CAR_Public/130815.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 15, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 161

                             Headlines


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 95 U.S. Tobacco-Related Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: PM Wins Favorable Ruling in 15 of 16 "Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: PM Challenges Oregon Appeals Court Reversal
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces "Carroll" Lawsuit in Del.
ALTRIA GROUP: Ill. High Court Denies PM's Motion in "Price" Suit

ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Continues to Face "Aspinall" Lawsuit
ALTRIA GROUP: October Certification Hearing Set in "Miner" Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: PM Awaits Ruling on Bid to Decertify "Brown" Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in "Larsen" Lawsuit to Begin Anew in January
ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Certification of Smith Tobacco Price Case

ASIANA AIRLINES: Offers $10,000 Compensation to Each Survivor
CHICAGO, IL: Class Action Status in School Closure Suits Denied
CONNAUGHT GROUP: Resolves Former Workers' WARN Class Action
COUNTRY TRADITIONS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Pies
CRABTREE & EVELYN: Recalls Reed Diffusers

EMERALD GRAIN: WA Grain Growers to Proceed With Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Cy Pres Class Action Settlement Challenged
FREEMAN COMPANIES: Judge Tosses EEOC Discrimination Class Action
GAMESTOP: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Fraud Class Action
GROTON, CT: Homeowners Obtain Class-Action Status in Property Suit

HUSQVARNA MOTORCYCLES: Recalls 260 Off-Road Motorcycles
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 3,246 SANTA FE Model SUVs
INTELIQUENT INC: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in Illinois
JBI INC: Enters Into Stipulation to Settle Shareholders' Suit
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 384 SORENTO 2014 Model SUVs

M & B RESTAURANT: "Castro" Suit Gets Conditional Certification
MICROSOFT CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
MUTUAL FIRST: 8th Cir. Reinstates "Charvat" EFTA Violation Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violates Constitution
NOVARTIS AG: Probes Uncover Altered Diovan Research Data

PFIZER INC: Ontario Court Certifies Champix Class Action
PFIZER INC: Judge Denies Bid to Consolidate Lipitor Suits
PHARMERICA CORP: Sued for Dispensing Drugs Without Prescriptions
POLYCOM INC: Sept. 24 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
PROCTER & GAMBLE: 6th Cir. Reverses "Pampers" Suit Deal Approval

QUESTAR CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Smith" Class Action
RINO INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hufnagle" Suit
TENAHA COUNTY, TX: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
TETRA TECH: August 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
UBS AG: Settles Investor Lawsuit Over Lehman Notes for $120-Mil.

UNION PACIFIC: Fights Motion to Disqualify Lead Trial Counsel
VISA INC: Discover to Intervene, Thousands Opt Out of Settlement
VISA INC: Shop Rite & Buc-ee Lawsuits Included in MDL 1720
VISA INC: MDL 1720 Defendants File Suit v. Opt Out Plaintiffs
VISA INC: Former MDL 1720 Class Members Sue for Damages

VISA INC: Class Cert. Hearing Done in Watson Merchant Litigation
VISA INC: Briefing on Bids to File Amended Complaints Completed
VISA INC: Paid $4 Billion to Interchange MDL Settlement Fund
WELLS FARGO: Zoll & Squitieri Law Firms File Mortgage Class Action

* Greek Bailout Victims May Get Chance to Bring Class Actions


                             *********


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 95 U.S. Tobacco-Related Cases
-------------------------------------------------
In its July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013,
Altria Group Inc. disclosed the number of tobacco-related cases
pending in the United States against PM USA and, in some
instances, Altria Group, as of July 22, 2013.

Claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the
following categories:

     (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought
on behalf of individual plaintiffs;

    (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal
injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical
monitoring and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated
claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a
single proceeding;

   (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental
(both domestic and foreign) plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for
health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking
and/or disgorgement of profits;

    (iv) class action suits alleging that the uses of the terms
"Lights" and "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade
practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment,
breach of warranty or violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); and

     (v) other tobacco-related litigation. Plaintiffs' theories of
recovery and the defenses raised in pending smoking and health,
health care cost recovery and "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases are
discussed.

The table lists the number of tobacco-related cases pending in the
United States as of July 22, 2013, July 23, 2012 and July 25,
2011:

                Number of Cases  Number of cases  Number of cases
                Pending as of    Pending as of    Pending as of
  Type of Case  July 22, 2013    July 23, 2012    July 25, 2011
  ------------  ---------------  ---------------  ---------------
Individual
Smoking and
Health Case             73            78            81
                ---------------  ---------------  ---------------
Smoking and
Health Class
Actions and
Aggregated
Claims Litigation        6             7             8
                ---------------  ---------------  ---------------
Health Care Cost
Recovery Actions         1             1             2
                ---------------  ---------------  ---------------
"Lights/Ultra
Lights" Class
Actions                 15            16            19
                ---------------  ---------------  ---------------

"Individual Smoking and Health Case" does not include 2,574 cases
brought by flight attendants seeking compensatory damages for
personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke ("ETS").

The flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS
smoking and health class action in Florida, which was settled in
1997 (Broin). The terms of the court-approved settlement in that
case allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking
compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive
damages. Also, does not include individual smoking and health
cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in Florida state and
federal courts following the decertification of the Engle case
(discussed in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Class Action).

"Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims
Litigation" includes as one case the 600 civil actions (of which
346 are actions against PM USA) that were to be tried in a single
proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). The West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States
Constitution did not preclude a trial in two phases in this case.
Issues related to defendants' conduct and whether punitive damages
are permissible were tried in the first phase. Trial in the first
phase of this case began in April 2013. On May 15, 2013, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the claims for design
defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and
concealment and declined to find that the defendants' conduct
warranted punitive damages. Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes should have included use
instructions for the period 1964 - 1969. The second phase, if any,
will consist of individual trials to determine liability and
compensatory damages on that claim only. On July 15, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law
and a motion for a new trial. Also on July 15, 2013, defendants
filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM Wins Favorable Ruling in 15 of 16 "Lights" Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc. disclosed in its July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that 15 courts in 16 "Lights" cases have
refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action
allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have
entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA).

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class
certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action
allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan
after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under
the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois
has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified
class in the Price case.

In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed a purported "Lights" class action brought in Louisiana
federal court (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims
were preempted by the FCLAA.

In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned a decision by a New York trial court in Schwab that
granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United
States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights."

In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case
with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009,
but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case.

The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory
review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought
review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a
class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies
case with prejudice.

In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of
"Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In
Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment
in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM Challenges Oregon Appeals Court Reversal
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc. disclosed in its July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that on June 19, the Oregon Court of Appeals
reversed a trial court's denial of class certification in the so-
called Pearson case, and remanded to the trial court for further
consideration of class certification.  On July 17, Philip Morris
USA Inc. (PM USA) filed a petition for reconsideration with the
Oregon Court of Appeals.

The Oregon state court had denied the plaintiffs' motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class in the suit against PM USA.

In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary judgment based
on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory exemption.

In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's motion
based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the
Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April 2010.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces "Carroll" Lawsuit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) is now the sole defendant in the
Carroll (formerly known as Holmes) case pending in Delaware,
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 December 2009, the state trial court in the Carroll (formerly
known as Holmes) case (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion
for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.

In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming
Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants.

In July 2011, the parties stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. In February 2013, the
trial court approved the parties' stipulation to the dismissal
without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. PM USA is now the
sole defendant in the case.


ALTRIA GROUP: Ill. High Court Denies PM's Motion in "Price" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris USA Inc.'s motion
to exercise court jurisdiction over issues to be resolved in the
so-called "Price" suit wherein which a state court awarded $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3.0 billion in punitive
damages against PM USA in 2003, 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.

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in
January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages
and $3.0 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.

In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial
court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the
United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ
of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison
County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed
the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate."

PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition and, in
February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's motion on the
basis that the petition was not timely filed. In March 2009, the
Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial
District of the Appellate Court of Illinois.

In February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result,
the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment.

In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM
USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM USA's opposition to
the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to
reinstate the original judgment.  The trial court denied
plaintiffs' petition in December 2012.

In January 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District. In January 2013, PM USA filed a motion
asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its
jurisdiction over the appeal. In February 2013, the Illinois
Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Continues to Face "Aspinall" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) is now the sole defendant the so-
called Aspinall case in Massachusetts, according 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.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending in California (Brown), Massachusetts
(Aspinall) and Missouri (Larsen). Significant developments in
Aspinall include:

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal
preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer
protection statute.

On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported
its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for
review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the
appellate review. In December 2008, subsequent to the United
States Supreme Court's decision in Good, the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court issued an order requesting that the parties advise
the court within 30 days whether the Good decision is dispositive
of federal preemption issues pending on appeal.

In January 2009, PM USA notified the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court that Good is dispositive of the federal preemption
issues on appeal, but requested further briefing on the state law
statutory exemption issue. In March 2009, the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment
to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion.

In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as
to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the
case brought by the Department of Justice. In March 2012, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February 2013, the trial
court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice
plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the
sole defendant in the case.


ALTRIA GROUP: October Certification Hearing Set in "Miner" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' March 2013 class certification motion in
the Miner (formerly known as Watson) case is scheduled for October
22, 2013, 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 June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in the Miner (formerly known as Watson) case that
denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as
opposed to federal, trial court.

The Supreme Court rejected defendants' contention that the case
must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer"
statute. The case was removed to federal court in Arkansas and the
case was transferred to the MDL proceeding.

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding
remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice. A hearing on plaintiffs' March 2013
class certification motion is scheduled for October 22, 2013.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM Awaits Ruling on Bid to Decertify "Brown" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) is awaiting a ruling on its motion
to decertify a class in the "Brown" case after the conclusion of a
trial in July 2013, 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.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending in California (Brown), Massachusetts
(Aspinall) and Missouri (Larsen). Significant developments in
Brown include:

In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court
alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA
and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful and
fraudulent business practices.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed an earlier
trial court decision that decertified the class and remanded the
case to the trial court.

The class consists of individuals who, at the time they were
residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or more
cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or
advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild,"
"low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including
any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases
"ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to
defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California.
Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of
"light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and
injunctive relief ordering corrective communications.

In September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court
dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit.  Trial
began in April 2013. On May 14, 2013 the parties redefined the
class to include California residents who smoked in California one
or more of defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January
1, 1998, and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's
marketing and advertising activities in California.

On June 13, 2013, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class.
Trial concluded on July 10, 2013 and the court took the matter
under consideration.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in "Larsen" Lawsuit to Begin Anew in January
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court has scheduled a new trial to begin in January 2014 for
the "Larsen" case in Missouri, 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.

State trial courts have certified classes against Philip Morris
USA Inc. (PM USA) in several jurisdictions. Over time, several
such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary
judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall) and Missouri
(Larsen). Significant developments in Larsen include:

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995 through 2003.

In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment
regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In
April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an
element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel
from the findings in the case brought by the Department of
Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011 the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict. The court has scheduled the new trial to begin in
January 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Certification of Smith Tobacco Price Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the so-called Smith Tobacco Price Case have cross-
appealed a trial court's class certification decision to the Court
of Appeals of Kansas, 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.

One case remains pending in Kansas (Smith) in which plaintiffs
allege that defendants, including Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA)
and Altria Group, Inc., conspired to fix cigarette prices in
violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was granted.

In March 2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs sought the trial court's
reconsideration of its decision, but in June 2012, the trial court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have
appealed the decision, and defendants have cross-appealed the
trial court's class certification decision, to the Court of
Appeals of Kansas.


ASIANA AIRLINES: Offers $10,000 Compensation to Each Survivor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kanga Kong, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Asiana Airlines has offered all 288 survivors of the July 6 San
Francisco plane crash $10,000 each in initial compensation, but
said the payout isn't designed to deter further claims against the
company.

"We figured that there are passengers or families that need cash
immediately.  As it takes at least a few months to complete
payment of the full insurance claims, we decided to pay part of
what would be the final payment in advance," an Asiana spokesman
said on Monday.

Asiana said its decision to award initial compensation is in line
with the recent global practice, though the move is unusual in
South Korea.  Asiana didn't advance compensation to victims of its
only other passenger jet crash in 1993.  The nation's other major
carrier, Korean Air, said it couldn't find any record of making
such payments.

Jung Yun-sick, a former Asiana pilot and now an aviation professor
at Korea's Jungwon University, said the move may help limit later
claims.

"For the company, reducing the number of possible lawsuits is
critical.  If the airliner offers an apology and some early money,
there will be always people who would accept the deal and won't go
as far as courts if they're not severely injured," he said.

"That Asiana made such an effort will also help it at the court to
soften the overall mood," he added.

Asiana said the advance payment has nothing to do with its efforts
on the legal front.

"It's something we wanted to provide for convenience.  Passengers
can take it and decide to file a lawsuit later if they want.
That's no problem," the spokesman said.

Asiana declined to reveal how many passengers have accepted the
offer and how many lawsuits have been filed.

Last month, two passengers of the crashed jet became the first to
sue Asiana in a San Francisco federal court, claiming they
suffered "extreme and catastrophic injuries and emotional
distress" as a result of the accident.

An international treaty stipulates awards of up to $150,000 in
damages for each passenger injured in a plane crash.  The Montreal
Convention allows victims of the crash to sue in U.S. courts if
they are permanent U.S. residents, purchased tickets in the U.S.
or were flying into the U.S. as a final destination.

Asiana has several insurers, led by LIG Insurance Co., which
provide coverage for potential claims.  It has mandated Kim &
Chang in Korea and law firms in the U.S. and China to handle legal
claims from the accident.

On top of the initial compensation that it is offering, Asiana
said it is paying the passengers' medical expenses and also
refunding the cost of roundtrip tickets to San Francisco.

The airline in July paid more than $20,000 to the families of
three passengers who died, to help cover funeral expenses.


CHICAGO, IL: Class Action Status in School Closure Suits Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge's decision to
deny class-action status to plaintiffs in a closely watched civil
case means the shuttering of most of the nearly 50 Chicago public
schools slated for closure will likely go ahead.

But the 26-page ruling by Judge John Lee leaves open the
possibility he could order a halt to the closure of individual
schools named in lawsuits filed by parents.

Judge Lee's main ruling on a request for a temporary injunction is
expected within days.

In an important procedural decision posted on Aug. 9, Judge Lee
found issues in the dozens of schools marked for closing were too
dissimilar to treat simultaneously.

Parents say students with disabilities and African-Americans are
inordinately harmed by the closures.  The nation's third largest
school district says underuse of buildings drove the closing
decisions.


CONNAUGHT GROUP: Resolves Former Workers' WARN Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that high-end fashion
retailer Connaught Group Ltd. on Aug. 8 reached a deal with a
class of former workers who claimed they were not given adequate
notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
that they would lose their jobs when the company went bankrupt
last year.

The liquidating trustee for Connaught, which obtained court
approval of its liquidation plan in October, has agreed to place
$675,000 in a trust for the former employees to resolve the
dispute and is asking a New York bankruptcy judge to sign off on
the deal.

"The liquidating trust believes that the terms of the settlement
are well within the range of reasonableness and are in the best
interests of the estates and their creditors and should,
therefore, be approved," the trustee said in a court filing.

In April, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein certified the
class of former workers, saying in a written decision that while
the class members may be treated differently under the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code because of the timing of their terminations, that
distinction makes no difference in this case because the company's
Chapter 11 plan treats their claims in the same manner.

The retailer sought bankruptcy protection in February 2012 and
five days later was hit with a class action from a former employee
who alleged that the company failed to provide its workers written
notice 60 days in advance of their terminations as required by the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act or the
90 days' notice required by the New York state WARN Act.

The workers say the company implemented mass layoffs Jan. 30,
2012, just over a week before the company filed for bankruptcy.
The class, led by named plaintiff Martina Schuman, who worked as a
production assistant at Connaught before her termination, said
each former worker is entitled to 60 days' pay, including salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday and vacation pay, and health
and life insurance.  Ms. Schuman estimated that the amount she is
owed is $6,720, not including benefits, according to court
documents.

The complaint said that although a precise number hadn't been
determined, more than 100 employees were estimated to have been
affected.

A few months after it entered bankruptcy, Connaught reached the
crucial deal to sell itself to a joint venture between Tom James
Co. and Royal Spirit Group for $22 million.

Judge Bernstein appointed Evan Blum as liquidating trustee when he
approved Connaught's plan in October.  Under the plan, the company
transferred to a liquidating trust headed by Blum any property
remaining in the estate to be used to pay in full allowed priority
claims and administrative claims that weren't satisfied in
October.

If any assets remain in the trust after that, they will be used to
give holders of general unsecured claims a pro rata share
distribution.

Connaught blamed its financial woes on the global decline of
consumer spending.  The Carlisle Collection creator reported in
its Chapter 11 petition that it had $10 million to $50 million in
assets and $50 million to $100 million in liabilities.

The class is represented by Jack A. Raisner and Rene S. Roupinian
of Outten & Golden LLP.

The trust is represented by Bruce Buechler --
bbuechler@lowenstein.com -- and Shirley Dai -- sdai@lowenstein.com
-- of Lowenstein Sandler LLP.

The adversary proceeding is Martina Schuman et al. v. The
Connaught Group Ltd., case number 1:12-ap-01051, in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
bankruptcy case is In re: The Connaught Group Ltd., case number
1:12-bk-10512, in the same court.


COUNTRY TRADITIONS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Pies
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 13, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Country Tradition Frozen
                                      Foods
Distribution:                         Ontario
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected products: Country Traditions Frozen Food Outlet Chicken
Pie 450 grams

The public warning issued on August 8, 2013, has been updated to
include additional distribution and product information.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Country Traditions
Frozen Food are warning people with allergies to mustard not to
consume the Chicken Pies.  The affected product contains mustard
which is not declared on the label.

All lot codes / Best Before dates of the following product where
mustard is not declared in the list of ingredients are affected by
this alert.

This product was sold from Country Traditions Frozen Food Outlet,
112 Industrial Blvd., Napanee ON.

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

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

The retailer, Country Tradition Frozen Foods, Napanee, on is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


CRABTREE & EVELYN: Recalls Reed Diffusers
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 13, 2013
Posting date:             August 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34871

Reed diffusers affected by this recall:

   -- India Hicks Island Living Casuarina Home Fragrance Reed
      Diffuser;
   -- Iris Home Fragrance Reed Diffuser;
   -- Rosewater Home Fragrance Reed Diffuser;
   -- Lavender Home Fragrance Reed Diffuser;
   -- Windsor Forest Home Fragrance Reed Diffuser;
   -- Pomegranate Grove Home Fragrance Reed Diffuser; and
   -- Winter Garden Home Fragrance Reed Diffuser

The recalled products pose a very high level of toxicity though
inhalation and are consequently prohibited by the Consumer
Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001.  Exposure through
inhalation of the affected products may cause serious injury.

Neither Health Canada nor Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd. has received any
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of the recalled diffusers.

Information on how to help keep children safe from unintentional
exposure to reed diffusers is available at Advising Canadians
about Reed Diffusers.

Approximately 4000 units of the recalled reed diffusers were sold.

The recalled reed diffusers were manufactured in the United States
and sold from January 2012 to December 2012.

   Manufacturer:     Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd.
                     Woodstock
                     Connecticut
                     United States


EMERALD GRAIN: WA Grain Growers to Proceed With Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Varischetti, writing for ABC Rural, reports that the legal
firm representing about 70 WA grain growers says it will proceed
with a class action against Emerald Grain over the performance of
the company's 2011/2012 grain pool.

Earlier this year Tom Howard the General Manager of distribution
at Emerald Grain admitted the pool had underperformed and the
losses ran into millions of dollars.

A grain pool is basically a collection of growers grain which
captures value in price through a period of time and then gives
the grower an average price over that period of time.

It's very much like a managed fund but in this case it's grain
rather than dollars invested.

Nathan Draper is a lawyer with Granich Partners.  His firm
commissioned a report comparing 2011/2012 pool returns from a
range of grain marketers to WA growers.  He said based on the
findings in that report, he's confident the growers' have a solid
case.

"The finding from our experts was that depending on the grade of
wheat there's a variation in the returns received by Emerald
compared to the others between $82 and $64 per tonne.  Our experts
have also provided us with three possible reasons why this has
occurred and they have said that given at the time of the sale of
the wheat when the wheat was profitable due to a drought in the
United States that Emerald should have been earning far more for
their wheat per tonne than it appears they did do.  Secondly based
on evidence our experts have received it would appear that Emerald
has extensively overbooked the shipping slots which has resulted
in a liability for Emerald having to pay for shipping slots it
cannot use due to its failure to secure efficient amounts or
tonnages of wheat to export and the final reason is that due to
the practices by Emerald, most notably its marketing practices
they have failed to trade grain as profitably as they should have
done, which has resulted in losses or costs that were unforeseen
or unencountered by the other seven traders."

"According to our experts clearly something major has gone wrong
with the management of Emerald's pool and it's their conclusion
and their opinion that losses of $64 to $82 per tonne across the
various grades of wheat are not normal."

Nathan Draper is confident growers, who in some cases claim they
have lost tens and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars,
can expect to get that money back through this class action.

"My advice to all farmers is from their (Emerald's) actions it's
quite clear the nature of the beast we're dealing with and we
should expect nothing to simply be gained out of this and that
we're going to be put to the fight and in those circumstances we
should expect Emerald to take the matter all the way to court and
in any event that's what we're preparing the farmers for and
that's what we're prepared for."

An Emerald Grain Spokesperson said, "We are very concerned about
over-simplistic comparisons of pool results.  There are many
different components to the pool finalization and growers should
be wary of over-simplistic conclusions that might be misleading.
We don't believe there is a case for a class action and we suggest
that growers seek their own independent legal advice before
committing money to this cause."


FACEBOOK INC: Cy Pres Class Action Settlement Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------
Adam Liptak, writing for The New York Times, reports that Scott A.
Kamber told the federal appeals court in San Francisco a couple of
years ago "We always knew this settlement would get a tremendous
amount of attention,"

He was defending a novel bargain he had struck with Facebook on
behalf of millions of users whose privacy he said the company had
violated.  The settlement's central innovation was to cut
Mr. Kamber's clients out of the deal.

The class members would get nothing.  The plaintiffs' lawyers
would get about $2.3 million.  Facebook would make a roughly $6.5
million payment -- to a new foundation it would partly control.

The appeals court upheld the settlement last year by a 2-to-1
vote, with the majority saying it was "fair, adequate and free
from collusion."  Last month, critics of the settlement asked the
Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Facebook settlement certainly explores new frontiers in class-
action creativity.  For starters, consider the plaintiffs.

"They do not get one cent," Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld wrote in
dissent.  "They do not even get an injunction against Facebook
doing exactly the same thing to them again."

In exchange for nothing, the plaintiffs gave up their right to sue
Facebook and its partners in a program called Beacon, which
automatically, and alarmingly, displayed their purchases and video
rentals.  The program has been shuttered, but its legal legacy
lives on.

"This settlement perverts the class action into a device for
depriving victims of remedies for wrongs," Judge Kleinfeld wrote,
"while enriching both the wrongdoers and the lawyers purporting to
represent the class."

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear the case, Marek
v. Lane, No. 13-136.  The justices have been quite active in
restricting other aspects of class actions, and they may decide it
is time to consider settlements that critics say leave plaintiffs
worse off than when they started.

Class-action lawyers call the diversion of settlement money from
victims to other uses "cy pres."  The fancy-sounding term is
derived from a French legal expression, "cy pres comme possible,"
or "as near as possible."

Cy pres can make sense in the law of charitable trusts, where
executors unable to fulfill a dead person's wishes precisely are
allowed to use the estate's money for a similar purpose.

Mr. Kamber told the appeals court that the new foundation,
financed with Facebook's money and dedicated to protecting privacy
rights, was in the same analytical ballpark.  "This is more
beneficial to the class," he said of the foundation, "than a $1.12
check to each member of the class."

The leading critic of abusive class-action settlements is
Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness, and he is one
of the lawyers challenging the Facebook settlement.  In testimony
in March before a House subcommittee, Mr. Frank said Facebook's
payment to the new charity bordered on a sham.

"That is like a settlement against Microsoft settling for
Microsoft giving money to the Gates Foundation," he said,
referring to the foundation created by Microsoft's chairman, Bill
Gates, and his wife, Melinda.

David B. Rivkin Jr., the lead lawyer on the new Supreme Court
petition, said he hoped the Supreme Court would consider the
dangerous incentives created by these kinds of class-action
settlements.

"Cy pres awards only increase the risk of collusion," he said,
"because they facilitate settlements that are cheaper and easier
for defendants, still provide high fees for class attorneys, but
sell class members down the river."

Other appeals courts have been more skeptical of creative class-
action settlements.

This month, for instance, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati
rejected a settlement of a lawsuit that claimed, against the
weight of the evidence, that some Pampers diapers had caused
severe diaper rash.

The lawyers got $2.73 million -- "this in a case where counsel did
not take a single deposition, serve a single request for written
discovery, or even file a response" to the defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, Judge Raymond M. Kethledge wrote for the
majority of a divided three-judge panel of the court.

In return, the company got a comprehensive litigation cease-fire.

And the plaintiffs? The company agreed to make modest changes to
its packaging and Web site and to extend a refund program, but
only for people who had thought to keep original receipts and part
of the box from as long ago as 2008.

"Who does this sort of thing?" Judge Kethledge wrote, suggesting
that the settlement would benefit only exceptionally well-
organized hoarders.

"The relief that this settlement provides to unnamed class members
is illusory," he wrote.  "But one fact about this settlement is
concrete and indisputable: $2.73 million is $2.73 million."


FREEMAN COMPANIES: Judge Tosses EEOC Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Zillman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may want to get a new
expert witness.

In two cases that are part of the EEOC's larger effort to crack
down on what it considers discriminatory hiring practices, a
report by its own expert witness, workplace psychologist
Kevin Murphy, has tripped up its efforts.

The latest flub came on Aug. 9 when a district court judge in
Maryland tossed an EEOC lawsuit against Freeman Companies that
accused the event services company of discriminating against
minorities and males.  The suit stems from a September 2009
complaint in which the EEOC alleged that Freeman used
discriminatory hiring criterion against African Americans by
looking at the credit history of some of its job applicants and
against African American, Hispanic, and males by considering
candidates' criminal history.  The agency claimed that the hiring
requirements resulted in disparate impact on proposed class
members.

In his opinion on Aug. 9, Judge Roger Titus wrote that while "some
specific uses of criminal and credit background checks may be
discriminatory and violate the provision of Title VII, the EEOC
bears the burden of applying reliable expert testimony and
statistical analysis that demonstrates disparate impact stemming
from a specific employment practice before such a violation can be
found."

Freeman took sharp aim at the report provided by expert witness
Murphy, calling it unreliable, rife with analytical errors,
untimely, and thus inadmissible to demonstrate the existence of
disparate impact -- an assessment with which Judge Titus agreed.

In a statement, the EEOC said that it was disappointed in the
judge's decision, but it pointed out that the judge "did
acknowledge that certain uses of criminal history or credit
information can be discriminatory."  It added, "We are considering
our options."

Judge Titus's criticism of Mr. Murphy's report echoed an opinion
by a federal court judge in the Northern District of Ohio who in
January tossed a similar EEOC suit that also relied on
Mr. Murphy's expert testimony.  In that case, which accused
education company Kaplan, Inc. of using pre-employment credit
checks that resulted in an unlawful disparate impact on African
American job seekers, the judge found that the EEOC had failed to
provide reliable statistical evidence of discrimination.  The
agency's appeal of the decision is pending.

The two suits were part of a larger EEOC assault on discriminatory
recruitment and hiring practices.  The agency listed the
elimination of such prohibitive hiring methods as priority number
one in its latest strategic enforcement plan.

"The neon sign of EEOC's enforcement program is getting dismantled
by courts," Gerald Maatman of Seyfarth Shaw, who represents
Kaplan, said in an interview Friday.

Donald Livingston -- dlivingston@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, who represented Freeman, said in an
interview on Aug. 9 that Judge Titus's decision in his client's
case bolsters recent criticism of the EEOC policy that's been
described as "sue first, investigate later."  Two recent cases
have called out the EEOC for allegedly taking a shot-in-the-dark
approach to filing lawsuits.

In a suit recently filed in district court in Washington, D.C.,
Case New Holland Inc., a manufacturer of agricultural and
construction equipment, accused the EEOC of sending out mass e-
mails to the business accounts of more than 1,000 CNH employees in
an effort to attract potential plaintiffs in a class action
against the company.  And earlier last week, a federal judge in
Iowa City, Iowa awarded a record $4.1 million in attorneys' fees
to trucking giant CRST Van Expedited Inc. and its lawyers at
Jenner & Block after finding that the EEOC had lapsed in its duty
to investigate harassment claims before filing suit.

EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser said the agency declined to
respond specifically to that criticism.  In regards to the CRST
decision, she said the agency is "deeply disappointed" and is
considering the next steps.

"Right now we're in a period where the EEOC is seeking to expand
Title VII through court opinions," Mr. Livingston said.  "It's
doing it in all sorts of different ways," including the broad
application of disparate impact claims to credit and criminal
background checks.


GAMESTOP: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tach, writing for Polygon, reports that a federal judge in
New Jersey last week denied GameStop's motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed against the company alleging that GameStop
violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by selling used games
that did not include single-use downloadable content, according to
documents obtained by Polygon.

United States District Judge Robert B. Kugler's opinion summarizes
the lawsuit, which was filed by three GameStop customers who
"believed that their pre-owned video games would include all of
the content of a new video game" and characterized the DLC is an
"integral feature" of the games.  The plaintiffs further allege
that GameStop "induced" them to purchase used games with
statements like "our used game trade program creates value for
customers" and providing receipts that showed the savings they
received by purchasing used games.

Two of the plaintiffs further allege that, by buying the $15 DLC,
they spent more -- a total of $60, rather than the $59.95 price of
a new retail copy with the online passes included -- than they
would have spent purchasing a new retail copy of the games.

Among the several allegations leveled against GameStop, the
plaintiffs allege that GameStop was "aware of material
information, that DLC was not included with the purchase of
pre-owned games, but did not reveal this fact to Plaintiffs" and,
combined with GameStop's claims about creating value and the
savings printed on receipts, the plaintiffs have "plausibly sated
a knowing omission" on GameStop's behalf.

Electronic Arts included one-time use codes to access features
like multiplayer, beginning in 2009.  Publishers like THQ, Ubisoft
and Warner Bros. followed suit.  Because those codes came only
with new copies of the games and expired after use, those who
purchased used copies of the games would also have to purchase
their own online passes.

In May 2013, EA announced that it would no longer require online
passes in its games.


GROTON, CT: Homeowners Obtain Class-Action Status in Property Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Straszheim, writing for The Day, reports that a group of
home-owners in Groton Long Point who sued the town over what they
called unfair property assessments have been granted class-action
status by a New Britain Superior Court judge.

The decision by Judge Henry S. Cohn means that more than 600
property owners in the subdivision will be part of the lawsuit
unless they opt out of the case or have already settled or
received a final decision on an individual appeal.

Timothy Bates, the lawyer representing the property owners who
brought the initial challenge, said he believes the suit will
apply to about 605 residential property owners with buildings on
those properties.

The case could be financially significant for Groton because each
house is alleged to have been overtaxed, and the suit seeks
reimbursement of those taxes.

The plaintiffs allege that the average yearly tax increase from
improper assessment was $1,129 per property, or $5,645 over five
years, according to court documents.  Properties are taxed based
on 70 percent of their fair-market value.

"On an individual home it could be a thousand dollars a year,"
Mr. Bates said.  "But if you have 600 homes, then you're dealing
with $600,000 in revenues that are at risk for the town.  And over
five years, it could be $3 million."

Town of Groton Assessor Mary Gardner on Friday referred questions
to Town Manager Mark Oefinger, who could not be reached to
comment.

Matthew Auger, an attorney with Suisman Shapiro, the firm
representing the town, said in an email that the court's decision
was procedural only and does not address the merits of the
allegations.

"The town will defend its assessment of the residences of Groton
Long Point," he wrote.  "The assessments are fair and provide for
equitable distribution of the tax burden amongst all town
residents."

Mr. Bates said he is drafting a letter to potential members of the
class action and expects to send it out in the next two weeks.
The letter must first be reviewed and approved or adjusted by the
court.  New Britain Superior Court handles most residential tax
appeals in Connecticut.

The suit, initially brought by 10 plaintiffs, claims the town
illegally inflated property values by determining assessments, and
then adding 35 percent to buildings in Groton Long Point.

"The assumption that residential buildings in Groton Long Point
are worth 35 percent more than comparable structures elsewhere in
the town . . . is arbitrary, unreasonable and without foundation
in fact," the suit states.

The new assessments came as the result of townwide revaluation in
2011, which resulted in a decline in land values elsewhere in
Groton.

John Tuohy, one of the initial plaintiffs in the case and
president of the Groton Long Point Association, said the
assessments in the subdivision aren't justified.

"People are a little frustrated in Groton Long Point," he said.
"We are the only neighborhood in town, in all of Groton, where
assessments went up.

"It's not like this is a one-shot thing.  This is for five years.
And then five more are going to be built on top of that.  It's
going to keep going."

Mr. Bates said the Groton case is unusual; the law firm was able
to find just two other cases in Connecticut in the last 20 years
where something similar occurred.


HUSQVARNA MOTORCYCLES: Recalls 260 Off-Road Motorcycles
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Husqvarna Motorcycles North America LLC, of Corona, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 260 Husqvarna closed
course/competition off-road motorcycles.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The motorcycle's throttle cable can malfunction so the rider loses
speed control, posing a crash hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves four 2013 models of Husqvarna closed
course/competition motorcycles, including CR125, WR125, WR250 and
WR300.  The Husqvarna two-wheeled off-road motorcycles are white,
red and black.  The model number is printed on the rear fender on
both sides of the motorcycle just below the tail end of the seat.
Husqvarna is printed on both sides of the shrouds covering the
fuel tank.  Consumers can identify the model year by checking the
letter in the 10th position of the vehicle identification number
(VIN) on the right side of the steering head.  The letter D is a
2013 model.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at
motorcycle shops nationwide from October 2012 through June 2013
for between $6,300 and $7,100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Husqvarna
motorcycles and contact an authorized Husqvarna dealer to schedule
a free repair.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 3,246 SANTA FE Model SUVs
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                August 12, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  SUV
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Powertrain
Units affected:               3246
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013279
TC ID number:                 2013279
Manufacturer recall number:   R0080

Affected products: HYUNDAI SANTA FE 2013 model

On certain FWD Santa Fe Sport vehicles equipped with a 2.4L
engine, the passenger side axle shaft could fail.  This could
result in a loss of vehicle propulsion which, in conjunction with
traffic and road conditions, and the driver's reactions, could
increase the risk of a crash.  This could also allow the vehicle
to roll away if parked on a sufficient slope, despite the
transmission shift lever being set in the PARK position.  Both
issues could result in property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the right front axle shaft assembly.


INTELIQUENT INC: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Inteliquent, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed under 1:13-cv-
05701, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
Inteliquent between May 7, 2012 and August 7, 2013 both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Inteliquent securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 8, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Inteliquent provides tandem interconnection services.  The Company
provides its services to carriers and service providers, including
wireless, wireline, cable telephony and Voice over Internet
Protocol companies.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company overstated the impairment of goodwill, intangibles and
long-lived assets; (2) the Company had improper financial
forecasting practices; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal
and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On August 8, 2013, the Company disclosed that, during the second
quarter of 2013, "the Company began an internal investigation of
whether such impairment charge was overstated", as well as into
the Company's forecasting practices during the fourth quarter of
2012 and the first quarter of 2013.  On this news, Inteliquent
securities declined $1.72 per share or over 21%, to close at $6.29
per share on August 8, 2013.

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


JBI INC: Enters Into Stipulation to Settle Shareholders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JBI, Inc. on Aug. 9 disclosed that it entered into a stipulation
agreement in potential settlement of the previously disclosed
class action lawsuit filed by certain stockholders of the company.

Under the stipulation agreement, the company would agree to issue
shares of its common stock that will comprise a settlement fund,
the number of which will be dependent on the price per share of
the Company's common stock during a period preceding the date of
the Court's entry of final judgment in the case.  Further details
in regards to the settlement can be found in the Form 8-K filed on
Aug. 9 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, located at
http://www.sec.gov

In addition, the Company announced it is rescheduling its
previously disclosed investor conference call from Monday,
August 12, 2013 at 1:00PM to Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 11:00AM
EDT.  This conference call will be led by the Company's management
team, will review the second quarter 2013 results and provide an
operations update.

The rescheduling of the conference call was necessitated by the
Company's decision to extend the filing date of its Form 10-Q for
the second quarter of 2013, as reported by the Company in its Form
12b-25 filed on Aug. 9 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The Company's filing date was extended to August 14,
2013.

Please note the amended details for the rescheduled conference
call:

Date: Thursday, August 15, 2013

Time: 11:00AM, Eastern Daylight Time

Questions: Questions to be considered for the call can continue to
be e-mailed to ir@jbi.net prior to 11:59 p.m. on Monday, August
12, 2013.

Conference Access: US Participants dial (800) 762-4758. Canadian
and International callers dial (480) 629-9035.

Disclaimer: There is a 500 caller maximum on a first-come, first-
served basis.  In order for callers to be admitted, callers must
provide first and last name, company, and valid phone number.
Participation is subject to the discretion of JBI, Inc.

For further information about the Company's second quarter 2013
results, including its financial results, readers of this press
release should review the Company's disclosures in its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q, which will be publicly available on the
website of the Securities and Exchange Commission at
http://www.sec.govsubsequent to being filed.

                         About JBI, Inc.

JBI, Inc. -- http://www.plastic2oil.com-- is a clean energy
company that recycles waste plastic into liquid fuels.  JBI's
proprietary Plastic2Oil technology can deliver economic and
environmental benefits by replacing refined fuels and diverting
waste plastic from landfills.


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 384 SORENTO 2014 Model SUVs
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 9, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           384
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013277
TC ID number:             2013277

Affected products: KIA SORENTO 2014 model

On certain FWD vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, the passenger
side axle shaft could fail.  This could result in a loss of
vehicle propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road
conditions, and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of
a crash.  This could also allow the vehicle to roll away if parked
on a sufficient slope, despite the transmission shift lever being
set in the PARK position.  Both issues could result in property
damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the right front axle shaft assembly.


M & B RESTAURANT: "Castro" Suit Gets Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright II granted a motion for conditional
certification of a collective action captioned VIRGINIA CASTRO,
Plaintiff, v. M & B RESTAURANT GROUP, BUCK GRIBBLE, and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. CV13-00926 ODW (MANX),
(C.D. Cal.).

Judge Wright held that the Plaintiff satisfies the "similarly
situated" standard needed to approve a collective action.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and to Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) is granted.

Additionally, the Court directed the parties to jointly develop a
proposed notice and consent form, which will then be filed with
the Court for final approval no later than August 19, 2013. The
parties will also propose a timeline for giving notice and
collecting forms from those who choose to opt in. If the Court
approves the notice, it will issue a minute order giving deadlines
for sending it to and collecting it from potential class members.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/h6RNFhfrom Leagle.com.

Virginia Castro, Plaintiff, represented by Briana M Kim --
briana@brianakim.com -- at Law Offices of Briana Kim & Jonathan
Ricasa -- jricasa@ricasalaw.com -- at Jonathan Ricasa Law Offices.

M and B Restaurant Group, Defendant, represented by Kevin Dennis
-- Sullivan KSullivan@fordharrison.com -- at Ford & Harrison LLP,
Lyne A Richardson -- lrichardson@fordharrison.com -- at Ford and
Harrison LLP & Robert A Orozco -- rorozco@fordharrison.com -- at
Ford and Harrison LLP.

Back Gribble, Defendant, represented by Kevin Dennis Sullivan,
Ford & Harrison LLP, Lyne A Richardson, Ford and Harrison LLP &
Robert A Orozco, Ford and Harrison LLP.


MICROSOFT CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 12 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Microsoft
Corporation common stock during the period between April 18, 2013
and July 18, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 12, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/microsoft/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Microsoft and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Microsoft is
the world's largest software company, primarily as a result of its
near-monopoly on Windows personal computer ("PC") operating system
software and its Microsoft Office collection of productivity
programs.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and its tablet computer, the
Surface RT.  Specifically, defendants misrepresented and failed to
make public the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company's
Surface RT product was experiencing poor customer demand and
lackluster sales; (ii) that the Company's Surface RT inventory
experienced a material decline in value during the quarter ended
March 31, 2013; (iii) that the Company's financial statements for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013 were materially false and
misleading and violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
and Microsoft's publicly disclosed policy of accounting for
inventories; (iv) that the Company's Form 10-Q for its third
quarter of 2013 failed to disclose then presently known trends,
events or uncertainties associated with the Surface RT product
that were reasonably likely to have a material effect on
Microsoft's future operating results; and (v) that based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company's Surface RT product during the Class
Period.

On July 18, 2013, Microsoft issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the fiscal 2013 fourth quarter and year end,
the periods ended June 30, 2013.  For the quarter, the Company
reported revenue of $19.9 billion and net income of $4.97 billion,
or $0.59 per share.  The Company's results for the quarter were
adversely impacted by a $900 million inventory charge, or an
amount equal to $.07 per share, related to Surface RT "inventory
adjustments."  On this news, Microsoft common stock suffered its
biggest price decline in more than four years, plunging $4.04 per
share, or 11.4%, on very heavy trading volume to close at $31.40
per share.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Microsoft common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiffs
are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of
shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every
year since 2003.

    CONTACT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
             Samuel H. Rudman
             David A. Rosenfeld
             Telephone: 800-449-4900
             E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com


MUTUAL FIRST: 8th Cir. Reinstates "Charvat" EFTA Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed
the judgment of the district court dismissing putative class
actions brought by Jarek Charvat against two Nebraska banks,
Mutual First Federal Credit Union and First National Bank of
Wahoo, alleging violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

The district court dismissed both of Mr. Charvat's suits for lack
of standing.  Mr. Chavrat appealed.

The Eighth Circuit concluded that Mr. Charvat's injury was fairly
traceable to Appellees' conduct and that the district court erred
by requiring Mr. Charvat to demonstrate an injury beyond
Appellees' failure to provide the prescribed "on machine" notice.

Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit reverses and remands the case for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The case is Jarek Charvat, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Mutual First
Federal Credit Union, Defendant-Appellee Jarek Charvat,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. First National Bank of Wahoo, Defendant-
Appellee United States of America, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant,
NOS. 12-2790, 12-2797.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 2, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/mJobhxfrom Leagle.com.


NEW YORK, NY: Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violates Constitution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Gardiner, Meredith Rutland, Jacob Gershman and Tamer
El-Ghobashy, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that
the New York Police Department violated the Constitution with its
practice of stopping and searching people suspected of criminal
activity, a federal judge ruled on Aug. 7 in a decision likely to
lead police departments across the country to take a close look at
their crime-fighting tactics.

Finding that New York City's so-called stop-and-frisk program
amounted to "indirect racial profiling" by targeting blacks and
Hispanics disproportionate to their populations, U.S. District
Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the installation of the
department's first-ever independent monitor to oversee changes to
its practices.  City officials have argued that stop-and-frisk is
a key component in their largely successful efforts to fight
crime, but opponents have criticized it as a blatant violation of
civil rights.

New York City officials immediately criticized the decision.  "No
federal judge has ever imposed a monitor over a city's police
department following a civil trial," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
He said the city didn't receive a fair trial, citing comments from
the judge that he said "telegraphed her intentions," and he said
the city would seek an immediate stay while appealing the
decision.

Mr. Bloomberg credited stop-and-frisk with helping drive crime in
New York City to record lows.  Murders in the city are at levels
not seen in more than five decades, for instance.  The mayor, who
leaves office at year-end after three terms, predicted that should
the judge's decision stand, it could reverse those crime
reductions "and make our city, and in fact the whole country, a
more dangerous place."

While New York's stop-and-frisk practice is much more widely used
than those in most other cities, police experts said the ruling is
likely to lead police in other cities to tread more carefully in
their own tactics.

"It's definitely a wake-up call to any police chief in the country
to be mindful to constitutional rights," said Eugene O'Donnell, a
professor of law and police science at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice in New York City.  He added that "whether you do
[stop-and-frisk] a little or a lot, because of this ruling, you
have to be very cautious" about not violating those rights.

Police stop a group in the Bronx in September 2012.

Police experts said the practice is larger and more coordinated in
New York City, where on a daily basis extra patrol officers are
sent into neighborhoods where crime patterns have been identified.

While officials in some cities said they wouldn't be directly
affected by the ruling, experts said the order for monitoring and
other remedies in New York, including a pilot program in which
officers will be equipped with "body-worn cameras," is likely to
be watched by city and police officials elsewhere.

"Even though the decision itself only applies to the NYPD, the
fact that it's the largest police department in the country and it
is the NYPD means there will be a lot of publicity," said
Samuel Walker, a criminal-justice professor emeritus at the
University of Nebraska Omaha, who testified as a plaintiffs'
expert on police monitors at the trial.

Under the pilot camera program, officers in the precinct in each
of the city's five boroughs with the highest number of stops in
2012 will be required to wear the body cameras for a year.  After
that, the federal monitor will weigh whether the cameras reduced
what the judge calls unconstitutional stops and if their benefits
outweigh their costs.

The ruling has the potential to embolden civil-liberties groups to
confront police departments in other urban areas where officers
are stopping minority residents at a rate disproportionate to
their population.  Stop-and-frisk advocates say that could mean
broader scaling back of what they view as a powerful crime-
fighting tactic.

The civil-rights lawsuit challenging the policy, one of three
class actions before Judge Scheindlin, was brought by the Center
for Constitutional Rights on behalf of plaintiffs who had been
stopped by the NYPD.  "They did this because they believed what
the NYPD was doing was wrong and they wanted it to stop," said
Darius Charney, an attorney at the center.

The judge's decision on Aug. 12 came three months after she heard
nine weeks of trial testimony as part of the suit challenging the
policy, in which officers have stopped and sometimes frisked about
five million people since Mr. Bloomberg took office in 2002. One
of the plaintiffs who testified in the trial, David Ourlicht, said
he cried when he learned of the decision.

"It's a big victory for New York. As far as America as a whole, it
shows the polarization," he said.

The other two class actions regarding the stop-and-frisk policy
are pending trial.

Stops, by law, must be based on reasonable suspicion of a crime, a
standard that city officials insist that NYPD officers have met.
During testimony, it was revealed that more than 80% of those
stopped were black or Hispanic, approximately 90% of whom were
released after being found not to have committed any crimes.

The city argued during testimony that it focused a
disproportionate share of its resources in minority neighborhoods
with high crime rates and that its practices were "not racially
biased policing."

Judge Scheindlin stated in her decision that the city adopted a
"policy of indirect racial profiling by targeting racially defined
groups for stops based on local crime suspect data."  The result,
she said, is "the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of
blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Equal Protection Clause"
of the Constitution.

Judge Shira Scheindlin named a monitor to oversee stop-and-frisk.

Under a landmark 1968 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Terry v. Ohio,
police officers are allowed to stop those they have reasonable
suspicion committed a crime or are about to commit a crime and
frisk them if they have reasonable belief to think them armed or
an imminent danger.

Police including the NYPD have been practicing stop-and-frisk for
decades, but the practice has come under more scrutiny in New York
since 2003, when the NYPD began to be required to report to the
City Council the total stops made quarterly.  That number had
steadily escalated to more than 685,000 a year by 2012 before
drastically dipping this year.

Police departments elsewhere say they are trying to balance the
rights of citizens with their responsibility to fight crime.

Adam Collins, Chicago Police Department director of news affairs,
said all police departments have procedures to question potential
suspects when appropriate.  He said the Chicago department "uses
contact cards to document these interactions and does not engage
in any form of racial profiling."

Over the past two years, he said the CPD "has instituted
additional training, mandatory for all officers, around how they
are to interact with these individuals and the community to ensure
a full understanding of the questioning and potential search."

The New Orleans Police Department recently updated its stop-and-
frisk policy.  The tactic allows police officers to "frisk the
outer clothing" of a person they believe to be involved in a
crime, according to a statement from the office of New Orleans
Mayor Mitchell Landrieu.  If an officer "reasonably suspects the
person possesses a dangerous weapon, he may search the person,"
according to the statement.


NOVARTIS AG: Probes Uncover Altered Diovan Research Data
--------------------------------------------------------
Kana Inagaki, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Swiss drug giant Novartis AG faces a mounting problem in Japan,
its second-largest market, where researchers have retracted
studies that touted the benefits of the company's most popular
medicine.

Two university-led investigations into Novartis-related research
discovered data had been altered to produce inaccurate results.
Novartis denies involvement in the alleged research distortions,
and stands by the efficacy of its blockbuster heart medicine
Diovan.

At least eight Japanese hospitals have said they will stop
prescribing the medication in the wake of the controversy.  "It's
morally problematic to keep using a drug that's faced questions on
effects that have been its feature," one Tokyo hospital director
wrote in a public statement.

"We apologize for causing a situation that could shake confidence
in Japan's physician-led clinical research and for carrying out
promotions" of Diovan that cited the flawed research,
Yoshiyasu Ninomiya, president of Novartis's Japanese subsidiary,
said at a recent news conference.

In the U.S., the research scandal appears to have had limited
impact.  Heart doctors say Diovan is a widely used drug for
lowering blood pressure and to treat heart-failure patients and
heart-attack survivors.  "There is no reason to stop using this
drug in suitable patients," said Steven Nissen, the chairman of
cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Diovan, also known as
valsartan, has been used to treat millions of patients in the U.S.
for more than 15 years.  "The drug has a well-established safety
and efficacy profile," said Erica Jefferson, an FDA spokeswoman.
"The agency has seen no new safety concerns with this drug."
Related

    Drug Firm Sanofi Faces Probe Over Bribery Allegations

Novartis introduced Diovan in Japan as a blood-pressure lowering
drug in 2000, and later promoted it for other benefits such as
reducing the risk of strokes and heart failure, based on studies
by five Japanese universities.  But some independent researchers
publicly challenged the findings from last year.

Over the past month, two universities repudiated the studies after
investigations concluded data had been "manipulated," casting
doubt on claims of Diovan's multiple benefits.  One university
investigation said the raw data for the clinical tests in one
study didn't show reduced cardiovascular risks.  Another
investigation said raw data on patient blood pressure levels was
likely altered during the statistical analysis phase of the study.
The universities said their probes didn't reach firm conclusions
about who altered the data.

The other three Japanese universities that conducted Diovan
research have also opened investigations, but haven't yet
finished.  The health ministry launched its own probe this month.

The Novartis flap in Japan comes amid growing scrutiny world-wide
of the veracity of medical research.  Last year, 415 articles in
scientific journals were retracted, up from 46 in 2002, according
to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of peer-reviewed
journals.

"Retractions in articles on clinical medicine are increasing
world-wide," said Tetsuya Tanimoto, visiting researcher at the
University of Tokyo's Institute of Medical Science."  From last
year, there's been an increase in Japan of fabrication incidents
that have grabbed headlines internationally," he said.

The Diovan research scandal also underlines the race to create and
market blockbuster drugs that cure more than one ailment.  "The
drugs won't sell if it's just about lowering blood pressure," said
Iwao Kuwajima, chair of the Japanese Organization of Clinical
Research Evaluation and Review.  "There was a competition [among
drug makers] to prove that there were preventive benefits for
strokes and heart attacks in addition."

Eric Althoff, a spokesman at Novartis headquarters in Basel,
Switzerland, said that the company stands by Diovan's health
benefits, citing unchallenged research that reached similar
conclusions in tests performed in 25 other countries, including
the U.S.

Novartis said it did have a "conflict of interest" in the Japanese
studies, which it should have disclosed but "inappropriately"
didn't.  It knew that one of its employees took part in all five
studies, yet, when listed in published articles, was identified
only as a lecturer at Osaka City University, where he had a part-
time job.  He was involved in statistical analysis of two studies,
and handled data presentation, research design and operation in
the other studies, according to a Novartis panel.

Novartis said the employee left voluntarily in May after his
contract ended.  He couldn't be reached for comment.

In an e-mail response to questions from The Wall Street Journal,
Mr. Althoff said there was no evidence of "willful manipulation or
falsification of data" by the former employee.

The research questions come at a time when the Swiss drug maker is
dealing with a 28% drop in sales world-wide of what was once its
best-selling drug after patents on Diovan expired first in Europe
in 2011 and a year later in the U.S. Sales of Diovan in Japan,
where the patent will expire later this year, accounted for about
one quarter of global sales of the drug, which totaled $4.4
billion in 2012.

With an estimated 40 million Japanese patients diagnosed with high
blood pressure, the market for drugs treating that condition has
emerged as one of the biggest and most competitive areas, said
Mr. Kuwajima.  In addition to Diovan, at least six other blood-
pressure drugs known as angiotensin receptor blockers, or ARBs,
are sold in the Japanese market, according to regulators.

The research controversy has unleashed criticism of Novartis in
Japan. National broadcaster NHK aired a 26-minute program titled
"The Suspicious Drug," looking into how the data manipulation
occurred.

Japan's largest daily, the Yomiuri Shimbun, carried an editorial
questioning whether there were "excessive cozy ties" between
Novartis and one professor leading some of the studies.

Several hospitals have in recent weeks said they would stop giving
the medication to their patients. "There are few reasons to
prescribe valsartan when there are multiple other similar drugs,"
wrote Makoto Takagi, director of Tokyo Saiseikai Central Hospital,
in a statement dated July 22.  Also, in July, Hakuhohai Group,
which operates six hospitals in western Japan and Tokyo, stopped
using Diovan, citing "moral reasons."


PFIZER INC: Ontario Court Certifies Champix Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Josh Kerr, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court has certified a class-action lawsuit
against the Canadian division of Pfizer Inc., makers of the anti-
smoking medication Champix, setting the company up to face
allegations that it failed to adequately warn users about the
drug's possible side-effects.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, including Toronto-based firm McPhadden
Samac Tuovi LLP, allege that Pfizer Canada failed to properly warn
those taking the drug about potential adverse psychiatric
reactions that include depression, anxiety, violent outbursts and
suicidal thoughts, according to a statement from McPhadden and
three other law firms.

The class action automatically includes anyone in Canada who took
the drug between April 2, 2007 and May 31, 2010, and any family
member or dependent of someone who may have suffered an injury
related to the drug.

The allegations have not been proved in court and Pfizer denies
the claims.  The company said that Champix is "a proven aid to
smoking cessation treatment" and has been approved for use in more
than 100 countries with more than 18 million prescriptions filled.

New York-based Pfizer spent about C$273-million to settle lawsuits
related to the medication in the United States, according to the
company's most recent annual report.

"There is no reliable scientific evidence demonstrating that
Champix causes the injuries alleged.  The Company stands behind
Champix and Pfizer Canada provided appropriate and accurate
information to regulators, physicians and patients about the
safety and efficacy of Champix, which Health Canada approved, in
accordance with Health Canada's labelling requirements," Pfizer
said in an e-mailed statement.

In 2010, Health Canada put warnings on Champix about serious
psychiatric reactions related to the drug.  That same year, the
French government took Champix off of its list of state-covered
medications citing concerns over the drug's safety.

In 2012, Health Canada issued a statement saying: "At this time,
Health Canada considers that the benefits of Champix, when used as
directed on the label, continue to outweigh the risks."  But it
also warned patients to "stop taking Champix and seek emergency
medical care if they or their families/caregivers observe unusual
thoughts, feelings or behaviors."

A 2008 report from the Pennsylvania-based Institute for Safe
Medication Practices said "Champix accounted for more reported
serious injuries than any other prescription drug, with a total of
1,001 new cases, including 50 deaths."


PFIZER INC: Judge Denies Bid to Consolidate Lipitor Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., writing for Accident and Injury Lawyer,
reports that a panel of federal judges denied on Aug. 8 the first
request by plaintiffs' lawyers to consolidate all of the Lipitor
diabetes cases into a class action for discovery purposes (called
an "MDL").  Mr. Miller said "My prediction is that a Lipitor class
will eventually be created.  I also think that the judges who
rejected the motion to centralize these cases might also agree
with this assessment."

Why Does Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Lipitor Cases Want a Class
Action?

Plaintiffs' attorneys want an MDL for a few reasons:

Handling These Cases One-By-One Would Be Costly

First, having all of the cases consolidated together saves
everyone money, both for plaintiffs' attorneys and for Pfizer
because it less costly to do all of the discovery at one time
instead of reinventing the wheel in every single case.
The Settlement Value of These Claims Necessitates Consolidation in
the Long Run

This is particularly true in these cases because of the relative
size of these cases.  Get ready for some real honesty here: the
settlement value of these Lipitor cases, on their best day, is not
going to be in the millions.  Why?   First, the damages for
getting diabetes, as awful as it is, is not going to equate to a
million dollar settlement.  Sure, you could get a seven figure
verdict on a great day but you are not going to get a settlement
in that range.  Let's be clear: I'm not saying this is not what
plaintiffs deserve.  Who would take $200,000 to get diabetes?  But
I'm trying to give real world assessment.

The second reason why these cases will not have extremely large
individual out-of-court resolutions is because there are not going
to be many cases where the plaintiff was not at risk for diabetes
in the first place.  There is a reason why the "drug caused my
diabetes" cases have historically struggled:  people who are
taking the drug at issue are often at a higher risk for diabetes
anyway.  And the drug is usually a contributing -- not the sole --
cause.  That makes winning one of these cases a challenge even if
you can establish to a jury that Lipitor caused diabetes.   It is
a challenge plaintiffs' counsel can overcome.  It is.  But it is
just silly to pretend like it is not a challenge.  (Do you want to
find a lawyer who will pretend otherwise?  There are millions out
there.)

A Lot of People Are Taking This Drug

So why are you seeing ambulance chaser type ads everywhere looking
for these Lipitor diabetes cases?   Because approximately 500
zillion people are on satins in 2013 and Lipitor has been the king
of the class.  So there are going to be thousands and thousands of
potential claims.   They do have real settlement and trial value,
don't get me wrong.  But the reality is I don't think anyone is
going to get a financial recovery in these cases that is going to
"balance the scales of justice" of having Type 2 diabetes.  Could
I be wrong about this? Of course.   But I would bet a lot of money
that I'm right.

The Creation of a Class Gets the Word Out to Drum Up More
Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs' lawyers like me benefit from a MDL because the media
will run stories about the lawsuits, creating awareness among
potential clients.  Right now, I don't think most people who got
diabetes while taking atorvastatin calcium (which is the fancy
name the drug) consider it to be a potential cause of their
condition.  No one can deny that attorneys want more cases and
that the sheer volume of cases helps induce settlement because it
increases the company's exposure.

Why Did The Court Reject the MDL?

The MDL panel of judges refused to create a consolidate class now
for two reason.  First, there are not yet enough Lipitor diabetes
suits pending yet.  Wait, didn't I just say that there were going
to be thousands of these cases.   There are.  But most law firms
with a large number of cases right now are sitting on them waiting
to see how things develop.  So the court said that while there
have been a lot of cases expected to be filed, that is not enough
of a reason to consolidate these cases.

On a practical level, the panel noted that the cases are "sort of"
consolidated already:

The South Carolina actions already are proceeding in a coordinated
fashion before one judge, and, importantly, Pfizer represents in
its brief that it is 'ready and willing to work with Plaintiffs'
counsel in the [non-South Carolina] actions to appropriately
coordinate any common discovery or other pretrial matters across
the cases.  Given that express representation, the limited number
of involved actions, and the overlap among counsel, we do not
believe that creation of an MDL is necessary at this time.

In other words, most of the benefits of an MDL are already being
enjoyed by the parties.  But this is going to change quickly as
these cases quickly proliferate.  So again, while Pfizer has one
this battle, I really believe it has little hope of winning the
war.


PHARMERICA CORP: Sued for Dispensing Drugs Without Prescriptions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Tadena, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
the U.S. government filed a lawsuit against long-term care
pharmacy company PharMerica Corp. for allegedly dispensing
controlled substances without valid prescriptions and for causing
the submission of false claims to Medicare for these drugs.

The lawsuit alleges that PharMerica -- which dispenses drugs to
residents of long-term care facilities, including nursing homes --
violated the False Claims Act and the Controlled Substances Act.
The Justice Department said many of the prescriptions filled by
PharMerica are for Schedule II controlled substances, such as
oxycodone and fentanyl, which can have a high potential for abuse.

A PharMerica representative wasn't immediately available for
comment.

The government alleges that PharMerica dispensed Schedule II
controlled drugs in nonemergency situations without first
obtaining a written prescription from a treating physician.  The
complaint also alleges that the company knowingly caused the
submission of false claims to Medicare for improperly dispensed
Schedule II drugs.

The lawsuit was initiated by a former PharMerica employee who
filed a complaint against the company in July 2009 under
provisions of the False Claims Act.  A subsequent complaint was
filed in May 2010 by two other individuals.

The Justice Department said it has recovered a total of more than
$14.8 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $10.8
billion recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health-
care programs.


POLYCOM INC: Sept. 24 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Polycom, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 13-cv-3476-SC, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Polycom between
July 24, 2012 and June 23, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of
the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Polycom securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 24, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Polycom provides standards-based unified communications and
collaboration (UC&C) solutions for voice and video collaboration.
The Company offers video, voice, and content-management and
content-sharing solutions, such as telepresence and conference
room systems, home/work office solutions, applications for mobile
devices, browser-based video collaboration, cloud-delivered
services, and specialized healthcare video carts.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) The Company's CEO had been
submitting inappropriate and irregular expense submissions, (ii)
the Company's CEO was violating the Company's code of conduct and
was subject to dismissal at all relevant times; (iii) the Company
did not have effective internal controls over their business
operations; (iv) the CEO's improper conduct created a risk that he
would be terminated from the Company, jeopardizing the Company's
future success, (v) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 23, 2013, Polycom announced that its CEO Andrew Miller had
resigned after the board found "irregularities" in his expense
submissions.  The Company stated that Mr. Miller accepted
responsibility for his actions.  On this news, the shares of
Polycom fell $1.69 cents, or over 15% percent, to $9.49 per share
on July 24, 2013, on volume of over 14 million shares.

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: 6th Cir. Reverses "Pampers" Suit Deal Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed
with a district court decision finding as fair the settlement
resolving the case captioned DANIEL GREENBERG, Objector-Appellant,
ANGELA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY; PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY; PROCTER & GAMBLE
DISTRIBUTING LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 11-4156, in In re: DRY
MAX PAMPERS LITIGATION.

The class is made up of consumers who purchased certain kinds of
Pampers diapers between August 2008 and October 2011. The parties
and their counsel negotiated a settlement that awards each of the
named plaintiffs $1000 per "affected child," awards class counsel
$2.73 million, and provides the unnamed class members with nothing
but nearly worthless injunctive relief.

According to the Sixth Circuit, the reality is that this
settlement benefits class counsel vastly more than it does the
consumers who comprise the class.  "The conclusion is unavoidable:
this settlement gives "preferential treatment" to class counsel
"while only perfunctory relief to unnamed class members.""

The settlement in this case is not fair within the meaning of
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23, and the district court abused its discretion
in finding the contrary, says the Sixth Circuit. It added that the
named plaintiffs are inadequate representatives under Rule
23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the district
court abused its discretion in finding the contrary.

The Sixth Circuit, therefore, reverses the District Court
judgment.

Circuit Judge Cole dissented, saying although the relief offered
to the unnamed class members may not be worth much, their claims
appear to be worth even less.  He says the concern that
plaintiffs' counsel "bargained away" some valuable "interest" is
misplaced. He says he also does not agree that the named
plaintiffs in the case were inadequate class representatives
merely because the incentive payment might have made them whole.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 2, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/SnTLoOfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Adam E. Schulman, CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS LLC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- at KELLER
ROHRBACK L.L.P., Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

D. Jeffrey Ireland -- djireland@ficlaw.com -- at FARUKI IRELAND &
COX P.L.L., Dayton, Ohio, for Defendants-Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Adam E. Schulman, Theodore H. Frank, CENTER FOR CLASS
ACTION FAIRNESS LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Harry Williams IV --
hwilliams@kellerrohrback.com -- at KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.,
Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

D. Jeffrey Ireland, Brian D. Wright -- bwright@ficlaw.com -- at
FARUKI IRELAND & COX P.L.L., Dayton, Ohio, for Defendants-
Appellees.


QUESTAR CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Smith" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss the class action complaint captioned
James W. Smith, Jr., on his own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Questar Capital Corporation,
Yorktown Financial Companies, Inc., and Allianz Life Insurance
Companies of North America, Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-2669
(SRN/TNL), (D. Minn.).

Judge Nelson held that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts 1,
2, 3, 6, and 7 of the Class Action Complaint alleging violations
of the Minnesota Securities Act is granted without prejudice.

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count 4 of the Class Action
Complaint alleging common law negligence is granted with
prejudice.

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count 5 of the Class Action
Complaint alleging common law negligent misrepresentation is
granted without prejudice.

The Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of the Order to file an
amended complaint, says the Court.

A copy of the District Court's August 2, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/iUpyr5from Leagle.com.

Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Karla M.
Gluek -- kgluek@gustafsongluek.com -- and David A. Goodwin --
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- at Gustafson Gluek PPLC, 120 South
Sixth Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Robert E. Gordon
--  rgordon@fortheinjured.com -- Scott L. Adkins --
sadkins@fortheinjured.com -- and Stephen McGuinness --
SMcGuinness@fortheinjured.com -- at Gordon & Doner, PA, 4114
Northlake Boulevard, Palm Beach, FL 33410; Charles E. Scarlett --
cscarlett@sghlawyers.com -- Bradford M. Gucciardo --
bgucciardo@sghlawyers.com -- and Scott D. Hirsch --
shirsch@sghlawyers.com -- at Scarlett Gucciardo & Hirsch, PA, 25
Seabreeze Avenue, 3rd Floor, Delray Beach, FL 33483, for
Plaintiff.

Anthony N. Cicchetti -- anc@jordenusa.com -- at Jorden Burt LLP,
175 Powder Forest Drive, Suite 301, Simsbury, CT 06089; Roland C.
Goss -- rcg@jordenusa.com -- and James F. Jorden --
jfj@jordenusa.com -- at Jorden Burt LLP, 1025 Thomas Jefferson
Street, NW, Suite 400 East, Washington, DC 20007; and Wendy J.
Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants.


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hufnagle" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied a motion to dismiss a
third amended complaint in the case captioned SUSAN HUFNAGLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RINO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, DEJON ZOU, JENNY
LIUE, BEN WANG, LI YU, KENNITH C. JOHNSON, JIANPING QIU, ZIE QUAN,
and ZEJIN LI, Defendants, NO. CV 10-08695 DDP (VBKX), (C.D. Cal.).

Frazer Frost, LLP filed the motion to dismiss.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/gAyBUWfrom Leagle.com.

Susan Hufnagle, Plaintiff, represented by John E Torbett, Jr,
Attorney at Law, Brian Oliver O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Jeff S Westerman, Westerman Law Corp, Laurence M Rosen,
Rosen Law Firm, Lee M Gordon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Mark I Labaton, Motley Rice LLP, Michael D Braun, Braun Law Group
PC & Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Stream SICAV, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at Rosen Law Firm.

Todd Marx, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen,
Rosen Law Firm.

Xi Zhang, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T
Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- at Berman
DeValerio, Matthew D Pearson -- mpearson@bermandevalerio.com -- at
Berman DeValerio & Roy L Jacobs -- rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com --
at Roy Jacobs & Associates.

Rino Investor Group The, Movant, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy
-- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP &
Michael M Goldberg -- mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg LLP.

Anna Hassenplug, Movant, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy
Binkow and Goldberg LLP & Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and
Goldberg LLP.

Roman Shteynshlyuger, Movant, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy,
Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP & Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg LLP.

Pierce Gore, Movant, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy
Binkow and Goldberg LLP & Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and
Goldberg LLP.

James Graham, Movant, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy
Binkow and Goldberg LLP & Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and
Goldberg LLP.

Diane Araiche, Movant, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy
Binkow and Goldberg LLP & Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and
Goldberg LLP.

Rino International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Emily V
Griffen -- egriffen@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP,
Jeffrey S Facter -- jfacter@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling
LLP & Patrick D Robbins -- probbins@shearman.com -- at Shearman &
Sterling LLP.

Kennith C. Johnson, Defendant, represented by John C Dwyer --
dwyerjc@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP, Adam C Trigg --
atrigg@cooley.com -- at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Jessica
Valenzuela Santamaria -- jsantamaria@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP &
Patrick D Robbins, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

Frazer Frost, LLP, Defendant, represented by Daniel S Agle,
Klinedinst.

Weiguo Zhang, Consol Defendant, represented by Michael R
Petrocelli -- michael.petrocelli@davispolk.com -- at Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP & Neal Alan Potischman --
neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- at Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.


TENAHA COUNTY, TX: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Robin Y. Richardson, writing for The Marshall News Messenger,
reports that U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap has approved a
settlement agreement in the class-action suit filed against
officials in Tenaha and Shelby County, who were accused of racial
profiling motorists, driving through the area, by stopping them
without legal justification and seizing their assets.

The settlement, which is in the form of a proposed consent decree,
was approved here at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas - Marshall Division during a hearing on Aug. 2.

"The court, after hearing argument from counsel for plaintiffs and
defendants, and considering the nature of the claims, the relief
provided, and all applicable law, found that the proposed
settlement agreement and consent decree is fair, just, adequate
and reasonable for all parties -- plaintiffs and defendants -- as
set forth more fully in the findings, representations, and
rationale in the Fairness Hearing record which is incorporated
herein by reference, and therefore approves same," Judge Gilstrap
wrote in the order approving settlement agreement and consent
decree.

The suit was filed in 2008 on behalf of three alleged victims --
James Morrow, Javier Flores, and William Parsons.  The suit
accuses the defendants in the suit of violating Amendment IV of
the U.S. Constitution, prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures; and Amendment XIV, the equal protection clause.

"The plaintiffs are very pleased with the relief we were able to
negotiate for them in the decree," said Tim Garrigan, attorney for
the plaintiffs.  "We think it's as good as we could have done if
we had gone to trial.

"We're sorry we couldn't seek monetary relief for the whole class;
that was the Supreme Court's decision," he said, citing a Supreme
Court ruling on the 2011 sex discrimination suit against Wal-Mart
that basically ended big class-action cases that seek money for
discrimination.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs in the suit against
Tenaha initially sought class treatment of Fourth Amendment search
and seizure claims, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims,
and claims for monetary relief.  The court only certified the
plaintiff class for Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims
for injunctive and declaratory relief.

The defendants sought a discretionary interlocutory appeal of the
class certification, which was denied, and then denied again when
the defendants asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear
the request.  With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), the parties then negotiated and agreed to propose the
consent decree. The decree is an agreed injunction that is good
for four years.

The decree requires the defendants to implement written policies
and practices, requiring them to comply with all federal and state
laws, rules and regulations relating to alleged racial profiling
and the prohibition of alleged racial profiling to ensure that
traffic stops, searches and seizures are not conducted on the
basis of the apparent race or ethnic origin of the suspect, except
where the law permits race or ethnic origin to be considered in
determining whether a person shall be stopped.

The lawsuit claimed that the city and county officials named in
the suit conspired and acted together, beginning November 2006, to
target people who were, or appeared to be, members of ethnic or
racial monitories and those traveling with them, for traffic
stops, detentions, searches, seizures, arrests and/or forfeitures
without regard to the existence of any legal justification.

According to a previous press release from the ACLU, it is
estimated that police allegedly seized $3 million through the
practice of civil asset forfeiture between 2006 and 2008 in at
least 140 cases.

The ACLU explained that police routinely pulled over motorists --
usually black or Latino -- without any legal justification, asking
if they were carrying cash and, if they were, ordered them to hand
over the cash or face charges of money laundering or other serious
crimes.

The ACLU noted that, in one instance, police pulled over an
interracial couple and threatened to put their children, who were
traveling with them, in foster care if they did not sign papers
agreeing to forfeit their money.  Elora Mukherjee, a staff
attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program described it before
as a case of highway robbery.

"This far-reaching settlement radically alters how officers in
Tenaha and Shelby County can go about their daily duties and
protects all motorists driving along Highway 59," she said
previously.

Under the consent decree, all stops will now be videotaped.
Further, the officer must state, on the recording, the reason for
the stop and the basis for suspecting criminal activity.

The recordings must also capture any canine sniffs, searches,
seizures, detentions, and to the extent reasonable, arrests,
resulting from a traffic stop.

"All oral communication and interaction with the person being
stopped must be captured in the recordings," the decree states.
"If a stop results in an arrest, the recordings shall continue
until the subject is transported inside the jail."

The decree requires all video and audio recordings to be preserved
unaltered for at least four years.

Officers also have to prepare a report under his or her name and
badge number. Additionally, all traffic stops must be reported to
dispatch before the officer makes contact with the driver, except
in emergency situations.  In non-emergency situations, the
dispatcher must log the identity of the officer, the location of
and reason for the stop and a description of the vehicle including
the license plate number.  All pretextual stops are prohibited
under the decree.

The decree also orders that all stops must be no longer than
necessary, presumptively 15 minutes or less for a traffic
violation punishable by issuance of a traffic ticket. Exceptions
include situations including an impaired driver.

To further serve the purposes of the decree, the Shelby County
Commissioners Court entered into an interlocal agreement with the
county's constables and their offices.  Although the commissioners
court and constables weren't part of the suit, they have agreed to
enter into the interlocal agreement in the interest of resolving
the litigation, saving the county's taxpayers additional costs and
instilling confidence in law enforcement among the general public.

According to the interlocal agreement, the elected officials and
their offices will:

     -- Adopt an impartial policing policy that includes a written
consent to search form;

     -- Use mechanical recording equipment for traffic stops and
maintain he recordings of such stops for four years;

     -- Comply with Article 2.133 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure and Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure;

     -- Affirmatively state that they are not presently utilizing
a canine for vehicle searches and provide the Shelby County
Commissioners Court with 90 days' notice if they intend to start
using a canine;

     -- Attend training provided by the county on search and
seizure and forfeitures that the county has agreed to furnish;

     -- Allow the monitor appointed under this decree to review
the documents and mechanical recordings of all traffic stops.


TETRA TECH: August 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that all
purchasers of the securities of Tetra Tech, Inc. between May 3,
2012 and June 18, 2013 have until August 27, 2013 to file a motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY
BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US AT (212) 682-5340, TOLL-
FREE AT (888) 773-9224, OR AT SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM TO
DISCUSS THIS MATTER OR IF YOU PURCHASED TETRA TECH STOCK PRIOR TO
THE CLASS PERIOD.  IF YOU INQUIRE BY EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR
MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED.

Tetra Tech provides consulting, engineering, program management,
construction management and technical services for environment,
energy, infrastructure and natural resources sectors, and derives
a significant portion of its revenues from federal agencies --
including the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Postal
Service -- as well as state and local governments and private
sector clients.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to take necessary
charges to its accounts receivables and earnings due to a
significant number of projects which were subject to claims and
equitable charges by federal and state government clients, and
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Moreover, throughout the Class Period the Company failed to inform
investors the extent to which Tetra Tech's revenues would be
impacted by an overall decline in the Eastern Canadian mining and
oil industry resulting from large political and economic unrest in
the region.

To learn more about this action or if you purchased Tetra Tech
stock prior to the Class Period and have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100,
Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll-Free at (888) 773-9224, or
contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at
122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212)
682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com  or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com


UBS AG: Settles Investor Lawsuit Over Lehman Notes for $120-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that UBS AG has
agreed to pay $120 million to settle a lawsuit by investors who
accused the Swiss bank of misleading them about the financial
condition of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in connection with the
sale of structured notes.

The preliminary settlement was disclosed in papers filed late on
Aug. 8 in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, and requires court
approval.

It resolves claims over roughly $900 million of Lehman securities
that UBS underwrote and sold between March 2007 and September
2008, court papers show.  Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection
on September 15, 2008.

UBS had no immediate comment on the settlement.  Lawyers for the
investors did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Many of the securities were "principal protection notes."  UBS
said in a regulatory filing that this reflected how some or all
investor principal was an unconditional obligation of Lehman, even
if the notes' return was linked to market indexes or other
measures.

In a court filing, lawyers for the plaintiffs said the settlement
compares favorably with other recoveries in class-action
litigation related to the global financial crisis.

UBS in 2011 agreed with the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority to pay a $2.5 million fine and up to $8.25 million in
restitution and interest to some U.S. investors to resolve claims
related to the securities.

The case is In re: Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 09-md-02017.


UNION PACIFIC: Fights Motion to Disqualify Lead Trial Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, a federal appeals court in Washington on Aug. 9, pointing
to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on class actions, struck
down the certification of thousands of businesses pursuing a
large-scale antitrust case against four major freight rail
companies.

The ruling wasn't the final word on class certification, however.
The court sent the case back to the trial judge, ordering him to
take another look based on new Supreme Court guidance and to more
carefully scrutinize evidence the plaintiffs presented to support
certification.

The class -- thousands of businesses that shipped products via
freight rail -- sued the four largest freight railroad companies
in the United States for antitrust violations in 2007. U.S.
District Senior Judge Paul Friedman certified a class last summer,
which pushed up the total possible damages into the billions,
according to court papers. The rail companies appealed.

In the Aug. 9 decision, the three-judge panel pointed to a Supreme
Court ruling earlier this year in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, which
required trial judges to more carefully scrutinize evidence
related to class certification.  When it came to a model the
plaintiffs' expert created to prove there were issues common to
all proposed class members, the D.C. Circuit found Judge Friedman
only considered whether it was "plausible," a standard the Supreme
Court reversed in Comcast.

Sidley Austin's Carter Phillips argued for the rail companies.
"The railroads believed that Comcast was a game-changer in making
class certification much harder to justify and clearly the panel
agreed," Mr. Phillips, chair of Sidley's executive committee, said
in an e-mail.

But Stephen Neuwirth -- stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- of
Quinn Emanual Urquhart & Sullivan, who argued for the plaintiffs,
said that while the Aug. 9 ruling "was not our preferred outcome,
we are gratified that the case was remanded."

"We are confident that we will be able to demonstrate that the
damages model in fact satisfies the highest standards that have
been set by the courts and that ultimately the case will move
forward as a class action," he said.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, sitting with Chief Judge Merrick
Garland and Senior Judge David Sentelle, wrote the opinion for the
appeals court.

Judge Brown wrote that the plaintiffs ran into trouble on the
issue of predominance -- that is, that legal issues or facts
common to all class members outweighed questions affecting only
individual members.  In moving for certification, the plaintiffs'
experts presented two models attempting to prove the common
issues.

Judge Brown identified a flaw with one of the models, which
calculated damages the plaintiffs suffered as a result of the
alleged rate-fixing conspiracy.  The problem, Judge Brown wrote,
was that the model also "detects injury where none existed,"
explaining that it identified damages for shippers bound to rates
that were negotiated before the alleged conspiracy took place.

"No damages model, no predominance, no class certification," she
wrote.

The panel found Judge Friedman "never grappled" with the flaws
identified in the damages model.

"Mindful that the district court neither considered the damages
model's flaw in its certification decision nor had the benefit of
Behrend's guidance, we will vacate class certification and remand
the case to the district court to afford it an opportunity to
consider these issues in the first instance," Judge Brown wrote.

The case is one of the latest to attempt to clarify class
certification standards following the Supreme Court's 2011
decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which raised the bar for plaintiffs
seeking certification by requiring proof of common questions of
law or fact.

A renewed fight over class certification isn't the only thing on
the defendants' plate.  Union Pacific Railroad, one of the
defendants, is also fending off a pending motion to disqualify its
lead trial counsel at Latham & Watkins.  A class member is
pursuing the motion, arguing Latham should be conflicted out of
handling the case because of its past work for the class member.
Judge Friedman heard arguments in July.


VISA INC: Discover to Intervene, Thousands Opt Out of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class administrator in The Interchange Litigation against Visa
Inc. filed an amended report stating that the administrator had
received 7,953 requests to opt out of the case settlement,
according to Visa's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The district court entered the preliminary approval order on
November 27, 2012. On November 27, 2012, certain objectors filed a
notice of appeal from the preliminary approval order in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Objectors also moved to
stay the preliminary approval order in the district court and
moved for expedited briefing in the court of appeals.

On December 10, 2012, the court of appeals entered an order
deferring briefing for the appeal until after the district court
enters an order of final approval and final judgment with respect
to the settlement, or otherwise concludes the matters by entry of
a final judgment.

On December 17, 2012, certain objectors filed a motion asking the
court of appeals to reconsider its decision, which was denied on
January 31, 2013. On January 15, 2013, the district court denied
as moot objectors' request to stay the preliminary approval order.

On December 10, 2012, Visa paid approximately $4.0 billion from
the litigation escrow account into a settlement fund established
pursuant to the definitive class settlement agreement.

Certain retailers in the proposed settlement classes thereafter
objected to the settlement, opted out of the damages portion of
the class settlement, and/or are seeking to opt out of the rules
portion of the class settlement.

Certain competitors and other interested parties have also
objected to the class settlement, including Discover, which filed
a motion to intervene on May 28, 2013. Discover seeks, among other
things, to object to the settlement agreement and to file a
proposed complaint challenging certain aspects of the settlement
agreement as a restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. On June 13, 2013, the district court ordered
defendants to respond to Discover's objections by August 16, 2013.

On July 1, 2013, the class administrator filed an amended report
stating that the administrator had received 7,953 requests to opt
out of the settlement. Under the Settlement Agreement, if class
members opt out of the damages portion of the class settlement,
the defendants are entitled to receive payments of no more than
25% of the original cash payments made into the settlement fund,
based on the percentage of payment card sales volume for a defined
period attributable to merchants who opted out (the "takedown
payments"). By no later than August 16, 2013, the parties will
submit to the court any disputes about the takedown payments.


VISA INC: Shop Rite & Buc-ee Lawsuits Included in MDL 1720
----------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the Shop Rite Inc. and Buc-ee Ltd.'s cases to the
Eastern District of New York for inclusion in the Multidistrict
Litigation 1720, according to Visa Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 24, 2013, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed suit in the Eastern
District of New York against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa
International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard
International Incorporated.  The CVS case has been included as
part of MDL 1720.

On May 28 and 29, 2013, Buc-ee's Ltd. and Shop Rite Inc. (and two
other plaintiffs), respectively, filed suit in the Southern
District of New York against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa
International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard
International Incorporated. The Buc-ee's complaint also includes
certain U.S. financial institution defendants in MDL 1720.

On June 14, 2013, the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the Shop Rite and Buc-ee's cases to the
Eastern District of New York for inclusion in MDL 1720. Plaintiffs
in the CVS, Shop Rite, and Buc-ee's cases are pursuing damages
claims based upon allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720.
As part of MDL 1720, these cases are covered litigation for
purposes of the retrospective responsibility plan.


VISA INC: MDL 1720 Defendants File Suit v. Opt Out Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cases filed by Visa Inc. and certain U.S. financial institution
defendants in MDL 1720 against certain named class representative
plaintiffs who had opted out the MDL class settlement have been
assigned to the same district court judge presiding over MDL 1720,
according to Visa Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

On May 24, 2013, Visa Inc., MasterCard, and certain U.S. financial
institution defendants in MDL 1720 filed a complaint in the
Eastern District of New York against certain named class
representative plaintiffs who had opted out or stated their
intention to opt out of the damages portion of the MDL class
settlement.

On June 10, 2013, Visa filed a similar complaint in the Eastern
District of New York against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Both complaints
seek a declaration that, from January 1, 2004 to November 27,
2012, the time period for which opt-outs may seek damages under
the MDL class settlement, Visa's conduct in, among other things,
continuing to set default interchange rates, maintaining its
"honor all cards" rule, enforcing certain rules relating to
merchants, and restructuring itself, did not violate federal or
state antitrust laws. Both cases have been assigned to the same
district court judge presiding over MDL 1720.


VISA INC: Former MDL 1720 Class Members Sue for Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 2013, Target Corporation and a number of other
plaintiffs filed suit in the Southern District of New York against
Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard
Incorporated, and MasterCard International Incorporated, according
to Visa Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013. The plaintiffs are former class members of the damages class
in MDL 1720 who opted out of the damages portion of the class
settlement and are pursuing damages claims.

Plaintiffs in the Target case are pursuing damages claims on
allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. On June 6, 2013,
the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed
an order conditionally transferring the Target opt-out case to the
Eastern District of New York for inclusion in MDL 1720.

On June 13, 2013, the Target plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Opposition to the conditional transfer order, and on June 27,
2013, the Target plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
conditional transfer order.


VISA INC: Class Cert. Hearing Done in Watson Merchant Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class certification hearing in the Watson Merchant Litigation
commenced on April 22, 2013 and concluded on May 1, 2013,
according to Visa 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 the Watson case, the plaintiff's reply materials in support of
class certification were received on November 30, 2012. The class
certification hearing commenced on April 22, 2013 and concluded on
May 1, 2013.

On December 3, 2012, plaintiff's counsel in the 1023926 Alberta
Ltd. action filed an application for certification of a class
action. On December 14, 2012, the Watson plaintiff's counsel filed
another merchant class action in Alberta (Macaronies Hair Club and
Laser Centre Inc.) which effectively mirrors the claims in the
Watson case.

Following a hearing on defendants' applications to stay the
Alberta actions, the court ordered that both Alberta actions be
stayed pending the decision in the Watson case and on the
condition that the Watson class definition be amended to include
Alberta residents.

On January 4, 2013, plaintiff's counsel in the Canada Rent A
Heater (2000) Ltd. action (now titled Crown and Hand Pub Ltd.)
filed an application for certification of a class action. On
January 23, 2013, the Watson plaintiff's counsel filed another
action in Saskatchewan (Hello Baby Equipment Inc.) which
effectively mirrors the claims in the Watson case.


VISA INC: Briefing on Bids to File Amended Complaints Completed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on several motions, including motion for leave to file
amended complaints, in the U.S. ATM Access Fee Litigation is
complete, according to Visa Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On February 13, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss and
dismissed the cases without prejudice. On March 12, 2013,
plaintiffs in the National ATM Council class action and the
consumer class actions moved for an order altering or amending the
court's February 13, 2013 order to provide that (1) the complaints
(as opposed to the cases) are dismissed without prejudice, and (2)
plaintiffs may move to amend their complaints.

On April 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the National ATM Council class
action and the Stoumbos case moved for leave to file amended
complaints. On April 18, 2013, plaintiffs in the Mackmin case
moved for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendants filed
responses opposing the motions on the grounds that they are not
procedurally proper and would be futile in any event. On April 24,
2013, the court ordered the defendants to file further detailed
responses, addressing futility in particular. Briefing on the
motions is complete.


VISA INC: Paid $4 Billion to Interchange MDL Settlement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. paid approximately $4.0 billion from the litigation
escrow account into a settlement fund for an interchange
Multidistrict Litigation Proceedings (MDL) established pursuant to
a definitive class settlement agreement, according to the
company's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On October 19, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, various U.S. financial
institution defendants and the class plaintiffs signed a
settlement agreement to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims in
the interchange MDL. The court entered the preliminary approval
order of the class plaintiffs' settlement agreement on November
27, 2012.

On December 10, 2012, Visa paid approximately $4.0 billion from
the litigation escrow account into a settlement fund established
pursuant to the definitive class settlement agreement. Certain
retailers in the proposed settlement classes thereafter objected
to the settlement or have opted-out or are seeking to opt-out of
all or portions of the settlement.

The settlement with the class plaintiffs is subject to final court
approval, which the company cannot assure will be received, and to
the adjudication of any appeals. The company also signed a
settlement agreement to resolve the claims brought by a group of
individual merchants which were consolidated with the MDL for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the company paid $350
million from the litigation escrow account to the individual
merchants on October 29, 2012, and on November 6, 2012, the court
entered an order dismissing the individual merchants' claims with
prejudice.

                 MDL Impact on Free Cash Flow

According to Visa, "On December 10, 2012, we paid approximately
$4.0 billion from the litigation escrow account into a settlement
fund established pursuant to the definitive MDL class settlement
agreement."

"Under the settlement agreement, if class members opt out of the
damages portion of the class settlement, defendants are entitled
to receive takedown payments of no more than 25% of the original
cash payments made into the settlement fund, based on the
percentage of payment card sales volume for a defined period
attributable to merchants who opted out.

"Upon final court approval of the settlement agreement, the Visa
takedown payment, not to exceed $1.0 billion, will have the effect
of reducing our current tax deduction for the $4.0 billion payment
originally made into the settlement fund. The effective reduction
in our current tax deduction will increase our deferred tax asset
and decrease our income tax receivable, which will have a negative
impact on our free cash flow in the year the final court approval
is rendered. The company continues to expect annual free cash flow
to be about $6 billion for fiscal 2013."


WELLS FARGO: Zoll & Squitieri Law Firms File Mortgage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoll, Kranz & Borgess, LLC and Squitieri & Fearon, LLP on Aug. 12
filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of a homeowner in
Wyandot County on August 8, 2013 in the United States District
Court of Northern Ohio, Western Division.  This class action could
potentially affect thousands of other Ohio families with
residential mortgages secured by Wells Fargo.

The federal class action complaint alleges that Wells Fargo
committed an unlawful scheme on unsuspecting Ohio homeowners by
demanding that they maintain flood insurance for their property in
amounts greater than required by law, greater than required by
their mortgage agreements, and greater than Wells Fargo's
financial interest in their property, despite any reasonable or
lawful basis, (a practice referred to as "force-placed
insurance").

Recently, as also described in the complaint, regulatory
authorities around the country have started to investigate forced-
placed insurance practices of lenders, servicers and insurance
companies, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase
Bank, Citibank, GMAC and HSBC Mortgage Corporation.

The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit is entitled Swain v. Wells
Fargo Bank, et al.

A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/4Q85rV

Questions may be addressed to Attorneys David Zoll, Esq. or Pamela
Borgess, Esq. via phone at (419) 841-9623 or by e-mail to
david@toledolaw.com or pamela@toledolaw.com


* Greek Bailout Victims May Get Chance to Bring Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair Osborne, writing for The Telegraph, reports that
aggrieved investors who lost tens of billions of euros in Greece's
bail-out are being given the chance to bring class actions in
America and Europe after a landmark deal between two US law firms.

Grant & Eisenhofer (G&E), one of the US's top investor rights law
firms, has struck an alliance with Boston-based Kyros Law to help
investors pursue cases both within Greece and elsewhere.

Kyros's new Athens office is already coordinating the claims of
thousands of angry bondholders, who took a 53.5pc upfront haircut
on their investments in 2012's restructuring of all Greek public
debt held by private creditors.

The Private Sector Involvement (PSI) deal was aimed at cutting
Greece's public debt by EUR110 billion (GBP95 billion), but has
given rise to claims against the Greek government, banks and
institutions involved in selling Greek bonds.

G&E is renowned for its bold approach to investor litigation.  Its
previous scalps include leading European institutions to a
settlement worth more than $500 million (GBP322 million) from
Shell after the oil giant overstated its oil reserves and a $110
million claim relating to the Parmalat scandal.

John Kyriakopoulos, who heads the Kyros practice in Athens, said:
"G&E have secured numerous record-setting financial recoveries for
clients.  Our new collaboration is an historic step for advancing
the rights of investors in Greece, who have been battered in
recent years and have scant remedies or even avenues through which
to pursue recovery."

Mr. Kyriakopoulos, the former head of the Hellenic Pension Mutual
Fund Management Company, was appointed in May to lead a class
action against the National Bank of Greece by OSPA, the union
representing nearly 3,000 Olympic Airlines staff.

OSPA has brought a suit against the bank for the way it structured
severance packages, 70pc of which were in Greek government bonds
that more than halved in value after the 2012 bail-out.

Mr. Kyriakopoulos said the case had been lodged in the Greek
courts, but that "20 to 30 of the claimants have dual
citizenship", opening up the possibility of litigation in foreign
courts.

He added that thousands of investors were clubbing together via
the Association of Bondholders in Greece to examine potential
actions under the EU's Markets in Financial Instruments Directive.

Apart from potential claims relating to the sale of Greek
government debt, the association was also examining sales of other
financial instruments, such as credit default swaps.

Mr. Kyriakopoulos also drew attention to Greece's bond sales at
the end of March 2010 -- just days before a sharp downgrade by the
credit rating agencies as the Greek crisis worsened.  He said the
involvement of G&E, and the potential use of the US courts to
fight cases, increased the chances of investors recouping some of
the money they lost.

"The US courts can provide for much wider protection in regards to
investor and shareholder rights," Mr. Kyriakopoulos said.

G&E's co managing directors, Stuart Grant -- sgrant@gelaw.com --
and Jay Eisenhofer -- jeisenhofer@gelaw.com -- said: "There is a
growing tide of investor disputes stemming from Greece's financial
crisis.  We especially hope to collaborate on behalf of Greek
investors who have been shut out of recoveries in US courts."


                             *********

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  * * *