CAR_Public/130826.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 26, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 168

                             Headlines


3M COMPANY: Suit Over Property Damage in Decatur, Ala. Stayed
3M COMPANY: Property Damage Suit by Ala. Residents Still on Hold
3M COMPANY: Morgan Case on Hold Pending Ruling in Another Suit
3M COMPANY: Awaits Final OK of Accord in Suit Over Ceradyne Deal
APPLE INC: Consumers File Class Action Over Privacy Violation

APPLE INC: Oct. 31 Class Cert Hearing Set in iDevices Suit
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seeks Dismissal of Probiotic Class Action
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Court Dismisses Claims v. Education Board Members
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Judge Grants Motion for Summary Judgment
CHESWICK GENERATING: District Court Ruling in "Bell" Suit Reversed

CITIGROUP INC: Court Approves $730MM Deal With Bondholders
DAIMLER AG: Can't Be Held Liable for Racial Discrimination
DIAMOND FOODS: Settles Private Securities Class Action
FLEMING & ASSOCIATES: Tex. App. Ct. Flips Summary Judgment Orders
FRONTIER COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls

GENUINE BAKERY: Recalls Bread Products Over Undeclared Milk
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Law Firms Lose Bid to Intervene in Class Action
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit Over Wireless Printer Malfunction
IEC ELECTRONICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
JACKSON, MI: Mulls Settlement of Stormwater Fee Refund Suit

KELLOGG CO: Wants Super Mario Fruit Snack Class Action Dismissed
KIOR INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
LOS ALTOS APARTMENTS: Class Cert. Denial in "Hendleman" Upheld
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Intends to Defend Class Action Vigorously
N.J. TELECOM PROVIDERS: Sued by Inmates for Overcharging Rates

NAT'L FOOTBALL: 10 Ex-Players Seek Payment Over Use of Images
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Hines" Class Action
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Director Can Proceed With Securities Suit
PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Endura & Ambient LED Light Bulbs
PIONEER ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Price Fixing in B.C.

STRONG FORCE: Recalls NeoCube Magnet Sets
TOWER GROUP: Faces Suit in New York Over Misleading Statements
TREX COMPANY: Settles Class Action Over Composite Products
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Fees Collected
VESTAS WIND: Faces EUR11-Mil. Shareholder Suit Over Losses

VITA HEALTH: Recalls Ester-C 500 mg. Chewable
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Mass. App. Ct. Affirms Ruling in "Salvas" Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Cantaloupe
WELLS FARGO: Magistrate Says Denial of Visa Renewals Not Biased


                             *********


3M COMPANY: Suit Over Property Damage in Decatur, Ala. Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, stayed a case filed
by residents and property owners in the vicinity of 3M Company's
Decatur plant for an unknown period due to the filing of a
bankruptcy petition by a co-defendant, 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.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama seeking unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis
that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the
state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant. In May 2013, the Court stayed the case for
an unknown period due to the filing of a bankruptcy petition by a
co-defendant.


3M COMPANY: Property Damage Suit by Ala. Residents Still on Hold
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, against
3M Company remains on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in an action filed in the same court in 2002,
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 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
(filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds)
granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively
putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the first action filed in the same court
in 2002.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until
the stay is lifted.


3M COMPANY: Morgan Case on Hold Pending Ruling in Another Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Morgan County Circuit Court abated a case originally filed by
a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, against 3M Company,
putting it on hold pending the resolution of class certification
issues in another environmental suit, 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 February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals.

The named defendants in the case include 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon
LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC
and Biological Processors of America. The named plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who
have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or
deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme
Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan
County.

In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters,
the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on
hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in
the first case filed there.


3M COMPANY: Awaits Final OK of Accord in Suit Over Ceradyne Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A decision regarding the final approval of a settlement reached in
a suit filed against 3M Company over its proposed acquisition of
Ceradyne, Inc. is expected soon, 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 2012, four plaintiffs filed purported class actions
against Ceradyne, Inc., its directors, 3M and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation (a direct wholly owned subsidiary of 3M) in connection
with 3M's proposed acquisition of Ceradyne. Two suits
were filed in California Superior Court for Orange County and two
were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court.

The suits alleged that the defendants breached and/or aided and
abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to Ceradyne by
seeking to sell Ceradyne through an allegedly unfair process and
for an unfair price and on unfair terms, and/or by allegedly
failing to make adequate disclosures to Ceradyne stockholders
regarding the acquisition of Ceradyne. 3M completed its
acquisition of Ceradyne in November 2012.

In November 2012, the parties reached a settlement with the
California plaintiffs for an amount that is not material to the
Company, while the Delaware plaintiffs dismissed their complaints
without prejudice. The settlement will bind all former Ceradyne
shareholders and has received preliminary approval from the
California court. A final approval hearing was held in July and a
decision is expected soon.


APPLE INC: Consumers File Class Action Over Privacy Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that Apple
continues to misrepresent the extent to which iPhones' unique
device identifiers are sent to third parties, according to a group
of consumers who are suing the company for allegedly violating
their privacy.

The consumers argue in new court papers that Apple's promise to
restrict third parties from accessing devices' 40-character unique
identifiers "has thus far been ineffective and leaves class
members personal information exposed."

The consumers make this argument in a motion asking U.S. District
Court Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California to
grant them class-action status in the case.  As a practical
matter, consumers often find it prohibitively expensive to hire
lawyers. But in class-action cases, attorneys who prevail often
are entitled to fee reimbursement.

The consumers in this case sued Apple in 2010, shortly after
reports surfaced alleging that developers were able to access
iPhone and iPad unique device identifiers -- 40-character strings
of letters and numbers.

Apple defines unique device identifiers (UDIDs) as non-personal
information.  But the consumers argue that the identifiers become
"personally identifiable information" when combined with other
supposedly anonymous information, such as Zip codes, occupation or
area code.

Shortly after it was sued, Apple promised to limit developers'
ability to access unique device identifiers.  More recently, the
company rolled out advertising identifiers, which function like
unique device identifiers, but differ in that they can be reset by
consumers.  But the consumers argue that older models of iPhones
and iPads continue to transmit unique identifiers.

"For the thousands of Apps which were previously approved and for
which no updates have been provided, the use of UDIDs continues
unabated and Apple's privacy policy protections are trampled,"
they consumers argue in their motion papers.  The papers refer to
confidential material, and the publicly available version contains
large swaths of blacked-out text, so it's not clear how many
legacy devices and apps allegedly continue to transmit the UDIDs.

The consumers also argue that Apple wrongly collected geolocation
data from some users who had turned off location services.  They
are suing Apple for allegedly violating California consumer
protection laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts.

This lawsuit isn't the only privacy case that Apple faces.  The
company also is defending itself in a separate action stemming
from reports that some app developers scooped up users' address
books.  In that matter, New Jersey resident Maria Pirozzi alleges
that Apple violated California consumer protection laws by
misrepresenting its app store policies, which said that all apps
"run in a safe environment" and are not capable of accessing data
from other apps.


APPLE INC: Oct. 31 Class Cert Hearing Set in iDevices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports a federal judge will hold a
hearing on Oct. 31, 2013, to decide class certification for Apple
consumers who claim that their iDevices collect, store and
distribute their personal information without consent.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     SCOTT A. KAMBER, Esq.
     DAVID A. STAMPLEY, Esq.
     KAMBERLAW, LLC
     100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: 212-920-3072
     Fax: 212-202-6364

     DEBORAH KRAVITZ, Esq.
     KAMBERLAW, LLC
     141 North St.
     Healdsburg, CA 95448
     Tel: 707-820-4247
     Fax: 212-202-6364

     Interim Class Counsel for Consolidated Plaintiffs

     WILLIAM M. AUDET
     JONAS P. MANN
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     221 Main Street, Suite 1460
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: 415-568-2555
     Fax: 415-568-2556
     E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
             jmann@audetlaw.com

     Liaison Counsel for Consolidated Plaintiffs

     ROBERT K. SHELQUIST
     KAREN H. RIEBEL
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Tel: 612-339-6900
     Fax: 612-339-0981
     E-mail: rshelquist@locklaw.com
             khriebel@locklaw.com

     LEIGH SMITH
     JOSHUA E. KELLER
     MILBERG LLP
     New York, NY 10119
     Tel: 212-594-5300
     Fax: 212-868-1229
     E-mail: lsmith@milberg.com
             jkeller@milberg.com

     JEREMY WILSON
     WILSON TROSCLAIR & LOVINS
     302 N. Market Street, Suite 501
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: 214-430-1930 Telephone
     E-mail: jeremy@wtlfirm.com

     Executive Committee for Consolidated Plaintiffs

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Second Notice of Motion and Motion for
Class Certification is available from Courthouse News Service at:
http://is.gd/Yx6HAR


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seeks Dismissal of Probiotic Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Bayer Healthcare LLC, in a filing on Aug. 20, asked a federal
judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against the company
over its probiotic products.

The plaintiffs' complaints allege that Bayer's packaging and
advertising materials for its Phillips' Colon Health probiotics
products are false and misleading. They argue that the ads are not
backed by scientific evidence.

Bayer, in its 14-page brief in support of its motion to dismiss,
said it wants Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey to toss the class action.

"Because plaintiffs have failed to plead their claims with
adequate factual support, much less with the level of specificity
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, their entire
complaints should be dismissed," wrote Lorna Dotro of New Jersey
law firm Coughlin Duffy LLP, who is representing Bayer in the
suit.  "Moreover, because claims for unjust enrichment are not
cognizable under New Jersey law, such claims should be dismissed
with prejudice.

Ms. Dotro may be reached at:

          Lorna A. Dotro, Esq.
          COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP
          P.O. Box 1917
          350 Mount Kemble Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 07962-1917
          Tel: (973) 631-6016
          Fax: (973) 267-6442
          E-mail: ldotro@coughlinduffy.com

"Finally, plaintiffs' failure to comply with the notice
requirement for their claim of breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability also requires dismissal with prejudice."

Plaintiffs Dino Rikos and Troy Yuncker filed lawsuits in May 2011
and June 2011, respectively.

Bayer moved to dismiss the cases pursuant to the first-to-file
rule because of a lawsuit that was then pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, Stanley v.
Bayer HealthCare LLC.  The court granted Bayer's motions.

After summary judgment was granted in Bayer's favor in Stanley,
the plaintiffs' cases were reinstated.

The court then consolidated the plaintiffs' cases for pre-trial
purposes.

In October 2012, Bayer moved to dismiss the two complaints, along
with a third consolidated case, Worthington v. Bayer HealthCare
LLC.  In March, Worthington was voluntarily dismissed.

Accordingly, the court requested that the parties re-file their
briefs pertaining to Bayer's motion to dismiss the remaining
complaints.

Mr. Yuncker seeks to certify a class of all persons in the United
States who purchased Phillips' Colon Health products, while
Mr. Rikos seeks to certify a class of all persons who purchased
Phillips' Colon Health until the date notice is disseminated.

The plaintiffs also seek to certify subclasses of persons who
bought the probiotic products in Illinois and California.  They
are seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Court Dismisses Claims v. Education Board Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MURRAY v. BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION is a Fair Labor Standards
Act case that is before the Alabama district court on the
Defendants' request for dismissal of all official-capacity claims
against board members Carol Clarke, Alana Edwards, Emmanuel Ford,
Brian Giattina, W.J. Maye, Jr., Virginia Volker, April Williams,
and Phyllis Wyne. The court also has before it Defendant Tyrone
Belcher, Sr.'s "Motion to Dismiss", adopting the original "Motion
to Dismiss" filed by the other members of the board.

District Judge Karon Owen Bowdre ruled that because official-
capacity claims against individual defendants are redundant of the
claims against the Board and, thus, unnecessary, both motions are
granted.  The claims against the defendants in their official
capacities are dismissed with prejudice.  Moreover, as Murray has
asserted no claims against them in their individual capacities,
Judge Bowdre dismissed the board members as party Defendants.

The case will proceed with the claims asserted against the
Birmingham Board of Education, says the Court.

The case is TOMMY MURRAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BIRMINGHAM BOARD
OF EDUCATION, TYRONE BELCHER, SR, VIRGINIA VOLKER, BRIAN GIATTINA,
CAROL CLARKE, EMMANUEL FORD, ALANA EDWARDS, APRIL WILLIAMS,
PHYLLIS WYNE, AND W.J. MAYE, JR., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13-CV-822-KOB, (N.D. Ala.)

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/jBH7OOfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Tommy Murray, Daryl Carr, Shirley Pritchett, Julia
Williams, Rhonda Smith, Clarence Batain, Andrea Scott, Linda
Mitchell, Andrea Stallings, Geraldine Parker, Anita Clark,
Andriana Henry, Rhonda Yancey, Bridgette Jackson, Teresa Phillips,
Valerie Thomas, Juanita Freeman, Michelle Dunner, Tammra Harris,
Wanda Holt are represented by:

    Jerome Tucker, Esq.
    1728 3rd Ave N Ste 500
    Birmingham, AL 35203-2036
    Tel: (205) 328-0055

Birmingham Board of Education, Defendant, represented by Mark S
Boardman -- mboardman@boardmancarr.com -- BOARDMAN CARR HUTCHESON
& BENNETT PC & Teresa B Petelos -- tpatelos@boardmancarr.com --
BOARDMAN CARR BENNETT WATKINS HILL & GAMBLE PC.


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Judge Grants Motion for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
federal judge has granted Chesapeake Appalachia's motion for
summary judgment in a lawsuit filed against it by a Hancock County
woman.

On Aug. 21, U.S. District Judge Frederick Stamp, of the Northern
District of West Virginia, ruled for the company in Vaunie Brown's
class action lawsuit.  Ms. Brown was challenging the company's
decision to exercise an option in her oil and gas lease that
allows the company to use her land for five more years.

Ms. Brown's original agreement was with Great Lakes Energy
Partners, which assigned the lease to Chesapeake Appalachia.
Because no drilling occurred during the lease's initial five-year
term, the defendant should not be able to renew or extend it, she
argued.

"(T)he plaintiff argues that, if the relevant sentence of
Paragraph 19 (of the lease agreement) grants the defendant a
unilateral right to extend the Lease under the same terms, it
violates the rule against perpetuities, as it would give
Chesapeake an unfettered ability to extend the lease in
perpetuity," Judge Stamp wrote.

"This argument fails as a matter of West Virginia law.  West
Virginia courts have consistently found that extension and renewal
clauses in leases, barring the inclusion of language 'so plain as
to admit no doubt of the purpose to provide for a perpetual
renewal,' grant the lessee a right to a single renewal or
extension."

Ms. Brown's lawsuit also sought damages for what she said was
tortious behavior on the part of Chesapeake Appalachia relating to
the lease.

In 2007, Ms. Brown entered into the oil and gas lease with Great
Lakes Energy Partners.  It had a primary term of five years and
contained a lease extension provision in Paragraph 19.

The provision stated: "Upon expiration of this lease and within
sixty days thereinafter, Lessor grants to Lessee an option to
extend or renew under similar terms a like lease."

In the five years after the agreement was reached, no drilling
took place on Ms. Brown's property.  Great Lakes assigned the
lease to Chesapeake Appalachia, too.

Thirteen days before the lease's expiration, Chesapeake Appalachia
filed a notice of extension and gave Brown a bonus payment of
$1,000.  Her lawsuit followed in Hancock Circuit Court, and the
defendant removed it to federal court.  She sought damages for
herself and others similarly situated.

Ms. Brown was represented by M. Eric Frankovitch --
eric@facslaw.com -- Michael G. Simon -- msimon@facslaw.com -- and
Kevin M. Pearl of Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon in
Weirton.


CHESWICK GENERATING: District Court Ruling in "Bell" Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed
a district court decision in KRISTIE BELL; JOAN LUPPE, Appellants,
v. CHESWICK GENERATING STATION, GENON POWER MIDWEST, L.P., NO.
12-4216, and remands the case for further proceedings.

The putative class is made up of at least 1,500 individuals who
own or inhabit residential property within one mile of GenOn's
Cheswick Generating Station, a 570-megawatt coal-fired electrical
generation facility in Springdale, Pennsylvania.  Complaining of
ash and contaminants settling on their property, the Class brought
suit against GenOn under several state law tort theories. GenOn
argued that because the Plant was subject to comprehensive
regulation under the Clean Air Act, it owed no extra duty to the
members of the Class under state tort law. The District Court
agreed with GenOn and dismissed the case.

On appeal, the Appeals Court was faced with a matter of first
impression: whether the Clean Air Act preempts state law tort
claims brought by private property owners against a source of
pollution located within the state. Based on the plain language of
the Clean Air Act and controlling Supreme Court precedent, the
Appeals Court concluded that such source state common law actions
are not preempted.  Accordingly, the Appeals Court held that the
Class's claims are not preempted.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 20, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/xan6pEfrom Leagle.com.

James E. DePasquale, Esq. -- jim.depasquale@verizon.net -- 310,
Grant Street, Suite 1302, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Peter W. Macuga,
II, Esq. -- pmacuga@mlclassaction.com -- [ARGUED], Macuga &
Liddle, 975, East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207, Counsel for
Appellants.

Scott C. Oostdyk, Esq. -- soostdyk@mcguirewoods.com -- [ARGUED],
McGuire Woods, 901, East Cary Street, One James Center, Richmond,
VA 23219, Paul K. Stockman, Esq. -- pstockman@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuire Woods, 625, Liberty Avenue, 23rd Floor, Dominion Tower,
Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for Appellee.

Makram B. Jaber, Esq. -- mjaber@hunton.com -- Allison D. Wood,
Esq. -- awood@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, 2200, Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037, Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Utility Air Regulatory Group in, Support of Appellee.

                           *     *     *

Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that an
appellate court has reversed a lower court ruling dismissing a
class action complaint filed by area residents against a coal-
fired electrical generating station, concluding the federal Clean
Air Act does not pre-empt state law tort claims in this case.

Residents in the vicinity of the Springdale, Pa.-based Cheswick
Generating Station, which is operated by Houston-based GenOn Power
Midwest L.P., filed the class action complaint about ash and
contaminants settling on their property in 2012, according to the
Aug. 20 ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Kristie
Bell; Joan Luppe v. Cheswick Generating Station, GenOn Power
Midwest L.P.

The complaint stated that the plant released "malodorous
substances and particulates into the surrounding neighborhood,
causing fly ash and unburned coal combustion byproducts to settle
on the class member's property," said the ruling.  Residents'
complaints "have not compelled GenOn to cease the improper
operation of the plant, or to discontinue the ongoing invasion and
trespass of the class members' properties," according to the
complaint.

The residents filed suit, charging the defendants with nuisance,
negligence and recklessness, and trespass, and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages.

The federal district court in Pittsburgh dismissed the case,
concluding the residents' suit was pre-empted by the Clean Air
Act, which regulates emissions under the auspices of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.

In deciding the case, the three-judge panel turned to a 1987
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in International Paper Co. v.
Ouellette, which held that clauses in the Clean Water Act
permitted some state law tort actions.

"Given that we find no meaningful difference between the Clean
Water Act and the Clean Air Act for the pre-emption analysis, we
conclude that the Supreme Court's diction in Ouellette controls
this case, and thus, the Clean Air Act does not pre-empt state
common law claims based on the law of the state where the source
of the pollution is located," said a unanimous three-judge panel,
which remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.


CITIGROUP INC: Court Approves $730MM Deal With Bondholders
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports a federal judge has
approved a $730 million settlement for bondholders who claimed
that Citigroup concealed its exposure to $66 billion of subprime
mortgage assets before the financial crisis.

Attorneys for Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman say the
settlement is the second-largest recovery in a securities class
action brought on behalf of purchasers of debt securities.

The decision comes three weeks after U.S. District Judge Sidney
Stein approved a $590 million settlement on behalf of Citigroup's
shareholders represented by attorneys at Kirby McInerney.

"Certainly, the settlement does not represent the best possible
recovery for plaintiffs; their damages experts estimate that to be
approximately $3 billion," Stein wrote. "Nevertheless, a recovery
of $730 million represents a substantial sum."

The class of bondholders had sued over 48 bond issuances that
occurred between May 2006 and November 2008.

They claimed Citigroup downplayed its risk to about $166 billion
of collaterized debt obligations, or CDOs, backed by subprime
mortgages and overstating the credit quality of those assets.

Citigroup has denied wrongdoing in the agreement.

Attorneys are seeking a 20 percent of the settlement amount, or
$146 million, but Stein has yet to rule on that issue. In the
previous case, lawyers got $73.6 million in lawyers' fees from
Stein, which was less than the $100.2 million they sought.

A copy of the 13-page ruling dated Aug. 20, 2013, is available
from Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/lc3GYB


DAIMLER AG: Can't Be Held Liable for Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
three companies cannot be held liable in the United States for
racial discrimination and violence in apartheid-era South Africa
now that the U.S. Supreme Court has limited the use of the Alien
Tort Statute, a federal appeals court has ruled.

A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled on Aug. 21 in Balintulo v. Daimler AG, 09-2778-cv,
that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over the lawsuit because all
of the alleged wrongs took place in South Africa.  Judge Jose
Cabranes wrote the opinion, joined by judges Peter Hall and Debra
Ann Livingston.

The class action, first filed in 2002, seeks damages from auto
makers Daimler AG and Ford Motor Co. and from computer maker IBM
Corp.  It claims the companies sold cars and computers to the
repressive apartheid government, making them liable for racially
based human rights abuses committed against black South Africans
by that government, including rape, torture and extrajudicial
killings.

They brought their suit under the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law
giving U.S. courts jurisdiction over suits brought by aliens over
violations of international law or U.S. treaties.  The law was
rarely invoked until the 1980s, when it was revived as a way for
plaintiffs to bring suits over foreign human rights abuses in U.S.
courts.

Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin refused to dismiss the
case in 2009.  The defendants sought an appeal to the Second
Circuit.  Normally, an order from a district court cannot be
appealed until a final judgment is entered, but appeals courts may
immediately review earlier orders under certain circumstances.
The defendants argued that the Alien Tort Statute did not allow
for liability against corporations for acts committed outside the
U.S.   They also argued that allowing the suit to continue
threatened U.S. foreign policy interests because the government of
South Africa did not believe the claims should be litigated in the
U.S. (The South African government reversed that position in 2009,
soon after the Second Circuit heard arguments on preliminary
issues in the case.)

The suit remained in limbo until earlier this year, when the
Supreme Court ruled in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S. Ct.
1659, 1668-69, that the Alien Tort Statute does not give U.S.
courts jurisdiction over controversies arising from actions that
occurred entirely outside the U.S.

Following that ruling, the circuit asked the parties for
additional briefing.  The defendants asked for a writ of mandamus
compelling judgment in their favor.  The plaintiffs argued that
their claims could go on despite Kiobel.

In the Aug. 21 ruling, Judge Cabranes refused to grant a writ of
mandamus, saying that extraordinary remedy is not necessary
because Kiobel clearly compels Judge Scheindlin to dismiss the
case.

"The opinion of the Supreme Court in Kiobel plainly bars common-
law suits, like this one, alleging violations of customary
international law based solely on conduct occurring abroad," he
wrote.  "Because of that unambiguous holding, the defendants will
be able to obtain their desired relief (dismissal of all claims)
in the District Court through a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, without resort to a writ of mandamus."

Judge Cabranes rejected all of the arguments put forth by the
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs had argued that the Alien Tort Statute
still allows suits over foreign conduct if the defendants are U.S.
nationals or if the conduct implicates American interests.  They
said that fighting the injustice of apartheid was, itself, an
American interest.

That argument, Judge Cabranes wrote, "seeks to evade the bright-
line clarity of the Court's actual holding."  He also rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that the defendants took actions in the U.S.
to evade U.S. sanctions against the apartheid government, finding
that none of those alleged actions "ties the relevant human rights
violations to actions taken within the United States."

Daimler was represented on appeal by Lisa Blatt --
Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com -- a partner at Arnold & Porter.

Ford was represented by Sri Srinivasan, formerly of O'Melveny &
Myers, who is now a D.C. Circuit judge.

IBM was represented by Keith Hummel --
khummel@cravath.com -- a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

One group of plaintiffs was represented by Steig Olson --
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- formerly of Hausfeld and now a
partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.   A second group of
plaintiffs was represented by Paul Hoffman -- hoffpaul@aol.com --
of Schonbrun Desimone Seplow Harrison & Hoffman.

None of the attorneys returned calls seeking comment.


DIAMOND FOODS: Settles Private Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods, Inc. on Aug. 21 disclosed that it has reached a
proposed agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle the
private securities class action pending against the Company and
two of its former officers.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Diamond would pay a
total of $11 million in cash and issue 4.45 million shares of
common stock to a Settlement Fund to resolve all claims asserted
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Diamond
stock between October 5, 2010 and February 8, 2012.  The proposed
settlement further provides that Diamond denies all claims of
wrongdoing or liability.

A substantial portion of the $11 million in cash would be funded
by Diamond's insurers.  With respect to the 4.45 million shares of
common stock, Diamond would have the ability to privately place,
or conduct a public offering of, the shares with the consent of
the lead plaintiff and its counsel, prior to distribution of the
Settlement Fund.  In that event, the Settlement Fund would include
the proceeds of the offering in lieu of the settlement shares.

If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice to
the Class members will be sent with information regarding the
allocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund and
instructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on the
Settlement Fund.

"We believe this proposed settlement eliminates the burden of
further time, expense and risk related to the class action,
allowing the Diamond team to move forward fully focused on
expanding the reach of our leading brands and executing on our
strategic and operational initiatives for growth," stated Brian J.
Driscoll, Diamond's Chief Executive Officer.  "We continue to
strengthen our business and are pleased that our fourth quarter
performance enables us to complete fiscal year 2013 in an improved
financial position."


FLEMING & ASSOCIATES: Tex. App. Ct. Flips Summary Judgment Orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas for the Fourteenth District,
Houston, reversed judgments in a consolidated appeal in FLEMING v.
CURRY and remanded the cases to the trial court for further
proceedings.

In these consolidated appeals, the Texas Appeals Court reviewed
the summary judgments granted to several hundred plaintiffs on
their breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the attorney and law
firm that represented them in their personal-injury claims arising
from their use of diet drugs.  The law firm screened tens of
thousands of clients for eligibility to opt out of a class-action
settlement and pursue personal-injury suits against a
pharmaceutical company, and ultimately obtained an aggregate
settlement of the claims for over 8,000 clients.  From the gross
settlement funds of each settling client, the law firm deducted a
portion of the expenses of screening the claims of tens of
thousands of clients who were not part of the settlement.

In a series of summary-judgment motions, each of which was
granted, the clients asserted that the defendants were
collaterally estopped from contesting that they had breached
fiduciary duties; that the allocation of these expenses was
unreasonable and improper as a matter of law; that the attorney
and law firm failed to adequately disclose the charges; and that
fee forfeiture was warranted.

Because the plaintiffs concede that summary-judgment cannot be
affirmed on collateral-estoppel grounds, and because there is a
question of fact as to every other ground on which the plaintiffs
expressly moved for summary judgment, the Texas Appeals Court
reversed the judgments and remanded the cases to the trial court
for further proceedings.

The cases are GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, LLP,
Appellants, v. TAMMYLERN CURRY, RICHARD SZYMANSKI, ON BEHALF OF
THE ESTATE OF MARION SZYMANSKI, EMILIE WHITEHEAD, CONNIE BOHANNON,
AND LINDA SCOTT, Appellees, and

GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, LLP, Appellants v.
ALVAREZ, CAROLYN B., AMAN, MARIA, AMBROGI, ANA M., AMBROSE,
DOLORES W., AMBURGY, DEBRA J., ANDERSON, DEBORAH J., ANDREA,
RAMONA C., APPERSON, MERLE, ARAUJO, CARMELA, ASBRIDGE, JANICE J.,
ASHER, URSULA, AYLWARD, CHERYL, BAGLEY, TENA M., ABOULHOSN, WALEED
J., ALBO, ELLEN, ALECK, VICTOR P., BAKER, JOHN W., BALLARD, MASON
C., BARBER, BEATRICE M., BARNES, LOUISE, BARNES, WANDA M., BARTON,
GLENDA S., BASSELL, PAMELA R., BAUER, IMOGENE, BEAVERS, CAROLE,
BECERRA, LUZ M., BELLER, JOANNE, BENEDICT, KAREN S., BENZ, MONTE
J., BINGHAM, TERRI A., BLAND, JUDITH E., BLANTON, LARRY E.,
BLANTON, LINDA A., BLENIS, JULIE, BOHANNAN, WEYLIN, BOSTON,
FLORINE, BOTTOMLEY, JERRY, BOYNTON, KAREN L., BRACKENBURY, LANETTE
S., BRADFIELD, KELLI L., BRADLEY, MELANIE A., BRAY, SHARON L.,
BREELAND, JOANNE P., BREWER, BETTY JO, BREWER, WENDY E., BRINKMAN,
CYNTHIA L., BRISTER, PATRICIA P., BRITT, MARILYN G., BROWN, BILLIE
B., BROWN, GLORIA J., BROWN, JOANN B., BROWN, RICHARD E.,
BROWNING, BEDRIE K., BROWNING, SUE E., BROWN-PRITCHARD, DENISE L.,
BRUSKIN, DAVID, BRYANT, TIMMY D., BUCHANAN, LLOYD D., CALDWELL,
SHIRLEY J., CAMPBELL, ALVICHER, CARROLL, DONNA J., CARROLL,
KATHLEEN MARIE, CHAVEZ, SHERL L., CHERRY, KATTIE S., CHOC, CYNTHIA
D., CLARK, CAROLYN J., CLARKE, GAIL D., CLARY, SHERRI L., COLEMAN,
LISA D., CONGER, LINDA S., CONWAY, REBECCA J., COOK, JOHN S.,
COPELAND, BETTY D., CRAIK, ROSE A., CRANFORD, CHARLOTTE L.,
CRIBARI, MARGARET, CROOK, JOYCE, CRUDUP, CAROLYN T., CRUM, JERRI
A., CUNNINGHAM, GRACE A., CUNNINGHAM, KATHLEEN M., DARBOUZE,
SOLIENNE, DAVIDSON, LINDA D., DAVIS, DEBRA L., DAVIS, PATRICIA A.,
DAVIS, PEGGY T., DAVITTO, JILL E., DELON, GERALDINE J., DEMARS,
CAROLE, DEWITT, SANDRA K., DIBELLO, CATHY J., DIGGS, CARRIE C.,
DILLARD, GWENDOLYN E., DILLS, ROBERTA, DOBSON, BRENDA G., DODDS,
FAYE, DOUGHERTY, LORRAINE A., DUKES, ROSE MARIE, DYKES, MICHAEL
S., EASON, VICKIE A., ECKERT, RUTH E., EDME, FAQUINNTHA M.,
EDMONDS, ANITA G., EDWARDS, MARIAN, EGLEY, JUANITA L., EIGHME,
VIRGINIA, EKELMAN, SUSAN E., EPPS, LOIS N., EPSTEIN, BRUCE R.,
ESCOBOSA, DEBORAH L., ESPOSITO, MARY ANN, ESTES, RUBY, EVANS,
KATHY A., EYCHNER, MARJORIE, FAIN, CYNTHIA A., FARLEY, PATRICIA
L., FARRUGGIA, DEBRA P., FAULKNER, SHAREL, FERGUSON, JENITA A.,
FERLISE, CONNIE A., FINNEY, BERNADETTE, FISCHER, MARION A.,
FLORES, DIANE P., FLORES, ESTELLA A., FLYNN, CAROLYN J., FOX,
BETTY L., FRANK, HAROLD R., FULLER, BETTYE P., GANN, MICHAEL P.,
GARRETT, LAWRENCE, GARRETT, SHACKQUELINE C., GARTNER, EDITH M.,
GARZA, TERRI L., GATEWOOD, ALICE FAYE, GEARY, DONNA L., GILMER,
PATRICIA G., GLOVER, SHIRLEY, GOOD, LORI L., GRAHAM, CATHY, GREER-
BOYKIN, MATTIE L., GRIFFIN, JESSIE L., GRIFFITH, NANCY A., GROVES,
STEVEN, GUILLORY, JEANNE A., GUTIERREZ, JULIE, GUTIERREZ, RAUL,
GUYMON, CHRISTINE P., GUZMAN, LUPE N., HACKER, CATHY, HALL, ROSA
L., HARMS, NANETTE B., HARRIS, ANDREA G., HARRIS, BILLY L.,
HAWKINS, GLORIA J., HENDERSON, ANNIE LOU, HENDERSON, GLORIA, HERI,
MARY V., HERRE, QUINDA JEAN, HICKMAN, CYNTHIA R., HINKLE, MICHELE,
HOCKETT, LENETTE M., HOERBER, LANA M., HOGAN, DONNA M., HOLDER,
DOROTHY, HOSTER, BRUCE R., HOUSER, SARAH R., HOUSER, WILLIAM J.,
HOWE, ROSE M., HUNSUCKER, DAVID M., IQBAL, GLORIA D., IRVIN,
MOLLIE A., JACKSON, RALPH E., JACOBSON, SHELLI L., JAMISON, CONNIE
J., JEFFERSON, BLANCHE L., JOHNSON, ADELINE L., JOHNSON, GABRIELE
H., JOHNSON, TAMI, JOHNSON, VICKIE L., JONES, CECILE M., JONES,
GWENDOLYN F., JONES, WANDA A., JORDAN, BRENDA, KEEFE, CANDACE,
KENTROLIS, LESLIE D., KIDD, CYNTHIA ANN, KINDRED, BETTY JO,
KIRKMEYER, THOMAS, KLEMICK, DONALD J., KLIEWER, KELLY D., KRUMNOW,
MARY L., KUHN, GOLDIE M., KUNZE, TODD K., KVITTEM, BARBARA A.,
LANKFORD, BETTY, LARSEN, GERALD E., LATTA, MARILYNN A., LEDFORD,
CYNTHIA LUDEAN, LEE, GLENNA F., LEE, LINDA E., LEFAIVRE, CHARLOTTE
K., LEGG, RUSSELL C., LIDIE, VICTORIA, LOCK, REBECCA, LOGAN, SUSIE
E., LOTT, LINDA S., MAGNESS, ELIZABETH B., MARLOW, NANCY S.,
MARTIN, REEDA M., MASLYN, BARBARA A., MASON, DORIS M., MATHISON,
LANNY, MCCARTY, EVELYN L., MCCOY, CYNTHIA, MCDONALD, VALERIE B.,
MCKEON, LISA L., MCKINNEY, EDDA, MEADER, ROBERT W., MEADOWS,
PAMELA S., MECHAM, CHERYL, MEDINA, IRMA L., MERINO, LINDA K.,
MEUNIER, KATHY J., MILAM, BETTY L., MILLER, LINDA S., MIMS, OUIDA,
MITCHELL, CAROL A., MITCHELL, HELEN M., MITZELFELT, JUDITH K.,
MOFFITT, DIXIE L., MOORE, CAROLYN E., MOORE, CATHERINE A., MOORE,
CHARLOTTE B., MORALES, MICHELLE L., MORROW, JUDY R., MUELLER,
JOSEPHINE FAYE, MURPHY, KAYELYNNE, MURPHY, MARGARET A., NASON,
VIRGIE E., NEAL, JOAN N., NEAL, PATRICIA A., O'CONNOR, KRISTOL,
O'DONOVAN, GAIL, OLDHAM, DAWN J., O'NEAL, DONNA C., PALACIO,
JESSIE, PALMA, LORRAINE, PASTIZZO, EDWARD F., PAYNE, JAYNE,
PENTALERI, LOIS O., PERRY, LINDA S., PETERSON, BARBARA, PFEIFFER,
SHIRLEY H., PHELPS-DORRIS, LISA, PIETERNELLE, ELVIA R., PITTS,
KELLY B., PIZIAK, ORLINDA, PLATT, ESTER J., PLESHE, SHERRI L.,
POORE, CATHY M., POPPELREITER, JANICE L., POUNDERS, BEVERLY A.,
PRICE, SHANNON D., PRUETT, CAROLE A., QUARANTO, NANCY, RAMSEY,
KATHERINE D., REDMON, ELIZABETH, RHOADES, BEVERLY, RHODEN, DEANDRA
M., RICHARDSON, FAYE, RICHARDSON, KATHI E., RICHIE, TEMPIE,
RICHTER, KAREN D., RIEDLINGER, MARJORIE, ROBINSON, PATRICIA A.,
ROBINSON, DEBBIE A., RODGERS, DONNA C., RYAN, RUBY L., RYERSON,
ROXANNE, SAIRAFE, PAMELA, SAWYER, CAROLYN J., SCHAEFER, PATRICIA
E., SCHAFER, CAROLYN, SCHEUBER, CINDY S., SCHMIDT, CARL K.,
SCHMITT, DIANA M., SCHULTES, KRISTIE, SHEETS, JAMES, SHOMAKER,
ROBERT L., SIMMONS, HELEN K., SMALLWOOD, PAULA L., SMITH, CAROLYN
Y., SMITH, DEBORAH A., SMITH, SHARNELL J., SPURLIN, PATTIE S.,
STARK, JUDITH A., STEFANAVAGE, BARBARA J., STEVENS, KARA L.,
STEWART, JOANNE, STEWART, LINDA R., STOCKMAN, SHARON A.,
STOLLINGS, DELPHIA, STROIK, DOROTHY L., STUTESMAN, CHERYL,
SULLIVAN, PEGGY J., SURRATT, CHARLOTTE D., SWISHER, SHIRLEY J.,
TALLEY, BERTHA M., TANNER, KELLE L., TAYLOR, BARBARA A., THOMAS,
JERRY, THOMPSON, KARRI D., THOMPSON, TERRY L., THORMAHLEN, CYNTHIA
L., TIDWELL, BARBARA A., TILSON, SANDRA G., TIPTON, KARAN JOE, TO,
THUY, TOWE, JERRY M., TUCKER, SHARON L., TURNER, EILEEN, TURNER,
LILLIAN, TURRENTINE, LINDA M., ULSKY, TONY, UTKIN, JANENE L., VAN
BLARCOM, MICHELLE A., VICTORIA, MARY E., WAGNER, CATHERINE L.,
WALKER, LISA S., WALTERS, VANESSA L., WARD, GLADYS D., WATSON,
LADONNA R., WEATHERSBY, NELLIE, WEEMS, DONNA D., WEILAND, CHARLI,
WELLS, BERNICE, WHITE, PAMELA K., WHITE, ROGER, WHITEHEAD, EDDIE
R., WHITMAN, VIRGINIA R., WILLIAMS, CORIA B., WILLIAMS, DARONDA
E., WILLIAMS, DENISE A., WILLIAMS, SANDRA D., WILLIAMS, TERRY L.,
WILLMANN, LESLIE, WILLS, DONNA M., WILLS, RON W., WILMOTH, DEBORAH
A., WITTE, ANITA M., WOELFEL, JOHANNA K., WOODARD, ZEOLA, WOODS,
MARGARET M., AND ZIEMER, IMA L., Appellees, NOS. 14-11-01093-CV,
14-12-00300-CV.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 20, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/fPBc1Lfrom Leagle.com.


FRONTIER COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that Frontier
Communications Corp. was hit with a proposed class action in
Connecticut federal court on Aug. 20 by a consumer who claims the
telephone company placed thousands of illegal telemarketing calls.

Named plaintiff Diana Mey says the telecommunications company
placed two telemarketing calls using an autodialer to a number she
had registered on the national Do Not Call Registry in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and says the company
failed to end its illegal telemarketing practices even though it
has received complaints since 2011.


GENUINE BAKERY: Recalls Bread Products Over Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Genuine Bakery & Catering
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

   -- Hometown Enriched White Brea, 675 g. with all codes up to
      and included AU 30 (where milk is not declared in the list
      of ingredients);

   -- Hometown 100% Whole Wheat Bread 675 g. with all codes up to
      and included AU 30 (where milk is not declared in the list
      of ingredients);

   -- Genuine Bakery Deli & Catering Enriched White Bread 675.
      with all codes up to and included AU 30 (where milk is not
      declared in the list of ingredients); and

   -- Genuine Bakery Deli & Catering 100% Whole Wheat Bread 675 g.
      with all codes up to and included AU 30 (where milk is not
      declared in the list of ingredients)

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Genuine Bakery &
Catering are warning people with allergies to milk not to consume
certain Hometown and Genuine Bakery Deli & Catering brands of
bread products.  The affected products contain milk which is not
declared on the label.

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

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 milk.

The manufacturer, Genuine Bakery & Catering, Hamilton, Ontario, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Law Firms Lose Bid to Intervene in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania state
judge on Aug. 20 shot down a bid by six law firms looking to
intervene in a class action brought by UnitedHealth Group Inc.
against GlaxoSmithKline PLC seeking damages for insurance coverage
United provided to policyholders treated for injuries stemming
from the drugs Avandia and Paxil.

The law firms, including Reilly Pozner LLP and Wagstaff & Cartmell
LLP, had argued that United's suit against GSK would force the
drugmaker to turn over confidential information about their
clients.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit Over Wireless Printer Malfunction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Officejet Pro 8500 and 8600 Wireless printers
"sporadically cease operating with normal use, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


IEC ELECTRONICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against IEC
Electronics Corp. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 13 CV 5864, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of IEC between February 8, 2012 and May 21,
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 IEC securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 27, 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.

IEC is a provider of electronic contract manufacturing services
("EMS") to advanced technology companies.  The Company specializes
in the custom manufacture of high reliability, complex circuit
cards and system-level assemblies, a wide array of cable and wire
harness assemblies capable of withstanding extreme environments,
and precision sheet metal components.

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 financial performance.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company was improperly accounting for working-
process inventory for one of its subsidiaries; (2) as a result,
the Company's gross profit was overstated during the Class Period;
(3) as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls;
and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 1, 2013, the Company announced that it will restate its
consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012, the quarterly periods during its fiscal 2012,
and the quarter ended December 28, 2012.  According to the
Company, IEC concluded that an error in accounting for work-in-
process inventory at one of the Company's subsidiaries, Southern
California Braiding, Inc., resulted in an aggregate understatement
of cost of sales and an aggregate overstatement of gross profit
during all such restated periods of approximately $2.2 million. On
this news, the Company's shares declined $0.50 per share, or
nearly 9%, to close on May 2, 2013, at $5.20 per share.

On May 13, 2013 IEC announced that it was unable to timely file
its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 29, 2013.  Citing an internal review of information related
to the restatement effort, IEC filed a Notification of Late Filing
with the SEC extending the filing deadline for the Company's
second quarter 2013 financial results from May 13, 2013 to May 20,
2013.

On May 20, 2013, IEC announced that due to its continuing review
of the restatement, the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors "has determined further review of the facts and
circumstances giving rise to the restatement is necessary before
the Company's financial statements are finalized and filed."  As a
result, the Company would not meet the extended filing deadline
and the Company's Q2-2013 10-Q was not filed on a timely basis.
On this news, the Company's shares declined $0.67 per share, or
nearly 14%, to close on May 20, 2013, at $4.20 per share.

On May 21, 2013, IEC announced it had received a notice of
delisting of the Company's securities from the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE MKT") as a result of the Company's failure to
timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 29, 2013 with the SEC.  On this news, the Company's
shares declined $0.68 per share, or more than 16%, to close on
May 21, 2013, at $3.52 per share.

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


JACKSON, MI: Mulls Settlement of Stormwater Fee Refund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Sidorowicz, writing for WILX, reports that step one was
getting the courts to rule Jackson's stormwater fees illegal.

Now property owners are trying to get back at least some of the
millions of dollars they paid before that ruling came down.

The City of Jackson collected about $3 million in stormwater fees
from home and business owners during the roughly two and a half
years the fee was in place.

Brian Surgener, the attorney representing the lead plaintiff in
the suit, said it's time for the city to pay up.

"The residents in good conscious paid a fee they thought was
legitimate," Mr. Surgener said.  "The court has since said that's
an unconstitutional collection of a fee and you've got to return
that and that's the right thing to do."

Mr. Surgener said he thinks the city should voluntarily refund the
fees.  They're only seeking to get a partial refund because there
is a one year statute of limitations for class action suits.

The suit will seek a refund of fees for the entire year prior to
the filing date of Aug. 15.

But Jackson Mayor Martin Griffin said the lawsuit will only end up
costing taxpayers more money than they'll be able to get back in
the end.

"It's the worst possible remedy for our residents," Mayor Griffin
said.  "The worst part about this is that once a judgment comes
down it goes right on the tax roles so that the people are going
to be billed to pay themselves back."

Mayor Griffin contends Mr. Surgener jumped the gun in filing the
suit.

"We were working on some sort of settlement but it was something
that was going to take time," he said.  "We don't have an extra
million sitting in our general fund, it just doesn't work that
way."

Mayor Griffin said it wouldn't be viable to use money from the
city's general fund to pay for the refunds.

Instead, to come up with the money Mayor Griffin said the city
might have to lay off more employees or cut more services to cover
the now gaping $1 million dollar hole left in the budget.

Mr. Surgener meanwhile said the city should've never used the
money to pay basic expenses like salaries and services when it
knew the legality of the fee would be challenged.

"I don't know how refunding the property owners back the money
they've already paid hurts the property owner," Mr. Surgener said.
"If the service is not going to be provided here after for picking
up leaves or cleaning the streets, that might hurt property owners
but that's up to the city of Jackson to make those decisions."


KELLOGG CO: Wants Super Mario Fruit Snack Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
lawyers for Kellogg Co. Inc. are asking a federal judge to dismiss
a proposed class action lawsuit against the company over its Super
Mario fruit-flavored snacks.

On Aug. 19, Kellogg filed a notice of motion and motion to dismiss
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The company wants Judge William Orrick to toss the suit, which was
filed in June.

"The complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
because Kellogg's packaging on its Super Mario Fruit Flavored
Snacks is not deceptive or misleading to a reasonable consumer,"
wrote Kenneth Lee -- KLee@jenner.com --  an attorney at the Los
Angeles law firm Jenner & Block LLP, who is representing Kellogg
in the suit.

"Plaintiff agrees that the statement on the packaging at issue
here -- that the Super Mario Fruit Flavored Snacks are 'made with
real fruit' -- is factually true.

"Alternatively, this complaint should be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(1) on standing grounds because Plaintiff has not
established that she suffered an injury-in-fact."

Plaintiff Alicia Spevak filed the lawsuit because she claims she
was misled by the phrase "made with real fruit." She claims she
subjectively believed that the snacks contain more fruit than they
actually do.

Ms. Spevak also alleges that the "made with real fruit" statement
duped her into believing that the snacks were a healthy snack
when, in fact, they are "an unhealthy sweet snack that is full of
sugar and chemicals."

Kellogg, in its 12-page motion to dismiss, argues that the suit
should be dismissed because the "made with real fruit" statement
is factually true and not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

"Under California law, false advertising claims must be dismissed
unless it is 'probable that a significant portion of the general
consuming public . . .  acting reasonably in the circumstances'
would be misled by the packaging," Mr. Lee wrote.

"Here, a reasonable consumer reading the phrase 'made with real
fruit' would not interpret it to mean anything other than what it
says: That fruit is among the ingredients in the snacks.

"The phrase does not indicate how much fruit is in the snacks, nor
does it suggest that there are no other ingredients.  A reasonable
consumer understands that Super Mario Fruit Flavored Snacks are
tasty snack foods, not health food."

A hearing has been set for Oct. 16.


KIOR INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Kior,
Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, and
docketed under 13-cv-2443, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Kior between August 14, 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 Kior securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 21, 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.

Kior is a renewable biofuels manufacturer that has developed a
proprietary technology platform to convert cellulose and other
plant-derived materials into renewable crude oil that is processed
into gasoline, diesel and other fuels.  In 2012, the Company
completed its first commercial scale biofuel facility in Columbus,
Mississippi.

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 was not on track to produce commercially meaningful
quantities of biofuel at the Columbus facility in the amounts
projected by management; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal
and financial controls over its calculation and forecasting of
production levels at the Columbus facility; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2013, the Company disclosed to investors that it had
only shipped 75,000 gallons of biofuel during the second quarter
of 2013 -- far below the 300,000-500,000 gallons Defendant Cannon
had promised investors less than three months before.  On this
news, Kior shares fell $2.12 per share or over 44%, over the
course of the next six trading sessions, from a close of $4.76
per share on August 7, 2013 to a close of $2.62 per share on
August 15, 2013.

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


LOS ALTOS APARTMENTS: Class Cert. Denial in "Hendleman" Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In HENDLEMAN v. LOS ALTOS APARTMENTS, L.P., plaintiffs David
Hendleman and Anne Aaronson took an appeal from the order of the
trial court denying their motion for certification of a class of
tenants at the Los Altos Apartments in the context of their
lawsuit against the landlord.  The Plaintiffs brought the action
alleging the landlord failed to repair and maintain the property
in a safe and habitable condition over a period of 10 months,
unlawfully demanded increased rents, and retaliated against the
tenants for exercising their rights. The trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification for lack of
ascertainability, community of interest, and superiority.

The Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Three, affirms the trial court order saying the trial
court's reasoning was correct and it did not use improper criteria
or erroneous legal assumptions.

The case is DAVID HENDLEMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
LOS ALTOS APARTMENTS, L.P., et al., Defendants and Respondents,
NO. B235404.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 20, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/NWk1WKfrom Leagle.com.

Law Office of Sheri L. Kelly, Sheri L. Kelly --
slk@sherikellylaw.com ; Consumer Law Offices and Daniel T. LeBel
-- DanLeBel@consumerlawpractice.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Willis Depasquale, James M. Hansen -- jhansen@wdlegal.net -- Larry
N. Willis -- lwillis@wdlegal.net -- and Thomas M. Rutherford, Jr.
-- trutherford@wdlegal.net -- for Defendants and Respondents.


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Intends to Defend Class Action Vigorously
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. on Aug. 22 disclosed that it has
become aware of the filing of a class action complaint against
Meadowbrook and certain of its officers on August 15, 2013 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the federal securities laws during the
period between July 30, 2012 and August 8, 2013.

Meadowbrook has reviewed the allegations contained in the
complaint with its counsel and believes that they are baseless and
without merit.  Meadowbrook intends to defend itself against the
complaint vigorously.

Mike Costello, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary commented, "While we understand that it is not unusual
for this type of complaint to be filed when a company experiences
a material drop in the trading price of its shares, we believe
that the complaint is inaccurate and the claims are entirely
without merit.  We emphatically reject any suggestion that the
Company or any of its officers violated the federal securities
laws.  Accordingly, we will vigorously defend ourselves and will
pursue all remedies available to us in connection with this
matter."

               About Meadowbrook Insurance Group

Based in Southfield, Michigan, Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
(NYSE:MIG) -- http://www.meadowbrook.com-- is a leader in the
specialty program management market.  Meadowbrook includes several
agencies, claims and loss prevention facilities, self-insured
management organizations and six property and casualty insurance
underwriting companies.  Meadowbrook has twenty-eight locations in
the United States.  Meadowbrook is a risk management organization,
specializing in specialty risk management solutions for agents,
professional and trade associations, and small to medium-sized
insureds.


N.J. TELECOM PROVIDERS: Sued by Inmates for Overcharging Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that GlobalTel*Link, Inmate
Telephone Service, and DSI-ITI LLC, the only telecom providers in
New Jersey prisons, charge "more than 100 times higher than market
rates," inmates say in a federal class action.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: 10 Ex-Players Seek Payment Over Use of Images
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Canavan and Michael Marot, writing for The Associated Press,
report that there could be one clip of Hall of Famers that won't
make the NFL Films archives: The sight of John Riggins and other
greats heading to court seeking a big payday from the company.

Ten former NFL players, including five Hall of Famers, want the
league to pay if NFL Films uses images of them without their
consent.  They filed a lawsuit in New Jersey to reclaim payment
for the use of their names, images and likenesses from film
footage they say was used on NFL Network and to promote the league
without the ex-players consent.

Jon King, an attorney for the players, compared the lawsuit, filed
on Aug. 20, to the one from former UCLA basketball star Ed
O'Bannon against the NCAA because they deal with "individuals'
rights to control the use of their image."

The NCAA, and video game company Electronic Arts, are facing
similar suits in California.  This case cites a recent ruling in
California that determined EA Sports could not use First Amendment
protections to defend its actions.

"In the EA case, it had to do with computer graphics depictions of
players," Mr. King said on Aug. 21.  "As technology increases, it
becomes more lifelike and realistic.  In the NFL Films case, it's
the players' images, but committed to film for DVD and really,
more these days, for distribution on the NFL Network."

Hall of Famers including Riggins, Dave Casper, Tom Mack, Curley
Culp and Ron Yary are part of the lawsuit.

"NFL Films has never obtained authorization from retired players
to use their images to be, as NFL Films puts it, the 'backbone' of
the NFL Network," according to the 81-page filing obtained by The
Associated Press.  "NFL Films' conduct goes far beyond simply use
of images without consent. It continues to this day to strike
licensing business deals, in New Jersey, affirmatively, and
falsely, misrepresenting that it has obtained all former players'
consent to appear in its promotional materials.  The NFL does
likewise."

There was a $50 million settlement in April between the NFL and a
group of retired players seeking publicity rights.  The NFL said
on Aug. 21 that settlement was "fair and reasonable" and should be
enough to placate this group of players.

"We agree with the judge that the settlement will benefit the
large class of retired players particularly those in need of
medical and financial assistance," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said
on Aug. 21.

The complaint against the NFL and NFL Productions notes that in
1993, all players' contracts began to include clauses that granted
the NFL authority to use the names, images and likenesses of
players to publicize and promote the league.  They claim it was
never included with the players in the suit.

The filing also contends that the league and NFL Productions
violated state laws regarding unfair competition and rights of
publicity, as well as a federal statute claiming the league and
its production arm were unjustly enriched by improperly using the
former players.

The others listed on the suit are Mike Bass, Willie Buchanon,
Roman Gabriel, Joe Kapp and Phil Villapiano.  It also asks that
former players who have opted out of the Dryer v. NFL lawsuit,
their heirs and assigns be included in this case.

Though there is no stated sum in the complaint, it notes that
according to published reports in 2002, NFL Films was making $50
million per year in licensing revenue, which applied only to third
parties such as television networks.

Mr. King said this group of players is interested in learning what
"NFL Films is really worth as a marketing tool."

"That's the interesting thing that takes this case into the
future," he said.  "This type of thing was never envisioned 10
years ago, 20 years ago.  It has to do with the technology, when
things change from a quaint, small entity like NFL Films to
providing what the NFL calls the backbone of the NFL Network."


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Hines" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. on Aug. 21 announced the dismissal of a multi-
million dollar federal class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern
District of New York in 2009.  The suit was brought by Cynthia
Hines, a secretary working in a plaintiff's attorney law firm.
Ms. Hines claimed she failed to understand the company's return
policy and alleged breach of contract, common law fraud and New
York consumer statute violations.  Later Ms. Hines added other
state consumer claims and asked for an injunction.

Early on, Overstock.com identified the Hines suit as "lawyer-
driven" -- noting that Ms. Hines worked directly for the lawyer
who filed the suit -- and determined that settlement would not be
an option, in keeping with its historical practice.

In the ruling dismissing the case, the court held that a consumer,
acting reasonably, would first look for and understand a
retailer's returns policy before finalizing a purchase
transaction, noting, "Any consumer who failed to do so appears to
have assumed the risk of such a cost in the event that the
merchandise is returned."

The court also based part of the dismissal ruling on
Ms. Hines' failure to clearly state necessary facts in her
complaint.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Director Can Proceed With Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaye Scholer on Aug. 20 disclosed that it has achieved a
significant litigation victory for one of its clients, investor
David Hildes, who lost approximately $25 million when his
Harbinger Corporation stock was exchanged for Peregrine Systems,
Inc. stock pursuant to a materially false registration statement
issued by Peregrine.  A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously reversed an earlier
district court decision barring Mr. Hildes from amending his
securities complaint against certain former outside Peregrine
directors, allowing Mr. Hildes to proceed with his lawsuit.

The matter began in 2000, when Mr. Hildes was a director of
software company Harbinger.  Peregrine and Harbinger entered into
merger discussions, and eventually a merger agreement, under which
Harbinger would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Peregrine and
each outstanding share of Harbinger stock would be exchanged for
0.75 shares of Peregrine common stock.  Harbinger's obligations to
effect the merger were subject to certain conditions, including
the SEC's acceptance of a to-be-filed registration statement by
Peregrine that accurately reflected its financial results.  Six
weeks later, Peregrine later filed the registration statement,
signed by the former Peregrine outside directors. Harbinger and
Peregrine's shareholders approved the merger.

In 2002, Peregrine shareholders brought a class action against the
outside directors and others, alleging various violations of the
securities laws.  Mr. Hildes opted out of the class action and
filed his own lawsuit.  Mr. Hildes alleged that Peregrine's
financial statements contained numerous omissions and
misrepresentations, including a more than $120 million
overstatement of revenue and a more than $190 million
understatement of net losses.  Mr. Hildes claimed that, as a
result of this fraud, Peregrine's stock price was artificially
inflated, causing him to lose more than $25 million.

Mr. Hildes initially brought suit against Peregrine's former
auditing firm and others.  When he moved for leave to amend his
complaint to add claims against Peregrine's former outside
directors, the district court denied Mr. Hildes' motion to amend
on the basis that Mr. Hildes' Section 11 claim was futile.  The
district court reasoned that because Mr. Hildes had entered into a
voting agreement and irrevocable proxy with Peregrine prior to the
registration statement's effective date, which required that
Mr. Hildes' shares be voted in favor of a merger, Mr. Hildes'
alleged losses could not have been caused by the false
registration statement.  Mr. Hildes' sole issue on appeal was
whether the district court had erred in denying him leave to amend
his complaint to add a Section 11 claim against the outside
directors.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, agreeing with Kaye Scholer's arguments
that Mr. Hildes never made a binding commitment to exchange his
Harbinger shares for Peregrine shares prior to the filing of the
registration statement.  Citing Mr. Hildes' allegations that, if
the registration statement had been accurate, Harbinger's board
would have declared Peregrine in breach of the merger agreement
and terminated the merger agreement, which would have terminated
the voting agreement and proxy or alternatively, that had the
registration statement been truthful, Harbinger's shareholders
would have voted against the merger, the Ninth Circuit held that
Mr. Hildes had sufficiently alleged that Peregrine's material
misstatements had caused his losses and, therefore, he had stated
a potentially meritorious claim.

According to Kaye Scholer litigator Michael Lynn, who argued the
appeal, "The district court's decision would have let the
defendants off the hook for their role in signing the false and
misleading registration statement that ultimately led to our
client's losses.  We are pleased that the Court of Appeals
rejected the district court's approach and recognized that our
client has a potentially meritorious claim against the defendants.
Our client looks forward to vigorously pursuing his claim in the
district court, where we hope that he will ultimately be able to
recover the millions of dollars he lost as a result of the
Peregrine fraud."

Partner Robert Barnes -- robert.barnes@kayescholer.com -- of the
firm's Los Angeles office, and Associate Kyle D. Gooch --
kyle.gooch@kayescholer.com -- of the firm's New York office, also
assisted on the appeal.  Kaye Scholer will continue to represent
Mr. Hildes in the next stages of this litigation.

                       About Kaye Scholer

Founded in New York in 1917, Kaye Scholer concentrates its
practice in the areas of life sciences, financial services,
technology, real estate and energy & infrastructure.   Kaye
Scholer offers strategic guidance and legal services to public and
private entities facing litigation, transactional or governance
challenges.  Kaye Scholer's lawyers regularly advise on matters
across multiple legal jurisdictions, including in the US, Canada,
UK, EU, China and Japan.


PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Endura & Ambient LED Light Bulbs
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on Aug. 19 disclosed that
consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Recall Summary

Name of product: Endura and Ambient LED dimmable light bulbs

Hazard: A lead wire in the bulb's housing can have an improper
fitting, which can electrify the entire lamp and pose a shock
hazard.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled LED
bulbs, unplug the fixture, remove the bulb and contact Philips for
free replacement bulbs.

Consumer Contact: Philips Lighting Co. at (800) 295-5147 between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, online at
http://www.recall.philips.comchoose United States/English and
click on the Endura and Ambient LED bulb recall for more
information or email the firm at ledprincelamp@philips.com for
more information.

Recall Details

Units: About 99,000

Description: This recall involves Endura 12-watt and Ambient 12.5-
watt LED dimmable light bulbs.  The bulbs are orange in color and
have "MADE IN CHINA," "Fabrique in Chine" followed by a slanted
"S," and the model number 9290001829 printed on the gray plastic
band on the neck of the bulbs.  The date codes, 2L for the Endura
bulbs and 2K or 2L for the Ambient bulbs, are printed on the metal
screw base.  The bulbs give off a white light and are used indoors
to replace incandescent bulbs.  The following chart outlines the
recall details:

                           Model
  Product Name             Number      Ordering Code

EnduraLED 12W A19 2700k    9290001829  12A19/END/2700-800
Dimmable 120V                          DIM

AmbientLED 12.5W A19       9290001829  BC-12.5A19/AMB
2700k Dimmable 120V                    /2700-800 DIM


UPC         Date Code

46677       2L
40994

46677       2K and
42215       2L

*Photos are available at http://is.gd/IULHSI

Incidents/Injuries: No injuries have been reported.

Sold at: Home Depot, grocery and home center stores nationwide,
online retailers, including Amazon.com and through electrical
distributors between October 2012 and May 2013 for between $15 and
$30.

Manufacturer: Philips Lighting Co., of Somerset, N.J.

Manufactured in: China


PIONEER ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Price Fixing in B.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pioneer Electronics conspired
to fix the price of optical disc drives in British Columbia from
2004 to 2010, a consumer claims in a class action in B.C. Supreme
Court.


STRONG FORCE: Recalls NeoCube Magnet Sets
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 22, 2013
Posting date:             August 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35119

Affected products:

Small, powerful, rare earth, magnetic balls and cubes that can be
used to build sculptures, puzzles, patterns, or shapes, including
any of the following models:

   -- NeoCube Alpha, Model NCB01;
   -- CubeTastic Value Pack, Model NCB02;
   -- NeoCube - G, Model NCBG;
   -- NeoCube Omega, Model NCBOX; and
   -- NeoCube Mini, Model NCBM

Strong Force Inc. is voluntarily recalling these products from the
market in response to a risk assessment conducted by Health
Canada.

The risk assessment on these magnet sets has informed Health
Canada's determination that they are a danger to human health and
safety because they contain small powerful magnets which can be
swallowed or inhaled by children.  Unlike other small objects that
would be more likely to pass normally through the digestive system
if swallowed, when more than one small powerful magnet is
swallowed, the magnets can attract one another while travelling
through the digestive system.  The magnets can then pinch together
and create a blockage and slowly tear through the intestinal
walls, causing perforations.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at: http://is.gd/E3T7g8

The results of swallowing small powerful magnets can be very
serious and life-threatening.  Swallowing incidents have often
resulted in considerable damage to the gastrointestinal tissues
and required emergency surgical treatment.  For survivors, there
can be serious long-term health consequences.

It is estimated that more than 10,000 units were sold to
Canadians.

The magnets were manufactured in China and sold online in Canada
since December 1st, 2009.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Ningbo Profit Magnetic Co. Ltd.
                    China

   Distributor      Strong Force Inc.
                    Daisytown
                    Pennsylvania
                    United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled magnet sets immediately
and contact their municipality for instructions on how to dispose
of or recycle the recalled products.


TOWER GROUP: Faces Suit in New York Over Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
comprising all purchasers of the common stock of Tower Group
International, Ltd. or its predecessor company Tower Group Inc.
("Tower Group" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TWGP) between July 30,
2012 and August 8, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

Tower Group is Bermuda-based and through its subsidiaries
underwrites insurance and reinsurance products including
commercial, personal, and specialty insurance, in Bermuda, the
United States and London markets. The Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to
properly estimate its loss reserve provisions as required by
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and (2) the Company
failed to properly allocate its goodwill and certain deferred tax
assets.

If you are a member of the Class described above you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve
as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class.

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


TREX COMPANY: Settles Class Action Over Composite Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc., the world's largest manufacturer of high-
performance wood-alternative decking and railing, disclosed that
on August 19, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted preliminary approval of a
Settlement Agreement that will resolve a nationwide class action
lawsuit filed in California alleging certain misrepresentations
and defects in Trex's first-generation composite products relating
to mold growth and color issues.

Under the terms of the settlement, Trex will provide to qualified
claimants a one-time cash payment or the opportunity to receive
other relief, including a rebate certificate on its newer-
generation shelled products (Trex Transcend(R) and Trex
Enhance(R)).  This relief would be available for any eligible
consumer whose first-generation composite product has a certain
level of mold growth, color fading or color variation and who
meets certain other requirements, as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.  The settlement applies to any Trex first-generation
composite product purchased between August 1, 2004 and the date on
which the Court enters its Order granting preliminary approval of
the settlement.  The claim resolution process and other terms of
the settlement are described in the Settlement Agreement and class
notice, which will soon be available on
http://www.trex.com/legal/2013classactionsettlement.aspx
The cost to Trex under the settlement is capped at $8.25 million
plus $1.475 million in attorneys' fees to be paid to the
Plaintiffs' counsel upon final approval of the settlement by the
Court.

"Our decision to settle the case is by no means an admission of
any of the allegations made by the plaintiffs," said Ronald
Kaplan, chairman, president and CEO of Trex.  "Trex has
steadfastly denied any liability and we were fully prepared to
defend our position.  We strongly believe we would have prevailed;
however, we settled on terms that we feel benefit both our
consumers and Trex.  This settlement allows our company to avoid
additional expensive, time-consuming litigation and to focus on
delivering quality products and service to consumers, while
providing certain relief to those customers affected by these
issues."

"The growth of mold on first-generation composite decks is not
exclusive to Trex and is not due to any defect in the material.
Rather, these issues are the result of environmental conditions
that affect all outdoor surfaces.  Trex fully discloses that Trex
boards, like any exterior surface, require periodic cleaning, and
mold growth may occur if the necessary environmental conditions
are present.  We also include instructions on how to clean mold
both on our website and in collateral materials.  In addition, we
clearly communicate to consumers that the original wood-plastic
composite product, similar to real wood, develops a naturally
weathered look over time and to expect color variation between
boards.

"Although this information is and has been readily provided and
available, for a very small percentage of our consumers, their
expectations for our first-generation composite products may not
have been fully met due to mold problems and/or color fading or
color variation.  This settlement will provide certain relief to
eligible consumers who have not been fully satisfied.

"Similar class action lawsuits have been brought against a number
of Trex's competitors, and one company has previously settled such
a case.

"For consumers who want decking that offers higher performance and
less maintenance than the first-generation composite products, we
developed and introduced Trex Transcend(R) in 2010.  This
revolutionary product has a proprietary shell that provides
superior fade, stain, scratch and mold resistance.  We even
provide a warranty against food and mold staining, and color
fading.  More recently, we introduced two additional high-
performance shelled decking collections, Trex Enhance(R) and Trex
Select(R).

"These new products now can be found in many backyards and are
being enjoyed by consumers across the nation," added Mr. Kaplan.
"By the end of 2013, high-performance shelled decking, such as
Transcend, Enhance and Select will be all that Trex makes."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Fees Collected
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that though gratuity is supposedly
included in the cost of its car service, Uber gives drivers only a
portion of any fee it collects, and it misclassifies them as
independent contractors to avoid paying business expenses, a class
claims.

The case, Douglas O'Connor; Thomas Colopy v. Uber Technologies;
Travis Kalanick; Ryan Graves, is pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


VESTAS WIND: Faces EUR11-Mil. Shareholder Suit Over Losses
----------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Reed, writing for The New York Times, reports that Vestas
Wind Systems A/S, the Danish wind turbine maker that once led the
industry but that has struggled in recent years, ousted its chief
executive on Aug. 21 and appointed a successor, while also
reporting another quarter of lackluster results.

Anders Runevad will succeed Ditlev Engel, who had been chief
executive since 2005.  Until Mr. Runevad assumes his post on
Sept. 1, Vestas will be run by the chief financial officer,
Marika Fredriksson, the company said.

Once a star of the wind power industry, Vestas has been under
pressure in recent years from the recession in Europe, lower
subsidies by various governments for alternative energy and low-
cost competition from China.  While these factors have squeezed
most of the renewable-energy industry, Vestas's problems have been
in many ways of the company's own making.

The company failed to anticipate a downturn in the global market
for wind-powered energy and continued to expand after the boom of
the mid-2000s. And analysts say that Vestas has been slower than
rivals like General Electric and Siemens to automate production
and simplify its product line.

Vestas has also failed to gear up as much as some competitors for
the trend toward offshore wind farms in which Siemens is now
realizing much of its growth.  Only about 7 percent of Vestas's
order backlog at the end of last year was for offshore units.  The
onshore industry is still bigger, but developers of wind power
tend to find less local political opposition to wind towers, which
may rise 90 meters, or about 300 feet, and weigh more than 100
tons.

Vestas was tied for global leadership in the turbine business with
G.E. last year with 11.8 percent of the market, according to
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a market research firm.  But it
still lost money in 2011 and 2012 -- a period when the global
market for new turbines fell to $80 billion in 2012, from $96
billion in 2010.

The offshore market looks better than that for onshore turbines,
with new installations expected to grow by 20 percent a year in
the future, according to Siemens.

Germany and Britain are the main countries focused on wind
projects.  While the United States has also shown interest, a rush
to beat the expiration of tax credits for wind projects created a
boom last year that is expected to be followed by a contraction.
The Chinese market, which declined sharply in 2012, is expected to
pick up some of the slack.

On Aug. 21, Vestas also reported a net loss of 62 million euros,
or $83 million, for the second quarter, compared with a loss of 8
million euros in last year's comparable period.  Revenue declined
to 1.2 billion euros, compared with 1.6 billion euros a year
earlier.

The company's share price, which has fallen about 85 percent since
2009, was up 5.4 percent on Aug. 21 in Copenhagen trading.

Clouding Mr. Engel's final days was the company's disclosure that
it had received notice of a lawsuit filed in Denmark this month on
behalf of about 80 shareholders seeking about 11 million euros in
damages on grounds that executives had not issued timely warnings
of the company's losses.  The suit names Mr. Engel and two former
executives but does not include Vestas as a defendant.

A similar class-action suit was filed in the United States in
2011.  Michael Zarin, a Vestas spokesman, said that the company
did not believe the lawsuits had any merit.

Vestas has responded to its operational difficulties with an
overhaul effort that included selling factories.  Last year, the
company sold its towers business in Denmark to a Chinese buyer.
Further factory sales are planned.

The company has cut its work force to about 17,250 from 22,700
employees at the end of 2011 and says it will have no more than
16,000 employees by the end of this year.  But in a maturing
industry, it is clearly outgunned by G.E. and Siemens, which are
big, diversified companies not dependent on any single unit.

Lars Heindorff, an analyst at ABG Sundal Collier, a brokerage firm
in Copenhagen, said the company still needed to show further
improvement in its key turbine business.  "They need to get into
more scalable production," he said, "and in the future I would
like to see fewer different turbines."

The company's chairman since 2012, Bert Nordberg, a former
executive at Ericsson, the Swedish telecommunications company, has
already replaced several top executives.

Like Mr. Norberg, Mr. Runevad, the new chief executive, comes from
Ericsson, where he was president for Western and Central Europe.

There were some bright spots in the results announced on Aug. 21.
Orders booked in the quarter nearly doubled, to 1.7 billion euros,
or $2.3 billion.  Free cash flow, or money available for
investment or redistribution to shareholders, was positive, at 197
million euros, compared with a negative 338 million euros a year
ago.

But there were signs of other lingering problems.  For instance,
Vestas cut its estimate of its order book by 400 million euros, to
7.1 billion euros, "due to uncertainty surrounding a few
customers' ability to comply with the contractual obligations."
The company said that about half of the amount "relates" to a
Central European customer that it did not name.


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Ester-C 500 mg. Chewable
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 9, 2013
Posting date:             August 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-35135

Recalled Products: Ester-C 500 mg Chewable

The French directions are incorrect on the inner bottle label and
the outer carton.  The French directions state "Prendre deux (2)
comprimes par jour" which means "Take two (2) tablets per day".
The English directions correctly state "Take two (2) tablets twice
daily".

Companies:

   Recalling Firm     Vita Health Products Inc.
                      150 Beghin Ave.
                      Winnipeg
                      R2J 3W2
                      Manitoba
                      Canada


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 21
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Vocera
Communications, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District
of California, and docketed under 13-cv-03872, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Vocera between March 28, 2012 and
May 3, 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, as well as Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vocera securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 30, 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.

Vocera is a provider of mobile communication solutions to
healthcare and non-healthcare markets.  The Company is
headquartered in San Jose, California.  Vocera 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 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, during the Class Period,
the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (i) the extent of the adverse impact that healthcare
reform was having on sales of the Company's communication products
to hospitals; and (ii) the extent of the adverse impact that the
federal budget sequestration was having on sales of the Company's
communication products to government hospitals.

On March 28, 2012, Vocera conducted its IPO in which the Company
offered 5 million common shares of Vocera stock, as well an
additional 877,500 common shares that could be purchased at the
option of the underwriters.  The Company offered these common
shares at $16.00 per share.  Following the IPO, and during the
Class Period, Vocera's share price increased significantly,
climbing to a Class Period high of $31.52 per share on
September 13, 2012.

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.  On this news,
shares of Vocera fell $7.23 per share or 37.30% to close at $12.15
on intraday trading May 3, 2013.

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


WAL-MART STORES: Mass. App. Ct. Affirms Ruling in "Salvas" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In SALVAS v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., the appellants, certain
counsel in an underlying class action involving Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. and some of its employees, appealed the denial of their
emergency motion to confirm assessment of what they describe as
mandatory statutory interest.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the ruling.

The case is CRYSTAL SALVAS & another, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
NO. 12-P-861.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 20, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/F30EClfrom Leagle.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Cantaloupe
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Piersol, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that
the widow of a Cody man who died from listeriosis caused by
contaminated cantaloupe is suing Wal-Mart, which sold the melon, a
company that distributed the melon and the companies that were
supposed to audit for safety the Colorado farm where it was grown.

Six people in Nebraska were made ill by the contaminated melons in
2011, and two, George Drinkwalter, 81, of Cody, and Dale Braddock
of Omaha died.

Mr. Drinkwalter is the father of Keith Drinkwalter of Chadron.
George Drinkwalter's widow Isla sued in the new case filed in U.S.
District Court, which one of her attorneys said was filed because
of the failure to settle all victims' cases in the bankruptcy of
Jensen Farms of Holly, Colo., where the contaminated melons were
grown.

Another case filed almost two years ago on behalf of Mr. Braddock
has been revived since that bankruptcy case ended.  Mr. Braddock
was alive when the lawsuit was filed in November of 2011, but died
Jan. 1, 2012.  The lawsuit is for wrongful death, according to
Omaha attorney Patrick Ortman, representing Braddock's estate.

A total of 150 people infected with any of five strains of
Listeria monocytogenes associated with the outbreak were reported
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 28 states.

Nationally, it was one of the deadliest food poisoning outbreaks
in American history.  It killed 36 people, wrecked the reputation
of Rocky Ford melons, a standard in the food industry for
generations, and bankrupted Jensen Farms.

Mr. Drinkwalter's claim is against Wal-Mart, because the lethal
melon was sold at its store in Chadron; Frontera Produce, a
distributor from Texas; Primus Group, the California company
responsible for auditing the safety of Jensen Farms; and others
unnamed who may have participated in the distribution of the
melons.

Bill Marler, a Seattle lawyer who represents Mr. Drinkwalter and
specializes in food safety cases, said he and other lawyers tried
to settle the claims of 64 people in the Jensen Farms bankruptcy,
but got only a pro rated share of $4 million.

So, he said, he had to file another lawsuit.  Wal-Mart and Kroger,
two of the retailers that sold the contaminated melons, wouldn't
come up with enough money to get the claims settled in the
bankruptcy case, he said, and Primus wouldn't participate at all.

To resolve all 64 cases the bankruptcy court had valued them in
excess of $45 million, Mr. Marler said.

According to the lawsuit, on Sept. 9, 2011, Mr. Drinkwalter was
taken by ambulance to Cherry County Hospital where a blood
specimen collected three days later tested positive for Listeria
monocytogenes.  On Sept. 13, Mr. Drinkwalter was to Regional West
Medical Center in Scottsbluff, where he died the next day.

Mr. Braddock's lawsuit, filed in November 2011, said he bought a
contaminated melon at Baker's, which has several stores in Omaha,
in August, and both he and his daughter were made ill. He sued
Kroger's, the owner of Baker's, Jensen Farms, Frontera and Primus.

Late last week, growers began the second harvest of Rocky Ford
melons since the deadly outbreak.  Rocky Ford cantaloupe growers
in Colorado now have safety audits by state agricultural
inspectors twice a year.

Rocky Ford's reputation for high-quality melons was hurt by the
listeria outbreak in 2011, even though Jensen Farms in Holly,
Colo. was 95 miles away, near the Kansas border.

Marler Clark Law Firm may be reached at:


          Marler Clark The Food Safety Law Firm
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Tel: 1-866-770-2032


WELLS FARGO: Magistrate Says Denial of Visa Renewals Not Biased
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Wells
Fargo & Co. did not interfere with an Indian man's rights to
severance benefits by refusing to renew his immigrant visa, a
federal magistrate ruled.

The bank hired Vinay Karamsetty in 2007 as a web developer, but
the Indian citizen said he resigned in 2010 after the company
announced it was laying off H-1B visa workers like himself.

Because of the economic climate at the time and a merger with
Wachovia Mortgage, Wells Fargo had implemented a new policy ending
its employer-sponsorship of immigrant visa applications and
extensions.

Karamsetty claimed in his federal class action that the bank's
forced resignations denied workers tens of thousands of dollars in
severance benefits. Claiming that the bank violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and its own Salary Continuation Pay
Plan, he sought more than $42,000 in damages.

Karamsetty also charged Wells Fargo with discrimination.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero granted the nation's second
largest bank summary judgment Monday.

"Wells Fargo's decision could reflect an administrative decision
merely implementing a neutral policy," Spero said. "Thus, the fact
Wells Fargo determined some of those employees affected by the
policy were not entitled to benefits is not itself direct evidence
of discrimination."

He added: "The court finds that Wells Fargo has satisfied its
burden of stating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
implementing the policy."

There is also no evidence that the policy was not a pretext to
deny employees benefits, according to the 33-page ruling.

Spero said there is "insufficient evidence of pretext in the fact
that Wells Fargo decided, simultaneously with its decision to
implement the policy, that employees in plaintiff's position would
not be eligible for severance benefits."

"This was an administrative business decision," the magistrate
added. "It is unreasonable to infer from this administrative act
that Wells Fargo intended to discriminate against its employees'
rights to severance benefits."

A copy of the 33-page order is available from Courthouse News
Service at: http://is.gd/ApoGxR


                             *********

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  * * *