CAR_Public/130911.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 11, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 180

                             Headlines


AETNA HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
AMN HEALTHCARE: Awaits Approval of Labor Lawsuit Settlement
APPLE INC: Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Over iTunes Affirmed
APPLE INC: Ordered to Modify E-Book Contracts With Publishers
BANK OF AMERICA: Oct. 17 Hearing on Merrill Lynch Settlement Set

BMW OF NORTH: Plaintiff May Amend Complaint Alleging BMWs Roll
CAPITAL ONE: Accused of Unfair & Deceptive Practices in Virginia
CHINESE DAILY: 9th Circuit Reversed Class Certification Ruling
CNO FINANCIAL: Valulife/Valuterm Suit Accord Finally Approved
CNO FINANCIAL: "Nicholas" Valulife Lawsuit Awaits Resolution

CNO FINANCIAL: November Hearing Set in "Lifetrend" Suit Accord
CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Lifetrend" Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Certification of (B)(2) Class Under Question
CRANE CO: Superior Court Tosses $14.5-Mil. Asbestos Verdict
CROSMAN CORP: Recalls Air Pistols Due to Explosion Hazard

CSI INSURANCE: Negligence Claims Over Inflatable Slide Can Go On
DIGITALGLOBE INC: Hearing on Shareholder Suit Deal Set for Sept.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Still Defends Bruce Mansfield Plant Suits
GALANT FOOD: Recalls Calzone Products Due to Misbranding
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls With Icing

GOLDENFEAST INC: Recalls Exotic Bird Food Blends
GOOGLE INC: Defends Email Snooping in Privacy MDL Suit
GOPICNIC BRANDS: Recalls Limited Quantity of Vegan Meals
HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Dismisses Smedt Misbranding Suit
HEALTH CANADA: Recalls New Comfort Water Air Purifier

HERSHEY COMPANY: Zulewski Collective Action Settlement Approved
HORIZON LINES: Last Antitrust Lawsuit in Alaska Now Resolved
ILLINOIS: DCFS Faces Class Suit Over Catch-All "Allegation 60"
INERGY LP: Faces Crestwood-Inergy Merger-Related Class Suits
INFANTINO LLC: Settles Suit Over Defective Infant Carrier for $8MM

INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Appeal in N.Y. Merger Suits Pending
JP MORGAN: Settles Force-Placed Insurance Class Action for $300MM
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Faces 4 Suits Over Acquisition by Thoma Bravo
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: No Class Cert. Ruling in Environmental Suit
MILES INDUSTRIES: Obtains Prelim. OK of Rotandi Suit Settlement

NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS: Grocers Sue Over Price Fixing
NEW YORK, NY: Judge Appoints Community Liaison in Stop-Frisk Suit
NOVATION COMPANIES: Awaits Ruling on Plea for Reconsideration
NVIDIA CORP: Ninth Circuit Approves Class Action Settlement
PENSKE MOTOR: Sued by Service Technicians in Santa Clara, Calif.

PIONEER NATURAL: Seeks Dismissal of One Merger-Related Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Moves to Dismiss Suit Over Telephone Calls
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Continues to Defend MDL Over TCPA Violations
RETAIL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Suits by Shareholders
SELECT FOOD: Recalls Certain Neal Brothers Salsa

SEMPRA ENERGY: Awaits Decision in Suit Over 2011 Power Outage
SEMPRA ENERGY: Sup. Ct. Trial in Wildfire Suits Set for Sept. 26
SOUTHERN CO: Dismissal of Hurricane Katrina Suit May Be Appealed
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Accused of Not Paying All Wages in California
SUNFLOWER GIFT: Recalls Monster Ball Yo-Yo Balls

TAYLOR FARMS: Class Cert. Deadlines in "Pena" Suit Extended
TEMPUR SEALY: Faces Securities Lawsuits in E.D. Ky. Court
TEMPUR SEALY: Continues to Face Merger-Related Suits
TETLEY USA: Court Dismisses Mislabeling Class Action Suit
TREX COMPANY: Awaits Prelim. OK of Deal in Defective Product Suit

UMPQUA HOLDINGS: "Hawthorne" Suit vs. Bank Remains Pending
UNION PACIFIC: Rail Antitrust Suit Won't Lose Latham & Watkins
USEC INC: 6th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Employees' Class Suit
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Alter in Securities Suit
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Various Class Suits


                             *********


AETNA HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
class-action suit alleging Aetna and other insurers shortchanged
health-care providers and patients on reimbursements is on a path
to a final settlement worth $120 million.

U.S. District Judge Katharine Hayden in Newark gave preliminary
approval on Aug. 30, over the original attorneys' objections that
the case, Cooper v. Aetna Health Inc., was secretly settled out
from under them.

The suit is one of several by Aetna patients and providers
consolidated as In re Aetna UCR Litigation.

The plaintiffs say Aetna used an outdated database in paying out-
of-network providers, leading to deficient payments.  The database
was licensed from UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Ingenix, and those
companies were also sued.

The plaintiffs allege "a secret and illegal agreement by Aetna,
UnitedHealth Group, Ingenix, and most of the country's largest
health insurers to systemically under-reimburse consumers" in
violation of ERISA, RICO and the Sherman Act.

The proposed settlement, covering only claims against Aetna, would
set up three funds.

A $60 million fund would first pay legal fees as high as $20
million and up to $3 million in expenses.  The rest could be used
to pay up to $40 a year per class member, subject to a pro rata
reduction, with no supporting documentation needed.

Two other funds -- $40 million for a patient class for services
since 2001 and $20 million for a provider class dating back to
2003 -- would require documentation.

Ultimately, any monies not spent would revert to Aetna.

Judge Hayden conditionally certified patient and provider classes
for settlement purposes and gave her initial approval.  She found
the settlement was reasonable and resulted from good-faith
negotiations aided by the late Nicholas Politan, a retired federal
judge.

Barry Epstein and Barbara Quackenbos, the Roseland lawyers
representing the six objecting class members, including the
eponymous Michelle Cooper, contend that no settlement was reached
during the 13 sessions with Politan, who died on Feb. 20, 2012.

They say they heard nothing further on settlement until November
2012, when two other class lawyers, James Cecchi and Robert
Axelrod -- rjaxelrod@pomlaw.com -- announced a deal to be
presented to the court.

Mr. Cecchi's firm, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody &
Agnello in Roseland, and Mr. Axelrod's, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross in New York, were among the six named to the
plaintiffs' executive committee in 2009, along with Wilentz,
Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge.  Mr. Epstein and Ms. Quackenbos,
then at Wilentz, left in June to open Epstein & Quackenbos.

The Wilentz firm took the position that it, not the individual
attorneys, was the committee member and aligned itself with the
other class lawyers in signing onto the settlement.

In opposition, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Quackenbos argued that based on
their expert's valuation of Aetna's exposure, at $2 billion to
$3.1 billion, the class received so little it violated due
process.

They said Aetna should reprocess the health claims to figure out
what class members were owed, rather than requiring proof from
them, a hurdle they said would mean substantial reversion of funds
to Aetna.

In finding the settlement reasonable, Judge Hayden noted that
Aetna's expert calculated the damages at only $52 million and that
the litigation was risky given denial of class certification in a
similar case against CIGNA.

She saw sufficient safeguards in requirements that the claims
administrator provide specific notice of claim deficiencies and
that Aetna provide information to help class members prove their
claims.

Further, Judge Hayden rejected challenges to the adequacy of
Mr. Cecchi's clients on various grounds.  And she was unpersuaded
by objectors UnitedHealth and Ingenix that certifying a class for
the RICO and Sherman Act claims would affect ongoing litigation
against them.

Mr. Epstein says he disagrees with the ruling.

Stephen Weiss -- sweiss@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss in
New York, another attorney for the patient class, says he believes
"the settlement proceeds will be fully claimed with little or no
chance" of reversion and the judge who refused to certify a class
in the CIGNA matter, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler in
Newark, "had an invisible hand on this settlement."

Judge Chesler was assigned to the Aetna case, too, but recused in
April because he was a beneficiary of his wife's Aetna policy.

Provider class counsel Joe Whatley Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- of Whatley Kallas, in New York,
remarks, "this is better than denial of class certification."

Wilentz's Kevin Roddy -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- says the firm looks
forward to the final approval hearing.

Not returning calls were Mr. Cecchi, Mr. Axelrod, Liza Walsh --
lwalsh@connellfoley.com -- of Connell Foley in Roseland for Aetna,
and Michael Himmel -- mhimmel@lowenstein.com -- of Lowenstein
Sandler in Roseland, for UnitedHealth and Ingenix.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Awaits Approval of Labor Lawsuit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the second quarter of 2013, AMN Healthcare Services, Inc.
reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in a wage and hour claims
filed against it, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is subject to various claims and legal actions in the
ordinary course of its business. Some of these matters relate to
professional liability, tax, payroll, contract and employee-
related matters and include individual and collective lawsuits, as
well as inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies
regarding the Company's employment practices.

The most significant matter of which the Company is currently the
defendant is a class action related to wage and hour claims. In
the second quarter of 2013, the Company reached a settlement with
the plaintiffs in such action (and a related action) for an
immaterial amount, which settlement is subject to the approval of
the Court.  At June 30, 2013, the Company had fully reserved for
the settlement of such action, which was included in accounts
payable and accrued expenses in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2013, a majority of which
had been accrued in prior periods.


APPLE INC: Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Over iTunes Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
California woman has no case against Apple over its former
practice of making music purchased from the iTunes Store
compatible only with the iPod, the 9th Circuit ruled September 3,
2013.

Stacie Somers first sued the Company in 2007, after she discovered
that Apple encoded all of the songs she had bought from the iTunes
Store with its FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) software.
FairPlay made it so that Somers could only use her iPod to play
music purchased from iTunes.

Seeking an injunction and damages in the form of nonencrypted
music files, Somers filed a proposed class action on behalf of
indirect purchasers.  She alleged that Apple had violated federal
and state antitrust laws and that the company had improperly
tethered iTunes and the iPod to the detriment of consumers, among
other things.

Meantime, in 2008, a federal judge found in a related action
involving a class of direct purchasers that such a "tying claim"
had no validity.  After twice allowing Somers to amend her
complaint, the Northern District of California refused to certify
a class and dismissed the antitrust claims.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed on Tuesday,
September 3, 2013, finding that the antitrust arguments held
little water and that Somers had abandoned her individual claims.

"Somers' alleged limited ability to play her music does not relate
to a restriction on her ability to buy music from competing online
music sellers," Judge Milan Smith wrote for the San Francisco-
based panel.  "Somers also cannot meaningfully claim that her
ownership of DRM-encoded music inhibits competition in the PDMP
market, or that it restricts her choices in that market because
she only seeks to represent music purchasers in the SAC.  In sum,
Somers' alleged inability to play her music freely is not an
'antitrust injury' that affects competition, and thus cannot serve
as a basis for injunctive relief."

Apple stopped encrypting iTunes music with FairPlay after March
2009, according to the ruling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: helenz@zhlaw.com
                  alreenh@zhlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
          E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Craig Kiernan, Esq.
          Craig Stewart, Esq.
          Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com
                  cestewart@jonesday.com
                  ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com

The appellate case is Stacie Somers v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
11-16896, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The original case is Stacie Somers v. Apple, Inc., Case
No. 5:07-cv-06507-JW, in the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of California.


APPLE INC: Ordered to Modify E-Book Contracts With Publishers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
looking to force Apple to obey antitrust laws, a judge on Sept. 6
ordered the technology giant to modify contracts with publishers
to prevent electronic book price fixing and said she will appoint
an external compliance monitor to review the company's antitrust
policies and training.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote's 17-page order came nearly two
months after she concluded that Apple Inc. used the popularity of
its iTunes store to conspire with publishers to raise e-book
prices in 2010.

Judge Cote gave the Department of Justice less than it requested
but still left it pleased.

"The court's ruling reinforces the victory the department has won
for consumers," Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer said in a
statement.  "Consumers will continue to benefit from lower e-books
prices as a result of the department's enforcement action to
restore competition in this important industry."

Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr said the Cupertino, Calif., company
will appeal the order.

"Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing," he said.  "The
iBookstore gave customers more choice and injected much needed
innovation and competition into the market.  Apple will pursue an
appeal of the injunction."

Judge Cote's order largely followed what she had said she would do
at two August hearings, when she expressed dismay with Apple's
conduct since her ruling and said she believed the company and the
publishers still wanted to collude to raise book prices.  She told
lawyers that she had hoped that her finding that Apple had
"demonstrated a blatant and aggressive disregard" for the law in
orchestrating a price-fixing scheme would lead Apple to show it
had taken the lessons of the litigation seriously.

"I am disappointed to say that it has not taken advantage of those
opportunities," Judge Cote said as she urged the company to "make
these reforms and change its culture."

At trial, Apple insisted that its entry into the e-books market
widened the number of customers and was a boost for publishers and
authors alike, increasing the number of books available and
eliminating a monopoly of the market by Amazon.com.

But the government argued that Apple joined with publishers to
illegally undermine an Amazon pricing policy that had enabled
consumers to buy the most popular books for $9.99.

In her order, Judge Cote told Apple to make changes to its
contracts with publishers to ensure price fixing is eliminated.
She set rules to prevent the kind of cooperation between Apple and
the publishers that she said harmed Apple's retail competitors in
the e-book market.

For instance, she said Apple cannot enter an agreement with a
publisher it had colluded with that restricts Apple's ability to
reduce retail prices or e-book discounts.  And she said the
company cannot put language in its contracts with publishers that
tie e-book prices to those set by other publishers or retailers.

Judge Cote said she will appoint an external compliance monitor
for a period of two years to assess Apple's internal antitrust
compliance policies, procedures and training and to recommend any
necessary changes.

Judge Cote said evaluating training procedures was particularly
important after a top Apple executive and his in-house counsel
testified that neither could recall any training on antitrust
issues.  She said adequate training was necessary for those
involved in contract negotiations for all of Apple's content-
providing businesses, including books, music, , movies, television
shows and apps.

"I am hopeful that it will devote its considerable resources and
creativity to construct a training program that will be a model
for American business," Judge Cote said at an Aug. 27 hearing.
"It is my hope that the terms of this injunction will protect
consumers, encourage lawful competition and avoid a recurrence so
that taxpayers will never have to pay again for a government
enforcement action."

The order will remain in place for contracts between Apple and the
various publishers until they begin expiring in two years.

The judge also ordered Apple not to share the status of its
contract negotiations with one publisher among other publishers.

The outside monitor will not generally assess Apple's compliance
with her order, however.  At the hearing, Judge Cote said she will
decide ultimately whether Apple is in compliance.

"I want this injunction to rest as lightly as possible on the way
Apple runs its business," she said.  "I want Apple to have the
flexibility to innovate, but at the same time I want to try to
prevent a repetition of illegal conduct like that shown with
overwhelming evidence at this trial."


BANK OF AMERICA: Oct. 17 Hearing on Merrill Lynch Settlement Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Merrill Lynch
can pay $2.7 million to settle claims that it delayed and withheld
commissions owed to financial advisers, a federal judge ruled.

John LaBriola, as class representative, sued Bank of America and
its wealth management division, Merrill Lynch, in 2011 over wages
that he and others were allegedly not paid within 72 hours of
resignations and firings.

LaBriola allegedly worked as a financial adviser in California for
Merrill Lynch from 1998 to 2010, and did not timely receive his
final wages as required by state labor law.

After a federal judge refused to dismiss or strike the claims, the
parties entered mediation.

Their first attempt at a settlement did not stick, but Merrill
Lynch agreed in an amended settlement last month to dole out $2.7
million to 275 plaintiff advisers, or about $10,000 per
individual.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the preliminary
agreement, noting it had "no obvious deficiencies" and was "fair
and reasonable."

"Significant investigation, research, and litigation have been
conducted such that counsel for the parties at this time are able
to reasonably evaluate their respective positions," the six-page
ruling states.  "Settlement at this time will avoid substantial
costs, delay and risks that would be presented by the further
prosecution of the litigation.  The proposed settlement has been
reached as a result of serious, informed, and non-collusive
negotiations between the parties."

The settlement covers former advisers whose employment from
Merrill Lynch was terminated from December 2, 2008, to
December 31, 2011.  Specifically, advisers who resigned but did
receive commissions for more than 72 hours or who were fired, but
received commissions after their last day of employment.

Total payment under the proposed agreement is $2,785,000.
Individual payments will be made on a claims-made basis.

Wilken also approved the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center,
which operates workers' rights clinics throughout California, as a
cy pres recipient in the lawsuit and stayed all unrelated
proceedings.

"The parties agree that the terms and conditions of this
settlement agreement are the result of lengthy, intensive arms-
length negotiations between that parties and that this settlement
agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against any of the
parties by reason of their participation in the drafting of this
settlement agreement," the 25-page proposal states.

Wilken scheduled a motion for final approval for October 17.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Andrew Quadra, Esq.
          Rebecca Coll, Esq.
          QUADRA & COLL, LLP
          649 Mission Street, Fifth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 426-3502
          Facsimile: (415) 625-9936
          E-mail: jquadra@quadracoll.com
                  rcoll@quadracoll.com

               - and -

          William N. Hebert, Esq.
          CALVO FISHER & JACOB LLP
          One Lombard Street, Second Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-8370
          Facsimile: (415) 374-8373
          E-mail: whebert@calvofisher.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael David Mandel, Esq.
          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq.
          Christopher Anthony Killens, Esq.
          John Arthur Van Hook, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: mmandel@mcguirewoods.com
                  mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  skim@mcguirewoods.com
                  ckillens@mcguirewoods.com
                  jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com

The case is Labriola v. Bank of America, National Association, et
al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00079-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Oakland).


BMW OF NORTH: Plaintiff May Amend Complaint Alleging BMWs Roll
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a BMW driver will have to amend her claims that vehicles in
the 7-Series "flagship line" shift into neutral rather than park,
making them roll into nearby objects, a federal judge ruled.

The 2004 BMW 745i that Monica McQueen bought from DeLuxe Auto
Sales in Newark, N.J., in 2008 contained an electronically
controlled shift-by-wire transmission system manufactured by two
German companies, Robert Bosch GmbH and ZF Friedrichshafen AG.

In a subsequent federal class action against BMW of North America
and its Munich-based parent, Bayerische Motorenweke AG, McQueen
claimed that the 2002-08 7-Series "flagship line" of cars is
defective.

After receiving complaints that the vehicles fail to shift into
park, but remain in neutral, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) investigated and found a defect in those
equipped with a Comfort Access System feature, which enables the
driver to start the vehicle by pressing a button instead of
inserting a key into the ignition.

Although McQueen's car is not equipped with this feature, she
claims that it has rolled away as a result of the defect at least
five times.

Most recently, McQueen's car allegedly collided with her garage
door, causing damage on both ends.

She claims that, although BMW supposedly knew that all the 7-
Series vehicles were defective, the company never disclosed this
at any time prior to issuing a recall on the comfort-equipped
vehicles.

The complaint asserts violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud.

BMW moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a
claim, and to "refer" the suit to the NHTSA, or alternatively
adopt its supposed findings of fact.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler refused to refer the suit
Thursday, September 5, 2013.

"As plaintiff argues, the NHTSA did not in fact make a
determination about the defectiveness of the vehicles which are
not equipped with the [Comfort Access System] CAS feature," the
unpublished ruling states.  "BMW NA's logic is flawed.  To accept
its argument would be the same as accepting the conclusion that
there are no four-leafed clovers in a giant field simply because
an individual was not able to find one."

The court also tossed aside BMW's claim that McQueen lacks Article
III standing.

"The notion that the plaintiff here has not suffered an injury
until she has paid for repairs is as nonsensical as suggesting
that a homeowner whose house has been intentionally burned down
has not suffered an injury until she has rebuilt her home,"
Chesler wrote.

The court dismissed McQueen's fraud, warranty, and negligence
claims, however.

"The complaint does not include any information as to when, before
the time of the purchase of her vehicle, BMW learned of the
defect, how it gained that knowledge, who at the company possessed
the knowledge, and when or how the ultimate decision was made not
to disclose this supposed knowledge of the defect from customers,"
Chesler wrote.  "This information is required to meet the Rule
9(b) standard."

McQueen failed to precisely identify the defect, and her claim
that the NHTSA reviewed 32 customer complaints regarding non-
comfort-equipped vehicles -- 0.026 percent of a pool of about
122,000 cars -- does not show that BMW knew about a defect,
according to the ruling.

McQueen may amend her complaint, however, to include any
additional factual allegations.

BMW, one of the world's best-selling luxury automakers, reported
about $100 billion in revenue in 2012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com
                  jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
          Rosemary Joan Bruno, Esq.
          BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          550 Broad Street, Suite 810
          Newark, NJ 07102-4599
          Telephone: (973) 273-9800
          Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
          E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com
                  rosemary.bruno@bipc.com

The case is McQueen v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:12-cv-06674-SRC-CLW, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


CAPITAL ONE: Accused of Unfair & Deceptive Practices in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Murr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:13-cv-01091-
LMB-TCB (E.D. Va., August 30, 2013) accuses the Defendant of
breaching contract and of unfair and deceptive practices.

In its promotional materials, Capital One states that it will
merely assess a onetime charge equal to 2% of the funds obtained
by writing its "Access Checks," Ms. Murr says.  However, she
contends, this is simply not true because in reality, Capital One
engages in a bait and switch, and charges its customers with
transaction fees.  She adds that Capital One also manufactures
payment shortfalls, which lead directly to increased interest
charges, penalties, fees and derogatory credit reports.

Ms. Murr is a resident of Surprise, Arizona.

Capital One, which is a subsidiary of Capital One Financial
Corporation, is a federal bank headquartered in McLean, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
          Robert J. Cynkar, Esq.
          Pamela Gilbert, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          106-A South Columbus St.
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  robertc@cuneolaw.com
                  pgilbert@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Joseph D. Cohen, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-4478
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  jcohen@scott-scott.com


CHINESE DAILY: 9th Circuit Reversed Class Certification Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th Circuit slightly
revised a March opinion that denied class certification to workers
challenging the overtime and lunch break policies of Chinese Daily
News.

The appellate case is Lynne Wang, et al. v. Chinese Daily News,
Inc., Case No. 08-55483, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Lynne Wang, et al. v.
Chinese Daily News, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-01498-CBM-JWJ, in the
U.S. District Court for Central California.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Della Barnett, Esq.
          125 University Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 350-7550

               - and -

          Cornelia Dai, Esq.
          Randy Renick, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP
          128 N Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 381-9261
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
          Toll Free: (866) 457-2590
          E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Paul T. Crane, III, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: paul.crane@lw.com

               - and -

          Joseph B. Farrell, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
                     (213) 891-7944
          E-mail: joe.farrell@lw.com

               - and -

          Yi-Chin Ho, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
                     (213) 485-1234
          E-mail: yichin.ho@lw.com


CNO FINANCIAL: Valulife/Valuterm Suit Accord Finally Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued a final judgment approving the settlement of suit filed on
behalf of owners of Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance
policies, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s Aug. 2, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.

Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal
life policy insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff
is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the proposed national
class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and
declaratory relief.

The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the
class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance (a
non-guaranteed element ("NGE")) that are set to take place in the
twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies. At the
time plaintiff filed her complaint, no such increases had yet been
applied to the subject policies.

During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily agreed not to implement the
cost of insurance rate increase at issue in this litigation and is
following a process with respect to any future cost of insurance
rate increases as set forth in the regulatory settlement agreement
described under the caption entitled "Regulatory Examinations and
Fines".

Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of a nationwide class
and a California state class.  On December 7, 2009, the court
granted that motion. On October 8, 2010, the court dismissed the
causes of actions alleged in the California state class.  On
January 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment as to the declaratory relief claim and on
February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory opinion, in the
form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its view, Conseco
Life could consider in implementing future cost of insurance rate
increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm block of policies.

Conseco Life is appealing the court's January 19, 2011 decision
and the plaintiff is appealing the court's decision to dismiss the
California causes of action.

On November 15, 2011, a second complaint was filed by Dr. Yue in
the United States District Court for the Central District on
California, Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV11-9506 AHM (SHx),
involving the same Valulife universal life policy described in the
preceding paragraph.

Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of proposed members of a
national class and a California class is claiming breach of
contract, injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief,
and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief.

The putative class consists of all owners and former owners of
Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies issued by
either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were
later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life. Plaintiff alleges
that members of the classes will be damaged by increases in the
cost of insurance (a NGE) that took place on or about November 1,
2011. Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion for certification of a California class.

On April 2, 2012, the court granted the plaintiff's motions, which
Conseco Life is appealing. Pending the outcome of that appeal,
Conseco Life is preliminarily enjoined from imposing the 2011
increase in the cost of insurance on the members of the California
class. Plaintiff also filed a motion on March 20, 2012 for
certification of a nationwide class.

Conseco Life has agreed to a settlement with the plaintiff in the
litigation described in the two preceding paragraphs, which would,
upon court approval, resolve those cases as well as the Nicholas
litigation. On January 25, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation
of settlement and joint motion for preliminary approval of
proposed nationwide class settlement and certification of
settlement classes.

On March 6, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The settlement includes a reduction in the cost of
insurance increase implemented by Conseco Life in November 2011
and certain policy benefit enhancements. On July 8, 2013, the
court issued a final judgment approving the settlement. The
deadline for appealing the final judgment is August 8, 2013.


CNO FINANCIAL: "Nicholas" Valulife Lawsuit Awaits Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Company is awaiting a resolution of a suit
filed by Daniel B. Nicholas who owns a Valulife universal life
policy, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s Aug. 2, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 6, 2012, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Daniel B.
Nicholas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 12cv845.

Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal
life policy insuring Plaintiff's life originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company (now Conseco Life
Insurance Company) in 1991. Plaintiff is claiming breach of
contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
declaratory, injunctive, and supplemental relief.

The putative class consists of all persons who own or have owned
one or more universal life policies issued by Conseco Life which
provide that the cost of insurance rates will be determined based
upon expectations as to future mortality experience and who have
experienced an increase in the cost of insurance rates.

On April 20, 2012, the company announced that Conseco Life had
reached a tentative settlement in the Nicholas case. Venue of this
case was subsequently transferred to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The settlement
described in the preceding paragraph would, if approved, resolve
the Nicholas case.

In connection with the tentative settlement in the Nicholas
litigation, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately
$20 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012. The Company recorded an additional pre-tax
charge of $21 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012 relating to the settlement
agreement in the Yue litigation.

The liability the Company has established related to these cases
includes its best estimates of the costs of implementing the
settlement, if finalized and approved by the court. While the
Company believes its estimates are adequate to cover these costs,
the estimates are subject to significant judgment and it is
possible that the estimates will prove insufficient to cover the
actual costs.


CNO FINANCIAL: November Hearing Set in "Lifetrend" Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
A November 1, 2013 fairness hearing is set to finally approve the
settlement of a suit pending against Conseco Life Insurance
Company over life products sold primarily under the name
"Lifetrend," according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s Aug. 2,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.

The plaintiffs allege that Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc.
committed breach of contract and insurance bad faith and violated
various consumer protection statutes in the administration of
various interest sensitive whole life products sold primarily
under the name "Lifetrend" by requiring the payment of additional
cash amounts to maintain the policies in force and by making
changes to certain NGEs in their policies.

On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding the additional counts of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, conversion and declaratory relief.
On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. On July 29, 2009, the court granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The court
dismissed the allegations that Conseco Life violated various
consumer protection statutes, the breach of fiduciary duty count,
and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain NGEs, of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend." The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"), seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case and the McFarland case
into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on
MDL ordered these cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in the Northern District of California Federal Court. On July 7,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification
of a nationwide class and a California state class.

On October 6, 2010, the court granted the motion for certification
of a nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011. On December 20, 2011, the
court issued an order denying Conseco Life's motion to decertify
the class as to current policyholders, but granted the motion to
decertify as to former policyholders.

On March 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction requesting that the court enjoin Conseco Life from
imposing increased cost of insurance charges until trial with
regard to 157 members of the class, and on July 17, 2012, the
court granted a preliminary injunction as to 100 members of the
class and denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction as to the other 57 members.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on their breach of contract claim, Conseco Life filed a
motion to decertify the nationwide class, and Conseco Life filed a
motion for summary judgment. On January 29, 2013, the court
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment and denied Conseco Life's motions. The parties
have entered into a settlement agreement. On July 12, 2013, the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Final
approval of the settlement is subject to a court fairness hearing,
currently set for November 1, 2013, after notice to policyholders
covered by the settlement as well as other conditions.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Lifetrend" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a suit filed on behalf of various Lifetrend policyholders
who since October 2008 have surrendered their policies or had them
lapse, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On October 25, 2012, a purported nationwide class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and
CNO Services, LLC, Case No. EDCV12-01715VAPSPX.

The plaintiffs bring this action under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(B)(3)
on behalf of various Lifetrend policyholders who since October
2008 have surrendered their policies or had them lapse. Such
policyholders are no longer members of the class covered by the
MDL litigation described in the previous paragraph after the court
in the MDL litigation granted Conseco Life's motion to decertify
as to former policyholders.

Additionally, plaintiffs seek certification of a subclass of
various Lifetrend policyholders who accepted optional benefits and
signed a release pursuant to the regulatory settlement agreement
described under the caption entitled "Regulatory Examinations and
Fines."

The plaintiffs allege breach of contract and seek declaratory
relief, compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs. On November
30, 2012, Conseco Life and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. The company believes this case is without
merit and intend to defend it vigorously.


CNO FINANCIAL: Certification of (B)(2) Class Under Question
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is to rule on whether the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida properly
certified the Florida state injunctive relief class in a suit over
inflation escalation rider against Washington National Insurance
Company, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s
Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.

The plaintiff alleges that the inflation escalation rider on her
policy of long-term care insurance operates to increase the
policy's lifetime maximum benefit, and that Washington National
Insurance Company breached the contract by stopping her benefits
when they reached the lifetime maximum.

The Company takes the position that the inflation escalator only
affects the per day maximum benefit.  On January 5, 2010, the
district court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The court certified a (B)(3) Florida state class
alleging damages and a (B)(2) Florida state class alleging
injunctive relief.  The parties reached a settlement of the (B)(3)
class in 2010, which has been implemented.

The amount recognized in 2010 related to the settlement was not
significant to the Company's consolidated financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations. The plaintiff filed a motion
for summary judgment as to the (B)(2) class which was granted by
the court on September 8, 2010.

The Company has appealed the court's decision and the appeal is
pending.  On February 17, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals referred the case to the Florida Supreme Court, and on
December 5, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court held oral argument and
took the matter under advisement.

On July 3, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision,
ruled the inflation escalation rider applied to the lifetime
maximum benefit.  The Eleventh Circuit is to rule on whether the
district court properly certified the (B)(2) injunctive relief
class.


CRANE CO: Superior Court Tosses $14.5-Mil. Asbestos Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a divided state Superior Court panel has thrown out a $14.5
million asbestos verdict awarded to the widow of a man who died
from mesothelioma, determining that her counsel's suggestion of a
specific sum for damages to the jury was improper and that the
plaintiff's expert's testimony was inadmissable.

In Nelson v. Crane, the three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to remand the
case for new trial, concluding the trial court erred in admitting
expert testimony deemed prejudicial, and that the trial court's
jury instructions failed to remove the taint of plaintiff's
counsel's remarks made to the jury, and ultimately that the court
erred in denying the defendants' request for a mistrial.

The court's majority opinion was penned by Senior Judge James J.
Fitzgerald III, who was joined in the majority by Judge Jacqueline
O. Shogan.  Judge David N. Wecht offered a concurring and
dissenting opinion.

"The admission of this prejudicial evidence was a reversible
error," Judge Fitzgerald said in the majority opinion.
"Furthermore we disagree with the trial court that its jury
instructions cured the taint of appellee's counsel's improper
suggestion of a specific sum for non-economic damages to the jury.
Therefore we find the trial court abused its discretion in denying
appellants' motion for a mistrial and remand for a new trial on
damages."

In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Wecht noted that
the majority's contention that expert testimony from Dr. Daniel
DuPont was inadmissible -- based on the majority's interpretation
of the state Supreme Court ruling that expert testimony was
inadmissible in the asbestos case Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC -- was
not relevant.

"While Betz is the most recent in a series of opinions
circumscribing the range of expert testimony that may be admitted
to establish substantial causation in asbestos litigation, I do
not believe that it is dispositive of the case at hand,"
Judge Wecht said in his opinion.

Judge Wecht also disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the
trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial based on
the remarks made by Nelson's counsel.

According to the opinion, the decedent, James Nelson, worked as a
pitman, laborer, welder and mechanic at Lukens Steel Plant in
Coatesville, Pa., from 1973 until 2006.  During that time, the
opinion said, he was exposed to asbestos pipe covering, gaskets,
packing, furnace cement and "hot tops," as well as sheet packaging
containing asbestos that was distributed by Crane Co.

On December 5, 2008, Darlene Nelson, acting as the executrix of
the estate of James Nelson, who died at age 54 from mesothelioma,
filed a complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
against defendants Crane Co. and several others, TheLegal reported
in April 2010.

On March 23, 2010, the jury awarded $14.5 million to Nelson,
finding all of the defendants listed on the verdict sheet liable
for the damages.  Only three defendants remained in the case,
however -- Crane Co., Hobart Brothers Co. and Lincoln Electric Co.
The companies' shares of the verdict equaled $3.95 million,
TheLegal reported.


CROSMAN CORP: Recalls Air Pistols Due to Explosion Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Crosman Corp., of Bloomfield, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 16,000 air pistols.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The air pistols can explode at high temperatures, propelling the
pistol's broken plastic pieces into the air, and posing a risk of
serious eye and other injuries to users.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Crosman semi-automatic style air pistols with
model numbers C21, C31 and 9-C31BRM with serial numbers beginning
with 12J, 12K, 12L, 12M, 13A, 13B or 13C.  The model and serial
numbers are located on side of the air pistol.  The air pistols
use a CO2 cartridge to propel plastic BBs and are used for
recreational shooting.  The air pistols are black, measure 8 1/2
inches long and weigh 1 1/2 lbs.  Crosman's name and partial
address are printed in the "Warning" information on the left side
of each pistol.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
sporting goods stores, mass merchandisers and other stores
nationwide from November 2012 through June 2013 for between $45
and $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled air pistols,
remove the CO2 cartridge and contact Crosman for instructions to
return the air pistols to Crosman for a free replacement air gun
or a full refund.


CSI INSURANCE: Negligence Claims Over Inflatable Slide Can Go On
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that after an
inflatable slide collapsed and killed a Cleveland Indians fan, the
team can pursue negligence claims over a hole in its insurance,
the 6th Circuit ruled.

The Cleveland Indians had erected the slide as part of its "Kids
Fun Day" before a game on June 12, 2010.  Two spectators, Douglas
Johnson and David Brown, were injured when the slide collapsed on
them and Johnson of his injuries died nine days later.  His estate
sued the Cleveland Indians and others for wrongful death.

The baseball team in turn sued insurance broker CSI Insurance
Group, which provided insurance to the company that had been
contracted to provide the inflatable slide.  That company,
National Pastime Sports, is not a party to the appeal.

Although National Pastime expressly requested a policy that
covered inflatables, the policy CSI provided, which named the team
a third-party insured, excluded such coverage, and the insurance
company refused to indemnify the Cleveland Indians for the
accident.

National Pastime also sued CSI, but reached a settlement out of
court with the broker.

A federal judge in Detroit found for CSI, holding that "any duty
owned to them [Cleveland Indians] by CSI, must lie in statute or
contract," but a divided three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit
reversed.

"It is reasonably foreseeable that an additional insured such as
the Indians will be harmed if an insurance agency or other
intermediary fails to procure the intended coverage, just as the
primary insured would be," Judge Gilbert Merritt wrote for the
majority.  "While it is understandable that the law should not
allow the insurance broker to be held liable to a virtually
limitless class of claimants who are total strangers to the
relationship between the insurance agency and the insured, or
parties who were unknown to the insurance broker before the filing
of a suit, this is not that case."

Under Michigan law, in addition to the injury being foreseeable, a
third-party insured, such as the Indians, must have a "special
relationship," that would make CSI liable to them, according to
the Aug. 23 ruling.

"It is undisputed that CSI knew that the insurance was to cover
the 'Kids Fun Days' events hosted by the Indians before baseball
games," Merritt wrote.  "CSI sent a Certificate of Insurance
directly to the Indians, listing them as an additional named
insured.  The Certificate of Insurance lists the dates of the
'Kids Fun Days' and says the 'Certificate Holder is added as
Additional Insured with respect to our insured's [National Pastime
Sports] negligence.'  Immediately below that language, the
Cleveland Indians Baseball Company is named as the 'Certificate
Holder.'  If indeed Michigan would require some additional
'special relationship' to impose tort liability on CSI, such a
relationship surely can be demonstrated here."

In a six-page dissent, Judge Eric Clay said his colleagues missed
the point.

"The issue here is not whether CSI is liable; it may very well be
liable to NPS for its failure to perform under the contract," Clay
wrote, abbreviating National Pastime Sports.  "The issue is to
whom it is liable, and because it had no contract with the
Indians, it cannot be liable to them on either a theory of
negligence or of negligent misrepresentation."

Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, Cleveland Indians, is
represented by:

          Michelle A. Thomas, Esq.
          THOMAS, DEGROOD & WITENOFF, P.C.
          Office 400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 550
          Southfield, MI 48034

Appellee CSI Insurance is represented by:

          Trent B. Collier, Esq.
          COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF, P.C.
          4000 Town Center, Suite 909
          Southfield, MI 48075-1473
          Telephone: (248) 355-4141
          Facsimile: (248) 355-2277
          E-mail: trent.collier@ceflawyers.com
                  Collins.Einhorn@ceflawyers.com

Appellee New Hampshire Insurance is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Gerish, Esq.
          38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 2000
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 901-4031
          Facsimile: (248) 901-4040
          E-mail: jgerish@plunkettcooney.com

The appellate case is Cleveland Indians Baseball Company, L.P. v.
New Hampshire Insurance Company and CSI Insurance Group, Case No.
12-1589, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Hearing on Shareholder Suit Deal Set for Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on DigitalGlobe, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated
shareholder lawsuit will be held this month, according to the
Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On January 31, 2013, DigitalGlobe, Inc. completed the previously
announced transactions contemplated by that certain Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of July 22, 2012, as amended, by and
among DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Inc. ("GeoEye"), 20/20 Acquisition
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of DigitalGlobe, and
WorldView, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of DigitalGlobe.

In July 2012, GeoEye and the GeoEye board of directors,
DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc. and WorldView, LLC were
named as defendants in three purported class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.  The lawsuits were brought on behalf of proposed classes
consisting of all public holders of GeoEye common stock, excluding
the defendants and, among others, their affiliates.  On
September 7, 2012, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
three actions as In re GeoEye, Inc., Shareholder Litigation,
Consol. No. 1:12-cv-00826-CMH-TCB.

On September 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint alleging the GeoEye board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly, among other things,
failing to maximize stockholder value, agreeing to preclusive deal
protection measures and failing to disclose certain information
necessary to make an informed vote on whether to approve the
proposed acquisition. DigitalGlobe is alleged to have aided and
abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty.  In addition, the
amended complaint contains allegations that the GeoEye board of
directors and DigitalGlobe violated Section 20(a) and Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, by the filing of a Registration Statement
allegedly omitting material facts and setting forth materially
misleading information.

On October 9, 2012, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the consolidated action entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle all claims asserted therein on a
class-wide basis.  GeoEye and the GeoEye board of directors,
DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc. and WorldView, LLC
entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing.  In connection with the MOU, DigitalGlobe
agreed to make additional disclosures in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement.  The settlement set forth in the MOU
includes a release of all claims against defendants alleged in the
corrected amended complaint, and is subject to, among other items,
the completion of confirmatory discovery, execution of a
stipulation of settlement and court approval, as well as the
Acquisition becoming effective under applicable law. Any payments
made in connection with the settlement, which are subject to court
approval, are not expected to be material to the combined company.
In January 2013, the parties completed confirmatory discovery.  On
April 24, 2013, the parties submitted the final settlement to the
Court for approval.  Notices have been sent to the affected class
of GeoEye shareholders, and the Court has set a settlement hearing
date of September 2013.

Headquartered in Longmont, Colorado, DigitalGlobe, Inc., is a
global provider of commercial high-resolution earth imagery
products and services that support users in a wide variety of
fields including defense, intelligence and homeland security,
mapping and analysis, environmental monitoring, oil and gas
exploration and infrastructure management.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Still Defends Bruce Mansfield Plant Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs
were filed against FirstEnergy Generation, LLC (FG), a subsidiary
of FirstEnergy Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions
from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant.  Two of these
complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from
operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper
manner."  One complaint was filed on behalf of 21 individuals and
the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a
class with the eight named plaintiffs as the class
representatives.  FG believes the claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations made
in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the
outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of
loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a
holding company organized in Ohio in 1996, and is based in Akron,
Ohio.  FirstEnergy's revenues are primarily derived from electric
service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries and the
sale of energy and related products and services by its
unregulated competitive subsidiaries.


GALANT FOOD: Recalls Calzone Products Due to Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------
Galant Food Company, a San Leandro, Calif. establishment is
recalling approximately 1,650 pounds of fresh or frozen calzone
products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen.  The
products are formulated with an egg wash glaze that contains egg,
a known allergen, which is not declared on the label.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 10-ounce packages, in 7.5 pound cases, of "ENZO'S Italian
      Combo Calzone" bearing the establishment number "EST. 9014"
      inside the USDA mark of inspection on the label.
      Identifying case codes are: 7163, 7173, 7183, 7223, 7253,
      8143, 8303 and 9043 and

   -- 10-ounce packages, in 7.5 pound cases, of "ENZO'S Chicken
      Fajita Calzone" bearing the establishment number "P-9014"
      inside the USDA mark of inspection on the label.
      Identifying case codes are:  7163, 7173, 7183, 7223, 8133
      and 9043.

The products were produced between July 16 and Sept. 4, 2013 and
shipped to distributors, retail locations and possibly restaurants
in the San Francisco Bay area.

The problem was discovered during a food safety assessment at the
establishment.  FSIS personnel are responsible for verifying that
establishments are actively labeling the eight most common food
allergens.  The problem occurred because the wrong computer was
connected to the label printer during the firm's recent
relocation.

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/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Richard Fairchild, the company's recall coordinator, at 415-552-
5475.


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls With Icing
----------------------------------------------------------
General Mills announced a voluntary Class II recall of a limited
quantity of refrigerated Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls with Icing.

No other flavors or varieties of Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls or
Pillsbury dough products are being recalled.  Pillsbury Flaky
Cinnamon Rolls and Pillsbury Grands! Cinnamon Rolls are not
included in this recall.

This action is being taken as a precaution because the dough may
contain fragments from a broken piece of plastic on the production
line.  These products are sold in grocery stores nationally.  No
other Pillsbury dough products are being recalled.

Only specific 8-count single and double packages with certain date
codes of Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls with Icing are being recalled:

     Product                      Better if Used Date on Package
     -------                      ------------------------------
  -- Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls with Icing   30OCT2013 and 31OCT2013
  -- Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls with Icing 2-pack   18OCT2013,
                                           26OCT2013 and 31OCT2013

Consumers who have products covered by this recall are urged to
contact General Mills for a replacement.  Consumers with questions
may contact General Mills toll-free at 1-800-775-4777.


GOLDENFEAST INC: Recalls Exotic Bird Food Blends
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 9, 2013
Posting date:             September 9, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35517

Affected products: Various Goldenfeast Inc. Exotic Bird Food
Blends

The recall involves the following bird food products manufactured
by Goldenfeast Inc.

Products affected by this recall:

  Product Name          Size      Best If Used By (day/month/year)
  ------------          ----      --------------------------------
-- Australian Blend    32 lb. Bulk Bag      May 31, 2013 through
                                               Oct. 31, 2013
-- Australian Blend    13 lb. Mini Bulk     May 31, 2013 through
                                                Oct. 31, 2013
-- Australian Blend    64 oz. Super Size    May 31, 2013 through
                                                 Oct. 31, 2013
-- Australian Blend    25 oz. Barrier Bag   May 31, 2013 through
                                                 Oct. 31, 2013
-- Bean Supreme        32 lb. Bulk Bag      July 31, 2013 through
                                                 Dec. 31, 2013
-- Bean Supreme        10 lb. Mini Bulk     July 31, 2013 through
                                                 Dec. 31, 2013
-- Bean Supreme        64 oz. Super Size    July 31, 2013 through
                                                 Dec. 31, 2013
-- Bean Supreme        23 oz. Barrier Bag   July 31, 2013 through
                                                 Dec. 31, 2013
-- Caribbean Bounty    32 lb. Bulk Bag      July 31, 2013 through
                                                Sept. 30, 2013
-- Caribbean Bounty    11 lb. Mini Bulk     July 31, 2013 through
                                                Sept. 30, 2013
-- Caribbean Bounty    64 oz. Super Size    July 31, 2013 through
                                                Sept. 30, 2013
-- Caribbean Bounty    25 oz. Barrier Bag   July 31, 2013 through
                                                Sept. 30, 2013
-- Gardenflora         12 lb. Bulk Bag      July 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Gardenflora         4 lb. Mini Bulk      July 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Gardenflora         23 oz. Super Size    July 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Gardenflora         9 oz. Barrier Bag    July 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Petite Hookbill     32 lb. Bulk Bag      June 30, 2013 through
                                                Oct. 31, 2013
-- Petite Hookbill     12 lb. Mini Bulk     June 30, 2013 through
                                                Oct. 31, 2013
-- Petite Hookbill     64 oz. Super Size    June 30, 2013 through
                                                Oct. 31, 2013
-- Petite Hookbill     25 oz. Barrier Ba    June 30, 2013 through
                                                Oct. 31, 2013
-- Schmitt's Original  32 lb. Bulk Bag      July 31, 2013 through
                                                Aug. 31, 2013
-- Schmitt's Original  13 lb. Mini Bulk     July 31, 2013 through
                                                Aug. 31, 2013
-- Schmitt's Original   64 oz. Super Size   July 31, 2013 through
                                                Aug. 31, 2013
-- Schmitt's Original   25 oz. Barrier Bag  July 31, 2013 through
                                                Aug. 31, 2013
-- Basics Plus Finch    40 lb. Bulk Bag   Aug. 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Basics Plus Finch    13 lb. Mini Bulk  Aug. 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Basics Plus Finch    80 oz. Super Size Aug. 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Basics Plus Finch  32 oz. Barrier Bag  Aug. 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Basics Plus Parakeet 40 lb. Bulk Bag   Aug. 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Basics Plus Parakeet 13 lb. Mini Bulk  Aug. 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Basics Plus Parakeet 72 oz. Super Size Aug. 31, 2013 through
                                                Feb. 28, 2014
-- Basics Plus Parakeet 32 oz. Barrier Bag     Aug. 31, 2013
                                            through Feb. 28, 2014

A manufacturer in the United States, Goldenfeast Inc., is
recalling several exotic bird food blends due to possible
contamination of Salmonella from parsley flake ingredients
supplied to Goldenfeast Inc. by Specialty Commodities, Inc., an
outside supplier to Goldenfeast Inc.

Pets such as dogs and cats, and their food can carry Salmonella
bacteria.  People can get infected with the bacteria from handling
their pets or their pet's food or feces.

Neither Health Canada nor Goldenfeast Inc. has received any
reports of illnesses related to the recalled bird food products.

Approximately 61 units of recalled bird food products have been
distributed in Canada.

The recalled pet food products were manufactured in the United
States of America and sold from June 2012 to Feb. 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Goldenfeast Incorporated
                    Phoenixville
                    Pennsylvania
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using any of the recalled
Goldenfeast Inc. bird food products identified above, and return
them to Goldenfeast Inc. for replacement.  Customers are urged to
contact Goldenfeast Inc. at 1-800-344-6536 between the hours and
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, for
instruction on product return.


GOOGLE INC: Defends Email Snooping in Privacy MDL Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that as lawyers for
Google Inc. fought to dismiss a spate of privacy claims, U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh pressed them to explain how scanning
messages sent through Gmail to target advertisements falls under
the company's "ordinary course of business" as an email provider.

Google lawyers urged Judge Koh on Sept. 5 to dispense with multi-
district litigation that accuses the company of mining personal
data from emails without users' consent, violating the federal
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and a handful of state
privacy laws.

Google lawyer Whitty Somvichian -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- of
Cooley insisted the company automatically processes emails as part
of its "ordinary business practices," which are exempted
activities under federal and state wiretap laws.  Advertisements
are an integral part of the Gmail service, he explained.

"Is anything that enhances Google's ad revenue 'ordinary course of
business'?" Judge Koh interjected.  "That seems how it's being
defined . . . It seems awfully broad."

Plaintiffs lawyer Sean Rommel -- jwyly@wylyrommel.com -- of Texas-
based Wyly Rommel argued that if email providers like Google are
given free rein to define their businesses beyond transmitting
messages, there would be few limits to what they could do with
users' information.

The case is coming to a head as the national conversation about
digital privacy intensifies, spurred this summer by former
government contractor Edward Snowden's leaks about National
Security Agency surveillance programs.  Judges on the Bay Area's
federal bench are shepherding various privacy suits brought by
consumers against tech companies.  Four privacy-related MDLs are
now advancing in the Northern District, two of which have been
assigned to Judge Koh.

The Gmail case groups together matters originally filed in
California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland and Pennsylvania by Gmail
users and people who send them emails.  The cases were centralized
in April in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California as In re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, 13-2430.

Cooley's Somvichian argued that scanning content is an unavoidable
part of the email business.  The plaintiffs' theory threatens to
criminalize basic practices such as using filters to sort messages
or searching inboxes for specific words, Google contended in a
motion to dismiss filed in June.  The company noted that the
plaintiffs do not object to features such as spam filtering and
virus detection, which also involve scanning.

But plaintiffs accuse Google in a response brief of using Gmail as
"its own secret data mining machine" to spy on and build secret
user profiles for its millions of users.

"This company reads on a daily basis every email that is submitted
through it," Mr. Rommel said.  "With every email, it divests the
property interest of the user."

Google insisted in its motion to dismiss that the litigation has
little hope of succeeding because courts have held that all email
users implicitly give consent for their messages to be processed.
Moreover, Mr. Somvichian stressed to Judge Koh, Gmail users
consented to the practice when they created their accounts.  Koh
then prompted Mr. Somvichian to walk her through Google's terms of
service and privacy policies that were in place during the class
period in painstaking detail.

Judge Koh questioned why Google did not specify in its privacy
policies that it extracts user data from Gmail.

In an effort to have one uniform privacy policy for all of its
services, Google could not go into depth about Gmail,
Mr. Somvichian explained.  No further elaboration was necessary,
he insisted.

"It is inconceivable that someone who is using the Gmail service
would not view information in their Gmail account to be
information that they have made available to Google simply by
virtue of fact that Google maintains the email," Mr. Somvichian
said.

Mr. Rommel took offense at the idea that Gmail users had signed
away their right to privacy.

"For this company to say that just because a person uses email
their privacy interests should be diminished is wrong," he said.


GOPICNIC BRANDS: Recalls Limited Quantity of Vegan Meals
--------------------------------------------------------
GoPicnic Brands, Inc. is voluntarily recalling two vegan
ready-to-eat meals, GoPicnic Black Bean Dip & Plantain Chips and
Hummus & Crackers, containing Professor Zim Zam's Extraordinary
Sweets Dark Chocolate with Orange and Dark Chocolate with Sea
Salt.  The chocolate products in these meals may contain an
undeclared milk allergen.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume the chocolate in the voluntarily recalled meals.  However,
this chocolate is safe to consume for individuals who do not
suffer from a milk allergy.  There have been no complaints or
issues associated with the non-chocolate items in these GoPicnic
meals.

Product was distributed nationwide through retail stores and
direct delivery.

Only the lot codes of GoPicnic meals containing the impacted
chocolates are being voluntarily recalled.  This action does not
pertain to the newer updated menus of GoPicnic Black Bean Dip &
Plantain Chips or GoPicnic Hummus & Crackers that do not contain
these specific chocolate items.

The 'best by' dates associated with the voluntarily recalled lot
codes range from 9/24/2013 to 5/29/2014.  Each meal's 'best by'
date is located adjacent to the lot code on the back of the meal
box.

The following is a list of product lots that are included in the
voluntary recall:

   -- GoPicnic Black Bean Dip & Plantain Chips Meal -- lot codes:
      10773, 11063, M13107, M23107, M13137, M23137, M13165,
      M13175, M13182, M23182, M13197, M13201, M23204; and

  -- GoPicnic Hummus & Crackers Meal -- lot codes:
     10303, 10373, 10383, 10503, 10513, 10523, 10623, 10663,
     10793, 10803, 10923, M13106, 11063, M23107, M23143, 11143,
     M13115, M23136, M23137, M13144, 11483, M13151, M23151,
     M23152, M23164, M13171, M13176, M23176, M13183, M23183,
     M13184, M23184

This voluntary recall by GoPicnic Brands is being conducted as the
result of a recall of these chocolate products by G. Debbas
Chocolatier, Inc., as the chocolate may contain undeclared milk
particles.  Debbas is a third-party supplier to GoPicnic Brands,
and manufactured the recalled chocolate.  The GoPicnic meals
containing these Debbas chocolate products were both distributed
to U.S. retailers and distributors nationwide and made available
for purchase on the Internet between 01/31/13 to 8/27/13.  One
customer with a known milk allergy reported feeling sick after
consuming the chocolate.

As part of a standard annual menu refresh, GoPicnic Brands had
already discontinued these chocolate items from GoPicnic meals and
ceased production and distribution of meals containing these
chocolate items by July 23, 2013, more than 30 days prior to
notification of the voluntary recall.

"We sincerely apologize to our valued customers for any
inconvenience or concern due to the mislabeled packaging," said
Julia Stamberger, CEO & President of GoPicnic Brands.  "The health
and safety of our customers is paramount to us and we are
committed to providing our customers with safe meals that are
produced, sourced and handled responsibly."

Consumers who have GoPicnic meals in their possession with the
specific lot codes involved in the voluntary recall may visit
http://www.gopicnic.com/voluntaryrcto request a coupon for a
replacement meal.  Requests must include the meal lot number, '
'best by' date, and a photo of a receipt or product package for
each meal requesting replacement.  Questions should be directed to
GoPicnic Brands at 773-328-2490 Monday through Friday between
9 a.m. - 6 p.m. CST, or via email to the Customer Relations
Department at service@gopicnic.com  For more information, visit
our FAQ about the voluntary recall at
http://www.gopicnic.com/voluntaryrc

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this
voluntary recall.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Dismisses Smedt Misbranding Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the case captioned
SUZANNE SMEDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03029 EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

Suzanne Smedt filed this putative class action against The Hain
Celestial alleging that the labeling on several of the Defendant's
food and beverage products as well as Web sites related to
Defendant's products contain statements amounting to misbranding
and deception in violation of California and federal laws and
regulations.

At the Defendant's request, Judge Davila dismissed the case saying
the Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims predicated on violations
of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff's
remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.

The Court, however, leaves the door open for the Plaintiff to
further amend her complaint within 15 days of the date of the
Order.

Because the Amended Complaint is presently dismissed in its
entirety, the Court declined to set a case management schedule at
this time. However, the Court said it will address scheduling
issues as raised by the parties should it become necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Lr3HFofrom Leagle.com.

Suzanne Smedt, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore --
pgore@prattattorneys.com -- at Pratt & Associates & Charles F.
Barrett -- charles@cfbfirm.com -- at Charles Barrett, P.C.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by William
Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP.


HEALTH CANADA: Recalls New Comfort Water Air Purifier
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            Sept. 9, 2013
Posting date:             Sept. 9, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35493

Affected products: New Comfort Water Air Purifier

The recall involves the New Comfort water air purifier identified
by model number HBP-003.  The product has a black triangle base
with LED lighting, a clear plastic water reservoir and a black
plastic top with vents.  The brand name "New Comfort" is found on
the front of the product.

The affected product is not authorized to bear the Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) certification mark for Canada and the United
States.  The product has not been tested to determine whether it
is compliant with the Canadian Standards for electrical product
safety.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of this air purifier.

The number sold is unknown.  The product was known to be sold at
http://www.greatvacs.comand may have been sold at other
retailers.

The recalled product was manufactured in China by an unknown
company and the time period sold is also unknown.

Consumers should stop using the affected air purifiers
immediately.


HERSHEY COMPANY: Zulewski Collective Action Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore approved a collective action
settlement resolving the case captioned RYAN ZULEWSKI, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:11-CV-
05117-KAW, (N.D. Cal.).

On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement in
principle with Defendant The Hershey Company.  On July 18, 2013,
Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for approval of the
collective action settlement of the action, including Plaintiffs'
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the wage and hour laws
of California, and California's Unfair Competition Law, Business
and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and Plaintiffs'
attorney fees and costs, a request to dismiss the action with
prejudice, and to bind all members of the Settlement Collective to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, regardless of whether or
not they have signed a Consent to Collective Action Settlement.

The Court certifies the Settlement Collective as defined in the
Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Collective Action Release;
approves Thomas J. Brandi and Brian J. Malloy, and the Brandi Law
Firm, and David C. Feola and Hoban & Feola, LLC, as Collective
Action Counsel;, and approves the Garden City Group as Claims
Administrator.

Approval of the Settlement Stipulation, including the releases
contained therein, the payments to Plaintiffs and Collective
Action Counsel's attorney fees and costs, is granted, says Judge
Westmore.

All 153 members of the Settlement Collective are bound to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, regardless of whether or not
they have signed a Consent to Collective Action Settlement, Judge
Westmore added.

The case is dismissed with prejudice and on the merits.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/mKe6Uqfrom Leagle.com.

Ryan Zulewski, Plaintiff, represented by David C Feola --
David@Feolalaw.com -- at Hoban & Feola, LLC and:

   Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
   Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
   The Brandi Law Firm
   San Francisco, California
   Tel.: 800-481-1615
         415-989-1800
   Fax: 415-651-8613

John Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi
Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C Feola,
Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Alex Langan, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The
Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C
Feola, Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Nicholas Esposito, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The
Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C
Feola, Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Brandon Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The
Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C
Feola, Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Sharrell Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The
Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C
Feola, Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Jay Cook, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi
Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C Feola,
Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Markessa Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The
Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C
Feola, Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Rachel Eckroth, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The
Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C
Feola, Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Christina Tyson, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The
Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C
Feola, Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Dominick Ippolito, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi, The
Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm & David C
Feola, Hoban & Feola, LLC.

Mike Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Andrew Meek, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Brittany Dangerfield, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy,
The Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Amy Kramer, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Yolanda Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Tracy DeBus, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Robert Churney, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Harry Klos, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Susan Spohn, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Erin Wadley, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

David Risser, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Jenna Verrastro, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Kimberly Lekarcyk, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Constance Cole, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Teresa Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Chris Landers, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Tyler McKenzie, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Brett Kitterman, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Cassandra Hale, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Juanita Avilia, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

Darrin McGowan, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi, The Brandi Law Firm.

The Hershey Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J Puma --
mpuma@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis n Bockius LLP, Rebecca
Dianne Eisen -- reisen@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


HORIZON LINES: Last Antitrust Lawsuit in Alaska Now Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a lawsuit arising out of an investigation by the
Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust
violations in the domestic ocean shipping business filed a Notice
of Voluntary Dismissal, resolving the last lawsuit filed against
Horizon Lines, Inc., arising out of that investigation,
according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
23, 2013.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice ("DOJ") into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business.

On February 23, 2011, the Company entered into a plea agreement
with the DOJ relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane and on March
22, 2011, the Court entered judgment accepting the Company's plea
agreement and imposed a fine of $45.0 million payable over five
years without interest. On April 28, 2011, the Court reduced the
fine from $45.0 million to $15.0 million payable over five years
without interest.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, class
action lawsuits relating to ocean shipping services in the Puerto
Rico, Hawaii and Alaska tradelanes were filed. The Company settled
the class action lawsuits relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane
and those lawsuits by plaintiffs who opted out of the class
action.

The United States District Court dismissed the class action
lawsuits relating to the Hawaii tradelane and the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. In
May 2013, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit remaining in the District
of Alaska filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, resolving the
last lawsuit arising out of the DOJ investigation.

Any further antitrust lawsuits arising from the DOJ investigation
against the Company or any of its current or former employees
should be prevented by the applicable statute of limitations.


ILLINOIS: DCFS Faces Class Suit Over Catch-All "Allegation 60"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Illinois "indicates" parents as child neglecters under a
bogus, catch-all "Allegation 60," which the state supreme court
declared void ab initio, but the state continues to enforce,
parents say in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Ashley M. sued the Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services and its Director Richard Calica in Cook County
Chancery Court.

Ashley and five named co-plaintiffs, all of their last names
indicated only by initials, claims the state also uses the bogus
Allegation 60 to enter their names on a database as child
neglecters.

The parents want the defendant DCFS enjoined from using Allegation
60, an administrative regulation that defines child neglect as
including "placing a child in an environment that is injurious to
the child's health and welfare."

"DCFS adopted Allegation 60 in 2001, but in 2013, the Illinois
Supreme Court found that the allegation was void ad initio," the
lawsuit states.  "Despite this final authoritative decision by the
Illinois Supreme Court and despite a 2012 legislative enactment
that establishes specific limitations on DCFS's investigative
authority that are not included in or consistent with Allegation
60, DCFS continues to use the invalid Allegation 60 regulation to
investigate families; to find parents and other caregivers to have
neglected children (through so-called 'indicated findings'); and
to register these indicated findings in the Illinois State Central
Register where the findings can be used to impair the interests of
parents and caregivers in employment and family life."

The Plaintiffs' attorney Diane Redleaf told Courthouse News:
"Anyone who works with children, in most jobs, requires a check
through this database, so it's devastation for anyone who works
with children.  If you're in a facility licensed by DCFS it's
pretty much fatal.  People often don't know what it means, but
they know it's bad, so they're not going to take a chance on
someone with a finding of child neglect.

"Adoption is another issue, since you have to be licensed to be an
adoptive parent.  It can be disclosed to judges in dealing with
custody cases as well, and a judge is unlikely to give custody to
somebody [found to have neglected their child]."

Redleaf works with the Family Defense Center in Chicago.

The Legislature's 2012 revisions to the law place two limitations
on neglect due to an injurious environment. To be defined as
neglect, the child's environment must "create a likelihood of harm
to the child's health, physical well-being, or welfare," or "the
likely harm to the child is the result of blatant disregard of
parent or caretaker responsibilities."

Based on these legislative changes, the Illinois Supreme Court
found that "Allegation 60 exceeds DCFS's scope of authority under
the Act and it is void," the complaint states, citing the ruling.

Nonetheless, "DCFS continues to use Allegation 60 to investigate
and indicate families," the parents say, though the state has not
incorporated the 2012 limitations on the definition of neglect.

Redleaf told Courthouse News that the DCFS "actually wrote a memo
saying that the Illinois Supreme Court said Allegation 60 was
authorized by new legislation in July, [but] the court absolutely
did not say that.  The court was not asked to construe a new rule
under the new legislation, but certainly said this rule was void
from the very start."

The parents say in the lawsuit that "After July 2012, each
plaintiff was investigated, indicated, and registered in the State
Central Register as a child neglecter under Allegation 60 pursuant
to a call to the DCFS Hotline.

"On information and belief, each DCFS Hotline worker who accepted
the respective Hotline calls as to each plaintiff did not apply
the requirements of P.A. 97-0803, but instead accepted each call
pursuant to Allegation 60's broad language.  Accordingly, the DCFS
Hotline workers coded the Hotline calls as Allegation 60 calls,
and referred them for investigation against plaintiffs."

Without finding evidence of harm to the child or blatant
disregard, as required by the new legislation, "Each DCFS
investigator recommended the issuance of an 'indicated' finding
against each plaintiff, and each decision was approved by each
investigator's supervisor," the complaint states.

"Each plaintiff was subsequently notified that he or she was
indicated and his or her name was now listed as a child neglecter
in the Illinois State Central Register."

Citing the DCFS's appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court this year,
plaintiffs claim the DCFS files more than 13,000 indicated
findings under Allegation 60 each year, investigating thousands of
families under an invalid standard.

The parents seek injunctive relief and remedial measures to ensure
Allegation 60 will no longer be enforced in its void form.

"They need to retrain their investigators," Redleaf said.
"They're going after people who are not guilty of child neglect."

          Diane Redleaf, Esq.
          FAMILY DEFENSE CENTER
          70 E. Lake St., Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 251-9800
          Facsimile: (312) 251-9801

               - and -

          Michael Brody, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK
          353 N Clark St.
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 923-2711
          Facsimile: (312) 840-7711
          E-mail: mbrody@jenner.com

M. Ashley, et al. v. IL Dept of Children and Family Services, et
al., Case No. 2013-CH-20278, in the Illinois Circuit Court for
Cook County.


INERGY LP: Faces Crestwood-Inergy Merger-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Inergy, L.P., is facing Crestwood-Inergy merger-related class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form
8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 19, 2013, Crestwood Holdings Partners, LLC and its
affiliates (Crestwood Holdings) acquired the general partner of
Inergy, L.P. (NRGY) and contributed its ownership of Crestwood Gas
Services GP LLC (Crestwood Gas Services), including Crestwood Gas
Services' incentive distribution rights, to NRGY in exchange for
NRGY common units.  On May 5, 2013, Crestwood Midstream Partners
LP (CMLP) entered into a definitive merger agreement under which
it will be merged with a subsidiary of Inergy Midstream, L.P.
(NRGM) in a merger in which CMLP's unitholders will receive 1.07
units of NRGM for each unit of CMLP they own.  Additionally, under
the merger agreement, CMLP's unitholders (other than Crestwood
Holdings) will receive a one-time approximately $35 million cash
payment at closing of the merger transaction, or $1.03 per unit,
$25 million of which will be payable by NRGM and approximately $10
million of which will be payable by Crestwood Holdings.  The
merger is contingent upon the approval of the holders of a
majority of the limited partner interests of CMLP and other
customary closing conditions.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Crestwood-
Inergy merger have been filed, four in federal court in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas: (i)
Abraham Knoll v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01528); (ii) Greg Podell v. Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, et
al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01599); (iii) Johnny Cooper v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01660); and (iv)
Steven Elliot LLC v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01763), and one in Delaware Chancery Court, Hawley v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 8689-VCL).  All of the
cases name Crestwood, Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Crestwood
Holdings LLC, the current and former directors of Crestwood Gas
Services GP LLC, Inergy, L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP,
LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC as defendants.  All of the
lawsuits are brought by a purported holder of common units of
Crestwood, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of holders of common units of Crestwood.  The lawsuits
generally allege, among other things, that the directors of
Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC breached their fiduciary duties to
holders of common units of Crestwood by agreeing to a transaction
with inadequate consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an
inadequate process.  The lawsuits further allege that Inergy,
L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP, LLC, and Intrepid Merger
Sub, LLC aided and abetted the Crestwood directors in the alleged
breach of their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits seek, in general,
(i) injunctive relief enjoining the merger, (ii) in the event the
merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory
damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) the accounting by the
defendants to the plaintiffs for all damages caused by the
defendants, and (v) such further equitable relief as the court
deems just and proper.  Certain of the actions also assert claims
of inadequate disclosure under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Elliot case also names
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as an alleged aider and abettor.
The plaintiff in the Hawley action in Delaware filed a motion for
expedited proceedings but subsequently withdrew that motion and
then filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the action without
prejudice, which has been granted by the Court, such that the
Hawley action has been dismissed.  The plaintiffs in the Knoll,
Podell, Cooper, and Elliot actions filed an unopposed motion to
consolidate these four cases, which the Court granted.  The
plaintiff in the Elliot action filed a motion for expedited
discovery, which remains pending.  These lawsuits are at a
preliminary stage.  Crestwood, Inergy Midstream and the other
defendants believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously.

Inergy, L.P. -- http://www.inergylp.com/-- is a publicly-traded
master limited partnership that owns and operates energy midstream
infrastructure and a natural gas liquid marketing, supply and
logistics business.  The Kansas City, Missouri-based Company owns
and operates the Tres Palacios natural gas storage facility in
Texas; a proprietary NGL business that specializes in providing
logistics and marketing services predominantly to producers and
refiners; and approximately 75% ownership interest in Inergy
Midstream, L.P., a publicly-traded, growth-oriented master limited
partnership with midstream facilities located in the Northeast
region of the United States.


INFANTINO LLC: Settles Suit Over Defective Infant Carrier for $8MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the mother of a child who died in a shoulder-sling infant carrier
has agreed to settle her lawsuit with the manufacturer of the
carrier for $8 million.

Anthoinette Medley, the mother of Nelsir Scott, and Infantino LLC,
a maker of products for infants and babies, agreed to settle,
according to the mother's attorney.  The suit had been filed in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

The SlingRider, an infant carrier manufactured by Infantino, is
also responsible for the deaths of three other babies, according
to the plaintiffs pretrial memorandum.

Alan M. Feldman -- afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com -- managing
partner of Philadelphia-based Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter
Tanner Weinstock & Dodig, represented Ms. Medley.

In Medley v. Infantino, Ms. Medley alleged that the flawed design
of the SlingRider caused the suffocation death of Ms. Medley's
infant son, Nelsir, according to the plaintiffs pretrial
statement.

On February 20, 2009, Ms. Medley carried her twin sons, then-
seven-and-a-half-week-old Tamir and Nelsir, in two separate
SlingRiders (purchased at K-Mart and Wal-Mart stores,
respectively) to a Women, Infants and Children appointment,
traveling by bus to the appointment and then by trolley to the
Gallery in Center City afterward, according to the statement.

After running into a friend at the Gallery, Ms. Medley noticed
several drops of blood on Nelsir's bib and "immediately went into
a restroom to check on him," plaintiffs court papers said.

When she realized she could not awaken Nelsir, Ms. Medley ran out
of the restroom screaming for help, and entered a McDonald's where
she proceeded to perform CPR until the arrival of emergency
medical technicians, according to the plaintiffs pretrial
statement.

After being transported to Thomas Jefferson Hospital, Nelsir was
pronounced dead, and Ms. Medley was interviewed by a Philadelphia
Police Department detective and a social worker, according to the
plaintiffs court papers.

Nelsir's body and the SlingRider were transported to the
Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office, where an autopsy was
performed, prompting Assistant Medical Examiner Gary Collins to
file a MECAP (Medical Examiners and Coroners Alert Project) report
arising from his suspicion that the SlingRider may have been
related to Nelsir's death, according to the statement.

The official cause of death was concluded to be "undetermined,"
according to the statement.

The plaintiff alleged that "the unsafe design of the Infantino
SlingRider created a potentially lethal impairment of an infant's
ability to breathe," and that in 2010, Infantino, after recalling
the product, admitted that the SlingRider presented a "risk of
suffocation" when used with infants younger than four months.

The plaintiff also alleged that Infantino had performed no testing
on the SlingRider prior to marketing and selling the product to
determine whether the product was safe for use with infants, and
that Infantino falsely claimed compliance with industry standards
in order to promote SlingRider sales.

"This claim was intended to suggest to consumers that the
SlingRider was safe and thoroughly tested, and that it met
applicable safety standards in the United States and Europe. In
fact, Infantino knew this claim was false," the plaintiffs
pretrial statement said.  "It had actual knowledge that the
[American Society for Testing and Materials] standard expressly
excluded sling-type carriers like the SlingRider from the standard
and further knew that the European standard did not apply to
slings."

When complaints posted by consumers on various retailers' websites
arose, according to the plaintiffs papers, Infantino chose to
ignore the "literally hundreds of negative reviews" detailing the
product's capacity to position an infant in a C-shape, a chin-to-
chest position that limited an infant's ability to breathe.

According to the statement, in 2006, M'Liss Stezler, a trained
pediatric nurse and instructor in "babywearing" for mothers and
caregivers, conducted independent research using a pulse oximeter
to demonstrate how the SlingRider's design impaired oxygen
saturation levels of infants deep within the pouch, and repeatedly
emailed the results and warnings to Infantino.

Her warnings were met with "generic responses" and "deliberate
indifference," the plaintiff alleged.

The plaintiff further alleged that in filing for a patent for the
newer "Air Sling" infant carrier model in 2008, Infantino admitted
safety problems with "prior art," and that Michael Parness,
Infantino's director of product development, admitted in 2006 that
there was "some validity" to the complaints of caregivers.

According to the plaintiffs pretrial statement, Infantino did not
issue a recall of the SlingRider until a fourth SlingRider-related
death was reported -- exactly a year after Nelsir died -- on
February 20, 2010.

"It is not disputed that Nelsir Scott was a healthy and thriving
seven-week-old child when he suffocated to death in the
SlingRider," the plaintiffs pretrial statement said.  "Infantino
may also contend that Anthoinette Medley 'misused' the product
because she was wearing one SlingRider on each shoulder to carry
each of the twins.  It is, however, undisputed that Infantino
never warned against this practice, and its instruction on the
subject of use with twins are silent."

In Infantino's pretrial statement, it noted that Ms. Medley
"violated most, if not all, of the SlingRider's product
instructions on the day in question."

Infantino also argued that Ms. Medley had testified that she had
been carrying the twins in two separate SlingRiders, but emergency
medical personnel who were on the scene testified that Medley had
been carrying both twins in a single SlingRider.

According to Infantino's statement, the SlingRider was designed to
be worn by one person with only one sling, claiming that the
product instructions warned to that effect.

Infantino also claimed that the cause of death was ruled to be
"undetermined," and that there was no identification of asphyxia,
suffocation or other cause of death at the autopsy.

According to Infantino's counsel, Walter Swayze III --
pswayze@smsm.com -- of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, all
other defendants except Infantino were dismissed from the suit.

Initially the suit was against Infantino, Wal-Mart Stores East
Inc., Wal-Mart Store No. 2141, Steve Myers, Sears Holdings Corp.
doing business as K-Mart Corp., K-Mart Corp. of Pennsylvania LP
and Jeffrey Weiss.

The settlement consisted of an $8 million lump sum, with
allocations to be made between survival and wrongful death claims,
Mr. Feldman said.

"Infantino denied liability from the inception of this case and
while it was prepared to take the case to trial, nonetheless
agreed to settle the case given its unique facts, the court in
which it was pending, and the fact that payment on its behalf was
covered by Infantino's insurance," Mr. Swayze said.


INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Appeal in N.Y. Merger Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.'s appeal from the denial of its
motion to dismiss merger-related lawsuits in New York remains
pending, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 20, 2012, the Company announced an agreement to
acquire NYSE Euronext in a stock and cash transaction.  Under the
agreement, which was amended and restated on March 19, 2013, the
Company will acquire NYSE Euronext under a newly formed holding
company, IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc., or ICE Group.
Following successive merger transactions, the Company and NYSE
Euronext will become wholly owned subsidiaries of ICE Group.

Beginning in December 2012, twelve complaints were filed in the
Chancery Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions")
and in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "New York
Actions") on behalf of a putative class of NYSE Euronext
stockholders challenging the proposed merger.  Also, on
February 4, 2013, a similar putative stockholder class action
complaint was filed by a purported stockholder in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On January 29, 2013, the Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware
Actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On
January 31, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  On March 13, 2013, the Chancery Court certified the
consolidated Delaware Actions as a class action.  The parties
completed discovery in connection with plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction in the consolidated Delaware Actions on
April 12, 2013.  On May 10, 2013, the Chancery Court heard oral
argument on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, which
was denied by the Chancery Court.  On June 10, 2013, the
plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions filed a notice and proposed
order of dismissal.  By letter dated June 17, 2013, the plaintiffs
requested that the Chancery Court take no action on the proposed
order at this time.

On January 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
entered an Order consolidating the New York Actions, and on
February 7, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the New York Actions.  On March 1, 2013, the New York
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the New York
Actions, which defendants have appealed to the Appellate Division,
First Department.  The Defendants moved for a stay of the action
pending appeal and, on March 15, 2013, the New York appeals court
granted defendants motion to stay the New York Actions on an
interim basis, and adjourned for 60 days the motion for a stay
pending appeal.  The appeal and stay motion remain pending.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and it will continue to defend against them
vigorously.  The Company does not believe that an estimate of a
reasonable possible range of loss can currently be made in
connection with the matters given the inherent uncertainty of the
matters.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., is an
operator of regulated global markets and clearing houses,
including futures exchanges, over-the counter markets, derivatives
clearing houses and post-trade services.  The Company operates
these global marketplaces for trading and clearing of a broad
array of energy, environmental and agricultural commodities,
credit default swaps, equity index and currency contracts.


JP MORGAN: Settles Force-Placed Insurance Class Action for $300MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Business Times reports that JPMorgan Chase & Co and a major
insurer have agreed to a US$300 million settlement to resolve
accusations that they forced homeowners into over-priced property
insurance and entered into kickback arrangements that inflated the
policies' prices.

The lawsuit being settled -- one of several targeting large US
banks over force-placed insurance -- said that the improper
practices unjustly enriched JPMorgan and insurer Assurant Inc. by
more than US$1 billion since 2008.

JPMorgan and Assurant did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the
settlement, which was in documents filed late on Sept. 6 in a
Miami federal court.

"The settlement will have no expected impact on our financials,"
JPMorgan spokeswoman Amy Bonitatibus said in a statement.  She
said the bank earlier this year discontinued a reinsurance
agreement with Assurant.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Faces 4 Suits Over Acquisition by Thoma Bravo
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keynote Systems, Inc., is facing four class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed acquisition by Thoma Bravo, LLC,
according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On June 23, 2013, the Company entered into a Material Definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger") to be acquired by
affiliates formed by Thoma Bravo, LLC ("Thoma Bravo"), an
investment fund, with the Company surviving the Merger.  Pursuant
to the agreement, at the effective time of the merger, each option
to purchase a share of common stock and each restricted stock unit
that is outstanding will accelerate in full, and each share of
common stock of the Company outstanding immediately prior to the
effective time of the Merger will be cancelled and converted into
the right to receive $20.00 in cash, without interest thereon and
subject to applicable withholding taxes.

On June 27, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Telker v. Keynote Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 52260, and on July 3, 2013, a lawsuit
entitled Satyanaryana Gunda v. Keynote Systems, Inc., et al, Case
No. CIV 522675, were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for San Mateo County.  In addition, on July 2, 2013, a
lawsuit entitled Ruffner v. Keynote Systems, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 8699, and on July 9, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Vladimir
v. Keynote Systems, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8710, were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  All four
of the lawsuits challenge the proposed Merger of the Company.
Each is a putative class action filed on behalf of the Company's
stockholders and name as defendants the Company, its directors,
and Thoma Bravo.  The lawsuits allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to maximize
stockholder value in negotiating and approving the Merger.  Each
of the lawsuits also alleges that Thoma Bravo aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits seek,
among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining
the Merger.

Due to the preliminary nature of these allegations, the Company
says it is unable to determine the likelihood of unfavorable
outcomes against it and is unable to reasonably estimate a range
of loss, if any.  An adverse judgment for monetary damages could
have an adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the
Company.  A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion
of the Merger.

Headquartered in San Mateo, California, Keynote Systems, Inc., is
a global provider of mobile and Web cloud testing and monitoring
services.  The Company maintains one of the world's largest on-
demand quality testing and performance monitoring networks
comprised of approximately 7,000 measurement computers and mobile
devices in over 300 locations covering 180 countries.  The
Company's global network enables its customers to continuously
test, monitor and assure the online and mobile experience.


MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: No Class Cert. Ruling in Environmental Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
not yet rendered a decision on the issue of class certification in
a suit against Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., alleging damaged
by the existence of hazardous chemicals migrating from the
company's pipeline easement, according to the company's
Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 23, 2013.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, ARCO Midcon L.L.C. and WilTel Communications, L.L.C.
("WilTel"). The complaint alleges that the property owned by
plaintiffs and those similarly situated has been damaged by the
existence of hazardous chemicals migrating from a pipeline
easement onto the plaintiffs' property.

The company acquired the pipeline from ARCO Pipeline ("APL") in
1994 as part of a larger transaction and subsequently transferred
the property to WilTel. The company is required to indemnify and
defend WilTel pursuant to the transfer agreement. Prior to the
company's acquisition of the pipeline from APL, the pipeline was
purged of product.

Neither the company nor WilTel ever transported hazardous
materials through the pipeline. A hearing on the plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification was held in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri in December 2012. The court
has not yet rendered a decision on the issue of class
certification.  The company believes that the ultimate resolution
of this matter will not have a material impact on the company's
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.


MILES INDUSTRIES: Obtains Prelim. OK of Rotandi Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In ROTANDI v. MILES INDUSTRIES LTD., Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D.
Laporte issued an order preliminarily certifying, for settlement
purposes only, a settlement class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as:

All consumers who are residents of the United States and who own
homes or other residential dwellings in which at least one glass-
fronted fireplace, manufactured and distributed by Miles
Industries, Ltd. of North Vancouver, Canada between January 1,
2007, through December 31, 2012, was installed from January 1,
2007, through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order of Class
Action Settlement. The Settlement Class will close as of the date
of the Order of Preliminary Approval.

The Court appointed Charlene Rotandi and Edhi Rotandi to serve as
representatives of the Settlement Class. The Court also appointed
these lawyers to serve as counsel for the Settlement Class: Kirk
Wolden, Michael Ram, Jerome Tapley and Hirlye "Ryan" Lutz.

Judge Laporte ruled that the parties' Amended Settlement Agreement
is preliminarily approved.

Matthew E. Pohl is appointed as the Notice Expert for the
Settlement Class, who will administer the Notice Plan in
accordance with the Amended Settlement Agreement.

The Court further appointed Class Action Administration, Inc., as
the Settlement Administrator, who will administer the Claims
Administration Plan in accordance with the Amended Settlement
Agreement.

Any member of the Settlement Class has the right to opt out of the
Settlement Class by sending a written request for exclusion from
the Settlement Class, postmarked no later than 45 days prior to
the Settlement Approval Hearing.

A Settlement Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on
December 10, 2013, at 9:00 a m. at 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
Courtroom E, 15th Floor, to determine whether the Settlement on
the terms and conditions provided for in the Amended Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class
and should be finally approved by the Court; whether the Judgment
and Order of Dismissal as provided for by terms of the Amended
Settlement Agreement should be entered, and to determine the
amount of fees and expenses that should be awarded to Class
Counsel.

The case is CHARLENE ROTANDI, and EDHI ROTANDI, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MILES
INDUSTRIES LTD., Defendant, NO. C11-02146 EDL (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/YMsjjUfrom Leagle.com.

CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS, LLP, Kirk J. Wolden -- kirk@cwclawfirm.com
-- (SBN 149621) Sacramento, CA.

RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP, Michael F. Ram --
mram@rocklawcal.com -- (SBN 104805) Karl Olson, (SBN 104760) San
Francisco, CA.

F. Jerome Tapley -- jtapley@cwcd.com -- (ASB-0583-A56T) Hirlye R.
"Ryan" Lutz, III -- rlutz@cwcd.com -- (ASB-6641-E59L) CORY WATSON
CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C., Birmingham, AL. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
and the Class


NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS: Grocers Sue Over Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that a dairy
cartel fixes prices and restrains trade "through premature 'herd
retirements' that require participating dairy farmers to destroy
all of the dairy cows in their herds," a grocer claims in a
federal antitrust complaint.

Fifty Third Hampton LLC dba Hampton Foods sued the National Milk
Producers Federation, Cooperatives Working Together, Dairy Farmers
of America, Land O'Lakes, Dairylea Cooperative and Agri-Mark dba
Cabot Creamery Cooperative.

Hampton claims the defendants limit production of raw farm milk,
"the key ingredient or component in fluid milk products and
manufactured dairy products, including, but not limited to, cream,
half and half, yogurt, dry milk, cottage cheese, cream cheese,
sour cream and ice cream."

Hampton, which buys these products, claims that "Cooperatives
Working Together (CWT) and its members have engaged in a
continuing contract, combination and conspiracy over the past
eight years to limit the production of raw farm milk through
premature 'herd retirements' that require participating dairy
farmers to destroy all of the dairy cows in their herds and,
beginning April 1, 2009, agree not to re-enter the dairy farming
business for at least a year.

"The principal purpose and effect of this contract, combination
and conspiracy has been to eliminate competition, significantly
reduce the number of dairy farmers competing in the market and to
produce both short term and long term increases in the price of
raw farm milk and manufactured dairy products."

Members of CWT pay yearly assessments based on milk production,
which are "in turn used . . . to pay some members of CWT to
prematurely retire (slaughter) their entire herd, and agree to
refrain from milk production for a certain time -- the practical
effect of which is permanent retirement -- in order to eliminate
competition . . . and 'strengthen and stabilize' raw farm milk
prices," the complaint states.

Hampton claims that dairies submit bids for "Dairy Herd
Retirement," at which point "CWT then reviewed and tentatively
accepted bids subject to farm visits by CWT auditors, who
supervised the tagging of the herds for removal.  The producers
were then required to ship their cows for slaughter within 15 days
after completion of the audit.  CWT made payment of the amount due
to the farmers within 30 days of receiving verification that all
cows had gone to slaughter."

The grocery company claims that in 2009, "CWT was spending $217
million toward herd retirements out of a total of $219 million in
total revenue and carried over contributions.  Nearly the entire
revenue of CWT was expended on 'retiring herds' -- that is, paying
dairy farmers to exit dairy farming and thereby to cease competing
-- and with the effect of substantially constraining output and
reducing the supply of raw milk."

From 2003 to 2010, "CWT was responsible for removing over 500,000
cows from production, reducing the nation's raw milk supply by
approximately 10 billion pounds. . . .  By the end of the program
in 2010, it was responsible for a cumulative increase in milk
price revenue of $9.55 billion," the complaint states.

Hampton seeks class certification, and treble damages for Sherman
Act violations.

Milk pricing has been the subject of litigation for more than 50
years, with allegations of price-fixing, political payoffs, and
skullduggery of all sorts.  Dairy farmers, particularly small
family farms away from the Midwest, continue to be whipsawed by
price fluctuations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, PC
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

The case is Fifty Third Hampton LLC v. National Milk Producers
Federation, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00913-MJR-DGW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (East St.
Louis).


NEW YORK, NY: Judge Appoints Community Liaison in Stop-Frisk Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin has appointed
Nicholas Turner to oversee the community-based elements of
remedial orders she issued after she found the New York City
Police Department liable for violating the U.S. Constitution
through its stop and frisk policies.

Mr. Turner is the recently-named president and director of the
VERA Institute of Justice, a nonprofit center for justice policy
and practice, whose previous work included nine years at VERA
before becoming managing director of the Rockefeller Foundation in
2007.  He also served as a law clerk for Eastern District Judge
Jack Weinstein in 1996 and 1998.  In an order issued on Sept. 4 in
Floyd v. City of New York, 08 Civ.1034, Judge Scheindlin said
"VERA has a long history of working to improve public safety by
strengthening the ties between police and the community."

Turner's job will be to guide the parties in a joint remedial
process for a six-to-nine month period to develop reforms to bring
the police department into compliance with the Fourth and
Fourteenth amendments -- and do so in consultation with court-
appointed monitor Peter Zimroth of Arnold & Porter.

Turner's first task will be to work to develop a "time line,
ground rules and concrete milestones" for the process, followed by
the convening of "town hall" type meetings in each of the five
boroughs.  He will later pass on proposed reforms to Mr. Zimroth,
who will then recommend the ones he deems are appropriate to the
judge.  Judge Scheindlin's orders are being appealed by the city,
which has asked the judge for a stay pending appeal in both Floyd
and the companion case of Ligon v. City of New York, 12 Civ. 2274.


NOVATION COMPANIES: Awaits Ruling on Plea for Reconsideration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on the
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
its claims, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.  The Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and its individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment
banks and credit rating agencies.  The case was removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members.  On August 31, 2009,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims,
which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011,
and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.  On March 29,
2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint
with prejudice and without leave to replead.  The plaintiff filed
an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case.  Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to
sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had
not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to
the lower court for further proceedings.  On April 23, 2013, the
plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a
reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as
to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested.

Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company says it
cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss.  The Company
believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and expects them to defend the case vigorously.

Novation Companies, Inc. -- http://www.novationcompanies.com/--
is a Maryland corporation formed in 1996 and is based in Kansas
City, Missouri.  Prior to May 23, 2012, Novation was NovaStar
Financial, Inc.  The name was changed to reflect the Company's
current business strategy of acquiring and operating technology-
enabled service businesses.


NVIDIA CORP: Ninth Circuit Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that Nvidia can
put "bumpgate" in the rearview mirror.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 4 signed
off on a first-of-its-kind class action settlement, including a
$13 million fee award for class counsel led by Milberg, arising
from defective Nvidia computer chips.  The defects relate to the
solder on the chips, known as bumps.

"Although the award is large, it is proportional to the time spent
by counsel under the lodestar method that the district court
used," the court stated in an unpublished per curiam opinion.  The
amount also reflected "the vigor and length of litigation, the
complexity of issues, the risk that plaintiffs would have
recovered less or nothing through further litigation, [and] the
significant benefits to class members."

Nvidia Corp. announced problems with laptop and notebook computer
chips in 2008.  The company, led by counsel at Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe, worked out a deal through Apple, Dell and Hewlett-
Packard to repair or replace all of the affected computers.  It
was said to be the first time an upstream computer component maker
had reached through retailers to settle consumer claims.

But nine objectors complained among other things that the
settlement was unfair to consumers who'd given up and thrown away
their computers or couldn't provide proof of purchase.

The Ninth Circuit brushed aside those objections on Sept. 4.
Consumers who threw out their computers could have opted out of
the litigation, the court wrote.

"We note that the record shows only five objectors who asserted
that they had abandoned their computers, after individual notice
was given to about 5 million consumers," stated the opinion in
Nakash v. Nvidia, signed by Judges Susan Graber, Carlos Bea and
Andrew Hurwitz.

As for the proof-of-purchase requirement, "This is a reasonable
requirement to prevent fraud," the opinion stated.  "Similarly,
the requirement that class members send in a computer for
replacement or repair is a reasonable method of preventing fraud."

Orrick partner Robert Varian -- rvarian@orrick.com -- argued the
appeal last month for Nvidia.  Milberg was represented by partner
Nicole Duckett -- ndfricke@milberg.com

Dallas attorney Thomas Cox and San Francisco's Marcus Merchasin
argued for the objectors.


PENSKE MOTOR: Sued by Service Technicians in Santa Clara, Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Boles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Penske Motor Group, LLC, a California limited liability
corporation, and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 1-13-CV-252416 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., September 4, 2013) is brought on
behalf of similarly situated persons, who are or have been
employed as service technicians by the Defendants in California.

During the class period, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of encouraging or requiring employees to work in excess of
eight hours per day, and of unlawfully failing to provide the
class members with statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods, Mr.
Boles alleges.  Hence, he seeks unpaid wages, including unpaid
minimum, straight-time, overtime, and meal and rest period
compensation.

Mr. Boles worked as technician at the Company's automobile
dealerships in Lexus Stevens Creek since 2007.

Penske owns and operates a network of automobile dealerships in
Southern and Northern California.  The Company's retail franchises
include Toyota, Scion and Lexus.  The true and correct names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at
this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
          Daniel Velton, Esq.
          VELTON ZEGELMAN PC
          525 W. Remington Drive, Suite 106
          Sunnyvale, CA 94087
          Telephone: (408) 505-7892
          Facsimile: (408) 228-1930
          E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com
                  dvelton@vzfirm.com


PIONEER NATURAL: Seeks Dismissal of One Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Natural Resources Company seeks dismissal of one of the
lawsuits filed in connection with its proposed merger with Pioneer
Southwest Energy Partners L.P., according to the Company's
August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company owns a 0.1 percent general partner interest and a 52.4
percent limited partner interest in Pioneer Southwest Energy
Partners L.P. ("Pioneer Southwest").  The Company owns and
controls Pioneer Natural Resources GP LLC (the "General Partner"),
which manages Pioneer Southwest.  Pioneer Southwest owns interests
in certain oil and gas properties in the Spraberry field in the
Permian Basin of West Texas.

On May 7, 2013, the Company delivered a proposal to the chairman
of the Conflicts Committee (the "Conflicts Committee") of the
General Partner to acquire all of the outstanding common units of
Pioneer Southwest held by unitholders other than Pioneer or its
subsidiaries for consideration of .2234 of a share of common stock
of Pioneer for each outstanding common unit of Pioneer Southwest
held by such unitholders in a transaction to be structured as a
merger of Pioneer Southwest with a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Pioneer (the "Pioneer Southwest Merger Proposal").  The Company's
proposal was made based on the assumption that Pioneer Southwest
would declare and pay the distribution for the period April 1,
2013, to June 30, 2013 (which was declared in July 2013 and was to
be paid on August 9, 2013, to unitholders of record on August 2,
2013) and then suspend future common unit distributions pending
the execution of a definitive agreement and the consummation of a
transaction.

On May 13, 2013, David Flecker, a purported unitholder of Pioneer
Southwest, in connection with the Pioneer Southwest Merger
Proposal, filed a class action petition on behalf of Pioneer
Southwest's unitholders and a derivative lawsuit on behalf of
Pioneer Southwest against Pioneer, Pioneer Natural Resources USA,
Inc., the General Partner and the directors of the General
Partner, in the 134th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas.
A similar class action petition and derivative lawsuit was filed
against the same defendants on May 20, 2013, in the 160th Judicial
District of Dallas County, Texas, by purported unitholder Vipul
Patel.

The class action and derivative complaints allege, among other
things, that the consideration offered by Pioneer is unfair and
inadequate and that the defendants have breached their duties
under the Pioneer Southwest partnership agreement as well as the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are engaging
in self-dealing.  Specifically, the lawsuits allege that: (i) the
defendants are engaging in self-dealing, are not acting in good
faith toward Pioneer Southwest, and have breached and are
breaching their duties owed to Pioneer Southwest; (ii) the
defendants are failing to properly value Pioneer Southwest and its
various assets and operations and are ignoring or are not
protecting against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out
of the proposed transaction; (iii) the defendants breached the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a
flawed merger process and (iv) Pioneer, Pioneer Natural Resources
USA, Inc. and the General Partner have aided and abetted the
defendant directors named in the lawsuits for the purpose of
advancing their own interests.  Based on these allegations, the
plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the merger.  To the extent that the merger is
implemented before relief is granted, plaintiffs seek to have the
merger rescinded.  The plaintiffs also seek money damages and
attorneys' fees.  Pioneer has filed a motion to dismiss the
Flecker petition due to improper forum.

Pioneer says it cannot predict the outcome of these or any other
lawsuits that might be filed, nor can Pioneer predict the amount
of time and expense that will be required to resolve these
lawsuits.  Pioneer and the other defendants named in the lawsuits
intend to defend vigorously against these and any other actions.

Pioneer Natural Resources Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Irving, Texas.  The Company is a large
independent oil and gas exploration and production company
operating in the United States, with field operations in the
Permian Basin in West Texas, the Eagle Ford Shale play in South
Texas, the Barnett Shale Combo play in North Texas, the Raton
field in southeastern Colorado, the Hugoton field in southwest
Kansas, the West Panhandle field in the Texas Panhandle and in
Alaska.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Moves to Dismiss Suit Over Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss
an amended consolidated complaint in In re Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case
No. 11-md-02295, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 23, 2013.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling consumers' cellular
telephones without their prior express consent.  On December 21,
2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one
consolidated proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.

On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").  The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint.

On October 12, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, affirmed the decision of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California in the matter of
Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01008
("Meyer"), which imposed a preliminary injunction prohibiting the
Company from using its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place
calls to cellular telephones with California area codes that were
obtained through skip-tracing.  On December 28, 2012, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's
petition seeking a rehearing en banc.

Thereafter, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court on March 28, 2013. On May 13,
2013 the United States Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition.   Meyer is one of the cases included in the MDL action.
Both Meyer and the MDL action are ongoing and no final
determination on the merits in either has been made.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Continues to Defend MDL Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a consolidated lawsuit styled In re Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation,
according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling consumers' cellular
telephones without their prior express consent.  On December 21,
2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one
consolidated proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.  On November 14, 2012, the
putative class plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated
complaint in the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case
No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").  The Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On October 12, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, affirmed the decision of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California in the matter of
Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01008
("Meyer"), which imposed a preliminary injunction prohibiting the
Company from using its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place
calls to cellular telephones with California area codes that were
obtained through skip-tracing.  On December 28, 2012, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's
petition seeking a rehearing en banc.  Thereafter, the Company
filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court on March 28, 2013.  On May 13, 2013 the United
States Supreme Court denied the Company's petition.  Meyer is one
of the cases included in the MDL action.  Both Meyer and the MDL
action are ongoing and no final determination on the merits in
either has been made.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, is a financial and business
service company operating principally in the United States and the
United Kingdom.  One call center in the Philippines operates under
contract with the Company.  The Company's primary business is the
purchase, collection and management of portfolios of defaulted
consumer receivables.  The Company also services receivables on
behalf of clients and provides class action claims settlement
recovery services and related payment processing to corporate
clients.


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Suits by Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Properties of America, Inc., continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits brought by shareholders, according
to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In 2012, certain shareholders of the Company filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors, which are currently pending in the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of Illinois.  The lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Company's directors and officers
breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders and, as a
result, unjustly enriched the Company and the individual
defendants.  The lawsuits further allege that the breaches of
fiduciary duty led certain shareholders to acquire additional
stock and caused the shareholders to suffer a loss in share value,
all measured in some manner by reference to the Company's 2012
offering price when it listed its shares on the New York Stock
Exchange.  The lawsuits seek unspecified damages and other relief.
Based on its initial review of the complaints, the Company
believes the lawsuits to be without merit and intends to defend
the actions vigorously.  While the resolution of these matters
cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes, based on
currently available information, that the final outcomes of these
matters will not have a material effect on the financial
statements of the Company.

Based in Oak Brook, Illinois, Retail Properties of America, Inc.
was formed to acquire and manage a diversified portfolio of real
estate, primarily multi-tenant shopping centers.  The Company is a
fully-integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate
investment trust formed to own and operate high quality,
strategically located shopping centers.  The Company is one of the
largest owners and operators of shopping centers in the United
States.


SELECT FOOD: Recalls Certain Neal Brothers Salsa
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            Sept. 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Select Food Products Ltd.
Distribution:             National
CFIA reference number:    8294

Affected products: Neal Brothers Foods Organic Medium Salsa 500 ml


SEMPRA ENERGY: Awaits Decision in Suit Over 2011 Power Outage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy is awaiting a court decision on its subsidiary's
motion for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit arising
from the September 2011 Power Outage, according to the Company's
August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours
affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County,
California.  Within several days of the outage, several customers
of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), a wholly owned
company of Sempra Energy, filed a class action lawsuit in Federal
District Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service
Company, Pinnacle West, and SDG&E alleging that the companies
failed to prevent the outage.  The lawsuit seeks recovery of
unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages.  In
July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the
punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service
Company and Pinnacle West from the lawsuit.  SDG&E has filed a
motion for summary judgment seeking a determination by the court
that it has no liability for the damages sought in the lawsuit.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) conducted a joint inquiry
to determine the cause of the power failure and issued a report in
May 2012 regarding their findings.  The report does not make any
findings of failure on SDG&E's part that led to the power failure.
However, this report is not dispositive on any potential liability
of SDG&E related to the events of that power outage.

More than 7,000 customers' claims, primarily related to food
spoilage, have been submitted directly to SDG&E.

Sempra Energy is a San Diego, California-based Fortune 500 holding
company.  Sempra's principal operating units are San Diego Gas &
Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company, which are
separate, reportable segments; Sempra International, which
includes the Company's Sempra South American Utilities and Sempra
Mexico reportable segments; and Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, which
includes the Company's Sempra Renewables and Sempra Natural Gas
reportable segments.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Sup. Ct. Trial in Wildfire Suits Set for Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial has been set for September 26, 2014, in lawsuits over
wildfires involving San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), a
wholly owned company of Sempra Energy, according to the Company's
August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In October 2007, San Diego County experienced several catastrophic
wildfires.  Reports issued by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) concluded that two of
these fires (the Witch and Rice fires) were SDG&E "power line
caused" and that a third fire (the Guejito fire) occurred when a
wire securing a Cox Communications' (Cox) fiber optic cable came
into contact with an SDG&E power line "causing an arc and starting
the fire."  Cal Fire reported that the Rice fire burned
approximately 9,500 acres and damaged 206 homes and two commercial
properties, and the Witch and Guejito fires merged and eventually
burned approximately 198,000 acres, resulting in two fatalities,
approximately 40 firefighters injured and an estimated 1,141 homes
destroyed.

A September 2008 staff report issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division
reached substantially the same conclusions as the Cal Fire
reports, but also contended that the power lines involved in the
Witch and Rice fires and the lashing wire involved in the Guejito
fire were not properly designed, constructed and maintained.  In
April 2010, proceedings initiated by the CPUC to determine if any
of its rules were violated were settled with SDG&E's payment of
$14.75 million.

Numerous parties have sued SDG&E and Sempra Energy in San Diego
County Superior Court seeking recovery of unspecified amounts of
damages, including punitive damages, from the three fires.  These
include owners and insurers of properties that were destroyed or
damaged in the fires and government entities seeking recovery of
firefighting, emergency response, and environmental costs.  They
assert various bases for recovery, including inverse condemnation
based upon a California Court of Appeal decision finding that
another California investor-owned utility was subject to strict
liability, without regard to foreseeability or negligence, for
property damages resulting from a wildfire ignited by power lines.

In October 2010, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's
ruling that these claims must be pursued in individual lawsuits,
rather than as class actions on behalf of all persons who incurred
wildfire damages.  In February 2011, the California Supreme Court
denied a petition for review of the affirmance.  A trial has been
set for September 26, 2014.

SDG&E filed cross-complaints against Cox seeking indemnification
for any liability that SDG&E might incur in connection with the
Guejito fire, two SDG&E contractors seeking indemnification in
connection with the Witch fire, and one SDG&E contractor seeking
indemnification in connection with the Rice fire.  SDG&E settled
its claims against Cox and the three contractors for a total of
approximately $824 million.  Among other things, the settlement
agreements provide that SDG&E will defend and indemnify Cox and
the three contractors against all compensatory damage claims and
related costs arising out of the wildfires.

SDG&E has settled all of the approximately 19,000 claims brought
by homeowner insurers for damage to insured property relating to
the three fires.  Under the settlement agreements, SDG&E has paid
or will pay 57.5 percent of the approximately $1.6 billion paid or
reserved for payment by the insurers to their policyholders and
received an assignment of the insurers' claims against other
parties potentially responsible for the fires.

The wildfire litigation also includes claims of non-insurer
plaintiffs for damage to uninsured and underinsured structures,
business interruption, evacuation expenses, agricultural damage,
emotional harm, personal injuries and other losses.  SDG&E has
settled the claims of approximately 5,800 of these plaintiffs,
including all of the government entities.  Substantially all of
the approximately 350 remaining individual and business plaintiffs
have submitted settlement demands and damage estimates totaling
approximately $750 million.  SDG&E does not expect a significant
number of additional plaintiffs to file lawsuits given the
applicable statutes of limitation, but does expect to receive
additional settlement demands and damage estimates from existing
plaintiffs as settlement negotiations continue.  SDG&E has
established reserves for the wildfire litigation.

SDG&E's settled claims and defense costs have exceeded its $1.1
billion of liability insurance coverage for the covered period and
the $824 million recovered from third parties.  It expects that
its wildfire reserves and amounts paid to resolve wildfire claims
will continue to increase as it obtains additional information.

SDG&E has concluded that it is probable that it will be permitted
to recover in rates a substantial portion of its reasonably
incurred costs of resolving wildfire claims in excess of its
liability insurance coverage and the amounts recovered from third
parties.  Accordingly, although such recovery will require future
regulatory approval, at June 30, 2013, Sempra Energy and SDG&E
have recorded assets of $352 million in Regulatory Assets Arising
From Wildfire Litigation Costs on their Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets, including $320 million related to CPUC-regulated
operations, which represents the amount substantially equal to the
aggregate amount it has paid or reserved for payment for the
resolution of wildfire claims and related costs in excess of its
liability insurance coverage and amounts recovered from third
parties.  SDG&E will increase the regulatory assets if the
estimate of amounts to settle remaining claims increases.

SDG&E will continue to assess the probability of recovery of these
excess wildfire costs in rates.  Should SDG&E conclude that
recovery in rates is no longer probable, SDG&E will record a
charge against earnings at the time such conclusion is reached.
If SDG&E had concluded that the recovery of regulatory assets
related to CPUC-regulated operations was no longer probable or was
less than currently estimated at June 30, 2013, the resulting
after-tax charge against earnings would have been up to $190
million.  In addition, in periods following any such conclusion,
SDG&E's earnings will be adversely impacted by increases in the
estimated cost to litigate or settle pending wildfire claims.

SDG&E's cash flow may be materially adversely affected due to the
timing differences between the resolution of claims and the
recoveries in rates, which may extend over a number of years.
Also, recovery from customers will require future regulatory
actions, and a failure to obtain substantial or full recovery, or
any negative assessment of the likelihood of recovery, would
likely have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy's and
SDG&E's businesses, financial condition, cash flows, results of
operations and prospects.

SDG&E will continue to gather information to evaluate and assess
the remaining wildfire claims and the likelihood, amount and
timing of related recoveries in rates and will make appropriate
adjustments to wildfire reserves and the related regulatory assets
as additional information becomes available.

Since 2010, as liabilities for wildfire litigation have become
reasonably estimable in the form of settlement demands, damage
estimates, and other damage information, SDG&E has recorded
related reserves as a liability.  The impact of this liability at
June 30, 2013, is offset by the recognition of regulatory assets
for reserves in excess of the insurance coverage and recoveries
from third parties.  The adverse impact of the change in the
reserves on SDG&E's and Sempra Energy's after-tax earnings was $0
and $3.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2013, and
2012, respectively, and $0.3 million and $4.9 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2013, and 2012, respectively.  At June 30,
2013, wildfire litigation reserves were $214 million ($182 million
current and $32 million long-term).  Additionally, through
June 30, 2013, SDG&E has expended $241 million (cumulative,
excluding amounts covered by insurance and amounts recovered from
third parties) to pay for the settlement of wildfire claims and
related costs.

Sempra Energy is a San Diego, California-based Fortune 500 holding
company.  Sempra's principal operating units are San Diego Gas &
Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company, which are
separate, reportable segments; Sempra International, which
includes the Company's Sempra South American Utilities and Sempra
Mexico reportable segments; and Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, which
includes the Company's Sempra Renewables and Sempra Natural Gas
reportable segments.


SOUTHERN CO: Dismissal of Hurricane Katrina Suit May Be Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The decision upholding the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
related to Hurricane Katrina is subject to appeal, The Southern
Company said in its August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In 2005, immediately following Hurricane Katrina, a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi by Ned Comer on behalf of Mississippi residents
seeking recovery for property damage and personal injuries caused
by Hurricane Katrina.  In 2006, the plaintiffs amended the
complaint to include Southern Company and many other electric
utilities, oil companies, chemical companies, and coal producers.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants contributed to climate
change, which contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi dismissed the case.  On appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel reversed the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
holding that the case could proceed, but, on rehearing, the full
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs' appeal, resulting in reinstatement of the decision of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
in favor of the defendants.  In 2011, the plaintiffs filed an
amended version of their class action complaint, arguing that the
earlier dismissal was on procedural grounds and under Mississippi
law the plaintiffs have a right to re-file.  The amended complaint
was also filed against numerous chemical, coal, oil, and utility
companies, including Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Gulf Power Company and Southern Power Company.

On May 14, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
upheld the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi's March 2012 dismissal of the case.  The decision is
subject to appeal.

Each Southern Company entity named in the lawsuit believes that
these claims are without merit.  While each Southern Company
entity named in the lawsuit believes the likelihood of loss is
remote based on existing case law, it is not possible to predict
with certainty whether any Southern Company entity named in the
lawsuit will incur any liability in connection with this matter.
The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this
time.

Atlanta-based The Southern Company --
http://www.southerncompany.com/-- is an energy company serving
the Southeast.  A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern
Company businesses include electric utilities in four states and a
growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics
and wireless communications.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Accused of Not Paying All Wages in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Southwest Airlines Co. failed
to pay all wages and provide accurate pay stubs, a class claims.

The case is Mansfield v. Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 37-2013-
00064667-CU-OE-CTL, in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego.


SUNFLOWER GIFT: Recalls Monster Ball Yo-Yo Balls
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            Sept. 6, 2013
Posting date:             Sept. 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35425

Affected products: Monster Ball Yo-Yo Balls

The recall involves colorful yo-yo balls made of soft plastic.
The balls have a soft stretchy plastic body and a stretchable
plastic finger loop.  Each ball also has a monster face and 12
hard plastic drop shaped weighted hands of differing colors.  The
yo-yo balls are about the size of a softball and are sold in
various colors.  The body of the ball lights up with flashing
lights when bounced on a surface.

Yo-yo type balls and similar products are banned in Canada because
they present a hidden risk of strangulation to children.  Also,
the weighted hands on these balls can become detached, thereby
releasing small metallic beads which can pose choking and
aspiration hazards to children.

Health Canada has been made aware of one incident in Canada where
the weighted hands became detached from this product.  No injuries
were reported.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Toy Safety.

Approximately eight units were sold in Canada at Sunflower Gift
Shop, however they may have been sold at other retail shops across
Canada.

The affected products were sold in Canada from June 2013 to July
2013.

The place of manufacture is unknown.

Companies:

   Importer     Sunflower Gift Shop
                Summerside
                Prince Edward Island
                Canada

Consumers should cut off the stretchy cords from the affected toys
and dispose of the whole toy in regular household garbage.
Consumers may also return the product to Sunflower Gift Shop for a
full refund.


TAYLOR FARMS: Class Cert. Deadlines in "Pena" Suit Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In PENA v. TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., the plaintiffs filed an ex
parte motion for an order dissolving, or in the alternative
modifying, a March 13, 2013 order of the San Joaquin County
Superior Court regarding class certification deadlines.

District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller denied the Plaintiffs' motion
but extended the class certification deadlines contained in the
Order.

Judge Mueller further reaffirmed the magistrate judge's
July 29, 2013 order directing the parties in the case to meet and
confer. The court additionally ordered that:

1. The October 31, 2013 status conference is advanced to
   September 5, 2013, for which the parties were required to
   submit a joint status report no later than August 29, 2013; and

2. The deadline for plaintiffs to file their motion for class
   certification is provisionally extended to October 4, 2013.
   The Defendant's opposition is due November 4, 2013, and
   the Plaintiffs' reply is due November 11, 2013.  The hearing on
   the motion will be held on November 22, 2013. The parties may
   address the viability of this schedule at the September 5, 2013
   status conference.

The case is MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAYLOR
FARMS PACIFIC, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-01282-KJM-AC,
(E.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 15, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/yPBuTsfrom Leagle.com.

Maria del Carmen Pena, Plaintiff, represented by Philip A Downey
-- pfdowney@vorys.com -- at The Downey Law Firm, Llc, Eric Daniel
Rouen -- eric@rouenlaw.comcastbiz.net -- Kitty Kit Yee Szeto --
kszeto@rrexparris.com -- R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe
Chandler --    stuart@chandlerlaw.com -- at Law Office Of Stuart R.
Chandler.

Consuelo Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Daniel Rouen,
Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe
Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler.

Leticia Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Daniel Rouen, Kitty
Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law
Office Of Stuart R. Chandler.

Rosemary Dail, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Daniel Rouen, Kitty
Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law
Office Of Stuart R. Chandler.

Wendell T. Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Daniel Rouen,
Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe
Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler.

Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sarah
Zenewicz -- szenewicz@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
& Jesse Alvin Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher LLP.


TEMPUR SEALY: Faces Securities Lawsuits in E.D. Ky. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
On June 20 and 25, 2012, these suits were filed against Tempur
Sealy International, Inc. and two named executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders who
purchased the Company's stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5,
2012, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 23, 2013:

Benjamin B. Clarke, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard W. Roedel, John
B. Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Dean B. Nelson, Gary E. Morin, James
W. Johnson, Deborah G. Ellinger, Simon E. Brown, Sealy
Corporation, Tempur-Pedic International Inc. and Silver Lightning
Merger Company, filed October 2, 2012

Robert A. Justewicz, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Sealy Corporation, Lawrence J. Rogers, Paul
J. Norris, James W. Johnson, Simon E. Brown, Gary E. Morin, Dean
B. Nelson, Richard W. Roedel, Deborah G. Ellinger, John B.
Replogle, Silver Lightning Merger Company and Tempur-Pedic
International Inc., filed Oct. 3, 2012

Deno Singh, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard W. Roedel, John B. Replogle, Paul
J. Norris, Dean B. Nelson, Gary E. Morin, James W. Johnston,
Deborah G. Ellinger, Simon E. Brown, Sealy Corporation, Tempur-
Pedic International Inc. and Silver Lightning Merger Company,
filed October 15, 2012

Jay M. Plourde, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Sealy Corporation, Lawrence J. Rogers, Paul Norris,
James W. Johnston, Simon E. Brown, Gary E. Morin, Dean B. Nelson,
Richard Roedel, Deborah G. Ellinger, John B. Replogel, Tempur-
Pedic International Inc., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. and
Silver Lightning Merger Company, filed October 15, 2012

Keith Gamble, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard W. Roedel, John B.
Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Dean B. Nelson, Gary E. Morin, James W.
Johnston, Deborah G. Ellinger, Simon E. Brown, Sealy Corporation,
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. and Silver Lightning Merger
Company, filed October 16, 2012

Curtis Nall, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated Shareholders of Sealy Corporation v. Lawrence C. Rogers,
James W. Johnston, Simon E. Brown, Gary E. Morin, Dean B. Nelson,
Richard Roedel, Deborah G. Ellinger, John B. Replogle, Paul J.
Norris, Sealy Corporation, Tempur-Pedic International Inc., KKR
Millennium GP LLC, KKR & Co. L.P., and Silver Lightning Merger
Company, filed October 17, 2012

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging, among other things,
false and misleading statements and concealment of material
information concerning the Company's competitive position,
projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related
financial performance for the Company's 2012 fiscal year. The
plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees, expert
fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.

The Company strongly believes that the shareholder suits lack
merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The
outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although the
Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect to
these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner and
timing of the resolution of the suits, an estimate of a range of
losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an
adverse verdict in these suits, or whether the Company's
applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for
these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.


TEMPUR SEALY: Continues to Face Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. is aware of six purported class
action lawsuits relating to the Merger with Sealy Corporation, one
in North Carolina state court and five in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, filed by purported stockholders of Sealy against Sealy,
Sealy's directors, the Company and Silver Lightning Merger
Company, a subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger Sub"), according
to Tempur Sealy International, Inc.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 23, 2013.

Justewicz v. Sealy Corp., et al. ("North Carolina Action") was
filed on October 3, 2012, in the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division in North Carolina ("North Carolina
Court").

On November 13, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
all five Delaware actions into a single action, which is now
styled as In re Sealy Corporation Shareholder Litigation
("Delaware Action").

Plaintiff in the North Carolina Action and plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action alleged, among other things, that the defendants
had breached their fiduciary duties to Sealy's stockholders and
that Sealy, the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Sealy
directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The complaints also claimed that the consideration to be paid in
the Merger to Sealy stockholders (the "Merger Consideration") was
inadequate, that the Merger Agreement contained unfair deal
protection provisions, that Sealy's directors were subject to
conflicts of interests, and that the preliminary information
statement filed by Sealy with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2012 omitted material information
concerning the negotiation process leading to the proposed
transaction and the valuation of Sealy.


TETLEY USA: Court Dismisses Mislabeling Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila issued an order granting a motion
to dismiss the case captioned DARYL DE KECZER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TETLEY USA,
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-02409 EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

Daryl De Keczer filed the putative class action captioned alleging
that labeling on several of the Defendant's food products and
corresponding statements on the Defendant's Web sites amount to
misbranding and deception in violation of California and federal
laws and regulations.

Judge Davila held that the Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims
predicated on violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are dismissed with prejudice.
The remaining of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without
prejudice.

The Court, however, leaves the door open for the Plaintiff to
further amend her complaint within 15 days of the date of the
Order.

Because the Amended Complaint is presently dismissed in its
entirety, the Court declined to set a case management schedule at
this time. However, the Court said it will address scheduling
issues as raised by the parties should it become necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Zr5bL3from Leagle.com.

Daryl De Keczer, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore --
pgore@prattattorneys.com -- at Pratt & Associates, and

   J. Price Coleman, Esq.
   Coleman Law Firm
   1100 Tyler Avenue, Suite 102
   Oxford, Mississippi
   (Lafayette Co.)

Tetley USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Peter R Knight --
pknight@rc.com -- at Robinson & Cole LLP, Philip A. Leider --
pleider@chapop.com -- at BraunHagey & Borden LLP & Ronald W.
Zdrojeski -- ron.zdrojeski@sutherland.com -- at Robinson & Cole
LLP.


TREX COMPANY: Awaits Prelim. OK of Deal in Defective Product Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. is awaiting preliminary approval of its
settlement of a lawsuit in California alleging its products were
defective, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms (the "Lieff Cabraser
Group") on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly
situated plaintiffs.  These plaintiffs generally allege certain
defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed
to provide adequate remedies for defective products.  On
February 13, 2009, the Company removed this case to the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.  On
January 21, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP ("Hagens Berman") on behalf of Mark Okano and
similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product
defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed
to provide adequate remedies for defective products.  This case
was transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as
a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on
March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
Hagens Berman has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint.  In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated these pending actions
relating to the mold claims, and appointed Hagens Berman as lead
counsel in this case.  On December 3, 2010, Hagens Berman filed an
amended consolidated complaint in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California relating to the mold growth
claims (now on behalf of Dean Mahan and other named plaintiffs).

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by Cohen & Malad, LLP ("Cohen & Malad") on
behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs in
Kentucky, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was
commenced against the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court
of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and
similarly situated plaintiffs in Indiana.  On June 28, 2011, the
Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States District
Court, Southern District of Indiana.  On August 11, 2011, a
purported class action was commenced against the Company in the
50th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa, Michigan on behalf
of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated plaintiffs in
Michigan.  On August 26, 2011, the Company removed the Peffers
case to the United States District Court, Western District of
Michigan.  On April 4, 2012, a purported class action was
commenced against the Company in Superior Court of New Jersey,
Essex County by the lead law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody (the
"Stull Group") on behalf of Caryn Borger, M.D. and similarly
situated plaintiffs in New Jersey.  On May 1, 2012, the Company
removed the Borger case to the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey.  The plaintiffs in these purported class
actions generally allege certain defects in the Company's products
and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.

On April 5, 2013, the Company signed a settlement agreement with
Hagens Berman that would settle the case pending in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California on a
nationwide basis, and the parties filed for preliminary approval
of such settlement (the "nationwide settlement").  The material
terms of the nationwide settlement as set forth in the settlement
agreement (and as modified) are:

   * Trex will make a one-time cash payment or the opportunity to
     receive other relief, including a rebate certificate on its
     newer-generation shelled product (Trex Transcend(R) and Trex
     Enhance(R)).  This relief would be available for any
     consumer whose first-generation composite decking product
     has a certain defined level of mold growth, color fading or
     color variation.

   * Trex agreed to discontinue the manufacture of non-shelled
     products (Trex Accents(R)) by December 31, 2013.

   * Trex agreed to provide a video demonstrating cleaning
     instructions for non-shelled products on its Web site, and
     to distribute warranty pads to retailers.

   * The cost to Trex will be capped at $8.25 million plus $1.45
     million in attorneys' fees to be paid to the Plaintiffs'
     counsel upon final approval of the nationwide settlement by
     the Court.

The settlement agreement provides that the nationwide settlement
would apply to any Trex first-generation non-shelled composite
decking product purchased between August 1, 2004, and the date of
preliminary approval of the nationwide settlement.

On April 19, 2013, Cohen & Malad and the Stull Group filed
respective briefs with the Court objecting to the nationwide
settlement.  On May 28, 2013, the Court filed an Order requesting
the parties to address certain issues raised by the Court with the
proposed nationwide settlement.  On June 14, 2013, the Company and
Hagens Berman filed a joint brief with the Court agreeing to
certain modifications of the settlement agreement to address the
Court's Order.  The hearing for preliminary approval of the
nationwide settlement was scheduled for August 23, 2013.  The
nationwide settlement is not final until the Court approves the
settlement agreement.  Although the Company agreed with Hagens
Berman to modify the settlement agreement, the Court may, in its
sole discretion, determine not to accept the nationwide
settlement.  If the Court does not approve the nationwide
settlement, the settlement agreement will not be binding on the
parties.

The Company denies all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged.  However, the Company is aware of the substantial
burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation, and agreed to settle the litigation to avoid these.
As of June 30, 2013, the Company has accrued a $3.4 million
liability related to this litigation.  It is reasonably possible
that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded
amounts; however, the Company expects that the total net cost to
resolve the lawsuit will not exceed approximately $10 million.

The Company has other lawsuits, as well as other claims, pending
against it which are ordinary routine litigation and claims
incidental to the business.  Management has evaluated the merits
of these other lawsuits and claims, and believes that their
ultimate resolution will not have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations,
liquidity or competitive position.

Trex Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of wood-alternative decking
and railing products, which are marketed under the brand name
Trex(R).  The Company is incorporated in Delaware.  The principal
executive offices are located at 160 Exeter Drive, Winchester,
Virginia 22603.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: "Hawthorne" Suit vs. Bank Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
On December 29, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California-San Francisco Division (case no.
11-6700), Amber Hawthorne filed a class action lawsuit against
Umpqua Bank, a subsidiary of Umpqua Holdings Corporation, on
behalf of herself and a national class, including a sub-class of
California residents seeking in excess of $5 million, plus
punitive damages, alleging that Umpqua Bank engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices by posting debit items in a high to low order
to maximize overdraft fees, automatically enrolling customers in
debit Overdraft Protection ("ODP") programs before the Regulation
E revisions, failing to adequately disclose posting order,
manipulating posting to maximize ODP fees and failing to advise
customers how to minimize fees.  The Plaintiff alleges claims for
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a
violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200 (for the
California subclass).

There have been no material developments in the case since it was
filed, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation based in
Portland, is a financial holding company with two principal
operating subsidiaries: Umpqua Bank and Umpqua Investments, Inc.
The Bank provides a wide range of banking, wealth management,
mortgage and other financial services to corporate, institutional
and individual customers.  Umpqua Investments is a registered
broker-dealer and investment advisor with offices in Portland,
Lake Oswego, and Medford, Oregon, and Santa Rosa, California, and
also offers products and services through certain Bank stores.


UNION PACIFIC: Rail Antitrust Suit Won't Lose Latham & Watkins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Dan McCue reports that in the
federal antitrust lawsuit concerning freight rates charged by the
nation's Class 1 railroads, a federal judge found that Latham &
Watkins is conflict-free.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman looked Tuesday, September 3,
2013, at the consolidated action involving purchasers of rate-
unregulated rail freight who claim that the railways illegally
conspired to impose supracompetitive rates through the uniform
application of the rate-based fuel surcharge.

Though Friedman had previously certified a class of approximately
30,000 shippers, the D.C. Circuit vacated that certification
earlier this summer in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that
tightened class-certification requirements.

Latham & Watkins had helped Union Pacific Railroad with the class
certification appeal and then became more deeply involved in
representing Union Pacific in the multidistrict litigation.

It did so only after checking for a conflict of interest, and it
later refused to defend Union Pacific in a related case initiated
by another of its corporate clients, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals last
summer.

Latham had enjoyed longstanding relationships with both parties,
handling at least 32 separate matters for Union Pacific since
1997, and at least 23 separate matters for Oxbow and its
subsidiaries since 2004.

The previously certified class in the multidistrict litigation
would likely have involved Oxbow, but the mining company had
strategically filed the related lawsuit in 2011 on its own.

Oxbow only learned of Latham's representation of Union Pacific in
the multidistrict litigation when the firm entered an appearance
in October 2012.

It quickly terminated its relationship with Latham and continued
to press its former counsel to withdraw.

Although the parties agree that none of the work Latham did
previously for either Oxbow or Union Pacific involved their
relationship or Oxbow's domestic rail freight needs, "Oxbow
asserts that Latham had access to a wide range of confidential
documents, including documents relating to Oxbow's purchases of
rail transportation services," Judge Friedman explained.

When it failed to make the firm withdraw voluntarily, Oxbow filed
the current motion arguing Latham violated Washington, D.C.'s
Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit a firm from
representing a client that "takes a position in a matter that is
adverse to the position taken by another current firm client in
the same matter."

Latham replied that the rule only restricts a firm from
representing a client taking an adverse position to another
current firm client where both are parties in the same case.  It
argued that there is some question of that here as the antitrust
litigation actually involves multiple lawsuits, and Oxbow's
membership in the putative class has yet to be definitively
determined.

Judge Friedman refused to disqualify the firm Tuesday,
September 3, 2013, noting that Oxbow had distinctly decided to
stand alone in challenging the railroads, despite the similarity
of its claims to those of the plaintiffs in the multidistrict
litigation.

"While Latham's defense of UP in the MDL may involve the
development of arguments or the taking of positions that
ultimately establish negative precedent for Oxbow in the related
case, the MDL and the related case nevertheless constitute
distinct matters for the purposes of D.C. Rule 1.7(b)(1)," he
wrote.

It is also important to note that Oxbow is not an actual party to
the MDL.

"Neither party has cited, nor has this court found, any case
addressing a motion made by an unnamed member of the plaintiff
class to disqualify defense counsel in a class action case,"
Friedman wrote.  "After careful consideration, the court concludes
that the general rule that unnamed class members are not firm
clients for conflicts purposes applies to Latham's representation
of UP in the NDL."

He added: "While unnamed class members may create a conflict of
interest in atypical situations, this is not one of those
situations."

"The court recognizes that there may be situations in which a law
firm's attorney client relationship with an unnamed class member
may create a conflict that would prevent that firm from
representing a named defendant," the decision also states.  "Such
a situation might occur where the law firm's relationship with the
class member is so substantial that it raises questions about the
firm's ability to zealously represent the defendant, or where
there is a risk that the class member's confidential information
could be used by the firm in preparing the defendant's legal
strategy.  But such circumstances are not present here."

The case is In Re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. MDL No. 1869, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia.


USEC INC: 6th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Employees' Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in July
2013 the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by former
plant employees, according to USEC Inc.'s August 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, against USEC by a former Portsmouth gaseous diffusion
plant ("GDP") employee claiming that USEC owes severance benefits
to him and other similarly situated employees that have
transitioned or will transition to the U.S. Department of Energy
("DOE") decontamination and decommissioning ("D&D") contractor.
The plaintiff amended its complaint on August 31, 2011, and
February 10, 2012, among other things, to limit the purported
class of similarly situated employees to salaried employees at the
Portsmouth site who transitioned to the D&D contractor and are
allegedly eligible for or owed benefits.  On October 11, 2012, the
United States District Court granted USEC's motion to dismiss the
complaint and dismissed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
as moot.  The Plaintiffs filed an appeal on January 18, 2013, and
on July 19, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
upheld the District Court decision and dismissed the Plaintiffs'
appeal.  The Plaintiffs have ninety days to seek review of the
decision by the United States Supreme Court by filing a writ of
certiorari.  USEC has not accrued any amounts for this matter.

USEC Inc. -- http://www.usec.com/-- a global energy company, is a
supplier of low enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power
plants.  The Company is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Alter in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to alter judgment in connection with the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Wright has completed the mergers contemplated by the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of November 19, 2012, by and among
BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc., Wright, and Wright's wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Achilles Merger Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), and
Achilles Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC ("Sister Subsidiary" and
together with Merger Sub, the "Merger Subsidiaries").  Pursuant to
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, Merger Sub merged with and into
BioMimetic followed by BioMimetic merging with and into Sister
Subsidiary, with Sister Subsidiary continuing as the final
surviving entity and changing its name to BioMimetic Therapeutics,
LLC.  As a result of these transactions, BioMimetic Therapeutics,
LLC became Wright's wholly-owned subsidiary.

In July 2011, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
(the "Securities Litigation") was filed in the United States
District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, against BioMimetic
and certain of its officers on behalf of certain purchasers of its
common stock.  The complaint alleged that BioMimetic and certain
of its officers violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business,
operations, management, future business prospects and the
intrinsic value of its common stock, the safety and efficacy of
Augment, its prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") approval and inadequacies in Augment's clinical trials.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In January 2013, the United States District Court, Middle District
of Tennessee, granted BioMimetic's, and the other named
defendants', motion to dismiss a federal securities purported
class action lawsuit without leave to amend the complaint.  The
plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter Judgment or Amend Order and
Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, seeking reconsideration of
the Court's decision and BioMimetic filed a response opposing that
motion.  The Court has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' motion.

Wright Medical Group, Inc., -- http://www.wmt.com/-- through
Wright Medical Technology, Inc. and other operating subsidiaries,
is a global orthopaedic medical device company specializing in the
design, manufacture and marketing of devices and biologic products
for extremity, hip and knee repair and reconstruction.  The
Arlington, Tennessee-based Company is a provider of surgical
solutions for the foot and ankle market.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Various Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation continues to defend itself against various
class action lawsuits, according to the Company's August 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is subject to litigation in court and arbitral
proceedings, as well as proceedings, investigations, examinations
and other actions brought or considered by governmental and self-
regulatory agencies.  At any given time, litigation may relate to
lending, deposit and other customer relationships, vendor and
contractual issues, employee matters, intellectual property
matters, personal injuries and torts, regulatory and legal
compliance, and other matters.  While most matters relate to
individual claims, the Company is also subject to putative class
action claims and similar broader claims.  Current putative class
actions and similar claims include:

   * a complaint relating to allegedly wrongful acts in the
     Company's processing of overdraft fees on debit card
     transactions in which the plaintiffs seek monetary awards on
     the basis of various common law claims, Barlow, et al. v.
     Zions First National Bank and Zions Bancorporation, pending
     in the United States District Court for the District of
     Utah;

   * a complaint relating to the Company's banking relationships
     with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful
     telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff seeks a
     trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v.
     Zions First National Bank, et al., pending in the United
     States District Court for the Eastern District of
     Pennsylvania; and

   * a complaint arising from the Company's banking relationships
     with Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds
     controlled by him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which
     the liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an award from
     the Company, on the basis of aiding and abetting liability,
     for monetary damages suffered by victims of a fraud
     allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian
     Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as
     Liquidating Trustee, et al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and
     The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., pending in the United
     States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
     Washington.

In the second quarter of 2013, the parties to the Barlow case
reached an agreement in principle to settle, which covers all of
the Company's affiliates alleged to have engaged in wrongful
processing.  The amount of the settlement is reflected in the
Company's accruals for legal losses as of June 30, 2013.  The
settlement is subject to definitive documentation and court
approval.  Another overdraft case, Sadlier, et al. v. National
Bank of Arizona, brought in the Superior Court for the State of
Arizona, County of Maricopa, was dismissed with prejudice in the
second quarter of 2013.

Discovery has been completed in the Reyes case, but has not
commenced in the Meridian Funds case.  Motions for and against
class certification have been made in the Reyes case, but the
court has not yet ruled on the issue.

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Zions Bancorporation
provides a full range of banking and related services through
subsidiary banks in ten Western and Southwestern states as
follows: Zions First National Bank ("Zions Bank"), in Utah and
Idaho; California Bank & Trust ("CB&T"); Amegy Corporation
("Amegy") and its subsidiary, Amegy Bank, in Texas; National Bank
of Arizona ("NBAZ"); Nevada State Bank ("NSB"); Vectra Bank
Colorado ("Vectra"), in Colorado and New Mexico; The Commerce Bank
of Washington ("TCBW"); and The Commerce Bank of Oregon ("TCBO").
The Parent and its subsidiary banks also own and operate certain
nonbank subsidiaries that engage in financial services.


                             *********

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  * * *