CAR_Public/130904.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 4, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 175

                             Headlines


99 SUPERMARKET: Recalls Certain Teng Yuan Hong Brand Red Dates
ADT CORP: Got Final OK of Deal in Suit Over "Unsolicited" Calls
ALGIN MANAGEMENT: Sandy Power Loss Class Action Settlement Okayed
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal From Cert. Order in Montana Suit Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Has Settled Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Aftermath

ALLSTATE CORP: "Romero I" Parties Are Briefing Cross Motions
ALLSTATE CORP: "Romero II" Parties Are Briefing Cross Motions
AMEDISYS INC: Bids to Dismiss ERISA and Derivative Suits Pending
AMEDISYS INC: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in Connecticut
AMEDISYS INC: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in Illinois

AMERICA ONLINE: Blogger Files Second Class Action
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Judgment Bid Order in "Krueger" Suit
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Jeffers" Suit Pending
APPLE REIT TEN: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Pending
BABY JOGGER: Recalls Car Seat Adaptors Due to Fall Hazard

BAYNES SOUND: Recalls Certain Pacific Oysters
BELO CORP: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Texas and Delaware
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Spyder Model
BP PLC: 5th Cir. Reverses Course in Suit Over Oil Spill Insurance
BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Stuffed Animal Toy Due to Choking Hazard

BURGER KING: Defends TCPA Violations Suit vs. BKC in Maryland
CAMPBELL'S SOUP: Recalls Canned Pasta Due to Misbranding
CBS CORPORATION: Awaits Okay of Simon's Minnesota Settlement
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Lopez" Shareholder Suit in Washington
CIBER INC: Bid to Dismiss "Weston" Class Suit Remains Pending

COCA-COLA: Sued Over Containers' Omission of Artificial Flavoring
COINSTAR INC: Sued for Selling "Fading" Gift Certificates
CON-WAY INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Defends Suits Over Line 6B Crude Oil Release
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defends Nine MERS-Related Class Suits

EXPEDIA INC: Chairman, et al., Sued for Propping Up Stock Price
FERRO CORP: Two Shareholder Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and Town Car
FUKUDA TRADING: Recalls Certain Orion Brand Potato Chips
GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Dismisses Suit Over Baby Formula

HULU PRIVACY LITIGATION: Certification Motion Hearing Set Dec. 19
KFORCE INC: Faces Class Suit Filed by Employees in California
KFORCE INC: Has Paid in Full $2.5-Mil. Class Suit Settlement
KRAFT FOODS: Court Sets Final Settlement Hearing for Nov. 13
L.L.BEAN: Recalls Step Stools Due to Fall Hazard

LONE STAR: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due to Processing Deviation
MERRILL LYNCH: To Implement Changes to Address Diversity Issues
MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 SCHOOL BUS Model
POLARIS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
POOL CORP: Antitrust Litigation Remains Pending in Louisiana

PRIDE FOODS: Recalls Beef Pattie and Chub Products
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling in "Cruise/Mullaney" Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling in Suit Over 401(k) Plans
PROCON CANADA: Recalls Certain Crinkle Chips
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 13 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss

REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Class Claims Casino Cheated Them
REVLON INC: Awaits Filing of Appeal in Suit Over Exchange Offer
SEARS ROEBUCK: Employees Must Arbitrate Wage-and-Hour Claims
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk AATI-Related Suit
SM ENERGY: "Chieftain" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Oklahoma

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends Antitrust Class Suit vs. AirTran
TEXAS: Court Certifies Class of Foster Kids
TOILES ULTIMEX: Recalls Horizontal Blinds
TURTLE TOP: Recalls ODYSSEY XL Model Buses
VITA-MIX CORPORATION: Recalls 64-Ounce Low Profile Blender

WESTLAKE FOODS: Recalls Cured Pork Products Due to Misbranding
WESTLAKE FOODS: Recalls Additional Pork Products


                             *********


99 SUPERMARKET: Recalls Certain Teng Yuan Hong Brand Red Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           99 Supermarket Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8282

Affected products: Teng Yuan Hong Red Date 200 grams


ADT CORP: Got Final OK of Deal in Suit Over "Unsolicited" Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation received in June 2013 final approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of persons,
who claim to have received unsolicited "robocalls," according to
the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28,
2013.

The Company was named as a defendant in two putative class actions
that were filed on behalf of purported classes of persons who
claim to have received unsolicited "robocalls" in contravention of
the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  These
lawsuits were brought by plaintiffs seeking class action status
and monetary damages on behalf of all plaintiffs who allegedly
received such unsolicited calls, claiming that millions of calls
were made by third party entities on the Company's behalf.  The
Company asserts that such entities were not retained by, nor
authorized to make calls on behalf of, the Company.  During fiscal
year 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to settle this
litigation and increased its legal reserve by $15 million.  On
June 21, 2013, the District Court approved the settlement and
entered a Final Order of Judgment and Dismissal.  Final payment is
expected to be made in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2013.

The ADT Corporation is a leading provider of electronic security,
interactive home and business automation and related monitoring
services.  The Company is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


ALGIN MANAGEMENT: Sandy Power Loss Class Action Settlement Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich on Aug. 26
approved a $300,000 settlement in a class action brought on behalf
of about 1,400 tenants who lost power during Superstorm Sandy last
year.  The case, Menkin v. 120 East 34th Street Co. LLC,
650390/13, is the first tenant class action brought over Sandy to
settle.  Numerous such lawsuits have been filed since the storm
seeking rent abatements.

The class covers tenants in seven buildings managed by Algin
Management Co. who alleged that they were charged rent for about a
week after the storm when their apartments were uninhabitable due
to a loss of power.  The settlement will be distributed to tenants
pro rata according to their rent.

Scott Papp -- spapp@lowey.com -- an associate at Lowey Dannenberg
Cohen & Hart, and Harold Hoffman, a solo attorney, appeared at a
fairness hearing on Aug. 26 for the plaintiffs.  Steven
Kirkpatrick, a partner at Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, appeared
for the defendants.  No tenants showed up to watch the hearing,
and the plaintiffs' attorneys said there were no objections.  Only
10 tenants have opted out of the settlement.

In approving the settlement, Justice Kornreich said that the suit
"would have been a very difficult case and a very complex case" if
it had gone forward.  She noted that the question of a landlord's
liability for "an act of God," and for the loss of electricity
provided by a third party, Consolidated Edison, Inc., is not
clear.

Justice Kornreich approved an attorney fee award of 25 percent,
less than the 30 percent requested by the plaintiffs' attorneys.
She declined to make a special award to the lead plaintiff,
Sara Menckin, saying she was unconvinced by Hoffman's argument
that filing the case took "courage and determination."

The attorneys said after the hearing that they were pleased,
though not surprised, by the approval of the deal.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal From Cert. Order in Montana Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's appeal from an order certifying a class
in the class action lawsuit pending in Montana remains pending,
according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in Montana
state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.  In January 2012, the court certified a
class of Montana claimants who were not represented by attorneys
with respect to the resolution of auto accident claims.  The court
certified the class to cover an indefinite period that commences
in the mid-1990s.  The certified claims include claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.  Injunctive relief may include a claim process
by which unrepresented claimants could request that their claims
be readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of
the class.  To date no discovery has occurred related to the
potential value of the class members' claims.  The Company has
asserted various defenses with respect to the plaintiff's claims
which have not been finally resolved, and has appealed the order
certifying the class.

The proposed injunctive relief claim process would be subject to
defenses and offsets ordinarily associated with the adjustment of
claims.  Any differences in amounts paid to class members compared
to what class members might be paid under a different process
would be speculative and subject to individual variation and
determination dependent upon the individual circumstances
presented by each class claimant.  In the Company's judgment a
loss is not probable.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  The
Company's Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Has Settled Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Aftermath
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation disclosed in its July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it has reached a settlement to
resolve a class action lawsuit filed in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina.

Allstate is vigorously defending a lawsuit filed in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina and currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").  This matter was filed by the Louisiana Attorney General
against Allstate and every other homeowner insurer doing business
in the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, as
assignee, and on behalf of certain Road Home fund recipients.
Although this lawsuit was originally filed as a class action, the
Louisiana Attorney General moved to dismiss the class in 2011 and
that motion was granted.  In this matter the State alleged that
the insurers failed to pay all damages owed under their policies.
The claims currently pending in this matter are for breach of
contract and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of
claims by the insurers.  All other claims, including extra-
contractual claims, have been dismissed.  The Company had moved to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the State had no
standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because
of anti-assignment language in the underlying insurance policies.
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the motion.

The District Court has issued a case management order requiring
the State to produce specific detail by property supporting its
allegations of breach of contract.  Additionally, the case
management order requires the State to deliver a settlement
proposal to Allstate and the other defendant insurance companies.
There are many potential individual claims at issue in this
matter, each of which will require individual analysis and a
number of which may be subject to individual defenses, including
release, accord and satisfaction, prescription, waiver, and
estoppel.  The Company has filed a motion seeking to force the
State to provide more specificity as to its claims in this matter.
The Company believes that its adjusting practices in connection
with Katrina homeowners claims were sound and in accordance with
industry standards and state law.  The Company has reached a
settlement for an amount that is not material.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  The
Company's Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: "Romero I" Parties Are Briefing Cross Motions
------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that parties in the "Romero I"
litigation are in the process of briefing their cross motions for
summary judgment.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to its agency
program reorganization announced in 1999.  Although these cases
have been pending for many years, they currently are in the early
stages of litigation because of appellate court proceedings and
threshold procedural issues.

These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation
under federal civil rights laws ("EEOC I") and a class action
filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), breach of contract and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") violations ("Romero I").  In 2004,
in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial
court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things,
certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents
who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's
declaratory judgment that the release was voidable at the option
of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who
voided the release must return to Allstate "any and all benefits
received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release."  The
court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there
is no basis for claims of age discrimination."  The EEOC and
plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its
memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied their
request.  In June 2007, the court reversed its prior ruling that
the release was voidable and granted the Company's motions for
summary judgment, ruling that the asserted claims were barred by
the release signed by most plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit ("Third Circuit").  In July 2009, the Third Circuit
vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the
Company's favor and remanded the cases to the trial court for
additional discovery, including additional discovery related to
the validity of the release and waiver.  In its opinion, the Third
Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to be valid,
then all of the claims in Romero I and EEOC I are barred.  Thus,
if the waiver and release is upheld, then only the claims in
Romero I asserted by the small group of employee agents who did
not sign the release and waiver would remain for adjudication.

In January 2010, following the remand, the cases were assigned to
a new judge for further proceedings in the trial court.  The
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 28, 2010.
The Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits for up to approximately 6,500 former
employee agents.  Despite the length of time that these matters
have been pending, to date only limited discovery has occurred
related to the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no
damages discovery has occurred related to the claims of the
putative class.  Nor have the plaintiffs provided any calculations
of the putative class's alleged back pay or the alleged
liquidated, compensatory or punitive damages, instead asserting
that such calculations will be provided at a later stage during
expert discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by
amounts and benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class
members subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
approximately 6,500 putative class members also are subject to
individual variation and determination dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service.  Discovery limited to the validity of the waiver and
release is closed.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with respect
to the validity of the waiver and release on April 8, 2013, and
are in the process of briefing those motions.  At present, no
class is certified.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be decided and, if decided in favor of the Company, would
preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I and EEOC I and may
also preclude damages from being awarded in Romero II.  In the
Company's judgment a loss is not probable.  Allstate has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  The
Company's Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: "Romero II" Parties Are Briefing Cross Motions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the "Romero II" litigation are in the process of
briefing their cross motions for summary judgment, according to
The Allstate Corporation's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to its agency
program reorganization announced in 1999.  Although these cases
have been pending for many years, they currently are in the early
stages of litigation because of appellate court proceedings and
threshold procedural issues.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including a
worker classification issue ("Romero II").  These plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are
seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as
employees for benefit purposes.  Romero II was dismissed with
prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further
proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial
court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case.  The Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit
vacated the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded
the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed
that the case be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In its
opinion, the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver is
held to be valid, then one of plaintiffs' three claims asserted in
Romero II is barred.  The Third Circuit directed the district
court to consider on remand whether the other two claims asserted
in Romero II are barred by the release and waiver.  In January
2010, following the remand, the case was assigned to a new judge
(the same judge for the Romero I and EEOC I cases) for further
proceedings in the trial court.  On April 23, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs seek broad
but unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief, including
losses of income and benefits as a result of their decision to
retire from the Company between November 1, 1999, and December 31,
2000.  They also seek repeal of the challenged amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits revised and
recalculated for thousands of former employee agents, and
attorney's fees and costs.

Despite the length of time that this matter has been pending, the
Company says, to date only limited discovery has occurred related
to the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no damages
discovery has occurred related to the claims of the putative
class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of the
putative class's alleged losses, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
putative class members also are subject to individual variation
and determination dependent upon retirement dates, participation
in employee benefit programs, and years of service.  As in Romero
I and EEOC I, discovery limited to issues relating to the validity
of the waiver and release is closed.  The parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the
waiver and release on April 8, 2013, and are in the process of
briefing those motions.  At present, class certification has not
been decided.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be decided and, if decided in favor of the Company, would
preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I and EEOC I and may
also preclude damages from being awarded in Romero II.  In the
Company's judgment a loss is not probable.  Allstate has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.

Based in Northbrook, Illinois, The Allstate Corporation --
http://www.allstate.com/-- is a personal lines insurer.  The
Company's Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.


AMEDISYS INC: Bids to Dismiss ERISA and Derivative Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. and other defendants' motions to dismiss ERISA and
derivative lawsuits remain pending, according to the Company's
July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

                Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana against the Company and certain of its current and
former senior executives.  Additional putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28,
2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the
putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal
Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.  In the same order, the
Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-
lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs") for the
putative class.  On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated
the ERISA class action lawsuit with the putative securities class
actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints.  The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Company's
policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the
Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related
alleged impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects.  The Securities Complaint seeks a
determination that the action may be maintained as a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between August 2, 2005, and September 28, 2010, and an unspecified
amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint.  On
June 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the Securities Complaint.  On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court
denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
their Securities Class Action Complaint to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit docketed the Co-Lead Plaintiffs'
appeal on July 16, 2013, and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs was to file
their opening brief by August 26, 2013.  The appeal remains
pending.  While the Company will seek to have the District Court
order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss affirmed on
appeal, no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of
the appeals process.

                       Derivative Actions

On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on
behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  Three similar derivative lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010 (together,
the "Federal Derivative Actions").  The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in all of those actions.  As noted, on
October 22, 2010, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana issued an order consolidating the Federal
Derivative Actions with the putative securities class action
lawsuits and for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative
Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint (the "Derivative
Complaint") which supersedes the earlier-filed derivative
complaints.  The Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by making allegedly false
statements, by allegedly failing to establish sufficient internal
controls over certain of the Company's home health and Medicare
billing practices, by engaging in alleged insider trading, and by
committing unspecified acts of waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment.  All defendants in the Federal Derivative
Actions, including the Company as a nominal defendant, moved to
dismiss the Derivative Complaint.  That motion is fully briefed
and remains pending before the court.

On June 24, 2013, all parties to the Federal Derivative Actions
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") with
respect to the Federal Derivative Actions.  On June 27, 2013, the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in
accordance with the Stipulation.  Pursuant to the Court's June 27,
2013 Order, a copy of the Court-approved "Notice of Settlement of
Amedisys, Inc. Derivative Action," (the "Notice of Settlement")
was attached as Exhibit 99.1 to the Company's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 2, 2013.  As described in the Notice of
Settlement, the Court has scheduled a hearing on September 4,
2013, to determine whether the Court should issue an order of
final approval of the proposed settlement.  As further described
in the Notice of Settlement, as part of the proposed settlement,
the Company has agreed to adopt and/or maintain certain corporate
governance reforms as set forth in the Stipulation.  The
Stipulation also provides that plaintiffs' co-lead counsel will
seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $445,000, which shall include all attorneys' fees and costs
that may be due any counsel (or anyone else) who has asserted, or
participated in the assertion of, derivative claims on behalf of
the Company in any court.  Any award of fees and expenses will be
paid by the Company (or its insurer on its behalf).  If the
proposed settlement is approved, the Federal Derivative Actions
will be dismissed with prejudice, and all named defendants will be
released by all plaintiffs, the Company, and its shareholders from
all claims that were or could have been alleged in the Federal
Derivative Actions.  As of June 30, 2013, the Company has accrued
$0.4 million related to the proposed settlement and a
corresponding receivable for insurance proceeds related to the
proposed settlement.

On July 23, 2010, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana.  That action also purports to assert claims on behalf
of the Company against certain of its current and former officers
and directors.  On December 8, 2010, the Court entered an order
staying the action in deference to the earlier-filed derivative
actions pending in Federal court.  If the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issues an order of
final approval of the settlement of the Federal Derivative
Actions, the named defendants in the state court derivative
lawsuit and the Company, as a nominal defendant, will move for
dismissal of the state court derivative lawsuit.

                   ERISA Class Action Lawsuit

On September 27, 2010, and October 22, 2010, separate putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former senior executives and
members of the Company's 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee.
The lawsuits allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") since January 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007,
respectively.  The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in the
Company's 401(k) plan.  The plaintiffs assert that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants
by causing the 401(k) plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock
during the respective class periods when it was an allegedly
unduly risky and imprudent retirement investment because of the
Company's alleged improper business practices.  The complaints
seek a determination that the actions may be maintained as a class
action, an award of unspecified monetary damages and other
unspecified relief.  As noted, on December 10, 2010, the Court
consolidated the putative ERISA class actions with the putative
securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial
purposes.  In addition, on December 10, 2010, the Court appointed
interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel in the ERISA
class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell
(the "Co-ERISA Plaintiffs"), filed an amended, consolidated class
action complaint (the "ERISA Complaint"), which supersedes the
earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints.  The ERISA Complaint
seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class
action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
participants in the Company's 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008,
through present.  All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the
ERISA Complaint.  That motion is fully briefed and remains pending
before the court.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
the securities, shareholder derivative, and ERISA litigation given
the preliminary stage of these matters.  The Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities,
shareholder derivative and ERISA litigation matters.  No
assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the
litigation matters or their impact on the Company, its
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMEDISYS INC: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. continues to defend itself against a wage and hour
class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according to the
Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against the Company in which three former employees
allege wage and hour law violations.  The former employees claim
that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty
hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.  More
specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-visit and
an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their
misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them
overtime pay.  Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing
that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous
and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and
plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the court, on April 8, 2013, held
that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the
plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week
over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under
other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work,
in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based
on misclassification.  The Plaintiffs seek class certification of
similar employees and seek attorneys' fees, back wages and
liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three
years under the Pennsylvania statute.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
wage and hour litigation given the preliminary stage of the
matter.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in the wage and hour litigation.  No assurances can be
given as to the timing or outcome of the wage and hour litigation
matter or the case's impact on the Company, its consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which
could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMEDISYS INC: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Amedisys, Inc. in which a
former employee alleges wage and hour law violations.  The former
employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly
basis, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and
entitling her to overtime pay.  The plaintiff alleges violations
of Federal and state law and seeks damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  The
Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who were
or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages
and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and
three years under the Illinois statute.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
wage and hour litigation given the preliminary stage of the
matter.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in the wage and hour litigation.  No assurances can be
given as to the timing or outcome of the wage and hour litigation
matter or the case's impact on the Company, its consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which
could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMERICA ONLINE: Blogger Files Second Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Purna Nemani, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports a
settling plaintiff in a class action against America Online
claims, in another class action, that a company "affiliated with
AOL" offered her work as a blogger -- then told her nine months
later that she wouldn't be paid for it.

Lead plaintiff Lottie K. Tagupa sued VIPdesk Inc. in Federal
Court.

The company itself is the only defendant.

Tagupa says in the lawsuit that VIPdesk "was affiliated with AOL,"
though a search of several VIPdesk Internet pages this morning did
not turn up any claims from the company that it is affiliated with
America Online. VIPdesk describes itself on its Facebook page as
"a leading provider of customer loyalty solutions for premium
brands."

Tagupa claims VIPdesk "asserted pressure" on its "remote
concierges" to submit blogs to beef up its clients' websites, then
"shocked" its employees nine months later by refusing to pay them
for it.

Tagupa says she began working for VIPdesk in 2005 as a "remote
concierge," a home-based customer service rep / web-based call
center tech.

She worked full-time and received raises until she was making
$9.89 an hour plus $3 for each per completed request, she says in
the complaint.

In June 2010, Tagupa claims, VIPdesk senior vice president Tim
Gordon sent its nationwide employees the following email: "As we
mentioned on our all-concierge call last week, VIPdesk is
redesigning its clients' websites to increase the ease of use,
improve the overall look and feel, and add some enhancements. One
of these enhancements will be a weekly blog.

"Our plan is to have a new blog posted each week. The blog should
be something of interest to the customer visiting the website. It
could be about a great experience you had in a particular hotel or
restaurant, or it could be about an amazing trip you recently
took. The possibilities are endless!

"So, I am looking for volunteers to help write the blogs. I am
only looking for one blog from each volunteer (although if you
would like to submit more you are certainly welcome!). Once I get
a list of volunteers I will send out a set of guidelines and
deadlines.

"If you are interested, please send me an email along with a topic
(or topics) you think you might like to write about, no later than
this Friday, June 18th.

Many thanks!!

"P.S. If you can't think of a topic but are still interested in
writing, that's fine -just let me know and we'll work out a topic
together."

Tagupa says she immediately submitted 15 blogs, with photos,
"which were accepted, approved and posted by defendant on its
website," then prepared another 52 blogs, also with photos, "in
order to be considered a team player and assist defendant in
maximizing its bottom line."

After citing more emails from supervisors, covering nine months,
Tagupa's complaint states: "In order to stay in defendant's good
graces and be eligible to receive raises or a promotion in the
future, plaintiff worked very hard to prepare and submit as many
blogs as possible which defendant greatly appreciated. Defendant
derived direct and substantial benefits from its 'volunteers' work
without having to pay for it, and as the above emails indicate,
defendant asserted pressure on employees to submit blogs.

"On March 1, 2011 one of several blog meetings was held via
telephone conference with defendant's client manager Melissa
Carpenter and nationwide employee bloggers. After the meeting,
client manager Melissa Carpenter emailed nationwide employees and
submitted an attachment that stated as to payment for the blogs,
'[a]t this time, the Concierge Blog is a purely volunteer project
to be done in your own free time.' Plaintiff was shocked because
defendant was affiliated with AOL, who had just settled its
lawsuit for not paying employee 'volunteers' for fifteen million
dollars in Hallissey et al. v. America Online, Inc. et al.
Plaintiff was a class action plaintiff in the Hallissey case and
received a settlement along with other plaintiffs in that lawsuit.

"On March 2, 2011 plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she
informed her immediate supervisor manager Eleu Ornellas and
supervisor manager Rob Alexander that it was 'illegal' for
defendant not to pay employees for the work performed researching,
writing, and obtaining photographs for the blogs because they were
non-exempt hourly employees working for a 'for-profit' company.
Both informed plaintiff that she was a 'volunteer' and nothing was
done about plaintiff's report of illegal non-payment to employee
bloggers, including plaintiff."

That day, March 2, 2011, Tagupa says, she complained to the U.S.
Department of Labor. "The United States Department of Labor Wage
and Hour Division opened an investigation into plaintiff's
reports," she says in the complaint.

Tagupa says she continued complaining about the labor violations
through August 2011, when Robert Alexander admonished her in an
email, saying she had "turned negative."

She says she was fired on a teleconference call in September 2011.

Tagupa claims VIPdesk owes her $30,926 for her blogs, plus $791 in
expenses.

She also seeks damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act violations, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and wrongful
termination.

She is represented by Venetia Carpenter-Asui.

     Carpenter-Asui Venetia Attorney At Law
     707 Richards St. Suite 717
     Honolulu, HI 96813
     Tel: 808-523-6446


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Judgment Bid Order in "Krueger" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit initiated
by Roger Krueger, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan.  The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005, to the
present.  The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), by selecting and retaining primarily proprietary mutual
funds with allegedly poor performance histories, higher expenses
relative to other investment options and improper fees paid to
Ameriprise Financial or its subsidiaries.  The action also alleges
that the Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA because it
used its affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan trustee
and record-keeper and improperly reaped profits from the sale of
the record-keeping business to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Plaintiffs
allege over $20 million in damages.  The Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on February 7, 2012.  On April 11, 2012, the
Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which
was denied on November 20, 2012.  The parties are engaged in
discovery.

On July 3, 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment on statute
of limitations grounds.  The hearing on the motion was scheduled
for August 14, 2013.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter due to the early
procedural status of the case, the absence of class certification,
the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific, evidence-based
damages.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Ameriprise
Financial is a diversified financial services company with more
than a hundred year history of providing financial solutions.  The
Company offers a broad range of products and services designed to
achieve the financial objectives of individual and institutional
clients.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Jeffers" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit titled Jeffers vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al.,
remains pending, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jeffers
vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois relating to its sales of the Inland Western
(now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc. ("RPAI")) REIT.
The action also names as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI's
executives, and several members of RPAI's board.  The action
alleges that the Company failed to perform required due diligence
and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including fees
charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and
valuation of the shares on client account statements.  The
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.  The Company was served in
December 2012, and, on April 19, 2013, moved to dismiss the
complaint.  The motion has been fully briefed and submitted to the
Court for review.

At this time, oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss has
not been scheduled.  The Company says it cannot reasonably
estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter due to the early procedural status of the case, the absence
of class certification, the lack of a formal demand on the Company
by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific,
evidence-based damages.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Ameriprise
Financial is a diversified financial services company with more
than a hundred year history of providing financial solutions.  The
Company offers a broad range of products and services designed to
achieve the financial objectives of individual and institutional
clients.


APPLE REIT TEN: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against Apple REIT Ten, Inc., remains pending, according
to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al,
Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple REIT
Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of the
consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. I:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Comt for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Nine, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation
of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide
class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share
purchases and other costs and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re Apple REITs
Litigation.  The briefing period for the motions to dismiss was
completed on July 13, 2012.

By Order entered on March 31, 2013, and opinion issued on April 3,
2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated complaint in its
entirety with prejudice and without leave to amend.  The
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals on April 12, 2013.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple REIT Companies are without merit, and
intends to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple REIT Ten, Inc. -- http://www.applereitten.com/-- is a
Virginia corporation headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, formed
in August 2010 to invest in hotels and other income-producing real
estate in selected metropolitan areas in the United States.  The
Company has elected to be treated as a real estate investment
trust for federal income tax purposes.


BABY JOGGER: Recalls Car Seat Adaptors Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Baby Jogger LLC, of Richmond, Va., announced a voluntary recall of
about 23,700 in the United States and 6,500 in Canada, car seat
adaptor for strollers.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The car seat adaptor support bars can fail, posing a fall hazard
to children.

Baby Jogger has received 47 reports of the car seat adaptor
supports bars failing and car seats falling to the floor.  Reports
include two injured infants with bruises to the head and toes.

The car seat adaptors come in three models and are used to secure
a variety of infant car seats onto Baby Jogger strollers.  The
"Single" model fits all single strollers, the "Double" works only
on double strollers and the "Select/Versa" fits Select and Versa
strollers.  The car seat adaptors consist of two U-shaped, black,
aluminum support bars and two black plastic adaptors that allow
the support bars to attach onto the stroller.  Black nylon straps
secure the car seat to the adaptor on the stroller.  The black
support bars are labeled A and B.  The A support bar is the larger
of the two U-shaped bars and has a red plastic tip with 10 holes.

Newer models have only four holes and are not being recalled.  The
model number is located on the lower right hand corner of the
original package and the manufacturing date can be found on a
sticker on the bottom of the package.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Exhs1a

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Buy
Buy Baby and other juvenile product stores nationwide and at
albeebaby.com, amazon.com, buybuybaby.com, diapers.com and other
online retailers from June 2012 through June 2013 for about $60
for the single adaptor and $100 for the double adaptor.

Consumers should immediately stop using their car seat adaptor and
contact Baby Jogger for free replacement support bars.


BAYNES SOUND: Recalls Certain Pacific Oysters
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Marine Biotoxin
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Baynes Sound Oyster Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8283

Affected products:

  Common name       Size            Code(s) on product
  -----------       ----            ------------------
  Pacific Oysters   8 fl oz    13AUG 24-1, 13AUG 25-1, 13AUG 26-1,
                                  13AUG 27-1
  Pacific Oysters   16 fl oz   13AUG 24-1, 13AUG 25-1, 13AUG 26-1,
                               13AUG 27-1
  Pacific Oysters   32 fl oz   13AUG 24-1, 13AUG 25-1, 13AUG 26-1,
                               13AUG 27-1


BELO CORP: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Texas and Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corp. is facing four merger-related class action lawsuits in
Texas and Delaware, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 12, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (Merger Agreement) with Gannett Co., Inc., (Gannett),
and Delta Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gannett
(Merger Sub).  The Merger Agreement provides that, subject to the
terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into the Company (Merger), with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Gannett.  The Merger Agreement also contemplates
that simultaneous with the completion of the Merger, Gannett will
undertake a restructuring whereby certain television stations
owned by the Company will be transferred to qualified third-party
purchasers under asset purchase and related agreements
(Restructuring).  Subject to antitrust approval, Federal
Communications Commission approval, approval by holders of two-
thirds of the voting power of Belo shares, and customary closing
conditions, the Company expects the Merger to be consummated by
the end of 2013.

On June 14, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported individual shareholder of the Company in the 68th
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against the
Company, Gannett Co., Inc., and members of the Company's board of
directors.  On June 17, 2013, June 24, 2013, and July 16, 2013,
respectively, three similar lawsuits were filed by different
purported shareholders of the Company in the Chancery Court of the
State of Delaware against the Company, members of the Belo board,
Gannett Co., Inc. and Gannett's merger subsidiary.  The lawsuits
arise out of the Company's Merger Agreement with Gannett Co.,
Inc., announced on June 13, 2013.  The four lawsuits challenge the
Merger, asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duty against the
individual defendants and aiding and abetting breach of this duty
against the corporate defendants.  On July 9, 2013, the Delaware
Chancery Court ordered the consolidation of two of the Delaware
complaints, and on July 11, 2013, Delaware plaintiffs filed an
amended, consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs of the third and
substantially similar complaint filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court have requested that their action be consolidated into the
consolidated lawsuit.

The Company believes the lawsuits complaints are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.

Belo Corp., a Delaware corporation, began as a Texas newspaper
company in 1842 and today is a publicly-traded pure-play
television company.  The Dallas, Texas-based Company owns 20
television stations that reach more than 14% of U.S. television
households, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV
(MNTV) affiliates, and their associated Web sites, in 15 highly-
attractive markets across the United States.  The Company also has
three local and two regional news channels.


BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Spyder Model
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 28, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              3 Wheel Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           2380
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013288
TC ID number:             2013288

On certain Can-Am Spyder RT series and Spyder ST series roadsters,
heat build-up in the area of the brake master cylinder could cause
the manifold inlet (a plastic cover on top of the master cylinder)
to melt.  This could cause a brake fluid leak, which may result in
a vehicle fire causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will install heat reflecting shields.

Affected products:

  Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----     ----------------------
  CAN-AM     SPYDER    2013


BP PLC: 5th Cir. Reverses Course in Suit Over Oil Spill Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal appeals court reversed course on Aug. 29 on its earlier
ruling favoring BP in a multimillion-dollar insurance dispute,
handing at least a temporary setback to the energy giant as it
seeks to defray some of the enormous costs associated with the
huge 2010 Gulf oil spill.

BP has argued that it is entitled to a portion of $750 million in
coverage from a drilling contractor's insurance policies to help
the London-based multinational help pay pollution-related costs
following the explosion, fire and spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP leased the drilling rig that exploded from Transocean Ltd. and
required by contract that the Swiss-based drilling company
maintain minimum insurance coverage for BP's benefit.
Transocean's policy with Ranger Insurance Ltd. provided at least
$50 million in coverage, while its policies with several "excess
liability" insurers added at least another $700 million in
coverage.

BP contends it is entitled to coverage under those Transocean
policies as an "additional insured" party, but U.S. District Judge
Carl Barbier rejected the company's interpretation of the policy
language in a November 2010 ruling.  Then the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans reversed Judge
Barbier's ruling on March 1 in a decision favoring BP.

On Aug. 29, a three-judge panel of the same New Orleans based
appeals court said the outcome of the dispute isn't clear and it
would seek answers from the Texas Supreme Court to two questions
that could help the federal appeals court ultimately decide the
case.  For now, Judge Barbier's ruling against BP stands.

"We continue to believe that the 5th Circuit got it right in its
previous unanimous opinion and think that result will be
confirmed," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement on
Aug. 29.

The explosion on the Deepwater Horizon triggered an explosion that
killed 11 workers and left millions of gallons of oil spewing into
the Gulf, a disaster that already has cost BP billions of dollars
in cleanup expenses and other costs.  The insurance dispute is one
of several spill-related appeals to wind up in the Fifth Circuit.


BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Stuffed Animal Toy Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc., of St. Louis, Mo., announced a
voluntary recall of 25,000 in the U.S. and 1,100 in Canada Sulley
character stuffed animal.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The stuffed animal's eye can detach, posing a choking hazard to
young children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

Sulley is a furry blue creature from the Monsters movies.  The
Build-A-Bear stuffed monster is covered in blue furry fabric with
purple spots, horn on its head and has blue eyes measuring about 1
inch in diameter.  The stuffed monster is about 17 inches high and
10.5 inches wide.  Tracking label ending with 4384 or 4385 for USA
and 4378 for Canada can be found on a sewn in label on the
backside of the leg of the stuffed monster.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/3F404K

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Build-A-Bear Workshop stores and online at
http://www.buildabear.comduring June 2013 for about $23.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled Sulley from
children and return it to any Build-A-Bear Workshop store to
receive a coupon for any stuffed animal from Build-A-Bear
Workshop.


BURGER KING: Defends TCPA Violations Suit vs. BKC in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Worldwide, Inc.'s subsidiary is defending a class
action lawsuit in Maryland alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumers Protection Act, according to the Company's July 31,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Burger King Corporation in the U.S. District Court of
Maryland.  The complaint alleges that Burger King Corporation
(BKC) and/or its agents sent unsolicited advertisements by fax to
thousands of consumers in Maryland and elsewhere in the United
States to promote its home delivery program in violation of the
Telephone Consumers Protection Act.  The Company says it is not
possible at this time to determine the likelihood of class
certification in this case or reasonably estimate the probability
or amount of liability for monetary damages on a class wide basis.

Based in Miami, Florida, Burger King Worldwide, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation formed in 2012 and is the indirect parent of Burger
King Corporation.  BKC is a Florida corporation that franchises
and operates fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under
the Burger King(R) brand.


CAMPBELL'S SOUP: Recalls Canned Pasta Due to Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------
Campbell's Soup Supply Company LLC, a Paris, TX establishment, is
recalling 1,920 cans (approximately 1,740 pounds) of SpaghettiOs
with Meatballs due to misbranding and undeclared allergens.  The
SpaghettiOs product is formulated with wheat, soy, and milk, known
allergens.  However, the product was released with a Swanson 100%
Natural Chicken Broth label, which does not declare the allergens.

The products subject to recall bear the label:

   -- 14.5-oz. Campbell's "Swanson 100% Natural Chicken Broth."
      The establishment number "EST. 4K, P-13" is located on the
      bottom of the can along with the use-by date of Jan. 23,
      2015.

The products were produced on July 24, 2013 and were sold in
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  The
product was sold at retail only.

The problem was discovered after the company received two consumer
complaints of incorrectly labeled product.  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 ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  The retail distribution list(s) will be
posted on the FSIS website at:

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
Campbell Consumer Hotline at 866-495-3774.  Media with questions
about the recall should contact Carla Burigatto, a company media
contact, at 856-342-3737 or Carla_burigatto@campbellsoup.com.


CBS CORPORATION: Awaits Okay of Simon's Minnesota Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation is awaiting court approval of its subsidiary's
settlement covering claims of Minnesota residents, according to
the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

A number of lawsuits have been pending against the following
parties relating to the sale of e-books: Apple Inc., Hachette Book
Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Holtzbrinck Publishers
LLC d/b/a Macmillan, Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and the Company's
subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, Inc. (collectively, the "Publishing
parties").

On April 10, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster and two of
the other Publishing parties entered into a settlement stipulation
and proposed final judgment (the "Stipulation") with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in connection with the
DOJ's investigations of agency distribution of e-books.  In
furtherance of this settlement, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed
an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Publishing parties and
concurrently filed the Stipulation with the court.  On
September 7, 2012, the Stipulation was approved by the court and
final judgment was entered.  The Stipulation does not involve any
monetary payments by Simon & Schuster, but will require the
adoption of certain business practices for a 24 month period and
certain compliance practices for a five year period.

On June 11, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster entered
into a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the antitrust
action filed by a number of states and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico against several of the Publishing parties in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, which was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("States") on April 30, 2012.  The proposed
settlement provides that, certain Publishing parties, including
Simon & Schuster, will pay agreed upon amounts for consumer
restitution, among other things, and also requires the adoption of
certain business and compliance practices, which are substantially
similar to those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ.  On
September 14, 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, which all states (except Minnesota), the
District of Columbia and the United States territories joined.  On
October 15, 2012, Simon & Schuster paid the agreed upon amounts
into an escrow account pending final court approval.  On
February 8, 2013, the court approved the proposed settlement
following a final settlement approval hearing that day.  On
June 20, 2013, Simon & Schuster and certain other Publishing
parties entered into a settlement agreement in the MDL litigation
covering claims of Minnesota residents (the "Minnesota
Settlement").  The Minnesota Settlement is subject to court
approval.  The Company believes that the settlements with the DOJ,
the States and the Minnesota Settlement will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or
cash flows.

On December 9, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL") issued an order consolidating
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York various purported class action lawsuits that private
litigants had filed in federal courts in California and New York.
On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint with the court against the Publishing
parties.  These private litigant plaintiffs, who are e-book
purchasers, allege that, among other things, the defendants are in
violation of federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection
with the sale of e-books pursuant to agency distribution
arrangements between each of the publishers and e-book retailers.
The consolidated amended class action complaint generally seeks
multiple forms of damages for the purchase of e-books and
injunctive and other relief.  On March 2, 2012, the Publishing
parties filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On May 15, 2012,
the court denied the motion to dismiss.  As noted, on June 20,
2013, Simon & Schuster entered into the Minnesota Settlement,
subject to court approval.  Upon approval of the Minnesota
Settlement by the court, Simon & Schuster will be dismissed with
prejudice from the MDL litigation and only those individuals who
elect to opt out of the States settlement or the Minnesota
Settlement will have any potential claims against Simon &
Schuster.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, similar antitrust lawsuits have
been filed under Canadian law against the Publishing parties by
private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class actions.  Simon
& Schuster intends to defend itself in the Canadian matters.

In addition, the European Commission (the "EC") and Canadian
Competition Bureau are conducting separate competition
investigations of agency distribution arrangements of e-books in
this industry and Simon & Schuster is cooperating with these
investigations.  On September 19, 2012, the EC began accepting
public comment on the terms of a proposed settlement.  On
December 12, 2012, following the close of that comment period, the
EC accepted the proposed settlement.  The settlement between the
EC and certain Publishing parties, including Simon & Schuster,
requires the adoption of certain business and compliance practices
similar to those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The Company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Lopez" Shareholder Suit in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., is facing a shareholder class action
lawsuit commenced by Joseph Lopez in Washington, according to the
Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In June 2013, Joseph Lopez, a shareholder, filed a purported class
action lawsuit against the Company and its board of directors in
King County Superior Court in the State of Washington, docketed as
Lopez v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 13-2-23322-3
SEA.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company's proxy statement,
which it filed with the SEC on May 13, 2013, omits certain
purportedly material information regarding the amendment that was
proposed for approval by the Company's shareholders at its annual
meeting of shareholders to increase the number of shares of common
stock available for issuance pursuant to the Company's 2007 Equity
Incentive Plan, as amended and restated, by 12,000,000 shares.
The plaintiff claims that the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders (and that the
Company aided and abetted these breaches) by failing to disclose,
among other things, the dilutive effect that the additional shares
would have on the Company's shareholders, the projected stock
grants under consideration, the Company's historical grant
practices, and how the Company's board of directors determined the
number of additional shares requested.  On June 26, 2013, the
Company's annual meeting of shareholders was held, and its
shareholders approved the proposal.  At this stage of the
litigation, no probability of loss can be predicted.

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Cell Therapeutics, Inc., is
a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition,
development, and commercialization of less toxic and more
effective ways to treat cancer.  The Company is primarily focused
on commercializing PIXUVRI(R) (pixantrone) in the European Union
for multiply relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin
lymphoma and conducting the first of two planned Phase 3 clinical
trials of pacritinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis.


CIBER INC: Bid to Dismiss "Weston" Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2011, a putative securities class action lawsuit,
Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against Ciber, its
current Chief Executive Officer David C. Peterschmidt, current
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO")
Claude J. Pumilia and former CFO Peter H. Cheesbrough (the "Class
Action").  The Class Action purports to have been filed on behalf
of all holders of Ciber common stock between December 15, 2010,
and August 3, 2011, by alleged stockholder and plaintiff, Burt
Weston.  The Class Action generally alleges that defendants Ciber,
Mr. Peterschmidt, Mr. Pumilia and Mr. Cheesbrough (the "Class
Action Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Action
Defendants disseminated or approved alleged false statements
concerning the Company's outlook and forecast for fiscal year 2011
in: (1) the Company's 8-K filed with the SEC and press conference
held with investors on December 15, 2010; (2) the Company's press
release and earnings conference call on February 22, 2011; (3) the
Company's 10-K for fiscal year 2010 filed with the SEC on February
25, 2011; and (4) the Company's press release, earnings conference
call, and Form 10-Q for first quarter 2011 filed with the SEC on
May 3, 2011.  The complaint also generally alleges that the Class
Action Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Action
Defendants acted as controlling persons of Ciber within the
meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by reason of their
positions with the Company.  The Class Action seeks, among other
things:  (1) an order from the Court declaring the complaint to be
a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and certifying plaintiff as a representative of
the purported class; (2) awarding plaintiff and the members of the
class damages, including interest; (3) awarding plaintiff
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and (4) awarding such other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Court appointed Mr. Weston and City of Roseville Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Robbins,
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Robbins Umeda LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel on January 31, 2012.  Lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in early April 2012.  The Class Action Defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending.  The
Company believes that the Class Action is without merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously.  The Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Based in Greenwood Village, Colorado, Ciber, Inc., is a leading
global information technology company with nearly 40 years of
proven IT experience, world-class credentials and a wide range of
technology expertise.  With 65 offices worldwide operating on four
continents and over 60 supplier partners, Ciber has the
infrastructure and expertise to deliver IT services to almost any
organization.


COCA-COLA: Sued Over Containers' Omission of Artificial Flavoring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Coca-Cola containers omit the fact
that their contents include artificial flavoring or chemical
preservatives, a class claims.

The case is captioned, George Engurasoff; Joshua Ogden v. The
Coca-Cola Co.; Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc., and pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


COINSTAR INC: Sued for Selling "Fading" Gift Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Coinstar sells gift certificates
that "fade quickly after issuance and become unreadable and
therefore unredeemable by the consumer, within very short periods
of time," a class action claims in Federal Court.


CON-WAY INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Con-way Inc. continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws,
according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Con-way is a defendant in several class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to pay certain drivers for
all compensable time and that certain other drivers were not
provided with required meal breaks and rest breaks.  The
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages,
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.  The two primary cases
are Jorge R. Quezada v. Con-way Inc., dba Con-way Freight, (the
"Quezada" case), and Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al, v. Con-way
Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina" case).  The Quezada case was
initially filed in February 2009 in San Mateo County Superior
Court, and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California,
Northern District.  The Pina case was initially filed in November
2009 in Monterey County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S.
District Court of California, Northern District.  By agreement of
the parties, in March 2010, the Pina case and the Quezada case
were deemed related and transferred to the same judge.  On
April 12, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for class
certification in the Pina case as to a limited number of issues.
On October 15, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request for
class certification in the Quezada case and granted summary
judgment as to certain issues.

Con-way has denied any liability with respect to these claims and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this case.  Con-way plans
to appeal the class certification and summary judgment rulings.
Given the nature and status of the claims, Con-way cannot yet
determine the amount or a reasonable range of potential loss, if
any.

Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Con-way Inc. --
http://www.con-way.com/-- and its consolidated subsidiaries
provide transportation, logistics and supply-chain management
services for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial and retail
customers.  Con-way's business units operate in regional and
transcontinental less-than-truckload and full-truckload freight
transportation, contract logistics and supply-chain management,
multimodal freight brokerage, and trailer manufacturing.


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Defends Suits Over Line 6B Crude Oil Release
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., is defending itself against
lawsuits arising from the Line 6B crude oil release, according to
the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In 2010, crude oil releases occurred on Line 6B of the Company's
Lakehead system.

A number of governmental agencies and regulators have initiated
investigations into the Line 6B crude oil release.  Approximately
45 actions or claims have been filed against the Company and its
affiliates, in state and federal courts in connection with the
Line 6B crude oil release, including direct actions and actions
seeking class status.  Based on the current status of these cases,
the Company does not expect the outcome of these actions to be
material.  On July 2, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, or PHMSA, announced a Notice of Probable
Violation, or NOPV, related to the Line 6B crude oil release,
including a civil penalty of $3.7 million that the Company paid
during the third quarter of 2012.

Governmental agencies and regulators have also initiated
investigations into the Line 6A crude oil release.  One claim has
been filed against the Company and its affiliates by the State of
Illinois in an Illinois state court in connection with this crude
oil release, and the parties are currently operating under an
agreed interim order.  The costs associated with this order are
included in the estimated environmental costs accrued for the Line
6A crude oil release.  The Company is also pursuing recovery of
the costs associated with the Line 6A crude oil release from third
parties; however, there can be no assurance that any such recovery
will be obtained.

The Company says it has accrued a provision for future legal costs
and probable losses associated with the Line 6A and Line 6B crude
oil releases.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. --
http://www.enbridgepartners.com/-- provides services to its
customers through these activities: interstate pipeline
transportation and storage of crude oil and liquid petroleum;
gathering, treating, processing and transportation of natural gas
and natural gas liquids through pipelines and related facilities;
and supply, transportation and sales services, including
purchasing and selling natural gas and NGLs.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defends Nine MERS-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corporation is defending nine class action
lawsuits initiated against lenders and servicers that have held
mortgages through Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), EverHome
Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that
have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following
class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper
mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay
recording fees in violation of state recording statutes:

   (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting
       Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
       Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al.
       filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for
       Geauga County, Ohio, later removed to federal court and
       subsequently remanded to state court;

   (2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond, Plymouth
       County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
       Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March 2012
       in the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County and later
       removed to federal court;

   (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County Attorney of
       Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
       Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in
       April 2012 in the United States District Court for the
       Eastern District of Kentucky;

   (4) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage Electronic
       Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al., filed
       in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
       Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois;

   (5) Macon County, Illinois v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
       Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. filed in
       July 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial
       Circuit, Macon County, Illinois and later removed to
       federal court;

   (6) County of Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic Registration
       Systems, Inc., et al., filed in December 2012 in an Oregon
       state court, later removed to federal court and
       subsequently remanded to state court;

   (7) County of Union Illinois, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
       Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al.
       filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court for the First
       Judicial Circuit, Union County, Illinois, later removed to
       federal court and now pending on appeal in the United
       States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit;

   (8) County of Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v.
       MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in
       the Second Judicial District Court and subsequently
       removed to the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota;
       and

   (9) Jackson County, Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
       Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc., et al., filed in
       April 2012 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
       Missouri and later removed to federal court where the
       court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and now
       stayed due to the bankruptcy filing of defendant GMAC.

In these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case
generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants
to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive
damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company
believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to
contest all such claims vigorously.  EverBank was previously
subject to one additional lawsuit: (1) Christian County Clerk, et
al. v. MERS and EverHome Mortgage Company filed in April 2011 in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, which was the subject of an appeal in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that upheld the lower
court's dismissal of the complaint.

Jacksonville, Florida-based EverBank Financial Corporation is a
thrift holding company with two direct operating subsidiaries,
EverBank Funding, LLC, and EverBank, a federally chartered thrift
institution with its direct banking services offered nationwide.


EXPEDIA INC: Chairman, et al., Sued for Propping Up Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Chairman of the Board Barry Diller
et al. propped up Expedia's stock price with false and misleading
statements, a class action claims in Federal Court.


FERRO CORP: Two Shareholder Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corporation disclosed in its July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that the two shareholder class action
lawsuits filed against it have been voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.

On March 29, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit in the
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas (Turberg v. Lawrence
et al., No. 13-CV-803886), and on April 9, 2013, a purported
shareholder of the Company filed a substantially similar putative
shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Raul v.
Hipple et al., No. 1:13-cv-00783).  Both of these cases have been
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, Turberg v. Lawrence et
al. on June 5, 2013, and Raul v. Hipple et al. on July 10, 2013.

Ferro Corporation produces specialty materials and chemicals for a
range of manufacturers worldwide.  The Company is based in
Mayfield Heights, Ohio.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and Town Car
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           18368
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013287
TC ID number:             2013287
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13S08

Affected products:

  Make      Model             Model year(s) affected
  FORD      CROWN VICTORIA    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                              2011
  LINCOLN   TOWN CAR          2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                              2011
  MERCURY   GRAND MARQUIS     2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                              2011

On certain vehicles originally sold or currently registered in
areas of heavy road salt usage during winter months (Ontario,
Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and
Newfoundland & Labrador), the steering column lower intermediate
shaft can become severely corroded.  This could cause the swing
link joint to become stiff or seized.  As a result, the upper
intermediate shaft could collapse, allowing the steering column
lower bearing to separate, causing a loss of steering capability.
A loss of steering control could result in a crash causing
property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the steering lower intermediate shaft.  The
upper intermediate shaft and steering column lower bearing will be
inspected and, if necessary, repaired or replaced.  If the
steering column lower bearing has separated, a retainer clip will
be installed.


FUKUDA TRADING: Recalls Certain Orion Brand Potato Chips
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 26, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
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
CFIA reference number:    8281

Affected products: Orion Italian Potato Chips with all codes where
milk is not declared in the list of ingredients.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Dismisses Suit Over Baby Formula
-------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Nestle subsidiary Gerber Products should not face claims that
its pricey probiotic baby formula does not actually strengthen
child immune systems, a federal judge ruled.

By April 2012, Nestle and Gerber faced 10 nationwide class actions
in six federal courts on this issue. Those cases were consolidated
in Newark, N.J., earlier this year.

The second consolidated amended complaint took issue with three
Gerber products: Good Start Protect formulas for infants and for
children up to age 2; and DHA & Probiotic Cereal, of the single
grain oatmeal and rice varieties. Consumers claimed the products
do not boost baby immune systems or equate breast milk, as
advertised.

Though healthy babies' bodies already maintain the proper balance
of intestinal bacteria, the Fremont, Mich.-based company allegedly
induces consumers unaware of this fact to choose Gerber's pricy
products over other, less costly predecessor and regular formulas
that do not contain probiotics.

Scientific studies show that probiotic supplementation in infant
formula neither cuts down harmful pathogens, grows good bacteria,
nor reduces infections, the complaint states.

The consumers say Gerber uses trademarked "Immuniprotect," which
contains probiotic bacteria purportedly found in breast milk,
"Bifidus BL," as a "deceptive marketing hook."

Experts "unanimously agree," however, that breast milk is best for
infants, and that it "provides unique nutritional benefits that
defendant's products do not," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs further allege that, despite rebranding the
products in February 2010 and re-naming them in early 2011, Gerber
has manufactured, marketed and sold the items with false
representations on the packaging, labeling, and advertising since
at least Sept. 27, 2009.

The second amended complaint asserted claims for fraud, breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment under the laws of New Jersey,
California, Illinois, New York, and Washington.

When Gerber moved to dismiss, the plaintiffs submitted a somewhat
theatrical opposition.

"With overblown and false indignation, Gerber accuses plaintiffs
of 'the consummate blue smoke and mirrors' by 'repeatedly
replac[ing]' Gerber's statements promoting breast milk as the
'ideal' source of nutrition for babies with dot-dot-dot," they
wrote, as quoted in the ruling. "Gerber should focus on being more
accurate and less accusatory.'"

This protest held little sway, however, with U.S. District Judge
Jose Linares who dismissed the action Aug. 22.

Although Linares would not clear Gerber's representations as
neither false, deceptive, nor misleading, he said the plaintiffs
have standing to assert claims based only on the products'
labeling, not the defendant's overall marketing scheme.

"Other than the products' label, no plaintiff alleges even the
general type or medium of 'advertising' to which they were
allegedly exposed," the unpublished ruling states. "Nor do
plaintiffs otherwise allege facts as to how misrepresentations in
the 'advertising' caused their injuries."

The plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief, the judge
ruled.

"Throughout plaintiffs' brief, they point to concrete examples of
misleading statements from press releases and the website in the
SAC," Linares wrote. "Plaintiffs also refer to defendant's
'misrepresentations' without specifying the source."

The judge later added: "To be sure, the court does not suggest
that plaintiffs may never refer to defendant's collective
misrepresentations in the SAC," Linares wrote. "However, as
determined above, plaintiffs only have standing to assert claims
based on the labeling of the products. In light of the fact that
plaintiffs' claims are premised on Gerber's overall marketing
campaign, the court cannot determine whether plaintiffs state a
plausible right to relief based on the representations contained
on the products' labels alone. Accordingly, the court dismisses
the SAC without prejudice."

A copy of Judge Linares' 22-page opinion is available from
Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/TmP2TW


HULU PRIVACY LITIGATION: Certification Motion Hearing Set Dec. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports six Hulu
subscribers who claim the website illegally disclosed their viewer
data to Facebook moved to certify their federal class action.

In their amended complaint, Joseph Garvey et al. claim Hulu
"repurposed" its browser cache so that marketing analyst services
could store their private data.

Hulu claimed in May 2012 that the class had abandoned six of its
seven claims dealing with privacy, computer fraud and negligence,
and that the Northern District of California should dismiss those
claims with prejudice.

Much of the dispute centers on the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988 after a Washington, D.C.,
newspaper published the video rental history of Supreme Court
nominee Robert Bork.

As for the final claim under the VPPA, Hulu claimed the class
could not prove injury to establish standing, since that would
require a recitation of watched videos, and how third parties
received this information.

The VPPA permits disclosure to third parties as an "ordinary
course of business," according to Hulu's brief by O'Melveny &
Myers attorney Randall Edwards.

Though U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of San Francisco
largely dismissed the case in June 2012, she deferred ruling on
the VPPA claim pending a determination of standing.

In a new filing, the plaintiffs moved to certify two classes of
plaintiffs whose information was given to Facebook and the
analytics company comScore.

"Hulu may try to deny the reality of VPPA's language and Hulu's
own website code, but it cannot escape the simple fact that it
broke the law, repeatedly," plaintiffs' attorney Scott Kamber
wrote. "Hulu knew it identified its users and their video
selections to third parties."

In the memorandum in support of the motion, and in other filings
in the case, specific information about the code Hulu uses for its
site is blacked out.

The plaintiffs asked the court to certify two classes because they
satisfy the four prerequisites: numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy.

A hearing on the motion to certify is scheduled for Dec. 19 in
Judge Beeler's court.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' 29-page Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification is
available from Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/VMpHrA

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
     David A. Stampley, Esq.
     Grace E. Tersigni, Esq. -- gtersigni@kamberlaw.com
     KAMBERLAW, LLC
     100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 920-3072
     Fax: (212) 920-3081

          - and -

     Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
     KAMBERLAW, LLP
     141 North St.
     Healdsburg, CA 95448
     Tel: (707) 820-4247
     Fax: (212) 202-6364

          - and -

     David C. Parisi, Esq. -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com
     Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
     PARISI & HAVENS LLP
     15233 Valleyheart Drive
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
     Tel: (818) 990-1299
     Fax: (818) 501-7852

          - and -

     Brian R. Strange, Esq.
     Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
     STRANGE & CARPENTER
     12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste, 1900
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Tel: (310) 207-5055
     Fax: (310) 826-3210


KFORCE INC: Faces Class Suit Filed by Employees in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit brought by current
and former employees in California, according to the Company's
July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 18, 2013, Kforce, along with other staffing firms, was
named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the Orange
County Superior Court of the State of California.  The complaint
alleges that a class of current and former Kforce employees
working in California was denied compensation for the time they
spent interviewing with current and potential clients of Kforce,
over a period covering four years prior to the filing of the
complaint.  The plaintiff seeks recovery in an unspecified amount
for this alleged unpaid compensation, the alleged failure of
Kforce to provide them with accurate wage statements, the alleged
improper use of debit cards as an employee payment mechanism in
certain circumstances, alleged unfair competition, and statutory
penalties, attorney's fees and other damages.  At this stage of
the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome or a
range of loss, should a loss occur.  Accordingly, no amounts have
been provided for in Kforce's Financial Statements.  Kforce
believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations and
intends to vigorously defend the matter.

Kforce Inc. and subsidiaries provide professional staffing
services and technology, finance and accounting, health and life
sciences and government solutions.  The Company is based in Tampa,
Florida.


KFORCE INC: Has Paid in Full $2.5-Mil. Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The full settlement of Kforce Inc.'s $2.5 million deal to resolve
a class action lawsuit in California was paid during the three
months ended June 30, 2013, according to the Company's July 31,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Kforce was a defendant in a California class action lawsuit
alleging misclassification of California Account Managers and
seeking unspecified damages.  The tentative settlement referred to
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010, was approved by the California court during the
three months ended June 30, 2011, in the amount of $2.5 million,
which was recorded within accounts payable and other accrued
liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2012.  The full settlement was paid by Kforce to the
independent third-party settlement administrator during the three
months ended June 30, 2013.

Kforce Inc. and subsidiaries provide professional staffing
services and technology, finance and accounting, health and life
sciences and government solutions.  The Company is based in Tampa,
Florida.


KRAFT FOODS: Court Sets Final Settlement Hearing for Nov. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Kraft Foods can pay $900,000 to settle claims that it
misclassified route salespeople as nonexempt and did not pay them
overtime, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff Gilbert Salinas denied Kraft's assertion that the
job of a route salesperson is "similar to managing their own
business," and therefore qualifies as a position exempt from
overtime pay and rest breaks.

Salinas claimed that such employees spent most of their time
driving from store to store and checking inventory, duties that do
not meet any known test for exemption. The salespeople had little
time for actual sales, or taking meal or rest breaks, the
according to the class action in the Northern District of
California.

Earlier this year, Salinas told the court that Kraft had agreed to
settle by paying the approximately 131-member class $900,000, plus
costs and attorneys' fees. The deal entitled Salinas to take home
an enhancement award of up to $5,000.

Each member of the class would be entitled meanwhile to a pro rata
portion of the settlement fund, which will be calculated based on
the number of weeks the employee worked during the settlement
period, divided by the total number of workweeks worked by all
class members during the same period.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick granted the deal preliminary
approval Aug. 26.  The final settlement hearing is scheduled for
November 13, 2013.  A copy of the preliminary order is available
from Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/Ih69JN


L.L.BEAN: Recalls Step Stools Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
L.L.Bean Inc., of Freeport, Maine, announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,800 painted cottage step stools.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The step stools can slide or tip over, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

L.L.Bean has received six reports of incidents involving slips and
falls, resulting in soreness and bruising.

The recall involves L.L.Bean painted wood cottage step stools.
They measure about 12 inches tall by 12 inches wide by 13 inches
deep and have a slot on the top surface and hard plastic caps on
the bottom of all four legs.  They were sold in the following
colors: black, coffee bean, ivory, light sage and red.  Item
number 281655 is printed on a sticker on the underside of the
stool.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/h6atZT

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at L.L.Bean stores nationwide, L.L.Bean's catalog and
online at http://www.llbean.comfrom December 2012 through June
2013 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the step stools and
contact L.L.Bean for a full refund or a merchandise card.
L.L.Bean will send consumers a prepaid label to return one leg of
the stool.  The rest of the stool can be discarded. L.L.Bean is
contacting purchasers of the step stool directly.


LONE STAR: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due to Processing Deviation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Star Western Beef, Inc., a Fairmont, W.Va., establishment, is
recalling approximately 109 pounds of beef jerky products due to a
processing deviation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 1-oz., 3-oz. and 16-oz. packages of "Lone Star Western Beef
      Inc. W.V. Original Beef Jerky."

The products were produced on Aug. 12, 2013, and bear the
establishment number "EST. 19563" inside the USDA Mark of
Inspection.  The 16-oz. package can be further identified by the
package code "081213."  The products were shipped to a distributor
in North Central West Virginia and sold to retail stores.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a routine
verification activity.  The inspector was reviewing processing
records and found that the beef jerky was not processed at the
correct temperature to ensure that the ready-to-eat product was
safe to consume.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses 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.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:

      http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
John Bachman, Lone Star Western Beef, Inc.'s Owner, at 304-368-
0691.


MERRILL LYNCH: To Implement Changes to Address Diversity Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tarm, writing for The Associated Press, reports that as
part of its $160 million proposed discrimination settlement with
black financial advisers, Merrill Lynch has agreed to make
sweeping changes that "may well change the landscape of Wall
Street," attorneys said on Aug. 29 in court filings.

The documents filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago come days
after attorneys for around 1,200 plaintiffs alleging racial bias
announced a deal, which, if approved by a judge, would be one of
the largest ever in a discrimination suit.

Among the measures, Merrill Lynch will create a "leadership
council" to recommend ways to improve opportunities for African
Americans; it commits to interviewing at least one minority
candidate when selecting new executives; and it agrees to consider
diversity issues when assessing directors' job performances.

Arguing the settlement has potential impact beyond Merrill Lynch,
the Aug. 29 documents urge U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman in
Chicago to approve it.

"Class Counsel respectfully submits that this case and settlement
may well change the landscape of Wall Street as well as
discrimination and class action law," one filing says.

Plaintiffs accused the Bank of America-owned Merrill Lynch -- one
of the world's largest brokerages with more than 15,000 financial
advisers -- of steering black brokers away from the most lucrative
business; as a result, under a compensation system emphasizing
production, they earned less than their white counterparts.

A distinguishing feature of the settlement is that many black
brokers who joined the suit alleging discrimination will stay on
at Merrill Lynch and be included in new structures meant to
address their concerns, said plaintiffs attorney Linda D.
Friedman.

Plaintiffs typically quit or are fired long before settlements in
such civil cases, but in this case "the plaintiffs will be a part
of the change," she said.

Merrill Lynch spokesman Bill Halldin issued a brief statement on
on Aug. 29 calling it a "very positive resolution of the lawsuit
filed in 2005 and will enhance opportunities for African-American
financial advisers."

While it agreed to address issues of diversity in the workplace,
Merrill Lynch doesn't admit any wrongdoing in the settlement.  In
filings during eight years of litigation, it denied the
discrimination allegation and staunchly defended its compensation
programs.

"All (financial advisers), regardless of race, are judged by the
same metric," one of the company's filings argued.  "The rule is
simple: produce more, earn more."

Plaintiffs claimed discrimination pervaded Merrill Lynch, at least
partly because the company employed relatively few African-
Americans overall.  In a 2009 plaintiffs' filing, they contended
that fewer than 2 percent of the brokers at Merrill Lynch were
black.

Other changes Merrill Lynch agreed to, according to the Aug. 29
filings, include increasing the amount in its diversity fund to
$1 million a year to pay for business development events for
minority and female financial advisers.

A status hearing in the case was scheduled for Sept. 3.


MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 SCHOOL BUS Model
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 30, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Label
Units affected:           142
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013291
TC ID number:             2013291

Affected products: Girardin G5 School Bus 2012, 2013 model

On certain school buses, the compliance label contains incorrect
vehicle seating capacity information.

Owners will be provided with labels and installation instructions.


POLARIS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
----------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 29, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Wheels
Units affected:           68
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013290
TC ID number:             2013290

Affected products:

   -- CHIEF DELUXE 2009;
   -- CHIEF ROADMASTER 2009, 2010, 2011;
   -- CHIEF STANDARD 2009;
   -- CHIEF VINTAGE 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013;
   -- CHIEF BOMBER 2010;
   -- CHIEF CLASSIC 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013;
   -- CHIEF DARK HORSE 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013;
   -- CHIEF BLACKHAWK 2011; and
   -- CHIEF BLACKHAWK DARK 2011

On certain motorcycles, the rear wheel rim may crack and cause a
sudden loss of air pressure.  This could cause the rider to lose
vehicle control, which may result in a crash causing property
damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the rear rim.


POOL CORP: Antitrust Litigation Remains Pending in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust multidistrict litigation against Pool Corporation
remains pending in Louisiana, according to the Company's July 31,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

A number of purported anti-trust class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Company in various United States District
Courts.  The cases were transferred and consolidated before the
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2328,
and are presently pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The plaintiffs include indirect purchaser plaintiffs, purporting
to represent indirect purchasers of swimming pool products in
Arizona, California, Florida and Missouri, and direct purchaser
plaintiffs, who are current or former customers.  On April 11,
2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' antitrust claim.  On
May 24, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers' antitrust
claims.

Pool Corporation -- http://www.poolcorp.com/-- is the world's
largest wholesale distributor of swimming pool supplies, equipment
and related leisure products and is one of the top three
distributors of irrigation and landscape products in the United
States.  The Covington, Louisiana-based Company was incorporated
in the State of Delaware in 1993 and has grown from a regional
distributor to a multi-national, multi-network distribution
company.


PRIDE FOODS: Recalls Beef Pattie and Chub Products
--------------------------------------------------
Pride Foods, a Raiford, Fla., an establishment, is recalling
approximately 116,404 pounds of beef pattie and chub 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 soy, a known allergen
which is not declared on the labels.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 10-lb. cases of 3, 4, and 6 oz. "Savory Beef Patties." These
      products were exported to the Bahamas and distributed
      throughout the Caribbean.

   -- 10-lb. cases of 4 oz. "Beef Patties."  This product was
      exported to the Bahamas and distributed throughout the
      Caribbean.

   -- 24-lb. cases of 1 lb. "Beef Pattie Mix" chubs.  This product
      was distributed to a food bank in Pennsylvania.

The products bear the establishment number "EST. 18506" inside the
USDA Mark of Inspection.  All products were produced between
Dec. 1, 2012, and Aug. 27, 2013.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector during a routine
label review before export.  The problem is believed to have
occurred due to an oversight after using a unique label for one
customer.  The products contain Textured Vegetable Protein that is
formulated with soy.  Soy 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.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:

     http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Ryan Yax, Manager, at (813) 890-6541.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling in "Cruise/Mullaney" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the "Cruise/Mullaney" case,
according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On December 2, 2009, and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company; Principal Life Insurance Company; Principal
Global Investors, LLC; Principal Management Corporation; and
Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants").  The lawsuits alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants
failed to manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account
("PUSPSA") in the best interests of investors, improperly imposed
a "withdrawal freeze" on September 26, 2008, and instituted a
"withdrawal queue" to honor withdrawal requests as sufficient
liquidity became available.  The Plaintiffs allege these actions
constitute a breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The Plaintiffs
seek to certify a class including all qualified ERISA plans and
the participants of those plans that invested in PUSPSA between
September 26, 2008, and the present that have suffered losses
caused by the queue.  The two lawsuits, as well as two
subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have been
consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property
Account Litigation.  On April 22, 2010, an order was entered
granting the motion made by the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants for
change of venue to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.  The Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint adding five new plaintiffs on November 22,
2010, and the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The court denied the Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants' motion to dismiss on May 17, 2011.  The Plaintiffs
have filed a motion for class certification and the
Cruise/Mullaney Defendants have resisted it.  The Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants are aggressively defending the lawsuit.

Headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa, Principal Financial Group,
Inc., provides financial products and services through these
reportable segments: Retirement and Investor Services, Principal
Global Investors, Principal International, U.S. Insurance
Solutions, and Corporate, which manages the assets representing
capital that has not been allocated to any other segment.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling in Suit Over 401(k) Plans
------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., is awaiting a court decision with
respect to a petition for a writ of certiorari in the class action
lawsuit relating to 401(k) plans, according to the Company's
July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life.  Principal Life's motion to transfer venue
was granted and the case is now pending in the Southern District
of Iowa.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while
performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or
adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact
that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual
funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and
allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the
services provided to the plans.  The Plaintiff further alleged
that these acts constitute prohibited transactions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The
Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to
which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  On August 27, 2008, the plaintiff's motion for
class certification was denied.  On June 13, 2011, the court
entered a consent judgment resolving the claims of the plaintiff.

On July 12, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal related
to the issue of the denial of class certification.  On
February 13, 2013, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
the appeal.  The Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Company will
continue to aggressively defend the lawsuit.

Headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa, Principal Financial Group,
Inc., provides financial products and services through these
reportable segments: Retirement and Investor Services, Principal
Global Investors, Principal International, U.S. Insurance
Solutions, and Corporate, which manages the assets representing
capital that has not been allocated to any other segment.


PROCON CANADA: Recalls Certain Crinkle Chips
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 29, 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:           Procon Canada 2000 Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8285

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


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 13 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities litigation is currently scheduled on
September 13, 2013, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals,
et al., No. SACv12-1623 DMG (FMOx).  The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between April 26, 2011, and September 21, 2012.  The
complaint generally asserts that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning
the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications
other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of
Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome,
reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and the
Company's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar.  The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable
relief against the defendants.  This lawsuit has been consolidated
with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims
under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV
12-01623 DMG (FMOx).

On January 4, 2013, the district court issued an order appointing
the West Virginia Investment Management Board and Plumbers &
Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs in the
consolidated securities action.  In March 2013, the Lead
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint for the
consolidated securities action.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in May 2013.  A hearing
on the motion is currently scheduled on September 13, 2013.

Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.questcor.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the treatment of patients
with serious, difficult-to-treat autoimmune and inflammatory
disorders.  The Company's primary product is H.P. Acthar(R) Gel
(repository corticotropin injection), an injectable drug for the
treatment of 19 indications.  The Company is headquartered in
Anaheim, California.


REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Class Claims Casino Cheated Them
-----------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Revel casino in Atlantic City lured gamblers by promising to
refund all the money they lost on slots in July -- then stiffed
them, the losers claim in a $35 million class action demand.

Lead plaintiffs Megan Boyd and Rakeen Henderson sued Revel
Entertainment Group and Chatham Asset Management, which own and
operate the Revel casino resort and hotel, on the Boardwalk in
Atlantic City, N.J.

The defendants promoted their $2.4 billion resort with a "Slot
Machine Refund Offer" in June and July. They promised: "All July
long, we're going to refund all slot losses," You really can't
lose" and "That's right. If you win, you win. If you lose, we'll
give it all back!" according to the lawsuit.

"As a result of the advertised assurances by defendants that
customers would get their money back if they lost, many residents
of New Jersey and nearby states flocked to Revel Casino to
gamble," the complaint states.

But the Revel told losers, too late, that only losses of more than
$100 were subject to the offer, the lawsuit states.

The casino's TV ads showed restrictions in conflicting and
virtually illegible fine print that "only flashed on screen for
one second which rendered it impossible to read regardless of font
size or clarity," according to the complaint.

Here's the fine print: "Revel Card required. Minimum cumulative
loss of $100 by July 31, 2013. Loss refunds are capped at
$100,000. Only slot, video poker and electronic table game play is
eligible. Losses are refunded over 20 weeks beginning August 5,
2013 in the form of Free Slot Play."

The class claims: "No reasonable person having observed the main
portion of defendants' slot machine refund offer campaign would
rationally conclude that the illegible fine print was consistent
therewith. To the contrary, the only reasonable interpretation of
the unconcealed portion of the campaign is that slot losses would
be immediately refunded to the patrons in cash or the functional
equivalent thereof."

A casino spokeswoman declined to comment.

The class claims the deceptive ads brought the casino its "first
profitable period since its opening 18 months ago."

The proposed class includes residents of New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia.

Plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement and $35 million in
damages for consumer fraud, unfair trade, breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

They are represented by:

     Todd Muhlstock, Esq.
     BAKER SANDERS LLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 (5th Floor)
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 741-4799
     Fax: (516) 741-3777


REVLON INC: Awaits Filing of Appeal in Suit Over Exchange Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc., awaits for the filing of an appeal from the
dismissal of a lawsuit arising from the 2009 Exchange Offer,
according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Certain of Revlon, Inc.'s current and former directors and
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. entered into settlement
agreements with the plaintiffs in class and derivative actions
related to the voluntary exchange offer Revlon, Inc. launched and
consummated in 2009 (the "2009 Exchange Offer").  In the second
quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a charge of $6.7 million
with respect to the Company's then-estimated costs of resolving
the actions, including the Company's estimate at that time of
additional payments to be made to the settling stockholders.  This
charge is included within the selling, general and administrative
("SG&A") expenses in the Company's Consolidated Statements of
Income and Comprehensive Income for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2012.

In March 2013, the parties executed an amendment to one of the
settlement agreements, specifically the class action settlement
agreement.  The amendment did not affect the financial terms of
the class action settlement; rather, it modified the scope of the
releases given by those class members who did not participate in
the 2009 Exchange Offer.  Later in March 2013, the class action
settlement, as amended, was presented to the Delaware Court of
Chancery, and approved.  The class action settlement is
conditioned, and will be effective, upon final approval of the
derivative action settlement and final dismissal of the actions
pending outside of the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The derivative
action settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on April 30, 2013.  In early May 2013, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the
purported class action filed by John Garofalo, and in late July
2013, the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, dismissed
the Sullivan action.  The entire settlement of all the actions
will become effective if no appeal is filed within thirty days of
the dismissal of the Sullivan action.

New York-based Revlon, Inc. -- http://www.revloninc.com/--
manufactures, markets and sells an extensive array of cosmetics,
women's hair color, beauty tools, anti-perspirant deodorants,
fragrances, skincare and other beauty care products.  Revlon
conducts its business exclusively through its direct wholly-owned
operating subsidiary, Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, and is
a direct and indirect majority-owned subsidiary of MacAndrews &
Forbes Holdings Inc., a corporation wholly-owned by Ronald O.
Perelman.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Employees Must Arbitrate Wage-and-Hour Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Sears,
Roebuck & Co and its defense lawyers at Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe brought an end to a California wage and hour class
action on Aug. 26, shutting down an attempt by plaintiffs lawyers
to get around the U.S. Supreme Court's class-action killer AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion.

The putative class action lawsuit, which alleges that Sears
illegally denied workers pay for time spent going through
security, met its demise in a 13-page ruling issued by U.S.
district judge William Hayes in San Diego.  Judge Hayes ruled that
the Sears employees waived their right to sue collectively and
therefore must arbitrate their wage and hour claims.  Plaintiffs
counsel argued that the class action waiver was unconscionable
under California case law.  But Judge Hayes rejected that
argument, finding that Concepcion overruled a plaintiff-friendly
California case cited by plaintiffs counsel.

The California Supreme Court ruled in a 2005 case called Discover
Bank v. Superior Court that class action waivers are often
unconscionable.  The court expounded on Discover Bank in a follow-
up decision from 2007 called Gentry v. Superior Court, holding
that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are
unenforceable if class action litigation would be a "significantly
more effective way of vindicating plaintiffs rights."  The U.S.
Supreme Court expressly overruled Discover Bank in its Concepcion
decision from April 2011 but didn't explicitly mention Gentry.  So
ever since Concepcion came down, plaintiffs lawyers have argued --
with varying degrees of success -- that Gentry is still good law
and gives California an opening to shoot down class action waivers
on unconscionability grounds.

That seems to be the playbook Torrance-based Rastegar Law Group
had in mind when it brought the Sears case in December 2012.  In a
brief filed in May, the firm argued that "Gentry is still binding
under California law," and that Judge Hayes could therefore apply
the factors the decision lays out for determining
unconscionability.

Judge Hayes rejected that argument in the Aug. 26 decision.  "In
light of Concepcion, the Court finds that Gentry is not a viable
basis for invalidating the [arbitration] Agreement," he wrote.

Orrick's Joe Liburt -- jliburt@orrick.com -- who represented
Sears, declined to comment.  Plaintiffs counsel Wendy Sha --
wendy@rastegarlawgroup.com -- of the Rastegar Law Group was not
immediately available for comment.


SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk AATI-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
request to dismiss a consolidated acquisition-related lawsuit,
according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2013.

On June 6 and 7, 2011, two putative stockholder class action
lawsuits (Case No. 111CV202403 (the "Bushansky action") and Case
No. 111CV202501 (the "Venette action"), respectively) were filed
in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County naming Advanced
Analogic Technologies Inc. ("AATI"), members of AATI's board of
directors, the Company and PowerCo Acquisition Corp. ("Merger
Sub") as defendants.  The lawsuits related to conduct surrounding
the Company's acquisition of AATI.  On July 26, 2011, the Court
issued an order consolidating the Bushansky action and Venette
action into a single, consolidated action captioned In re Advanced
Analogic Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
111CV202403, and designating an amended complaint filed on
July 14, 2011, in the Venette action as the operative complaint in
the litigation.

On November 30, 2011, following confidential arbitration
proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Company
announced that it and AATI had amended their previously announced
merger agreement whereby the Company would acquire AATI at a
reduced price through a tender offer.  The Company and AATI
completed the transaction on January 9, 2012.  On March 2, 2012,
the Court stayed all discovery in the matter and ordered the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by April 20, 2012.

On April 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
("First Amended Complaint") against each of the original
defendants with the exception of Merger Sub.  The First Amended
Complaint alleges, among other things, that (1) members of AATI's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by (a) failing
to take steps to maximize the value of AATI to its public
shareholders by failing to adequately consider potential
acquirers, (b) agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration
on unfair terms; (c) causing the filing of a materially misleading
Schedule 14D-9 that failed to (i) disclose a basis for the price
reduction, (ii) describe the arbitration proceedings, and (iii)
include any financial valuation or fairness opinion concerning
whether the revised merger consideration was fair; and (d) causing
the issuance of amendments to the Schedule 14D-9 that failed to
respond adequately to the SEC's disclosure directives; and (2)
Skyworks and AATI allegedly aided and abetted these purported
breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 4, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint,
which asserts claims substantially similar to those in the First
Amended Complaint.  On April 5, 2013, the defendants filed
demurrers against the Second Amended Complaint, calling for the
case to be dismissed with prejudice.  A hearing on the pending
demurrers was set for August 2, 2013.

Based in Woburn, Massachusetts, Skyworks Solutions, Inc. is an
innovator of high performance analog semiconductors.  Leveraging
core technologies, the Company supports automotive, broadband,
cellular infrastructure, energy management, GPS, industrial,
medical, military, wireless networking, smartphone and tablet
applications.  The Company's portfolio includes amplifiers,
attenuators, circulators, demodulators, detectors, diodes,
directional couplers, front-end modules, hybrids, infrastructure
RF subsystems, isolators, lighting and display solutions, mixers,
modulators, optocouplers, optoisolators, phase shifters,
PLLs/synthesizers/VCOs, power dividers/combiners, power management
devices, receivers, switches and technical ceramics.


SM ENERGY: "Chieftain" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit brought by Chieftain Royalty Company
against SM Energy Company remains stayed, according to the
Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 27, 2011, Chieftain Royalty Company ("Chieftain") filed
a Class Action Petition against the Company in the District Court
of Beaver County, Oklahoma, claiming damages related to royalty
valuation on all of the Company's Oklahoma wells.  These claims
include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and
conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of
post-production costs.  The Company removed this lawsuit to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
on February 22, 2011.  The Company has responded to the petition
and denied the allegations.  The court has not yet ruled on
Chieftain's motion to certify the putative class, and has stayed
all proceedings until the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit issues its ruling on class certification in two
similar royalty class action lawsuits.  On July 9, 2013, the Tenth
Circuit issued its opinions, reversing the trial courts' grant of
class certification and remanding the matters to the trial courts.
As of July 31, 2013, this matter remains stayed.

The Company says this case involves complex legal issues and
uncertainties; a potentially large class of plaintiffs, and a
large number of related producing properties, lease agreements and
wells; and an alleged class period commencing in 1988 and spanning
the entire producing life of the wells.  Because the proceedings
are in the early stages, with substantive discovery yet to be
conducted, the Company is unable to estimate what impact, if any,
the action will have on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.  The Company is still evaluating the
claims, but believes that it has properly paid royalties under
Oklahoma law and has and will continue to vigorously defend this
case.

Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, SM Energy Company is an
independent energy company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration, development, and production of oil, gas, and natural
gas liquids in onshore North America.  The Company's assets
include leading positions in the Eagle Ford shale and Bakken/Three
Forks resource plays, as well as exposure to oil-focused plays in
its Permian region.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends Antitrust Class Suit vs. AirTran
------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. continues to defend its subsidiary against
an antitrust class action lawsuit pending in Georgia, according to
the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On May 2, 2011 (the "acquisition date"), the Company acquired all
of the outstanding equity of AirTran Holdings, Inc. ("AirTran
Holdings"), the former parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc.
("AirTran Airways"), in exchange for Southwest Airlines Co. common
stock and cash.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") and AirTran in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on
May 22, 2009.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section
2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-
per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The initial complaint sought treble
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in
the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees
on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008.  After the filing
of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical
complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed
in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida;
and Las Vegas, Nevada.  All of the cases were consolidated before
a single federal district court judge in Atlanta.  A Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on
February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims
that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive
routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  In addition to treble damages for the amount of
first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated
Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of
alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions.  On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed.
The Court has not yet ruled on the class certification motion.
The original period for fact and expert discovery was scheduled to
end on February 25, 2011, but on February 3, 2012, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for supplemental discovery because
Delta discovered that it had not produced certain electronic
documents.  The period for supplemental discovery against AirTran
ended on May 3, 2012, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs
and Delta have continued.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity.  On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims, and the plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief on class
certification.  From September to November 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a series of motions to compel Delta to produce additional
documents and for sanctions based on alleged failures to produce
electronic data.  On November 19, 2012, the Court ordered
plaintiffs to appoint an expert to examine Delta's production of
electronic data and suspended the briefing schedule for the
summary judgment motion until the expert has completed his work.
The expert submitted a preliminary report, disputes have arisen
concerning the expert's work, and the Court is deciding how to
proceed.   After disputes concerning the expert's work and Delta's
discovery have been resolved, the parties will resume briefing
defendants' motions for summary judgment and supplemental briefing
on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- operates
Southwest Airlines and AirTran Airways, major passenger airlines
that provide scheduled air transportation in the United States and
near-international markets.  The Company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.


TEXAS: Court Certifies Class of Foster Kids
-------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge certified a class of children who say the Texas
foster care system violates their right to safety while in state
custody.

In a 2011 class action, the representatives for nine minors in the
Texas long-term foster care system, known as the Permanent
Managing Conservatorship, sought injunctive relief for the harm
allegedly suffered by children in the state's custody.

Children often move around, end up in substandard placements far
from siblings and other family members, experience further abuse
and neglect, and "languish" in the system, according to the
complaint.

Current defendants include Gov. Rick Perry; the executive
commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission, Kyle
Janek; and the commissioner of Texas' Department of Family and
Protective Services, John Specia Jr.

Though U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack certified a class in
the year of the suit, the 5th Circuit soon vacated that order in
light of the Supreme Court's holding in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

On remand Aug. 27, Jack certified a general class and three
subclasses alleging violation of substantive due process rights
under the 14th Amendment to adequate care and a safe, secure, and
suitable placement while in state custody.

State officials had resisted the assertion that foster children
could sue without suffering actual harm.

The 107-page order draws on examples from the prison system in
which prisoners were able to challenge fire safety hazards in the
absence of a fire occurring.

"Defendants argue that the harm plaintiffs base their claim on is
too attenuated to give rise to a cause of action," Jack wrote.
"Defendants' argument misconstrues the contours of the Fourteenth
Amendment right possessed by an individual in the state's custody.
The right itself is to be free from the unreasonable risk of harm.
That risk need not be realized in order for a claim to be
actionable -- a plaintiff must rather show that the policy in
question creates a risk that rises to the level of an unreasonable
risk of harm. Whether or not plaintiffs here can succeed in
showing this is a question for the merits."

The order describes existing evidence of heavy caseloads,
understaffing and high turnover of employees in the Department of
Family and Protective Services.

"To prevail on the merits with this claim, plaintiffs will have to
prove a causal connection between the state's caseworker workload
and an unconstitutional risk of harm," the order states. "At class
certification, though, they do not need to prove that they are
entitled to relief based on their claims; they need only make out
a claim on behalf of the class. They have done so here. The court
finds the relationship between caseworkers' workloads and class
members' safety persuasive. Caseworkers are, in effect, these
children's fire alarms."

Judge Jack refused, however, to certify a fourth subclass on the
safety count, since the plaintiffs lack an eligible child to serve
as a class representative.

She also declined to certify a subclass alleging a violation of
the First, Ninth and 14th Amendment rights to family integrity.

The ruling acknowledges that over time foster children require
different services or come and go in the system. She granted the
motion for leave to file a fourth-amended complaint that will name
two new plaintiffs as potential class representatives.

A copy of the 107-page Order dated Aug. 27, 2013, is available
from Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/p3Yyta


TOILES ULTIMEX: Recalls Horizontal Blinds
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 29, 2013
Posting date:             August 29, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35323

Affected products: Horizontal Blinds

The recall involves horizontal blinds manufactured by Toiles
Ultimex Inc.  A sticker indicating the manufacturer appears on the
lower rail.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the recalled blinds pose a strangulation hazard by having
exposed looped operating cords.  Young children may pull looped
cords around their neck, posing a risk of strangulation.

Neither Health Canada nor Toiles Ultimex Inc. has received reports
of incidents or injuries related to the use of these blinds.

For more information on the hazard, see Blind and curtain cord
strangulation risk.

Approximately 60 of the recalled blinds were sold in stores in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold between
August 2012 and July 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Toiles Ultimex Inc.
                    Montreal
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blinds and
contact Toiles Ultimex Inc. to arrange for a repair of the
product.


TURTLE TOP: Recalls ODYSSEY XL Model Buses
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 28, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           2
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013289
TC ID number:             2013289

Affected products:

   Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----          -----        ----------------------
   TURTLE TOP    ODYSSEY XL   2009

On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the
flexible steel conduit covering the handheld pendant may contact
an electrical terminal at the base of the hydraulic pump.  This
could cause an electrical short, which may result in a vehicle
fire causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Ricon Corporation will supply vehicle owners with a cover kit and
instructions for proper installation.


VITA-MIX CORPORATION: Recalls 64-Ounce Low Profile Blender
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Vita-Mix Corporation of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 165,000 in the United States and an additional
4,300 in Canada Vitamix 64-ounce Low-Profile Container.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The blade can break, creating a laceration hazard to consumers.

Vitamix has received 18 reports of blades breaking.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves Vitamix 64-ounce Low-Profile containers with
blade part number 103208 A and blade date codes 03-12 (March 2012)
through 07-13 (July 2013).  The blade part number and date code
are laser etched onto the top of the blade at the bottom of the
container.  The clear, plastic, 64-ounce container with black
plastic handle and lid was sold with Vitamix blender models 7500,
Professional Series 300, Professional Series 750 and individually.
Replacement blades with part number 104602 A are not affected.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/fMPcv9

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at major retailers nationwide and online at vitamix.com from April
2012 to August 2013 for about $529 to $749 with different model
base or $149 for the container alone.  Products were also sold
through show demonstrators, who demonstrate products at retail
outlets, consumer shows, fairs and other venues.

Consumers should stop using the recalled container immediately and
contact Vitamix for instructions on how to send back the container
(without the lid or any accessories) to the firm for a free
repair.


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. blocks 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. blocks of "Don Cafe 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 "213001" 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.


WESTLAKE FOODS: Recalls Additional Pork Products
------------------------------------------------
Westlake Foods, a Santa Ana, Calif., establishment, is recalling a
total of approximately 69,123 pounds of cured pork products
because of misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.  The products contain wheat and soy, known
allergens which are not declared on the labels.

Recall 046-2013 is being expanded to include the following
products:

   -- 12-lb. blocks of "PATE GAN TAY HO LIVERWURST SPREAD"
      distributed in cases for restaurant and wholesale use
      nationwide.

   -- 6-oz. cups of "PATE GAN TAY HO LIVERWURST SPREAD"
      distributed at retail, restaurants and wholesale locations
      nationwide.

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.


                             *********

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  * * *