CAR_Public/130821.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 165

                             Headlines


21 CENTURY: Recalls Haechandle Soybean Paste (Jaeresic)
3M CORP: Recalls SafeLight Safety Harness 10910
AL NAKHIL: Recalls Tahina Products Over Salmonella Presence
APPLE INC: Littler Responds to Class Action; More Plaintiffs Added
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Certifies Class in FDCPA Violation Suit

BAYER AG: 200+ Women Mull Contraceptive Pill Class Action
BUURMA FARMS: Recalls Cilantro Due to Possible Contamination
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lac-Megantic Victims' Lawyers to File Suit
CASH STORE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
CLERICS OF SAINT VIATOR: Judge Rejects Bid to Delay Class Action

CONTRA COSTA, CA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Farrow" Action
ELITE INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Margaritaville Dressing
ERNST & YOUNG: Sheppard Mullin Discusses 2nd Cir. FLSA Decisions
FANNIE MAE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Chevrolet Cruze 2011 & 2012 Models

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Inflated "Average Wholesale Price" Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in Blood Reagent Antitrust Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing Set in Suit Over McNeil Medicines
JUSTIN'S: Recalls Maple Almond & Chocolate Hazelnut Butter Jars

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
MEREDITH CORP: Bid for Equitable Tolling in Greenstein Suit Denied
MOLYCORP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Police Warns About Class Action Scam

TIME WARNER: Dismissal of Set-Top Cable Antitrust Suit Appealed
TIME WARNER: Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit
TIME WARNER: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Fink" Suit
TIME WARNER: Still Faces Suits Over High-Speed Data Modem Fee
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Still Faces Suits Over Pricing of Safety Products

UNITED STATES: Court Enters Judgment of Dismissal in "Oster" Suit
UNITED STATES: Judgment of Dismissal Entered in "Dominguez" Suit
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
VICTORIA: Abalone Class Action Trial Scheduled for Next Month
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: ScottScott Files Securities Class Action

WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Sour Cherry and Blueberry Crostatas
WONDERBERRY NA: Recalls Spartak Aerated Chocolate Bar
WPX ENERGY: Expects 2013 Hearing in Colo. Royalty Owners' Suit
WPX ENERGY: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Royalty Payments
ZYNGA INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

* Canadian Regulator Initiates Recall of Shellfish Products


                             *********


21 CENTURY: Recalls Haechandle Soybean Paste (Jaeresic)
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 14, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           21 Century Trading Inc.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/ Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8225

Affected products: Haechandle Soybean Paste (Jaeresic), 14 kg.
with all codes where mustard and wheat are not declared in the
list of ingredients


3M CORP: Recalls SafeLight Safety Harness 10910
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 16, 2013
Posting date:             August 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Miscellaneous
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35015

Affected products: 3M SafeLight Safety Harness 10910

The affected product is a full body safety harness.  The harness
has yellow and black 4.5 centimetre (1 3/4 inch) webbing with pass
through mating connector buckles at the leg and chest straps.
There is a black and white laminated product label with 3M brand
mark and manufacturer information.

Internal testing by 3M has indicated that the product did not meet
the independent harness strength test as required in the Canadian
Standards Association standard, which may pose a fall hazard to
the user.

Neither Health Canada nor 3M has received any reports of incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this safety
harness.

An unknown number of the safety harnesses were sold into Canada.

The recalled safety harnesses were manufactured in the United
States of America and sold from May 2012 to July 2013.

Companies:

   Distributor     3M
                   Maplewood
                   Minnesota
                   United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled harness immediately and
contact their 3M distributor or 3M for verification and
replacement of product.

For more information, consumers can contact 3M Technical Service
Support directly: Ray Mann by telephone at 1-704-743-2406 or by
email, or Michael Cameron by telephone at 1-704-743-2405 or by
email.


AL NAKHIL: Recalls Tahina Products Over Salmonella Presence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Al Nakhil Co
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products

   Brand name     Common name       Size        Code(s) on product
   ----------     -----------       ----        ------------------
   Clic      Sesame Paste Tahina   all sizes        LOT#1350/12 to
                                                      LOT#1466/12;
                                                    LOT#1101/13 to
                                                       LOT#1212/13

Al Nakhil    Sesame Paste Tahina   all sizes           LOT#1350/12
                                                   to LOT#1466/12;
                                                    LOT#1101/13 to
                                                       LOT#1212/13

Al Koura     Tahina Extra          all sizes        LOT#1350/12 to
                                                      LOT#1466/12;
                                                    LOT#1101/13 to
                                                       LOT#1212/13

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public,
food service establishments, and retailers, not to consume, serve,
use, or sell the tahina products because they may be contaminated
with Salmonella.

Some of the affected product was sold in bulk and may have been
repacked at retail.  Consumers who cannot determine the original
product identity are advised to check with their retailer to
determine if they have one of the affected products.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/EP49kv

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

The CFIA is working with the Canadian importers to remove all
affected products from the market place.  The CFIA is monitoring
the effectiveness of the recall.

All Tahina products, manufactured by Al Nakhil Co, of Lebanon
between September 5, 2012 and April 21, 2013, are affected by this
alert. At this time, the following products have been identified:


APPLE INC: Littler Responds to Class Action; More Plaintiffs Added
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Allen, writing for Forbes, reports that seven additional
plaintiffs have joined a lawsuit against Apple Inc. alleging
retail store employees have not been paid overtime for security
bag checks as they went off-duty over the last several years.

Meanwhile, a San Jose (Calif.) law firm has filed a routine answer
to the lawsuit, denying all the plaintiffs' allegations of labor
law violations.  A pair of former Apple retail store employees
filed the lawsuit last month saying they were owed up to $1,500 in
annual overtime, waiting each workday to have a manager check
their personal bags for pilfered store merchandise.  The security
procedure is routine in the retail industry, but the former
employees say it was mandatory and performed after they had
clocked out for meal breaks and at the end of their work day.  In
the answer to the lawsuit complaint filed August 16 in U.S.
District Court, attorneys from the law firm Littler Mendelson P.C.
responded to each paragraph of the original lawsuit.  As is
standard for such documents, the attorneys acknowledged certain
basic facts -- the number of Apple retail stores and employees,
for example.  But for the specific allegations, the attorneys
generally responded, "Apple denies each and every allegation."

Apple's answer denied that the company, "has engaged and continues
to engage in illegal and improper wage practices that have
deprived Apple Hourly Employees throughout the United States of
millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation."  The
plaintiffs claim they were forced to wait from five to 10 minutes
in a line of other store employees for bag checks when they left
on their breaks, and again when they finished their shift.

Apple admitted that it has a security bag check policy, but that
only "some employees" were subject to "personal package and bag
searches."  The company denied the allegations that a large number
of employees leave for lunch at one time, creating long waiting
lines for bag checks.

Apple claimed it didn't willfully fail to pay any wages.  Rather,
any labor code violations were, "an act or omission made in good
faith, and Apple had reasonable grounds for believing that their
wage payment practices complied with existing laws and that any
act or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code or any Order
of the Industrial Welfare Commission."

Even so, some of the plaintiff's claims that they are due overtime
may be barred by the statue of limitations, Apple's attorneys
wrote.  Generally civil law limits claims beyond three or four
years in California, and six years in New York state, where the
employees worked.

As for calculating any overtime liability, Apple's attorneys
stated the company is, "entitled to the exclusion of all time
spent on preliminary or postliminary activities excludable from
hours worked," under federal and state laws.  For example, the
federal Portal Act provides wage guidance for "walking, riding, or
traveling to and from the actual place of (work) performance," and
might be applicable in this lawsuit.

The attorneys also claimed that some or all of the hours worked by
the plaintiffs were so-called "de minimis," defined as a few
minutes or seconds of undefined time.  Further, if the plaintiffs
are entitled to any additional compensation, Apple said, the
amount, "must be offset by the amount of any compensation and/or
other monies Plaintiffs and/or putative class members received
from Apple in excess of the compensation to which they were
legally entitled to for the work performed."

Apple's answer provided some additional details about the two
original plaintiffs.  The company admitted that Amanda Frlekin was
a Specialist at the Century City (S. Calif.) retail store from
September 2010 until April 2013.  But the company denied that she
was employed on a full-time basis, and that she was employed by
the company in August 2010.  She was paid from $11.50 to $15.67
per hour, the company admitted.

Original plaintiff Dean Pelle was a Specialist at the Lennox Mall
(Atlanta) Apple retail store, the company stated.  He worked there
from 2007 to 2008, and then moved to the "Wellington Store in
Florida" (officially Wellington Green) from 2008 to 2009.  He last
worked at the West 14th Street (NYC) store from 2009 until
March 2013, the company said.

"Apple denies that Mr. Pelle was employed as a full-time
Specialist throughout his employment," but the company did say he
was last paid $18.50 per hour.

Apple's attorneys presented several defenses against the
plaintiffs' attempt to have the class certified to include all
affected Apple retail employees.

According to court filings, the seven additional plaintiffs are:
Debra J. Speicher, Elliot A. Beltzer, Aaron Gregoroff, Melody
Idakaar, Brandon Fisher, Adam L. Kilker and Seth E. Dowling.  The
filings do not indicate at which Apple retail stores they worked
or when.

A copy of the complaint answer filed by Apple's attorneys is
available at http://is.gd/LqwHy1

Apple Inc. is represented by:

          Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: 619-232-0441
          E-mail: jdunne@littler.com

               - and -

          Todd K. Boyer, Esq.
          Karin M. Cogbill, Esq.
          Nicolas T. Kelsey, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113-2303
          Telephone: 408-998-4150
          E-mail: tboyer@littler.com
                  kcogbill@littler.com
                  nkelsey@littler.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Certifies Class in FDCPA Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne O. Battani issued an opinion and order
granting plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification,
granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and denying
defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned
DAVID-JOHN MCDONALD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC,
Defendant, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-13080, (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act through its practice of retroactively
imposing post charge-off interest on consumer debts it purchased
from various financial institutions.  The Plaintiffs have sought
certification of a class consisting of:

All individuals from whom Asset Acceptance LLC attempted to
collect a credit card debt, who had interest added by Asset
Acceptance LLC to the claimed amount of the alleged debt, that
had not been added by the alleged owner of the debt prior to
purchase by Asset Acceptance LLC, at any time between July 15,
2010 and August 4, 2011.

A copy of the District Court's August 7, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/o3qLtYfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Ryan Guimond and Catherine Petrilli represented by:

   Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
   Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
   Thomas E. Soule, Esq.
   EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER, & GOODWIN, LLC
   120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
   Chicago, IL 60603

        - and -

   Adam G. Taub, Esq.
   ADAM TAUB ASSOC CONSUMER LAW GROUP
   17200 West Ten Mile Road, Suite 200
   Southfield, MI 48075-8200

Asset Acceptance, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron L. Vorce --
avorce@dykema.com -- Robert M. Horwitz -- rhorwitz@dykema.com -- &
Theodore W. Seitz -- tseitz@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett PLLC.


BAYER AG: 200+ Women Mull Contraceptive Pill Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Carroll, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
more than 200 women who claim they have suffered severe side
effects from the contraceptives pills Yaz and Yasmin have
contacted a law firm investigating a potential class action
against pill maker Bayer.

Sixty women in NSW and 63 women in Victoria -- plus others
throughout Australia -- have approached Adelaide firm Tindall Gask
Bentley, reporting blood clots, strokes and heart attacks after
taking them.

In 2011, the British Medical Journal published two studies
reporting that women who use newer combined contraceptive pills --
such as Yasmin, which contain both estrogen and a progestogen
hormone -- were twice as likely to develop life-threatening blood
clots than those taking pills developed earlier which use an older
hormone called levonorgestrel.

But doctors say side effects associated with combination pills
have been known for years, and the risks are very low.

"Any woman who goes on the pill has an increased risk of blood
clots, that is not new," said Gino Pecoraro, a spokesman for the
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists.  He said that combination birth control pills have
surged in popularity and as a result may have been prescribed to
women who are not suited to them.

"Some people have genetic predispositions to clotting and the risk
increases if you are on the pill," he said.

Yasmin was launched in Australia in 2002 and its sister drug, Yaz,
in 2008.

Since then, both pills have been best-sellers for Bayer, with an
estimated 200,000 women in Australia being prescribed the drugs
each year.  But the debate over the safety of the pills has
soared, with women in the United States filing lawsuits against
the drug company over claims the pills cause adverse effects.

Bree Jones, a 20-year-old triathlete from Cronulla, claims taking
Yaz led to the formation of blood clots in her lungs.

"I started having health problems a year after I started taking
it," says Ms. Jones.  "I was breathless at training and my chest
was cramping."

She had blood tests, was examined for autoimmune diseases and
anaemia.  The results came back clear.

In February this year she had a scan that found blood clots
scattered through her lungs.  "Tests showed I wasn't prone to
clotting and the only explanation they could give me was because I
was on Yaz," she says.

A Bayer spokeswoman said that "all medicines, including
contraceptives, carry benefits and risks.  The small risk of clots
with combined oral contraceptive pills is well recognized.  This
is clearly outlined in the product information."

A lawyer at Tindall Gask Bentley, Tim White, said further
investigation into individual cases and consultations with medical
experts were needed before beginning the action.

The likelihood of an adverse reaction for taking the pill was
minimal, said Dr. Pecoraro.


BUURMA FARMS: Recalls Cilantro Due to Possible Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Buurma Farms, Inc. is voluntarily recalling 465 boxes of Cilantro
Lot #02D312A4.  Buurma Farms recalled this product due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although
healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Buurma Farms, Inc. has not received any case of reported illness
related to this product to date.

The Cilantro was sold to distributors in Michigan on August 3,
2013.  The product was also shipped to retail stores in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.  The Cilantro, which was distributed
through Meijer and Ben B Schwartz and Sons in Michigan the week of
August 5-9, could be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
The Cilantro has a Buurma Farms twist-tie on it.

Product affected by the recall is:

Cilantro, fresh, UPC #4889, Lot #02D312A4, GTIN: 0 33383 80104 9
Product is sold in ~4 oz. bunches with a Product of USA Buurma
Farms #4889 labeled twist tie.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm365423.htm

Consumers who may have purchased this product should return or
dispose of the product.

Buurma Farms Inc. became aware of this issue after the Michigan
Department of Agriculture conducted a routine test on a sample
obtained at Ben B Schwartz and found that sample contained the
bacteria.  The recall does not affect any other Buurma Farms
produce products.

Upon learning of the potential contamination, Buurma Farms quickly
alerted the retailer and wholesaler and requested they remove the
produce from their shelves.  The source of the contamination is
still under investigation.  To date Buurma Farms has not been able
to find any other evidence of contamination within their supply
chain.  Buurma Farms, Inc. is fully co-operating with the FDA in
its investigation.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lac-Megantic Victims' Lawyers to File Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that lawyers representing victims of the rail
disaster in Lac-Megantic are now going after Canadian Pacific
Railway.

In legal documents filed late on Aug. 15, lawyers involved in the
class-action suits allege CP bears some of the responsibility for
the deadly derailment.

Jeff Orenstein, one of the lawyers representing survivors of the
disaster, said CP turned a blind eye to the shortcomings of the
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway when it subcontracted the
transportation of highly explosive material to the smaller
carrier.

"They were also aware, or should have been aware, of MM&A's poor
safety record, as well as their inadequate insurance coverage,"
Mr. Orenstein said.

The court documents state that CP permitted a dangerous situation
to exist, and with reasonable effort it could have prevented or
limited the scope of the deadly derailment.

By adding CP to the list of potential targets, class action
lawyers are seeking to increase the amount of a potential
settlement, for while MM&A is bankrupt and underinsured, CP has
deep pockets.

CP has declined to comment on the latest salvo against it.
CP rejects Quebec government order

On Aug. 15, the railway said it has no financial duty for the
Lac-Megantic rail disaster, rejecting a Quebec government demand
that it help pay for the cleanup.

Quebec Environment Minister Yves-Francois Blanchet says citizens
are going to judge these companies that refuse a government order
to help pay for the cleanup.  Quebec Environment Minister Yves-
Francois Blanchet says citizens are going to judge these companies
that refuse a government order to help pay for the cleanup.

On Aug. 14, Quebec added CP to a list of defendants that it says
are financially responsible for a cleanup estimated at C$200
million, according to bankruptcy documents filed by MM&A earlier
this month.

Environment Minister Yves-Francois Blanchet reacted quickly,
saying a minister does not ask for, or suggest, compensation, "he
orders it."

"I'm not surprised," Mr. Blanchet said of CP's response, in an
interview on Radio-Canada on Aug. 16.  "I'm disappointed.  But it
was expected."

"I said from the start, did all those companies involved, all
those responsible, step forward to say, 'We're going to fix this.
We're going to make sure things are cleaned up?'"

Mr. Blanchet said CP's dismissal of the province's demand is a
"bad public relations move."

"Citizens are going to judge these companies," he said.


CASH STORE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
------------------------------------------------------
On June 27, 2013, ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class
action complaint against Cash Store Financial Services, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The complaint, which seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, was filed on behalf of those persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Cash Store securities
CSFS between November 24, 2010 and May 13, 2013, inclusive.

Investors who purchased Cash Store stock during the Class Period
and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action must
move the Court no later than August 26, 2013.  Members of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members in the lawsuit.  If you wish to view
the complaint, discuss the Cash Store litigation, or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
ScottScott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860)
537-5537) or visit the ScottScott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

Cash Store is a pay-day lender based in Alberta, Canada.  The
Company primarily operates in Canada, where it maintains 579
branches under the banners "Cash Store Financial" and
"Instaloans."  During the Class Period, Cash Store was traded on
the NYSE under the ticker symbol "CSFS."

The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class
Period, Cash Store made a series of false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial condition that
caused the Company's shares to trade at an artificially high
price.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cash Store made a number
of false and misleading statements in its quarterly and annual
financial statements in which it overvalued a major loan portfolio
it had acquired.  Additionally, the Company understated its
liabilities associated with a class action settlement.

On December 10, 2012, the Company revealed that it needed to
restate its financial statements and that it had inappropriately
accounted for the acquisition of a large loan portfolio in
violation of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP").  Specifically, the Company determined that a 36.8
million premium should have been recorded as an expense.  The
Company further stated that it was going to restate the fair value
of the loans acquired to 50 million from which the Company had
paid 116.3 million and that its provision for loan losses for the
three month periods ending March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 was
understated by 3.3 million and 3.7 million, respectively.
Significantly, the Company admitted that material weaknesses
existed as to the Company's internal controls and that such
weaknesses led to the restatement.

On February 13, 2013, Cash Store announced that it would again
have to restate financial statements because the previous annual
and interim financial statements improperly calculated the losses
accrued due to a lawsuit settlement.  Although every financial
statement filed with the SEC estimated liability relating to the
lawsuit to be approximately 18 million, in reality, the losses
were 23.3 million -- or approximately 25% higher than previously
reported.  The Company admitted that its previous financial
reports should not be relied upon and that material weaknesses in
internal controls for accounting existed during all periods dating
back to 2010.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, Cash
Store stock plummeted approximately 71.25%, from its Class Period
high of 17.10 per share to 3.83 per share at the close of the
Class Period, resulting in millions of dollars of losses to class
members.

ScottScott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

CONTACT: Michael Burnett, Esq.
         ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
                 mburnett@scott-scott.com


CLERICS OF SAINT VIATOR: Judge Rejects Bid to Delay Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Valiante, writing for QMI Agency, reports that a Quebec
judge rejected a motion to delay a multi-million-dollar class-
action lawsuit against a religious order accused of sexually
abusing deaf and mute children.

The Clerics of Saint Viator wanted the judge to force the members
of the class-action to prove -- before the trial started -- that
they were legally allowed to sue.

Lawyer Pierre Boivin -- piboivin@mccarthy.ca -- who represents the
alleged victims, said Canadian law gives victims a three-year
window after a crime was committed in order to come forward.

However, in sexual abuse cases, jurisprudence allows victims a
larger window, due to the trauma associated with molestation,
Mr. Boivin said.

Mr. Boivin said that if the clerics got their way, members of the
class-action would have had to prove that victims were abused
significantly enough to be granted a larger prescribed time.

"It would have been extremely traumatizing to the victims," he
told QMI Agency.

The judge agreed and in her Aug. 8 ruling, rejected the clerics'
motion. The trial should begin next year, Mr. Boivin said.

Members of the Clerics of Saint Viator are accused of molesting
hundreds of their students at a school for the deaf and mute in
north Montreal between 1940 and 1982.

Court documents allege the clerics were vicious sexual predators
against children who had difficulty communicating due to their
disabilities.

The class-action currently represents 75 people, however,
Mr. Boivin said that the number is the "tip of the iceberg."

Lawyers are demanding C$100,000 for each victim.

None of the accusations have been proven in court and QMI was
unable to reach the Saint Viator Clerics for comment.


CONTRA COSTA, CA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Farrow" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted a motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint in JOHN FARROW, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROBIN LIPETZKY, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-06495-JCS, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs John Farrow and Jerome Wade brought this putative class
action against Defendant Robin Lipetzky, in her official capacity
as the Contra Costa County Public Defender.  The Plaintiffs allege
causes of action (1) under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for (a)
violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution; and (b) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution; (2) under the Bane Act for
violation of their statutory speedy trial rights; and (3) for
violation of California Government Code Section 27706.  The
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant violated their rights by
failing to provide counsel at the Plaintiffs' initial appearance
on criminal charges -- resulting in a continuance of the
proceedings for appointment of counsel.  This case focuses on the
constitutionality of that continuance: "may the Public Defender
not provide counsel for appointment at an initial appearance,
where the result is a continuance of the remainder of the
arraignment 7 to 13 days for appointment of counsel?"

"This Order holds that, in the circumstances pleaded here, such a
procedure is constitutional," ruled Judge Spero.

"Defendants Motion to Dismiss the SAC is granted. Farrow's federal
claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to
exercise jurisdiction over Farrow's state law claims, which are
dismissed without prejudice and may not be reasserted in this
case. Wade will be given one more opportunity to amend his Section
1983/Sixth Amendment claim, as permitted in the body of this
Order, and to reassert the same state law claims found in the SAC.
Any amended complaint shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days
of this Order," he added.

A copy of the District Court's August 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/8dy60jfrom Leagle.com.

John Farrow, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Alan Martin --
chris@martindefenders.com -- at Martin Law Offices, Michael E.
Dietrick -- dietrick@pacbell.net -- at Law Offices of Michael
Dietrick & Michael Emery Dietrick, Attorney at Law.

Jerome Wade, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Alan Martin,
Martin Law Offices, Michael E. Dietrick, Law Offices of Michael
Dietrick & Michael Emery Dietrick, Attorney at Law.

Robin Lipetzky, Defendant, represented by D. Cameron Baker --
cameron.baker@cc.cccounty.us -- at County of Contra Costa.


ELITE INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Margaritaville Dressing
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Elite International Foods Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Elite International
Foods Inc. are warning people with allergies to mustard not to
consume the Margaritaville brand dressings.  The affected products
contain mustard which is not declared on the label.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/oThVKl

These products have been distributed across Canada.

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

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

The importer, Elite International Foods Inc., Calgary, Alberta, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


ERNST & YOUNG: Sheppard Mullin Discusses 2nd Cir. FLSA Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean J. Kirby, Esq., at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, reports
that over the past week, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit has issued two decisions in which it
affirmatively held that: (i) a plaintiff cannot use the "effective
vindication doctrine" to invalidate a class action waiver of
claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); and
(ii) the FLSA does not include a "contrary congressional command"
that would prohibit the enforcement of class action waivers. These
decisions are a step in the right direction for employers seeking
to enforce class action waivers of FLSA claims.

In the first matter, Southerland v. Ernst & Young LLP, Case No.
12-304 (August 9, 2013), the Second Circuit reversed a decision of
the Southern District of New York in which the Southern District,
relying on the "effective vindication doctrine," denied Ernst &
Young's motion to compel arbitration against a former employee on
the grounds that the parties' arbitration agreement could not be
enforced because it would not be financially feasible for the
plaintiff to proceed with individual arbitration.  In support of
its decision, the Southern District, in reliance on In re American
Express Merchants' Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009), held
that the parties' class action waiver was unenforceable under the
"effective vindication doctrine" because the class action wavier
would "effectively ban" all proceedings by Southerland against
Ernest & Young due to the low-value of her individual claim as
compared to the high cost of litigating the claim.

In reversing the Southern District, the Second Circuit held that
the United States Supreme Court's decision in American Express Co.
v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), precluded
the application of the "effective vindication doctrine" to
invalidate an arbitration agreement.  Specifically, the Second
Circuit found that a plaintiff cannot use the "effective
vindication doctrine" to invalidate a class action waiver because
"the fact it is not worth the expense involved in proving a
statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right
to pursue that remedy." Southerland, Case No. 12-304 at p. 12
(quoting Italian Colors, 133 S. Ct. at 2310-11).

In addition to the foregoing, the Second Circuit took its analysis
once step further and held that the FLSA "does not include a
'contrary congressional command' that prevents a class-action
waiver provision in an arbitration agreement from being enforced
by its terms." Southerland, Case No. 12-304 at p. 13.  In reaching
this conclusion, the Second Circuit found that a "contrary
congressional command" does not exist because: (i) even though the
FLSA does allow for the possibility of collective action
procedure, the text of the FLSA does not "envinc[e] an intention
to preclude a waiver' of class action procedure;" and (ii)
"Supreme Court precedent [such as AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) and Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane
Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991)] inexorably lead[s] to the conclusion
that the waiver of collective action claims is permissible in the
FLSA context." Southerland, Case No. 12-304 at pp. 9-11.  Finally,
in reaching this conclusion, the Second Circuit also expressly
declined to follow the National Labor Relations Board's contrary
holding in D.R. Horton, Inc., finding that it owed no deference to
the D.R. Horton opinion.

In the second matter, Raniere v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 11-5213
(Aug. 12, 2013), the Second Circuit reaffirmed its acceptance of
class waivers in FLSA cases.  In Raniere, the Second Circuit
reversed a decision of the Southern District in which the Southern
District held that the class action waiver provision in an
employment agreement was unenforceable, concluding that "a waiver
of the right to proceed collectively under the FLSA is
unenforceable as a matter of law." Raniere v. Citigroup Inc., 827
F. Supp. 2d 294, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).  The Southern District
further held that the "effective vindication doctrine" and the
Second Circuit's decision In re American Express Merchants'
Litigation, 634 F.3d 187, 196 (2d Cir. 2011), "require that if any
one potential class member meets the burden of proving that his
costs preclude him from effectively vindicating his statutory
rights in arbitration, the clause is unenforceable as to that
class or collective [action]." Raniere, 827 F. Supp. 2d at 317.

In reversing the Southern District, the Second Circuit, in
reliance on Southerland, held that the class action waiver was
enforceable because "no contrary congressional command requires us
to reject the waiver of class arbitration in the FLSA context."
Raniere, Case No. 11-5213 at p. 4 (quoting Southerland, Case No.
12-304 at p. 9).  The Second Circuit also held, for the same
reasons set forth in Southerland, that the Supreme Court's Italian
Colors decision prohibits a plaintiff from using the "effective
vindication doctrine" to invalidate a class action waiver of
claims brought under the FLSA. Raniere, Case No. 11-5213 at p. 5
(quoting Italian Colors, 133 S. Ct. at 2310-11).

In light of the Second Circuit's decisions in Southerland and
Raniere, employers should feel more confident that arbitration
agreements containing class action waivers of FLSA claims will
ultimately be deemed enforceable by courts in the Second Circuit.


FANNIE MAE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 16
disclosed that it has filed a class action in United States Court
of Federal Claims, docketed under 13-cv-00496-MMS, on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise held shares of Federal National Mortgage Association
("Fannie Mae") and/or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
("Freddie Mac") Junior Preferred Stock prior to, and as of
August 17, 2012 all dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against the Government of The United States of
America for just compensation for violation of the Fifth Amendment
of the U.S. constitution.  The Complaint alleges that the
Government, by imposing the Net Worth Sweep, took Plaintiff's and
Class' vested property rights without just compensation.

If you are a shareholder who purchased shares of Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac Junior Preferred securities during the Class Period,
please 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.

The Complaint alleges that in September of 2008, the Government
(acting through the FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into
conservatorship, putting it under the control of the FHFA, which
is an agency of the Government.

In connection with the conservatorships, the Government
(specifically, the U.S. Treasury) entered into substantially
identical Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with both Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac.  Under these Agreements, the Treasury acquired
from each company preferred stock that (i) is senior in priority
to all other series of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock
(all such other series of Fannie and Freddie preferred stock shall
be referred to as the "Junior Preferred Stock"), (ii) was given an
initial face value of $1 billion, but also provided that this face
value would be increased by any amount the Treasury invested in or
advanced to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, (iii) would receive
preferential liquidation rights (i.e., would receive face value,
as increased by any Treasury investments or advances, as a
liquidation preference prior to any monies going to the holders of
Junior Preferred Stock or Common Stock), and (iv) would earn an
annual dividend of 10% of the face value (as increased by any
Treasury investments or advances).  In addition, each of the
Agreements provided the Treasury with warrants that could be
exercised at any time to allow the Treasury to acquire 79.9% of
the Common Stock of Fannie and Freddie, respectively, for a
nominal price.

Between the start of the conservatorship in September 2008 through
the beginning of 2012, the Government advanced Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac more than $188 billion-most of which was advanced to
cover accounting losses reflecting excessive write-downs of assets
that have turned out to be worth far more than their written down
amounts.  These advances increased the face value of the Senior
Preferred Stock held by the Government to approximately $189
billion, entitling the Government to an annual dividend of
approximately $19 billion, which translates to a quarterly
dividend of just under $5 billion.

By 2012, the housing market was well on its way to recovery and
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had become profitable again, reporting
increasing profits through 2011 and 2012.  Indeed, by the second
quarter of 2012, Fannie and Freddie made a combined quarterly
profit of approximately $8.3 billion.  This was the first quarter
for which Fannie and Freddie reported a combined quarterly profit
that exceeded the just under $5 billion quarterly dividend payable
to the Treasury on its Senior Preferred Stock.  Thus, by no later
than the end of the second quarter of 2012, Fannie and Freddie
were generating sufficient profits to pay a dividend to the
holders of their Junior Preferred Stock (or to payout in a
liquidation distribution, in the event of any liquidation,
dissolution, or winding up of Fannie or Freddie).  However, on
August 17, 2012, the Government unilaterally amended the terms of
its Agreements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and mandated that,
beginning on January 1, 2013, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would
have to pay the Government dividends equal to their entire net
worth, leaving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with no funds to redeem
the Government's Senior Preferred Stock or to distribute to the
holders of Junior Preferred Stock, whether by dividend,
redemption, or in a liquidation.  The Government's August 2012
action appropriated the valuable contractual and property rights
owned by the holders of Junior Preferred Stock for no
consideration.

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.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Chevrolet Cruze 2011 & 2012 Models
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 15, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           44789
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013282
TC ID number:             2013282
Manufacturer recall
number:                   12213

On certain vehicles equipped with a 1.4L DOHC gasoline turbo
engine and a 6T40 automatic transmission, the electric vacuum pump
(which provides supplemental vacuum under certain operating
conditions) may not function as designed.  This could result in an
intermittent reduction or loss of brake power assist, requiring
greater brake pedal effort to slow or stop the vehicle.  This
could increase stopping distances, which may result in a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace a microswitch in the power brake vacuum pipe
assembly.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Inflated "Average Wholesale Price" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to face lawsuits alleging that the
pricing and marketing of certain of its pharmaceutical products
amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct, 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.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries
(the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, are defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and
federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and
marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to
fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other
things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average
Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue.

Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider
reimbursement levels. Many of these cases, both federal actions
and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private
persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of
the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities
that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.

In June 2007, after a trial on the merits, the MDL Court dismissed
the claims of two of the plaintiff classes against the J&J AWP
Defendants. In March 2011, the Court dismissed the claims of the
third class against the J&J AWP Defendants without prejudice.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in Blood Reagent Antitrust Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The petition for interlocutory review by Ortho-Clinical
Diagnostics, Inc. of a class certification ruling in In re Blood
Reagent Antitrust Litigation is pending, according to Johnson &
Johnson's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD)  had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing.

These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. In August 2012, the
District Court granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class
certification. In October 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit granted OCD's petition for interlocutory
review of the class certification ruling. That appeal is pending.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a securities lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson asked
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
for preliminary approval of a settlement reached in the case,
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 September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson
and certain individuals, including executive officers and
employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number
of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current good
manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the
Company's stock declined significantly.

Plaintiff sought to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 to recover his alleged economic losses. In December
2011, a motion by Johnson & Johnson to dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part. Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider part
of the December 2011 ruling.

In May 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. In September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint and Johnson & Johnson and the individual
defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
in part. Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case, and in July 2013, filed for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing Set in Suit Over McNeil Medicines
------------------------------------------------------------
An October 2013 class certification hearing is scheduled in a suit
over McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines that
were manufactured at Johnson & Johnson's Fort Washington facility,
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 September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).

The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and the present one or more
various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines
that were manufactured at the Fort Washington facility.

The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian
statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly
not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good
Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing is
scheduled for October 2013.

Johnson & Johnson or its subsidiaries are also parties to a number
of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as
Superfund, and comparable state, local or foreign laws in which
the primary relief sought is the cost of past and/or future
remediation.


JUSTIN'S: Recalls Maple Almond & Chocolate Hazelnut Butter Jars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin's has initiated a voluntary recall of certain lots of its
Maple Almond Butter 16oz jars and its Chocolate Hazelnut Butter
16oz jars due to the presence of foreign metallic fragments in
unpackaged nut butter.  While no metal has been found in any
individual jars, out of an abundance of caution, Justin's
initiated this voluntary recall.  There have been no consumer
complaints, illnesses or injuries reported to date.

Only the following products are affected:

   -- Maple Almond Butter 16oz Jar (Unit UPC 894455000322, Case
      UPC 894455002135) Lot Code 188 (Best By Date 07/07/14)
      Lot Code 190 (Best By Date 07/09/14), Lot Code 191 (Best By
      Date 07/10/14) and

   -- Chocolate Hazelnut Butter 16oz Jar (Unit UPC 894455000490,
      Case UPC 894455000612) Lot Code 191 (Best By Date 07/10/14)
      Lot Code 192 (Best By Date 07/11/14)

The "Best By" date can be located on the label of the jar between
the UPC bar code and the nutrition facts panel.  No other Justin's
products are involved in this recall.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm365414.htm

The products were distributed nationally to numerous retailers and
were available for purchase on the internet from 07/18/13 to
08/14/13.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Aug. 16 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
McDermott International, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the
period from November 6, 2012 through August 5, 2013.  The
complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

McDermott is an engineering, procurement, construction and
installation company focused on executing complex offshore oil and
gas projects worldwide.  McDermott operates in approximately 20
countries across the Atlantic, Middle East and Asia Pacific area.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the
Company was experiencing weaknesses in its project bidding and
execution; (b) the Company was engaging in poor risk evaluation;
(c) the Company had been experiencing poor project management; (d)
the Company was experiencing material losses in its Middle East,
Asia Pacific and Atlantic segments; and (e) based upon the above,
the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company during the Class Period.

On August 5, 2013, McDermott announced second quarter financial
and operating results for the quarter ending June 30, 2013.  In
its press release, the Company disclosed that it experienced a
substantial decrease in the Company's year-over-year financial
results which badly missed Wall Street consensus estimates.  The
Company attributed its poor performance to several significant
projects in the Middle East and Asia Pacific segment along with
underutilization of assets in the Company's Atlantic segment.  The
Company additionally disclosed that it was taking immediate action
to correct "weaknesses" in its "project bidding and execution" and
management was putting in place four initiatives in order to
create a "more disciplined culture within the Company" to deliver
adequate return on the Company's investors' capital.

In reaction to the disappointing news, McDermott's stock price
fell $1.80 per share or 20.6% from $8.73 per share on August 5,
2013 to $6.93 per share on August 6, 2013, on usually heavy
trading volume.  You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join
the class action at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased McDermott stock between November 6, 2012 and
August 5, 2013, you may contact Joe White --
jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- or Marc Grobler --
mgrobler@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased McDermott common stock during the Class Period of
November 6, 2012 through August 5, 2013, and wish to apply to be
the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court no later than October 15, 2013.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.

Contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Marc Grobler, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Tel: (561) 394-3399
         Fax: (561) 394-3382
         E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                 mgrobler@saxenawhite.com
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 13 CV 5748, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Meadowbrook between July 30, 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 Meadowbrook securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 14, 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.

Meadowbrook was founded in 1955 as Meadowbrook Insurance Agency
and was subsequently incorporated in Michigan in 1965.
Meadowbrook is a holding company organized as a Michigan
corporation in 1985.  The Company's executive offices are located
at 26255 American Drive, Southfield, Michigan 48034.  The Company
purports to be a specialty niche focused commercial insurance
underwriter and insurance administration services.

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's financial stability was severely impaired; (2) the
Company's reported goodwill was materially inflated; (3) the
Company's capital position was not strong enough to support its
ongoing insurance operations in a sustainable fashion; (4) the
Company was in breach of its financial covenants applicable to its
credit facilities; (5) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls, including controls over outstanding claims,
asset impairment charges and maintenance of an appropriate capital
position; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On October 19, 2012, A.M. Best Company announced that it had put
the financial strength rating and issuer credit rating of
Meadowbrook's Insurance Company Subsidiaries, the Company's main
operating subsidiary, under review with negative implications.  On
this news, the Company's shares fell $1.61 per share or over 20%
to close on October 19, 2012 at $6.18 per share.

Then, on August 2, 2013, A.M. Best Company downgraded the
Company's financial strength rating from "A-" (Excellent) to "B++"
(Good) with a "stable" outlook.  Following such downgrade, the
Company promptly undertook an analysis to quantify asset
impairment charges arising from such downgrade.  On this news,
Meadowbrook securities declined $0.80 per share or over 10%, to
close at $6.74 per share on August 5, 2013.

On August 9, 2013, Meadowbrook announced that it was unable,
without unreasonable effort or expense, to file its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2013 within the
prescribed time period.  On this news, Meadowbrook securities
declined a further $0.19 per share or over 2%, to close at $6.60
per share on August 12, 2013.

Finally, on August 14, 2013, the Company announced that it would
take a non-cash impairment of goodwill of $115.4 million in the
three months ended June 30, 2013.  The impairment wiped out nearly
all of the Company's goodwill on its balance sheet, and caused the
Company to violate "financial covenants" applicable to the certain
credit facilities.  On this news the Company's shares fell $0.20
per share to $6.36 per share on August 15, 2013, a decline of
3.05%.

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, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms

CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


MEREDITH CORP: Bid for Equitable Tolling in Greenstein Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Rogers issued a memorandum and order
denying plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling in the case
captioned MELISSA GREENSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MEREDITH CORPORATION,
Defendant, NO. 11-2399-RDR, (D. Kan.).

This is a FLSA action alleging that the Defendant treated
producers who worked at its television stations as exempt from
requirements to pay overtime when they were not exempt.  On April
23, 2013, the Court granted a motion for conditional class
certification and directed that notice be sent to producers in the
relevant class informing them about this litigation. The motion to
conditionally certify the class was filed on June 8, 2012, and
briefing on the motion was completed on July 19, 2012.

The Plaintiffs asked the court to hold that the statute of
limitations will be tolled for the period of time from when
Plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional class certification
until the court issued the conditional certification order --
approximately an eleven-month span.

However, the court concluded that equitable tolling is not
justified.

A copy of the District Court's August 6, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/mNkXXwfrom Leagle.com.

Melissa Greenstein, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks --
dirks@williamsdirks.com -- at Williams Dirks, LLC & Michael A.
Hodgson -- mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com -- at The Hodgson Law Firm,
LLC.

Melissa Greenstein, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. Williams
-- mwilliams@williamsdirks.com -- at Williams Dirks, LLC.

Kellee Divine, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. Hodgson, The
Hodgson Law Firm, LLC & Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Daniel J. English, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. Hodgson,
The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC & Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks,
LLC.

John Gilmore, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. Williams,
Williams Dirks, LLC.

Jerad J. Pettus, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. Williams,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Eric L. Dirks, Williams Dirks, LLC & Michael
A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC.

Melissa Dethlefsen, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Blake Clancy, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Kristy Haffner, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Ann Marie Somma, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Aurora Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Robert Dlugos, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Ryan Ewing, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Timothy Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Amanda Harley, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Nicole Marsh, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Kelsey Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Erich Demerath, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Corinne B. Jasso, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Meredith Zaritheny, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Kelly D. Hicks Gerding, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Elizabeth Osborne, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Matthew A. Parriott, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Sean Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Sean Hitchcock, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Albert Callaway, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Naima Pettigrew, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Mary Katherine Rooker, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Michael Bushnell, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Ian Dodge, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Stephanie Glenn, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Mark S. Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Robert Kachelriess, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC
& Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Tiffany Sawyer, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Leah V. Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Scott Fersht, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Amanda Palumbo, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks, Williams
Dirks, LLC, Michael A. Hodgson, The Hodgson Law Firm, LLC &
Michael A. Williams, Williams Dirks, LLC.

Meredith Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bernard J. Rhodes
-- brhodes@lathropgage.com -- at Lathrop & Gage LLP - KC, Brian N.
Woolley -- bwoolley@lathropgage.com -- at Lathrop & Gage, LLP - KC
& Bridget B. Romero -- bromero@lathropgage.com -- at Lathrop &
Gage, LLP.


MOLYCORP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 14
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Molycorp, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 13 CIV 5697, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Molycorp between August 2, 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 Molycorp securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 14, 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.

Molycorp produces and sells rare earth and metal materials in the
United States and internationally.  The Company's Resources
segment extracts rare earth minerals, including rare earth
concentrates; rare earth oxides (REO), such as lanthanum, cerium,
neodymium, praseodymium, and yttrium; heavy rare earth
concentrates, which include samarium, europium, gadolinium,
terbium, dysprosium, and others; and SorbX, a line of proprietary
rare earth-based water treatment products.  This segment's
products are used in oil refinery catalyst, glass polishing,
automotive, water purification, and energy efficiency lighting
applications.

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's reported inventory was materially understated; (2)
the Company overstated its income tax benefit in the first quarter
of 2013 by approximately $6.5 million; (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, on August 6, 2013,
the Audit and Ethics Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors, based upon a recommendation from management, determined
that its unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for
the three months ended March 31, 2013 should no longer be relied
upon because they contained an error with respect to the
reconciliation of its physical inventory to the general ledger,
which resulted in a cumulative overstatement of costs of sales and
understatement of current inventory of approximately $16.0
million.  This error also caused the income tax benefit in the
first quarter of 2013 to be overstated by approximately $6.5
million, the disclosure of the consolidated assessment of normal
production levels to be understated by approximately $17.4
million, and the consolidated total write-down of inventory to be
overstated by $18.0 million.

On this news, shares fell $0.71, approximately 9.72%, to close of
$6.69 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.


PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Police Warns About Class Action Scam
---------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Bray, writing for The Salem News, reports that police are
warning residents to be cautious of anyone who calls regarding a
class-action suit against Publishers Clearing House.

An 89 year-old Salem resident recently received fraudulent calls
from men who impersonated FBI agents and an officer from the Salem
Police Department, claiming she was owed $600,000 from a class-
action suit against Publishers Clearing House.

Salem Police issued an alert on Aug. 14 cautioning residents
against the scam.

"Citizens should be suspicious of any contact they did not
initiate on their own concerning money or any items of value,"
police wrote in a press release on Aug. 14.  "Please be aware of
this fraudulent activity as the suspect(s) may try the scam from a
different number or change tactics."

On Aug. 13, the callers asked the Salem resident to send $1,400 to
the Bank of Mexico via Western Union to claim her $600,000
settlement.  The woman became suspicious and asked the caller to
send the information to the Salem Police Department to be
reviewed, police said.

A short time later, the woman received a call from a male using
the true name of a Salem police officer who told her he had
reviewed the information and verified it was legitimate, police
said.  However, the phone number on the resident's caller ID was
not the Salem Police Department.

Any suspicious calls should be reported to the Salem Police
Department at 978-744-1212.


TIME WARNER: Dismissal of Set-Top Cable Antitrust Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust
Litigation are appealing the dismissal of the complaint to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to Time
Warner Cable 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 Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television
Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the U.S. These actions are
subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring
the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converter boxes.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on
April 8, 2011. On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company said it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment in the
suit Michelle Downs and Laurie Jarrett, et al. v. Insight
Communications Company, L.P., according to Time'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 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that
Insight Communications Company, L.P. ("Insight") violated Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable
television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes,
which is similar to the federal claim against the Company in In
re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices. On July 19, 2013, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment, which argued that Insight did not coerce the
plaintiffs to lease a set-top converter box, a necessary element
of the plaintiffs' claim. The Company intends to defend against
this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of
this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Fink" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint in
Jessica Fink, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., according to Time
Warner'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 7, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable Inc. filed an amended complaint in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging that the Company uses a throttling technique which
intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-speed data
service.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On December 23, 2011, the
district court granted with prejudice the Company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint, terminating the
action.

On May 6, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
complaint. The time to seek review of this decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court has not yet expired. The Company intends to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible
loss.


TIME WARNER: Still Faces Suits Over High-Speed Data Modem Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. continues to face three purported class
action lawsuits alleging breach of contract and violation of
various state consumer protection statutes in connection with the
Company's high-speed data modem fee, according to Time Warner's
Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On November 30, 2012, the plaintiffs in Fred W. Elmore v. Time
Warner Cable Inc. filed a complaint in a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
alleging that the Company breached its contract with customers and
violated South Carolina state consumer protection statutes by
charging a fee for the provision of a high-speed data modem.

On February 4, 2013, the plaintiffs in Mark Cox v. Time Warner
Cable Inc. filed an amended complaint in a purported class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
alleging that the Company breached its contract with customers
whose high-speed data service is provided as part of a promotional
package by charging a fee for the provision of a high-speed data
modem.

On February 26, 2013, the plaintiffs in Lorraine Damato, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc. filed a complaint in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging that the Company breached its contract with
customers and violated New York, New Jersey and California state
consumer protection statutes by charging a fee for the provision
of a high-speed data modem.

In each case, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to prevent the
Company from charging a fee for the provision of a high-speed data
modem. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Still Faces Suits Over Pricing of Safety Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. continues to face lawsuits filed on
behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors and dealers alleging that
the Company and certain of its competitors conspired to fix and
raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products in the U.S.,
according to the company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 28, 2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant in purported class
action lawsuits filed on various dates from June 2012 through
January 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan and the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario,
Canada on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors and dealers
alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired
to fix and raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products in
the U.S.

The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously. Management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these cases will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements as a whole.


UNITED STATES: Court Enters Judgment of Dismissal in "Oster" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia A. Wilken dismissed with prejudice the case
captioned DAVID OSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILL LIGHTBOURNE,
Director of the California Department of Social Services; TOBY
DOUGLAS, Director of the California Department of Health Care
Services; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES; and
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendants, CASE NO. CV
09-04668 CW, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Wilken held that the judgment of dismissal is entered
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement resolving the
action, which obtained the Court's final approval on May 23, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's August 7, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/AMVwvBfrom Leagle.com.

MELINDA BIRD -- melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org -- (SBN
102236) MARILYN HOLLE -- marilyn.holle@disabilityrightsca.org --
(SBN 61530) DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles, CA,
Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs and the Class Additional Attorneys
for Named Plaintiffs and the

STEPHEN P. BERZON, (SBN 46540) EVE H. CERVANTEZ --
ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- (SBN 164709) STACEY M. LEYTON,
(SBN 203827) PEDER J. THOREEN, (SBN 217081) RACHEL J. ZWILLINGER
-- rzwillinger@altshulerberzon.com -- (SBN 268684) Altshuler
Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SEIU-UHW, SEIU-ULTCW, SEIU Local 521, SEIU California State
Council, UDW, and CUHW

SUJATHA JAGADEESH BRANCH -- sujatha.branch@disabilityrightsca.org
-- (SBN 166259) DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO REGIONAL
OFFICE, Sacramento, CA, DARA L. SCHUR --
dara.schur@disabilityrightsca.org -- (SBN 98638) ELISSA GERSHON --
elissa.gershon@disabilityrightsca.org -- (SBN 169741) DISABILITY
RIGHTS CALIFORNIA BAY AREA REGIONAL OFFICE, Oakland, CA, PAULA
PEARLMAN -- paula.pearlman@lls.edu -- (SBN 109038) DISABILITY
RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER, Los Angeles, CA, CHARLES WOLFINGER --
Cw@charleswolfinger.com -- (SBN 63467) LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES
WOFLINGER, San Diego, CA, JANE PERKINS -- perkins@healthlaw.org --
(SBN 104784) NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, Carrboro, NC, ABIGAIL K.
COURSOLLE -- coursolle@healthlaw.org -- (SBN 266646) NATIONAL
HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, Los Angeles, CA, ANNA RICH, (SBN 230195) at
NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZEN LAW CENTER, 1330 Broadway, Suite 525,
Oakland, CA 94612, Attorneys for Individual Named Plaintiffs David
Oster, Willie Beatrice Sheppard, C.R., Dottie Jones, Andrea
Hylton, Helen Polly Stern, Charles Thurman, L.C., and the
Plaintiff Class.

KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of California, SUSAN M. CARSON,
Supervising Deputy Attorney General, GREGORY D. BROWN, (SBN
219209) NIMROD ELIAS, (SBN 251634) Deputy Attorneys General,
California Dept. of Justice San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for
Defendants.


UNITED STATES: Judgment of Dismissal Entered in "Dominguez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia A. Wilken entered a judgment of dismissal
in DOMINGUEZ v. BROWN.

Judge Wilken held that the case is dismissed with prejudice as to
state defendants Will Lightbourne and Toby Douglas.

The judgment of dismissal is entered pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement resolving the case, which gained the Court's
final approval on May 23, 2013.

The case is LYDIA DOMINGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G.
BROWN, Jr., et al, Defendants, CASE NO. C 09-02306 CW, ((N.D.
Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/wZ7Smcfrom Leagle.com.

Stacey M. Leyton, STEPHEN P. BERZON -- sberzon@altshulerberzon.com
-- SCOTT A. KRONLAND -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- STACEY M.
LEYTON -- sleyton@altshulerberzon.com -- PEDER J. THOREEN --
pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com -- at Altshuler Berzon LLP, Attorneys
for Plaintiffs.

Susan M. Carson, KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California,
SUSAN M. CARSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General, JENNIFER A.
BUNSHOFT, Deputy Attorney General, Attorneys for State Defendants.


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 16
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Vanda
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Columbia, and docketed under 13-cv-00955-RC, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Vanda between December 18, 2012
and June 18, 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 Vanda securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 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.

Vanda is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of products for the treatment of central
nervous system disorders.  The Company's product portfolio
includes tasimelteon, a compound for the treatment of circadian
rhythm sleep disorders (CRSD), which is currently in clinical
development for "Non-24," Fanapt, a compound for the treatment of
schizophrenia, the oral formulation of which is currently being
marketed and sold in the U.S. by Novartis Pharma AG (Novartis),
and VLY-686, a small molecule neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R)
antagonist.

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 results of the clinical
trial for tasimelteon.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company was forced to unilaterally change the primary endpoint in
the middle of the Phase III studies as it was already in
possession of data suggesting that the original primary endpoint
was not going to be met; (2) the Company eliminated nighttime
total sleep as the primary endpoint in its studies as there was no
discernible difference in efficacy and safety in nighttime total
sleep between those patients deemed to have Non-24 and those
patients with a normal circadian rhythm; (3) the replacement
primary endpoint installed to assess tasimelteon's efficacy and
safety was created post facto by the Company and has never been
used before in sleep-drug clinical trials, nor was it endorsed by
the FDA; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On June 19, 2013, The Street published an article raising doubts
about the quality and efficacy of Vanda's clinical trial procedure
and test data.  Among other issues, the article noted multiple
changes in the primary endpoint over the course of the trials,
including a change just one month before study results were
published to a new primary endpoint that has allegedly never been
used before in sleep-drug clinical trials, nor was it endorsed by
the FDA.  The article also states that Vanda was forced to cut
patient enrollment in the clinical trials in half because an
insufficient number of totally blind patients with Non-24 could
not be identified, and that ultimately less than 5% of the
patients enrolled in the trials suffered from Non-24 according to
the "textbook definition" of the disease.  On this news, Vanda
shares declined $2.41 per share or more than 22%, to close at
$8.51 per share on June 19, 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, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms


VICTORIA: Abalone Class Action Trial Scheduled for Next Month
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Lynch, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
an AUD82 million class action is seeking compensation after the
wipeout of one-third of Australia's abalone industry following the
Victorian government's alleged failure to control an outbreak of a
herpes-like virus.

Maurice Blackburn is acting on behalf of 10 license-holders who
controlled 32% of Australia's abalone exports.  Those exports
generated AUD70 million annually.

A trial is scheduled to begin in the Victorian Supreme Court next
month.

The once lucrative industry was ravaged in early 2006, when the
disease spread from an aquaculture farm in south-west Victoria
into the ocean.
Advertisement

At the time, Victorian Premier Denis Napthine accused the then
Labor government of "absolute failure" to control the outbreak.

Maurice Blackburn principal Jacob Varghese --
jvarghese@mauriceblackburn.com.au and
sbryce@mauriceblackburn.com.au -- said the owner of the farm,
Southern Ocean Mariculture, reported the outbreak to the
Department of Primary Industries, but the DPI failed to shut down
the farm, allowing it to continue to pump contaminated water into
the ocean.

Infected wild abalone were found soon after on a reef near Port
Fairy, he said.

Over the next few years the virus, which has a death rate of at
least 90%, spread from the South Australian border to Cape Otway.

Mr. Varghese said life savings had been lost, with commercial
licenses plunging in value from AUD6 million to less than
AUD1 million since 2006.

He said the virus-affected area, called the western zone,
accounted for about 32% of Australia's abalone exports before the
outbreak.  Most of those exports went to Asia, where abalone is
considered a luxury food.

"Before the virus they were talking 220 tonnes [a year] out of the
western zone.  That has dropped to about 16 tonnes, so it's a huge
drop," Mr. Varghese said.

"There are a couple of license-holders who have liquidated, while
others have retired.  Then there are others who are just holding
on, hoping things improve."

But it could take decades for the western zone to fully recover
from the virus.

This is something Dr. Napthine, whose electorate covers the bulk
of the virus-affected area, acknowledged in parliamentary speeches
in 2007 and 2008.

"The time lag to recover from this disease could be five, 10 or 15
years.  This is absolutely devastating," said Dr. Napthine, a
former veterinarian.

"I have described it previously as 'the foot-and-mouth of the sea'
or 'the foot-and-mouth of the abalone industry'.

"If we had foot-and-mouth in our livestock in Victoria, we would
have a massive response by all states and territories -- all
resources would be put into dealing with that disease -- yet
little or nothing has been done in this instance."

In another speech, he said: "The abalone virus is costing our
abalone industry hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars, and it
threatens the very future of our major fishery, which is one of
the few remaining wild-catch abalone industries in the world."

Dr. Napthine declined to comment to Fairfax Media because the case
was now before the courts.

Maurice Blackburn is representing 10 of the 14 license-holders in
the western zone in the action against the state government and
Southern Ocean Mariculture.

Mr. Varghese estimated that each license-holder had lost about
$2.3 million, in addition to the devaluation of their licenses.
He said further proceedings could potentially deal with abalone
divers and processors, and license-holders, in the central zone,
which stretches from Warrnambool to Wilsons Promontory.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: ScottScott Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2013, ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class
action complaint against Vocera Communications Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint, which seeks remedies under the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, was filed on behalf of
those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Vocera securities VCRA: (i) between March 28, 2012 and May 3,
2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (ii) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on March 28, 2012.

Investors who purchased Vocera common stock during the Class
Period or in the Company's IPO and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in the class action must move the Court no later than
September 30, 2013.  Members of the investor class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain absent class members in the
lawsuit.  If you wish to view the complaint, discuss the Vocera
litigation, or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact ScottScott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com --
(800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the ScottScott website
for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

Vocera is a provider of mobile communication products and services
based in San Jose, California.  The Company offers software
applications, hands-free wearable voice-controlled communication
badges, smartphones, and other wireless devices to hospitals and
to other enterprises where workers are highly mobile.

The securities class action charges that, in the Company's
offering materials and throughout the Class Period, Vocera made a
series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
financial condition that caused the Company's shares to trade at
an artificially inflated price.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Vocera failed to disclose
the severity of the negative impact that healthcare reform and
federal budget sequestration were having on sales of the Company's
communication products to hospitals.

On May 2, 2013, after the markets closed, Vocera shocked the
investing public when it announced financial results for the first
quarter 2013 that were significantly worse than expected.  The
Company reported revenue of 22.4 million, and non-GAAP earnings
per share of 0.07, far below analysts' expectations and previously
released guidance.  The Company also sharply reduced its
previously stated revenue guidance for full-year 2013, from
between 120 million and 130 million, to between just 100 million
and 110 million.  Furthermore, the Company reduced its guidance
for non-GAAP earnings per share from a profit of 0.33 to 0.51 to a
loss of 0.06 and a profit of 0.18.

The complaint alleges that, in reaction to Vocera's May 2, 2013
announcement and earnings call, the price of Vocera common stock
plummeted over 37% -- closing at an all-time low of 12.15 per
share on May 3, 2013, resulting in millions of dollars of losses
to class members.

ScottScott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

CONTACT: Michael Burnett, Esq.
         ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
                 mburnett@scott-scott.com


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Sour Cherry and Blueberry Crostatas
--------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market's Northern California region is recalling its
sour cherry and blueberry crostatas due to use of an egg wash that
was undeclared on the product label.  People who have allergies to
eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they
consume this product.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm365313.htm

The products were sold to the following 38 Whole Foods Market
stores in the company's Northern California/Reno region ONLY:

   -- Berkeley, Blithedale (Mill Valley), Blossom Hill (San Jose),
      Campbell, Capitola, Coddingtown (Santa Rosa), Davis, Folsom,
      Franklin (San Francisco), Fresno, Harrison (Oakland),
      Lafayette, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mill Valley, Monterey, Napa
      Noe Valley, Novato, Ocean (San Francisco), Palo Alto,
      Petaluma, Potrero Hill (San Francisco), Redwood City, Reno,
      Roseville, Sacramento, San Mateo, San Rafael, San Ramon,
      Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, South of Market (San
      Francisco), Sonoma, Haight (Stanyan/San Francisco), Stevens
      Creek (Cupertino), and Walnut Creek

The products came in single-item packs in clear, plastic clamshell
containers or cardboard boxes.  They were sold with Whole Foods
Market labels, specifically "Sour Cherry Crostata," UPC:
21673000000" and "Blueberry Crostata," UPC: 0216733009993.  The
recall includes products packaged prior to August 10, 2013 and
displaying sell by dates prior to August 14, 2013.

One allergic reaction has been reported.  Consumers who have
purchased "Sour Cherry Crostata" and/or "Blueberry Crostata" may
return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact their local store for more
information.


WONDERBERRY NA: Recalls Spartak Aerated Chocolate Bar
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Wonderberry North America
Distribution:             Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Wonderberry North
America are warning people with allergies to milk and hazelnuts
not to consume the chocolate bar.  The affected product contains
milk and hazelnuts which are not declared on the label.

Affected products: Spartak (in Russian characters only) Aerated
Chocolate Bar Spartak with Cognac Flavor, 75 g.

This product is known to have been distributed in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec and may have been distributed in other
provinces as well.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/JGaG2W

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 milk or
hazelnut.

The importer, Wonderberry North America, Vaughan, ON, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


WPX ENERGY: Expects 2013 Hearing in Colo. Royalty Owners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. anticipates that a litigation on the second
reserved claim in a royalty litigation filed against it by royalty
interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado will proceed in 2013,
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 September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging the company improperly calculated oil
and gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received
from the sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly
charged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in
excess of ad valorem tax obligations.

Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners,
recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments
related to calculation errors.  The company entered into a final
partial settlement agreement. The partial settlement agreement
defined the class for certification, resolved claims relating to
past calculation of royalty and overriding royalty payments,
established certain rules to govern future royalty and overriding
royalty payments, resolved claims related to past withholding for
ad valorem tax payments, established a procedure for refunds of
any such excess withholding in the future, and reserved two claims
for court resolution.

The company prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal
on the first reserved claim regarding whether the company is
allowed to deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant
to certain lease agreements. The remaining claim is whether the
company is required to have proportionately increased the value of
natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission
lines and, if required, whether the company did so and are
entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs
in calculating royalty payments.

The company anticipates litigating the second reserved claim in
2013. Plaintiffs have claimed damages of approximately $20 million
plus interest. However, the company believes the company's royalty
calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the
appropriate contractual arrangements and Colorado law.


WPX ENERGY: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Royalty Payments
------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy Inc. continues to face several lawsuits in New Mexico
and Wyoming in relation to royalty payments, 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 October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against the company in
the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint alleges
failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate,
fraud and misstatement of the value of gas and affiliated sales,
breach of duty to market hydrocarbons, violation of the New Mexico
Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, bad faith breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and a declaratory judgment
enjoining activities relating to production, payments and future
reporting. This matter has been removed to the United States
District Court for New Mexico.

In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
the company in the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and
Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to
market both in Colorado and New Mexico, violation of the New
Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act and seek declaratory
judgment, accounting and injunction.

At this time, the company believes that the company's royalty
calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the
appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws. The
company does not have sufficient information to calculate an
estimated range of exposure related to these claims.

In February 2013, a potential class of royalty owners filed suit
in Campbell County District Court, Wyoming, alleging violations of
the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act by failing to properly and timely
pay and report royalty and overriding royalty.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, interest and penalties, and
declaratory and injunctive relief. The case has been removed to
Federal Court. At this time, the company does not have a
sufficient basis to calculate an estimated range of exposure
related to this claim.


ZYNGA INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The case In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
12-cv-04007-JSW continues to proceed as other purported securities
class actions are filed against the company, according to Zynga'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 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of the
company's current and former directors, officers, and executives.

Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26,
2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re
Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW.
On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel.

On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing false or misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities between December 16, 2011 and July 25,
2012.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages,
and an award of costs and expenses to the putative class,
including attorneys' fees. The defendants' motions to dismiss were
filed on May 31, 2013, and a hearing on the motions is scheduled
for August 30, 2013.

In addition, a purported securities class action captioned Reyes
v. Zynga Inc., et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San
Francisco County Superior Court. The action was removed to federal
court, and was later remanded to San Francisco County Superior
Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements
in connection with a March 28, 2012 secondary offering of Class A
common stock.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who acquired
the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the secondary
offering. On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a demurrer and
motion to stay the action, and a hearing on the demurrer and
motion is scheduled for August 2, 2013.

On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of the company's current
and former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint
alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the
Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements
and who were not permitted to sell shares in a March 28, 2012
secondary offering. The defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on May 10,
2013. On June 3, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for remand. On
June 17, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and
opposition to plaintiff's motion to remand. The court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on these motions.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the securities
class actions and will vigorously defend these actions.

Since August 3, 2012, eight stockholder derivative lawsuits have
been filed in State or Federal courts in California and Delaware
purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and
former directors and executive officers of the Company.

The derivative plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and violated California Corporations Code
section 25402 in connection with the company's initial public
offering in December 2011, secondary offering in April 2012, and
allegedly made false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial projections. Beginning on August
3, 2012, three of the actions were filed in San Francisco County
Superior Court.

On October 2, 2012, the court consolidated those three actions as
In re Zynga Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case CGC-12-
522934. On March 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint. On March 21, 2013, the court endorsed a stipulation
among the parties staying the action pending the ruling on the
motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action.

Beginning on August 16, 2012, four stockholder derivative actions
were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. On December 3, 2012, the court
consolidated these four actions as In re Zynga Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-CV-4327-JSW. On March 11, 2013, the
court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action
pending the ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal
securities class action.

A derivative action was also filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff in the District
of Delaware action voluntarily dismissed the action on November
19, 2012. The derivative actions include claims for, among other
things, unspecified damages in favor of the Company, certain
corporate actions to purportedly improve the Company's corporate
governance, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative
plaintiffs, including attorneys' fees. The company believes that
the plaintiffs in the derivative actions lack standing to pursue
litigation on behalf of Zynga.

To date, there has been no discovery or other substantive
proceedings in the actions described. Accordingly, the company is
not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on
the company's financial condition is probable or remote or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any.


* Canadian Regulator Initiates Recall of Shellfish Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           --
Distribution:             British Columbia, May be National,
                          Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

   Common name       Size     Code(s) on product   Additional info
   -----------       ----     ------------------   ---------------
Oyster N/Shell     5 dozen     14130                    Processor
Effingham XSM                              Albion Fisheries Ltd.,
                                                          Richmond

Oyster N/Shell     5 dozen     14130                    Processor
Pac Rim Petite                             Albion Fisheries Ltd.,
                                                          Richmond

Clam N/Shell        5 lb       14137                    Processor
Manila                                     Albion Fisheries Ltd.,
                                                          Richmond

Pacific Rim         Various    13081401                 Processor
Petite Oysters                              Pacific Rim Shellfish
                                     (2003) Corporation, Vancouver

Manila Clams        Various     13081403                Processor
                                             Pacific Rim Shellfish
                                     (2003) Corporation, Vancouver

Little Neck Clams   20 lb       13081402                Processor
                                             Pacific Rim Shellfish
                                     (2003) Corporation, Vancouver

Petite Oysters in    5 dozen      11931                 Processor
Shell                                   Clear Bay Fisheries Inc.,
                                                          Richmond

Oysters in Shell     5 dozen      11931                 Processor
                                         Clear Bay Fisheries Inc.,
                                                          Richmond

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to serve or consume the raw shellfish products because they
may contain paralytic shellfish toxins that can cause illness if
consumed.

These shellfish products were primarily distributed to wholesalers
and institutional clients such as restaurants.  However, the
affected shellfish products may also have been sold in smaller
quantities at some retail seafood counters.  Consumers who are
unsure whether they have the affected products are advised to
check with their retailer or supplier.

These products have been distributed in Alberta and British
Columbia.  However, they may have been distributed in other
provinces and territories.

There have been no reported cases of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
(PSP) associated with the consumption of these products.

Paralytic shellfish toxins are a group of natural toxins that
sometimes accumulate in bivalve shellfish that include oysters,
clams, scallops, mussels and cockles.  Non-bivalve shellfish, such
as whelks, can also accumulate PSP toxins.  These toxins can cause
PSP if consumed.  Symptoms of PSP include tingling and numbness of
the lips, tongue, hands and feet, and difficulty swallowing.  In
severe situations, this can proceed to difficulty walking, muscle
paralysis, respiratory paralysis and death in as quickly as 12
hours.

The shellfish processors are voluntarily recalling the affected
products from the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the
effectiveness of the recall.

Raw shellfish products, harvested on August 13, 2013 from sub area
23-6, Effingham Inlet and Useless Inlet in British Columbia, are
affected by this alert.


                             *********

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  * * *