which BP is appealing,
would likely result in the multibillion-dollar settlement being
dissolved.

And on Aug. 5, BP filed a motion demanding a temporary halt to the
payment of economic claims until investigations into the operation
of the claims center are completed.  In that motion, the company
presented evidence of what it said was improper payments by an
employee of a Mobile, Ala., claims office, and alleged conflicts
of interest involving attorneys serving on claims appeal panels
whose parent law firms represented claimants participating in the
settlement.  The BP motion also alleged those law firms had filed
their own claims with the center.

The Aug. 5 motion was filed with Judge Barbier, who is overseeing
the settlement and other federal lawsuits against BP stemming from
the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Judge Barbier in mid-July had
dismissed a similar BP motion to halt the payments, after saying
the company had failed to provide evidence of wrongdoing.

BP has been critical of the business economic claims, and said in
a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing that the
company believes its claims liability has grown to $9.6 billion,
from an original estimate of $7.8 billion, and could grow higher
if the rules aren't changed.   The company said that as of the end
of the second quarter, it had booked charges of $42.4 billion
related to the spill, and had nearly used up all of a $20 billion
trust fund set aside to cover claims.

In her Aug. 3 letter to the claims center, Travis said not enough
information was provided to back up the need for the third-quarter
request, pointing out that BP already has paid $500 million for
the claims process.

"Given the absence of whatever supporting analysis, metrics or
explanatory notes the claims administrator relied upon to create
this budget, BP cannot determine if the budget request is
reasonable under the circumstances," she said.  "Furthermore,
based upon our review of recent actual claims processing and
administration results, which show even further declines in
productivity and increases in cost, we continue to have
significant concerns about (the claims program's) poor
productivity and excessive costs.

"It would be unreasonable to approve a budget that validates and
incentivizes the various claims administration vendors to
perpetuate their track record of poor productivity and excessive
costs," she wrote.

Ms. Travis said, for example, two claims contractors identified as
BrownGreer and P&N had spent more than $2 million over what was
budgeted for their costs in the second quarter of 2013.

The letter listed a dozen items that the claims administration
office would have to explain before BP would pay the bill.

In a statement issued late on Aug. 2, claims administrator Patrick
Juneau, who was appointed by Judge Barbier after being recommended
by both BP and the Plaintiff Steering Committee, said he would
appear at the Aug. 7 hearing.

"We will be fully prepared to address and will address the request
of the claims administrator to fund the proposed third-quarter
budget," Mr. Juneau said.


BP PLC: Asks Judge to Halt Settlement Payments for Third Time
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that BP PLC, citing what it called fresh evidence of fraud in the
claims process, once again has asked a federal judge to halt
payments from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement fund.

The company said it had learned within the past week about a
potential conflict involving two members of the claims
administrator's appeals panel who were reviewing payments while
their law firms were submitting claims.  BP's motion for a
preliminary injunction, filed on Aug. 5, did not name the firms or
the appeals panelists.

BP also asserted potential fraud, citing a July 15 tip from its
recently established fraud hotline that an employee at the claims
center in Mobile, Ala., had been assisting family members in
submitting "fraudulent subsistence claims" in exchange for a share
of the payments.

"Previously, the Court expressed concern that BP had not presented
any evidence that the alleged improprieties involved more than the
two isolated employees or actually had resulted in improper
payments.  That is no longer the case," BP attorney Richard
Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a senior partner at
Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, wrote. "Three distinct operations in
the [claims administration process] suffered a breakdown in
prudent management, which demonstrates a 'systemic or widespread
problem.'"

As recently as July 19, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New
Orleans refused to halt payments to individuals and businesses
under the settlement of economic damages, the value of which BP
last month revised to $9.6 billion.  He cited a lack of evidence
of fraud involving two former attorneys for the claims
administrator accused of accepting payments from The Andry Law
Firm in New Orleans, to whom they had once referred oil spill
clients.

Judge Barbier refused a similar request earlier this year, when BP
alleged that the way administrator Patrick Juneau was calculating
claims was leading to "windfall" payments to businesses that
suffered "fictitious losses."  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on that matter July 8.

BP spokeswoman Ellen Moskowitz declined to comment regarding the
latest request.  Nick Gagliano, a spokesman for Mr. Juneau, wrote
in an emailed statement: "As has been the case since day one, we
have investigated all allegations brought to our attention, and
until our investigation is complete, we will not and should not
comment."

Since the appeal panelists were appointed last year, their law
firms have submitted claims for their own losses and represent
claimants, according to BP's motion.  One represented five oil
spill clients asserting claims, while the other had nine
claimants.  When another BP attorney, Keith Moskowitz, alerted the
claims administrator to the conflicts on August 2, Mr. Juneau told
him that one panel lawyer was no longer affiliated with the firm
in question, having left to open his own practice.  Mr. Juneau
disclosed that a third appeals panelist had resigned following the
revelation that his wife had filed an oil spill claim, according
to BP's motion.

"As a result of these conflicts, BP was unknowingly in the
unenviable position of having disputes with claimants decided by
attorneys who, at the same time, were adverse to BP and
essentially suing BP," the company wrote.

As for the tipster's information, a Juneau representative verified
that the employee in Mobile had been suspended and suspect claims
placed on hold, according to a letter attached to BP's motion. A
second employee in Mobile was suspended on July 19 for violating
security protocol by accessing claims data for the first employee,
according to the official.

BP called the revelations proof of a rampant problem, noting that
the overall claims approval rate in that center is three times the
average of other offices.

Last month, Judge Barbier appointed former FBI director Louis
Freeh to investigate the claims process.


CHOBANI INC: Judge Denies Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that Mayer Brown
swung for a TKO against the team of plaintiffs lawyers behind a
recent wave of food labeling litigation.  But in the end, it lost
the food fight.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on Aug. 2 denied Mayer Brown's motion
to disqualify plaintiffs counsel based on their use of an expert
previously consulted by the defendant, yogurt maker Chobani Inc.

In her order, Judge Koh blamed plaintiffs lawyers for not
immediately disclosing their intent to hire EAS Consulting Group
to work on other food labeling litigation once a possible conflict
with Chobani came to light.  However, she called disqualification
too harsh of an action, citing a lack of evidence that FDA
regulatory expert Elizabeth Campbell of EAS had ever disclosed
privileged information to plaintiffs' attorneys.

Judge Koh scolded plaintiffs lawyers for not alerting Chobani as
soon as they became aware EAS had a conflict.  "Plaintiffs'
counsel's failure to make this 'simple phone call' risked
breaching Chobani's confidences, and could have required
plaintiffs' counsel's disqualification," Judge Koh wrote.

"While the failure to take these steps may be 'justly
criticized,'" she added, "it does not justify the potentially
'disastrous' consequences of disqualifying counsel in this case."

Chobani is represented by Mayer Brown L.A. partner Dale Giali --
dgiali@mayerbrown.com

In Kane v. Chobani, 12-2425, plaintiffs accuse Chobani of
misleading customers with "all natural" labeling and by listing
"evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient rather than sugar. The
case is among about three dozen food labeling cases in the
Northern District brought by the same plaintiffs lawyers.

Judge Koh's order disqualifies Campbell and EAS as experts and
prohibits plaintiffs counsel from speaking with them about issues
overlapping with the Chobani litigation.

Don Barrett, the drawling Mississippi plaintiffs lawyer of Big
Tobacco fame, said that won't affect his group's other food
labeling cases.  Mr. Barrett of Barrett Law Group is spearheading
the litigation with Robert Clifford of Clifford Law Offices of
Chicago.  Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates in San Jose is lead
local counsel.

Mr. Barrett said plaintiffs have already replaced Campbell with
another expert who formerly oversaw the Food and Drug
Administration office that drafts food labeling regulations.

"They brought the motion as a tactic, and they were unsuccessful,"
Mr. Barrett said.  "They wasted a lot of the court's time and our
time.  We're now looking forward to dealing with Chobani on the
merits."


CLIC: Sesame Paste Tahina Recalled in Canada Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 6, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:                          Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:                Class 2
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       --
Distribution:                         Quebec, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail
CFIA reference number:                8218

Affected products:

Clic brand of Sesame Paste Tahina with LOT#1432/12 and UPC 0 58504
74095 3

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to consume the Clic brand Tahina because it may be
contaminated with Salmonella.  Pictures of the recalled product is
available at: http://is.gd/qSJtoe

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

The CFIA is working with the importer to remove the affected
product from the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the
effectiveness of the recall.

The product, imported from Lebanon, is affected by this alert.


CONAIR CONSUMER: Recalls Cuisinart 7-Cup (1.75 L) Food Processor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2013
Posting date:             August 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Appliances
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34865

Affected Products: Cuisinart 7-Cup (1.75 L) Food Processor

The recall involves the Cuisinart 7-Cup (1.75 L) Food Processor
with these model MFP-107BCC with 068459080301 UPC and model MFP-
107BCHC with 068459093462 UPC.  The units come in silver and black
chrome.  The model number can be found on the bottom of the food
processor.

If the user overfills the work bowl when using the slicing portion
of the reversible slicing / shredding disc of the product, the
disc can possibly rise and cause the cutting blade to strike the
inner portion of the cover when the unit is running and may create
a potential laceration hazard.  Pictures of the recalled product
is available at: http://is.gd/F6bYP7

Conair Consumer Products ULC has received three reports relating
to the reversible/shredding disc in Canada.  No injuries have been
reported.

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

Approximately 6,598 units of the recalled food processors were
sold in Canada.

The recalled food processors were manufactured in China and sold
from October 2012 to July 2013.

Companies:

   Importer     Conair Consumer Products ULC
                Woodbridge
                Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled food processors
immediately and contact Conair Consumer Products ULC to receive a
replacement lid and reversible slicing/shredding disc.


CR BARD: Sept. Hearing Set for Suit Over Composix Kugel in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing in one of the Canadian class actions
filed against C. R. Bard, Inc. over its Composix Kugel is
scheduled to take place in September 2013, according to the
company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

As of July 18, 2013, approximately 845 federal and 720 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,680
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and three putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, are currently pending against the company with respect
to its Composix Kugel and certain other hernia repair implant
products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").

The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the
Composix Kugel products beginning in December 2005. One of the
U.S. class action lawsuits consolidated ten previously-filed U.S.
class action lawsuits. The putative class actions, none of which
has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii)
compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial
finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. A
class certification hearing in one of the Canadian class actions
is scheduled to take place in September 2013.

Approximately 685 of the state lawsuits, involving individual
claims by approximately 780 plaintiffs, are pending in the
Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in
various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also
generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of
the products.

In June 2007, the Composix Kugel lawsuits and, subsequently, other
hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island. On June 30, 2011,
the company announced that it had reached agreements in principle
with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle the majority of its
existing Hernia Product Claims.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company
continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law
firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product
Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims
that do not settle, including through litigation. The company
cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia
Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


CR BARD: Trial in Women's Health Product Claims to Continue
-----------------------------------------------------------
The first trial in the consolidated Women's Health Product Claims
against C. R. Bard, Inc. commenced in July 2013, and additional
MDL and state court trials are scheduled to continue throughout
2013, according to the company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

As of July 18, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 8,225 plaintiffs have been
filed or asserted against the company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the company's surgical continence products for
women, including its Avaulta line of products.

In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and
three putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the
company (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product
Claims").

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative
class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.

With respect to certain of these claims, the company believes that
one of its suppliers has an obligation to defend and indemnify the
company. In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims
involving solely Avaulta products pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into an MDL in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the
scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits involving
all women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or
distributed by the company.

The company expects additional Women's Health Product Claims
pending in federal courts to be transferred to the MDL in West
Virginia, with the remainder of the Women's Health Product Claims
in other jurisdictions. The first trial in the MDL commenced in
July 2013, and additional MDL and state court trials are scheduled
to continue throughout 2013.

The first trial in a state court was completed in July 2012 and
resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6
million. The company has appealed this decision.

The company does not believe that this verdict is representative
of the potential outcomes of other Women's Health Product Claims.
The case numbers set forth above do not include generic
manufacturer complaints involving women's health products as the
company cannot, based on the allegations in such complaints,
determine whether any of such cases involve the company's women's
health products. While the company intends to vigorously defend
the Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances
that the resolution of these claims will not have a material
adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and/or liquidity.


CR BARD: Filter Product Claims Hearing Expected in Coming Months
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. expects additional trials of Filter Product
Claims to take place over the next 12 months, according to the
company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

As of July 18, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by 31 plaintiffs are currently pending against
the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena
cava filter products.

In addition, three putative class actions were filed against the
company in various state courts (two of which were dismissed
during the second quarter) on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged
to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").

The remaining putative class action, which has not been certified,
seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive damages; (iii) a
judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (iv) attorneys'
fees.

A class certification hearing is scheduled to take place in July
2013. The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June
2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company. The company
expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place
over the next 12 months.

The company has reached an agreement with a law firm that has more
than 30 Filter Product Claims pending against the company. During
the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized these agreements
with respect to such claims, and made payments with respect to
such claims within the amounts previously recorded. While the
company intends to vigorously defend the remaining unsettled
Filter Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the
resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect
on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.


DJO FINANCE: Defends Product Liability Suits Over Pain Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to disposable drug infusion pump products, according to
the Company's July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29,
2013.

The Company is currently named as one of several defendants in a
number of product liability lawsuits involving approximately 21
plaintiffs in U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which has been
granted class action status for a class of approximately 45
claimants, related to a disposable drug infusion pump product
(pain pump) manufactured by two third party manufacturers that the
Company distributed through its Bracing and Vascular segment.  The
Company sold pumps manufactured by one manufacturer from 1999 to
2003 and then sold pumps manufactured by a second manufacturer
from 2003 to 2009.  The Company discontinued its sale of these
products in the second quarter of 2009.  These cases have been
brought against the manufacturers and certain distributors of
these pumps.  All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these
pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain
shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted
in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs.  In the past three years,
the Company has been dismissed from approximately 410 cases when
product identification was later established showing that the
Company did not sell the pump in issue.  In the past three years,
the Company has entered into settlements with the plaintiffs in
approximately 100 pain pump lawsuits.

As of June 29, 2013, the range of potential loss for these claims
is not estimable, although the Company believes it has adequate
insurance coverage for such claims.

Headquartered in Vista, California, DJO Finance LLC is a global
developer, manufacturer and distributor of medical devices that
provide solutions for musculoskeletal health, vascular health and
pain management.  The Company's products are used by orthopedic
specialists, spine surgeons, primary care physicians, pain
management specialists, physical therapists, podiatrists,
chiropractors, athletic trainers and other healthcare
professionals.


EQUINIX INC: Plaintiffs Agree Not to Appeal Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc., disclosed in its July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that the plaintiffs in a securities class
action lawsuit stipulated in July 2013 that they will not appeal
any prior court orders, including the dismissal of their third
amended complaint.

On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-
11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of its
officers.  The lawsuit asserts purported claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results.  The lawsuit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
July 29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory
damages, fees and costs. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
November 7, 2011.  On March 2, 2012, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice and gave plaintiffs thirty
days in which to amend their complaint.  Pursuant to stipulation
and order of the court entered on March 16, 2012, the parties
agreed that plaintiffs would have up to and through May 2, 2012,
to file a Second Amended Complaint.  On May 2, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting the same
basic allegations as in the prior complaint.  On June 15, 2012,
defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On
September 19, 2012, the Court took the hearing on defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint off calendar and
notified the parties that it would make its decision on the
pleadings.  Subsequently, on September 24, 2012, the Court
requested the parties submit supplemental briefing on or before
October 9, 2012.  The supplemental briefing was submitted on
October 9, 2012.  On December 5, 2012, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without
prejudice and on January 15, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Third
Amended Complaint.  On February 26, 2013, defendants moved to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.  On June 12, 2013, the Court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
and dismissed the case with prejudice.  On July 3, 2013,
plaintiffs stipulated that they will not appeal any prior orders
issued by the Court in this action, including the Court's June 12,
2013 order dismissing the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Equinix, Inc., provides global data center services that protect
and connect the world's most valued information assets.  The
Company is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits over
issues involving the payment of hotel occupancy taxes, according
to the Company's July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company is currently involved in forty-two lawsuits brought by
or against states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of hotel occupancy taxes.  The Company continues to defend
these lawsuits vigorously.  With respect to the principal claims
in these matters, the Company believes that the ordinances at
issue do not apply to the services the Company provides, namely
the facilitation of hotel reservations, and, therefore, that the
Company does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed.  The
Company believes that the ordinances at issue generally impose
occupancy and other taxes on entities that own, operate or control
hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms
or similar accommodations.

Recent developments include:

   * City of Chicago, Illinois Litigation.  On June 21, 2013, and
     subsequently on June 28, 2013, the court entered an order
     and a supplemental order resolving the parties pending cross
     motions for summary judgment.  The court denied the
     defendant online travel companies' motion for summary
     judgment and granted in part and denied in part the city of
     Chicago's motion for summary judgment holding the online
     travel companies liable for hotel occupancy taxes.

   * San Antonio, Texas Litigation.  On April 4, 2013, the court
     entered a final judgment holding the online travel companies
     liable for hotel occupancy taxes to counties and cities in
     the statewide class.  The online travel companies have filed
     a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the
     alternative, for a new trial.  The cities have filed a
     motion to amend the judgment regarding calculation of
     penalties.  These motions remain pending.

   * City of Gallup, New Mexico Litigation.  The parties have
     reached a settlement in principle.

   * Nassau County, New York Litigation.  On April 11, 2013, the
     court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.
     The online travel company defendants have appealed both the
     court's certification order and its prior order denying
     their motion to dismiss.  The Defendants sought a stay of
     proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of their
     appeals to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
     the State of New York, Second Judicial Department.  The
     Appellate Division denied that request on June 3, 2013.
     The Defendants' appeal remains pending.

   * Branson, Missouri Litigation.  After the Missouri Court of
     Appeals denied the city's Motion for Rehearing of its
     petition for review, the city filed an application for
     transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court.  On April 30, 2013,
     the Missouri Supreme Court denied the city's application for
     transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court.

   * Village of Rosemont, Illinois Litigation.  The parties have
     reached a settlement in principle.

   * Pine Bluff, Arkansas Litigation.  On March 8, 2013, the
     defendants filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's
     decision to grant class certification.  That appeal remains
     pending.

   * Leon County, Florida et al. Litigation.  The plaintiff
     counties have petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for
     review of the court of appeals decision that affirmed the
     trial court decision that online travel companies are not
     liable for hotel occupancy taxes.  On April 16, 2013, the
     court of appeals certified the issue presented in the
     lawsuit to the Florida Supreme Court for consideration.  The
     Florida Supreme Court has not yet informed the parties
     whether it will consider the case.

   * Baltimore County, Maryland Litigation.  The parties entered
     into a settlement agreement in May 2013 and the case was
     dismissed on June 7, 2013.

   * McAllister, Arkansas Litigation.  On May 22, 2013, the court
     granted the online travel companies' motion for
     reconsideration of the court's February 6, 2012 denial of
     their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for judgment
     on the pleadings and dismissal of the lawsuit.  On June 19,
     2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Arkansas
     Supreme Court.  That appeal remains pending.

   * District of Columbia Litigation.  On May 14, 2013, the
     District of Columbia filed a motion for partial summary
     judgment on damages.  That motion remains pending.

   * City of Fargo, North Dakota Litigation.  On July 1, 2013,
     the online travel company defendants filed a motion to
     dismiss the City of Fargo's complaint alleging that online
     travel companies are liable for hotel occupancy taxes.

   * City of Warrenville, Illinois Litigation.  On April 5, 2013,
     a number of Illinois municipalities filed a putative class
     action in Illinois federal court against a number of online
     travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire.
     On July 8, 2013, the plaintiff municipalities voluntarily
     dismissed their federal court lawsuit and filed a similar
     putative class action lawsuit in Illinois state court, City
     of Bedford Park, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Circuit
     Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division).

In addition, a new case has been filed.  On July 15, 2013, the
Department of Revenue, Finance and Administration Cabinet,
Commonwealth of Kentucky, filed a lawsuit in Kentucky state court
against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia,
Hotels.com and Hotwire, Department of Revenue, Finance and
Administration Cabinet, Commonwealth of Kentucky, v. Expedia, Inc.
et al., Case No. 13-CI-912 (Franklin Circuit Court, Commonwealth
of Kentucky).  The complaint alleges claims for declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, violations of state sales tax laws,
breach of fiduciary duty requiring an accounting, conversion,
assumpsit for money had and received, imposition of a constructive
trust, damages and punitive damages.

               Notices of Audit or Tax Assessments

At various times, the Company has also received notices of audit,
or tax assessments from municipalities and other taxing
jurisdictions concerning the Company's possible obligations with
respect to state and local hotel occupancy or related taxes.  The
Company believes that the claims against it lack merit and will
continue to defend vigorously against them.

                    Actions Filed by Expedia

Recent developments include:

   * State of North Carolina Litigation.  On May 28, 2013, the
     court denied in part and granted in part the defendants
     State of North Carolina and Durham County's motions to
     dismiss the online travel companies claims; specifically,
     the court denied the motion to dismiss as to the online
     travel company plaintiffs' state law claims but granted the
     motion as to plaintiffs' federal claims.  The Plaintiffs
     filed a motion to reconsider the court's dismissal of their
     federal claims or, in the alternative, to certify for
     immediate appeal.  On June 21, 2013, the court denied the
     online travel companies' motion to reconsider but granted
     their motion to certify for immediate appeal to the North
     Carolina Court of Appeals.

   * Hawaii Tax Court Litigation (Transient Accommodations Tax).
     The state's previously filed appeal of the tax court
     decision that online travel companies do not owe transient
     accommodation taxes was dismissed by the Hawaii Court of
     Appeals as premature on June 7, 2013.  On May 20, 2013, the
     state issued final assessments against the Expedia
     subsidiaries, for transient accommodations tax that the
     state claims are due for the year 2012.

   * City of Portland, Oregon Litigation.  After the court
     granted their motion for leave to amend, the city and county
     filed their amended answer, affirmative defenses and
     counterclaims on June 11, 2013.  The court has set
     October 14, 2013, as trial date for the case.

   * Denver, Colorado Litigation.  Both the city and county of
     Denver and the online travel companies have appealed from
     the trial court's March 12, 2013 decision.  These appeals
     remain pending.

   * State of Wyoming Litigation.  On April 23, 2013, the Wyoming
     Supreme Court accepted review of the online travel
     companies' appeal from the February 28, 2013 ruling of the
     Wyoming Board of Equalization that the online travel
     companies are liable for sales tax on their online services
     to the State of Wyoming.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.Expedia.com/-- is an online travel
company, empowering business and leisure travelers with the tools
and information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and
experience travel.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Hotel Booking Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. and other defendants seek the dismissal of a
consolidated class action lawsuit over hotel booking practices,
according to the Company's July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On July 31, 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading
("OFT") issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia,
Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental Hotels Group PLC ("IHG")
have infringed European Union and United Kingdom competition law
in relation to the online supply of hotel room accommodations.
The Statement of Objections alleges that Expedia and Booking.com
entered into separate agreements with IHG that restricted each
online travel company's ability to discount the price of IHG hotel
rooms.  The OFT limited its investigation to a small number of
companies, but has stated that the investigation is likely to have
wider implications for the industry within the United Kingdom.

The Statement of Objections does not constitute a finding of
infringement and all parties have the opportunity to respond. If
the OFT maintains its objections after the companies' responses,
the OFT can issue a final decision.  In such a case a final
decision would be issued at the earliest in 2014.  An appeal of an
adverse OFT decision is to the English courts but may involve a
reference on matters of European Union law to the European Court
of Justice.  The Company is unable at this time to predict the
outcome of the OFT proceeding and any appeal.  In addition, a
number of competition authorities in other European countries have
initiated investigations in relation to certain contractual
arrangements between hotels and online travel companies, including
Expedia.  These investigations differ in relation to the parties
involved and the precise nature of the concerns.

Since August 20, 2012, thirty-four putative class action lawsuits,
which refer to the OFT's Statement of Objections, have been
initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs alleging
claims against the online travel companies, including Expedia, and
several major hotel chains for alleged resale price maintenance
for online hotel room reservations, including but not limited to
violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer
protection statutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust
enrichment.  The cases have been consolidated and transferred to
Judge Boyle in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  On May 1, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint.  On July 1, 2013, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss that complaint.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.Expedia.com/-- is an online travel
company, empowering business and leisure travelers with the tools
and information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and
experience travel.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


FANNIE MAE: Bid to Alter Judgment in "Vadnais" Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David S. Doty denied motions to alter or amend
judgment and to file a second amended complaint in the case
captioned Ronald A. Vadnais, as Treasurer of Swift County,
Minnesota, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and Swift County, Plaintiff, v. Federal National
Mortgage, also known as Fannie Mae, and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, also known as Freddie Mac, Defendants. Federal
Housing Finance Agency, in its Capacity as Conservator of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, Intervenor, CIVIL NO. 12-1598 (DSD/TNL),
(D. Minn.).

Mr. Vadnais filed his first amended class-action complaint in
October 2012, seeking a declaration that defendant Federal
National Mortgage Association, defendant Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation and intervenor Federal Housing Finance Agency
(the Enterprises) violated Minnesota Statutes by failing to pay
deed transfer taxes when conveying property in the state of
Minnesota. He also alleged a claim for unjust enrichment.

On November 30, 2012, the court held oral argument on the
Enterprises' motion to dismiss. Subsequent to oral argument, with
the motion to dismiss under advisement, Vadnais filed (1) a motion
for class certification, (2) a motion for partial summary judgment
and (3) a request to stay consideration of the motion to dismiss
pending briefing of the motion for partial summary judgment. On
March 27, 2013, the court granted the Enterprises' motion to
dismiss and declined to address Mr.  Vandais's post-hearing
motions.  In response, on April 4, 2013, Mr. Vadnais filed a
motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a motion to file a second
amended complaint.

According to Judge Doty, Mr. Vadnais did not seek leave to file a
second amended complaint until after entry of judgment. The court
is uncertain as to whether Mr. Vadnais raised the constitutional
claims prior to dismissal and if his motion is merely a post-
dismissal attempt to change the theory of the case, he says.

"[Mr.] Vadnais's constitutional claims are without merit, and
amendment would be futile. Therefore, the motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint is denied," Judge Doty concludes.

A copy of the District Court's July 29, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/yVexmEfrom Leagle.com.

John C. Davis, Esq. -- john@johndavislaw.net -- and Law Office of
John C. Davis, Tallahassee, FL, counsel for plaintiff.

Michael A.F. Johnson, Esq. -- Michael.Johnson@aporter.com -- and
Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, D.C., counsel for defendants.


FISHER COMMUNICATIONS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher Communications, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action lawsuit arising from its
proposed merger with Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., according to
the Company's July 26, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Fisher Communications, Inc. has made supplemental disclosures to
the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Definitive
Proxy Statement"), filed by Fisher with the SEC on June 24, 2013,
in connection with the proposed settlement of Halberstam v. Fisher
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-2-17171 SEA pending in
King County Superior Court in the State of Washington.  The
parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle
the lawsuit pending in King County Superior Court in the State of
Washington.  Pursuant to the proposed settlement, Fisher has
agreed to provide additional information.

                        Litigation Update

As previously disclosed beginning on pages 7 and 67 of the
Definitive Proxy Statement, in connection with the Merger, a
purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 17, 2013,
against Fisher and the Fisher Board in King County Superior Court
in the State of Washington (the "Court"), docketed as Halberstam
v. Fisher Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-2-17171-6 SEA
(the "Litigation").  An amended complaint was filed on April 23,
2013, and a second amended complaint was filed on June 3, 2013.

On July 25, 2013, the parties to the Litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") which sets forth the
parties' agreement in principle for settlement.  After the parties
enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement, the proposed
settlement will be subject to Court approval.  If approved by the
Court, it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a
release of the defendants from all claims that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to
the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the disclosures made in
connection therewith, and that the Litigation will be dismissed
with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Fisher has
agreed to make available additional information to its
shareholders.  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, among other things, the consideration
to be paid to the shareholders of Fisher in connection with the
Merger.

Fisher and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been
asserted, in the Litigation.  Fisher and the other defendants deny
that they have committed any violations of law or breach of
fiduciary duty, that they have acted improperly in any way, or
that they have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to the
plaintiff or to the purported class, and specifically deny that
any further supplemental disclosure is required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the Fisher
Board failed to maximize shareholder value by entering into the
Merger Agreement with Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Sinclair").
The settlement contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant.  However, among other reasons, to avoid the risk of
delaying the Merger, and to provide additional information to the
shareholders of Fisher at a time and in a manner that would not
cause any delay of the Merger, the defendants agreed to the
settlement.  The parties considered it desirable that the
Litigation be settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense,
risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to
fully and finally resolve the Litigation.

A special meeting was set to be held on August 6, 2013, at 10:00
a.m., Pacific Time, at Fisher Plaza, 140 4th Avenue North, 5th
Floor Studios, in Seattle, Washington 98109, for the purpose of
considering and voting upon, among other things, the Merger
Agreement.  The Fisher Board unanimously determined that the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, including the Merger, are advisable, fair to and in the
best interests of Fisher and its shareholders and recommends that
the shareholders of Fisher vote "FOR" the proposal to approve the
Merger Agreement.


GRUPO AVAL: Defends Suits Over Pension and Severance Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones Y Valores S.A., its banking subsidiaries,
Porvenir and Corficolombiana are also party to collective or class
actions ("acciones populares" or "acciones de grupo,"
respectively).  Collective actions are court actions where an
individual seeks to protect collective rights and prevent
contingent damages, obtain injunctions and damages caused by an
infringement of collective rights of which the following are the
most significant.

All pension and severance fund administrators in Colombia,
including Porvenir and Horizonte, are subject to at least two
class actions in which certain individuals are alleging that the
pension and severance funds administrators have caused damages to
their customers by (1) paying returns earned by the severance and
pension funds below the minimum profitability certified by the
Superintendency of Finance, and (2) making payments to its
customers -- under the scheduled retirement system -- below the
established standards.  Additionally, Porvenir, Horizonte and
certain other pension and severance funds are subject to a
constitutional action relating to charging commissions above the
legally established limits for contributions to mandatory pension
funds.  These constitutional actions are seeking the payment of
the alleged damages caused to fund managers' customers.  No
provisions have been established in connection with these three
constitutional actions because the amount is unquantifiable, and
the Company considers the probability of loss to be remote.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. -- http://www.grupoaval.com/--
is an issuer in Colombia of securities registered with the
National Registry of Shares and Issuers (Registro Nacional de
Valores y Emisores).  Grupo Aval, which is headquartered in Bogota
D.C., is a not a financial institution and is not supervised or
regulated as a financial institution in Colombia.


JAGUAR: Recalls 183 XK Model Cars in Canada
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:                August 2, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Car
Notification type:            Compliance Mfr
System:                       Electrical
Units affected:               183
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013268
TC ID number:                 2013268
Manufacturer recall number:   J030

Affected Products:

   Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----      ----------------------
   JAGUAR    XK        2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

Certain vehicles equipped with a convertible roof fail to conform
to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 118 Power-Operated Window,
Partition and Roof Panel Systems.  The overhead switch (which
operates the convertible roof and the power windows) does not
operate in the manner prescribed by the Standard.  This could
result in inadvertent power window activation, which could cause
injury if a body part becomes trapped by a closing window.

Dealers will replace the overhead roof console assembly with an
updated version.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Aluminum Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris and Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg
News, report that JPMorgan Chase & Co., the biggest U.S. bank, was
sued with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Glencore Xstrata Plc over
claims they restrained aluminum supplies and drove up prices.

The complaint was filed by a Jacksonville, Florida, direct
purchaser, Master Screens Inc., and by individual plaintiff Daniel
Price Bart of Tallahassee, who is described in the filing as a
"purchaser of beverages sold in aluminum cans."

The banks and Glencore are accused in the complaint filed on
Aug. 7 in federal court in Tallahassee of racketeering and
conspiring with the London Metal Exchange, hoarding aluminum in
Detroit-area warehouses and violating federal antitrust laws.
Goldman Sachs was first sued over similar claims by a Michigan
company on Aug. 1.

"By inserting itself into a healthy industry producing widely
needed commodities, severely degrading functionality and widely
distributing costs while itself benefiting, Goldman Sachs and
JPMorgan couldn't fit a more archetypal description of a parasite
on the markets," according to the Florida complaint.

"There are no queues at our warehouses and we believe this suit
has no merit," Brian Marchiony, a spokesman for New York-based
JPMorgan Chase, said in an e-mail.

"We believe this suit is without merit and we intend to vigorously
contest it," Michael DuVally, a spokesman for New York-based
Goldman Sachs, said in an e-mail.  "We also note that aluminum
prices are down 40 percent from their peak in 2006."

                      Warehousing 'Giant'

More than 1 million tons of aluminum are stored in the Detroit
warehouses, many of which are owned by Goldman Sachs, which
charges rent for the storage, according to the complaint, while
London Metal Exchange load-out rules curtail how much of the metal
leaves.

JPMorgan-owned Henry Bath & Son Ltd., acquired in 2010, is
described in the complaint as a "metal warehousing giant."

The Florida plaintiffs are seeking class action, or group, status,
to represent other aluminum buyers and consumers, as well as
compensatory damages.

Charles Watenphul, a spokesman for Baar, Switzerland-based
commodities group Glencore, declined to comment.

Mr. DuVally said the complaint filed against Goldman Sachs in
Detroit was without merit.

A third lawsuit, naming as defendants Goldman Sachs and its
warehouse unit, Metro International Trade Services LLC, as
defendants, was filed on Aug. 7 in federal court in New Orleans.

Plaintiff River Parish Contractors Inc. of Reserve, Louisiana,
also alleges the Goldman Sachs entities inflated aluminum prices
and restrained supplies in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.
Neither London Metal Exchange nor JPMorgan are named as
defendants.

The Florida case is Master Screens Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group
Inc., 13-cv-00431, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Florida (Tallahassee).  The Michigan case is Superior Extrusion
Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., 13-cv-13315, U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit).  The Louisiana case
is River Parish Contractors Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,
13-cv-05267, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
(New Orleans).


LOAD SYSTEMS: Recalls Wind Speed Sensors Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Load Systems International, of Quebec, Canada, announced a
voluntary recall of about 100 LSI Wind Speed Sensors.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The sensor can fail to display an accurate data reading and cause
crane operators and other users to incorrectly gauge wind
conditions, posing a risk of injury from impact to the consumer.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves LSI model GS025 wind speed sensors with serial
numbers 100015 and 100412.  Model and serial numbers can be found
on the underside of the product's base.  The charcoal-grey colored
sensor has "LSI" printed on one side and three windspeed cups on
the top of the product.  The 7 inch high sensors are often used by
crane operators to gauge wind conditions when lifting and moving
items.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at LSI
distributors nationwide from March 2013 to June 2013 for about
$400.

Consumers should stop using the wind speed sensors and contact LSI
for instructions on returning the recall sensor for a replacement
unit.  LSI is contacting known customers directly.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accord in Suit by Retirement System Now Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corporation previously disclosed an agreement in
principle to settle, without material effect on the Corporation's
consolidated financial statements, the class action lawsuit filed
by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System. The
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

On July 23, 2013, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement, according to the company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.


MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Schneider Foods Brand Chicken Wings
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                       August 3, 2013
Type of communication:               Recall
Alert sub-type:                      Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                         Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:               Class 2
Source of recall:                    Canadian Food Inspection
                                     Agency
Recalling firm:                      Maple Leaf Foods Inc.
Distribution:                        Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova
                                     Scotia,
                                     Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution:  Hotel/ Restaurant/
                                     Institutional
CFIA reference number:               8213

Affected products:

  Brand name      Common name            Size   Code(s) on product
  ----------      -----------            ----    -----------------
Schneider Foods   #2 Oven Roasted Fully   4 kg. All codes where
                  Cooked Seasoned Glazed        mustard is not
                  Cut up Chicken Wings          declared in the
                  Hot Barbecue                  list of
                                                ingredients
                                                Product #58734

Schneider Foods   Oven Roasted Seasoned  4 kg   All codes where
                  Glazed Cut up                 mustard is not
                  Chicken Wings                 declared in the
                  Hot Barbecue                  list of
                                                ingredients
                                                Product #57630


MASS MUTUAL: "Boys" Suit Transferred to N.J. District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Thomas A. Varlan granted a motion for change
of venue in JOHN C. BOYS, Plaintiff, v. MASS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and MML BAY STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, NO.
2:12-CV-445, (E.D. Tenn.).

John C. Boys filed the complaint against defendants Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Company and its affiliate, MML Bay State
Life Insurance Company on November 9, 2012, requesting
compensatory and punitive damages for alleged misrepresentations,
negligent underwriting, and application alterations in connection
with life insurance policies insuring the lives of plaintiff's
sons.

On February 2, 2005, the District Court of New Jersey approved a
consolidated nationwide class action settlement between MassMutual
and a class of individuals who had purchased life insurances
policies from MassMutual between January 1, 1983, and December 31,
2003. Varacallo v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 207
(D.N.J. 2005).

MassMutual filed a consolidated Motion to Dismiss, or, in the
Alternative, for Summary Judgment, in addition to a Motion to
Transfer Venue.  MassMutual argued that the plaintiff is a class
member subject to the Varacallo settlement agreement and final
order, and that, therefore, the plaintiff's claims are barred by
the terms of that settlement's release provision, or,
alternatively, that plaintiff's claims are time-barred.
MassMutual also urged that the court that supervised the Varacallo
action and approved the settlement agreement is uniquely equipped
to determine whether these potential bars apply and, further, that
the district court for the District of New Jersey expressly
retained jurisdiction over the action to handle such
determinations.

Because the Court agrees with this latter contention, it is
unnecessary to reach the merits of MassMutual's motion to dismiss
or for summary judgment, says Judge Varlan.  Accordingly,
MassMutual's Motion to Transfer Venue is granted, and the case
will be transferred in its entirety to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, he concluded.

A copy of the District Court's July 24, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/lXhck8from Leagle.com.

MASS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
JULIE E. RAVIS -- jera@stevenslee.com -- at STEVENS & LEE.

MML BAY STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
JULIE E. RAVIS, STEVENS & LEE.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Disputes Class Action Over Debit Payroll Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kalinowski, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports that the
class-action lawsuit against a local McDonald's franchise for
paying employees with debit cards has no merit because the pay
method is legal and workers agreed to it when they were hired,
attorneys for the company argue.  They also claim the lead
plaintiff has no standing to bring the suit because she never
activated the card or incurred any fees.

Attorneys for Albert and Carol Mueller, whose company owns 16
regional McDonald's restaurants, contend the payroll cards "are
the functional equivalent of cash or checks" and that employees
"consented to the conduct about which they complain."

The company recently filed its response to a class-action suit
initiated by attorneys for Natalie Gunshannon, a 27-year-old from
Dallas Twp. who briefly worked at the Shavertown McDonald's early
this year.  Her suit challenged the company's controversial
practice of only paying employees with debit cards, which she said
illegally burdened employees with fees for transactions.

After the lawsuit was filed, the policy generated negative
publicity around the country and prompted an investigation by
federal authorities.  The company soon announced it would start
giving employees the choice of being paid by check, direct deposit
or payroll card.

The company claims Ms. Gunshannon does not have standing to bring
the suit because she never was actually paid with a debit card and
thus never incurred any fee.  After Ms. Gunshannon was hired in
April, managers explained the payroll card system and told her
multiple times she "could withdraw the entire pay amount without
incurring any fees at the bank across the street from the
Shavertown restaurant," the company's lawyers said.
Ms. Gunshannon "voiced no concerns" about the system and then
filled out the application for the JP Morgan Chase payroll card,
the response says.

Like all new employees, Ms. Gunshannon was issued a check on
May 10, her first pay day with the company.

Soon after, she was issued a payroll card, but never activated the
card, the company said.  Ms. Gunshannon, who was paid $7.45 an
hour, quit on May 14.  The company never deposited any funds on
the card, and later sent Ms. Gunshannon a check for $187,
according to the company's response.

Since funds were never placed on the card, Ms. Gunshannon did not
incur any fees associated with the card and doesn't have standing
to sue, the company claims.

Ms. Gunshannon did not cash the $187 check sent in May and the
company sent her another check a few days after she filed suit on
June 13, the company said.  She cashed the check at some point in
July, the company said.

"Ms. Gunshannon received all wages she earned in the form of a
check, and therefore, she could not have incurred fees through the
card," the company said in court papers.

Other employees should not be able to sue either because they were
not "required to incur fees" associated with the debit cards.

"All crew members paid via the payroll card could avoid paying
fees or costs when accessing their wages simply by withdrawing
their wages from a local bank," the company said.

West Pittston attorney Mike Cefalo, who represents Ms. Gunshannon
and a host of other current and former McDonald's employees, has
filed responses of his own in recent days.

Mr. Cefalo said Ms. Gunshannon was never given specifics about
using the debit card upon being hired and managers never told her
she could withdraw her money for free.

"Once Ms. Gunshannon discovered that the J.P. Morgan Chase payroll
card was loaded with fees, she voiced her concern about this
practice and requested direct deposit.  Her requested was outright
refused," Mr. Cefalo wrote.

The J.P. Morgan Chase payroll card carries fees for nearly every
type of transaction, according to Mr. Cefalo's lawsuit, including
a $1.50 charge for ATM withdrawals, $1 to check the balance, 75
cents per online bill payment and $10 per month if the card is
left inactive for more than three months.

Ms. Gunshannon never activated the card because she objected to
the company's "mandate" she be paid by a card "loaded with fees,"
her attorney, Mike Cefalo, said.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf
of employees and asks a judge to award punitive damages against
the company.


MEDTRONIC INC: Aug. 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky on Aug. 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of investors who purchased
Medtronic, Inc. stock between December 8, 2010 and August 3, 2011.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements
concerning the use of the Company's INFUSE Bone Graft ("Infuse")
product for the reduction of complications and pain associated
with degenerative disc disease.  On June 23, 2011, Medtronic
issued a press release acknowledging that the U.S. Senate had
requested information regarding Infuse.  Then on June 28, 2011, an
issue of The Spine Journal identified conflicts of interest
concerning the researchers who had performed studies on Infuse.
On August 3, 2011, Medtronic announced it would release Infuse
data to the public and agreed to pay $2.5 million to Yale
University so that researchers might conduct a review of previous
studies.  According to the complaint, the true facts, which
defendants concealed from the investing public during the class
period, included that the Company had engaged in a scheme with
certain researchers to downplay the risks and side effects
associated with Infuse and that once those risks were fully
appreciated by surgeons, use of the product would drop
significantly.

If you suffered a loss in Medtronic you have until August 26,
2013to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via e-mail at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/medtronic-mdt/

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, and Washington D.C.  The firm has extensive expertise in
prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud,
representing investors throughout the nation in securities and
shareholder lawsuits.

CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph Levi, Esq.
         Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
         30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (866) 367-6510
         Web site: http://www.zlk.com


MITCHELL STAVE: Patient Sustained Permanent Injuries, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wolfson v. Mitchell L. Stave D.M.D., John Doe 1-10
(a class of fictitiously named defendants), Case No. L-005934-13
(N.J. Super. Ct., July 31, 2013), alleges that the Plaintiffs did
not use the care and skill ordinarily used by dentists, and did
treat the Plaintiff in a negligent, reckless and careless manner.

The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendants did not use
applicable standard of care, he sustained severe, painful and
permanent injuries and harm to his person.  He adds that was
obliged to expend large sums of money for medical care and
attention and was caused to lose large sums of money for wages he
would have earned but for his injuries.

Richard Wolfson is a resident of Garfield, New Jersey.

Mitchell L. Stave, D.M.D., and the Doe Defendants were and still
are dentists licensed to practice as provided by the laws of the
state of New Jersey, with offices located at 374 Harrison Avenue,
in Lodi, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham N. Milgraum, Esq.
          BLUME GOLDFADEN BERKOWITZ DONNELLY FRIED & FORTE
          One Main Street
          Chatham, NJ 07928-0924
          Telephone: (973) 635-5400
          E-mail: amilgrau@njatty.com


MOD-PAC CORP: Four Merger-Related Class Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The four merger-related class action lawsuits have consolidated,
according to MOD-PAC Corp.'s July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 29, 2013

On October 29, 2012, the Board of Directors received a non-binding
proposal from Messrs. Kevin T. Keane and Daniel G. Keane to
acquire all of the Company's outstanding Common Stock and Class B
Stock that they do not currently directly or indirectly own for
$7.20 per share in cash (the "Proposal").  In their letter dated
October 26, 2012 outlining the Proposal, Messrs. Kevin T. Keane
and Daniel G. Keane indicated that they were unwilling to consider
any transaction other than one in which they would be the
acquirer.  The Board of Directors established a Special Committee
of independent Directors (the "Special Committee"), comprised of
Messrs. Robert J. McKenna, William G. Gisel and Howard Zemsky, to
consider the Proposal, to negotiate on behalf of the Company and,
if it deemed appropriate, to solicit and consider any alternative
transactions.

On April 11, 2013, the Company announced that it had entered into
a definitive merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") under which
a group led by Messrs. Kevin T. Keane and Daniel G. Keane (the
"Buyer Group"), the beneficial holders of approximately 18.7% in
the aggregate of the Company's outstanding Common Stock and
approximately 51.9% in the aggregate of the Company's outstanding
Class B Stock (representing approximately 41.0% of the total
voting power of the Company), will acquire the Company through
Rosalia Capital LLC, an entity controlled by the Buyer Group that
was formed for the purposes of the acquisition.  Under the Merger
Agreement, the Company's shareholders, excluding the Buyer Group
and holders of dissenting shares of the Company's Class B stock,
will receive $8.40 per share in cash upon completion of the merger
transaction. Completion of the transaction is subject to certain
closing conditions, including receipt of shareholder approval and
other customary conditions.  The Merger Agreement contains a non-
waiveable condition that an affirmative vote of a majority of the
votes cast at such meeting, other than votes cast in respect of
those issued and outstanding shares of the Company's Common Stock
or Class B Stock beneficially owned by the Buyer Group, adopt the
Merger Agreement and approve the merger transaction.  In addition,
M&T Bank has entered into a binding commitment letter to provide
debt financing in the event the closing conditions contained in
the Merger Agreement have been met.

Four putative class action complaints relating to the Proposed
Transaction have been filed, and all are pending in Supreme Court,
Erie County, New York: Guziec v. Gisel (Index No. 001215), Levin
v. Keane (Index No. 602431), IBEW Local Union 98 Pension Fund v.
Mod-Pac Corp. (Index No. 001526), and Minerva Group LP v. Keane
(Index No. 800621).  Counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants
have agreed to consolidate these actions as the cases involve
common questions of law and fact.  The parties have further agreed
that the complaint filed by Minerva Group will act as the
operative complaint for the consolidated actions.  The Company
says this litigation could delay the consummation of such
transactions or result in the termination of the Merger Agreement.

Headquartered in Buffalo, New York, MOD-PAC Corp. --
http://www.modpac.com/-- is a designer and manufacturer of
folding carton packaging employing high value added services and
on demand delivery.  The Company provides Custom Folding Cartons
for branded and private label consumer products in the food and
food service, healthcare, medical and automotive industries, while
its line of Stock Packaging products is primarily offered to the
retail confectionary industry.  The Company also has a
Personalized Print product line that offers a comprehensive line
of products for consumer and corporate social occasions.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Stockholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan appoints Central States,
Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund as lead Plaintiff, and
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as lead counsel, in the case
captioned CONSTRUCTION WORKERS PENSION TRUST FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 13 C 2111, (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs in the case consist of purchasers of Navistar's common
stock between November 3, 2010, and August 1, 2012, who claim to
have suffered losses as a result of Defendants' alleged artificial
inflation of the price of Navistar common stock.

A copy of the District Court's July 30, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/pTke37from Leagle.com.

Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund -- Lake County and
Vicinity, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by James E Barz --
jbarz@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd Llp.

Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Matthew Thomas Heffner -- mhurst@shhllp.com -- at Susman
Heffner & Hurst LLP.

Navistar International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Robin M. Hulshizer -- robin.hulshizer@lw.com -- at Latham &
Watkins LLP, Sean M. Berkowitz -- sean.berkowitz@lw.com -- at
Latham & Watkins LLP, Eric Robert Swibel -- eric.swibel@lw.com --
at Latham & Watkins LLP & Matthew Lawrence Kutcher --
matthew.kutcher@lw.com -- at Latham & Watkins LLP.

Daniel C. Ustian, Defendant, represented by Robin M. Hulshizer,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Sean M. Berkowitz, Latham & Watkins LLP,
Eric Robert Swibel, Latham & Watkins LLP & Matthew Lawrence
Kutcher, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Andrew J. Cederoth, Defendant, represented by Robin M. Hulshizer,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Sean M. Berkowitz, Latham & Watkins LLP,
Eric Robert Swibel, Latham & Watkins LLP & Matthew Lawrence
Kutcher, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund,
Movant, represented by Carol V Gilden -- cgilden@cmht.com -- at
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Kenneth Mark Rehns --
krehns@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll Pllc.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Michael
W. Stocker, Labaton Sucharow Llp, Badge Humphries, Motley Rice
LLC, Brian O O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Joshua C
Littlejohn, Motley Rice LLC.

Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, Movant, represented by
Michael W. Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow
Llp, Badge Humphries -- bhumphries@motleyrice.com -- at Motley
Rice LLC, Brian O O'Mara -- bo'mara@csgrr.com -- at Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Joshua C Littlejohn --
jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com -- at Motley Rice LLC.


NEW YORK, NY: NYPD to Purge Stop-Frisk Database Under Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for The New York Journal, reports that the
Bloomberg administration has agreed under a settlement announced
on Aug. 7 to purge a New York City Police Department database
containing personal information on individuals who were stopped by
authorities, and also agreed to pay $10,000 to the lead plaintiff
in a putative class action.

Under the terms of the settlement, the city will within 90 days
delete the names and addresses of all individuals who were
stopped, questioned and/or frisked.  It will also pay a settlement
to the only plaintiff seeking damages, freelance journalist Daryl
Khan.  The other members of the class sought only injunctive
relief.

Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil
Liberties Union and lead counsel in the case, said in an interview
that hundreds of thousands of names of innocent individuals will
be erased from the NYPD database as a result of the settlement.

"The immediate practical importance is that the department was
using the database to conduct criminal investigations, which meant
that if you got stopped on the street and were in the database,
you were a target of an investigation even if you had done
absolutely nothing wrong," Mr. Dunn said.  "This will end that
completely."

Lino v. City of New York, 106579/10, focused on two named
plaintiffs, Clive Lino and Khan.

Lino, who is black and claims he was stopped at least 13 times by
police, alleged he was thrown against a wall in April 2009,
frisked and issued a summons for spitting in public and possessing
an open container.

Mr. Khan, who had written about the NYPD for more than a decade,
alleged he was pulled over in Brooklyn in 2009, thrown against a
wall, searched and ultimately accused of riding his bicycle on a
sidewalk and disorderly conduct.

Although all of the charges against Messrs. Lino and Khan were
dismissed, their names remained in the NYPD database, even after a
change in the law forced the city to expunge much of the
information in the so-called UF-250 file.

Legislation signed in 2010 by Governor David Paterson barred the
NYPD from retaining stop-and-frisk data when the individual
questioned was let go without an arrest or summons.  But the
legislation did not require expunging information on cases where
the target was arrested or issued a summons, even if the charge
was ultimately dismissed, leaving the city with a partial
investigatory tool.

On behalf of Messrs. Lino and Khan and several hundred thousand
other citizens, the NYCLU brought a class action arguing that the
records should also be expunged.

Acting Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe dismissed the case for
lack of standing, but she was reversed by the Appellate Division,
First Department.  The appeals court revived the plaintiffs' case,
resulting ultimately in the settlement.

"It is a relief to know that my personal information will be
cleared from the stop-and-frisk database," Mr. Lino said in a
statement.  "It is humiliating enough to be stopped and frisked
for no reason, having your name and address kept in a police
database only prolongs the indignity of it."

Mr. Khan said in a statement that he has never been arrested, has
no criminal record and, as a freelance journalist writing about
the NYPD, knows "that good police work is done in this city
without a sprawling database of innocent people's information."

Dunn said the fact that the city agreed to expunge the names
"signals to me what we thought all along, that the database was
not a useful law enforcement tool. I do not believe they would
have settled if they thought otherwise."

Celeste Koeleveld, executive assistant corporation counsel for
public safety, said the settlement is an "outgrowth" of the 2010
legislation, which the city and NYPD had opposed.

"In 2010, when that legislation was being considered, the police
department did certainly say they would want to have the
information in a database so it could be searched and used for
investigative purposes and they felt that was a legitimate use of
the information," Ms. Koeleveld said.  "Over the objection of the
police department and the city, the law was passed any way."

Ms. Koeleveld said the law depleted the bulk of the information
the NYPD was retaining in the UF-250 database.  She said an
incomplete databank was of comparatively little use for
investigative purposes and the city opted to settle rather than
continue the fight.

Assistant corporation counsel Janice Casey Silverberg represented
the city.  She said the settlement is consistent with the 2010
law, "which made the need for the database moot."

NYPD deputy commissioner Paul Browne said "there was no practical
reason to continue this litigation" in light of the legislation.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Certification of Fuel Surcharges Suit on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendant railroads in a suit against Norfolk Southern
Corporation that was consolidated in the District of Columbia by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation have appealed the
certification of the case, according to Norfolk Southern's July
24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
the company and other Class I railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a
class action.

The defendant railroads have appealed such certification, and a
decision by the court to either reject the appeal outright or
proceed with ruling on its merits is pending.  The company
believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the cases.  The company does not
believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
effect on the company's financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity.

A lawsuit containing similar allegations against the company and
four other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling
agreement entered into in August 2008.


OLAM TOMATO: Recalls Salsa After Glass Found in Some Jars
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the maker of salsas sold at
Dollar Tree and Deals, Dollar Express and Dollar Bills stores
nationwide is recalling the product after large glass pieces were
found in some jars.

Olam Tomato Processors Inc. announced the recall on July 23 of its
Mild Chunky Salsa with best-by dates of June 2015 and October
2015, and Medium Chunky Salsa with a best-by date of July 2015.

Company spokeswoman Roxana Janka says the glass pieces got into
the salsa during the beginning of the manufacturing process, when
some of the glass jars were damaged.  The pieces were not detected
by X-rays at the plant because the machines were not calibrated to
detect large glass pieces.

The Fresno, Calif.-based company says there have been no reports
of injury.


OMNICARE INC: Dismissal of Kentucky Securities Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a securities suit against Omnicare, Inc. filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit challenging the District Court's order dismissing the
case, according to the company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10, 2007
through August 5, 2010 against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with alleged false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's compliance with federal
and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations.

On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is
referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Plaintiffs allege
substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are
alleged in the Ansfield complaint. Both complaints seek
unspecified money damages.

The Court has appointed lead counsel and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 11, 2012. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss on July 16, 2012. On March 27, 2013, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims with
prejudice. On April 26, 2013 the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
appealing the District Court's order dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.


OMNICARE INC: Petition for Rehearing of Pension Fund Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The petition for rehearing en banc of a U.S. Court of Appeals'
decision regarding the dismissal of the suit entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., was denied, according to the
company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.

The amended consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare,
three of its officers and two of its directors and purported to be
brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common
stock from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all
purchasers who bought their shares in the Company's public
offering in December 2005.

The complaint contained claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5) and
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other
things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its
earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements)
by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper
revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the district court
dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally
affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. However, the appellate court
reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On July 14, 2011, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to
file a third amended complaint. This complaint asserts a claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all
purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public
offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration
statement contained false and misleading statements regarding
Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation
of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with three of
Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its
suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services.

On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the
district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the
docket. On March 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On May 23, 2013,
the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and
remanded in part the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint.  On June
6, 2013, the Company petitioned the Court of Appeals for a
rehearing en banc.  The petition for rehearing en banc was denied
on July 23, 2013.


OMNICOM GROUP: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Publicis Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
MediaPost's Agency Daily reports that an Omnicom Group shareholder
filed a class action to stop the proposed Publicis Omnicom merger.

Is it really a merger of equals? That's a question that has
dominated industry chatter about the proposed Publicis Omnicom
merger since it was announced July 28.

Now one Omnicom Group shareholder has answered with a resounding
no and is going to court to make his case.  The shareholder,
Paul Ansfield, filed a class-action suit in New York State Supreme
Court to stop the merger, contending that the terms are
drastically unfair to owners of Omnicom stock.  He alleged that
the Omnicom board of directors breached its fiduciary duty by not
maximizing the value of the merger to Omnicom shareholders.

More suits could follow.  Maryland-based securities litigation
firm Brower Piven said it had launched an investigation into
"possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current shareholders of
Omnicom Group," as well as into other unspecified violations of
state law by the company's board of directors in connection with
the merger.  The firm said it will explore whether shareholder
value is maximized under the terms of the agreement.

Omnicom, which didn't comment in response to the Brower Piven
investigation did issue a response to the Ansfield suit: "Omnicom
is aware of the complaint that has been filed in New York state
court and we believe very strongly that the claims lack any merit
whatsoever.  The filing of lawsuits, like this one, shortly after
the announcement of a merger or acquisition -- regardless of the
merits of the transaction -- is a common occurrence."

Mr. Ansfield's suit was filed against Omnicom Group, Publicis
Groupe, the proposed merger entity Publicis Omnicom Group N.V.,
Omnicom Group CEO John Wren and the other members of the Omnicom
Board of Directors.  Publicis was charged with "aiding and
abetting such breaches of fiduciary duty" by Omnicom's board.
Publicis Groupe CEO Maurice Levy was not personally named as a
defendant; nor were any members of Publicis Groupe board.

"Defendants have attempted to spin the proposed transaction as a
'merger of equals' even though Omnicom stockholders are being
forced to give up much more for their portion of the combined
company than Publicis shareholders are giving for their portion of
the combined company," the suit contends.

Mr. Ansfield argued that Publicis shareholders are getting a
higher stake in the combined company even though Omnicom had "far
higher" revenues than Publicis in 2012 -- $14.2 billion versus
$8.5 billion.  He also noted that Omnicom's earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, operating income,
net income and free cash flow were all significantly higher than
Publicis Groupe's in 2012.

The suit contends that unless the court quashes the merger Omnicom
shareholders will suffer "immediate and irreparable injury."

Mr. Ansfield also cited a number of analyst reports attesting to
Omnicom's robust financial performance in recent years, which has
been projected to continue without the need to execute a merger,
let alone one that shortchanges Omnicom shareholders.


PANERA BREAD: Pays $3.7MM Part of Accord in Calif. Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company paid the settlement amount of $3.7 million
for a labor lawsuit in California during the 13 weeks ended June
25, 2013, according to the company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 25, 2013.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick
Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company. The
lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Contra Costa.

On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add another former
employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff. The complaint
alleged, among other things, violations of the California Labor
Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest
periods and termination compensation and violations of
California's Business and Professions Code.

The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to
be appropriate. On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported
class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed
by David Carter, which is described in the subsequent paragraph.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the parties agreed
to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate amount of $5.0
million for settlement payments to purported class members,
plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and costs of administering the
settlement. The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission of
wrongdoing.

The terms and conditions of the settlement were preliminarily
approved by the Court on June 8, 2012. On December 21, 2012, the
Court approved the terms and conditions of the settlement and the
settlement payment amounts, and on February 5, 2013, the Court
approved plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The Company
maintained a reserve of $3.7 million in accrued expenses in the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 25, 2012 and
paid the settlement amount of $3.7 million during the thirteen
weeks ended June 25, 2013.

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David
Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company,
and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the
Company's franchisees.

The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of
San Bernardino. The complaint alleged, among other things,
violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination
compensation and violations of California's Business and
Professions Code. The complaint sought, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court determines to be appropriate. This
matter, as it relates to the subsidiary, was consolidated with the
lawsuit described in the immediately preceding paragraph and was
resolved under the Memorandum of Agreement.


PENGUIN GROUP: Wants Class Action Over Armstrong's Book Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the publishers of Lance Armstrong's autobiographical books
have moved to dismiss a proposed class action asserting that they
misled consumers into believing they were buying an honest
narrative of the disgraced cyclist's real life.

The suit was filed on January 22 on behalf of a class of thousands
of California consumers after Mr. Armstrong admitted to television
host Oprah Winfrey that he used performance-enhancing drugs during
his seven Tour de France victories.  Five Northern California
residents who purchased one or both of Armstrong's books -- It's
Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life and Every Second
Counts -- sued the publishers for marketing as biographies
predominantly works of "fiction."

"The claim against the publishers is that at some point in time
they knew or should have known that the books were lies," said
plaintiff's attorney Kevin Roddy --
kroddy@wilentz.com -- a shareholder at Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer
in Woodbridge, N.J.

The suit, which names Mr. Armstrong as a defendant, also claims
that his financier, Thomas Weisel, as team owner, and his agent
and longtime attorney, William "Bill" Stapleton, perpetuated the
fraud by creating and building the "Armstrong" brand over the
years.

All the defendants have moved to strike the complaint under
California's anti-SLAPP law, which allows dismissal of "strategic
lawsuits against public participation," or actions designed to
chill speech.  They argued that the books and advertising and
marketing materials relating to them were not commercial speech
and are protected under the First Amendment.  They also noted that
the consumers failed to identify specific misstatements upon which
they relied in purchasing the books.

A hearing on the motion to strike was scheduled for Aug. 8.  U.S.
District Judge Morrison England, chief judge of the Eastern
District of California in Sacramento, has indicated that he will
schedule a hearing on the dismissal motions sometime between
September and December.

Mr. Armstrong's attorney, Zia Modabber --
zia.modabber@kattenlaw.com -- a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman
in Los Angeles, denied the allegations.

"The few paragraphs where Lance denies using performance-enhancing
drugs don't turn books about his entire life into works of
fiction," he said.

Jonathan Herman -- herman.jonathan@dorsey.com -- a partner at
Dorsey & Whitney in New York who represents Penguin Group (USA)
Inc. and its affiliates, which published It's Not About the Bike,
declined to comment.  Stephen Contopulos, a partner at Sidley
Austin in Los Angeles who represents Random House Inc. and its
related divisions, which published Every Second Counts in 2003,
did not return a call for comment.  On July 1, Random House and
Penguin created a joint venture called Penguin Random House LLC, a
division of Bertelsmann A.G.

Mr. Stapleton's attorney, Marc Harris -- mharris@scheperkim.com --
of Scheper Kim & Harris in Los Angeles, did not return a call for
comment. In court records, he wrote: "Plaintiffs' attempts to drag
Stapleton into this frivolous lawsuit are misguided and wholly
unsupported."

Mr. Weisel's attorney, Robert Sacks --
sacksr@sullcrom.com -- a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell in Los
Angeles, declined to comment.  But in court records, he called the
lawsuit "ridiculous."

"Against the Defendants that actually had something to do with the
writing and publishing of the books that Plaintiffs complain about
buying, this case is frivolous," Sacks wrote.  "Against
Mr. Weisel, it is a joke."

The case is one of two filed in California on behalf of consumers
following Mr. Armstrong's admission to doping earlier this year.
A second case, filed on February 28 in federal court in Los
Angeles, is a proposed nationwide consumer class action against
The FRS Co., which sold sports energy products endorsed by
Armstrong as official spokesman.  Mr. Armstrong also is a
defendant in that case.  A hearing on those motions is scheduled
for September 26.

A separate whistleblower suit, filed in 2010 by Floyd Landis, a
former team member of Armstrong's, asserts that Mr. Armstrong and
others, including Messrs. Weisel and Stapleton, violated the terms
of their sponsorship agreement with the U.S. Postal Service.  On
February 22, the U.S. Justice Department, seeking damages on
behalf of the Postal Service, which sponsored Armstrong's team,
joined the case, brought under the U.S. False Claims Act in
federal court in the District of Columbia.  A hearing on motions
to dismiss that case is scheduled for November 18.

In the publishing case, the proposed class also includes consumers
who purchased three other Lance Armstrong books: The Lance
Armstrong Performance Program: 7 Weeks to the Perfect Ride, which
came out in 2000; Lance Armstrong: Images of A Champion, published
in 2004; and Comeback 2.0: Up Close and Personal, released in
2009.

Mr. Roddy said the case -- which asserts violations of
California's various consumer protection statutes, negligent
misrepresentation and fraud and deceit -- seeks at least $5
million in damages.

"Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased the
Armstrong Books and/or they would not have paid as much money for
the Armstrong Books had they known the true facts concerning
Armstrong's years of lies and misconduct and his admitted
involvement in a sports doping scandal that has led to his recent
and ignominious public exposure and fall from glory," the suit
says.


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated acquisition-related lawsuit, according to the
Company's July 26, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In December 2012, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Ameristar
Casinos Inc. ("Ameristar") in an all cash transaction valued at
$26.50 per share representing total consideration of $2.8 billion,
including assumed debt.  Ameristar operates these casinos:
Ameristar Casino Resort Spa St. Charles (serving the St. Louis,
Missouri metropolitan area); Ameristar Casino Hotel Kansas City
(serving the Kansas City metropolitan area); Ameristar Casino
Hotel Council Bluffs (serving the Omaha, Nebraska metropolitan
area and southwestern Iowa); Ameristar Casino Resort Spa Black
Hawk (serving the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area); Ameristar
Casino Hotel Vicksburg (serving Jackson, Mississippi and Monroe,
Louisiana); Ameristar Casino Hotel East Chicago (serving the
Chicagoland area); and Cactus Petes Resort Casino and The Horseshu
Hotel and Casino in Jackpot, Nevada (serving Idaho and the Pacific
Northwest).  The transaction is expected to close by the end of
the third quarter of 2013, subject to closing conditions and
regulatory approvals.

On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Ameristar was
filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County, captioned Joseph
Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the "Grob action").   The
complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of
Directors (the "Ameristar Defendants"); and Pinnacle
Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32,
Inc. as defendants (the "Pinnacle Defendants").  The complaint
generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided
and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in
connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar.  The
action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction
halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff shareholder,
including attorneys' fees.  Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed
additional complaints in the same court making essentially the
same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action.
On January 15, 2013, the court issued an order consolidating the
actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single,
consolidated action.  The action is still in the initial stages
and there has been no discovery.

The Company believes that the allegations directed against it lack
merit and intend to defend itself vigorously.

Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.pnkinc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Pinnacle
is an owner, operator and developer of casinos and related
hospitality and entertainment facilities.


SAM'S CLUB: Federal Appeals Court Vacates Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal appeals court has vacated class certification in a suit
claiming extended warranties by retailer Sam's Club were
worthless.

The plaintiff failed to show that the proposed class is
sufficiently numerous and that class members can be easily
ascertained, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held
in Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 12-2522.

The Aug. 2 ruling relied on the court's decision in Marcus v. BMW
of North America, 687 F.3d 583 (2012), which held that Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 requires a party show by a preponderance of the
evidence that class membership can be readily determined.

In the case at hand, William Hayes bought a $100 power washer,
with a $5.26 service plan, and later a $350 37-inch television,
with a $39.85 service plan.  Both products were labeled as-is, and
offered at reduced prices, at Sam's Club in Williamstown.

Mr. Hayes later discovered that the TV's manual and remote control
were missing.  The store gave him those items but said he should
not have been sold the service plan because the TV was not
covered.

Sam's Club service plans generally do not cover products sold as-
is, unless the item is covered by a manufacturer's warranty.

Mr. Hayes was offered a refund for the plan cost but declined.

In January 2010, Mr. Hayes sued on behalf of all consumers who
bought a service plan for an as-is product from Sam's Club in New
Jersey since January 2004.  He asserted violations of the Consumer
Fraud Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle granted certification in March
2012, finding the class met the ascertainability requirement
because buyers could be determined by objective criteria.  He also
found the class sufficiently numerous because Sam's Club records
showed 3,500 transactions that included a price override, done
when as-is items are sold, and purchase of a service plan.

Judge Simandle reasoned that even if 5 percent of those
transactions were for as-is items ineligible for service plans,
the class would be sufficiently numerous.  He also found that the
purchase of the power washer was a proper basis for class
certification but the purchase of the TV was not because the
service plan was honored when the missing remote was replaced.

Wal-Mart, Sam's Club's parent, was granted leave for an
interlocutory appeal.  It claimed Hayes failed to show that a
reliable method of ascertaining class membership existed and that
the class is sufficiently numerous.

On appeal, Judges Anthony Scirica, Thomas Ambro and Julio Fuentes
said that "where nothing in company databases shows or could show
whether individuals should be included in the proposed class, the
class definition fails."

The Marcus plaintiffs sued BMW and Bridgestone over allegedly
defective tires, but records did not indicate which cars were sold
with those tires.  Forcing BMW and Bridgestone to accept as true
car owners' declarations that they are class members would have
"serious due process implications," the Marcus court said.

The Hayes panel remanded for limited fact-finding on whether a
reliable way for ascertaining class membership is available.

The petition for certification "will founder if the only proof of
class membership is the say-so of putative class members or if
ascertaining the class requires extensive or individualized fact-
finding," Judge Scirica wrote for the panel.

The appeals court also said that the plaintiff did not fulfill the
numerosity requirement.  On remand, he must show direct or
circumstantial evidence so the trial court may determine whether
there are enough parties to warrant class action, Judge Scirica
wrote.

The lawyer for Wal-Mart, John Papianou --
jpapianou@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in
Philadelphia, declines to comment.

Plaintiff lawyers Daniel Lapinski -- dlapinski@wilentz.com -- of
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, and James Shah --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah in
Collingswood, did not return calls.


SEI INVESTMENTS: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of ETF-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in July
2013 the dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to leveraged
exchange traded funds, according to SEI Investments Company's July
26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

One of SEI's principal subsidiaries, SEI Investments Distribution
Co., or SIDCO, has been named as a defendant in certain putative
class action complaints (the Complaints) related to leveraged
exchange traded funds (ETFs) advised by ProShares Advisors, LLC.
The first complaint was filed on August 5, 2009, and the
subsequent cases were all consolidated in the Southern District of
New York.  The Complaints are purportedly made on behalf of all
persons that purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various
ProShares leveraged ETFs pursuant or traceable to allegedly false
and misleading registration statements, prospectuses and
statements of additional information.  The Complaints name as
defendants ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust; ProShares
Trust II, SIDCO, and various officers and trustees to ProShares
Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust and ProShares Trust II.  The
Complaints allege that SIDCO was the distributor and principal
underwriter for the various ProShares leveraged ETFs that were
distributed to authorized participants and ultimately
shareholders.  The Complaints allege that the registration
statements for the ProShares ETFs were materially false and
misleading because they failed adequately to describe the nature
and risks of the investments and claim that SIDCO is liable for
these purportedly material misstatements and omissions under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  On September 7, 2012,
the District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
opinion dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals a
notice of appeal of the District Court's decision and on July 22,
2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the decision of the District Court dismissing the
amended complaint.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI believes that it has valid defenses to plaintiffs'
claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Based in Oaks, Pennsylvania and founded in 1968, SEI Investments
Company -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a publicly owned investment
manager.  The firm provides wealth management and investment
advisory services to its clients through its subsidiaries.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company continues to defend itself and a
subsidiary against class action lawsuits related to the role of
its subsidiary in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company, according to the Company's July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana.  Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.  One of the five
actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also
names SEI Private Trust Company, or SPTC, as a defendant and, was
certified as a class in December 2012.  Two of the other actions
also name SPTC as a defendant.  All five actions name various
defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the
plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action against SEI and SPTC
under the Louisiana Securities Act.  The putative class action
originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged
violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Two of the
other five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana
Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.  In addition, another
group of plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana,
against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy.  The underlying allegations in all the actions are
purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office
services to Stanford Trust Company.  The petitions allege that SEI
and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale
of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International
Bank.

Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to
federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  On August 31, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order
and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the
two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court
dismissed these cases with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs appealed
this ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United
States District Court and remanded the actions for further
proceedings.  On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of
the decision by the United States Court of Appeals in the Eleventh
Circuit to permit the claims against SEI to proceed.  SEI believes
that the trial correctly concluded that the claims against SEI
were barred by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act and is requesting that the Supreme Court reinstate that
dismissal.  On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the
petition for certiorari.  The case has not yet been scheduled for
oral argument, but is likely to be heard in early fall 2013.

The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas.  The schedule for responding to
that complaint has not yet been established.  The plaintiffs in
the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and
SPTC an extension to respond to the filings.  SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which
the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the
other exceptions.

SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class action,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI and
SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain
named plaintiffs which the Court stated will not be set for
hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion.
The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on class
certification on September 20, 2012.  By oral decision on
December 5, 2012, and later entered in a judgment signed on
December 17, 2012, that was subsequently amended, the Court in
East Baton Rouge certified a class to be composed of persons who
purchased any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit
(SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007, and February 13,
2009; persons who renewed any SIB CD in Louisiana between
January 1, 2007, and February 13, 2009; or any person for whom the
Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between
January 1, 2007, and February 13, 2009.

On January 30, 2013, SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from
the judgments that stated SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to
stay the litigation.  On February 1, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for Leave to File First Amended and Restated Class Action
Petition in which they ask the Court to allow them the petition in
this case to add additional facts that were developed during
discovery and adding claims against certain of SEI's insurance
carriers.  On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the
motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend.  On
February 15, 2013, SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the
alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's order allowing
amendment.  On February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay
proceedings in view of the pending Supreme Court case.  On
February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated
Class Action Petition by filing an exception.  On March 11, 2013,
the insurance carrier defendants filed a notice of removal
removing the case to the Middle District of Louisiana and on
March 18, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed answers.
On March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-
along action.  On March 18, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants
filed answers.  On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand, a motion for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status
conference and expedited consideration of their motion to remand,
a motion for leave to file under seal and a motion for order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants
to supplement federal court record with certified copy of state
court record.  These motions are now fully briefed.  On March 25,
2013, SEI filed a motion that the court decline to adopt the state
court's order regarding class certification, which the court
dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of
removal jurisdiction in an April 12, 2013 order that also
dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and improper venue filed on April 9, 2013 by one of
the insurers.

On April 1, 2013, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions
(OFI) filed a motion to remand and sever claims and a response to
that motion by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the
plaintiffs were filed on April 22, 2013.  Along with the briefing
in the Middle District of Louisiana, on March 13, 2013, SEI
notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of
this case as a potential tag-along action.  On March 19, 2013,
plaintiffs notified the MDL that they had filed a motion to remand
and asking the panel to decline to issue a conditional transfer
order.  On March 29, 2013, the MDL issued a conditional transfer
order (CTO).  On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a motion to vacate the
CTO or, in the alternative, stay any ruling to transfer the matter
until after the Middle District of Louisiana rules on OFI's motion
to remand and sever.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
CTO on April 19, 2013.  SEI's responses to those motions were
filed on May 9, 2013.  On June 12, 2013, the MDL Panel issued an
order notifying the parties that on July 25, 2013, it would
consider, without oral argument, Plaintiffs' and OFI's motions to
vacate the CTO.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
outcome of the proceeding in the United States Supreme Court, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the lawsuits.

Based in Oaks, Pennsylvania and founded in 1968, SEI Investments
Company -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a publicly owned investment
manager.  The firm provides wealth management and investment
advisory services to its clients through its subsidiaries.


SUPERVALU INC: 8th Cir. Remands Suit by Consumer Goods Maker
------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th Circuit Court denied the Petition for Rehearing in a suit
alleging violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act against Supervalu Inc. and remanded the
case to the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, according to the company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period (16 weeks) ended June 15, 2013.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.,
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case
pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former
officers of IOS.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets.

In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of
the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's
bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to
C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three
other retailers have filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities
that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions.

On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit
for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied
the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District
Court.


SUPERVALU INC: Court Certifies Suit Over FWW Pay v. Save-A-Lot
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in the District of Connecticut
granted conditional certification in favor of plaintiff on the
issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the fluctuating work
week method of pay and denied Save-A-Lot's motion for summary
judgment on the same issue, according to Supervalu Inc.'s July 24,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period (16 weeks) ended June 15,
2013.

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-
Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent
current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week
method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the
District of Connecticut.

FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed
salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional
compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours.

Kiefer claims that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful,
that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay,
including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay, and
bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court
granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue
of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the
United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for
summary judgment on the same issue.

This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot has denied all
allegations in the case and continues to vigorously defend the
case. The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer have
filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU.

Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these filed
by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011 cases,
the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at
Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot
determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut.

In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano)
filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania
state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
Neither SUPERVALU nor Save-A-Lot has yet been required to respond
to the lawsuit filed by Pagano, but both Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU
deny any allegations of wrongdoing. In all three cases, plaintiffs
seek monetary damages and attorney's fees.


SYSTEM4 LLC: Employment Lawyer Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Merrill, a Massachusetts employment lawyer, writing for
Working The Law, reports that following a mandate from the U.S.
Supreme Court, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has
held that a contractual waiver of class action claims in an
employment dispute must be enforced.  The plaintiffs in the
ongoing case are franchisees who claim they serve as employees of
the defendants but are misclassified in order to deny them wages
and benefits.  They seek repayment of tens of thousands in
franchise fees along with damages under the Massachusetts Wage
Act, a statute that mandates the tripling of all damage awards.

The plaintiffs hoped to obtain class certification, a move that
would allow them to join all similarly situated franchisees in
their litigation, thus threatening the defendants with multi-
million dollar damages.  Class action suits are intended to make
litigation feasible for individuals who suffer relatively small
damages but are part of large groups of people suffering from
similar alleged wrongs.  As part of their franchise agreements,
however, the plaintiffs agreed to mandatory arbitration of all
disputes on individual bases.  A lower court refused to enforce
the arbitration clause and class action waiver, citing
Massachusetts public policy.  In reversing, the SJC followed
Supreme Court decision holding that class action waivers are
enforceable.  The SJC concluded that, unless a waiver effectively
deprives a plaintiff of the ability to redress complaints, it must
be enforced.

"The Supreme Court in [AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion] has
declared that the inherent conflict between arbitration and class
proceedings must be resolved in favor of arbitration, as long as a
class waiver does not operate to deny a plaintiff any meaningful
remedy," the SJC wrote.  Because each plaintiff sought repayment
of franchise fees of between $9,000 and $22,000, they could pursue
their individual claims without forming a class of plaintiffs.
"Although the magnitude of potential damages is not the sole
criterion to be considered in determining whether a claim is
remediable in individual arbitration according to the terms of the
arbitration agreement, it may be the most important factor," the
court wrote.

The SJC case is Machado v. System4 LLC.  It was decided June 12,
2013.  While the decision upheld the class action
waiver/arbitration clause, the court also concluded that a waiver
of the mandatory tripling of damages in the Massachusetts Wage Act
was void as contrary to public policy.  The plaintiffs in Machado,
then can obtain triple damages and payment of their legal fees by
the defendants if they establish they were employees who were
denied wage payments under the Act.  This they must do in
individual arbitration proceedings.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 342,000 Vehicles Over Seat Belt Flaw
----------------------------------------------------------
Jayne O'Donnell, writing for USA TODAY, reports that Toyota said
on Aug. 7 that it is voluntarily recalling about 342,000 Toyota
Tacoma Access Cab vehicles from the years 2004-2011 because of a
flaw in the seat belts.  Screws that attach the seat belt pre-
tensioner to the seat belt retractor for drivers and front
passengers can become loose, which could affect the technology's
ability to protect in a crash.

Owners of vehicles subject to this recall will be notified by
first class mail.  Information is available to customers at
www.toyota.com/recall and at the Toyota Customer Experience Center
at 1-800-331-4331.


TOYSMITH OF SUMNER: Recalls Light-Up Toy Frogs and Ducks
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Toysmith, of Sumner, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about
30,000 light-up toy frogs and ducks.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal conductor pin on the bottom of the toys can come out,
posing a choking hazard.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes light-up soft plastic toy frogs and ducks.
The toys light up when the sensors on the bottom of the product
are touched or placed in water.  The frog comes in green and the
ducks come in yellow, pink and clear.  The toys are approximately
2.25 inches in length and 1.5 inches in height.  There is a round
tag attached to the product with the UPC number 2424 5159.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/f42L93

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Cost Plus World Market between July 2012 and
December 2012 for around $3.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products, put
them away from children and return them to place of purchase for a
full refund.


UNITED STATES: Suit v. Black Farmers Class Action Lawyers Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, lawyers involved in the high-profile black farmers
discrimination litigation defeated a lawsuit brought by an
advocate for the farmers who claimed he was promised fees but
never paid.

The National Black Farmers Association and its president,
John Boyd Jr., sued lawyers Andrew Marks --
amarks@coffeyburlington.com -- and James Scott Farrin --
james.farrin@farrin.com -- accusing them of refusing to pay him
after repeatedly promising to do so, and of trying to claim fees
for work Boyd did advocating on behalf of the farmers.

The government reached a settlement with the farmers in excess of
$1 billion and, earlier this summer, a federal judge awarded $90.8
million to plaintiffs lawyers.  U.S. District Judge Richard Leon
ruled on Aug. 6 that Mr. Boyd and the association lacked standing
to sue, since he didn't have a legal interest in the settlement or
fee award, and failed to state a claim.

Mr. Boyd couldn't be reached for comment.  His lawyer, Alexander
Pires Jr. of Washington's Pires Cooley, declined to comment.

Mr. Marks, who was represented by Keith Harrison --
kharrison@crowell.com -- and Michael Kuppersmith --
mkuppersmith@crowell.com -- of Crowell & Moring, said on Aug. 7
that he "was pleased that Judge Leon recognized that there were no
facts to support any claim."  Mr. Marks is a partner at Coffey
Burlington in Miami and also runs a solo practice in Washington.

Mr. Farrin, who runs the Law Offices of James Scott Farrin in
North Carolina, was represented by Bradley Risinger --
brad.risinger@smithmoorelaw.com -- of Smith Moore Leatherwood in
Raleigh, N.C.  Mr. Risinger said on Aug. 7 that Judge Leon reached
"the right decision" and said that the "real winners" were the
claimants in the class action.


UNITIL CORP: "Bellerman" Plaintiffs Appeal Class Cert. Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the suit Bellerman et al. v. Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company have appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court a court ruling denying a motion to certify the case
as a class action, according to the company's July 24, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil Corporation's (the "Company") Massachusetts based utility,
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in
Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned
Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company).

The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including
the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources,
emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages
allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of
electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service
territory in December, 2008.

The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for
purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 ice storm.  On September 4, 2009, the Court issued
its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint,
granting it in part and denying it in part.

Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the
complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a
class action.  On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision
denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.

As a result of this decision, the lawsuit would now proceed with
only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages; however, the
plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court. The Company continues to believe the suit
is without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously.


US AIRWAYS: Faces Suits Over Planned Merger With AMR Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------
US Airways Group, as well as the members of US Airways Group's
board of directors, were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought
by a purported class of US Airways Group's stockholders
challenging the Merger with AMR Corporation and seeking a
declaration that the Merger Agreement is unenforceable, an
injunction against the Merger (or rescission in the event it has
been consummated), imposition of a constructive trust, an award of
fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and other
relief, according to US Airways' July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 248 Pension Fund v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605 was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of Arizona in Maricopa County.

On July 3, 2013, a Second Amended Complaint was filed in the
above-referenced action, captioned Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605. The complaint
names as defendants US Airways Group and the members of its board
of directors, and alleges that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to
maximize the value of US Airways Group and ignoring or failing to
protect against conflicts of interest, and that US Airways Group
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the Merger Agreement is
unenforceable, an injunction against the Merger, or rescission in
the event it has been consummated, imposition of a constructive
trust, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and other relief.

On June 20, 2013, the plaintiff in the above-referenced action
moved for a temporary restraining order seeking to temporarily
enjoin the Company Annual Meeting of Stockholders. On June 25,
2013, the court in the action entered an order denying the
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. The Company
believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against the allegations.


WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Continues to Defend Iowa Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2010, West Bank, a subsidiary of West
Bancorporation, Inc., was sued in a purported class action lawsuit
that, as amended, asserts that nonsufficient funds fees charged by
West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on bank debit
card transactions, but not checks or Automated Clearing House
items, are usurious under Iowa law, rather than allowable fees,
and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted items for
payment in consumer demand accounts violated various alleged
duties of good faith.  As West Bank understands the current
claims, plaintiffs are seeking alternative remedies that include
injunctive relief, damages (including treble damages), punitive
damages, refund of fees, and attorney fees.  West Bank believes
the lawsuit allegations are factually and legally incorrect in
multiple material ways and is vigorously defending the action.
The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated now because the multiple alternative claims involve
different time periods and present different defenses related to
potential liability, class certification, and damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

West Bancorporation, Inc. -- http://www.westbankiowa.com/-- is an
Iowa corporation and a bank holding company.  The Company,
headquartered in West Des Moines, Iowa, was formed in 1984 to own
West Des Moines State Bank, an Iowa chartered bank, which is now
known as West Bank.


ZEALANDIA HOLDING: Timeshare Owners File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Finn Law Group on Aug. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of timeshare owners at Festiva's Orlando Resort
alleging that the resort's developers and managers as well as RCI,
a timeshare interest exchange bank, engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices and racketeering has been removed to federal
court.

The class action suit, Reeves, et al. v. RCI, Zealandia Holding
Company Inc., et al., cause no. 13-CA-866-MF, was filed March 1 in
the 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, in Osceola County.  On
April 12, 2013, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, cause no.
6:13-cv-00597.

The suit alleges that, beginning in 2004, approximately 900
parties purchased timeshare interests in Celebration World Resort
Owners Association, located in Kissimmee, Fla., from B.L. Vacation
Ownership Inc.  Between 2008 and 2011, timeshare owners were sold
upgrades for a timeshare exchange program by Celebration World
Resort Marketing that involved a point system administered by RCI.
The owners were told that the timeshare exchange program would
dramatically increase the number of RCI points they owned which
could be applied to future timeshare reservations.  However, the
RCI points were later revoked by Zealandia, the company that
purchased the resort.  The complaint alleges that Zealandia
admitted the RCI points program was "distorted" and "too good to
be true."

The amended complaint adds class representative plaintiffs and
counts, including the charging of RCI and others with violations
of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, Civil Conspiracy
and Federal Racketeering Charges (RICO) 18 USC 1962(d).

Michael D. Finn of Finn Law Group states, "RCI administered a
program that supplied overinflated points.  Those points were used
by Celebration World Resort Marketing to sell timeshare upgrades.
By processing, and thereby validating the issuance of these
'upgrade points,' RCI allowed the fraudulent transactions to be
completed."

The timeshare owners seek a refund, rescission of the upgrade
sales contracts, attorneys' fees and other relief the court deems
proper.

The Finn Law Group, which has offices in Florida and Michigan,
represents consumers in timeshare and related real estate matters.
For more information, contact Michael D. Finn by calling 855-346-
6529 or michaeldfinn@finnlawgroup.com


* Oyster and Clam Products Recalled in the U.S., Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 7, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:                          Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:                Class 2
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       --
Distribution:                         Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to consume the oysters and clams described below because they
may be contaminated with Vibrio parahaemolyticus.

Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected oysters
or clams should contact their retailer.

The Canadian importers are voluntarily recalling the affected
products from the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the
effectiveness of the recalls.

The Connecticut Department of Agriculture announced a recall of
oysters and clams from certain harvest areas, reporting that they
were implicated in a number of illnesses in the US.  There have
been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of
these oysters and clams in Canada.  More information on the US
recall is available at:
http://www.ct.gov/doag/cwp/view.asp?Q=529440&A=1401.

Affected products:

   Common name                            Code(s) on product
   -----------                            ------------------
Blue point oysters or Atlantic oysters    Codes or dates of sale
                                          Sold from July 3/13 to
                                          August 6/13, inclusively

Littleneck clams                          Codes or dates of sale
                                          Sold from July 3/13 to
                                          August 6/13, inclusively

Cherrystone clams                         Codes or dates of sale
                                          Sold from July 3/13 to
                                          August 6/13, inclusively

Oysters                                   Codes or dates of sale
                                          Sold from July 3/13 to
                                          August 6/13, inclusively

Blue point oysters                        Codes or dates of sale
                                          Harvest sites CT-79,
                                          CT-105, CT-109 and
                                          CT-207 and harvest dates
                                          from July 3/13 to
                                          Aug. 2/13, inclusively.


                             *********

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  * * *