CAR_Public/130813.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 158

                             Headlines


ALTRIA GROUP: PM Still Faces 16 Suits in Canada, 1 in Israel
ALTRIA GROUP: "Price" Plaintiff Challenges Dismissal of Ill. Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Engle Collective Suits Total 1,300 as of July
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Seven Smoking, Health Lawsuits in Canada
ALTRIA GROUP: Scott Suit Closed After $103MM Lawyers Fee Payment

ALTRIA GROUP: Nov. Hearing Set in NY Medical Monitoring Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Federal Courts Junk Suits for Medical Expenditures
ALTRIA GROUP: Israel Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Cert.
ALTRIA GROUP: 2013 & 2014 Hearing Dates Set for "Lights" Cases
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Anti-Theft Security Operation

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: 5th Cir. Affirmed CO2 Emission Suit Dismissal
BIG LOTS: Recalls Tabletop Torches Due to Fire and Burn Hazard
BLUE SHIELD: Sells Policies With "Hidden Deductibles," Suit Says
CALIFORNIA: Scalia Won't Allow Release of 10,000 Inmates
CASH AMERICA: Suit Over Short-Term Loans to Go to Trial in Nov.

COLORADO ROCKIES: Accused of Violating Consumer Protection Act
CORELOGIC INC: All Claims in FCRA Suit vs. Teletrack Dismissed
CORELOGIC INC: CVS Still Defends Suit Alleging RESPA Violations
EI DUPONT: Imprelis-Related Suits Stayed Through Sept. 2013
ELI LILLY: "Ballard" Class Action Suit Still Pending in Louisiana

ELI LILLY: Product Liability Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
EQUINOX GROUP: $150,000 Settlement in "Barnes" Suit Approved
EVENFLO: Recalls SECURE KID Model Child Car Seat
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Aug. 16 Hearing on Shareholder Suit Settlement
GIANT BICYCLES: Recalls XtC Bicycles and Seatposts

GOLD STAR: Recalls Baltic Treasures, Norwegian Style Matjes
HALLIBURTON CO: Fact Discovery Has Resumed in "John Fund" Suit
HALLIBURTON CO: Macondo MDL Parties Filed Findings of Facts
HOLGATE TOY: Recalls Playmat Sets Due to Choking Hazard
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defends "Koetsch" Securities Suit in New York

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defends MLAF Securities Litigation in New York
J&R HOME: Recalls Halogen Quartz Pergola Heater
LEAR CORP: Seeks to File Interlocutory Appeal in Wire Harness Suit
MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Roy Brand and No Name Brand Chicken Pies
MONA VIE: Sells Pricey Super Juice With False Claims, Suit Says

MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Awaits for "Miller" Plaintiffs to File Accord
NAVISTAR INT'L: Recalls 2,548 School Buses in Canada
OLD PORT FISHING: Recalls Oysters From Connecticut
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Appeal in Stateroom Attendants' Suit Pending
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Awaits Next Move of Securities Suit Plaintiffs

SAKS INC: Being Sold to Hudson's Bay for Too Little, Suit Claims
SEA MERCHANTS: Recalls Oysters From Connecticut
TEREX CORP: Still Awaits Rulings on Bids to Dismiss 2 Class Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 26,830 TACOMA Model Light Trucks & Vans
TYSON PREPARED: To Pay Workers for Putting On/Taking Off Garments

UNITED PROCESSING: Recalls Boneless Veal Products
VERMEER COMPANY: Recalls 2 Units of R9X12T Model Heavy Trailers
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Accused of Lying About Healthcare Reform
WAL-MART INC: Calif. Court Refused to Certify Gender Bias Class
WHITE VEAL: Recalls Veal Liver Sold in Quebec

ZIP INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Baltic Sprats in Spicy Brine


                             *********


ALTRIA GROUP: PM Still Faces 16 Suits in Canada, 1 in Israel
------------------------------------------------------------
As of July 22, 2013, Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) is named
defendant in Israel in one "Lights" class action, according to
Altria Group Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

PM USA is a named defendant in nine health care cost recovery
actions in Canada, seven of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as
a defendant.

PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants in seven
smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian
provinces.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Price" Plaintiff Challenges Dismissal of Ill. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the so-called Price lawsuit is seeking to reopen
the judgment dismissing this purported "Lights" class action in
Illinois, according to Altria Group Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 54 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which Philip Morris USA
Inc. (PM USA) was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and
other defendants were returned in 37 of the 54 cases. These 37
cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (5), Florida (10),
Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3),
New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2),
Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2), and West
Virginia (2).

A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in
Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter),
the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's
motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's notice of appeal of this
ruling remains pending. See Types and Number of Cases for a
discussion of the trial results in In re: Tobacco Litigation (West
Virginia consolidated cases).

Of the 17 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 13 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006. The plaintiff in Price is seeking to reopen the
judgment dismissing this case.

As of July 22, 2013, 44 Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have
resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle
decision; and 23 verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and
21 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA.


ALTRIA GROUP: Engle Collective Suits Total 1,300 as of July
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of July 22, 2013, approximately 1,300 Engle cases are pending
against Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) in federal district court
asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number of
federal court plaintiffs, according to Altria Group Inc.'s July
24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In July 2002, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that
execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment
will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating
defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a
result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into an
interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of
the judicial review, was to be paid to the court and the court was
to determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed
the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial
court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs
petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of
the mandate:

   (i) that smoking causes various diseases;

  (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive;

(iii) that defendants' cigarettes were defective and unreasonably
dangerous;

  (iv) that defendants concealed or omitted material information
not otherwise known or available knowing that the material was
false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact
concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking;

   (v) that defendants agreed to misrepresent information
regarding the health effects or addictive nature of cigarettes
with the intention of causing the public to rely on this
information to their detriment;

  (vi) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information
regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive
nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the
information to their detriment;

(vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were
defective; and

(viii) that defendants were negligent.

The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found
that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3
million, representing its share of compensatory damages and
interest, to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the
Florida Supreme Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling that
certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent
individual trials timely brought by Engle class members.

The rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal
errors that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Third
District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be
addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August
2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of
limitations to non-members of the decertified class.

In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its
July 2006 ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I
findings entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v)
listed (relating to agreement to misrepresent information), and
added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the
representations of fact made by defendants.

In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from
its revised opinion. Defendants then filed a motion with the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting that the court
address legal errors that were previously raised by defendants but
have not yet been addressed either by the Third District Court of
Appeal or by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007, the
Third District Court of Appeal denied defendants' motion.

In May 2007, defendants' motion for a partial stay of the mandate
pending the completion of appellate review was denied by the Third
District Court of Appeal. In May 2007, defendants filed a petition
for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In
October 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants'
petition. In November 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied
defendants' petition for rehearing from the denial of their
petition for writ of certiorari.

In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class, except
for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally
vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme
Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain
defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to
allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond
stipulation and will receive no credit at this time from the $500
million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards
in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice.

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's decision, expired in January 2008. As of
July 22, 2013, approximately 3,300 state court cases were pending
against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims
by or on behalf of approximately 4,400 state court plaintiffs.
Furthermore, as of July 22, 2013, approximately 1,300 cases were
pending against PM USA in federal district court asserting
individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number of federal
court plaintiffs.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville) dismissed 521 Engle progeny cases with prejudice in
January 2013 and 306 such cases with prejudice on June 17, 2013.
In February 2013, plaintiffs appealed the January dismissal to the
U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Because of a number
of factors including, but not limited, to docketing delays,
duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers
are estimates.


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Seven Smoking, Health Lawsuits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
As of July 22, 2013, Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and Altria
Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette
manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian
provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British
Columbia and Ontario, according to Altria Group Inc.'s July 24,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts.

In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of
residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases
purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and,
in many cases, claims of physical injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1),
South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of July 22, 2013, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.

In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes.

In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia,
plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who
smoked defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: Scott Suit Closed After $103MM Lawyers Fee Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The so-called Scott litigation has concluded after the trial court
awarded the plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees in an amount of
approximately $103 million in December 2012, according to Altria
Group Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Following a 2004 verdict that awarded plaintiffs approximately
$590 million to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program and a
series of appeals and other post-trial motions, PM USA recorded in
the second quarter of 2011 a provision on its condensed
consolidated balance sheet of approximately $36 million related to
the judgment and approximately $5 million related to interest,
which was in addition to a previously recorded provision of
approximately $30 million. In August 2011, PM USA paid its share
of the judgment and interest in an amount of approximately $70
million.

In October 2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and costs. In December 2012, the trial court
awarded the plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees in an amount of
approximately $103 million, all of which have now been paid from
the court supervised fund. This litigation has concluded.


ALTRIA GROUP: Nov. Hearing Set in NY Medical Monitoring Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument is scheduled for November 13, 2013 on the question
before the New York State Court of Appeals whether it would
recognize an independent claim for medical monitoring of people
who might have cancer as a result of smoking Marlboro, according
to Altria Group Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

In addition to the Scott class action, two purported medical
monitoring class actions are pending against Philip Morris USA
Inc. (PM USA). These two cases were brought in New York (Caronia,
filed in January 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York) and Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in
December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) on behalf of each state's respective residents who:
are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-
years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer
nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung
cancer.

Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various
product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-
supervised program providing members of the purported class Low
Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer.
Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages. Two other
cases (California (Xavier) and Florida (Gargano)) were dismissed
in 2011.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part
PM USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim.

In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint and PM USA
moved to dismiss the implied warranty and medical monitoring
claims. In January 2011, the district court granted PM USA's
motion, dismissed plaintiffs' claims and declared plaintiffs'
motion for class certification moot in light of the dismissal of
the case. The plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On May 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' traditional negligence,
strict liability and breach-of-warranty claims on the grounds of
statute of limitations and the widespread knowledge regarding the
risks of cigarette smoking, but certified to the New York State
Court of Appeals the following questions: (1) whether New York
would recognize an independent claim for medical monitoring, (2)
what would be the elements of such a claim, and (3) what would be
the statute of limitations applicable to such a claim and when
would it be triggered. On May 30, 2013, the questions were
accepted by the New York State Court of Appeals. Oral argument is
scheduled for November 13, 2013.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings.

In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, certifying the class as to
plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying
certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM
USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition
was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have
proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate
cost of $190 million.

In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for summary
judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which the district
court denied in March 2012 without prejudice. In October 2011, PM
USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was
denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended
the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the
class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to
exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of
February 26, 2013. A trial date has not been set.

Evolving medical standards and practices could have an impact on
the defense of medical monitoring claims. For example, the first
publication of the findings of the National Cancer Institute's
National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in June 2011 reported a 20%
reduction in lung cancer deaths among certain long-term smokers
receiving Low Dose CT Scanning for lung cancer. Since then,
various public health organizations have begun to develop new lung
cancer screening guidelines. Also, a number of hospitals have
advertised the availability of screening programs and some
insurance companies now cover screening for some individuals.
Other studies in this area are ongoing.


ALTRIA GROUP: Federal Courts Junk Suits for Medical Expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals and associations sued in purported class actions or as
private attorneys general under the Medicare as Secondary Payer
("MSP") provisions of the Social Security Act to recover Medicare
expenditures allegedly incurred for the treatment of smoking-
related diseases.  Cases were brought in New York (2), Florida (2)
and Massachusetts (1).  All were dismissed by federal courts,
according to Altria Group Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.


ALTRIA GROUP: Israel Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported "Lights" class action pending against
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) in Israel (El-Roy) have filed a
notice of an appeal against a trial court's denial of the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, according to Altria
Group Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages.

These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in
certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on
behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation,
lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations,
non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct
that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First
Amendment.

As of July 22, 2013, a total of 15 such cases are pending in the
United States. Three of these cases are pending in U.S. federal
courts. The other cases are pending in various U.S. state courts.
In addition, a purported "Lights" class action is pending against
PM USA in Israel (El-Roy).

In El-Roy, hearings on plaintiffs' motion for class certification
were held in November and December 2008, and an additional hearing
on class certification was held in November 2011. In November
2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and ordered the plaintiffs to pay defendants
approximately $100,000 in attorney fees. Plaintiffs in that case
have noticed an appeal.


ALTRIA GROUP: 2013 & 2014 Hearing Dates Set for "Lights" Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing dates were set in Wyatt, Cabbat, and Phillips, which are
purported "Lights" class actions served upon Philip Morris USA
Inc. (PM USA) and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc., according
to Altria's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and
dismissed the case.

In December 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that
plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal preemption. Although
the Court rejected the argument that the FTC's actions were so
extensive with respect to the descriptors that the state law
claims were barred as a matter of federal law, the Court's
decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate merits of
plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the action as a class action,
or other state law issues.

The case was returned to the federal court in Maine and
consolidated with other federal cases in the multidistrict
litigation proceeding. In June 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the case without prejudice after the district court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, concluding the
litigation.

              Federal Multidistrict Proceeding

Since the December 2008, United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through July 22, 2013, 26 purported "Lights" class
actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria
Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and the District of Columbia.

All of these cases either were filed in federal court or were
removed to federal court by PM USA and were transferred and
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
for pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants.

Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this decision but, in
February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. Later that year,
plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
their cases.

In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases
(Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district
courts in which the suits originated. In Tang, which was pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in
July 2012, concluding the litigation.

In Phillips, which is now pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, defendants filed in June 2012 a
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' class
action consumer sales practices claims and a motion for judgment
on the pleadings on plaintiffs' state deceptive trade practices
claims. In March 2013, the court granted defendants' motions,
dismissing with prejudice the associated claims.

In April 2013, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on the class component of plaintiffs' claims for fraud
and unjust enrichment. If defendants' motion is successful, the
only remaining claims that could potentially be pursued on a
class-wide basis would be claims for implied and express warranty.
A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification currently
is set for October 30, 2013.

In Cabbat, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii, plaintiffs amended their complaint in July
2012, adding a claim for unjust enrichment and dropping their
claims for breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification in April 2013. The trial
court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for July 26, 2013
and set a February 10, 2014 trial date.

In Wyatt, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in January 2013. The trial court scheduled a hearing
on plaintiffs' motion for August 1, 2013.


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Anti-Theft Security Operation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Vance and Aaron Vance, on behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.Com.KYDC, Inc.,
Amazon.com.KYDC, LLC, Zappos.com, Inc., Zappos Fulfillment
Centers, Inc., and Kelly Services, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00765-
JGH (W.D. Ky., August 1, 2013), challenges the Defendants' alleged
unlawful practice of refusing to pay the Plaintiffs, and similarly
situated employees, for the time it takes them to proceed through
a mandatory, post-shift, anti-theft security screening operation.

The Defendants have always required the Plaintiffs, along with all
similarly situated employees, to proceed through a lengthy anti-
theft security screening operation after clocking out at the end
of their work shifts, the Plaintiffs assert.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants have never compensated them, or any
similarly situated overtime-eligible employees, for the time it
takes them to proceed through this mandatory, post-shift security
screening operation.

Tina Vance is a resident of Bullitt County, Kentucky.  She has
worked at the Zappos Fulfillment Center since April 2012.  She is
currently off from work on short-term disability leave.  Aaron
Vance is a resident of Jefferson County, Kentucky.  He worked at
the Zappos Fulfillment Center from September 2012 through the
termination of his employment in March 2013.

Amazon.com, Amazon-KYDC, Inc. and Amazon-KYDC, LLC are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Seattle, Washington.  Zappos.com and
Zappos Fulfillment are Delaware corporations headquartered in
Henderson, Nevada.  Kelly Services is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Troy, Michigan.  During the Relevant Time
Periods, the Defendants have been regularly engaged in interstate
commerce, and have been an enterprise within the meaning of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
          KIRCHER, SUETHOLZ AND GRAYSON
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636-4333
          Facsimile: (502) 636-4342
          E-mail: jchrissanders@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
          217 Second Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  stift@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: 5th Cir. Affirmed CO2 Emission Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, 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 in May 2013,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the class action lawsuit relating to CO2 emissions.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch
of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims.  The court granted petitions
for rehearing.  An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the
court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the
panel decision.  The petition was denied in January 2011.
Plaintiffs refiled their complaint in federal district court.  The
court ordered all defendants to respond to the refiled complaints
in October 2011.  In March 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion for dismissal on several grounds, including the doctrine of
collateral estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations.

In May 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint.  The
plaintiffs may seek further review in the U.S. Supreme Court.  The
Company will continue to defend against the claims.  The Company
says it is unable to determine a range of potential losses that
are reasonably possible of occurring.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, American Electric Power Company,
Inc. -- http://www.aep.com/-- was incorporated in New York in
1906 and reorganized in 1925.  The Company is a public utility
holding company that owns, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its public utility subsidiaries and
varying percentages of other subsidiaries.


BIG LOTS: Recalls Tabletop Torches Due to Fire and Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about
30,000 Tabletop Torches.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

Once lit, the glass citronella table torches can flare up and emit
burning lamp oil onto consumers and property, posing fire and burn
hazards.

Big Lots has received 20 reports of liquid fuel erupting from the
torches with high flames, including two serious injuries with
second and third degree burns and seven with minor burns.  One of
the serious burn injuries involved burns to the legs and abdomen
and a second victim received burns all over the body while
attempting to extinguish the flames.  All of the incidents
involved property damage.

The recall involves large and small round tabletop torches that
have a wick and burn liquid citronella fuel.  The large torches
have a steel fuel container covered in multi-colored glass in a
mosaic pattern.  The large torch measures about 10 inches in
diameter, 5 inches high, and weighs about 2 1/2 pounds.  The small
torches have multi-colored glass fuel container with a metal and
wire stand.  They measure about 5 inches in diameter, 5 1/2 inches
high and weigh about one pound.  "Table Top Torch distributed by
Big Lots, Inc." and item #DC12-21111 (large torch) or Item #DC10-
20160 (small torch) is printed on a yellow label on the bottom of
the large torch and on a hang tag on the small torch.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Qd8KiR

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold
exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from March 2013 through
June 2013 for between $8 and $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled torches and
return them to any Big Lots store for a full refund.


BLUE SHIELD: Sells Policies With "Hidden Deductibles," Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Elizabeth Warmerdam
reports that Blue Shield of California uses deception and
misrepresentations to sell policies with "hidden deductibles" that
do not cover essential medical services, policyholders claim in a
class action.

Lead plaintiffs Arthur Bodner and Michael Felker sued Blue Shield
of California Life and Health Insurance Company in Superior Court,
alleging fraud, intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract
and other charges.

"Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy misrepresentations of
coverage Blue Shield has made in the marketing of its individual
'Vital Shield' health insurance policies," the complaint begins.
"Through the use of misleading policy names, sales brochures,
Internet advertisements, press releases, and other marketing
materials, Blue Shield has sold its Vital Shield Policies through
deception.

"Contrary to the statements of Blue Shield's marketing materials
and portions of the policy language itself, the Vital Shield
policies provide no coverage for a variety of essential medical
services.  Obscure provisions contained in policy footnotes
require insureds to meet a second tier 'hidden deductible' in
addition to the policies' stated annual deductible before such
services will be covered.  This drives up the insureds' out-of-
pocket costs to many times what they should reasonably expect from
a review of marketing materials and policy language.

"Under Blue Shield Vital Shield policies, insureds must actually
pay many thousands of dollars more than the stated annual
deductible of the plan before any coverage for essential medical
care applies.  For example, under the Vital Shield 2900 policy,
which Blue Shield represents as having a $2,900 annual deductible,
a consumer must actually pay, at the very least, $5,900 out of
pocket before the policy will provide any coverage for expensive
and essential medical services such as X-rays, diagnostic
examinations, laboratory services, CT scans, MRIs, and doctor
office visits.  And because the footnoted language of the policies
states that an insured's payment for such medical services does
not count against the deductible (the stated one and the hidden
one), it is possible for an insured to incur thousands of dollars
in out-of-pocket costs without ever reaching her deductible or
maximum out of pocket.

The policies state that once the deductibles have been met during
a calendar year, policyholders are entitled to benefit payments
for covered services, the class claims.

"However, in footnotes, the Vital Shield policies state that, for
a host of expensive and essential medical services, 'No benefit
payment is made by the Plan for this Service until the Maximum per
Insured Calendar year Copayment/Coinsurance responsibility is
met.'  Thus, the Maximum per Insured Calendar Year
Copayment/Coinsurance responsibility amount is actually the
minimum an insured must pay out-of-pocket before receiving any
benefits for such services, i.e., a hidden deductible," according
to the complaint.

Many of these medical services "tend to be medical procedures that
occur early in the diagnosis and treatment of an illness, e.g.,
physician office visits, radiological procedures, pathology and
laboratory services, so that the insured's deductibles and out-of-
pocket maximum remain unsatisfied through the provision of such
services, further driving up out-of-pocket costs and defeating the
reasonable expectation of the insureds," Bodner says.

The class includes all California residents who are or have been
enrolled in an individual Blue Shield Vital Shield policy.

Plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement of profits derived
from wrongful conduct.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Antony Stuart, Esq.
          STUART LAW FIRM
          801 South Grand Avenue, 11th floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612-0009
          Facsimile: (213) 489-0225
          E-mail: info@stuartlaw.us

The case is Arthur Bodner, et al. vs. Blue Shield of California
Life and Health, et al., Case No. BC516868, in California Superior
Court, Los Angeles County.


CALIFORNIA: Scalia Won't Allow Release of 10,000 Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that Justice
Antonin Scalia complained again about the expansion of "the Power
of the Black Robe" when it comes to the Supreme Court's
intervention in overcrowded California prisons.

The battle over California prison overcrowding has spanned five
governors and 23 years since prisoners Ralph Coleman and Marciano
Plata charged that cramped conditions degraded medical and mental
health care.  Coleman filed a federal class action in 1990 on
behalf of seriously mentally ill inmates, while Plata filed his
2001 action to improve conditions for prisoners with serious
medical conditions.

A three-judge panel for California's Eastern and Northern
Districts first ordered California to reduce its prison population
to 137.5 percent of capacity in 2009, but left state officials to
come up with a specific plan.  California appealed the order,
arguing that the panel was convened prematurely and that the
substance of the order was improper.

A five-justice majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the
order in 2011.

California noted more recently that it had reduced its inmate
population by more than 46,000 since 2006.  The 2011 Prison
Realignment Act, which sentences nonviolent, nonserious felons to
county jails rather than state prison, accounts for more than half
of that number.

The District Courts panel refused to modify its order, however,
and California had submitted an inmate reduction plan in May 2013.

Noting that the population remained 9,400 over the capacity
mandate, however, the panel shot the plan down as inadequate in
June.  It set a Dec. 31 deadline to comply and offered its own
suggestions to relieve overcrowding.

Faced with an order to release 10,000 prisoners by the end of 2013
or face contempt charges, Gov. Jerry Brown petitioned the high
court for a stay.

The justices declined Friday, August 3, 2013, much to the chagrin
of Scalia, who back in 2011 had decried the entire proceedings as
"a judicial travesty."

Justice Clarence Thomas joined that dissent and one that Scalia
penned August 3.

It notes the majority had been bluffing in 2011 when it purported
to give California an opportunity to modify the injunction.

"The state, seeking to invoke the ex ante appellate control of
district-court discretion, and to compel the modification decreed
by the Court's raised eyebrow, provided evidence that it has made
meaningful progress and that population reductions to the level
required by the injunction are unnecessary," Scalia wrote.  "But
the latter argument was made and rejected in the last round, and
the former hardly requires (demands) modification of the
injunction.  It was predictable two terms ago that the state would
make progress -- indeed, it promised to do so.  If the reality of
incremental progress makes the injunction now invalid, the
probability (indeed, one might say the certainty) of incremental
progress made the injunction an overreach two terms ago.  Surely
it is not the case that when a party subject to an injunction
makes substantial progress toward compliance it is an abuse of
discretion not to revise the injunction."

Now, California must "release upon the public nearly 10,000
inmates convicted of serious crimes -- about 1,000 for every city
larger than Santa Ana -- three-quarters of whom are moderate (57%)
or high (74%) recidivism risks," Scalia added.

"It appears to have become a standard ploy, when this court vastly
expands the Power of the Black Robe, to hint at limitations that
make it seem not so bad," he continued.  "Comes the moment of
truth, the hinted-at limitation proves a sham.  As for me, I
adhere to my original view of this terrible injunction.  It goes
beyond what the Prison Litigation Reform Act allows, and beyond
the power of the courts.  I would grant the stay and dissolve the
injunction."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward P. Sangster, Esq.
          Raymond E. Loughrey, Esq.
          K&L GATES, LLP (SAN FRANCISCO)
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 882-8200 x1028
          Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
          E-mail: ed.sangster@klgates.com
                  raymond.loughrey@klgates.com

               - and -

          Fred D. Heather, Esq.
          GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-6285
          Facsimile: (310) 785-3585
          E-mail: fheather@glaserweil.com

               - and -

          Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
          Lisa Adrienne Ells, Esq.
          Aaron Joseph Fischer, Esq.
          Blake Thompson, Esq.
          Ernest Galvan, Esq.
          Krista Michelle Stone-Manista, Esq.
          Laura Barbara Boysen-Aragon, Esq.
          Lori Rifkin, Esq.
          Michael Bien, Esq.
          Jane E. Kahn, Esq.
          Kenneth M. Walczak, Esq.
          Michael Louis Freedman, Esq.
          Thomas Bengt Nolan, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN AND GRUNFELD LLP
          315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830 x 243
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
                  lells@rbgg.com
                  afischer@rbgg.com
                  bthompson@rbg-law.com
                  egalvan@rbgg.com
                  kstone-manista@rbgg.com
                  lboysen-aragon@rbgg.com
                  lrifkin@rbgg.com
                  mbien@rbgg.com
                  jkahn@rbgg.com
                  kwalczak@rbgg.com
                  mfreedman@rbgg.com
                  tnolan@rbgg.com

               - and -

          Amy Whelan, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS
          870 Market Street, Suite 370
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 392-6257
          E-mail: awhelan@nclrights.org

               - and -

          Claudia B. Center, Esq.
          Legal Aid Society
          600 Harrison Street, Suite 120
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 864-8848
          Facsimile: (415) 864-8199
          E-mail: ccenter@las-elc.org

               - and -

          Employment Law Center
          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Prison Law Office
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          Facsimile: (510) 280-2704
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Bornstein, Esq.
          K & L Gates, LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249-1059
          Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
          E-mail: jeff.bornstein@klgates.com

               - and -

          Rebekah B. Evenson, Esq.
          Sara Linda Norman, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth St.
          Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          Facsimile: (510) 280-2704
          E-mail: revenson@prisonlaw.com
                  snorman@prisonlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          455 Golden Gate
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5735
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5799
          E-mail: danielle.obannon@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Rochelle C. East, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5711
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5843
          E-mail: rochelle.east@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Paul B. Mello, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          1676 N. California Blvd., Suite 620
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 746-8460
          Facsimile: (925) 746-8492
          E-mail: pmello@hansonbridgett.com

               - and -

          Debbie Jean Vorous, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1300 I Street, Suite 125
          P.O. Box 944255
          Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
          Telephone: (916) 445-4926
          Facsimile: (916) 324-5205
          E-mail: debbie.vorous@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Kyle Anthony Lewis
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CAL.
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5677
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5843
          E-mail: kyle.lewis@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          David Eugene Brice, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 944255
          Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
          Telephone: (916) 324-8010
          Facsimile: (916) 324-5205
          E-mail: david.brice@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Michael R. Capizzi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. CAPIZZI
          P.O. Box 1938
          Santa Ana, CA 92702
          Telephone: (714) 283-1878
          Facsimile: (714) 283-1878
          E-mail: mrclaw@socal.rr.com

               - and -

          Patrick R. McKinney, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          455 Golden Gate Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-3035
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5843
          E-mail: patrick.mckinney@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Jay Craig Russell, Esq.
          Office of the Attorney General
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
          Telephone: (415) 703-5717
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5843
          E-mail: jay.russell@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Maneesh Sharma, Esq.
          CA DEPT OF JUSTICE
          455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste. 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5553
          Facsimile: (415) 703-1234
          E-mail: maneesh.sharma@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Neah Huynh, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5720
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5843
          E-mail: neah.huynh@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Samantha Derin Wolff, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT, LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 995-5020
          Facsimile: (415) 995-3547
          E-mail: swolff@hansonbridgett.com

               - and -

          Thomas Stuart Patterson, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5727
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5843
          E-mail: thomas.patterson@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Jessica Soojin Kim, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
          1300 I Street, Suite 125
          P.O. Box 944255
          Sacramento, CA 94244
          Telephone: (916) 324-5345
          Facsimile: (916) 324-5205
          E-mail: jessica.kim@doj.ca.gov

The Appellants are represented by:

          Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8270
          Facsimile: (312) 853-3587
          E-mail: cphillips@sidley.com

The Special Masters are represented by:

          Matthew A. Lopes, Jr., Esq.
          PANNONE LOPES & DEVEREAUX LLC
          317 Iron Horse Way, Suite 301
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 824-5156
          Facsimile: (401) 824-5123
          E-mail: mlopes@pldw.com

               - and -

          John Henry Hagar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN HAGAR
          1819 Polk Street
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 771-1911
          Facsimile: (415) 552-4067
          E-mail: hagarlaw09@gmail.com

The Receiver is represented by:

          Martin H. Dodd, Esq.
          FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP
          180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 399-3840
          Facsimile: (415) 399-3838
          E-mail: mdodd@fddcm.com

The Intervenor-Defendants are represented by:

          William E. Mitchell, Esq.
          RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          4075 Main Street
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (760) 863-8436

               - and -

          Ivy M. Tsai, Esq.
          JONES & MAYER
          3777 North Harbor Boulevard
          Fullerton, CA 92835
          Telephone: (714) 446-1400
          Facsimile: (714) 446-1448
          E-mail: imt@jones-mayer.com

               - and -

          Anne L. Keck, Esq.
          OFFICE OF SONOMA COUNTY COUNSEL
          575 Administration Drive, Suite 105a
          Santa Rosa, CA 95403
          Telephone: (707) 565-2421
          Facsimile: (707) 565-2624
          E-mail: akeck@sonoma-county.org

               - and -

          Carol L. Woodward, Esq.
          SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL OFFICE
          400 County Center, 6th Floor
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Telephone: (650) 363-4746
          Facsimile: (650) 363-4034
          E-mail: cwoodward@co.sanmateo.ca.us

The Amicus Parties are represented by:

          Andrew H. Baker, Esq.
          BEESON TAYER AND BODINE
          1404 Franklin Street, 5th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612-2701
          Telephone: (510) 625-9700
          E-mail: abaker@beesontayer.com

               - and -

          Arthur M. Chenen, Esq.
          THEODORA ORINGHER MILLER AND RICHMAN PC
          2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 557-2009
          Facsimile: (310) 551-0283
          E-mail: achenen@tocounsel.com

               - and -

          Paul Andrew Hemesath, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          501 I Street, Suite 10-100
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 554-2700
          Facsimile: (916) 554-2900
          E-mail: paul.hemesath@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Rocco Robert Paternoster, Esq.
          SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU), LOCAL 1000
          1808 14th Street, Building 1
          P.O. Box 160005
          Sacramento, CA 95816
          Telephone: (916) 554-1279
          Facsimile: (916) 554-1272
          E-mail: rpaternoster@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Cassie M. Pierson, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN
          1540 Market Street, Suite 490
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 255-7036
          Facsimile: (415) 552-3150

The Intervenors are represented by:

          Christine Albertine, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
          755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200
          West Sacramento, CA 95605-1626
          Telephone: (916) 801-9484
          E-mail: christine.albertine@ccpoa.org

               - and -

          Gregg McLean Adam, Esq.
          CARROLL BURDICK AND MCDONOUGH
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 743-2534
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0932
          E-mail: gadam@cbmlaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Spencer Stoughton, Esq.
          CARROLL BURDICK AND MCDONOUGH
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 743-2483
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0932
          E-mail: jstoughton@cbmlaw.com

               - and -

          Theresa J. Fuentes, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
          70 West Hedding Street, 9th Floor, East Wing
          San Jose, CA 95110
          Telephone: (408) 299-5917
          Facsimile: (408) 292-7240
          E-mail: theresa.fuentes@cco.sccgov.org

The Neutral Parties are represented by:

          Barbara Louise Sheldon, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
          P.O. Box 348780
          3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 220
          Sacramento, CA 95834
          Telephone: (916) 830-3600
          Facsimile: (916) 928-5996
          E-mail: bordenkirchera@oig.ca.gov

               - and -

          Tamara Michelle Colson, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
          P.O. Box 348780
          Sacramento, CA 95834
          Telephone: (916) 830-3600
          Facsimile: (916) 928-4684
          E-mail: bordenkirchera@oig.ca.gov

               - and -

          Regan Rush, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
          1425 New York Avenue, NW, Room 4077
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 616-2726
          Facsimile: (202) 307-1197
          E-mail: regan.rush@usdoj.gov

The appellate case is Edmund G. Brown, Governor of California, et
al., Applicants v. Marciano Plata and Ralph Coleman, et al., Case
No. 13A57, in the U.S. Supreme Court.  The original case is (PC)
Coleman, et al. v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.


CASH AMERICA: Suit Over Short-Term Loans to Go to Trial in Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit alleging Cash America International,
Inc., made illegal short-term loans in Georgia is scheduled to go
to trial in November 2013, 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 August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, against
Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc.
(together with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel
R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of Cash America.  In August 2006, James H. Greene
and Mennie Johnson were permitted to join the lawsuit as named
plaintiffs, and in June 2009, the court agreed to the removal of
James E. Strong as a named plaintiff.  The lawsuit alleges many
different causes of action, among the most significant of which is
that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act
and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").  First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB")
and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB") for some
time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's
Georgia operating locations.  The complaint in this lawsuit claims
that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans
made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in
the process is "a mere subterfuge."  Based on this claim, the
lawsuit alleges that Cash America was the "de facto" lender and
was illegally operating in Georgia.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive
damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.  In November
2009, the case was certified as a class action lawsuit.

In August 2011, Cash America filed a motion for summary judgment,
and in October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment.  Hearings on the motions were held in
October and November 2011, and the trial court entered an order
granting summary judgment in favor of Cash America on one of the
plaintiff's claims, denying the remainder of Cash America's motion
and granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary
judgment.  Cash America filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia
Court of Appeals in December 2011 on the grant of plaintiff's
partial summary judgment, and on November 6, 2012, the Georgia
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of partial
summary judgment to plaintiffs and affirmed the trial court's
denial of Cash America's motion for summary judgment.  Cash
America filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court of
Georgia to appeal the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals
regarding Cash America's motion for summary judgment on
November 26, 2012, which was denied on February 18, 2013.  This
lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in November 2013.

The Company says it is currently unable to estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses for this litigation.  Cash America
believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Cash America International, Inc. is a Fort Worth, Texas, retailer
which operates over 1,000 pawn shops in the United States.  The
Company also provides check-cashing services and short-term
unsecured loans both through its pawn shops as well as in self-
standing facilities, and also on the Internet under the name
"enovafinancial."


COLORADO ROCKIES: Accused of Violating Consumer Protection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the Colorado
Rockies baseball team has an illegal deal that prevents Rockies
ticketholders from reselling game tickets anywhere but on StubHub,
disgruntled fans claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Marilyn Sweet sued the Colorado Rockies Baseball
Club, alleging violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Only the Rockies -- not Major League Baseball or StubHub -- are
named as defendants.

Sweet claims the Rockies prohibits ticketholders from reselling
tickets online anywhere other through the club's official website,
which actually serves as a portal for StubHub, a subsidiary of
eBay.

The Rockies get 50 percent of the service fees StubHub charges,
and will kick fans out of the Coors Park on game day if they
bought their tickets elsewhere, Sweet says in the lawsuit.

"Defendant knowingly imposes restrictions on the resale of its
tickets that are unlawful under Colorado law -- which was
specifically enacted to provide Colorado consumers with an
unrestricted secondary market for the resale of tickets,"
according to the complaint.

"Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") Section 6-1-
718(3)(a)(IV) declares that: 'It is void as against public policy
to apply a term or condition to the original sale to the purchaser
to limit the terms or conditions of resale, including, but not
limited to, a term or condition ...  That imposes a sanction on
the purchaser if the sale of the ticket is not through a reseller
approved by the operator.'

"Instead, and in direct contravention of this law, defendant
forces consumers seeking to participate in the secondary market
(by either re-selling their tickets or purchasing resold tickets)
to exclusively use www.StubHub.com ('StubHub') or face expulsion
from the stadium.  Moreover, consumers are forced to pay StubHub's
inflated fees in the process, of which on information and belief,
defendant receives and retains a portion.

"Put succinctly, the CCPA, Section 6-1-718(3)(a)(IV) provides that
imposing terms and conditions on ticket purchasers that restrict
the purchasers' rights to resell their ticket in the marketplace
is against the law, but the Colorado Rockies do just that --
threatening to invalidate the ticket license if the ticketholder
does not comply with its unlawful terms.

"By doing so, ticket purchasers, such as plaintiff Marilyn Sweet,
are injured, because they are unable to purchase or resell their
tickets in a manner that allows them to satisfy personal
preference and maximize profitability without risking invalidation
of the ticket license.  Through her complaint, plaintiff seeks to
require defendant to bring its conduct and tickets into compliance
with the law and to recover all damages suffered as a result of
its unlawful practices."

The "Terms and Conditions" of each game ticket state: "[T]his
ticket may not be resold or offered for resale (i) via the
Internet or any other interactive media, except, if applicable,
through the official website of the Colorado Rockies --
www.coloradorockies.com -- or sites authorized by the Colorado
Rockies or (ii) in a manner at a price or otherwise in violation
of any Federal, State, or local laws/ordinances/regulations.  Any
such resale will invalidate the license granted by this ticket,"
according to the complaint.

This turns the tickets section of the Rockies' Web site is little
more than a shop window for StubHub, Sweet claims.

"On its official website, the Colorado Rockies have an entire
section dedicated to StubHub.  When a consumer visits
www.coloradorockies.com (the only website, secondary ticket
marketplace or otherwise, listed in the Terms and Conditions
printed on Colorado Rockies tickets) and clicks on the 'Tickets'
tab, the consumer discovers that the Colorado Rockies have a whole
page dedicated to providing information about buying and selling
tickets via StubHub.  The webpage even provides hyperlinks to
StubHub's website," according to the complaint.

The Rockies net about $1.50 per ticket sold on StubHub, Sweet
claims, on top of the $50 million it brings in every year in
initial ticket sales.

"MLB franchises and StubHub share the profits gained from a
service fee StubHub charges for each sale," the complaint states.
"On information and belief, which discovery will confirm, this
profit sharing is roughly a 50-50 split.

"The amount of the service charge under the 2012 agreement is
$3.00 for tickets under $50.00 and is a percentage of the price
above $50.00.  Therefore, on information and belief, the Colorado
Rockies receive a minimum of $1.50 for each ticket sold via
StubHub."

Baseball franchises were given several chances to opt out of the
partnership between MLB and StubHub, Sweet say in the lawsuit.
The Rockies signed up in 2007, a year before the relevant section
of the Consumer Protection Act became law, but the club spurned a
chance to opt out in 2012 when the restrictions were clearly
defined as illegal, the class claims.

The class consists everyone in the United States who bought a
ticket for a Colorado Rockies home game from March 19, 2008, until
August 5, 2013.

Sweet seeks an injunction, costs, and damages for violations of
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, bad faith, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
          EDELSON, LLC-DENVER
          999 18th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 357-4878
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com

The case is Sweet v. Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., Case
No. 1:13-cv-02048-WJM-KMT, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado (Denver).


CORELOGIC INC: All Claims in FCRA Suit vs. Teletrack Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
All claims in an Illinois class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc., were dismissed, 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 June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Company's subsidiary Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack").
The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been furnishing consumer
reports to third parties who did not have a permissible purpose to
obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. Section1681 et seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive
and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs of lawsuit.  On September 20, 2011, Teletrack
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing.  That motion was denied on March 7,
2012.  Teletrack denied the allegations and has been defending
against this claim vigorously.  On March 27, 2013, the parties
reached settlement in principle that would dismiss all claims.  On
May 8, 2013, a formal settlement agreement was concluded and on
May 17, 2013, all claims were dismissed, with the dismissal of the
individual plaintiffs' claims being with prejudice.

Based in Irvine, California, CoreLogic, Inc. --
http://www.corelogic.com/-- is a property information, analytics
and services provider in the United States of America and
Australia.  The Company was originally incorporated in California
in 1894, and was reincorporated in Delaware on June 1, 2010.
Before June 1, 2010, the Company operated as The First American
Corporation.  Through a separation transaction, the Company spun
off its financial services businesses on June 1, 2010, changed its
name to CoreLogic, Inc.


CORELOGIC INC: CVS Still Defends Suit Alleging RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against Washington Mutual Bank
("WaMu") and eAppraiseIT, LLC ("eAppraiseIT") alleging breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC ("CVS"), a CoreLogic, Inc.
subsidiary, is the successor to eAppraiseIT.  The complaint
alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to
direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to
qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the
secondary market.  The Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily
dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009.  On August 30, 2009, the court
dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied the plaintiff's first motion for
class certification.  On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification.  On April 25, 2012, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT.  On July 12, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order.

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.

CVS, as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against
this claim vigorously; however, it may not be successful.  At this
time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this
claim or the potential range of damages, if any.

Based in Irvine, California, CoreLogic, Inc. --
http://www.corelogic.com/-- is a property information, analytics
and services provider in the United States of America and
Australia.  The Company was originally incorporated in California
in 1894, and was reincorporated in Delaware on June 1, 2010.
Before June 1, 2010, the Company operated as The First American
Corporation.  Through a separation transaction, the Company spun
off its financial services businesses on June 1, 2010, changed its
name to CoreLogic, Inc.


EI DUPONT: Imprelis-Related Suits Stayed Through Sept. 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
About 115 individual actions encompassing about 385 claims for
property damage related to the Imprelis herbicide have been filed
in state court in various jurisdictions, according to E.I. du Pont
de Nemours and Company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.  DuPont has removed most of these cases to federal court
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Once removed to federal court, the
individual actions are stayed through September 2013.

The Company has established review processes to verify and
evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact
the evaluation process including the number of trees on a
property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of
the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to
naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont
verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical
review of the property.

At June 30, 2013, DuPont had recorded charges of $865 million to
resolve these claims, which included charges of $80 million and
$115 million recorded during the three and six months ended June
30, 2013, respectively. The company currently estimates that total
charges could be about $900 million; however, there is a high
degree of uncertainty. Predicting the impact of Imprelis on living
organisms and how those organisms may react over time as well as
variability regarding the extended warranty period under the class
action settlement are significant factors driving the uncertainty
of future charges.

Imprelis was applied throughout the United States and the ability
of any particular species of tree to naturally recover over time
may be different depending on the property's geography and
associated climate. The company has an applicable insurance
program with a deductible equal to the first $100 million of costs
and expenses. The insurance program limits are $725 million for
costs and expenses in excess of the $100 million. DuPont has
submitted and will continue to submit requests for payment to its
insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter. The
process of seeking insurance recovery is ongoing and the timing
and outcome are uncertain.


ELI LILLY: "Ballard" Class Action Suit Still Pending in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ballard, et al. v. Eli Lilly and
Company, et al., remains pending in Louisiana, 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.

Along with several other manufacturers, the Company is named as a
defendant in approximately 70 active cases in the U.S. involving
approximately 1,650 active claimants related to the analgesics
Darvon and related formulations of propoxyphene.  Additionally, 72
cases involving approximately 215 claimants were recently
dismissed and are on appeal to the Sixth Circuit.  These cases
generally allege various cardiac injuries.  Almost all of these
cases have been consolidated in a federal multi-district
litigation in the Eastern District of Kentucky or are pending in
state and federal courts in California.

A putative class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Ballard, et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company et al.) against Lilly and other manufacturers
seeking to assert product liability claims on behalf of U.S.
residents who ingested propoxyphene pain products and allegedly
sustained personal injuries.  Lilly was dismissed with prejudice
following a dispositive motion; however, the case remains open as
other defendants have not been dismissed and there is currently no
final appealable order.  The Company transferred the U.S.
regulatory approvals and all marketing rights to its propoxyphene
products in 2002 to NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (an affiliate of
aaiPharma, Inc.), which subsequently transferred all such
approvals and marketing rights to Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and is
prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Indianapolis, Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Company --
http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
sells products, in one business segment, pharmaceutical products.
The Company also has an animal health business segment.  The
Company manufactures and distributes its products through
facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico, and 15 other
countries.


ELI LILLY: Product Liability Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Three product liability class action lawsuits involving Eli Lilly
and Company remain pending in Canada, 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 has been named along with Takeda Chemical Industries,
Ltd., and Takeda affiliates as a defendant in product liability
cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which
the Company co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until
September 2006.  In addition, the Company has been named along
with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product liability
class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one in Ontario
(Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et
al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in
Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).  The Company has also been
named along with Takeda in an individual action for damages in
Ontario, Canada (Antonacci v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd,
et al.).  The Company promoted Actos in Canada until 2009.  In
general, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused
or contributed to their bladder cancer.  Under the Company's
agreement with Takeda, the Company will be indemnified by Takeda
for its losses and expenses with respect to the U.S. litigation
and other expenses in accordance with the terms of the
indemnification agreement.  The Company believes these claims are
without merit and is prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Indianapolis, Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Company --
http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
sells products, in one business segment, pharmaceutical products.
The Company also has an animal health business segment.  The
Company manufactures and distributes its products through
facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico, and 15 other
countries.


EQUINOX GROUP: $150,000 Settlement in "Barnes" Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved the $150,000 settlement to resolve the class action
lawsuit styled Sean Barnes and Carl Dwyer, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Equinox Group,
Inc., and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:10-cv-03586-LB (N.D.
Cal., August 13, 2010).

The Court also awarded $50,000 in attorney's fees, $10,000 in
litigation costs, $23,000 in claims administration costs, and
$5,000 as an incentive award to each named plaintiff for a total
of $10,000.

The Plaintiffs sued Equinox for failing to (1) pay them wages for
all hours worked, and (2) reimburse certain business expenses.
The claim settled in the action is about the business expenses,
"including music to create workout mixes, heart rate monitors,
stopwatches, fitness equipment, cell phones and internet plans,
and CPR and other fitness certifications."  The other claims
settled in the related class action in Los Angeles County superior
court, Evans v. Equinox, Case No. BC44058, for $5.5. million in a
March 15, 2013 final approval that followed discovery and a fully-
briefed class certification motion in this case and subsequent
mediation in both cases.  The Plaintiffs here joined the Evans
settlement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq.
          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Molly Ann DeSario, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, 9th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: mrbainer@scalaw.com
                  scole@scalaw.com
                  mdesario@scalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Frank Michael Liberatore, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          725 S Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: liberatoref@jacksonlewis.com


EVENFLO: Recalls SECURE KID Model Child Car Seat
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                August 7, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Child Car Seat
Notification type:            Compliance TC
System:                       Label
Units affected:               1325
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013272
TC ID number:                 2013272

Affected products:

   Make       Model           Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----           ----------------------
   EVENFLO    SECURE KID      2012, 2013

Certain child car seats may not comply with the requirements of
Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats Safety
Regulations.  When used as a booster seat, the French labeling
incorrectly instructs consumers to pass the shoulder portion of
the vehicle seat belt through the lower lap-belt guide.  Should
the booster seat be installed this way, a piece of the lower lap-
belt guide could break, exposing sharp edges which could injure a
child occupant or caregiver.

All registered owners will receive new labeling and instructions
on how to affix the labels.  Non-registered owners of affected car
seats, or owners who have moved, should contact Evenflo at
937-773-3971 to register and obtain a labelling kit.  The affected
car seats should not be returned to the retailer.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Aug. 16 Hearing on Shareholder Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on General Electric Company's settlement of a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit will be held on
August 16, 2013, 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.

In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class
actions under the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including the Company's
chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and its
directors.  The complaints, which were subsequently consolidated,
seek unspecified damages based on allegations related to
statements regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and
earnings for General Electric Capital Corporation (GECC) in 2009.
In January 2012, the District Court granted in part, and denied in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss.  In April 2012, the
District Court granted a portion of the Company's motion for
reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims
under the Securities Act of 1933.  In July 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' motion seeking to amend their complaint
to include the alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933.
In January 2013, the plaintiffs attempted unsuccessfully to file a
new amended complaint.  The Company has filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  Also in January 2013, the Company
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  In April 2013, the
parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement under which
(i) GE will pay $40 million, inclusive of attorneys' fees and
expenses and the cost of notice to the putative settlement class
and (ii) all claims of the settlement class will be fully and
finally released.  GE, as stated in the settlement agreement,
continues to maintain that the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit, and it is settling to avoid the expenditure of significant
litigation costs and management burdens in connection with defense
of the lawsuit.  The settlement is subject to court approval.

In May 2013, the District Court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduling a settlement
hearing on August 16, 2013.

Founded in 1892 and based in Fairfield, Connecticut, General
Electric Company (GE) -- http://www.ge.com/-- operates as a
technology, service, and finance company worldwide.  The Company's
business segments include Power & Water, Oil & Gas, Energy
Management, Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Home & Business
Solutions and GE Capital.


GIANT BICYCLES: Recalls XtC Bicycles and Seatposts
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Giant Bicycles Inc. of Newbury Park, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of Giant Bicycle Recalls XtC Bicycles and Seatposts.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bicycle seatposts on the affected bicycles and the after-
market seatposts can crack, posing a fall hazard.

Giant Bicycles received five reports of the bicycle seatposts
breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes 2013 model year Giant XtC Advanced SL 29er 0
and 29er 1 series bicycles and 27.2 mm carbon fiber seatposts sold
separately.  The SL 29er 0 model bicycle is white, black and blue.
The SL 29er 1 model is white, black and red.  The letters "XTC"
appear on the down tube of the frame on both bicycles.  The name
"Giant" and "Contact SLR" appear on the 27.2 mm carbon fiber
seatposts.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/5yuf7e

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
bicycle stores nationwide between November 2012 and May 2013 for
between $4,300 and $7,700 for the bicycles and $200 for the
seatpost sold separately.

Consumer should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
seatposts and contact a Giant Bicycle dealer for a free
replacement seatpost.


GOLD STAR: Recalls Baltic Treasures, Norwegian Style Matjes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gold Star Smoked Fish Corp., located at 570 Smith Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11231, is recalling Baltic Treasures, Norwegian Style
Matjes, Marinella "Delicatessnaya", Jewish Style Matjes,
Traditional Russian Matjes, and Rybacka Wies Matjes Brands of
Herring Fillets in Oil due to contamination or possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others
with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy persons may suffer
only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled products are packaged in 10.5 oz/300 gram,
17.64oz/500 gram, and 35.5oz/1 kg vacuum packed plastic packages
and have sell by dates 103113, 113013, 123113, or 13114 stamped on
the back of the container.  The UPC Numbers are 0 21143 24118 1,
0 21143 24119 8, 0 21143 24117 4, 0 21143 24116 7, 0 21143 24101
3, 0 21143 24105 1, 0 21143 24111 2, 0 21143 24103 7, 0 21143
24106 8, 0 21143 24110 5, 0 21143 24102 0, 0 21143 24104 4, 0
21143 24121 1, 0 21143 24122 8, and 0 21143 24123 5.  The products
were sold nationwide.  Each is a product of the USA.

The recall was initiated after sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in samples of some
of the brands being recalled.  Gold Star Smoked Fish Corp. is
voluntarily recalling additional brands and additional lots of
herring fillets in oil as a precaution.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who purchased Baltic Treasures, Jewish Style
"Matjes", Norwegian Style "Matjes", Marinella "Delicatessnaya",
Traditional Russian "Matjes", or Rybacka Wies "Matjes" Brands of
Herring Fillets in Oil should not consume it and should return it
to the place of purchase.  Consumers with any questions may
contact the company directly at 718-522-5480.


HALLIBURTON CO: Fact Discovery Has Resumed in "John Fund" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery has resumed in the class action lawsuit filed by
Erica P. John Fund, Inc., according to Halliburton Company's
July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated
an investigation in connection with the Company's change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures.  In the weeks that followed, approximately
twenty similar class actions were filed against the Company.
Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of the
Company's present or former officers and directors.  The class
action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated
class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v.
Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the Company
in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs,
the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund
(AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.  AMSF has changed its name
to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).  The Company settled with
the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.  In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the Company's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the Company failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company files its
motion to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005.  In March 2006, the court entered an order in
which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to
certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of
those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.  In
April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions
of the complaint that had been re-pled.  A hearing was held on
that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO).  The court
ordered that the case proceed against the Company's CEO and the
Company.

In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company's response was filed in November
2007.  The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued
an order November 3, 2008, denying the motion for class
certification.  The Fund appealed the district court's order to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed
the district court's order denying class certification.  On
May 13, 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court.  In January 2011, the Supreme Court granted
the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal.  The Court heard
oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June 2011,
reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove
loss causation in order to obtain class certification.  The
Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation
requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for
further consideration of the Company's other arguments for denying
class certification.  The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the
district court, and in January 2012 the court issued an order
certifying the class.  The Company filed a Petition for Leave to
Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted and the case is
stayed at the district court pending this appeal.

In March 2013, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in the
appeal.  In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order
affirming the District Court's order certifying the class.  The
case is now pending in the District Court and fact discovery has
resumed.  In spite of its age, the case is at an early stage, and
the Company cannot predict the outcome or consequences thereof.
As of June 30, 2013, the Company had not accrued any amounts
related to this matter because the Company does not believe that a
loss is probable.  Further, an estimate of possible loss or range
of loss related to this matter cannot be made.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend this case.

Halliburton Company provides services and products to the energy
industry.  The Company serves the upstream oil and natural gas
industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir, from locating
hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and
formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and
optimizing production through the life of the field.  The Company
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.


HALLIBURTON CO: Macondo MDL Parties Filed Findings of Facts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company 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, it and certain other parties in the
multidistrict litigation related to the Macondo well incident have
submitted proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law and
post-trial briefs with respect to the first phase of the trial.

The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on
April 22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that
began on April 20, 2010.  The Deepwater Horizon was owned by
Transocean Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration well
in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the
lease operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP
Exploration), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. (BP
p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their affiliates, collectively, BP).
There were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result
of the Macondo well incident.  Crude oil escaping from the Macondo
well site spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of
Mexico and reached the United States Gulf Coast.  The Company
performed a variety of services for BP Exploration, including
cementing, mud logging, directional drilling, measurement-while-
drilling, and rig data acquisition services.

Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have been filing lawsuits
relating to the Macondo well incident.  Generally, those lawsuits
allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and
contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax
revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to
engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful
death or personal injuries.  The Company is named along with other
unaffiliated defendants in more than 1,500 complaints, most of
which are alleged class actions, involving pollution damage claims
and at least eight personal injury lawsuits involving four
decedents and at least 10 allegedly injured persons who were on
the drilling rig at the time of the incident.  At least six
additional lawsuits naming the Company and others relate to
alleged personal injuries sustained by those responding to the
explosion and oil spill.  The Plaintiffs originally filed the
lawsuits in federal and state courts throughout the United States.
Except for a relatively small number of lawsuits not yet
consolidated, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
ordered all of the lawsuits against the Company consolidated in
the MDL proceeding before Judge Carl Barbier in the United States
Eastern District of Louisiana.  The pollution complaints generally
allege, among other things, negligence and gross negligence,
property damages, taking of protected species, and potential
economic losses as a result of environmental pollution, and
generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory, and
punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.  The Plaintiffs in
these pollution cases have brought lawsuit under various legal
provisions, including The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), The
Clean Water Act (CWA), The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
(MBTA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Outer
Continental Shelf Land (OCSLA), the Longshoremen and Harbor
Workers Compensation Act, general maritime law, state common law,
and various state environmental and products liability statutes.

Furthermore, the pollution complaints include lawsuits brought
against the Company by governmental entities, including the State
of Alabama, the State of Florida, the State of Louisiana, the
State of Mississippi, the State of Texas, numerous local
governmental entities, three Mexican states and the United Mexican
States.  Complaints brought against the Company by at least seven
parishes in Louisiana were dismissed with prejudice, and the
dismissal is being appealed by those parishes.  The wrongful death
and other personal injury complaints generally allege negligence
and gross negligence and seek awards of compensatory damages,
including unspecified economic damages, and punitive damages.  The
Company has retained counsel and is investigating and evaluating
the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted, and the
Company's respective defenses to all of these claims.

Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed
by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation
Action).  In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its
liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to
the value of the rig and its freight.  While the Limitation Action
has been formally consolidated into the MDL, the court is
nonetheless, in some respects, treating the Limitation Action as
an associated but separate proceeding.  In February 2011,
Transocean tendered the Company, along with all other defendants,
into the Limitation Action.  As a result of the tender, the
Company and all other defendants will be treated as direct
defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the plaintiffs had sued
the Company and the other defendants directly.  In the Limitation
Action, the judge intends to determine the allocation of liability
among all defendants in the hundreds of lawsuits associated with
the Macondo well incident, including those in the MDL proceeding
that are pending in his court.  Specifically, the Company believes
the judge will determine the liability, limitation, exoneration,
and fault allocation with regard to all of the defendants in a
trial, which is scheduled to occur in at least two phases and
which began in February 2013.  The first phase of this trial has
concluded and covered issues arising out of the conduct and degree
of culpability of various parties allegedly relevant to the loss
of well control, the ensuing fire and explosion on and sinking of
the Deepwater Horizon, and the initiation of the release of
hydrocarbons from the Macondo well.  The MDL court has projected
September 30, 2013, for the beginning of the second phase of this
trial, which is scheduled to cover actions relating to attempts to
control the flow of hydrocarbons from the well and the
quantification of hydrocarbons discharged from the well.
Subsequent proceedings would be held to the extent triable issues
remain unresolved by the first two phases of the trial,
settlements, motion practice, or stipulation.  Although the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) is participating in the first two
phases of the trial with regard to BP's conduct and the amount of
hydrocarbons discharged from the well, the MDL court anticipates
that the DOJ's civil action for the CWA violations, fines, and
penalties will be addressed by the court in a third phase of the
trial.  The Company does not believe that a single apportionment
of liability in the Limitation Action is properly applied,
particularly with respect to gross negligence and punitive
damages, to the hundreds of lawsuits pending in the MDL
proceeding.

Damages for the cases tried in the MDL proceeding, including
punitive damages, are expected to be tried following the phases of
the trial.  Under ordinary MDL procedures, such cases would,
unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in the courts
from which they were transferred into the MDL.  It remains
unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation Action
will have on where these matters are tried.  Discovery with
respect to the second phase of the trial is ongoing.

In April and May 2011, certain defendants in the proceedings filed
numerous cross claims and third party claims against certain other
defendants.  BP Exploration and BP America Production Company
filed claims against the Company seeking subrogation,
contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA,
and direct damages, and alleging negligence, gross negligence,
fraudulent conduct, and fraudulent concealment.  Transocean filed
claims against the Company seeking indemnification, and
subrogation and contribution, including with respect to
liabilities under the OPA and for the total loss of the Deepwater
Horizon, and alleging comparative fault and breach of warranty of
workmanlike performance.  Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and
Anadarko E&P Company LP (together, Anadarko) filed claims against
the Company seeking tort indemnity and contribution, and alleging
negligence, gross negligence and willful misconduct, and MOEX
Offshore 2007 LLC (MOEX), who had an approximate 10% interest in
the Macondo well at the time of the incident, filed a claim
against the Company alleging negligence. Cameron International
Corporation (Cameron) (the manufacturer and designer of the
blowout preventer), M-I Swaco (provider of drilling fluids and
services, among other things), Weatherford U.S. L.P. and
Weatherford International, Inc. (together, Weatherford) (providers
of casing components, including float equipment and centralizers,
and services), and Dril-Quip, Inc. (Dril-Quip) (provider of
wellhead systems), each filed claims against the Company seeking
indemnification and contribution, including with respect to
liabilities under the OPA in the case of Cameron, and alleging
negligence.  Additional civil lawsuits may be filed against the
Company.  In addition to the claims against the Company, generally
the defendants in the proceedings filed claims, including for
liabilities under the OPA and other claims similar to those
asserted, against the other defendants.  BP has since announced
that it has settled those claims between it and each of MOEX,
Weatherford, Anadarko, and Cameron.  Also, BP and M-I Swaco have
dismissed all claims between them.

In April 2011, the Company filed claims against BP Exploration, BP
p.l.c. and BP America Production Company (BP Defendants), M-I
Swaco, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, Weatherford, Dril-Quip, and
numerous entities involved in the post-blowout remediation and
response efforts, in each case seeking contribution and
indemnification and alleging negligence.  The Company's claims
also alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part
of the BP Defendants, Anadarko, and Weatherford.  The Company also
filed claims against M-I Swaco and Weatherford for contractual
indemnification, and against Cameron, Weatherford and Dril-Quip
for strict products liability, although the court has since issued
orders dismissing all claims asserted against Cameron, Dril-Quip,
M-I Swaco and Weatherford in the MDL.  The Company filed its
answer to Transocean's Limitation petition denying Transocean's
right to limit its liability, denying all claims and
responsibility for the incident, seeking contribution and
indemnification, and alleging negligence and gross negligence.

Judge Barbier has issued an order, among others, clarifying
certain aspects of law applicable to the lawsuits pending in his
court.  The court ruled that: (1) general maritime law will apply,
and therefore all claims brought under state law causes of action
were dismissed; (2) general maritime law claims may be brought
directly against defendants who are non-"responsible parties"
under the OPA with the exception of pure economic loss claims by
plaintiffs other than commercial fishermen; (3) all claims for
damages, including pure economic loss claims, may be brought under
the OPA directly against responsible parties; and (4) punitive
damage claims can be brought against both responsible and non-
responsible parties under general maritime law.  As discussed,
with respect to the ruling that claims for damages may be brought
under the OPA against responsible parties, the Company has not
been named as a responsible party under the OPA, but BP
Exploration has filed a claim against the Company for contribution
with respect to liabilities incurred by BP Exploration under the
OPA.

In September 2011, the Company filed claims in Harris County,
Texas against the BP Defendants seeking damages, including lost
profits and exemplary damages, and alleging negligence, grossly
negligent misrepresentation, defamation, common law libel,
slander, and business disparagement.  The Company's claims allege
that the BP Defendants knew or should have known about an
additional hydrocarbon zone in the well that the BP Defendants
failed to disclose to the Company prior to its designing the
cement program for the Macondo well.  The location of the
hydrocarbon zones is critical information required prior to
performing cementing services and is necessary to achieve desired
cement placement.  The Company believes that had the BP Defendants
disclosed the hydrocarbon zone to it, the Company would not have
proceeded with the cement program unless it was redesigned, which
likely would have required a redesign of the production casing.
In addition, the Company believes that the BP Defendants withheld
this information from the report of BP's internal investigation
team and from the various investigations.  In connection with
this, the Company also moved to amend its claims against the BP
Defendants in the MDL proceeding to include fraud.  The BP
Defendants have denied all of the allegations relating to the
additional hydrocarbon zone and filed a motion to prevent the
Company from adding its fraud claim in the MDL.  In October 2011,
the Company's motion to add the fraud claim against the BP
Defendants in the MDL proceeding was denied.  The court's ruling
does not, however, prevent the Company from using the underlying
evidence in its pending claims against the BP Defendants.

In December 2011, BP filed a motion for sanctions against the
Company alleging, among other things, that the Company destroyed
evidence relating to post-incident testing of the foam cement
slurry on the Deepwater Horizon and requesting adverse findings
against the Company.  The magistrate judge in the MDL proceeding
denied BP's motion.  BP appealed that ruling, and Judge Barbier
affirmed the magistrate judge's decision.

In April 2012, BP announced that it had reached definitive
settlement agreements with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
(PSC) to resolve the substantial majority of eligible private
economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Macondo well
incident.  The PSC acts on behalf of individuals and business
plaintiffs in the MDL.  According to BP, the settlements do not
include claims against BP made by the DOJ or other federal
agencies or by states and local governments.  In addition, the
settlements provide that, to the extent permitted by law, BP will
assign to the settlement class certain of its claims, rights, and
recoveries against Transocean and the Company for damages,
including BP's alleged direct damages such as damages for clean-up
expenses and damage to the well and reservoir.  The Company does
not believe that its contract with BP Exploration permits the
assignment of certain claims to the settlement class without the
Company's consent.  In April and May 2012, BP and the PSC filed
two settlement agreements and amendments with the MDL court, one
agreement addressing economic claims and one agreement addressing
medical claims, as well as numerous supporting documents and
motions requesting that the court approve, among other things, the
certification of the classes for both settlements and a schedule
for holding a fairness hearing and approving the settlements.  The
MDL court has since confirmed certification of the classes for
both settlements and granted final approval of the settlements.
The Company objected to the settlements on the grounds set forth,
among other reasons.  The MDL court held, however, that the
Company, as a non-settling defendant, lacked standing to object to
the settlements but noted that it did not express any opinion as
to the validity of BP's assignment of certain claims to the
settlement class and that the settlements do not affect any of the
Company's procedural or substantive rights in the MDL.  The
Company is unable to predict at this time the effect that the
settlements may have on claims against the Company.

In October 2012, the MDL court issued an order dismissing three
types of plaintiff claims: (1) claims by or on behalf of owners,
lessors, and lessees of real property that allege to have suffered
a reduction in the value of real property even though the property
was not physically touched by oil and the property was not sold;
(2) claims for economic losses based solely on consumers'
decisions not to purchase fuel or goods from BP fuel stations and
stores based on consumer animosity toward BP; and (3) claims by or
on behalf of recreational fishermen, divers, beachgoers, boaters
and others that allege damages such as loss of enjoyment of life
from their inability to use portions of the Gulf of Mexico for
recreational and amusement purposes.  The MDL court also noted
that the Company is not liable with respect to those claims under
the OPA because the Company is not a "responsible party" under
OPA.  A group of plaintiffs appealed the order, but the Fifth
Circuit dismissed the appeal.

The first phase of the MDL trial has been completed. At the
conclusion of the plaintiffs' case the Company and the other
defendants each submitted a motion requesting the MDL court to
dismiss certain claims.  In March 2013, the MDL court denied the
Company's motion and declined to dismiss any claims, including
those alleging gross negligence, against BP, Transocean and the
Company.  In addition, the MDL court dismissed all claims against
M-I Swaco and claims alleging gross negligence against Cameron.
In April 2013, the MDL court dismissed all remaining claims
against Cameron, leaving BP, Transocean, and the Company as the
remaining defendants with respect to the first phase of the trial.

Also in March 2013, the Company advised the MDL court that the
Company recently found a rig sample of dry cement blend collected
at another well that was cemented before the Macondo well using
the same dry cement blend as used on the Macondo production
casing.  In April 2013, the Company advised the MDL parties that
the Company recently discovered some additional documents related
to the Macondo well incident.  BP and others have asked the court
to impose sanctions and adverse findings against the Company
because, according to their allegations, the Company should have
identified the cement sample in 2010 and the additional documents
by October 2011.  The MDL court has not ruled on the requests for
sanctions and adverse findings.  The Company believes that the
recent discoveries were the result of simple misunderstandings or
mistakes, and that sanctions are not warranted.

Testimony relating to the first phase of the MDL trial has been
completed.  Parties to the MDL, including the PSC, the States of
Louisiana and Alabama, the United States, BP, Transocean and the
Company, have submitted proposed findings of facts and conclusions
of law and post-trial briefs with respect to the first phase of
the trial.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend any litigation,
fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident and
to vigorously pursue any damages, remedies, or other rights
available to the Company as a result of the Macondo well incident.
The Company has incurred and expect to continue to incur
significant legal fees and costs, some of which the Company
expects to be covered by indemnity or insurance, as a result of
the numerous investigations and lawsuits relating to the incident.

Halliburton Company provides services and products to the energy
industry.  The Company serves the upstream oil and natural gas
industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir, from locating
hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and
formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and
optimizing production through the life of the field.  The Company
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.


HOLGATE TOY: Recalls Playmat Sets Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Holgate Toy Division, of Pepperell Braiding Co Inc., of Pepperell,
Mass., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,000 Holgate Toys
Playmat Sets.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The wheels on the wooden vehicles can detach, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

Holgate Toys has received one report of the wheels detaching from
the body of a vehicle.

No injuries have been reported.

The Wegmans Playmat Set includes a 24-inch by 30-inch cotton
canvas playmat and four toy wooden vehicles.  The toy vehicles
include a blue car, a red "Wegmans" delivery van, a green
"Wegmans" farm tractor and a yellow "School Bus."  The sets were
sold in a yellow box measuring about 12-inches by 12-inches with
"Wegmans Playmat Set," an age label circle with "2+" and "Made in
the USA" printed on the front of the box.  UPC Code 0 7789028735 4
is printed on the back of the box.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Cf7lWj

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Wegmans Food Stores nationwide from October 2012 through June
2013 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the wooden vehicles away from
young children and return to Wegmans Food Stores for a full
refund.  Consumers may also contact Holgate Toys for instructions
on returning the vehicles to Holgate Toys.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defends "Koetsch" Securities Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc., is defending a securities class
action lawsuit initiated by William Koetsch, 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 March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption: William
Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch
Litigation").  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

   * the Company's failure to properly account for the 2009 risk
     sharing agreement ("RSA") and PEAKS Private Student Loan
     Program ("PEAKS Program");

   * the Company's failure to maintain proper internal controls
     to ensure that risk-sharing agreements were properly
     recorded;

   * making false statements or failing to disclose adverse facts
     known about the Company;

   * deceiving the investing public regarding the Company's
     prospects and business;

   * artificially inflating the price of the Company's common
     stock; and

   * causing the plaintiff and other putative class members to
     purchase the Company's common stock at inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 20, 2010,
through February 23, 2013.  The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, and an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and
attorney's fees.

All of the individual defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously against the allegations in the complaint.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the ultimate
outcome of the Koetsch Litigation or other actions (including
other actions under federal or state securities laws) will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows.

The current officers named in the Koetsch Litigation include
Daniel M. Fitzpatrick and Kevin M. Modany.

Certain of the Company's current and former officers and Directors
are or may become a party in the actions pending against it.  The
Company's By-laws and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
obligate the Company to indemnify its officers and Directors to
the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, provided that their
conduct complied with certain requirements.  The Company is
obligated to advance defense costs to its officers and Directors,
subject to the individual's obligation to repay such amount if it
is ultimately determined that the individual was not entitled to
indemnification.  In addition, the Company's indemnity obligation
can, under certain circumstances, include indemnifiable judgments,
penalties, fines and amounts paid in settlement in connection with
those actions.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, ITT Educational Services, Inc.,
is a proprietary provider of postsecondary degree programs in the
United States.  The Company offers master, bachelor and associate
degree programs to approximately 61,000 students at ITT Technical
Institute and Daniel Webster College locations.  The Company also
offers one or more of its online programs to students, who are
located in 48 states.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defends MLAF Securities Litigation in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc., is defending a securities class
action lawsuit commenced by Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund,
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 April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services,
Inc., et al. (the "MLAF Litigation").  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by:

   * the Company's failure to properly account for the 2007 risk
     sharing agreement ("RSA"), 2009 RSA and PEAKS Private
     Student Loan Program ("PEAKS Program");

   * the Company's failure to establish adequate reserves
     associated with its guarantee obligations under the 2007
     RSA, 2009 RSA and PEAKS Program, which caused the Company to
     misrepresent the Company's earnings, liabilities, net income
     and financial condition throughout the putative class
     period;

   * making false and misleading statements;

   * engaging in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of
     conduct that artificially inflated the price of the
     Company's common stock;

   * operating as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the
     Company's common stock by misrepresenting its liabilities
     related to the 2007 RSA, 2009 RSA and PEAKS Program,
     financial results and business prospects;

   * artificially inflating the price of the Company's common
     stock; and

   * causing the putative class members to purchase the Company's
     common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008,
through February 25, 2013.  The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, and an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees and equitable/injunctive or other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.

All of the individual defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously against the allegations in the complaint.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the ultimate
outcome of the MLAF Litigation or other actions (including other
actions under federal or state securities laws) will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

The current officers named in the MLAF Litigation include Daniel
M. Fitzpatrick and Kevin M. Modany.

Certain of the Company's current and former officers and Directors
are or may become a party in the actions pending against it.  The
Company's By-laws and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
obligate the Company to indemnify its officers and Directors to
the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, provided that their
conduct complied with certain requirements.  The Company is
obligated to advance defense costs to its officers and Directors,
subject to the individual's obligation to repay such amount if it
is ultimately determined that the individual was not entitled to
indemnification.  In addition, the Company's indemnity obligation
can, under certain circumstances, include indemnifiable judgments,
penalties, fines and amounts paid in settlement in connection with
those actions.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, ITT Educational Services, Inc.,
is a proprietary provider of postsecondary degree programs in the
United States.  The Company offers master, bachelor and associate
degree programs to approximately 61,000 students at ITT Technical
Institute and Daniel Webster College locations.  The Company also
offers one or more of its online programs to students, who are
located in 48 states.


J&R HOME: Recalls Halogen Quartz Pergola Heater
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:                August 9, 2013
Posting date:                 August 9, 2013
Type of communication:        Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:                  Outdoor Living
Source of recall:             Health Canada
Issue:                        Product Safety, Electrical Hazard
Audience:                     General Public
Identification number:        RA-34915

Affected products: Halogen Quartz Pergola Heater

The recall involves halogen quartz pergola heaters identified by
model number GZBW151A with serial numbers between
0112RU14290201209 and 0112RU14290581209 only.

Some units are missing insulation which can create an arcing to
ground which poses a potential fire hazard.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/gO2NFX

J&R Home and Health Canada have received one report of a unit that
allegedly failed during use, causing the wire to start burning.
The circuit breaker immediately tripped and shut off power to the
unit. No injuries were reported.

Approximately 381 units of the affected pergola heaters were sold
in Canada through Home Depot online.

The affected pergola heaters were manufactured in China and sold
between 2012 and June 2013.

Companies:

   Distributor     J&R Home
                   Burnaby
                   British Columbia
                   Canada

   Manufacturer    Zhuhai Special Economic Zone Runwin Electric
                    Co. Ltd.
                   CHINA


LEAR CORP: Seeks to File Interlocutory Appeal in Wire Harness Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 29, 2013, that it filed a motion asking to certify an order
for interlocutory appeal.

On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws.  Since that time, a
number of other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class
action complaints against the Company and these and other
suppliers and individuals in a number of different federal
district courts, and it is possible that additional similar
lawsuits may be filed in the future.  The Plaintiffs purport to be
direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period.  The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States.  The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees.
On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions, for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  On May 14, 2012, three purported classes of plaintiffs
-- direct purchasers of automotive wire harnesses; automotive
dealers that indirectly purchased automotive wire harnesses or
vehicles containing such harnesses; and indirect purchasers that
purchased or leased vehicles containing automotive wire harnesses
(or purchased replacement automotive wire harnesses for their
vehicles) -- filed consolidated amended complaints in the
consolidated proceeding.  With respect to the Company, the
consolidated amended complaints are substantially similar to the
individual complaints that had been filed in the various
jurisdictions.  On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
have these actions dismissed.  On June 6, 2013, the District Court
entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on
June 20, 2013, the Company filed a motion asking the District
Court to certify the June 6 order for interlocutory appeal to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Beginning in early 2012, single putative class action complaints
were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec
and British Columbia against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
Canadian laws related to competition.  The allegations in the
complaints are substantially similar to those complaints that have
been filed in the United States.

On November 17, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking entry of an order enforcing the Company's 2009 Plan of
Reorganization and directing dismissal of the pending class action
complaints.  The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on the
motion and, on February 10, 2012, ruled that claims against the
Company alleging violation of antitrust law are enjoined to the
extent that they arose prior to the Company's emergence from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009.  The
bankruptcy court further held that the District Court was the
appropriate forum to address antitrust claims arising after the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The
Company appealed the bankruptcy court's decision on this issue,
and in November 2012, the appellate court ruled in favor of the
Company and remanded for consideration by the bankruptcy court the
possible effects of certain alleged antitrust claims arising after
November 9, 2009.  This issue was stayed by the bankruptcy court
until a decision was entered with respect to the Company's motion
to dismiss the underlying class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Following the District Court's June 6, 2013 order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss, the Company renewed its request that
the bankruptcy court enjoin the antitrust class action plaintiffs,
and any similarly situated potential plaintiffs, from seeking
damages against the Company for the period prior to November 9,
2009.  That request remains pending.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of this litigation, and
consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to
this litigation, cannot reasonably be determined at this time.
However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against
it are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in these proceedings.

Lear Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in 1987 and is
headquartered in Southfield, Michigan.  The Company is a Tier 1
supplier to the global automotive industry, supplying its products
to virtually every major automotive manufacturer in the world.
The Company supplies automotive manufacturers with complete
automotive seat systems and related components, as well as
electrical distribution systems and related components.


MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Roy Brand and No Name Brand Chicken Pies
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 8, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Maple Leaf Foods Inc.
Distribution:                         Quebec
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail
CFIA reference number:                8230

Affected products:

   Brand name   Common name      Size              UPC
   ----------   -----------      ----              ---
   Roy          Chicken Pies     750 g (6x125 g)   0 55110 25129 3
                (SKU 25129)

   No Name      Chicken Pie      450 g             0 60383 69457 9
                (SKU 44083)

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Maple Leaf Foods
are warning people with allergies to mustard not to consume the
Chicken Pies described above.  The affected products contain
mustard which is not declared on the labels.

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

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

The manufacturer, Maple Leaf Foods Inc., Mississauga, ON is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


MONA VIE: Sells Pricey Super Juice With False Claims, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a recidivist scammer is pushing an expensive "super juice"
with false claims of its "curative powers," a class action claims
in Federal Court.

"The Mona Vie juice scam is the newest creation of noted multi-
level marketing scheme architect, and prior 'super juice' creator,
Dallin Larsen, after his last venture was halted by the Food and
Drug Administration because of false and misleading advertising,"
lead plaintiff Lisa Pontrelli says in the lawsuit.

Larsen is not a named defendant; the defendants are his companies
Mona Vie Inc. and Mona Vie LLC, both of South Jordan, Utah.

"Mona Vie's story is almost identical to that of Royal Tongan Limu
-- another 'super juice' product with too-good-to-be-true alleged
health benefits," the complaint states."  Both were created by
Larsen. Both are based upon an exotic 'superfood' found in remote
locations of the world.  Both market schemes were based on claims
of outrageous health benefits from consuming the product, ranging
from curing cancer and diabetes to making your skin beautiful.
Both were sold through multi-level marketing schemes where
untrained 'distributors' sell the product by extolling the
unproven health benefits to unwitting customers.  Royal Tongan
Limu came under FDA scrutiny for the false and misleading
advertisements about its alleged health benefits and the product
was ultimately taken off the market with the unsold inventory
being poured into a landfill under FDA supervision.  The false and
misleading advertisements generated by the Mona Vie scheme, which
can best be described as propaganda, are just as offensive to the
common law and consumer protection laws as was the Royal Tongan
Limu advertising.

"The propaganda created through the Mona Vie scheme is false and
misleading about the nature of and benefits attributable to
consuming Mona Vie juice.  The propaganda is an essential
component of the scheme because the perpetuation of the belief
that Mona Vie juice will cure or treat whatever health problems a
consumer might have is the main reason defendants are able to
charge the wrongfully inflated price of approximately $45 for a 25
ounce bottle."

Pontrelli says the so-called "independent distributors" are
another essential component for the scam.

"Defendants and their 'independent distributors' sales force work
together in a symbolic fashion to sell as much wrongfully
overpriced Mona Vie juice as possible," according to the lawsuit.
"Defendants know that their co-conspirator 'independent
distributors' generate false and misleading advertising about the
health benefits of Mona Vie juice, but do not stop them because
such advertisements generate sales of Mona Vie juice.  The most
insidious form of this false and misleading advertising are the
testimonials where individuals attribute miraculous medical
breakthroughs to their individual chronic health condition to
drinking Mona Vie juice.  Defendants, of course, taught their
'independent distributors' how to generate such testimonials by
themselves hiring individuals of modest celebrity to make their
own misleading testimonials."

By calling these people "independent distributors," Pontrelli
claims, Mona Vie can force them to do the "dirty work," shift
blame to them when claims about false advertising arise, and "reap
the unjust profits that flow from consumer's belief that Mona Vie
juice will cure health problems."

As a result, the class has been defrauded by paying "outrageously
inflated" prices for products that fail to deliver the promised
"substantial prophylactic, healing, therapeutic and curative
powers for an almost limitless universe of diseases and
conditions," Pontrelli says in the complaint.

She seeks an injunction and punitive damages for fraud, consumer
fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald A. Beshada, Esq.
          BESHADA FARNESE LLP
          108 Wanaque Ave.
          Pompton Lakes, NJ 07442
          Telephone: (973) 831-9910
          Facsimile: (973) 831-7371
          E-mail: dbeshada@gmail.com

The case is Pontrelli v. Mona Vie, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
04649-WJM-MF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Awaits for "Miller" Plaintiffs to File Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc., is awaiting for the plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit to file the parties' settlement agreement,
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.

A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by
Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against
Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded) in March 2012 under nuisance,
negligence, and gross negligence theories.  It is brought on
behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan, whose
property rights have allegedly been interfered with by fallout
and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable to
Extruded's operations.  The Plaintiffs allege that they have
suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of their
properties.  They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and
injunctive relief.  The court has not yet been asked to certify a
class.  The Company has reached a settlement in principle that, if
approved by the court, will result in the dismissal of the action.
The Company and Plaintiffs are preparing documents that will
embody the settlement.  It is expected that Plaintiffs will file a
motion for court approval of the settlement in the near future.
Should the settlement not be consummated or approved, the Company
will complete its discovery, oppose Plaintiffs' expected class
certification motion, and seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims.
Until the settlement is consummated and approved, or until the
court rules on key motions (should the settlement not be
consummated or approved), the Company is does not believe that
this matter will have a material impact on its financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.

Memphis, Tennessee-based Mueller Industries, Inc. --
http://www.muellerindustries.com/-- manufactures copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar and shapes; aluminum and
brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic
fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; and
fabricated tubular products.  Mueller's operations are located
throughout the United States and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain,
and China.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Recalls 2,548 School Buses in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                August 6, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  School Bus
Notification type:            Compliance Mfr
System:                       Seats and Restraints
Units affected:               2548
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013271
TC ID number:                 2013271
Manufacturer recall number:   13512

Affected products:

   Make       Model              Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----              ----------------------
   IC         CE SCHOOL BUS      2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
   IC         BE SCHOOL BUS      2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
   IC         RE SCHOOL BUS      2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

Certain school buses fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard 222. School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash
Protection.  The seatback material may not meet the leg protection
zone impact criteria of the Standard, which could increase the
risk of injury during a vehicle crash.

Dealers will install polystyrene blocks in the lower outside
corners of each seat (beneath the seat upholstery).


OLD PORT FISHING: Recalls Oysters From Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 8, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Notification
Subcategory:                          Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:                Class 2
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       The Old Port Fishing Company
                                       Inc.
Distribution:                         Quebec
Extent of the product distribution:   Hotel/ Restaurant/
                                      Institutional
CFIA reference number:                8232

   Common name           Size         Code(s) on product
   -----------           ----         ------------------
   Blue Point Oysters    100 count    Harvest dates: July 3/13 to
                                      Aug. 2/13
                                      Harvest sites: CT-71, CT-
                                      595C


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Appeal in Stateroom Attendants' Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
stateroom attendants remains pending, according to Royal Caribbean
Cruises Ltd.'s July 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of
stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean
International cruise vessels alleging that they were required to
pay other crew members to help with their duties in violation of
the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.  The lawsuit also alleges that certain
stateroom attendants were required to work back of house
assignments without the ability to earn gratuities in violation of
the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.  The Plaintiffs seek judgment for
damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate amount.
In May 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining
agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated.  The
Plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the United States Court
of Appeals, 11th Circuit.  The Company believes the appeal is
without merit as are the underlying claims made against it and it
intends to vigorously defend itself against them.

Because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of the
proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the
possible impact of the matter on it.

Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. --
http://www.rclinvestor.com/-- is a global cruise company
incorporated in July 1985 in the Republic of Liberia.  The Company
owns Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises, Pullmantur,
Azamara Club Cruises, CDF Croisieres de France as well as TUI
Cruises.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Awaits Next Move of Securities Suit Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. awaits for the plaintiffs' next move
after the dismissal of their consolidated class action lawsuit,
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.

Between August 1, 2011, and September 8, 2011, three similar
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers in the United States
District Court of the Southern District of Florida.  The cases
have since been consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed on February 17, 2012.  The consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from October 26,
2010, through July 27, 2011, and names the Company, its Chairman
and CEO, its Vice Chairman, the President and CEO of its Royal
Caribbean International brand and the former President and CEO of
the Company's Celebrity Cruises brand as defendants.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 as well
as, in the case of the individual defendants, the control person
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act.  The complaint
principally alleges that the defendants knowingly made incorrect
statements concerning the Company's outlook.  The consolidated
amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim on April 9, 2012.  On
April 18, 2013, the district judge granted the Company's motion
and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs
have the right to file a notice to appeal within thirty days from
the date an appealable order is entered.

Because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of the
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the
possible impact of these matters on it.

Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. --
http://www.rclinvestor.com/-- is a global cruise company
incorporated in July 1985 in the Republic of Liberia.  The Company
owns Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises, Pullmantur,
Azamara Club Cruises, CDF Croisieres de France as well as TUI
Cruises.


SAKS INC: Being Sold to Hudson's Bay for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel T. Cohen, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Saks Incorporated, Fabiola Arredondo, Robert
B. Carter, Michael S. Gross, Donald E. Hess, Marguerite W.
Kondracke, Jerry W. Levin, Nora McAniff, Stephen I. Sadove, Jack
L. Stahl, Hudson's Bay Company and Harry Acquisition Inc., Case
No. 652724/2013 (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 2, 2013) is a shareholder
class action brought on behalf of holders of the common stock of
Saks against the Board of Directors the Company to enjoin the
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Saks common stock by
Hudson's Bay and its wholly owned subsidiary, Harry Acquisition
Inc. ("Merger Sub"), in an all-cash transaction valued at
approximately $2.9 billion, including debt.

In facilitating the acquisition of Saks by Hudson's Bay for
grossly inadequate consideration and through a flawed process,
each of the Defendants breached and aided the other Defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties, Mr. Cohen contends.  Hence, he
asserts that he seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any
steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting
from the Individual Defendants' violations of their fiduciary
duties.

Mr. Cohen is a stockholder of the Company.

Saks is a Tennessee corporation headquartered in New York.  Saks
currently operates 41 Saks Fifth Avenue stores and 67 Saks Fifth
Avenue OFF 5TH stores throughout the United States and its online
store, saks.com.  Saks Fifth Avenue is one of the world's pre-
eminent specialty retailers and is renowned for its superlative
American and international designer collections; its expertly
edited assortment of handbags, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics and
gifts; and the first-rate fashion expertise and exemplary client
service of its Associates.  Hudson's Bay is a corporation
continued under the Canada Business Corporations Act and domiciled
in Canada.  Hudson's Bay is North America's longest continually
operated company.  In the United States, Hudson's Bay operates
Lord & Taylor, an iconic department store with 48 full-line stores
and three outlet locations in the northeastern United States and
two major cities in the Midwest, as well as lordandtaylor.com.
Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary
of Hudson's Bay.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN PC
          475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


SEA MERCHANTS: Recalls Oysters From Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 8, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Notification
Subcategory:                          Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:                Class 2
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Sea Merchants Inc.
Distribution:                         Ontario
Extent of the product distribution:   Hotel/ Restaurant/
                                      Institutional
CFIA reference number:                8235

Affected products:

   Common name           Size         Code(s) on product
   ----------            ----         ------------------
   Blue Point/           100 count
   Connecticut/
   Atlantic Oysters                   Harvest dates: July 3/13 to
                                      Aug. 2/13
                                      Harvest site: 207-CT


TEREX CORP: Still Awaits Rulings on Bids to Dismiss 2 Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation is still awaiting court decisions on its motions
to dismiss two consolidated class action lawsuits, 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 has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA") lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a stockholder
derivative lawsuit:

   * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in
     the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     September 20, 2010, and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
     Litigation.

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
     securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the
     United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     November 18, 2010, and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local
     32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension
     Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
     situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
     Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary
     duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was
     filed on April 12, 2010, in the United States District
     Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer,
     derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M.
     DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris
     Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike,
     Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley,
     Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and
     Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors.  The
complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.  As a result, the Company is unable
to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these
lawsuits.  The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks
amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in
addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual
defendants in its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are
without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives
will continue to vigorously defend against them.  The Company
believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance
with federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters.  Accordingly, on November 19, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit.  These
motions are currently pending before the court.  The plaintiff in
the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to
put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to
dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit.

Terex Corporation is a lifting and material handling solutions
company.  The Westport, Connecticut-based Company is focused on
operational improvement and delivering reliable, customer-driven
solutions for a wide range of commercial applications, including
the construction, infrastructure, quarrying, mining,
manufacturing, transportation, energy and utility industries.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 26,830 TACOMA Model Light Trucks & Vans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                August 7, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Light Truck & Van
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Seats and Restraints
Units affected:               26830
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013273
TC ID number:                 2013273
Manufacturer recall number:   213

On vehicles with the Access Cab body configuration, fasteners
within the driver and passenger front seat belt assemblies could
loosen if the access doors are repeatedly and forcefully closed
over an extended period of time.  Should the fasteners loosen
completely, the seat belt may not properly restrain the occupant,
which could increase the risk of injury in a crash or sudden stop.

Dealers will replace the fasteners or the seat belt assemblies as
necessary.

Affected products:

   Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----       ----------------------
   TOYOTA    TACOMA      2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011


TYSON PREPARED: To Pay Workers for Putting On/Taking Off Garments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a Tyson Food plant must pay employees for putting on and taking
off sanitary garments required for food safety, a Wisconsin
appeals court ruled.

Six hourly employees at a Tyson Food plant in Jefferson, Wis.,
filed a class action against their employer claiming they were not
paid for time putting on and taking off sanitary equipment, and
for the time spent walking to and from their work stations after
donning and doffing these clothes.

As a condition of employment, Tyson plant employees must don a
hair net, a beard net (if applicable), a frock, vinyl gloves,
vinyl sleeves, bump caps, safety glasses, ear plugs and special
shoes.  Preventing food contamination is at least a partial goal
of the requirements.

A Jefferson County judge found that Tyson was not required to pay
employees for this time because the gear is not "integral" and
"indispensable" to their work.

But the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment
award Thursday, August 2, 2013.

The employees are right that, "under the plain terms of the DWD
[Department of Workforce Development] code, the donning and
doffing here constitute 'preparatory and concluding' activities
that are 'an integral part of a principal activity,' and therefore
the donning and doffing time is compensable," according to the
ruling.

Tyson argued that the required sanitary garments are "primarily
for the benefit of the employee," and that donning and doffing has
"little to do with" the employee's primary activities, the court
noted.

But the appellate judges disagreed.  "The donning and doffing of
this equipment and clothing at the Tyson plant is required by
Tyson in order for the employees to perform their principal
activities, is closely related to those activities, and is
indispensable to their performance," Judge Brian Blanchard wrote
for a three-judge panel.  "The activity of donning and doffing is
not for the mere convenience of the employees, and it does not in
any way resemble the mechanical steps of entering and exiting the
workplace."

Tyson insisted that many Wisconsin employees are not paid for
donning and doffing, and that if the court finds employees should
be paid for this time, "then virtually all preparatory and
concluding activities will be."

But the court also rejected this line of reasoning.

"It seems obvious that Tyson exaggerates," Blanchard wrote.  "From
work place to work place, the requirements and benefits will
necessarily vary and, accordingly, produce differing results.  But
if it turns out to be true that significant numbers of Wisconsin
employees are not being compensated for donning and doffing
comparable to that here, then we fail to understand why that fact
supports a different interpretation.  Instead, it suggests that
employers in these situations may be non-compliant."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas J. Phebus, Esq.
          ARELLANO & PHEBUS, S.C.
          1468 N. High Point Road, Suite 202
          Middleton, WI 53562
          Telephone: (608) 827-7680
          Facsimile: (608) 827-7681
          E-mail: dphebus@aplawoffice.com

The appellate case is Jim Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared Foods
Inc., Case No. 2010CV001035, in Wisconsin Circuit Court, Jefferson
County.


UNITED PROCESSING: Recalls Boneless Veal Products
-------------------------------------------------
United Processing LLC, a New York Mills, NY firm, is recalling
approximately 12,600 pounds of boneless veal products because they
may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, E. coli O145 and E. coli
O45 the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

Affected product:

   -- 60-lb. boxes of boneless veal

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"M- 27450" inside the USDA mark of inspection on a generic box
label.  The products were produced on June 17, 18, 24, 28 and 29,
2013 then distributed to wholesalers in New York and California
for further processing.

FSIS became aware of the problem during inspection program
personnel review.  The firm sampled the product per their food
safety program, and inadvertently shipped the product into
commerce.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products.

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

Many clinical laboratories do not test for non-O157 Shiga toxin-
producing E. coli (STEC), such as STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121
or O145 because it is harder to identify.  Infections with Shiga
toxin-producing E. coli can result in dehydration, bloody diarrhea
and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4 days, on average) after
exposure to the organism.  While most people recover within a
week, some develop a type of kidney failure called Hemolytic
Uremic Syndrome (HUS).  This condition can occur among persons of
any age but is most common in children under 5 and older adults.
Symptoms of HUS may include fever, abdominal pain, pale skin tone,
fatigue, small, unexplained bruises or bleeding from the nose and
mouth, decreased urination, and swelling.  Persons who experience
these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should
contact the company's plant manager Jon Gorea at (315) 768-7100,
ext. 228.


VERMEER COMPANY: Recalls 2 Units of R9X12T Model Heavy Trailers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Heavy Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           2
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013269
TC ID number:             2013269

Affected products:

   Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----      ----------------------
   VERMEER   R9X12T     2010, 2013

On certain drilling fluid reclaimer trailers, the brake hose may
become damaged when raising and lowering the kingpin assembly.
This could cause the air line to wear, potentially resulting in an
air leak.  Air leakage could result in partial loss of brake
function, which could increase stopping distance.  These issues
could result in a crash causing property damage and/or personal
injury.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, relocate the rear
crossmember.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Accused of Lying About Healthcare Reform
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brado, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Vocera Communications Inc., Robert J. Zollars, Brent
D. Lang, Martin J. Silver, William R. Zerella, Brian D. Ascher,
John B. Grotting, Jeffrey H. Hillebrand, Howard E. Janzen, John N.
McMullen, Haney M. Nada, Donald F. Wood, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated,
William BLair & Company, L.L.C., Wells Fargo Securites, LLC, and
Leerink Swann LLC, Case No. 5:13-cv-03567 (N.D. Cal., August 1,
2013), is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased or acquired (i) Vocera
securities between March 28, 2012, and May 3, 2013, inclusive, or
(ii) Vocera common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering on March 28, 2012.

Beginning March 28, 2012, Vocera issued a series of false and
misleading statements and material omissions concerning its
financial condition that caused its shares to trade at an
artificially high price, Mr. Brado alleges.  During the Class
Period, he contends that the Company failed to disclose the extent
of adverse impact that (i) healthcare reform was having on the
closing of sale of its communication products to hospitals, and
(ii) the federal budget sequestration was having on the closing of
sales of the Company's communication products to government
hospitals.

Mr. Brado purchased Vocera common stock on the open market during
the Class Period and suffered damages as a result of the Company's
violations of securities law.

Vocera is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose,
California.  Vocera is a provider of mobile communication
solutions to healthcare and nonhealthcare markets.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. J.P. Morgan,
Piper Jaffray, Robert W. Baird & Co., William BLair & Co., Wells
Fargo and Leerink Swann were underwriters of the Company's
offering and served as financial advisor and assistant in the
preparation and dissemination of Vocera's alleged false and
misleading Registration Statement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hal Cunningham, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: hcunningham@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com


WAL-MART INC: Calif. Court Refused to Certify Gender Bias Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a heavily
whittled lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of gender discrimination is
simply "a scaled-down version of the same case" rejected by the
Supreme Court two years ago, a federal judge ruled, refusing to
certify the smaller class action.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco denied class
certification for a lawsuit led by Betty Dukes, saying the "newly
proposed class continues to suffer from the problems that
foreclosed certification of a nationwide class."

Breyer was referring to the Supreme Court's 2011 decision to
disband a nationwide class of 1.5 million women who worked for the
retail giant.  A federal judge had initially certified the class,
making it the largest civil rights case in U.S. history.

The women claimed they were paid less and received fewer
promotions than men in comparable positions.

The high court voted 5-4 to disband the class, ruling that the
women had not established that "all their claims can be
productively litigated at once."

On remand, the plaintiffs scaled back their number by a factor of
10, proposing a class of about 150,000 women who worked in what
they called Wal-Mart's "California regions."  The amended
complaint identified a core group of upper-level managers who
allegedly influenced the decisions of lower-level managers.

Breyer rejected Wal-Mart's motion to strike the class allegations
last December, but on Friday, August 3, 2013, he said those claims
failed to overcome the bar set by the Supreme Court.

"Plaintiffs' evidence falls short on two levels: even the smaller
group is quite large, and plaintiffs' evidence of bias among their
proposed group of submanagers remains too weak to satisfy their
burden of providing 'significant proof' of a general policy of
discrimination," Breyer wrote.  He said "two themes emerge" in the
workers' renewed bid for class certification:

"First, though they have cut down the raw number of proposed class
members significantly, plaintiffs continue to challenge four
different kinds of decisions across hundreds of decision makers,
inviting failures of proof at multiple points in each region,"
Breyer wrote.

"Second, though plaintiffs insist that they have presented an
entirely different case from the one the Supreme Court rejected,
in fact it is essentially a scaled-down version of the same case
with new labels on old arguments."

Though the plaintiffs "have amassed substantial evidence of
discrimination against women," Breyer wrote, the proposed class
"suffers from the same problems identified by the Supreme Court,
but on a somewhat smaller scale."

"Indeed, it is revealing that there is no particular logic to the
precise scope of the class plaintiffs now propose," he explained.
"They picked three corporate regions covering a smaller area than
the rejected national class, but nothing in plaintiffs' evidence
shows that those three regions are actually different from any
other Wal-Mart regions along any relevant dimension.  Rather than
identify an employment practice and define a class around it,
plaintiffs continue to challenge the discretionary decisions of
hundreds of decision makers, while arbitrarily confining their
proposed class to corporate regions that include stores in
California, among other states."

August 3's ruling means each plaintiff must pursue her claims
against Wal-Mart individually.

The judge, Charles Breyer, is the younger brother of Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Breyer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anne Kendrick Richardson, Esq.
          Cornelia Dai, Esq.
          Randy R. Renick, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP
          128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 585-9600
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
          E-mail: arichardson@hadsellstormer.com
                  cdai@hadsellstormer.com
                  rrr@renicklaw.com

               - and -

          Charles V. Firth, Esq.
          TINKLER & FIRTH
          309 Johnson Street
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 982-8533
          E-mail: cvf@tinklerfirth.com

               - and -

          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          Joseph Marc Sellers, Esq.
          Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, Ste 500
          Washington, DC
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
                  jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  promerfriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  cwebber@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Lawrence, Esq.
          Steve Stemerman, Esq.
          DAVIS COWELL & BOWE
          595 Market Street, Ste 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 597-7200
          E-mail: eal@dcbsf.com
                  stemdcb@aol.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Abby Reisch, Esq.
          EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          180 Howard Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 621-0672 x384
          Facsimile: (415) 621-6744
          E-mail: jreisch@equalrights.org

               - and -

          Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          125 University Avenue, Ste 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473 x306
          E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org

               - and -

          Merit Bennett, Esq.
          460 St. Michael's Drive, Ste 703
          Santa Fe, NM 87505
          Telephone: (505) 983-9834

               - and -

          Michael Victor Caesar, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          125 University Avenue Ste 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473

               - and -

          Noreen A. Farrell, Esq.
          EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          180 Howard Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 621-0672
          Facsimile: (415) 621-6744
          E-mail: nfarrell@equalrights.org

               - and -

          Sheila Yvette Thomas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHEILA THOMAS
          5260 Proctor Avenue
          Oakland, CA 94618
          Telephone: (510) 339-3739
          E-mail: sheilayt@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Stephen Tinkler, Esq.
          TINKLER & BENNETT
          309 Johnson Street
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 986-0269

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Lawrence, Esq.
          DAVIS COWELL & BOWE
          595 Market Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 597-7200
          Facsimile: (415) 597-7201
          E-mail: eal@dcbsf.com

               - and -

          Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          125 University Avenue, Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473 x306
          Facsimile: (510) 845-3654
          E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org

               - and -

          Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, Ca 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7822
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: cconway@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Frederick Brown, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8204
          E-mail: fbrown@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Jesse A. Cripps, Jr., Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: jcripps@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          2100 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3203
          E-mail: knelson@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Perry, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Ste 900
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 887-3621
          E-mail: mperry@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Michele Leigh Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 451-3945
          Facsimile: (949) 475-4668
          E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission St, Ste 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          E-mail: rbrass@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Theane Evangelis Kapur, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7726
          E-mail: tkapur@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Boutrous , Jr., Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Todd Michael Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

The case is Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:01-
cv-02252-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


WHITE VEAL: Recalls Veal Liver Sold in Quebec
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 9, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:                          Microbiological - E. coli
                                      O157:H7
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       White Veal Meat Packers
                                      (Est. 412)
Distribution:                         Quebec
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and White Veal Meat
Packers Ltd. (EST 412) are warning the public not to consume Veal
Liver because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

The affected product, Veal Liver, was sold from the following
retail stores in Quebec from July 31, 2013 to August 9, 2013,
inclusive.

Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected
product are advised to contact their retailer.

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

White Veal Meat Packers Ltd., (EST 412), Toronto, ON is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


ZIP INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Baltic Sprats in Spicy Brine
-------------------------------------------------------
Zip International Group LLC, 160 Raritan Center Parkway #6,
Edison, NJ 08837, is recalling Baltic Sprats in Spicy Brine Net
Wt. 15.8 Oz (450g) in plastic packaging because it is has the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled Baltic Sprats in Spicy Brine Net Wt. 15.8 Oz (450g)
in plastic packaging includes best by date October 12, 2013
(UPC: 4750217602547).  The best by date is located on the top of
the packaging and was sold to distributors and retail grocery
stores in New York State beginning on May 31, 2013 and ending on
June 6, 2013.  It is a product of Latvia.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture & Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent
analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel found the
product to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Baltic Sprats in Spicy Brine Net
wt. 15.8 Oz (450g) should not consume it, but should return it to
the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact the
company @ 732-225-3600, 9:00AM-5:00 PM EST from Monday to Friday.


                             *********

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  * * *