CAR_Public/130820.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 20, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 164

                             Headlines


AFFINION GROUP: Response Date in Trilegiant-Related Suit Stayed
AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Court Dismisses Suit v. Webloyalty
AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Conn. Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Still Faces Suit Over Customer Info
AMERICAN HEART: Faces Class Action Over Heart Check Mark Logo

APPLE INC: Plaintiff Must Amend Claims in MacBook Pro Class Action
ATLAS AIR: N.Y. Antitrust Suit in Class Certification Phase
ATLAS AIR: Faces Antitrust Suits in Several Canadian Provinces
BOULDER BRANDS: Still Faces Suit Over Fat Free Milk Labeling
BOULDER BRANDS: Faces Two Suits in Calif. Over Product Marketing

BROMLEY TEA: Loses Bid to Nix Suit Over Misleading Product Claims
CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in Nevada Over Spam Calls & Texts
CLOVER LEAF: Recalls 150 g. Gorgonzola Cheese
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 28 SAF-T-LINER EFX & HDX School Buses
DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls 7,000 Compact Utility Tractors

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
DYNEGY INC: Settles Stockholder Suit Over Blackstone-Icahn Merger
DYNEGY INC: Dismissal of Claims in Suit Over Restructuring Sought
FORD MOTOR: Says Too Early to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs Lawyers
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suits Over RESPA Violations

HENDERSON, LA: Class Action Seeks $2+MM in Ticket Refunds
HEWLETT PACKARD: Investors Must Amend Securities Fraud Claims
HYUNDAI: Recalls 52,317 Azera and Sonata Model Cars
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Sued for Allegedly Inflating Share Prices
LOCKHEED: 7th Circuit Reverses Class Certification Denial

LTD COMMODITIES: Recalls Microwave Crisper Pans Due to Fire Hazard
MAKO SURGICAL: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Now Closed
MONSANTO CORP: Questions Remain After GMO Crops Ruling
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Get 27.5% Fee Award
NATURAL BALANCE: Faces Class Action Over False Claims

NESTLE SA: Class Must Amend Claims in Misleading Advertising Suit
NIKE CORP: Faces Class Action Over FuelBand Bracelet
NTD APPAREL: Recalls Short Sleeve Superman Onesie Bodysuit
ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Misleading Statements
PH BEAUTY: Sued Over Bogus Claims About "Stem Cell" Products

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls Dry Pet Food Over Salmonella Presence
RIVER TECHNOLOGY: Suit by Former Zeus Shareholders Still Active
SENTRY SERVICES: Former Employees Sue Over Stock Option Plan
TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over Banzai's Deceptive Packaging
TIME WARNER: Faces Suit From Customers for Dropping Showtime & CBS

TOURO UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Hiding of Tuition Fee Cost
VANGUARD NATURAL: Dismissal of ENP Unitholder's Lawsuit Affirmed
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Amend Claims in Meltdown Product Suit
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Calif. Super. Junks "Marcano" Securities Suit


                             *********


AFFINION GROUP: Response Date in Trilegiant-Related Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
entered an order staying the date for all Defendants, including
Affinion Group, Inc., to respond to a Complaint related to the
sale of Trilegiant Corporation membership program until 21 days
after the court rules on the motion to consolidate, according to
Affinion's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment.

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March
28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel
arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the
decision of the District Court denying arbitration.

While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.
Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.

The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the
same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At
that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three
previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class
certification briefing schedule that had been set previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on
February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April
5, 2013. The Company does not know when the court will rule on
that motion.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).

On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases. The Company does
not know when the court will rule on that motion. On June 13,
2013, the Court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court rules on the motion to consolidate.


AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Court Dismisses Suit v. Webloyalty
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California dismissed a consumer complaint filed against
Webloyalty, a client of Affinion Group, Inc., according to
Affinion's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty.com Inc. and one of its clients in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California alleging,
among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment,
fraud, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and
California Consumer Business Practice violations.

This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on
and after October 1, 2008. On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit. On
April 12, 2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and
dismissed all claims against the defendants. On May 10, 2011,
plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed its
opening appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2011,
and defendants filed their respective answering briefs on December
23, 2011.

Plaintiff filed its reply brief on January 23, 2012. On January
11, 2013, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the plaintiff's
appeal and, thereafter, took the matter under advisement. On April
25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit decided Plaintiffs' appeal dismissing
the case without prejudice.  Thereafter, on May 9, 2013, Plaintiff
petitioned for rehearing of the Ninth Circuit's decision, which
petition the Court rejected on May 20, 2013.  The District Court
followed the mandate of the Ninth Circuit and finally dismissed
the action on June 24, 2013.


AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Conn. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Webloyalty.com, Inc. is still awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a suit alleging, among others, violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, according to Affinion
Group, Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On August 27, 2010, another substantially similar class action
lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients
and one of the credit card associations in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among
other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil
theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act violations.

This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on
and after October 1, 2008. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed
a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which had since been amended in
its entirety. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled
on Webloyalty's motion.


AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Still Faces Suit Over Customer Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California is
yet to rule on a motion by Webloyalty.com, Inc. to dismiss a
complaint claiming unlawful business practices in violation of a
section of the California Business and Professional Code,
according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On June 7, 2012, another class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the foregoing
California and Connecticut actions. The action claims that
Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq.
and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with
enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged
plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained
through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from
plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact
information, as purportedly required under Restore Online
Shoppers' Confidence Act.

On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety, scheduling a hearing on the motion for
January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the
enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents.

Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012, and
Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.
Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the Court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing, although it has not yet done so.


AMERICAN HEART: Faces Class Action Over Heart Check Mark Logo
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that the
American Heart Association defrauds consumers by selling its
"Heart Check Mark" to Campbell Soup, whose products' true
designation should be: "Unhealthy, but maybe not as bad for you as
other products," a class action claims in Federal Court in
New Jersey.

Lead plaintiff Kerry O'Shea sued Campbell Soup Co. and the
American Heart Association in Federal Court.  Ms. O'Shea claims
the Heart Association sells/licenses it "Heart Check mark" logo as
a "certification" of a heart-healthy food, even for foods that are
processed and unhealthy.

Campbell Soup has purchased certification for "at least 97
(ninety-seven) of its products," the complaint states, "and pays
annual fees to maintain these products' certifications."

The 41-page lawsuit begins: "The AHA claims that its mission is
'to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and
stroke.  That single purpose drives all we do.'  This worth
mission is, in truth, tainted by what the AHA does not tell the
public: that for a fee, the AHA will allow manufacturers of
unhealthy, processed foods -- including over thirty varieties of
Campbell's soups -- to place the AHA's certification and
endorsement on products that run directly counter to the AHA's
stated mission.

"The AHA's nationally recognized 'Heart-Check Mark' certification
thus fools consumers by misrepresenting that products bearing the
Heart-Check Mark certification meet the AHA's heart-healthy
nutritional guidelines.  That misrepresentation (or omission of
the true facts) is unfair, deceptive, and misleading, because the
AHA's Heart-Check Mark certification does not signify adherence to
those guidelines.

"Properly characterized, the real meaning of the AHA's Heart-Check
mark certification is, 'Unhealthy, but maybe not as bad for you as
other products.'

"As alleged herein, the AHA, for a fee, abandons its general,
noncommercial dietary and nutritional guidelines -- which
categorically rule out unhealthy processed products, including
Campbell's soups, as demonstrated below -- and agrees to certify
as heart-healthy products that merely meet the minimum criteria
for certain FDA-regulated health claims, rather than the AHA's own
more demeaning standards.  The deceptive practice not only causes
consumers to overpay for Campbell's AHA-certified soups, but also
presents substantial health risks to all consumers, including the
more than five million American consumers suffering from
congestive heart failure.

"The AHA's Heart-Check Mark certification scheme runs directly
counter to its noncommercial nutritional guidance.  Instead of
aiding the consuming public, the AHA's certification scheme
confuses and misleads the consuming public, because it employs
standards that have nothing to do with the AHA's general
nutritional guidelines.

"As a result, the AHA certifies products that are far less
healthy, and far less heart-healthy than it otherwise advises
consumers to eat.  A single serving of Campbell's AHA certified
soups contains nearly three times the amount of sodium permitted
by the AHA's noncommercial nutritional guidelines, while a full
can contains between six and seven times that amount.

"Indeed, manufacturers, including Campbell's, buy AHA approval, by
paying a fee on a per-product basis, plus administrative costs and
fees, plus additional annual fees to maintain their AHA heart-
healthy product certifications and to claim endorsement and
certification by that widely trusted organization.

"By the AHA selling, and Campbell's buying, the right to affix the
AHA's seal of approval to its products, they falsely represent to
the public that AHA-certified products manufactured by Campbell's
possess some cardiovascular benefit not enjoyed by products that
have not been certified by the AHA.  In truth, however, the only
difference between AHA-certified Campbell's products and non-
certified competing products is that Campbell's has paid money to
the AHA to license its logo.

"In sum, the AHA benefits from the monies paid to it by food
manufacturers and the advertising and organizational name
recognition that come from having its logo placed on millions of
food containers.  Campbell's benefits by being able to affix the
AHA's Heart-Check Mark logo on the products for which it has paid
for it and is able to enjoy increased sales and higher profits due
to their premium pricing and perceived health advantage.  These
benefits to Campbell's and AHA, however, come at the substantial
cost to plaintiff and the other class members, both in the form of
purchasing falsely labeled products based on defendants 'heart-
healthy' pretext, and materially overpaying for those products."

In an email to Courthouse News, American Heart Association
spokesman Amit Chitre said: "The American Heart Association does
not comment on pending litigation.  But for more information about
our food certification program, including our criteria, visit:
www.heart.org/foodcertification.  Our Food Certification Program
regularly conducts laboratory testing to verify that products
earning the Heart Check meet our nutritional criteria, which are
more stringent than those of the Food and Drug Administration.
Food manufacturers applying to the Food Certification Program pay
an administrative fee, which is only sufficient for the program's
product testing, public information and program operating
expenses.  If a food product does not meet our criteria, it does
not receive our Heart Check certification.  No public donations
are used to support the Heart-Check program."

Ms. O'Shea seeks restitution and damages for consumer fraud,
breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

Ms. O'Shea is represented by James Cecchi with Carella, Byrne,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, of Roseland, N.J.  The lawyer
may be reached at:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Tel: (973) 994-1700


APPLE INC: Plaintiff Must Amend Claims in MacBook Pro Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a MacBook Pro user must amend
claims that Apple put an LG retina display in his model instead of
Samsung's superior product, a federal judge ruled.

A copy of the Order Granting Apple's Motion to Dismiss with Leave
to Amend and Motion to Strike with Leave to Amend in Hodges v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-01128 (N.D. Calif.) (Orrick J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/14/retina.pdf


ATLAS AIR: N.Y. Antitrust Suit in Class Certification Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint about the pricing practices of a number
of air cargo carriers, including Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings,
Inc., is currently in the class certification phase, according to
Atlas Air's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In 2010, Old Polar entered into a plea agreement with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") relating to the
previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged
manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate
components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation").

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the
market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad
through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States,
state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged
from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the
injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an
order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising
prior to 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was
substantial pre-trial written discovery and document production,
and a number of depositions were taken. The case is currently in
the class certification phase. The company is unable to reasonably
predict the court's ruling on the motion or the ultimate outcome
of the litigation.


ATLAS AIR: Faces Antitrust Suits in Several Canadian Provinces
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., Old Polar and a number of
other cargo carriers have also been named as defendants in civil
class action suits in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario
and Quebec, Canada that are substantially similar to the class
action suits in the United States, according to Atlas Air's Aug.
1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have indicated they do
not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the Company and Old
Polar. The company is unable to reasonably predict the outcome of
the litigation in Ontario and Quebec.


BOULDER BRANDS: Still Faces Suit Over Fat Free Milk Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to
the labeling of Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products, according to
the company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On February 21, 2013, a class action lawsuit relating to the
labeling of Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the
"Southern District," alleging the label and marketing was
misleading because, although the labels says "Fat Free Milk" the
product contains 1g of fat from the Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend
in the products.

The Company has moved to dismiss the lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations.  The company
does not expect that the resolution of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on the company's business.


BOULDER BRANDS: Faces Two Suits in Calif. Over Product Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
stayed all activity in a second lawsuit filed against Boulder
Brands Inc. over the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance
Butter & Canola Oil Blend products, according to the company's
Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 28, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California claiming
that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola
Oil Blend products is false, misleading and deceptive (the
"California Case").  The company's motion to dismiss the complaint
was denied by the court.

The company filed an answer, denying all substantive allegations.
A substantially similar class action lawsuit related to the
labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend
products was filed on August 9, 2012 in the Southern District.

In light of its similarity to the California Case, the Southern
District stayed all activity in the case pending a decision in the
California Case on class certification.  The company believes the
allegations contained in both of these complaints are without
merit and the company intends to vigorously defend ourselves
against these allegations.  The company does not expect that the
resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on
the company's business.


BROMLEY TEA: Loses Bid to Nix Suit Over Misleading Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Bromley Tea Co. failed to
persuade a federal judge to dismiss claims that it makes
misleading claims about the healthful properties of its products.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to
Strike, and Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery in Clancy
v. The Bromley Tea Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-03003 (N.D.
Calif.) (Tigar, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/14/bromley.pdf


CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in Nevada Over Spam Calls & Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Caesar's Entertainment Corp.
and Serendipity III asked for a guest's cellphone number to let
her know when her restaurant table would be ready, then sent her
spam calls and texts without permission, she claims in a federal
class action in Las Vegas.


CLOVER LEAF: Recalls 150 g. Gorgonzola Cheese
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 9, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Notification
Subcategory:                          Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Clover Leaf Cheese (1978)
                                      Ltd.
Distribution:                         Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail
CFIA reference number:                8243

Affected products:

   Brand name            Common name           Size
   ----------            -----------           ----
   Clover Leaf Cheese    Gorgonzola Cheese     150 g.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 28 SAF-T-LINER EFX & HDX School Buses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                August 14, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  School Bus
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Fuel Supply
Units affected:               28
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013281
TC ID number:                 2013281
Manufacturer recall number:   FL-643

Affected products:

   Make           Model                     Model year(s) affected
   ----           -----                     ----------------------
   THOMAS BUILT   SAF-T-LINER HDX SCHOOL BUS        2013, 2014
   THOMAS BUILT   SAF-T-LINER EFX SCHOOL BUS        2013, 2014

On certain school buses, an information label may detach from the
auxiliary heater fuel pickup tube and block the engine fuel
suction tube, which could restrict or stop the flow of fuel to the
engine.  Engine stalling would result in a loss of vehicle
propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road condition
and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will inspect the fuel tank.  If a label is found, it will
be removed from the tank.


DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls 7,000 Compact Utility Tractors
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deere & Company, of Moline, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of
about 7,000 John Deere Compact Utility Tractors.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The spring locking pins in the rollover protective system (ROPS)
can break and cause the ROPs to fail in the event of a rollover.
This presents a risk of serious injury or death to the operator.

John Deere received three reports of broken spring locking pins
and identified two failed spring locking pins in the manufacturing
assembly process.  The firm has received no reports of injuries.

The recall involves 19 models of John Deere 1000, 2000, 3000 and
4000 series compact utility tractors manufactured between February
2013 and July 2013.  The tractors are green and yellow with a
foldable black, metal rollover protection bar that extends above
the operator's head.  The model number is on the hood. The serial
number is located on the right hand side of the frame above the
front axle.  Compact utility tractors with serial numbers in the
following ranges are included in this recall:

   Model Number             Vehicle Identification Number Ranges
   ------------             ------------------------------------
   1023E                    1LV1023EXXX310006 to 1LV1023EXXX310083
   1025R                    1LV1025RXXX111788 to 1LV1025RXXX116214
   2025R                    1LV2025RXXX110121 to 1LV2025RXXX110202
   2032R                    1LV2032RXXX110008 to 1LV2032RXXX110283
   2320H                    1LV2320HXXX712151 to 1LV2320HXXX712593
   2520H                    1LV2520HXXX811702 to 1LV2520HXXX811703
   2720H                                  1LV2720HLCH511543 (Only)
   3320H                    1LV3320HXXX910198 to 1LV3320HXXX910700
   3320P                    1LV3320PXXX910129 to 1LV3320PXXX910299
   3520H                    1LV3520HXXX910239 to 1LV3520HXXX910579
   3520P                    1LV3520PXXX910098 to 1LV3520PXXX910188
   3720H                    1LV3720HXXX910181 to 1LV3720HXXX910429
   4120H                    1LV4120HXXX916152 to 1LV4120HXXX916350
   4120P                    1LV4120PXXX916013 to 1LV4120PXXX916014
   4320H                    1LV4320HXXX916166 to 1LV4320HXXX916420
   4320P                    1LV4320PXXX916036 to 1LV4320PXXX916112
   4520H                    1LV4520HXXX916127 to 1LV4520HXXX916276
   4520P                    1LV4520PXXX916034 to 1LV4520PXXX916135
   4720H                    1LV4720HXXX916129 to 1LV4720HXXX916919

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/KMu4Og

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at John Deere dealers nationwide from February 2013 through July
2013 for between $11,500 and $35,700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the compact utility
vehicles and contact a John Deere dealer for a free repair.  John
Deere is contacting all registered owners of the recalled compact
utility tractors directly.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Domino's Pizza is costing
people money with spam text messages, from which they cannot
unsubscribe, a woman claims in federal class action.


DYNEGY INC: Settles Stockholder Suit Over Blackstone-Icahn Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a lawsuit filed in connection with the 2010 and 2011
terminations of the merger agreement with an affiliate of The
Blackstone Group L.P. ("Blackstone") and the merger agreement with
an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises L.P. reached an agreement to
settle the matter, according to Dynegy Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In connection with the 2010 and 2011 terminations of the merger
agreement with an affiliate of The Blackstone Group L.P.
("Blackstone") and the merger agreement with an affiliate of Icahn
Enterprises L.P. ("Icahn"), respectively, numerous stockholder
lawsuits and one alleged stockholder derivative lawsuit previously
filed in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, the Southern
District of Texas, and the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware were commenced. In July 2011, the Harris County District
Court granted the motion of the plaintiff's lead class counsel for
an award of attorney's fees and expenses. On April 4, 2013, the
parties settled the matter for an immaterial amount.


DYNEGY INC: Dismissal of Claims in Suit Over Restructuring Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a stockholder litigation relating to the 2011
prepetition restructuring of DH Debtor Entities filed a
substantive motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining claims,
according to Dynegy Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

The DH Debtor Entities are: Dynegy Holdings, LLC and four of its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Dynegy Northeast Generation, Inc.
("DNE"), Hudson Power, L.L.C. ("Hudson"), Dynegy Danskammer,
L.L.C. ("Danskammer") and Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C.

In connection with the prepetition restructuring and corporate
reorganization of the DH Debtor Entities and their non-debtor
affiliates in 2011 (the "2011 Prepetition Restructuring"), and
specifically the DMG Transfer, a putative class action stockholder
lawsuit captioned Charles Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case
No. 12CIV2307 (the "Securities Litigation"), was filed in the
United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit challenged certain disclosures made in connection with
the DMG Transfer.  The company believes the plaintiff's complaint
lacks merit and the company continues to oppose the Securities
Litigation vigorously. As a result of the filing of the voluntary
petition for bankruptcy by Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit was stayed as
against Dynegy Inc. and as a result of the confirmation of the
Plan, the claims against Dynegy Inc. in the Securities Litigation
are permanently enjoined.

On August 24, 2012, the lead plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan
asserting, among other things, that lead plaintiff should be
permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions
(the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative
class members.  The company opposed that relief.

On October 1, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that lead plaintiff
did not have standing to object to the Plan and did not have
authority to opt-out of the Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any
other party-in-interest. Accordingly, the Securities Litigation
may only proceed against the non-debtor defendants with respect to
members of the putative class who individually opted out of the
Non-Debtor Releases. The lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on October 10, 2012.

On June 4, 2013, the District Court dismissed the appeal.  On July
3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On July
19, 2013, the defendants filed a substantive motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' remaining claims.


FORD MOTOR: Says Too Early to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs Lawyers
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
Ford Motor Company says it is too early to worry about which
plaintiffs lawyers will be given leadership positions in the class
action lawsuits filed against it, while one of those lawyers says
Ford has no standing to oppose the issue.

Ford filed a response in opposition to a motion recently submitted
by plaintiffs lawyers in three class actions filed against Ford in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

That motion asks U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers to appoint
interim co-lead counsel and a plaintiffs steering committee.

Ford says the motion would only be appropriate if all cases were
before the same court.  Currently, there's a class action pending
in South Carolina federal court.

"Should the District of South Carolina choose to stay Thomas and
then transfer it to this Court, a motion to appoint Interim Lead
Counsel would be appropriate," Ford's response says.

"Until that time, this Court does not have power to compel any
action in Thomas; choosing 'lead counsel' in this case would only
confuse the question of who speaks for the purported class.

"In reality, no one does.  Until a class is certified, nothing in
these cases is binding on absent class members."

Timothy Bailey -- of Bucci, Bailey & Javins in Charleston -- is
one of the attorneys asking to be named interim co-lead counsel.
"The motion pending is for appointment of 'interim' lead counsel
prior to class certification," he said.

"While Ford may have standing to offer a position once motions for
class certification and class counsel are made at a later time,
there appears to be no legal precedent for the proposition that
Ford has standing to oppose the interim lead counsel issue."

Mr. Bailey may be reached at:

         Timothy Bailey, Esq.
         BUCCI, BAILEY & JAVINS LC
         213 Hale Street
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Tel: 304-932-4639
         Toll Free: 800-889-5851

Mr. Bailey and the plaintiffs attorneys filed their motion on
July 30.  The three cases were filed by attorneys from across the
country on behalf of Ford drivers from several states.

The first lawsuit was filed in April and the second in June.  A
third was filed on July 25.

Along with Mr. Bailey, Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- of
Spilman Thomas & Battle in Charleston is asking to be appointed
interim co-lead counsel.

They are joined in their request by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer in Chicago; Stephen M.
Gorny -- steve@bflawfirm.com -- of Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson
& Gorny in Leawood, Kan.; and Mark DiCello --
madicello@dicellolaw.com -- of The DiCello Law Firm in Mentor,
Ohio.

The three lawsuits make the same allegations -- that those who
purchased Ford vehicles manufactured between 2002-10 would not
have paid as much for them or purchased them at all if they were
made aware of the sudden acceleration problems.

The vehicles at issue were manufactured between 2002 and 2010.
They were equipped with an electronic throttle control but not
adequate fail-safe systems to prevent incidents of sudden
unintended acceleration, the complaint says.

"In addition, and most significantly, regardless of the cause of
these admittedly foreseeable events, the Ford vehicles share a
common design defect in that they lack adequate fail-safe systems,
including a reliable Brake Over Accelerator system that would
allow a driver to mitigate sudden unintended acceleration by
depressing the brake," the complaints say.

"Each person who has owned or leased a Ford vehicle vulnerable to
sudden unintended acceleration during the time period relevant to
this action paid more for the Ford vehicle than they would have
paid, or would not have purchased or leased the Ford vehicle
altogether, because of the defective nature of the Ford vehicles
resulting from the absence of a fail-safe such as a BOA to prevent
sudden unintended acceleration events in each of them."

The complaints say they have also been filed before the tolling of
the statute of limitations because the plaintiffs could not have
known their vehicles were vulnerable to sudden unintended
acceleration because Ford concealed this from them.

Lincoln and Mercury vehicles from the same years are included in
the complaints.

Charleston attorney Edgar F. Heiskell III --
hikeheiskell@rocketmail.com --is also asking to be a part of the
Plaintiffs Steering Committee.

Others asking to be placed on the SPC are John T. Murray of Murray
and Murray in Sandusky, Ohio; John Scarola of Searcy Denney
Scarola Barnhart & Shipley in West Palm Beach, Fla.; Joseph J.
Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC in Chicago; Keith G.
Bremer of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara in Newport Beach, Calif.;
E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- of The Miller Law Firm
in Rochester, Mich.; Grant L. Davis of Davis Bethune & Jones in
Kansas City, Mo.; and Gregory M. Travalio --
gtravalio@isaacwiles.com -- of Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor in
Columbus, Ohio.

Other firms that signed the last two complaints were Gomez &
Iagmin of San Diego and Laffey, Bucci & Kent in Philadelphia.

On June 27, Ford asked Judge Chambers to dismiss the lawsuit or
have certain "objectionable" paragraphs from the complaint
stricken.

"Plaintiffs seek a court-ordered recall and monetary damages in
connection with nearly every Ford Motor Company vehicle sold in
the United States between 2002 and 2010 . . . because the vehicles
lack a particular driver-assistance feature referred to as Brake
Over Accelerator or Brake-Throttle Override, which depowers the
engine if the gas pedal is trapped by a floor mat and the driver
engages the brake," the memorandum in support of the motion to
dismiss says.

"Notably, as conceded by Plaintiffs, a BTO feature does not
prevent an unwanted acceleration resulting from a trapped gas
pedal, but it may assist the driver in overcoming such a situation
if it does occur.

"Although Ford never marketed the vehicles at issue as having a
BTO feature, Plaintiffs contend that its absence from their
vehicles diminishes their value, and that Ford's failure to
disclose that absence was fraudulent."

The paragraphs Ford finds "objectionable" allege that in the
1980s, the company intentionally disposed of internal reports
regarding sudden acceleration events and that it concealed the
information from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

Ford says those allegations have already been rejected by the
NHTSA and a Florida appellate court.

"Second, the allegations are simply irrelevant to Plaintiffs'
claims and, therefore, immaterial and impertinent," the memorandum
in support says.

"The allegations in the Objectionable Paragraphs are scandalous,
injurious to Ford's reputation, and have no bearing on Plaintiffs'
present claims.  The allegations are clearly designed only to
inflame the jury and the public.

"Moreover, the continued presence of these objectionable
allegations of decades-old conduct will prejudice Ford by
requiring extensive and unnecessary expenditures of resources in
litigation."

The company recently agreed to pay $17.35 million to settle an
investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency.

The NHTSA alleged Ford took too long to recall Escapes that could
have defects that cause unintended acceleration.  Ford recalled
423,000 Escapes in 2012.

Ford denied it broke any laws in the settlement agreement.

Judge Chambers recently granted the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the first two cases filed for pretrial purposes.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suits Over RESPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. provides updates on putative class action
lawsuits alleging that certain of its "captive reinsurance
arrangements" were in violation of RESPA, according to the
company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013,
one of the company's U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was
named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and
mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action
lawsuits alleging that certain "captive reinsurance arrangements"
were in violation of RESPA.

The Barlee case was dismissed by the Court with prejudice as to
the company's subsidiary and certain other defendants on February
27, 2013. In the Riddle case, the defendants' motion to dismiss
was denied, but the Court limited discovery at this stage to
issues surrounding the statute of limitations. The Manners case
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in March 2013.

In the Moriba BA case, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss by order dated June 26, 2013. In the White case,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to address the
deficiencies that the Court identified in previously dismissing
the action.

On July 22, 2013, the company's mortgage insurance subsidiary
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Hill case,
the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied on June 27, 2013, but
the Court limited discovery at this stage to issues surrounding
the statute of limitations. In the Samp and Orange cases, the
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Menichino case was dismissed by
the Court without prejudice as to the company's subsidiary and
certain other defendants on July 19, 2013. In the Riddle case, on
July 19, 2013, the company moved for summary judgment dismissing
the case.  The company intends to vigorously defend the remaining
actions.


HENDERSON, LA: Class Action Seeks $2+MM in Ticket Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Burgess, writing for The Advocate, reports that a class-
action lawsuit seeks more than $2 million in refunds for drivers
ticketed along Interstate 10 by Henderson police under an
allegedly illegal ticket quota system that paid officers $15 per
ticket issued.

The quota system has led to criminal charges against the town's
police chief and his assistant, both of whom pleaded not guilty at
their arraignment on Aug. 12 on charges of public payroll fraud,
filing false public records and malfeasance in office.

In addition to claims stemming from the quota system, the civil
suit alleges Henderson police have routinely given tickets outside
their jurisdiction, nabbing drivers for violating the 60 mph speed
limit on the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge as they come off the bridge
into a 70 mph zone approaching the Henderson exit off I-10.

Breaux Bridge attorney Glenn Soileau, who filed the lawsuit, said
the Henderson town limits stop short of the Basin bridge.  "That's
where they are clocking people, coming right off the bridge," he
said.  He may be reached at:

          Glenn Soileau, Esq.
          1454 E Bridge St
          Breaux Bridge, LA 70517
          Tel: (337) 332-4561
          Fax: (337) 332-4562

Mr. Soileau filed the lawsuit on behalf on St. Landry Parish
resident Mark Anthony Thomas, who paid a $213 traffic fine last
year for a ticket he received coming off the Basin Bridge in June
2012, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Soileau is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit and
believes potential plaintiffs could number in the thousands, with
fines averaging about $150 per ticket.

The lawsuit comes after prosecutors filed charges last month
against Henderson Police Chief Leroy Guidry and Deputy Chief
Oliver Mack Lloyd.  They are accused of overseeing an illegal
ticket quota system that allowed officers to earn $15 per ticket
on I-10 as long as they issued at least two tickets per hour.

State law forbids paying officers based on how many citations they
issue.  The criminal charges arose from a 2012 investigation of
the quota system by the state Office of Inspector General in a
case sparked by a complaint from a former Henderson officer.

A report by the inspector general found that fines and forfeitures
coming mainly from traffic stops generated upwards of $2.4 million
for the town from 2009 to 2011 -- about 80 percent of Henderson's
budget for that period.

Both Messrs. Guidry and Lloyd, who pleaded not guilty at the
arraignment on Aug. 12, remain on the job and have the support of
Henderson Mayor Sherbin Collette.  He has said he believes they
did nothing wrong.

Collette, who was served with the lawsuit on Aug. 13, disputes the
allegation that officers have been giving tickets outside the town
limits.

The mayor said Henderson annexed a small portion of the Basin
bridge, but declined to discuss the issue in detail other than to
say the town is preparing to have an engineer map out the precise
boundary.

"In the next couple of days, it should be cleared up,"
Mr. Collette said.

In the criminal case, Mr. Collette has said that there was never a
formal quota system for tickets on I-10 but that officers were
encouraged to write two tickets per hour.

Henderson officers were not directly paid $15 per ticket but
rather the payment came as an enhanced hourly wage, with officers
expected to issue at least two tickets per hour to receive $30 per
hour, according to an affidavit filed to support the criminal
charges against Mr. Guidry.

Officers could make more money if they issued more than two
tickets an hour but would make only $12.50 an hour if they issued
fewer than two tickets per hour, according to the allegations in
the affidavit.

The affidavit states that Mr. Guidry allegedly told Inspector
General's Office investigators that the enhanced payments served
as a "productivity" system to ensure officers were active while
working under a traffic safety program funded through a state-
administered grant.

Messrs. Guidry and Lloyd are set for trial on Dec. 16.

If convicted, they face up to five years in prison on the charges
of malfeasance and filing false public records and up to two years
in prison on the charge of payroll fraud.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Investors Must Amend Securities Fraud Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that following a trend in the
Northern District of California, a federal judge ordered Hewlett
Packard investors to amend their securities fraud claims.

A copy of the Order Granting Motions to Dismiss in Cement &
Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund, et al. v. Hewlett
Packard Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-04115 (N.D. Calif.)
(Tigar, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/14/hp.pdf


HYUNDAI: Recalls 52,317 Azera and Sonata Model Cars
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                August 12, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Car
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Structure
Units affected:               52317
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013280
TC ID number:                 2013280
Manufacturer recall number:   R0081

Affected products:

   Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----       ----------------------
   HYUNDAI   SONATA      2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
   HYUNDAI   AZERA       2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

On certain vehicles, road salt can corrode the rear crossmember
assembly, which may ultimately lead to separation of the control
arm at the mounting point.  This would allow the wheel to rotate
off its designed axis, and could result in a loss of vehicle
control and a crash causing property damage and/or personal
injury.

Dealers will repair or replace the rear crossmember assembly.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Sued for Allegedly Inflating Share Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Juniper Networks and its
officers inflated share prices with misleading information, a
class claims in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Juniper
Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
California, and docketed under 13-cv-03733, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Juniper Networks between April
24, 2012 and August 8, 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 Juniper Networks securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 11, 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.

Juniper Networks, Inc. designs, develops, and sells products and
services that provide network infrastructure for networking
requirements of service providers, enterprises, governments, and
research and public sector organizations worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company was in violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act ("FCPA"); (2) the Company lacked effective internal
controls over financial reporting; and, (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2013, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice, "are conducting
investigations into possible violations by the Company of the U.S.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."  On this news, shares fell $1.24
approximately 5.13% percent to close at $20.92 per share on
August 9, 2013.

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


LOCKHEED: 7th Circuit Reverses Class Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Thomas, writing for aiCIO, reports that a panel of judges
in the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals has reversed an
earlier decision denying class certification in a legal battle
between an employer and members of its 401(k) plans.

The decision opens the door for further claimants to come forward
and contest the issue at stake in court -- namely whether Lockheed
breached its fiduciary duty to the two 401(k) plans by investing a
large proportion of its stable value fund in money markets, losing
it money over the long term.

A typical stable value fund will invest in a mixture of short and
intermediate-term securities, such as treasury securities,
corporate bonds, and mortgage-backed securities, the court
document seen by aiCIO noted.

The longer-duration holdings mean that stable value funds normally
outperform money market funds, which invest exclusively in short-
term securities.

The plaintiffs who brought the case to the district court
originally alleged that by investing the stable value fund heavily
in money market investments, Lockheed's decision led to a low rate
of return, such that the stable value fund did "not beat inflation
by a sufficient margin to provide a meaningful retirement asset".

As such, managing the investments in this way was "imprudent" and
violated Lockheed's fiduciary duty to manage the 401(k) plans with
care, skill, prudence and diligence.

Stable value funds are a mainstay of many defined contribution
plans and their assets are growing.  Out of 12,000 401(k) plans
tracked by San Diego research firm Brightscope, stable value funds
or similar vehicles held $339 billion US in assets at the end of
2011, up from $317 billion in year-end 2009.

The plaintiff's attorney in the Lockheed case Jerome Schlichter
told Business News Network the ruling would strengthen claims on
behalf of 56,000 investors who now would not have to sue
individually.

"This decision means if imprudent management causes poor
performance in the 401(k) plan, plan fiduciaries are on the hook
for the full damages," he continued, adding there were other parts
of the case which were also on track to proceed as class actions,
such as claims of excessive record-keeping fees.

The hearing has now been remanded for further proceedings.
Lockheed's press team had not responded to a request for comment
at the time of going to press.


LTD COMMODITIES: Recalls Microwave Crisper Pans Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LTD Commodities LLC, of Bannockburn, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 18,220 Microwave Crisper Pan with Lid.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The metal washer used to secure the knob to the lid can spark,
posing a fire hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 16 reports of incidents including sparks,
flames, and shattered or exploding glass lids.

The recall involves microwave crisper pans.  The carbon steel pan
is sold with a glass lid that has a white ceramic knob on top.
The non-stick pan has bottom grooves and a silicone base.  Catalog
number MUP or 4040011017 is printed on the outside of the box,
near the UPC bar code 707569068464.  Shipments made after
July 2013 include a label on the knob that reads "inspected" and
are not included in this recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/exZ8bu

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at LTD
Commodities, ABC Distributing and The Lakeside Collection catalogs
and online at http://www.ltdcommodities.com
http://www.abcdistributing.com,and http://www.lakeside.com
between June 2013 and July 2013 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled crisper pan
and contact LTD Commodities for a free repair.  Known consumers
were notified directly about the recall.


MAKO SURGICAL: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Now Closed
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
closed the case In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation,
No. 12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer, and entered final judgment for the
Company, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

In May 2012, two shareholder complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as purported
class actions on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock between January 9, 2012 and May 7, 2012.

The cases were filed under the captions James H. Harrison, Jr. v.
MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60875 and Brian Parker v.
MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60954. The court
consolidated the Harrison and Parker complaints under the caption
In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 12-60875-CIV-
Cohn/Seltzer, and appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System and Baltimore County Employees' Retirement
System to serve as co-lead plaintiffs.

In September 2012, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that expanded the proposed class period through July 9,
2012. The amended complaint alleged the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chairman, Maurice R. Ferre, M.D.,
and its Chief Financial Officer, Fritz L. LaPorte, violated
federal securities laws by making misrepresentations and omissions
during the proposed class period about the Company's financial
guidance for 2012 that artificially inflated the Company's stock
price.

The amended complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs. In
October 2012, the Company, Dr. Ferre, and Mr. LaPorte filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.

On May 15, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss and found
that the challenged statements in the amended complaint were not
material misrepresentations or omissions but rather were forward-
looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language
and thus not actionable. In its order, the court gave co-lead
plaintiffs an opportunity to request leave to file a second
amended complaint, which they declined. Accordingly, on June 14,
2013 the court closed the case and entered final judgment for the
Company, Dr. Ferre and Mr. LaPorte. No appeal was filed and the
time for filing an appeal has expired.


MONSANTO CORP: Questions Remain After GMO Crops Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that though the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Monsanto can sue farmers
to death for doing what farmers have done since before time began
-- save seeds to plant next spring -- questions remain.

The Supreme Court ruled on "genetically modified" crops -- DNA
tinkering in seeds from glyphosate-resistant "Roundup Ready"
plants.  But farmers have been genetically modifying crops since
women descended from the trees.  Planting seeds from the biggest
fruits and grains, year after year, is genetic modification.

That's how the Toltecs and Teotihuacanos turned a pathetic little
grass called teosintle into corn.  Five hundred years later,
Luther Burbank invented the nectarine by grafting one tree onto
another.

Can we no longer mess around in the garden without paying someone?

Organic farmers have sued Monsanto repeatedly for contaminating
their crops with genetically modified pollen.  A cursory search of
the Courthouse News database turned up 12 such lawsuits, six of
them class actions, the latest one filed Monday in Mississippi.

Once crops are out in the fields, pollen blows on the wind. You
can't stop it.  It's what the world does.

The organic plaintiffs who sued Monsanto say their customers don't
want to eat food contaminated by genetic modifications.

So here's a question: If Monsanto's genetically modified pollen
fertilizes an organic farm's crops, and the organic farm
incorporates a subsidiary to sell seeds from its accidentally
fertilized, genetically modified wheat, who can sue whom?

And why?

And for what?

For doing what farmers have done for 10,000 years?

Who is the pirate here?

Is it the organic farmer whose crops were contaminated by
Monsanto?

Is it Monsanto, seizing crops from downwind farmers, with the
consent of the Supreme Court, and putting farmers out of business?

Is it the Supreme Court -- (technically, a corsair: a pirate
backed by the state) -- legitimizing state-backed piracy?

Is the pirate the wind?

Or the grains of pollen that fertilize pistils downwind?
And who should pay damages for the wind?

These questions are raised -- not directly -- by an excellent new
book published by those radicals at the Harvard Business Review:
"The Pirate Organization: Lessons from the Fringes of Capitalism."

The authors, business professors Rodolphe Durand and Jean-Philippe
Vergne, view piracy as a creative, inherently unstable force that
-- were business a living organism -- we could say has been
introducing and replicating its DNA into capitalism for hundreds
of years.

From the Golden Age of pirates, who preyed off the Dutch and
British East India Companies, to Internet pirates today, pirates
have formed organizations that because of their profits, their
efficiency, their short-term superiority to what the professors
call the milieu, have forced businesses and governments to adopt
pirate models: to incorporate piracy into the system.

Piracy today operates in the ether -- the Internet -- in
microspace -- at the level of DNA, such as the Monsanto patent --
and soon will operate at the other end of the size spectrum, in
outer space.

One reason the Internet has been so productive is that governments
couldn't figure out how to regulate it until pirates were sailing
the waters: just as governments were unable, for centuries, to
figure out how to regulate the open sea, or capitalism.

Durand and Vergne do not idolize pirates.  Pirate organizations
are unstable and short-lasting.  Pirates cannot claim rights to
property, since their business model is based upon challenging
rights to property.

The most interesting aspect of the professors' short book --
actually, all of it is interesting -- is their insistence upon
treating piracy as an organization.

Pirates introduced labor reforms that forced governments to copy
them: popular election of leaders, rejection of leadership
inheritance through bloodline, admission of women to the workforce
and to leadership, even social insurance: some pirate groups gave
workers who lost an arm in the assault triple spoils.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Get 27.5% Fee Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that
lawyers who won a $200 million settlement from Motorola Solutions
deserve 27.5% in fees because the securities class action was
risky, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
ruled.

The crux of the suit was that Motorola had allegedly concealed its
inability in 2006 to produce a competitive mobile phone that could
employ 3G protocols.  Motorola's stock declined when the problem
became public.

Four years into the case, a federal judge in Chicago denied
Motorola's motion for summary judgment and the parties then
settled for $200 million.

"None of the class members contends that this is inadequate -- but
two contend that the judge abused her discretion by approving
counsel's proposal that they receive 27.5% of the fund," Chief
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for a three-judge panel of the 7th
Circuit.

The court nixed the first objector, Paul Liles, for missing the
deadline and never actually claiming a penny from the settlement.
Edward Falkner meanwhile objected on the grounds that the award
was fixed at the end of the litigation, when fee schedules should
be set at the beginning, preferably by an auction in which the
judge picks the low bidder among the law firms competing to
represent the class.

While the 7th Circuit agreed that attorneys' fees in class actions
should approximate the market rate between willing buyers and
willing sellers of legal services, it also found that "solvent
litigants do not select their own lawyers by holding auctions,
because auctions do not work well unless a standard unit of
quality can be defined and its delivery verified.  There is no
'standard quality' of legal services, and verification is
difficult if not impossible."

Circuit precedent does note the desirability of establishing fee
structures at the beginning of lawsuits, but that does not mean
that they are the only lawful way to compensate class counsel in
common-fund cases, according to the ruling.

"It is unfortunate that the district judge originally assigned to
this case did not consider the possibility of establishing a fee
schedule when he appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the
party's choice of counsel," Judge Easterbrook wrote.  "By the time
that judge died, and the case had been reassigned to the judge who
awarded the fees, it was not possible to recreate the conditions
that existed at the case's outset.  Too much legal time had been
sunk into litigation, and it would have been counterproductive to
invite other law firms to make other offers and, if selected,
start over."

The ruling also notes data about attorneys' fees in other class
action settlements.  An empirical study found that the mean award
from settlements that range from $100 to $250 million is 12%, and
the median is 10.2%.  Courts usually award counsel a declining
percentage as the size of the settlement fund increases.

Though "an award fixed at 27.5% of a $200 million fund is
exceptionally high," that does not make the award legally
excessive, the nine-page opinion states.

Judge Easterbrook highlighted one expert's conclusion that "this
suit was unusually risky.  Defendants prevail outright in many
securities suits.  This one took more than four years, and more
than $5 million in out-of-pocket expenses by counsel to conduct
discovery and engage experts, before reaching the summary-judgment
stage."

Indeed, Motorola had been primed to prevail on its summary
judgment motion until class counsel uncovered some unanticipated
facts during discovery.  Motorola was only willing to settle for a
substantial sum after its motion was denied.

In addition, no other law firm wanted to take on the case in the
beginning.

"Lack of competition not only implies a higher fee but also
suggests that most members of the securities bar saw this
litigation as too risky for their practices," Judge Easterbrook
wrote.  "The district judge did not abuse her discretion in
concluding that the risks of this suit justified a substantial
award, even though compensation in most other suits has been
lower."

Investors would certainly reap more from the settlement if the
court reined in the fees, but Judge Easterbrook highlighted the
lack of protest from the pension funds, university endowments and
other large institutional investors that hold claim to more than
70% of the settlement fund.

"The difference between 27.5% of $200 million and a smaller award
(say, one averaging 20%) could be a tidy sum for institutional
investors (including this suit's lead plaintiff, a pension fund),
one worth a complaint to the district judge if the lawyers' cut
seems too high," he wrote.  "Yet none of the institutional
investors has protested -- either by filing a motion asking the
judge to reduce the fees or by supporting Falkner's position in
this court.  This award may be at the outer limit of
reasonableness, but, given the way the subject was litigated in
the district court, deferential appellate review means that the
decision must stand."


NATURAL BALANCE: Faces Class Action Over False Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Natural Balance and
Nutraceutical International Corp. sell "Cobra Sexual Energy" pills
with false claims, two men claim in a federal class action.


NESTLE SA: Class Must Amend Claims in Misleading Advertising Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class must amend claims
that Nestle misleads consumers about the nutritional value of its
chocolate and other products, including Buitoni, Dreyer's, and
Lean and Hot Pockets, a federal judge ruled.

A copy of the Order Granting-in-Part Motion to Dismiss and Motion
to Strike in Trazo, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
02272 (N.D. Calif.) (Grewal, Mag.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/14/nestle.pdf


NIKE CORP: Faces Class Action Over FuelBand Bracelet
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nike claims its FuelBand
bracelet "tracks each step and calorie burned," though Nike knows
that "the product does no such thing," a class action claims in
Federal Court.


NTD APPAREL: Recalls Short Sleeve Superman Onesie Bodysuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 14, 2013
Posting date:             August 14, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34955

Affected products: Short Sleeve Superman Onesie Bodysuit

The recall involves the short sleeve Superman Onesie Bodysuit,
style number DA3147ST115, with the following UPC:

Bodysuits affected by this recall:

   Size       UPC
   ----       ---
   0-3M       68439334732
   3-6M       68439334733
   6-12M      68439334734
   12-18M     68439334735
   18-24M     68439334736

The recalled bodysuits do not meet the requirements under Canadian
law related to small parts on a product for young children less
than three years of age.

It was determined by laboratory testing that a part of the decal
may peel and separate from the bodysuit, creating a rigid small
part that can be swallowed by young children, posing a choking
hazard to those children.

Small objects in a child's environment present choking, ingestion
and inhalation hazards.  Clothing used by a child less than three
years of age should not have small or separable hard components,
or small parts that detach during reasonable foreseeable use of
the garment.

Walmart Canada has received one reported incident without injury.

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

Approximately 6,183 units of the recalled bodysuits were sold by
Walmart Canada.

The recalled bodysuits were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold
from March 25th, 2013 to June 15th, 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Shadin Garments (PVT) Ltd
                    Konabari, Gazipur
                    Bangladesh

   Distributor      NTD Apparel Inc.
                    Montreal
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should take the recalled bodysuits away from children
immediately.  To coordinate a refund, consumers should contact NTD
Apparel Inc. by telephone at 1-514-341-8330, extension 244, or via
email.


ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Orthofix International shares
dropped from $27.40 to $22.71 on July 30 after directors propped
up the price with false and misleading statements, shareholders
claim in a federal class action.


PH BEAUTY: Sued Over Bogus Claims About "Stem Cell" Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that PH Beauty Labs dba Freeman
Beauty Labs make bogus claims for their so-called "Stem Cell" skin
care products, a class action claims in Federal Court in
California.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls Dry Pet Food Over Salmonella Presence
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) has voluntarily recalled
specific lots of dry pet food because they have the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella.  These lots were distributed in
the United States and represent roughly one-tenth of one percent
(0.1%) of annual production.  No Salmonella-related illnesses have
been reported to date in association with these product lots.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

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

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.  Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

This issue is limited to the specific dry pet food.  This affects
roughly one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of total annual
production.  The affected product was distributed to select
retailers across the United States.  These products were made
during a 10 day window at a single manufacturing site. P&G's
routine testing determined that some products made during this
timeframe have the potential for Salmonella contamination.  As a
precautionary measure, P&G is recalling the potentially impacted
products made during this timeframe.  No other dry dog food, dry
cat food, dog or cat canned wet food, biscuits/treats or
supplements are affected by this announcement.

P&G is retrieving these products as a precautionary measure.
Consumers who purchased a product listed below should stop using
the product and discard it and contact P&G toll-free at 800-208-
0172 (Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST), or via website at
http://www.iams.comor http://www.eukanuba.com Media Contact:
Jason Taylor 513-622-1111.


RIVER TECHNOLOGY: Suit by Former Zeus Shareholders Still Active
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riverbed Technology, Inc. continues to be involved in a suit filed
by the former shareholders of Zeus in the Superior Court of the
State of California, according to Riverbed's Aug. 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In October 2012 the company served the representative of the Zeus
Technology, Ltd. shareholders, as lead defendant and proposed
defendant class representative for all other similarly situated
former shareholders of Zeus, with a lawsuit, filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, for declaratory relief.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment that, among other things,
(a) Riverbed is not in breach of the share purchase agreement, and
(b) Riverbed does not owe any acquisition-related contingent
consideration under the share purchase agreement because the
necessary conditions precedent to the payment of acquisition-
related contingent consideration did not occur.

In November 2012, the representative of the Zeus shareholders
filed a cross-complaint against Riverbed and Riverbed Technology
Limited in the Superior Court of the State of California.  The
cross-complaint claims breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks declaratory
judgment that Riverbed has breached the share purchase agreement
and that the entire $27.0 million in contingent consideration is
payable to Zeus shareholders.

The company believes that the contention of the representative of
the Zeus shareholders is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend the company's determination.


SENTRY SERVICES: Former Employees Sue Over Stock Option Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sentry Services, Mayrich
Construction Group et al. refused to pay from, provide an
accounting or even admit the existence of a multimillion-dollar
employee stock option plan, former employees claim in a federal
class action in New York.


TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over Banzai's Deceptive Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Target sells Banzai brand
water slides and pools in deceptive packaging that make them
appear larger than they are, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


TIME WARNER: Faces Suit From Customers for Dropping Showtime & CBS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Time Warner
Cable faces a class action from customers who are angry at its
dropping of Showtime and CBS from its lineup, as part of the
corporations' bitter dispute over fees.

Lead plaintiff James Armstrong sued Time Warner Cable breach of
contract, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment and
unconscionability, in Superior Court.

Time Warner and Showtime owner CBS are fighting over how much Time
Warner should pay to rebroadcast CBS network shows.

Time Warner pulled the plug on CBS on Aug. 2, leaving 3.5 million
customers without its programming.

Though Time Warner dropped Showtime, The Movie Channel, and Los
Angeles station KCAL, Armstrong says the cable giant has not given
customers credit for shortchanging them on channels.

Time Warner, in no mood to cave to what it calls CBS's "outrageous
demands," has offered customers Starz and Encore instead.

That does not sit well with Armstrong, who says he subscribed to
those channels before the blackout.  He complains that the offer
is not "fungible" to Showtime, home to the acclaimed shows
"Dexter" and "Homeland."

"Prior to the dispute with CBS, defendant utilized Showtime as a
significant incentive to induce customer subscriptions of general
cable services through advertisement and marketing materials.
Defendant also utilizes CBS's news content and sports content,
including CBS's local affiliate, as a significant inducement to
cause general consumers to subscribe to its basic services,"
Armstrong says in the 21-page lawsuit.

Time Warner knew a contract dispute was brewing when it reeled in
new customers last year by offering three months of Showtime for
free, Armstrong says.

He claims he would not have subscribed to Time Warner if he knew
it was going to drop the channel.

"No actual notice of the blackout, or impending dispute that might
cause a blackout, was received by plaintiffs so they were in
effect, forced to pay for services," the complaint states.

Time Warner does not mention in its ads that it dropped
Showtime/CBS from its lineup, Armstrong says.

Showtime claims it offered to let Time Warner keep airing the
premium cable channel during negotiations, and "even if an
agreement could not be achieved."

"Time Warner Cable declined this offer," Showtime said in a
statement.

"We take pride in the fact that our networks have never gone dark
and that our subscribers have never been deprived of their
programming," according to the Showtime statement.  "Time Warner
Cable, on the other hand, has taken nearly 50 channels off the air
in the last five years in disputes like the one we are having
right now."

In a statement posted on its own website, Time Warner Cable said:
"CBS is making outrageous demands for the right to continue
carrying their channels.  We are holding the line against
broadcasters who continue to make their stations available free
over-the-air and online while they demand more from cable
customers without delivering any additional value."

Armstrong seeks restitution and costs of suit.

He is represented by:

         Daniel Weintraub, Esq.
         WEINTRAUB & SELTH, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
         11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1170
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Tel: 310-584-7702
              866-572-2423 (Toll Free)
         Fax: 310-442-0660


TOURO UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Hiding of Tuition Fee Cost
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Touro University Nevada does
not reveal the cost of tuition, as required by Nevada law, a class
action claims in Clark County Court.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Dismissal of ENP Unitholder's Lawsuit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of In re: Encore
Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6347-VCP,
according to Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC's Aug. 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, a purported unitholder of
ENP, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court
of Chancery on behalf of the unitholders of ENP. Another purported
unitholder of ENP, William Allen, filed a similar action in the
same court on April 14, 2011.

The Bushansky and Allen actions have been consolidated under the
caption In re: Encore Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 6347-VCP (the "Delaware State Court Action"). On December
28, 2011, those plaintiffs jointly filed their second amended
consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants ENP,
Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy
Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin G. White, and
Vanguard.

That putative class action complaint alleged, among other things,
that defendants breached the partnership agreement by recommending
a transaction that was not fair and reasonable.

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages. Vanguard filed a motion to
dismiss this lawsuit. On August 31, 2012, the Chancery Court
entered an order granting Vanguard's motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim and dismissing the Delaware
State Court Action with prejudice. On September 27, 2012, Mr.
Allen filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of his lawsuit. On
July 22, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal
of the lawsuit.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Amend Claims in Meltdown Product Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class must amend claims
that Vital Pharmaceuticals dba VPX Sports misleads consumers about
the effectiveness of its Meltdown Fat Incinerator, a federal judge
ruled in Florida.

A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint in Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., d/b/a
VPX Sports, Case No. 13-cv-60768 (S.D. Fla.) (Cohn, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/16/Meltdown.pdf


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Calif. Super. Junks "Marcano" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda entered a
judgment dismissing the securities class action entitled Marcano
v. Nye, et al., Case No. RG12621290 with prejudice, according to
ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

On March 13, 2012, an alleged purchaser of the Company's publicly
traded common stock, Ivan Marcano, filed a securities class action
in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, entitled
Marcano v. Nye, et al., Case No. RG12621290.  The complaint
alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements or
omitted to state facts necessary to make the disclosures not
misleading in its Form S-1, and the amendments thereto, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.

The claims were asserted under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. On March 15, 2012, April 3, 2012, and May
24, 2012, three additional and substantially similar lawsuits were
filed in the same court, some adding the Company's underwriters as
defendants. All four cases were consolidated and a consolidated
complaint was deemed operative.

On August 24, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to the
consolidated complaint.  Subsequently, Plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the Company's outside directors and its underwriters from
the litigation without prejudice. On November 9, 2012, the court
sustained the Company's demurrer with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14, 2013,
again asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933. The second amended complaint sought compensatory
damages and equitable relief on behalf of the class for an amount
to be proven at trial. On February 25, 2013, the Company filed a
demurrer to the second amended complaint. On May 17, 2013, the
Court issued an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to
amend and ordering the action dismissed. On June 7, 2013, the
Court entered a judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have agreed to waive their right to appeal the
judgment.


                             *********

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  * * *