CAR_Public/130829.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 29, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 171

                             Headlines


A & O INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Certain Al Khaleej Brand Dates
ACTAVIS INC: Bid to Consolidate Loestrin Suits to Be Heard Sept.
ACTAVIS INC: Briefing in Cipro Litigation Appeal Will Resume
ACTAVIS INC: Continues to Defend Androgel Antitrust Litigation
ACTAVIS INC: Defends Suits vs. Anda Alleging TCPA Violations

ACTAVIS INC: Plaintiffs Amend Prochieve(R)-Related Complaint
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Force-Placed Insurance Class Action
CHARTER COMMS: Scheduling Conference in Lucas Suit Moved to Sept.
CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Kroger's Break 'n Bake Cookie Dough
CR BARD: Settles Second Bellwether Transvaginal Mesh Suit

DOVE CHOCOLATE: Recalls Dark Chocolate-Covered Fruit Collection
ERNST & YOUNG: Schiff Hardin Discusses Class Action Waiver Ruling
EXPED AG: Recalls Exped Mira I and Mira II Camping Tents
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Approves $20-Mil. Class Action Settlement
FUKUDA TRADING: Recalls Certain Orion Brand Potato Chips

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Wants to Take Part in Zoloft MDL Discovery
HALO INNOVATIONS: Recalls 27,000 SleepSack Blankets
HYUNDAI: Recalls 23,000 Santa Fe SUVs Over Axle Shaft Defect
JOHN HANCOCK: Court Dismisses "Feingold" Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Hip Implant Suits for $3 Billion

LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Jansky" Suit in California
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Pepe" Suit in Massachusetts
LABORATORY CORP: Defends "Sandusky" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Suits Over Calif. Labor Code Violations
LEFT COAST: Recalls Good Health Natural Foods Over Gluten

LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Certain Nutty Bean Brand Chickpea Snacks
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Sunspun Brand Chunk Light Tuna
LOWE'S HIW: Court Certifies Class in Contractors' Suit
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
McKESSON CORP: Court Stays Proceedings in "Messih" Suit

MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Appeal in "Williams" Suit Remains Pending
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Certification Bid Ruling in "Hardy" Suit
NVR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Wages
QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Limca Carbonated Beverage
REACTION NUTRITION: Recalls LIVE CLINICAL Due to Undeclared Milk

SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Circuit Reinstates Class Claims
SILZONE: Heart Implant Product Liability Class Action Dismissed
SOCIAL SERVICE: Court Transfers "Davis" Suit to Florida
SOUTH WEST NOVA: Privacy Breach Class Action Can Proceed
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Sued for Alleged Defective Pedal Bracket

UNITED STATES: Ordered to Pay $1.2BB Settlement to Black Farmers
WELLS FARGO: 3 Suits Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
WESTLAKE FOODS: Recalls Cured Pork Products Due to Misbranding

* Children's Clothing Among Recently Recalled Consumer Products
* Lead Paint Manufacturers Attempt to Fend Off Liability Suit
* NHTSA Issues New Rules Following Rise in Auto Recalls
* NZ Seeks to Reassure Chinese Consumers After Botulism Scare
* Three Dozen Food Label Class Actions Pending in Bay Area


                             *********


A & O INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Certain Al Khaleej Brand Dates
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           A & O International
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8259

Affected products:

   -- Al Khaleej Saudi Arabian Dates 2 kg.; and

   -- Al Khaleej Saudi Arabian Dates 4 kg. product


ACTAVIS INC: Bid to Consolidate Loestrin Suits to Be Heard Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis, Inc. and other defendants' motion to consolidate lawsuits
relating to Loestrin 24(R) is expected to be heard in late
September 2013, according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et
al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) alleging the Company's 2009 patent
lawsuit settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin 24
Fe(R) (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous
fumarate tablets, "Loestrin 24(R)") is unlawful.  The complaints,
both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors,
generally allege that the Company and another generic manufacturer
improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin 24(R) in
exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, in
violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.  The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief
and damages.  On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in New York Hotel
Trades withdrew its complaint and, on April 16, 2013, refiled it
in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (New
York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc.
Health Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al.,
E.D.Pa., Civ. No. 13-02000).  Additional complaints have been
filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same
putative class of end-payors (A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades
Welfare Plan v. Warner Chilcott, et al., D.N.J. 13-02456,
Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance
Trust Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa.
Civ. No. 13-02014).  Electrical Workers 242 and 294 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa.
Civ. No. 13-2862 and City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott Public
Ltd. Co., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307).  In addition to the
end-payor lawsuits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a
class of direct payors (American Sales Company, LLC v. Warner
Chilcott Public Ltd., Co. et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347 and
Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et
al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-133476).

On June 18, 2013, the defendants filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these cases in
one federal district court.  The Defendants' motion is expected to
be heard in late September 2013.  Notwithstanding the motion for
consolidation, these cases are still in their early stages and
discovery has not yet begun on either the class allegations or
merits.  The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits
based on the same or similar allegations.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.

Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Actavis, Inc. is an
integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and distribution of
generic and brand pharmaceutical products.  Through its third-
party business within the Actavis Pharma segment, Actavis out-
licenses generic pharmaceutical products rights developed or
acquired by the Company, primarily in Europe.  Actavis is also
developing biosimilar products within the Actavis Specialty Brands
segment.


ACTAVIS INC: Briefing in Cipro Litigation Appeal Will Resume
------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining parties will resume briefing in an appeal in the
Cipro(R) Litigation, according to Actavis, Inc.'s July 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of lawsuits were filed against
the Company, The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") and other company
affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws.  Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and motions seeking class certification.  Approximately 42 were
cases filed against the Company, Rugby and other Company entities.
Many of these actions have been dismissed.  Actions remain pending
in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee,
and Florida.  The actions generally allege that the defendants
engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with
alleged agreements, entered into prior to the Company's
acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to
the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance
ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand
drug, Cipro (R).  The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.
In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively
terminated the matter.  There has been no action in the cases
pending in Florida and Tennessee since 2003.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of
Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be
permitted to pursue their claims as a class.  On August 31, 2009,
the California Superior Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment, and final judgment was entered on September 24,
2009.  On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.  On December 13, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the California Supreme
Court.  On February 15, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted
review.  On September 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court
entered a stay of all proceedings in the case pending a decision
from the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that
raises similar legal issues.  The California Supreme Court lifted
the stay on June 26, 2013, following the ruling by the United
States Supreme Court.  The Plaintiffs and Bayer recently announced
that they have reached an agreement to settle the claims pending
against Bayer.  The Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims
against the generic defendants, including the Company and Rugby.
The remaining parties now will resume briefing in this appeal.

In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions.  Sanofi has agreed to defend
and indemnify the Company and its affiliates in connection with
the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and
agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior
to the Company's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently
controlling the defense of these actions.

Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Actavis, Inc. is an
integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and distribution of
generic and brand pharmaceutical products.  Through its third-
party business within the Actavis Pharma segment, Actavis out-
licenses generic pharmaceutical products rights developed or
acquired by the Company, primarily in Europe.  Actavis is also
developing biosimilar products within the Actavis Specialty Brands
segment.


ACTAVIS INC: Continues to Defend Androgel Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis, Inc., continues to defend itself against claims in the
Androgel(R) Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's
July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company's September 2006
patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful.
The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel (R) in
exchange for Solvay's agreement to permit the Company to co-
promote Androgel (R) for consideration in excess of the fair value
of the services provided by the Company, in violation of federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The complaint
sought equitable relief and civil penalties.  On February 2 and 3,
2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et
al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., USDC Case No. EDCV
09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana
Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al,
Case No. EDCV 09-0228).  On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred
the government and private cases to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  On April 21, 2009,
the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against
the Company without prejudice.  The Federal Trade Commission and
the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed
amended complaints on May 28, 2009.  The private plaintiffs
amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct
before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection
with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug
Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel (R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et
al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed
Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et
al. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240);
(Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No.
10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ.
No. 10-2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837).  On
April 20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice from
the Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New
Jersey.

On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that
district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court.  On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all
the consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints,
except the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that
include allegations concerning sham litigation.  Final judgment in
favor of the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade
Commission's action on April 21, 2010.  On April 25, 2012, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.  On December 7, 2012, the
U.S. Supreme Court granted the FTC's Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari.  The hearing on the petition was held on March 25,
2013.  On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision,
holding that the settlements between brand and generic drug
companies which include a payment from the brand company to the
generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason"
standard of review.  The case will now be sent back to the Court
of Appeals.

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police
action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and
Drug Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation similar
to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions.  On
October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an
order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on September 10,
2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other
indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and made
subject to the Court's February 22, 2010 order on the motion to
dismiss.  In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and on June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
including Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed
a motion for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints.  On
September 28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendants on all outstanding claims.  The plaintiffs
have appealed.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.  However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.

Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Actavis, Inc. is an
integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and distribution of
generic and brand pharmaceutical products.  Through its third-
party business within the Actavis Pharma segment, Actavis out-
licenses generic pharmaceutical products rights developed or
acquired by the Company, primarily in Europe.  Actavis is also
developing biosimilar products within the Actavis Specialty Brands
segment.


ACTAVIS INC: Defends Suits vs. Anda Alleging TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis, Inc. is defending a subsidiary against a class action
lawsuit and related cases alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's July 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.  The case is Medical West Ballas Pharmacy,
LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257).  In April 2008,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda, Inc., a
subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant.  The amended
complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile
advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper,
toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged
unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile
advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA
and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be
willful.  The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on
behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third
parties.  In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying the allegations.

In November 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to expand
the proposed class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda
lacked evidence of express permission or an established business
relationship to "All persons who on or after four years prior to
the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages
advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of
Defendant."  In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint further expanding the definition and scope of
the proposed class of plaintiffs.  On December 2, 2010, Anda filed
a motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on
behalf of putative class members who expressly consented or agreed
to receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay
the court proceedings pending resolution of Anda's petition to the
FCC.  On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion.  On May 19,
2011, the plaintiff's filed their motion seeking certification of
a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent
Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008.  The
motion has been briefed and was scheduled for hearing on
August 21, 2013.  No trial date has been set in the matter.

On May 1, 2012, an additional action under the TCPA was filed by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., purportedly on behalf of the "end
users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri
to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by
Anda were sent" (Physicians Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 12 CV
60798).  On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative
defenses.  The matter is in its preliminary stages and no trial
date has been set.

Several issues raised in plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the Medical West matter were addressed by the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case to which Anda
is not a party, Nack v. Walburg, No. 11-1460.  Nack concerned
whether there is a private right of action for failing to include
any opt-out notice on faxes sent with express permission, contrary
to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulation that
requires such notice on fax advertisements.  The Eighth Circuit
granted Anda leave to file an amicus brief and to participate
during oral argument in the matter, which was held on
September 19, 2012.  In its ruling, issued May 21, 2013, the
Eighth Circuit held that Nack's arguments on appeal amounted to
challenges to the FCC's regulation and that the court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain such challenges pursuant to the Hobbs
Act and it would otherwise not decide any similar challenges
without the benefit of full participation by the FCC.

In a related matter, on November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition
with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for
its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with
express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition").  On
May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC
dismissed the FCC Petition.  On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an
application for review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full
Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant
the relief sought in the FCC Petition.  The FCC has not ruled on
the application for review.

Anda believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
putative class actions brought under the TCPA, including but not
limited to its receipt of consent to receive facsimile
advertisements from many of the putative class members, and
intends to defend the actions vigorously.  However, these actions,
if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.

Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Actavis, Inc. is an
integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and distribution of
generic and brand pharmaceutical products.  Through its third-
party business within the Actavis Pharma segment, Actavis out-
licenses generic pharmaceutical products rights developed or
acquired by the Company, primarily in Europe.  Actavis is also
developing biosimilar products within the Actavis Specialty Brands
segment.


ACTAVIS INC: Plaintiffs Amend Prochieve(R)-Related Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit related to
Prochieve(R) progesterone gel filed a second amended complaint in
July 2013, according to Actavis, Inc.'s July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 8, 2012, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a consolidated amended class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey (In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of
Columbia Laboratories' stock purchasers.  The amended complaint
generally alleges that between December 6, 2010, and January 20,
2012, Actavis and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia
Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and
misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia
Laboratories obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
approval of Prochieve(R) progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories'
developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth.  Actavis
licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from Columbia Laboratories in
July 2010.  The amended complaint further alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the
statistical analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia
Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of
Prochieve(R).  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
of the claims in the amended complaint which the court granted on
June 11, 2013.  The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
July 11, 2013.

Actavis believes the case is without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses, which it intends to vigorously
pursue.  Additionally, Actavis maintains insurance to provide
coverage for the claims alleged in the action.  However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation.  The action, if successful, or if
insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such
claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Actavis, Inc. is an
integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and distribution of
generic and brand pharmaceutical products.  Through its third-
party business within the Actavis Pharma segment, Actavis out-
licenses generic pharmaceutical products rights developed or
acquired by the Company, primarily in Europe.  Actavis is also
developing biosimilar products within the Actavis Specialty Brands
segment.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Force-Placed Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a force-placed insurance lawsuit filed against Bank of America
seeks class-action status.  The lawsuit, filed in California in
2012 by Christopher Gustafson, alleges Bank of America provided
force-placed insurance from its own affiliates at a high cost to
the borrower while receiving fees, payments or commissions from
force-placed insurance providers.  Force-placed insurance lawsuits
have been filed against a variety of banks alleging the banks
engaged in abusive and unfair practices.

According to court documents (case number SACV-11-00915-JST-AN,
United States District Court, Central District of California),
Christopher Gustafson filed his lawsuit against Bank of America
alleging "unlawful, abusive and unfair practices with respect to
force-placed insurance . . ."  The lawsuit notes that when
borrowers do not maintain their hazard insurance policies,
mortgage loan servicers replace those insurance policies with
force-place policies, which are typically more expensive than the
original policies but have less coverage.  Finally, the mortgage
loan servicer allegedly receives financial gain in the form of
fees, payments or commissions for using the force-placed
insurance.

"Further, such policies often provide unnecessary or duplicative
coverage, in that they are improperly backdated to collect
premiums for time periods during which the mortgagor has
absolutely no risk of loss," the lawsuit alleges.  Ultimately,
force-placed insurance makes more money for the loan servicer,
costs the homeowner more money with less protection and forces
borrowers to pay for insurance that is unnecessary.  The
defendants do this without any attempt to provide competitive
pricing for the insurance, the lawsuit alleges, but makes money
off the transaction, constituting "exploitative profiteering and
self-dealing" and a violation of mortgage contracts.

The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America used a force-placed
insurance policy on his mortgage with a premium of $1,045, almost
two times the original insurance premium of $614.  Furthermore,
the coverage exceeded the lender's stake in the property because
the coverage was for more than $76,000, where as the outstanding
balance on the loan was for less than $48,000.

Other lenders have also faced lawsuits concerning their use of
force-placed insurance and their failure to disclose that they
received a fee or commission for using such insurance, which
provides an incentive to go with prearranged policies rather than
offering competitive solutions or allowing the borrower to have
input into the conditions of the policy.


CHARTER COMMS: Scheduling Conference in Lucas Suit Moved to Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. is a putative class action
complaint asserting federal jurisdiction based upon the Class
Action Fairness Act. At the initial scheduling conference held on
March 7, 2013, defendants indicated that the complained-of charge
was an isolated mistake affecting only the named plaintiff. For
that reason, the parties asked for and obtained permission to
engage in some limited discovery to determine whether a class
action was appropriate in this case. In their latest submission to
the Court, the parties request an additional 30 days to determine
whether early settlement can be reached.

District Judge Rodney W. Sippel said he will grant the parties
some additional time, but added that this is the last continuance
that will be granted for this purpose. "If the parties have not
settled this case by September 25, 2013, the Court will hold a
supplemental scheduling conference," he said.  "At that
conference, plaintiff will be expected to set for the good faith
basis for her allegation that this case is appropriate for
resolution under the Class Action Fairness Act. If the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction, then it will set a schedule for the
remainder of the case."

Accordingly, the scheduling conference set for August 20, 2013, at
10:00 a.m. in the chambers of Judge Sippel is reset to Wednesday,
September 25, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.  The parties will file a joint
proposed scheduling plan by noon on Monday, September 23, 2013.

The case is VICKI LUCAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12 CV 2179 RWS, (E.D. Mo.).

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/4umOXUfrom Leagle.com.

Vicki Lucas, Plaintiff, represented by John C. Kairis --
jkairis@gelaw.com -- at GRANT AND EISENHOFER, P.A., Reuben A.
Guttman -- rguttman@gelaw.com -- at GRANT AND EISENHOFER, P.A.,
Robert G. Eisler -- reisler@gelaw.com -- at GRANT AND EISENHOFER,
P.A. & Christopher A. Hoffman -- choffman@koreintillery.com -- at
KOREIN TILLERY LLC.

Charter Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Wagner -- rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- at THOMPSON COBURN, LLP &
Roman P. Wuller -- rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com -- at THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP.

Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Robert J. Wagner, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Roman P.
Wuller, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.


CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Kroger's Break 'n Bake Cookie Dough
----------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), is recalling a limited number of Kroger's
Break 'N Bake chocolate chip cookie dough packages due to peanut
butter cup cookie dough inadvertently mispacked into chocolate
chip cookie dough packages.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.  There have been no illnesses reported to
date in connection with this product.

This recall is limited to Kroger's Break 'N Bake Chocolate Chip
cookie dough bearing the following UPC and Use by date.  No other
products are impacted.

Recalled Product: Kroger Break 'N Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie
Dough, 16 oz. packages with Unit UPC: 11110 87530 and Use by date:
24NOV13C21

The recalled items were sold in Kroger, Dillons, Baker's, Gerbes,
Foods Co., Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer, Fry's, Jay C, Owen's, Pay
Less, Scott's, QFC, Ralphs and Smith's stores.

The product was shipped to Kroger distribution centers and stores
in 26 states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Not affected by this recall are Kroger's Southwest Division stores
in Texas and Louisiana; Kroger's Delta Division stores in western
Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, western Kentucky and southern
Missouri; and King Soopers and City Market stores in Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

Consumers who have purchased this product should return it to the
store where originally purchased for a full refund.  Consumer with
questions about this issue may call 800-252-0634, 24 hours per
day/seven days per week.

ConAgra Foods is also issuing an alert through Food Allergy
Research & Education (FARE) in an effort to inform any potentially
impacted consumers.  The label does indicate that the product may
contain peanuts.


CR BARD: Settles Second Bellwether Transvaginal Mesh Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the second federal bellwether trial over transvaginal mesh
devices has settled for an undisclosed sum, while manufacturer
C.R. Bard Inc. continues to press that the FDA's approval of its
device should be admitted as evidence to jurors.

The settlement was revealed in a filing on Aug. 23 by U.S.
District Judge Joseph Goodwin, who is overseeing litigation over
transvaginal mesh products in Charleston, W.Va.  A separate
federal jury in the first bellwether trial awarded $2 million to a
woman who alleged that Bard failed to warn of defects in its
product that caused her bleeding and pain.

Plaintiffs attorney Henry Garrard III of Blasingame Burch Garrard
& Ashley in Athens, Ga., who represents the women in both cases,
declined to comment about the settlement, the terms of which were
confidential.  "We are continuing to fight for women and hope that
those in charge will recognize their responsibilities and step
forward," Mr. Garrard said by email.

Bard's attorney, Lori Cohen -- cohenl@gtlaw.com -- chairwoman of
the pharmaceutical, medical device & health care litigation
practice at Greenberg Traurig in Atlanta, did not respond to
requests for comment.  Scott Lowrey, vice president and treasurer
of Bard, said in an emailed statement: "This is a large, complex
litigation and Bard will consider each case based on the facts and
merits.  We believe the evidence establishes that our Avaulta mesh
products, cleared by the FDA, are safe and effective, and provide
significant benefits to patients and we will continue to
vigorously defend against all other lawsuits involving Avaulta."

Some 20,000 lawsuits have been coordinated in multidistrict
litigation against Bard and five other manufacturers of
transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse, a
condition that can cause urinary incontinence or pain, sometimes
during sex.

In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety
warning that "serious complications associated with surgical mesh
for transvaginal repair of [pelvic organ prolapse] are not rare."
The FDA asked manufacturers to submit additional studies of the
safety and effectiveness of their products.  Bard pulled its
Avaulta devices off the market last year.

In the first case to go to trial, Donna Cisson alleged that she
had to undergo two surgeries to remove the device, one of Bard's
line of Avaulta products.  The jury found on August 15 that Bard
failed to warn about a design defect and awarded $250,000 in
compensatory damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages.

The settlement ended the second trial, which began on Aug. 21, on
behalf of a North Carolina woman, Wanda Queen.  A third bellwether
case goes to trial on October 8 and a fourth on November 4.

On June 27, Judge Goodwin granted a motion to exclude from all the
four trials any evidence that Bard's product had been cleared for
sale through a so-called 501(k) approval process, in which the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration allows a company to sell a
medical device that is substantially similar to a product already
on the market.  He also granted a motion to exclude evidence that
the FDA never took any enforcement action over the Avaulta device.

Bard, which had argued to include such evidence in an unsuccessful
attempt to eliminate the potential for punitive damages from the
bellwether cases, immediately sought reconsideration of that order
or, in the alternative, to certify the issue for interlocutory
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Judge Goodwin's ruling, Ms. Cohen wrote, "has unintended
consequences that will radically and disproportionately affect the
fairness of this trial."


DOVE CHOCOLATE: Recalls Dark Chocolate-Covered Fruit Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dove Chocolate Discoveries (DCD) is voluntarily recalling its Dark
Chocolate-Covered Fruit Collection boxes marked Item #3265D, lot
code #317DAIDS01 because some boxes may contain undeclared nuts.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to nuts run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.  No illnesses or reactions have been
reported to date.

Over the past two weeks, the company has made an effort to contact
all recipients of the affected boxes.  However, a number of those
recipients could not be reached, and up to four mislabeled boxes
remain outside company control.

The product, which is unique to DCD's home party business and not
available in stores, was distributed through home party sales in
the United States.  Highlighted text The interior packaging is
labeled properly indicating a product that includes nuts.  The
recall was initiated when the company received a call from
independent Chocolatier (sales representative) indicating that a
customer order for Dark Chocolate-Covered Fruit Collection
contained Dark Chocolate Cinnamon Dusted Almonds.

The company requests that consumers who have a box of Dark
Chocolate-Covered Fruit Collection Item #3265D, lot code
#317DAIDS01 please contact (866) 922-3683 (M-F, 8:30 - 5:00 ET) to
coordinate product return and replacement.


ERNST & YOUNG: Schiff Hardin Discusses Class Action Waiver Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven T. Catlett, Esq. at Schiff Hardin LLP reports that less
than two weeks after the Second Circuit approved a class action
waiver in Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP (Aug. 9, 2013), the
Ninth Circuit too has ruled that an employer's arbitration
agreement with a class action waiver will be enforced.  Richards
v. Ernst & Young LLP, No. 11-17530 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013).  In
doing so, the Ninth Circuit, as did the Second Circuit, applied
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in American Express Co. v.
Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), and rejected
the argument that the NLRB's decision in D.R. Horton invalidates
class action waivers.  Employers thus can be increasingly
confident that they may be able to minimize their risk of class
action employment litigation if they adopt a properly constructed
arbitration program.

Michelle Richards filed a wage-hour class action suit against
Ernst & Young in 2008. (Her case was consolidated for purposes of
class certification with two other cases filed earlier.) While
Richards was subject to an arbitration program with a class action
waiver, E&Y did not seek to compel arbitration until after the
Supreme Court's 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).  E&Y took the position that any earlier
effort to compel arbitration would have been futile, since under
California state law, class action waivers were unenforceable.
Richards argued that E&Y's delay prevented it from enforcing the
arbitration agreement and class action waiver, and the District
Court agreed.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed.  The court noted that
waivers of contractual rights, including the right to arbitrate,
were disfavored, and found that while there had been litigation on
the merits prior to E&Y's arbitration motion, that did not
prejudice Richards or prevent enforcing the arbitration agreement.

The Ninth Circuit then turned to Richard's substantive argument
for rejecting the arbitration agreement and class action waiver.
Specifically, Richards argued that the Court should rely on the
NLRB's decision in D.R. Horton, 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184, 2012 WL
36274 (2012), which states that class action waivers are
categorically unenforceable under the National Labor Relations
Act.  The Ninth Circuit declined to do so, joining the Eighth
Circuit and the "overwhelming majority of the district courts" in
rejecting D.R. Horton as inconsistent with the FAA's strong
pro-arbitration policy.  The Ninth Circuit then noted that this
pro-arbitration policy recently had been reiterated by the Supreme
Court in American Express.

With this decision, there now are two Courts of Appeals applying
American Express to uphold class action waivers in an arbitration
agreement in the employment setting, and a virtually uniform slate
of courts rejecting D.R. Horton.  Employers that have an
arbitration program in place may want to consider adding a class
action waiver, or, if a class action waiver is included, having
that waiver reviewed for proper construction.  If employers do not
have arbitration programs and are concerned with the exposure
presented by possible employment class actions, serious
consideration should be given to an arbitration program.


EXPED AG: Recalls Exped Mira I and Mira II Camping Tents
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 26, 2013
Posting date:             August 26, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Outdoor Living
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35263

Affected Products: Exped Mira I and Mira II Camping Tents

The recall involves the following Exped brand tents: Exped Mira I
and Mira II tents with lot numbers beginning with 11, 21 or 31.
The Lot Number is found on the tag sewn on the fly and in the
inner tent.

Health Canada's testing process revealed that the materials used
in these tents do not meet the requirements for tent flammability
under Canadian law.  The tents could easily catch fire if exposed
to a continuous flame or other ignition source and cause severe
burns to consumers.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/iFAf7K

Neither Exped AG nor Health Canada has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of these tents.

Approximately 8 tents were sold by retailers in Canada.

The recalled tents were manufactured in China and sold from
January 2011 to August 2013.

Companies:

   Importer        Exped AG
                   Zurich
                   Switzerland

   Distributor     In-Sport Fashions Inc.
                   Montreal
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should stop using the tent immediately.

For more information please call In-Sport Fashions Inc. at 1-514-
385-1577 or Exped AG at +41 444971010.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Approves $20-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that in a long-awaited conclusion to
Facebook's "Sponsored Stories" class action saga, a federal judge
gave final approval to a $20 million settlement on Aug. 26 but
took an axe to the $7.5 million in fees requested by plaintiffs
attorneys.

The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg
provides for each Facebook user who submitted a valid claim to
receive $15, with remaining funds disbursed to 14 organizations
focused on consumer protection, privacy and other issues raised in
the suit.  Facebook Inc. is also required to improve its
disclosure practices, giving users more control over when and how
their names and photos will be used. The company must also create
special controls for minors.

"We are pleased that the settlement has received final approval,"
a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement.  Fraley v. Facebook,
11-1726, was filed in March 2011 on behalf of some 150 million
social network users whose names and likenesses were used to
promote products and services through Facebook's "Sponsored
Stories" advertising feature.

Judge Seeborg granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees,
costs and incentive awards, but reduced some amounts.  The class
had moved to recoup $7.5 million in attorney fees, which marked
37.5 percent of the settlement fund.  Though above the typical 25
percent benchmark, plaintiffs lawyers argued their fees should
reflect the value of injunctive relief secured for the class.

Judge Seeborg rejected that approach, finding "nothing to suggest
. . . that any class member will see a single dollar more in his
or her pocket as a result of any of the injunctive provisions."

Instead, he awarded plaintiffs lawyers 25 percent of the
settlement fund after the deduction of administration expenses,
incentive awards and costs.  Those payments are expected to total
roughly $1.1 million, making the fee award approximately $4.7
million.

The three named plaintiffs had sought incentive awards of $12,500
apiece, for a total of $37,500.   Instead, they'll receive $1,500
each.

Last December, Judge Seeborg gave preliminary approval to a
settlement that would have distributed $10 per claimant.  The
final action marks a sweeter deal for them -- in part because so
few came forward.

In his order granting final approval, Judge Seeborg wrote that he
weighed an even greater payout to claimants.  However, he
determined that increasing the payment further would unfairly
penalize class members who didn't bother submitting claims for
what they believed to be negligible compensation.

The judge had previously rejected a $20 million proposal that
divvied up the settlement for charitable donations and attorney
fees but gave no monetary benefit to class members.

Robert Arns -- rsa@arnslaw.com -- the San Francisco plaintiffs
attorney who is lead counsel for the class, did not respond to a
request for comment.  Cooley partner Michael Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- who represented Facebook, deferred comment
to the company's press team.


FUKUDA TRADING: Recalls Certain Orion Brand Potato Chips
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fukuda Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, May be
                          National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

   -- Orion Italian Gratin flavoured Italian potato chips 115 g.
      with all codes (where milk is not declared in the list of
      ingredients); and

   -- Orion Italian Gratin flavoured Italian potato chips 50 g.
      with all codes (where milk is not declared in the list of
      ingredients)

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Fukuda Trading Co.
Ltd. are warning people with allergies to milk not to consume
certain Orion brand Italian Gratin flavoured Italian potato chips.
The affected products contain milk which is not declared on the
label.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Fa9ARm

These products have been distributed in British Columbia and
Alberta and may have been distributed in other provinces as well.

There has been one reported illness 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 importer, Fukuda Trading Co. Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia,
is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the
marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the
recall.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Wants to Take Part in Zoloft MDL Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in ongoing pharmaceutical litigation over alleged links between
antidepressants and birth defects, GlaxoSmithKline is seeking the
opportunity to participate in discovery in the Zoloft
multidistrict litigation.

GlaxoSmithKline, a co-defendant of Pfizer in three cases in In re
Zoloft, is arguing that the plaintiffs' experts are offering
opinions on drugs other than Zoloft, including GSK's Paxil.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ordered the exchange of expert reports regarding
Zoloft general causation, but GSK argued that allowing plaintiffs'
experts to provide reports about SSRI (selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitor) drugs other than Pfizer's Zoloft is unfair.

It also argued in the motion that if the scope of the experts'
opinions is not narrowed to Zoloft, GSK should be able to
participate.

"Given the breadth of plaintiffs' experts' opinions, GSK seeks
clarification from the court that plaintiffs' experts will not be
allowed to opine in the initial discovery group about Paxil's
alleged ability to cause birth defects or that SSRIs as a group
cause birth defects," GSK said in a memorandum of law filed last
week.  "If plaintiffs' experts are allowed to offer such opinions,
GSK would not have a full and fair opportunity to address claims
that all SSRIs are teratogens," substances that may cause
malformation of an embryo.

GSK claimed that while it does not have as large a volume of cases
as Pfizer in Zoloft, the plaintiffs' experts' "overly broad
attack" on SSRIs could impact GSK's ability to provide an adequate
defense in cases where it is named as a co-defendant.

"Fundamental principles of fairness and due process mitigate
against applying any rulings related to the initial discovery
group's expert reports to GSK if GSK has not had an opportunity to
litigate the critical issues of causation outlined by plaintiffs'
expert reports," GSK argued in its filing.

Judge Rufe required the plaintiffs' experts to address Zoloft's
alleged ability to cause birth defects, GSK said.

The plaintiffs' experts also served reports to defendants that
encompass general causation issues for all SSRIs, including Paxil,
according to GSK.

GSK asked that if Judge Rufe, after clarifying her order, states
she actually intended to hear the broad-based allegations made by
the plaintiffs' experts in this initial discovery, then GSK "must
be allowed to submit expert reports, participate in the Daubert
proceedings, with the schedule adjusted accordingly," given the
potential impact on GSK's cases.


HALO INNOVATIONS: Recalls 27,000 SleepSack Blankets
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that baby products maker Halo is
recalling 27,000 of its SleepSack wearable blankets due to a
choking hazard.

Halo Innovations Inc. and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission said on Aug. 22 the wearable cotton blankets were sold
at Babies R Us from December 2011 through July 2013 for about $25.
The recalled garment is white and has pink ruffles and a pink
satin rose.

The rose can detach from the blanket and pose a choking hazard to
infants.

Halo has received six reports of petals detaching from the
garment.  That includes one report of an infant who gagged on the
detached flower.

Consumers should stop using the blank and contact the company for
instructions on how to remove the flower and receive a free
replacement product.


HYUNDAI: Recalls 23,000 Santa Fe SUVs Over Axle Shaft Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Hyundai is recalling about
23,000 SUVs in the U.S. and Canada because an axle can fail,
causing the car to lose power.

The recall affects 2013 Santa Fe Sport models with front-wheel-
drive and 2.4-liter, four-cylinder engines.  They were built
between July 11, 2012 through March 12 of this year.

Hyundai says the right axle shaft can fail in rare cases.  If that
happens, the SUVs can lose power or roll away if parked on a
slope.  The company says it's not aware of any crashes or injuries
linked to the defect.

Owners are being notified by letter.  Dealers will replace the
axle shaft free of charge.


JOHN HANCOCK: Court Dismisses "Feingold" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph L. Tauro dismissed the case captioned
RICHARD FEINGOLD, individually and as a representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (USA) and JOHN HANCOCK LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-10185-JLT, (D. Mass.)

The case arises from the retention of life insurance policy
proceeds by Defendants John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA)
and John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company.  Plaintiff
Richard Feingold challenges John Hancock's practice of holding
policy proceeds until receiving proof of the insured's death. John
Hancock has moved to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/0lABfF from Leagle.com.

Richard Feingold, Plaintiff, represented by Alan L. Cantor, Swartz
& Swartz & George K. Lang, Anderson & Wanca.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA), Defendant, represented
by Edwin G. Schallert -- egschall@debevoise.com -- at Debevoise &
Plimpton, Christopher M. Reilly -- creilly@sloanewalsh.com -- at
Sloane & Walsh & Myles W. McDonough -- mmcdonough@sloanewalsh.com
-- at Sloane & Walsh, LLP.

John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Edwin G. Schallert, Debevoise & Plimpton,
Christopher M. Reilly, Sloane & Walsh & Myles W. McDonough, Sloane
& Walsh, LLP.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Hip Implant Suits for $3 Billion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that Johnson & Johnson, the world's biggest seller of health-care
products, has discussed paying more than $3 billion to settle
lawsuits over its recalled hip implants, according to five people
familiar with the matter.

J&J seeks to resolve as many as 11,500 lawsuits in the U.S. and
has considered paying more than $300,000 per case, according to
the people.  Such a settlement would exceed $3 billion if most
plaintiffs accept the terms, an amount 50 percent larger than that
proposed in previous discussions.

A $3 billion settlement would dwarf a 2001 accord Sulzer AG
reached with patients who claimed that company's hip and knee
implants were defective.  Sulzer, a Winterthur, Switzerland-based
pump maker, agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve those suits, then
the largest settlement involving hip implants.

Any accord would be affected by the outcome of seven product-
liability trials between September and January, according to the
people, who aren't authorized to make the negotiations public.

"It's going to be a fascinating case to watch settle because of
the level of complexity of the injuries and the amount of money
that will be involved," said Bruce Cranner, a medical device
defense lawyer not involved in the case.  "You don't see a lot of
mass-tort implant cases settle for a substantial amount of money."

                        Replacement Surgeries

The company is pushing to resolve U.S. cases by early next year,
according to the people.  J&J's DePuy unit recalled 93,000
implants in 2010, including 37,000 in the U.S., after more than 12
percent failed within five years.  That rate is climbing, along
with suits by patients blaming the chromium and cobalt devices for
pain, metal debris and replacement surgeries.

J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, has spent about $993
million on medical costs and informing patients and surgeons about
the ASR recall, Lorie Gawreluk, a spokeswoman for DePuy, said in
an e-mail.  J&J set aside an undisclosed amount for litigation,
which it increased before June 30, she said.

"The company also continues to support ASR patients with a
reimbursement program to address recall-related testing and
treatment costs," she said.  "Reports about a possible resolution
of the litigation are premature and speculative, including any
estimates of resolution amounts."

Steven Skikos, a plaintiffs' lawyer leading efforts to prepare
lawsuits against DePuy, said his group is preparing for jury
trials, which include the first case in federal court.

                        'Dangerous Guess'

"With the trials rapidly approaching, and our continuing efforts
to obtain more information and data about the patients, it's easy
to speculate about settlement," Mr. Skikos said in an e-mail.
"However, any comment relating to settlement that does not come
from the plaintiff's leadership, the court, or from the company
itself remains premature, uninformed and a dangerous guess."

J&J lost an $8.3 million verdict in the first trial over the ASR
device and won the second. In the first case, a California jury in
March awarded damages to a retired Montana prison guard.  The
panel also ruled the device was defectively designed, that DePuy
properly warned of the risks, and that the company didn't owe
punitive damages.  DePuy is appealing.

A Chicago jury ruled six weeks later for DePuy in rejecting a
defective design claim by an Illinois nurse.

Other Trials

Seven other trials of lawsuits by plaintiffs blaming the ASR hips
for injuries will help lawyers for both sides frame questions over
liability and damages.  The first is scheduled to begin Sept. 9 in
federal court in Cleveland. U.S. District Judge David Katz is
overseeing that lawsuit by Ann McCracken, 58, a resident of
Rochester, New York, who needed two replacement surgeries known as
revisions after her ASR implant.

Judge Katz is overseeing about 8,000 federal cases consolidated
before him for the pre-trial collection of evidence.  About 2,000
cases are pending in the California Judicial Council Coordinated
Proceeding before Judge Richard Kramer in San Francisco.

Trials also are scheduled in state courts in San Francisco in
October; in Hackensack, New Jersey, in October and January; in
West Palm Beach, Florida, in November; in Chicago in December; and
in Los Angeles in January.

"DePuy believes the evidence to be presented at trial will show
the company acted appropriately and responsibly," Ms. Gawreluk
said.  "The ASR hip system was properly designed, physicians were
properly informed of the product's risks, and DePuy's actions
concerning the product were appropriate."

                          Broad Outline

Lawyers for hip recipients are still reviewing more than 50
million pages of J&J documents and conducting pre-trial interviews
of company officials and experts to prepare for those cases,
Mr. Skikos said.

While settlement talks continue, J&J and lawyers for hip claimants
have agreed on the broad outline of a so-called "global
settlement" covering all U.S. cases, the people said.

In January, five people familiar with the talks had said J&J
officials were willing to pay about $2 billion to resolve the
cases.  Lawyers for plaintiffs rejected that amount as too little,
the people said.

Any overall accord would compensate patients based on such factors
as age, extent of injuries and whether they had one or more
surgeries to replace defective implants, according to the people.
Negotiators would likely rank those and other factors on a matrix
or grid, the people said.

"J&J's strategy will be to find a way to negotiate a grid to
settle each of the claims based on five or six variables that
could be plugged in and changed up or down to determine the value
of any claim," said Mr. Cranner, a lawyer with the New Orleans-
based law firm of Frilot LLC.  He is past chairman of the Medical
Liability and Health Care Law Committee of DRI, an organization of
lawyers who represent corporations and insurers.
Obstacles Remain

Several obstacles to a final settlement still must be overcome,
the people said.  One includes the number of years that J&J may
potentially have to pay future claims.  Another is whether the
settlement would include reimbursing Medicare for claims paid. A
third is the amount of compensation for extreme medical cases,
which include dual hip surgeries or cases where infection prompted
long hospital stays, the people added.

"There are a significant subset of clients who got very badly hurt
by the device, and their injuries are much more than a simple
revision," said Matthew Davis, a lawyer at Walkup Melodia Kelly &
Schoenberger in San Francisco whose firm represents 270 ASR
clients.

"If those cases went to trial and there was a finding of
liability, a jury would award them general damages in the seven
figures," said Mr. Davis, who isn't involved in the negotiations.

                           Alloy Used

The J&J hips were made from a cobalt-and-chromium alloy used in
two related models -- the ASR XL Acetabular System, and the ASR
Hip Resurfacing System.  In announcing its recall, J&J cited
unpublished data from the U.K. showing that within five years, 13
percent of ASR XL hips failed and needed revisions, and 12 percent
of the ASR Hip Resurfacing System failed.

At the first trial in Los Angeles, lawyers for plaintiff Loren
Kransky argued DePuy failed to test the device adequately before
selling it in the U.S. in 2005, buried surgeon complaints of
mounting failures, and studied a redesign of the ASR before
scrapping that effort in 2008.

Lawyers for patients claim that debris from the metal ball sliding
against the metal cup causes tissue death around the joint and may
increase the amount of metal ions in the bloodstream to harmful
levels.

J&J set up a help line for patients that is "available in dozens
of countries and has served tens of thousands of callers,"
Ms. Gawreluk said.  J&J runs a worldwide reimbursement program
resulting in "thousands of payments to patients for testing and
treatment of other out-of-pocket expenses."

The McCracken DePuy case is McCracken v. DePuy, 11-dp-20485, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Toledo).  The
consolidated federal case is In re DePuy Orthopedics Inc., ASR Hip
Implant Products Liability Litigation, 10-MD-2197, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Ohio (Toledo).


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Jansky" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to defend
itself from a class action lawsuit filed by Yvonne Jansky,
according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby, resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts.  The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses.  The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  The Company operates one of the largest clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend "Pepe" Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit brought by Ann Baker Pepe,
according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to preserve DNA samples
allegedly entrusted to the defendants and thereby breached a
written agreement with plaintiff and violated state laws.  The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double and treble
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal
expenses.  The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  The Company operates one of the largest clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.


LABORATORY CORP: Defends "Sandusky" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's
July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express invitation or permission.  The
lawsuit seeks actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 million for
each violation, whichever is greater, and injunctive relief.  The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  The Company operates one of the largest clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces Suits Over Calif. Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is facing two class
action lawsuits alleging violations of California Labor Code,
according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in two putative class actions related
to overtime pay.  On July 8, 2013, a putative class action,
Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al.,
was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Solano, alleging on behalf of
similarly situated phlebotomists that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees.  On July 8, 2013, a putative class action,
Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging on behalf of
similarly situated couriers that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
both cases.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings --
http://www.labcorp.com/-- more commonly known as LabCorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.  The Company operates one of the largest clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.


LEFT COAST: Recalls Good Health Natural Foods Over Gluten
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Left Coast Naturals
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8260

Affected products: Good Health Natural Foods Veggie Crinkle Chips
Mixed Vegetables 199 g. with Best By Dates: Oct 26 2013; Nov 21,
2013; Nov 22, 2013; and Dec 17, 2013


LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Certain Nutty Bean Brand Chickpea Snacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Labelling
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Les Aliments Colinex
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8272

Affected products:

   -- Nutty Bean Chick PZ Premium Roasted Chickpea Snack Honey
      Roasted 56 or 57 grams with all packages bearing "gluten-
      free" and "nut-free" claims;

   -- Nutty Bean Chick PZ Premium Roasted Chickpea Snack Sesame
      Crunch 56 or 57 grams with all packages bearing "gluten-
      free" and "nut-free" claims;

   -- Nutty Bean Chick PZ Premium Roasted Chickpea Snack Sweet &
      Spicy Chipotle 56 or 57 grams with all packages bearing
      "gluten-free" and "nut-free" claims;

   -- Nutty Bean Chick PZ Premium Roasted Chickpea Snack Chai
      Vanilla 56 or 57 grams with all packages bearing "gluten-
      free" and "nut-free" claims;

   -- Nutty Bean Chick PZ Premium Roasted Chickpea Snack Fruit &
      Dark Chocolate Trail Mix 56 or 57 grams with all packages
      bearing "gluten-free" and "nut-free" claims;

   -- Nutty Bean Chick PZ - Premium Roasted Chickpea Snack
      Cinnamon Crunch 56 or 57 grams with all packages bearing
      "gluten-free" and "nut-free" claims; and

   -- Nutty Bean Chick PZ - Premium Roasted Chickpea Snack Sea
      Salt 56 or 57 grams with all packages bearing "gluten-free"
      and "nut-free" claims.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Sunspun Brand Chunk Light Tuna
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8179

Affected products: Sunspun Chunk Light Tuna Packed in Broth
1.88 kg.


LOWE'S HIW: Court Certifies Class in Contractors' Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted a motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned RONALD SHEPARD and HENRY
ROMINES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HIW, INC. and DOES 1-50, Defendants, NO.
C 12-3893 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff had sought class certification for the following
class:

All persons who installed products for Lowe's or performed
services for Lowe's in the State of California and who were
treated as independent contractors by Lowe's but over whom Lowe's
exercised control and discretion in the performance of their
installation services.

The Court concluded, based on the current record as presented,
that the Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and that
Plaintiff's counsel will vigorously prosecute this action on
behalf of the class.

The Court continued the case management conference from August 23,
2013, at 9:00 a.m. to November 15, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. A joint case
management statement will be filed no later than November 8, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/7NOSgZ from Leagle.com.

Ronald Shephard, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Cotton Molumphy --
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Bryan
Marshall Payne -- bpayne@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy LLP, Hester H Cheng -- hcheng@garciagurney.com -- at
Garcia & Gurney, ALC, Jason M. Leviton -- Jason@blockesq.com -- at
Block & Leviton LLP, Jeffrey C. Block -- jeff@blockesq.com -- at
Block & Leviton LLP, Matthew Kendall Edling --
medling@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP & Scott
A. Mays -- scott@blockesq.com -- at Block and Leviton LLP.

Lowe's HIW, Inc., Defendant, represented by Phillip J. Eskenazi --
peskenazi@hunton.com -- at Hunton & Williams LLP, Emily Burkhardt
Vicente -- ebvicente@hunton.com -- at Hunton and Williams LLP &
Kirk Austin Hornbeck, Jr. -- khornbeck@hunton.com -- at Hunton &
Williams LLP.


MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Magna International Inc. on Aug. 26 disclosed that the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York has granted
the Company's motion and dismissed the putative securities class
action lawsuit in which Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Trust acted as lead plaintiff.  The lawsuit was originally filed
in May 2012 against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, as well as its founder.  As a result of
the Court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit "with prejudice", the
claim cannot be re-filed.

                           About Magna

Magna International -- http://www.magna.com-- is a global
automotive supplier with 314 manufacturing operations and 89
product development, engineering and sales centers in 29
countries.


McKESSON CORP: Court Stays Proceedings in "Messih" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
MESSIH v. McKESSON CORP. is one of many cases involving the
prescription diabetes drugs Avandia(R), Avandamet(R), and
Avandaryl(R) currently pending in federal court. The Plaintiffs
originally filed this case in the Superior Court for the County of
San Francisco against McKesson Corporation, Smithkline Beecham
Corporation d/b/a/Glaxosmithkline and numerous Doe defendants. The
complaint alleges that plaintiffs were prescribed Avandia(R), and
that they have suffered serious cardiovascular events such as
heart attacks and congestive heart failure as a result of their
use of that drug. On July 9, 2013, defendant Glaxosmithkline
removed the action to the United States District Court, N.D.
California, asserting diversity jurisdiction as well as
jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(11). The Notice of Removal asserts that McKesson
was fraudulently joined for a number of reasons, including that
plaintiffs' state law claims against McKesson are preempted under
PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011).

On July 18, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a Conditional Transfer Order conditionally transferring
this case to the MDL proceeding pending before Judge Cynthia Rufe,
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re Avandia Marketing,
Sales Practices and Products Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1871.
Plaintiffs filed notices of oppositions to the Conditional
Transfer Order. Presently before the Calif. Court are defendant
Glaxosmithkline's motion to stay the action until the JPML
resolves any dispute about transferability, and plaintiffs' motion
for remand to state court.

Defendant's motion to stay is scheduled for a hearing on August
30, 2013, and plaintiffs' motion for remand is scheduled for a
hearing on September 6, 2013. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),
District Judge Susan Illston determined that these matters are
appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and vacated the
hearings.

Judge Illston granted the Defendants' motion to stay all
proceedings in this case pending a final decision on transfer by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In the event the
Panel does not transfer this action, the Court will rule on
plaintiffs' motion for remand.

Judge Illston said the Court finds that a stay will not prejudice
the plaintiffs because the JPML's final decision on transfer is
likely to be issued shortly.

The case is SHUKRY MESSIH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORP.,
et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-3155 SI, (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/NWk1WKfrom Leagle.com.

Shukry Messih, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee --
PNapoli@NapoliBern.com -- at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik &
Associates LLP.

Velma Harbeck, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Estella Soltz, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Rodney Watson, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Mary Anne Morse, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jason Morse, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Phillip Morse, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Sarah Morse, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Emily Morse, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Lubertha Nathaniel, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Gregory Morse, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Kimberly Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Leeshun Nathaniel, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Johnny Slaughter, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Lynda Smart, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Virgil Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Geraldine Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Joan Sperduti, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Barbara Stoval, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Clarence Swan, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Paul Sykes, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Joyce Tarver Marks, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Judie Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Sylvia Lavern Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Janie Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Naomi Trahan, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Mary Ann Trexler, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Willie Tutt, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

William Valentine, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jose Vigil, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Karl Vugrnick, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Willie Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Gloria Jean Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Phillip Whiteside, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Sandra Wilkes, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Marcus Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Elizabeth Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

John Wise, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Thalia Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Tom Yurasits, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven J.
Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.

SmithKline Beachman Corporation, dba GlaxoSmithKline, Defendant,
represented by Michael Kevin Brown --  mkbrown@reedsmith.com -- at
Reed Smith LLP & Steven J. Boranian -- sboranian@reedsmith.com --
at Reed Smith LLP.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC., Defendant, represented by Michael Kevin
Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Sonja S. Weissman --
sweissman@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP & Steven J. Boranian,
Reed Smith LLP.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Appeal in "Williams" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. and other defendants'
appeal from a class certification order in the class action
lawsuit initiated by Dollie Williams, et al., remains pending,
according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, against the Company and others.  The plaintiffs, who
claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that the Company
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs and seek recovery of the
monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs
in the six months prior to the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-
150(A).  The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the
action as a class action.  On March 16, 2012, Walter Bussey and
two other named plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed.

On March 29, 2013, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On April 12, 2013,
the defendants jointly filed a petition with the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the court's ruling
on class certification.  On June 18, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals entered an order granting the petition to appeal.
The Company's appellate brief was due on August 5, 2013.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.  Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.  A
finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama
during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory
consequences for the Company in other jurisdictions.

Austin, Texas-based Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. and its
subsidiaries design, manufacture and supply innovative standalone
and networked gaming systems to Native American and commercial
casino operators in North America, domestic and selected
international lottery operators, and commercial bingo gaming
facility operators.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Certification Bid Ruling in "Hardy" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit styled Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et
al., according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama.  On June 3, 2010, the Company and other
manufacturers were added.  The plaintiffs, who claim to have been
patrons of White Hall, allege that the Company participated in
gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying
to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines
played by the plaintiffs and seek recovery of the monies lost on
all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six
months prior to the complaint based on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A).
The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as
a class action.  On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern Division.  The court has not ruled on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.  Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.  A
finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama
during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory
consequences to the Company in other jurisdictions.

Austin, Texas-based Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. and its
subsidiaries design, manufacture and supply innovative standalone
and networked gaming systems to Native American and commercial
casino operators in North America, domestic and selected
international lottery operators, and commercial bingo gaming
facility operators.


NVR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits brought by sales and marketing representatives over
overtime wages, according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007, in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004, by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York captioned Tracy v. NVR, Inc.  The lawsuits
filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North
Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in the
Tracy action.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees
and interest, and where available, multiple damages.  While the
lawsuits were filed as purported class actions, none of them have
been certified as such.  On April 29, 2013, the Western District
of New York ruled that the claims asserted in the Tracy case were
not appropriate for class action treatment and dismissed a number
of individuals who had filed consents to join that action from the
case.  It is now scheduled for a trial on the remaining individual
plaintiff's claims to commence in October 2013.

On May 29, 2013, attorneys representing the individuals dismissed
from the Tracy action filed another lawsuit on behalf of those
individuals in the New York Supreme Court for Monroe County
captioned Anderson v. NVR, Inc.  The Company removed the Anderson
action to the Western District of New York on June 18, 2013.  The
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to stay the Anderson action
pending final disposition of the Tracy action, which the Company
intends to oppose.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to
sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in
compliance with two letter rulings from the United States
Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007.  Courts that
have considered similar claims against other homebuilders have
acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and marketing
representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime
wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt
status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position was
valid.  Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and
intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  Because
the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome of this case, or the amount of damages, if
any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on
the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of
single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings.
The Company is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Limca Carbonated Beverage
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Quality Natural Foods Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8270

Affected products: Limca Sweetened Carbonated Beverage 300 ml.


REACTION NUTRITION: Recalls LIVE CLINICAL Due to Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reaction Nutrition, LLC of Carnegie, PA is recalling LIVE CLINICAL
90 CAPS, because it contains undeclared milk.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk (bovine colostrum powder)
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

The product is in a white plastic bottle with a white lid, the
brand is Reaction Nutrition Clinical with a white and blue label.
The lot number is PB0091512, expiration date is 08/2014 and UPC
code is 283333900111.  The lot number and expiration date is
printed in red ink and located near the bottom of the bottle.

LIVE was distributed to Retail supplement stores in the following
States and Cities:

   -- AL Auburn;
   -- CA Barstow;
   -- CA Chula Vista;
   -- CA San Luis Obispo;
   -- CO Littleton;
   -- CT Hamden;
   -- FL Coral Springs;
   -- FL Pembroke Pines;
   -- ID Pocatello;
   -- IL Joliet;
   -- MD Glen Burnie;
   -- MD Baltimore;
   -- MI Lincoln Park;
   -- MO Columbia;
   -- MO Warrensburg;
   -- NE Omaha;
   -- NY East Meadow;
   -- NY Kingston OH Columbus OK Paoli;
   -- PA Wyomissing;
   -- RI Johnston;
   -- SC West Columbia;
   -- TX Dallas; and
   -- WV Parkersburg

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
ingredient (colostrum) is a known milk allergen and LIVE contains
this ingredient without listing an allergy warning on the label.

Consumers who have purchased Reaction Nutrition LIVE Clinical 90
caps are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-877-REACT77 between the hours of 10:00am and 6:00pm EST.


SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Circuit Reinstates Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a recent Supreme Court ruling does not derail class-action
claims against Sears, Roebuck & Co. over allegedly defective
Kenmore washing machines, the 7th Circuit ruled.

The federal appeals court in Chicago revisited, in light of the
high court's March ruling in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, its earlier
decision to certify two classes of washing machine buyers.

One group argued that defective front-loading washing machines
caused mold buildup and foul odors; the other claimed the washing
machines had faulty control units that caused the machine to shut
down before the cycle had finished.

The classes sued Sears under the breach-of-warranty laws of six
states for Kenmore machines sold from 2001 to 2004.

A federal judge certified the control-unit class but denied
certification to the mold class, and the 7th Circuit reinstated
the mold class last November.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 7th Circuit in light
of Comcast, in which the justices disbanded certification of a
class action accusing the cable company of trying to monopolize
the market for non-basic cable television.

"Comcast holds that a damages suit cannot be certified to proceed
as a class action unless the damages sought are the result of the
class-wide injury that the suit alleges," the 7th Circuit's Judge
Richard Posner explained.

"Comcast was an antitrust suit, and the court said that 'if [the
plaintiffs] prevail on their claims, they would be entitled only
to damages resulting from reduced overbuilder competition, since
that is the only theory of antitrust impact accepted for class-
action treatment by the district court," Posner wrote for the
three-judge panel.

"Unlike the situation in Comcast, there is no possibility in this
case that damages could be attributable to acts of the defendants
that are not challenged on a class-wide basis; all members of the
mold class attribute their damages to mold and all members of the
control-unit class to a defect in the control unit," he wrote.

Posner rejected Sears' comparison of washing machine design
changes that may have affected the severity of the mold problems
to the varying antitrust liability theories in Comcast.

"It was not the existence of multiple theories in that case that
precluded class certification; it was plaintiffs' failure to base
all the damages they sought on the antitrust impact -- the injury
-- of which the plaintiffs were complaining," Posner wrote. "In
contrast, any buyer of a Kenmore washing machine who experienced a
mold problem was harmed by a breach of warranty alleged in the
complaint."

He said the Supreme Court likely remanded the case, though it
differed from Comcast, because of the emphasis that the majority
placed on the requirement of proof of predominance at the class
certification stage rather than during later stages in the
litigation.

"The court doesn't want a class action suit to drag on for years
with the parties and the district judge trying to figure out
whether it should have been certified," Posner wrote. "Because the
class in Comcast was (in the view of the majority) seeking damages
beyond those flowing from the theory of antitrust injury alleged
by the plaintiffs, the possibility loomed that 'questions
affecting only individual members' of the class would predominate
over questions 'common to class members,' rather than . . . the
reverse."

He said predominance is not just a numbers game.

"Sears thinks that predominance is determined simply by counting
noses: that is, determining whether there are more common issues
or more individual issues, regardless of relative importance,"
Posner wrote.

"That's incorrect," he ruled. "An issue 'central to the validity
of each one of the claims' in a class action, if it can be
resolved 'in one stroke,' can justify class treatment."

Though separate defects are alleged, Posner said the case "is
really two class actions."

"There is a single, central, common issue of liability: whether
the Sears washing machine was defective," he wrote.

The court reinstated its earlier ruling for the plaintiffs.

A copy of the 11-page Decision dated Aug. 22, 2013, is available
from Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/WfplLm


SILZONE: Heart Implant Product Liability Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wagners of Wagners reports that a medical product liability class
action was recently dismissed following a lengthy 138-day trial.
The trial spanned over two years, from 2010 to 2011.  The length
and complication of the trial in reflected in the length of the
detailed decision.

The plaintiff and class members each had implanted mechanical
prosthetic heart valves and annuloplasty rings with Silzone, which
is a proprietary term for a coating comprising layers of titanium,
palladium and an outer layer of metallic silver.  This was applied
to the polyester sewing cuff that surgeons use to attach a
prosthetic heart valve to heart tissue.  Silver is known as an
antimicrobial in medicine and the Silzone coating was designed to
inhibit the growth of the bacteria that can cause endocarditis, an
infection that is a serious complication of heart valve surgery.

The medical products were implanted in Canadian patients between
September 1997 and January 21, 2000, when the defendants issued a
worldwide recall of all Silzone-coated products.  At that time, an
ongoing randomized clinical trial called 'AVERT' revealed a small,
but statistically significant increase in explants due to a
medical complication known as paravalvular leak (PVL) in patients
who had received a Silzone implant.

It was alleged that the Defendants designed and manufactured the
products such that they were unsafe for use.  It was not disputed
that the silver within the product can be poisonous to human
cells.  However, at the time that Silzone was developed, the
silver had been shown to be effective against bacteria and safe to
use in applications such as wound dressings, sutures and
catheters.

A few Canadian hospitals stopped using Silzone-coated devices in
the year preceding the recall and in November 1999, the United
Kingdom Medical Devices Agency (MDA) issued an Advice Notice to
physicians warning about possible thromboembolic complications.

The MDA took no other action, but within days of this notice,
Australian and New Zealand regulators withdrew approvals for
Silzone products in those countries.  Health Canada and the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as the Data
Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for the AVERT clinical trial, were
well-informed about this, but they did not express concerns about
the safety of the valve or take any action.

The claim against the defendants was based in negligence. The
evidence focused mainly on two of its major elements: breach of
duty causing injury and cause.  The trial examined the defendants'
conduct in designing, testing and marketing the Silzone valve and
considered whether Silzone has an adverse effect on tissue healing
and whether the risk of medical complications is greater for
patients with Silzone valves.

The plaintiffs needed to establish, on a balance of probabilities,
a "but for" negligent act or omission linking the defendants'
conduct to a class-wide injury in order to move the claims of each
class member forward to individual hearings.

They tried to show that the defendants failed to reasonably
evaluate the utility and safety of Silzone before introducing it
to the market and then failed in their duty to warn of its risks.
A theme was that the Silzone valve was rushed to market in view of
the pending expiry of the patent for the defendants' successful
bi-leaflet valve.

The plaintiffs advanced the theory that Silzone is a toxic
substance that interferes with the cells involved in tissue
healing and impairs the body's ability to properly incorporate the
Silzone device into the heart, thereby causing or contributing to
a variety of serious medical complications for Silzone patients.

As medical complications can occur with all prosthetic heart
valves, the trial judge focused on whether that heart valve puts
patients at a materially increased risk of experiencing one or
more of these complications.  The defendants did not dispute that
Silzone probably materially increased the risk of PVL for some
patients for some period of time post implant.  The explanation
for this is unclear.

However, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence to
conclude that Silzone increased the risk of the other medical
complications that were in issue.  The judge found that the
plaintiffs did not succeed in proving that Silzone has an adverse
effect on tissue healing.

Although there is a high duty of care imposed on a medical device
manufacturer, the plaintiffs did not establish that the defendants
failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care in the pre-market
design and testing or in the post-market surveillance of Silzone-
coated products that would be expected of a reasonable and prudent
prosthetic heart valve manufacturer in similar circumstances.

These findings, based primarily on a lack of evidence, led to the
conclusion that the action must be dismissed.


SOCIAL SERVICE: Court Transfers "Davis" Suit to Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto issued an order granting a
motion to change venue in LISA DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. SOCIAL
SERVICE COORDINATORS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-
02372-LJO-SKO, (E.D. Cal.).

Defendant Social Service Coordinators, LLC filed the motion to
change venue, or in the alternative, to dismiss on the basis of
forum non conveniens. The motion was set to be heard on July 18,
2013, before U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, but was
reset before Judge Oberto.

Judge Oberto held that, "the convenience of the parties, the
parties' contacts with the respective forums and their contacts as
related to this case, the costs of the litigation, the ease of
access to proof, and Florida's local interest all favor -- to some
degree -- transfer to the Southern District of Florida. Taken as a
whole, these factors outweigh Davis' choice of forum and this
Court's familiarity with California law, which will apply to
Davis' individual claims. For these reasons, the Court finds that
transfer to the Southern District of Florida is appropriate."

SSC's alternative motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non
conveniens is denied as moot.

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/q3MOQIfrom Leagle.com.

Lisa Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic --
atomasevic@nblaw.org -- at Nicholas & Butler, Mei-Ying Miye
Imanaka -- mimanaka@nblaw.org -- at Nicholas & Butler, LLP,
Richardson Craig Griswold -- rgriswold@griswoldlawsandiego.com --
at Griswold Law & Craig M. Nicholas -- cnicholas@nblaw.org -- at
Nicholas & Butler.

Social Service Coordinators, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Mariah L. Passarelli -- mariah.passarelli@bipc.com -- at Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Christian C Antkowiak --
christian.antkowiak@bipc.com -- at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC,
Erin J McLaughlin -- erin.mclaughlin@bipc.com -- at Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney PC & George Basara -- george.basara@bipc.com --
at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

Social Services Coordinators, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christian C Antkowiak, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & Erin J
McLaughlin, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.


SOUTH WEST NOVA: Privacy Breach Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit is going ahead
against the South West Nova District Health Authority after it
disclosed that an employee snooped through hundreds of medical
files last year.

The Roseway Hospital in Shelburne said an employee, who has since
been fired, inappropriately accessed the medical information of
707 patients through a work computer.

On Aug. 26 a Supreme Court judge said the case could proceed to
trial.

The class action suit will determine whether the South West Nova
Authority is liable for the privacy breaches by its employee.

Lawyer Ray Wagner said he's heard from more than 100 people.

If the case succeeds, it could set the standard for similar cases
in the future.

"We'll be at the crest of the wave of this new tort as it moves
across this country.  We'll help formulate what that means and how
we'll deal with compensation in the context of a class
proceeding," said Mr. Wagner.

The health authority issued an apology last year.  It said it
didn't involve the RCMP because it doesn't believe a criminal
offence took place.

Spokesman Fraser Mooney said the authority could not comment
because the case is before the courts.

The Nova Scotia Department of Health refused to comment for the
same reason.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Sued for Alleged Defective Pedal Bracket
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Subaru made its Imprezas with
defective pedal bracket assemblies in model years 2006-2013, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

The case, Robert Williams, Howard Kim, Paul Milligan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. SUBARU OF
AMERICA INC., is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
     Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
     KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP
     707 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 3600
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213) 622-6469
     Fax: (213) 622-6019
     E-mail: gnelson@kreindler.com
             gbarenfeld@kreindler.com

          - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     Bank of America Center
     550 W. Main Avenue, Suite 600
     Knoxville, TN 37902
     Tel: (865) 247-0080
     Fax: (865) 522-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Joseph M. Dunn, Esq.
     WIGINGTON RUMLEY DUNN & RITCH LLP
     601 Howard Street
     San Antonio, TX 78212
     Tel: (210) 487-7500
     Fax: (210) 487-7501
     E-mail: jdunn@wigrum.com

          - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 346-2222
     Fax: (312) 346-0022
     E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com

          - and -

     Charles Crueger, Esq.
     Erin Dickinson, Esq.
     HANSEN RIEDERER DICKINSON CRUEGER & REYNOLDS LLC
     316 North Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Tel: (414) 455-7676
     Fax: (414) 273-8476
     E-mail: ccrueger@hrdclaw.com
             edickinson@hrdclaw.com

A copy of the complaint is available from Courthouse News Service
at http://is.gd/O8cNW1


UNITED STATES: Ordered to Pay $1.2BB Settlement to Black Farmers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports the United States has 20 days to
pay out the $1.2 billion settlement for the class of black farmers
who missed the deadline to submit claims in the Pigford v.
Glickman consent decree.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District of Columbia
granted an unopposed motion for approval of distribution of funds
from the Lead Class Counsel.  Judge Friedman ordered the United
States to direct a payment of $1,200,425,182 to the In re Black
Farmers Discrimination Litigation QSF Account at SunTrust Bank.


WELLS FARGO: 3 Suits Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston issued an order dismissing, without
leave to amend, the cases captioned JENNIFER MURPHY, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants.
RICHARD D'ALESSIO, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants.  PAUL McDERMED, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants, NOS. C 12-6228 SI,
C 13-0999 SI, C 13-1407 SI, (N.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs in each of these putative class actions allege that
they are class members in another, separate case, In re: Wachovia
Corp. "Pick-A-Payment" Mortgage Marketing And Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. M:09-cv-2015-JF (N.D. Cal.), pending before
Judge Jeremy Fogel. That MDL litigation represented the
consolidation of various putative "Pick-A-Payment" class actions
filed in various district courts around the country, including the
first-filed action filed in this District, Mandrigues v. World
Savings, Inc., et al., Case no. 5:07-cv-4497-JF (N.D. Cal.). The
MDL litigation settled; a written class action settlement
agreement (MDL-SA) was approved by Judge Fogel, and judgment was
entered.

The plaintiffs in these actions (represented by the same lawyers
who represented the plaintiffs' classes in the MDL) now allege
that the defendants in the MDL -- which are also the defendants
here -- breached the terms of the MDL settlement agreement. Rather
than, or in addition to, filing an enforcement action in
Mandrigues or the In re: Wachovia Corp. MDL, plaintiffs filed
three new class action complaints seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief on claims that defendants are in breach of MDL-
SA contract.

According to Judge Illston, there is no question that the Murphy,
D'Alessio, and McDermed Actions are covered by the MDL-SA's
jurisdictional clause: each Action seeks judicial review of
disputes involving Wells Fargo's adherence to the MDL-SA. Thus,
the Court finds that the MDL-SA prevents it from adjudicating
these matters. In addition to the improper claim splitting,
deference to the parties' contract requires that this Court
dismiss these actions with prejudice, she said.

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Uzcg6pfrom Leagle.com.

Jennifer Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns --
jberns@law111.com -- at Berns Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns
Weiss LLP.

Richard D'Alessio, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns,
Berns Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Chan C Pharn, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Christina Zako, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Paul McDermed, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Thomas Geremia, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Linda Geremia, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Julie A Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

David W Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Michael Lerner, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Kathy Lerner, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Omar F Bishr, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Ruth M Bishr, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Jeff Cory, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns Weiss
LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Jose Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns Weiss
LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Cynthia Biggs, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Jason Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Catherine Marsh, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Walter Falkowski, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Mary Slade, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns Weiss
LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Joseph Midgette, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Nathan Ranger, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Sherri Goldfinch, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Diana Burkett, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

John Burkett, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Carlton Hinkle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Greg Slade, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns Weiss
LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Carrie Rosillo, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Katheryn Hinkle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Julie McDermed, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

George Biggs, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP & Lee A. Weiss, Berns Weiss LLP.

Duwarren Gibson, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP.

Marie Marcantonio, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns,
Berns Weiss LLP.

Francisca Ejale, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey K Berns, Berns
Weiss LLP.

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Stacie C.
Knight -- sknight@winston.com -- at Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy
Thomas Cottingham, III --  tcottingham@winston.com -- at Winston &
Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham --  tcottingham@winston.com -- at
Winston & Strawn LLP, & Yaw-Jiun Wu -- gwu@afrct.com -- at Anglin,
Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Stacie C.
Knight, Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III,
Winston & Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham, Winston & Strawn LLP,
& Yaw-Jiun Wu, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten
LLP.

World Savings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacie C. Knight,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III, Winston &
Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham, Winston & Strawn LLP, & Yaw-Jiun
Wu, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten LLP.

World Savings Bank, FSB, Defendant, represented by Stacie C.
Knight, Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III,
Winston & Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham, Winston & Strawn LLP &
Yaw-Jiun Wu, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten
LLP.

Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, Defendant, represented by Stacie C.
Knight, Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III,
Winston & Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham, Winston & Strawn LLP,
& Yaw-Jiun Wu, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten
LLP.

Wachovia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stacie C. Knight,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III, Winston &
Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham, Winston & Strawn LLP, & Yaw-Jiun
Wu, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten LLP.

Golden West Finanical Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Stacie C. Knight, Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy Thomas Cottingham,
III, Winston & Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham, Winston & Strawn
LLP, & Yaw-Jiun Wu, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell &
Trytten LLP.

Wachovia Bank, FSB, Defendant, represented by Stacie C. Knight,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III, Winston &
Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham, Winston & Strawn LLP, & Yaw-Jiun
Wu, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten LLP.

Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stacie C.
Knight, Winston & Strawn LLP, Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III,
Winston & Strawn LLP, T. Thomas Cottingham, Winston & Strawn LLP,
& Yaw-Jiun Wu, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten
LLP.


WESTLAKE FOODS: Recalls Cured Pork Products Due to Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Foods, a Santa Ana, Calif., establishment, is recalling
approximately 47,419 pounds of cured pork products because of
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products contain wheat, a known allergen which is not declared
on the labels.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 11-lb. to 13-lb. cases of "Tay Ho Cured Pork Artificially
      Colored."  This product was distributed for institutional
      use nationwide;

   -- 14-oz. packages of "Tay Ho Cured Pork Sausage With Pork Ears
      and Snouts."  This product was distributed for retail sales
      nationwide; and

   -- 11-lb. to 13-lb. cases of "Don Caf‚ Cured Pork Meat and
      Binder Product Pork skin added."  This product was
      distributed for institutional use in the Houston, Texas
      area.  The products bear the establishment number "EST.
      1627A" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.  They can be
      further identified by a case code "233001" through "213234."
      All products were produced between Jan. 1, 2013, and
      Aug. 22, 2013.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector during a routine
label review.  The problem is believed to have occurred due to a
change in the company's spice mix, which was not reflected on the
products' labels.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media with questions about the recall should contact Jayce Yenson,
Manager, at (714) 474-8828.  Consumers with questions about the
recall should contact Thuy Nguyen, Secretary, at (714) 973-2286.


* Children's Clothing Among Recently Recalled Consumer Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that several types of children's
clothing that fail to meet flame-resistance standards are among
this week's recalled consumer products.  Others include baby
blankets that pose a choking hazard and defective tea kettles.

BABY BLANKETS

DETAILS: HALO SleepSack wearable blankets with pink satin flowers.
They are white cotton with pink-edged ruffles and a pink satin
rose embellishment on the front.  These sack-shaped wearable
blankets have cut-outs for the baby's arms, a zipper down the
center, a sewn bottom and were sold in small and medium sizes.
Only SleepSack products with GPU numbers 2701, 2781, 2886, 2887,
3007, 3035, and 3142 printed on a neck label under the primary
neck label are included in the recall.  They were sold at Babies R
Us and www.babiesrus.com from December 2011 through July 2013.

WHY: Petals from the floral embellishment on the blankets can
detach, posing a choking hazard to infants.

INCIDENTS: Six reports of the petals detaching from the blankets
including one report of an infant found gagging on a detached
petal.

HOW MANY: About 27,000.

FOR MORE: Call Halo Innovations at 866-819-8118, send email to
halorecall@nrmsinc.com, or visit www.halosleep.com and click on
the product recall link on the home page for more information.

CHILDREN'S CLOTHING

DETAILS: Apple Park children's two-piece loungewear sets from the
Bamboo Loungewear Collection.  They were sold in children's sizes
6 months through size 4. The sets consist of a long-sleeve shirt
paired with matching full-length pants with elastic waistband. The
collar, ankles, and wristbands are solid-color.  The sets come in
five animal character prints: pink "bunny," blue "cubby,"
white/green "ducky," violet "lamby" and green "monkey." ''GPU
CO815" is printed on sewn labels at the pants waistline and along
the shirt's bottom right side seam.

WHY: The loungewear garments fail to meet children's sleepwear
federal flammability standards which require sleepwear, including
loungewear, to be either snug-fitting or flame resistant, posing a
risk of burn injuries to children.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 7,250.

FOR MORE: Call Apple Park at 866-708-4695 or visit
www.applepark.com and click on Recall Information at the bottom of
the page for more information.

TEA KETTLES

DETAILS: Chefmate 2-quart tea kettles with a black enamel finish
and a solid black resin handle.  The Chefmate logo is stamped on
the bottom of the aluminum tea kettle.  They were sold at Target
stores and at Target.com from January 2006 through May 2013.

WHY: Steam can travel up the handle, or water can spill from the
spout, posing a burn hazard to the consumer.  In addition, the
leaking steam can cause the kettle to fail to whistle.  If water
completely evaporates from the kettle, the aluminum bottom can
melt onto the stove and pose a burn hazard.

INCIDENTS: 13 reports of incidents, including five reports of
steam traveling up the handle, three reports of hot water spilling
from the spout, and a report of a hot handle.  In addition, four
consumers reported the tea kettle base melting onto the stove
burner.  No injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 716,000 in the U.S. and 1,400 in Canada.

FOR MORE: Call Wilton Industries at 866-255-9237 or visit
www.wilton.com and click on Recalls for more information.

CHILDREN'S PAJAMAS

DETAILS: Klever Kids children's 100-percent Pima cotton pajama
sets and nightgowns sold in boys and girls sizes 2 through 8.  The
pajama sets include two-piece long-sleeve shirt and pant sets with
an elastic waistband and two-piece short-sleeve shirt and short
sets with an elastic waistband.  The sets were sold in multiple
prints including shark print, ballerinas, black and blue
skeletons, flowers, pink with white polka dot pattern, a two-toned
set with navy and blue striped monster print, and paisley print
with green fabric on the edge.  The nightgowns are short-sleeved
with a gathered shoulder hem.  The nightgowns were sold in
multiple prints including ballerinas, pink with white polka dots,
flowers and paisleys.  All the garments have a printed label at
the neck that reads "KleverKids live (Heart) laugh (Heart) love."
Some of the pajamas sets are labeled as "flame resistant
sleepwear" by a sewn-in garment label along the shirt's bottom
right side seam.  They were sold from September 2012 through March
2013.

WHY: The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 7,000.

FOR MORE: Call Klever Kids at 855-553-8375 or visit
www.shopkleverkids.com and click on the Product Recall link on the
bottom of the page for more information.


* Lead Paint Manufacturers Attempt to Fend Off Liability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul M. Barrett, writing for Bloomberg Businessweek, reports that
lead paint was once going to be the next asbestos or tobacco -- an
illustration of how mass litigation could tame a rogue industry
and, not incidentally, produce a bonanza for plaintiffs' lawyers.
Mass lawsuits against makers of asbestos-laden products and
cigarettes led to multibillion-dollar settlements in the 1990s.
Lead-paint litigation launched during the same period, however,
has mostly failed.

Now, in what could be a finale to the lead-paint liability drama,
industry defendants are fighting a 13-year-old case in a state
court in San Jose.  The results could be instructive for future
attempts to hold large businesses accountable in court for
products that turn out to be harmful.

After years of preliminary skirmishes, the California trial
finally began in mid-July.  San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles
County, and seven other communities are trying to force five
manufacturers to pay for a $1 billion program to get rid of lead
paint in millions of older private homes.  The defendants --
Sherwin-Williams, BP's Atlantic Richfield unit, NL Industries,
ConAgra Grocery Products, and DuPont -- began putting witnesses on
the stand.  The manufacturers seek to prove that the hazards of
lead in paint, widely known since the federal government banned it
for household use in 1978, weren't fully understood decades ago,
when the products in question were sold.

Manufacturers have fended off dozens of past suits filed by state
and local governments and school districts.  Among the reasons
judges have deep-sixed the public-sector cases are: difficulties
determining which companies made the lead pigment used in
particular structures, hesitance to assign liability based
strictly on defendants' market share, and unwillingness to treat
the lead paint problem as one akin to industrial pollution (a
"public nuisance" in legalese).

Even though nuisance cases have failed in seven states -- Ohio,
Rhode Island, Missouri, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, and
Wisconsin -- a pair of heavyweight plaintiffs' firms are trying
once more in California.  Motley Rice of South Carolina and
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy of California are banking on
California's more expansive nuisance law (at least as they see it)
to serve as a springboard to victory.  The plaintiffs stress a
series of long-ago examples of what they claim are industry
misrepresentations about the degree of danger of low-level
exposure to lead.  The suit attempts to portray paint makers as
similar to the tobacco companies (and asbestos-products
manufacturers) that actively sought to obfuscate the science
connecting deadly illness to use of their products.

The paint companies respond that, on the contrary, they did the
right thing.  "When interior lead-based paint was made more than
50 years ago, it was a legal product in great demand because it
was washable and durable," an industry white paper asserts.  "When
health risks from chipping and peeling interior paint were first
suspected in late 1948, industry worked closely with public health
officials to investigate the risk.  From funding 'no strings
attached' research to voluntarily withdrawing lead-based interior
paint decades ahead of federal action, the companies acted
responsibly."

A trio of public policy considerations color the California case.
First, legislatively mandated public health programs in California
have had enormous success at lowering lead levels in the blood of
children.  Second, the remedy the plaintiffs are seeking --
stripping away old lead paint -- actually is not what public
health experts recommend.  Instead, federal and state
environmental and health officials generally urge that lead paint
be left intact and maintained.  If that course is followed, and
children are prevented from eating old paint chips, there
ordinarily isn't a health risk.  Finally, California already
requires landlords to address any existing lead-based paint
dangers.  It is the failure to maintain painted surfaces that
creates an immediate health hazard.

Those three considerations might be fashioned into arguments
against using the courts to hold the manufacturers liable for a
billion-dollar initiative that is arguably unnecessary and unwise.
Still, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg has
implied that the defendants shouldn't get cocky.  With the
proceeding underway in late July, Kleinberg, who is presiding over
the case without a jury, urged both sides to settle.  "If you're
interested in gambling, go to Reno and Vegas," the judge said.
"If you are interested in being intelligent, you'll have to settle
this case now.  This is not Rhode Island and is not Milwaukee."
Since defendants had prevailed in Rhode Island and Milwaukee, this
advice had to seem ominous to the paint manufacturers in
Kleinberg's courtroom.

Nevertheless, the defendants decided to take their chances.  They
must assume that by the time they're done putting on their
evidence, the judge will see things their way.  The trial is
expected to continue for another two weeks.


* NHTSA Issues New Rules Following Rise in Auto Recalls
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Eisenstein, writing for CNBC, reports that recalls have
long been a way of life for automakers and buyers alike.  But
federal regulators have announced a critical new step to ensure
that when a vehicle is subject to a safety order the necessary
repairs actually get made.

Issued on Aug. 14 by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the new rules should prove a boon to owners and
car shoppers alike as they make it easier to see if a vehicle has
been subject to a recall and whether the problem was fixed.  The
government also will provide a searchable database.

"Safety is our highest priority, and an informed consumer is one
of our strongest allies in that effort," said Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx.  "Owners and potential buyers alike will
soon be able to identify whether a safety recall for their
specific vehicle is incomplete, using our free online search at
SaferCar.gov."

It's one of the rare instances where industry, consumer advocates
and regulators are in agreement, and it comes at a time when
recalls appear to be on the rise again after years of steady
declines.

"The goal here is to increase recall completion rates through
greater consumer awareness," said the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, a trade group, noting that the industry supports
the plan for providing safety recall information on automakers'
websites.

Under the new rule, all manufacturers will have to set up easy-to-
access Web pages where people can enter a car, truck or
crossover's Vehicle Identification Number to check its recall
history.  The rule also covers motorcycle manufacturers.  NHTSA
will require companies to update the information at least once a
week.

A study of the NHTSA database for 2012 found 16.2 million vehicles
(including motorcycles and recreational vehicles) covered by
safety campaigns, up 4.5% from 2011.

Many safety experts have warned that the initial pace suggests the
industry could see another increase in 2013, especially in light
of some of the year's biggest recalls, which have generated
numbers as high as the millions.  That includes roughly 1.5
million Jeep products recalled in June because of a fire-safety
issue, and a problem affecting 250,000 General Motors SUVs
announced that month.

Fire hazards have been a particularly big concern in the past
year.  Toyota announced a recall covering 7.5 million vehicles
last fall because of faulty power window switches that could short
out and catch fire.

But defective airbags have also become a major problem, involving
millions of vehicles since the beginning of 2012 alone, affecting
makers including Honda, BMW and Nissan.

Part of the problem is that, as automakers share an increasing
number of components in a bid to reduce costs and complexity, a
defect can affect a wide range of models and brands while often
slipping under consumers' radar.

NHTSA also orders a number of recalls each year for only a handful
of vehicles that might have been produced on a specific day.
Chevrolet recently issued a service order for just four Volt plug-
in hybrids because of a software glitch in their electronic
stability control.

Complicating matters, some vehicles are subject to multiple
recalls, which makes it even harder for the public to stay on top
of safety matters.  Last month Honda recalled some Fit models
because an earlier repair had failed to address a fire hazard.

The administration notes that only about 70% of the vehicles
covered by the typical recall are repaired, including those
vulnerable to the most serious safety problems.  Even when makers
repeatedly notify owners directly -- as Toyota did after a series
of issues related to unintended acceleration in 2010 and 2011 --
the figure seldom climbs above 80%.

Older vehicles have been scrapped in some cases, but many
unrepaired autos remain on the road, a risk to current owners as
well as to those who might buy the cars on the used market.

Automakers will be given a year to comply with the new NHTSA
guidelines.  The Web databases will only be required to show
vehicles that have not had repairs; those that have been fixed
won't need to be listed.


* NZ Seeks to Reassure Chinese Consumers After Botulism Scare
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe McDonald, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
New Zealand's leaders are on a charm offensive to reassure Chinese
consumers after a botulism scare threatened sales in a major
market for New Zealand milk.

China's demand for imported milk soared after domestic supplies in
2008 killed six babies and sickened thousands.  That fit New
Zealand's ambitions as a food supplier to booming Asian economies.
But the announcement by Fonterra, the world's biggest dairy
exporter, of contamination in an ingredient used in baby formula
threw up a potentially damaging obstacle.

New Zealand's response is being led by Prime Minister John Key,
reflecting the importance of milk as a pillar of its exports and
of China as the world's most promising consumer market.

The South Pacific island nation announced a Cabinet-level
investigation led by two ministers.  Key told reporters once it is
finished, he wants to fly to China to "look down the barrel of
their television cameras" and "give consumers the confidence it
has been fixed."

On Aug. 22, Foreign Minister Murray McCully met with China's
foreign minister and another Cabinet official and assured them of
his government's "total and absolute commitment" to food quality.

"I believe that New Zealand's unambiguous commitment to meeting
quality standards in the export of food has been appropriately
underlined," said Mr. McCully at a news conference.

The response also reflects the emotional sensitivity of food
supplies in China, which has suffered a string of scandals the
caused sickness and deaths due to fake or shoddy food, milk and
drugs.

In 2008, some Chinese milk brands were found to be tainted with
the chemical melamine, which can cause kidney damage and other
injuries.  Some suppliers added it to fool protein tests on
watered-down supplies.

Even today, imported milk from New Zealand or countries such as
Australia and Germany has such a strong reputation that it
commands up to three times the price of local brands in Chinese
supermarkets.

New Zealand accounts for up to 80 percent of China's imports of
milk powder, much of it used in infant formula, according to
Chen Lianfang, a senior dairy industry analyst at Beijing Orient
Agribusiness Consultant Ltd. in Beijing.

"New Zealand milk suppliers established a brand in China founded
on the promise of safety and reliability," said Li Hong, senior
partner in charge of China for FleishmanHillard, a communications
consultancy, in an email.

"Their job now is to recapture the premium position they once
held," said Mr. Li.  "In most cases, brands can be rehabilitated
if the crisis is handled quickly and transparently."

Mr. McCully promised "openness and transparency" for consumers as
his government investigates.

"We intend to make sure that there is good disclosure," he said.

On the strength of demand for milk, China overtook Australia as
New Zealand's biggest export market for the first time ever in the
first quarter of this year.  Chinese imports of milk powder from
New Zealand in the first half of this year rose 34 percent over a
year earlier to 371,000 tons.

That growth was jeopardized after Fonterra announced Aug. 3 that
hundreds of tons of infant formula, sports drinks and other
products sold in seven countries could be tainted.  Russia, China,
Sri Lanka and other governments blocked or limited imports of New
Zealand dairy products.

Chinese media jumped on the scare.  Some outlets, including
People's Daily, the main Communist Party newspaper, pointed to it
as proof foreign products weren't always safe.

Some Chinese consumers have noted, however, that the New Zealand
contamination was accidental, while the 2008 milk scandal and
other Chinese incidents have been the result of intentional
misbehavior.

Fonterra, which has annual revenue of $16 billion, said the
contamination occurred as the result of dirty pipes in a milk
factory in May 2012.

It said samples turned up a potential bacteria problem in March
this year, but that it took until July 31 for testing to indicate
the presence of the type of bacteria that could cause botulism.

Mr. McCully said his government will watch closely as Fonterra
tries to rebuild Chinese consumer confidence.

"Fonterra has a job ahead of it rebuilding consumer confidence
here.  But I do not want to pretend that is a matter only for the
company.  This is something the New Zealand government will be
watching very carefully as well," said Mr. McCully.

"This is an export trade that is part of our international brand,"
he said. "All New Zealanders take that very seriously."

In a separate incident, another New Zealand supplier said this
week it found high levels of nitrate in lactoferrin powder shipped
to China.

The Chinese product quality agency impounded the powder and
ordered suppliers of lactoferrin, an additive used in food
supplements, to submit results of quality tests.

Other governments are looking to China as a growing market for
food, from Minnesota soybeans to French wine to Australian beef.

Global and Chinese dairy brands are investing heavily to expand or
upgrade production.

Nestle Ltd. said last year it will spend 2.5 billion yuan ($395
million) to build a facility in Heilongjiang province in the
northeast to supply fresh milk and train farm managers.

The communist Beijing government is trying to build up its own
global dairy competitors by encouraging mergers among its dozens
of small producers.

In infant formula, government plans call for shrinking the number
of suppliers from 120 to 50 by 2018, with 10 brands accounting for
80 percent of the market, according to the business magazine
Caijing.

In June, the country's biggest domestic milk brand, Mengniu Dairy
Co., offered $1.6 billion for a local infant-formula maker,
Yashili International Holdings Ltd.

Despite the latest scare, though, Chinese consumers are still so
wary of domestic brands that New Zealand should be able to rebuild
any lost market share, said Mr. Chen of Orient Agribusiness.

"It could force some mothers to choose breast milk, but they won't
turn to local brands," said Mr. Chen.


* Three Dozen Food Label Class Actions Pending in Bay Area
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul M. Barrett, writing for Bloomberg Businessweek, reports that
over the past 18 months, a group of plaintiffs' lawyers who got
rich suing the tobacco industry have turned their litigious
attention to what they hope will be the next big thing: challenges
to healthy-sounding food labels they allege are misleading.
Hailing from across the U.S., the lawyers decided to sue in
federal courts in Northern California, where the consumer-
protection laws are expansive and the jury pool nutrition-
conscious.  "Even the judges are calling this jurisdiction the
Food Court," says Pierce Gore, the San Jose attorney serving as
local coordinator for plaintiffs' firms in Mississippi, Texas,
Tennessee, Illinois, and New York.

So far three dozen suits seeking class-action status are pending
in the Bay Area.  The grocery list of targets includes Unilever's
Ben & Jerry's ice cream, Chobani yogurt, Kraft's Trident gum,
Hershey chocolates, Ocean Spray beverages, and Associated British
Foods' Twinings teas.  Unlike suits over cigarettes, these food
label cases don't allege that anyone has been physically injured
or addicted; nor do they suggest that the products in question are
dangerous or defective.  Instead they challenge the hawking of
granola bars, fruit juice, and green tea as being good for you.
Specifically, the suits say consumers are being tricked by such
claims as "100 percent natural" and "no sugar added."

"Hyper-technical does not begin to describe this litigation," says
William Stern, a partner with Morrison & Foerster, a San
Francisco-based corporate law firm seeking to have several of the
suits dismissed on behalf of Unilever and other clients.
"Trivial," Stern adds, "might be a better word."  Food companies
say their labels, read in their entirety, are accurate.  Mr. Stern
attributes the surge in label litigation to a settlement in 2009
by Dannon, the U.S. unit of Danone of France.  Without admitting
liability, Dannon agreed to pay $35 million to resolve a class
action alleging it made false claims about the digestive benefits
of Activia probiotic yogurt.  "That got everyone's attention,"
Stern says.  Dannon said at the time it had settled to avoid open-
ended legal fees. Other marketers, however, are pursuing their day
in the Food Court -- an expensive proposition.  A pretrial fight
alone over whether a judge should certify a class as appropriate
can take 18 months to two years and cost a company $500,000 to $2
million, according to Mr. Stern.

Corporations could save on attorney bills by making their labels
less boastful, Mr. Gore says.  Dannon, for instance, agreed to
modify some of its claims about the advantages of probiotic
products.  "These suits are technical in the same way that the
speed limit is technical," Mr. Gore says.  "The rules are designed
to protect everyone, and you have to follow them."  The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration writes labeling regulations but doesn't
have sufficient resources to enforce them, he argues.  So,
plaintiffs' lawyers, Mr. Gore says, have stepped in to serve as
self-appointed cops.  Working with Mr. Gore are such veterans of
the 1990s tobacco wars as the Barrett Law Group of Lexington,
Miss., and the Provost Umphrey Law Firm of Beaumont, Tex.

Corporate lobbyists in Washington have made the Food Court a
centerpiece of their perennial campaign to rein in tort
litigation.  The business-funded American Tort Reform Association
currently ranks the Northern District of California atop its list
of "Judicial Hellholes" -- jurisdictions it calls particularly
hostile to corporate interests.  West Virginia and Madison County,
Ill., are Nos. 2 and 3.  "In every competitive marketplace that's
ever existed, colorful and even exaggerated claims have been a
largely harmless part of virtually every sales pitch," says Darren
McKinney, the association's spokesman.  The Food Court cases, he
says, are the invention of plaintiffs' attorneys who imply that
their own clients "are imbeciles who can't read the list of
ingredients, which are right there on the label, along with the
'all natural' claims, or whatever the plaintiffs are all worked up
about."

Mr. Gore counters that the suits have cropped up "organically," as
consumers realize labels may be exaggerated. "I resent the
accusation that these cases are lawyer-generated," he says.

Depositions of some of the lead clients suggest otherwise.
Leon Khasin, a corporate security guard who lives in San Jose,
sued Hershey in 2012 over its cocoa and Special Dark Kisses.
Labels said the products were "a natural source of flavonol
antioxidants."  On its website, the candymaker states that "plant
compounds, which act as antioxidants in foods, may reduce the risk
of many kinds of illness, from heart disease to cancer."  The suit
drafted on Khasin's behalf by Gore and other plaintiffs' lawyers
asserts that the Hershey labels are "unlawful because the FDA has
not defined the characterization 'source' by regulation and thus
such characterization may not be used in nutrient content claims."

Asked during a deposition in March how he came to file suit,
Mr. Khasin said his wife, then a secretary at Mr. Gore's law firm,
Pratt & Associates, had recommended he talk to the attorney.
"When you came to meet with Mr. Gore that day," Mr. Khasin was
asked by the company's lawyer, Travis Tu of New York's Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler, "did you have any desire to sue the Hershey
company?"

"No, I did not," answered Mr. Khasin, who also said he could not
recall ever looking at a Hershey's label before filing the suit.
Hershey has moved for pretrial summary judgment.  A federal judge
in San Jose has scheduled a hearing for November.


                             *********

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  * * *