CAR_Public/131009.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 200

                             Headlines


ACXIOM CORP: Continues to Defend "Henderson" Suit in Virginia
AETNA LIFE: Cert. Bid in Mental Health Care Coverage Suit Denied
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Product Liability Suit Deal Now Effective
AURORA LOAN: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Alleging False Hope
AXA EQUITABLE: Defends Consolidated Suit Alleging Excessive Fees

BENTLEY MOTORS: 43 Continental Model Cars Recalled in Canada
BLUE DIAMOND: Loses Bid to Dismisses "All Natural" Class Action
BP PLC: 5th Cir. Orders New Orleans Court to Look Into Class Suit
CANADA: Gov't to Appeal Veterans' Class Action Ruling
CONCORD MANAGEMENT: Dec. 9 Status Conference Set for Class Action

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery in Suit Over Royalties Ongoing
COVENTRY HEALTH: Settles ERISA Class Action for $3.6 Million
CRIMSON EXPLORATION: Defends Merger-Related Class Action Suits
D.F. STAUFFER: Recalls Market Pantry Animal Cookies
DELTA PETROLEUM: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action

DIRECT PLUS: Recalls Certain Grimm's Fine Foods Pizza Pack
ELMWOOD PLACE, OH: Class Status Sought for Speeding Ticket Suit
EQT PRODUCTION: Judge Certifies Five Gas Royalties Class Actions
FLORIDA GAMING: Awaits Dismissal of Suit Over Silvermark Deal
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 900 C-MAX and FOCUS Model Cars

HARRIS MEDICAL: Insurer's Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
ILLINOIS: Supreme Court Picked Up Suit Over Union Issue
IMH FINANCIAL: Court Approves Accord in Fund Unitholders' Suit
INCAN GLOBAL: Recalls Certain Nirapara Chutney Powder
INVESTORS TITLE: "Backel" Suit Remains Pending in West Virginia

JP MORGAN: FPI Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
KELLOGG CANADA: Recalls Certain Pringles Salt & Vinegar Chips
KRAFT CANADA: Recalls Shake'n Bake Cajun Coating Mix
LAMBORGHINI: 51 Cars Recalled in Canada
LEGZ CLUBS: Judge OKs Settlement in Exotic Dancers' Class Action

LIBERTY CREDIT: Arbitration Ruling in "Yonker" Suit Overturned
MADISON SQUARE: Antitrust Suit v. NHL Now in Discovery Phase
MERSCORP INC: Ala. High Court Denies Writ of Mandamus Petitions
MINNESOTA: Counties Settle Driver Data-Snooping Suit for $2-Mil.
NESTLE PURINA: Dog Treats Suit Junked; May Be Amended by Oct. 21

NEW FLYER: 17 XD40 Model Buses Recalled in Canada
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Final Order in Product Defect Suit on Appeal
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Appeal Hearing in Stock Suit Yet to be Set
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Class Action
ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCE: Recalls Bell Peppers Over Salmonella

PARAGON FAMILY: Faces Second Class Action Over FLSA Violations
PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Pays Settlement in Niederklein Lawsuit
RAYMOND JAMES: Defends Suit Over Municipal Bonds vs. MK & Co.
RAYMOND JAMES: Merger-Related Suit Settlement Approved in August
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Cheesy Macaroni Salad Over Listeria Fears

SAMAN BAKERY: Recalls Crackers Over Undeclared Egg Content
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Del. and Ill.
SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Suits by Former Employees
ST. JOE CO: Time to Seek Writ of Certiorari Expired in July
SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid for Writ of Certiorari Filed in ATM Fee Suit

SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Captive Reinsurance Suit Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Mutual Funds Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend Lehman-Related Suits vs. STRH
SUNTRUST BANKS: Plea to Certify in Overdraft Fee Suit Pending

SUNTRUST BANKS: Suit Alleging ERISA Violations Remains Pending
T&T SUPERMARKET: Recalls Sanritsu Products Over Allergens
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
TOTAL SYSTEM: Has Yet to File Merger-Related Suits Settlement
TREX COMPANY: Wins Approval of Settlement in Product Defect Suit

TRUNKBOW INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Lawsuits by Shareholders
TURKEY HILL: Recalls Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup Premium Ice Cream
TYSON FOODS: Ordered to Pay Nearly $5-Mil. in Class Action
UNITED STATES: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Gary" Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Dismissal Bid in "Bagnall" Case

VERMONT COUNTRY: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
WARNER CHILCOTT: Inks MOU in Suit Over Acquisition by Actavis
WATTS WATER: Suit Over Faulty Toilet Connectors Remains Pending


                             *********


ACXIOM CORP: Continues to Defend "Henderson" Suit in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit titled Henderson, et al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation,
Inc., et al., according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 16, 2012, a putative class action styled Henderson, et
al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems, a former
subsidiary of the Company that was sold to another company in
fiscal 2012, and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., a Colorado
corporation and subsidiary of the Company.  The action seeks to
certify nationwide classes of persons who requested a consumer
file from any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were the
subject of an Acxiom report sold to a third party that contained
information not obtained directly from a governmental entity and
who did not receive a timely copy of the report; who were subject
of an Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no
hire decision on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010 forward,
disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the
investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007 forward,  were
subject to an Acxiom report for which no permissible purpose
existed.  The complaint alleges various violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified
amount of statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.  The Company says it intends to vigorously dispute
the allegations.


AETNA LIFE: Cert. Bid in Mental Health Care Coverage Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge has denied class certification to the
plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging Aetna Life Insurance Company
stiffed policy holders seeking coverage for their children's
mental health care.

The suit was filed by the parents of adolescents who were
receiving care for various mental health conditions sought care at
residential treatment centers (RTCs); the plaintiffs, all
participants in ERISA programs, filed claims with Aetna to help
cover the cost.

The company, however, denied coverage based on its Level of Care
Assessment Tool, or LOCAT, which consists of a one-page scoring
form and a 10-page instruction manual described as "Guidelines,"
explained U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in his order.  The
LOCAT is used as a tool to help determine if patients received
"medically necessary" care.

The plaintiffs argue Aetna did not correctly tabulate LOCAT scores
in deciding whether to grant coverage to families.  They are suing
for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
for declaratory and injunctive relief, but have most recently made
a motion for certification of two putative subclasses under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

The first class consists of Aetna participants and beneficiaries
who, "had Aetna filled in the scoring form as required, would have
qualified for reimbursement for inpatient residential treatment,"
Conti said in his review of the case.

The second class consists of individuals whose scoring forms
contained blank dimensions, which made the difference between
reimbursement or non-reimbursement, according to the plaintiffs.

Conti denied class certification for both subclasses, noting that
claims are based on medically necessary determinations unique to
each class member, which fails to establish commonality as
required by law to qualify as a class.

"To determine whether a particular class member is eligible for
RTC care, or any other level of care, the court would need to
review medical records and other information specific to that
member," Conti explained.  "Such individualized, claim-specific
inquiries are not amenable to class-wide resolutions."

He added that medically necessary determinations are not based on
LOCAT scores alone, a fact underscored by an Aetna witness who
said LOCAT scores "do not replace clinical judgment."

"Plaintiffs contend that Dr. Friedlander has testified that LOCAT
is the only criteria Aetna uses to make medical necessity
determinations . . . However, Dr. Friedlander also testified that
LOCAT was used 'as a guideline in addition to clinical judgment,'"
Conti said.  "In fact, during his deposition, Dr. Friedlander
stressed the importance of clinical judgment more than once."

In the end, Conti said, Aetna could refuse coverage despite LOCAT
scores.

"Even if the court were to agree with plaintiff's proposed method
of tabulating LOCAT scores, and even if this method resulted in
higher LOCAT scores for some of Aetna's members, Aetna could still
refuse to provide those members with coverage on medical necessity
grounds," he said.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian S. King, Esq.
          BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          336 South 300 East, Suite 200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1739
          Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
          E-mail: brian@briansking.com

               - and -

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 678-5050
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Wing, Esq.
          Sally McMinimee, Esq.
          PRINCE YEATES AND GELDZAHLER
          15 West South Temple, Suite 1700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 524-1000
          Facsimile: (801) 524-1098
          E-mail: rgw@princeyeates.com
                  sbm@princeyeates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard Joseph Doren, Esq.
          Heather Lynn Richardson, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN CRUTCHER LLP
          333 S Grand Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7038
          Facsimile: (213) 629-7038
          E-mail: rdoren@gibsondunn.com
                  HRichardson@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey M. Sigler, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          E-mail: GSigler@gibsondunn.com

The case is F., et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No.
3:12-cv-02819-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).


ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Product Liability Suit Deal Now Effective
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Materials, LLC's settlement of a consolidated class
action lawsuit asserting product liability claims became effective
in September 2013, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

On September 20, 2010, the Company and its subsidiary, Gentek
Buildings Products, Inc. ("Gentek"), were named as defendants in
an action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, captioned Donald Eliason, et al. v.
Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al (the "Eliason complaint").
The complaint was filed by a number of individual plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class of owners of
steel and aluminum siding products manufactured by the Company and
Gentek or their predecessors.  The plaintiffs assert a breach of
express and implied warranty, along with related causes of action,
claiming that an unspecified defect in the siding causes paint to
peel off the metal and that the Company and Gentek have failed
adequately to honor their warranty obligations to repair, replace
or refinish the defective siding.  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual and punitive damages, restitution of monies paid to the
defendants and an injunction against the claimed unlawful
practices, together with attorneys' fees, costs and interest.
Since such time that the Eliason complaint was filed, seven
additional putative class actions have been filed.

On September 6, 2012, the Court issued an order granting
defendants' request for consolidation of all cases under a single
caption, proceeding on a single track.  The Court also ordered
plaintiffs to file their single consolidated amended complaint by
September 19, 2012, which plaintiffs did.

On February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement") with the named
plaintiffs.  The Settlement was preliminarily approved by the
Court on March 5, 2013.  On August 1, 2013, following a fairness
hearing the Court issued a final judgment and order approving the
Settlement ("Final Judgment and Order").  The Settlement became
effective on September 2, 2013, when the time period for appealing
the Final Judgment and Order ends.

The Settlement provides for the certification of a class for
settlement purposes only of commercial and residential property
owners who purchased steel siding manufactured and warranted by
the Company during the period January 1, 1991, to the date on
which notice of the proposed Settlement is first sent to
settlement class members and whose siding allegedly experienced
"Steel Peel," which is characterized for the purposes of
settlement by the separation of any layer of the finish on the
steel siding from the steel siding itself.  Subject to the terms
and conditions of the Settlement, the Company has agreed that (1)
the first time an eligible settlement class member submits a valid
Steel Peel warranty claim for siding, the Company will, at its
option, repair or replace the siding or, at such class member's
option, make a cash settlement payment to such class member equal
to the cost to the Company of the repair or replacement option
selected by the Company; (2) the second time such class member
submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for the same siding, the
same options will be available; and (3) the third time such a
claim is submitted, such class member may elect to have the
Company either refinish or replace the siding or may elect to
receive a one-time $8,000 payment.  If the $8,000 payment option
is chosen, the Company will have no further obligation to such
class member in connection with the warranty.

Under the Settlement, the Company has agreed to pay the sum of
$2.5 million to compensate class counsel for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses incurred and to be incurred in connection with
the lawsuit.  The Company also paid $0.6 million associated with
executing the notice provisions of the Settlement.  The Company
expects to incur additional warranty costs associated with the
Settlement, however, the Company does not believe the incremental
costs, which currently cannot be estimated for recognition
purposes, will be material.

The Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability,
culpability, negligence or wrongdoing on the Company's part, and
the Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims asserted.
Upon final approval by the court, the Settlement will release all
claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company
in the lawsuit or that relate to any aspect of the subject matter
of the lawsuit.

Associated Materials, LLC -- http://www.associatedmaterials.com/
-- is a vertically integrated manufacturer and distributor of
exterior residential building products in the United States and
Canada.  The Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio-based Company produces a
comprehensive offering of exterior building products, including
vinyl windows, vinyl siding, aluminum trim coil and aluminum and
steel siding and accessories, which the Company produces at its 11
manufacturing facilities.


AURORA LOAN: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Alleging False Hope
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge rejected loan servicer Aurora's motion to dismiss a class
action claiming it gives home owners in mortgage trouble false
hope, ordering both parties into settlement talks.

Mauder and Alice Chao, Deogenoso and Glorina Palugod, and Maritza
Pinel sued Aurora Loan Service in 2011, saying they were offered
"workout agreements" that gave them the opportunity to cure their
defaults while adhering to a monthly payment plan.  They claimed
they were actually misled into believing that they could avoid
foreclosure and get their mortgage loans modified by adhering to
the plan, but the payments under the workout agreements were too
small to satisfy the money they owed and left them vulnerable to
foreclosure.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown noted that in their amended
complaint, the five homeowners' claims remain essentially the
same.

"The new allegations that Aurora did not, and indeed, could not,
process a loan modification request during the term of the Workout
Agreement merely provide further factual support for the general
proposition that Aurora did not allow nor did it have any
intention of allowing plaintiffs to cure their defaults," she
wrote.  "From plaintiffs' perspective, the bottom line is that
Aurora did not provide a loan modification -- or any other workout
option for borrowers to avoid foreclosure.  Since the gravamen of
plaintiffs' claims remains unchanged, the court finds that the
underlying premise of Aurora's current motion to dismiss and
strike is without merit."

While the homeowners can continue to pursue their case, Armstrong
declined to entertain their motion for class certification,
writing, "Before the court entertains such motion, which will
require the further expenditure of judicial resources, the parties
shall first make a good faith effort to resolve their dispute
without the need for additional judicial intervention."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ali Abtahi, Esq.
          Idene Saam, Esq.
          ABTAHI LAW FIRM
          1012 Torney Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 639-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 639-9801
          E-mail: aabtahi@abtahilaw.com
                  isaam@abtahilaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Michael Oldham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW OLDHAM
          901 Campisi Way, Suite 248
          Campbell, CA 95008
          Telephone: (888) 842-4930
          E-mail: aoldham@landcounsel.com

               - and -

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas Eric Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
          RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
          E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David B. Bergman, Esq.
          Ian S. Hoffman, Esq.
          Stephen Keith Marsh, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: David.Bergman@aporter.com
                  ian.hoffman@aporter.com
                  stephen.marsh@aporter.com

               - and -

          Tiffany M. Ikeda, Esq.
          ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: tiffany.ikeda@aporter.com

The case is Pinel, et al. v. Aurora Loan Services LLC, Case No.
4:10-cv-03118-SBA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Oakland).


AXA EQUITABLE: Defends Consolidated Suit Alleging Excessive Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is defending a consolidated
class action lawsuit over alleged excessive fees paid for
investment management services, according to the Company's
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the
District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("FMG LLC") ("Sivolella Litigation").  The
lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds.  The
lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Company Act"),
for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for
investment management services.  In November 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, adding claims under Sections 47(b) and
26(f) of the Investment Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust
enrichment.  In addition, the plaintiff purports to file the
lawsuit as a class action in addition to a derivative action.  In
the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged
overpayments, rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees
paid, interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses
and reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable.
In December 2011, AXA Equitable and FMG LLC filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  In May 2012, the Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed her claim under Section 26(f) seeking
restitution and rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940 Act.
In September 2012, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as it related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the
defendants' motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim.

In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et
al. v. FMG LLC ("Sanford Litigation").  The lawsuit was filed
derivatively on behalf of eight funds, four of which are named in
the Sivolella lawsuit as well as four new funds, and seeks
recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for
alleged excessive fees paid to FMG LLC for investment management
services.  In light of the similarities of the allegations in the
Sivolella and Sanford Litigations, the parties and the Court
agreed to consolidate the two lawsuits.

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Sivolella and Sanford
Litigations amended the complaints to add additional claims under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for recovery of
alleged excessive fees paid to FMG LLC in its capacity as
administrator of EQ Advisors Trust.  The Plaintiffs seek recovery
of the alleged overpayments, or alternatively, rescission of the
contract and restitution of the excessive fees paid, interest,
costs and fees.

Established in the state of New York in 1859, AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company is among the largest life insurance companies in
the United States.  The New York-based Company is part of a
diversified financial services organization offering a broad
spectrum of financial advisory, insurance and investment
management services.


BENTLEY MOTORS: 43 Continental Model Cars Recalled in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           43
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013338
TC ID number:             2013338
Manufacturer recall
number:                   RE13/14

On certain vehicles equipped with carbon ceramic brakes, the brake
rotor fixing screws may fail.  This could result in reduced
braking performance, which could increase stopping distances and
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will replace the screws with an updated design.

Affected products:

  Maker       Model               Model year(s) affected
  -----       -----               ----------------------
  BENTLEY    CONTINENTAL GT      2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                                 2011, 2012
  BENTLEY    CONTINENTAL GTC     2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                                 2011, 2012
  BENTLEY    CONTINENTAL FLYING  2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
             SPUR                2011, 2012


BLUE DIAMOND: Loses Bid to Dismisses "All Natural" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Oct. 2 rejected Blue Diamond Growers' bid to
dismiss a putative class action brought by a consumer who says the
company's "all natural" labels on almond milk products are
deceptive and unlawful, finding that the argument for dismissal
"misses the mark."

Named plaintiff Chris Werdebaugh filed suit in May 2012, on behalf
of consumers who purchased Blue Diamond's allegedly mislabeled
items, saying that the Blue Diamond's almond milk and other
products that are represented as "all natural" actually contain
chemical preservatives, synthetic chemicals, added artificial
color and other artificial ingredients.  The products also list
"evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient instead of sugar cane or
cane syrup, according to the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh on Oct. 2 rejected Blue Diamond's
argument that the complaint should be dismissed because the claims
are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

"As in previous food-labeling cases, the court finds that the FDCA
does not preempt California Sherman Law claims based on
requirements identical to FDA regulations," Judge Koh wrote in the
order.  "Werdebaugh is suing because defendant's conduct allegedly
violates California's Sherman Law, which could have imposed the
exact same regulations even if the FDCA were never passed."

The judge also rejected Blue Diamond's arguments that the case
should be dismissed because Mr. Werdebaugh lacks constitutional
and statutory standing and denied the company's motion to strike
the plaintiff's claim for monetary damages under the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Ben F. Pierce -- pgore@prattattorneys.com -- Gore of Pratt &
Associates, counsel to the plaintiff, said they are pleased with
the court's evaporated cane juice and natural label rulings.

"These issues are involved in food-labeling litigation across the
Northern District of California, and the court's order brings
clarity to their resolution," Mr. Pierce told Law360 on Oct. 3.
"We are very grateful for the court's guidance, and the hard work
of the court's staff during the ongoing federal government
shutdown."

Mr. Werdebaugh said he spent more than $25 on Blue Diamond's
Almond Breeze Chocolate Almond Milk and that the product was
falsely represented as "all natural" and made unlawful and
misleading evaporated cane juice claims.

Mr. Werdebaugh said he read and reasonably relied on the accuracy
of Blue Diamond's labels and said he based and justified his
decision to purchase, in substantial part, on the label.
Mr. Werdebaugh also asserts that he "did not know, and had no
reason to know that the purchased product was unlawful and
misbranded," and that he "would not have bought the product had he
known the truth about it," according to court documents.

Mr. Werdebaugh further contends that numerous other Blue Diamond
products make the same illegal label misrepresentations, including
11 products labeled with evaporated cane juice listed as an
ingredient and 18 products labeled "all natural" despite
containing artificial or synthetic ingredients.

Representatives for Blue Diamond didn't immediately return
requests for comment on Oct. 3.

Mr. Werdebaugh is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates.

Blue Diamond is represented by Lawrence M. Cirelli, Megan Oliver
Thompson and Geoffrey R. Pittman of Hanson Bridgett LLP.

The case is Chris Werdebaugh et al. v. Blue Diamond Growers, case
number 5:12-cv-02724, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


BP PLC: 5th Cir. Orders New Orleans Court to Look Into Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kemp, writing for Reuters, reports that BP Plc has finally
found a court prepared to look sympathetically on its arguments
about the eligibility and calculation of compensation claims
stemming from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

In the ruling published on Oct. 2, a panel of three federal judges
from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the U.S. District
Court in New Orleans to look again at whether the class-action
settlement requires claims for business economic losses to be
based on accrual rather than cash accounting.

The appellate judges also ordered the district court to issue a
"narrowly tailored" injunction to halt disputed payments until the
legal issues have been fully resolved.

"BP is extremely pleased with [the] ruling," the company said in a
press release.  It said the judgment "affirms what BP has been
saying since the beginning: claimants should not be paid for
fictitious or wholly non-existent losses. We are gratified that
the systematic payment of such claims by the claims administrator
must now come to an end."

But BP would be unwise to break out the champagne just yet.  The
ruling raises fundamental legal questions about the nature of
class action lawsuits, which threaten to create a clash between
different circuit courts and can only be resolved by further
litigation.

The court was splintered, with parts of the opinion supported by
just one of the three judges hearing the appeal, calling into
question whether the circuit court reached the requisite majority
to instruct the district court to issue an injunction.

And the legal process in New Orleans is revealing political and
philosophical divisions, pitting judges appointed by Republican
presidents against those appointed by Democrats.

For all those reasons, the case appears ripe for rehearing en banc
by the full membership of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and a
possible eventual appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

                       Political Divisions

"This case is one of the largest and most novel class actions in
American history," Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote for the
court.

"As such, significant legal questions are involved that will
affect the course of class action law in this country going
forward, and the class action as a suitable vehicle for the
resolution of conflict for businesses and litigants," she added,
in a strong hint this case could go all the way to the Supreme
Court.

Judge Clement is a favorite in conservative legal circles.  She
was first nominated as a federal judge by Republican President
George H W Bush in 1991, and then elevated to a vacant position on
the Circuit Court of Appeals by Republican President George W Bush
in 2001.

In 2005, her name was widely mentioned in connection with the
vacant position on the Supreme Court that eventually went to
John Roberts, now chief justice of the United States.

Judge Clement ruled in BP's favor on three key points.

In Part 1 of her opinion, Judge Clement found the district court
must reconsider whether the settlement requires that compensation
payments be based on accrual rather than cash accounting.  In
Part 2, Judge Clement held the agreement excluded so-called
"fictitious claims" with no possible validity whatever the terms
of the agreement might appear to say.  In Part 3, she found the
district court should have granted BP an injunction while the
legal issues were resolved.

On Parts 1 and 3, Judge Clement was joined by Circuit Judge Leslie
Southwick, another judge nominated to the appeals court by
Republican George W Bush in 2007. But Southwick declined to join
Part 2, preferring to defer the issue until later proceedings.

On all three points, Judge Clement's legal reasoning was fiercely
opposed by Circuit Judge James Dennis, nominated by Democratic
President Bill Clinton in 1995.

It is worth noting the judge who heard the case originally in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Carl
Barbier, was another Clinton nominee.

So far, the case has been heard by four judges, and they have
divided evenly, along party lines, the two Republican nominees for
BP and the two Democrat appointees for the plaintiffs.

                         Fractured Court

There is a dispute about whether the Circuit Court achieved the
necessary majority on the three-judge panel to remand the case
back to the district court for further consideration and instruct
it to issue a narrowly tailored injunction.

Parts 1 and 3 of Judge Clement's opinion for the court were each
clearly supported by two judges (Clement and Southwick).  But
Part 2 was supported by Clement alone.  Judge Dennis opposed all
three parts.

But Judge Dennis claims Part 3 (the injunction) was based on
reasoning contained in Part 2 (fictitious claims and class action
law) and that there was not, therefore, really a majority legal
analysis for the injunction.

The 'majority opinion' on fictitious claims and class action
lawsuits "is now supported by the vote of one judge," Judge Dennis
wrote in dissent.

"Because the majority opinion's instruction to the district court
regarding the injunction appears to be based on Judge Clement's
separate opinion concerning class-action law, that instruction
does not appear to be based on a majority vote of this panel,"
Judge Dennis complained.

Judge Dennis also noted Clement's views on fictitious claims and
class action lawsuits are the subject of separate litigation
before a separate panel of the Fifth Circuit composed of different
judges and due to be heard in November.

By pointing to the potential for a clash between differently
composed panels of the same circuit, Dennis was in effect hinting
the case should be heard by the entire membership of the Fifth
Circuit sitting en banc to resolve the issue once and for all.

Judge Dennis also hinted the issue might be ripe for Supreme Court
review because the Clement's views threaten to create a clash
between courts in different parts of the United States.

"(Clement's) analysis confuses the relevant legal principles, is
not supported by law from our circuit or others, and would cause
our circuit to split with at least three of our sister circuits if
it were binding," Judge Dennis concluded.

                       Class Action Issues

In the most fiercely contested part of her judgment, Judge Clement
held BP did not have to pay "fictitious claims" that had no
plausible connection to the oil spill, whatever the terms of the
settlement agreement might appear to say.

If the claimant lacked any standing to pursue a claim for damages
against BP on their own, they could not suddenly be given standing
by the loose drafting of the settlement agreement.  Claimants must
be able to show some level of causation between the spill and
their losses.

"A class settlement is not a private agreement between the
parties," Judge Clement noted.  "It is a creature of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure."  The rules cannot create grounds for a
claim where there was never one in the first place.

"Why should BP pay to resolve claims that cannot be plead?"
Clement asked using the legal terminology for stating and making a
claim.  The idea that BP was buying "global peace" was a "myth"
and a "legal nullity," she added.  "There is no need to secure
peace with those with whom one is not at war."

Judge Clement did not secure any support for her views in Part 2.
Southwick appeared to have some sympathy but refused to commit
himself.  Judge Dennis was openly hostile and pointed out possible
inconsistencies with the law in circuit courts covering other
parts of the United States.

But Judge Clement's views are not easily dismissed given her
status as a prominent conservative jurist.

The Supreme Court has been cracking down on class action
litigation in recent years.  There is a clear business-friendly
majority on the court keen to restrict rampant class action
lawsuits, comprising Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and
Samuel Alito.

Judge Clement's views might be controversial and not reflect a
settled legal consensus, but they could well attract the interest
of enough justices on the high court to persuade them to hear the
case in future.

With both Judge Clement and Judge Dennis dropping strong hints the
case is suitable for review en banc or by the Supreme Court, BP's
lawsuit appears set to continue rising up the judicial ladder.


CANADA: Gov't to Appeal Veterans' Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
The Province reports that the Harper government says it intends to
appeal a B.C. court ruling that cleared the way for a class-action
lawsuit involving veterans of Canada's war in Afghanistan.

A group of ex-soldiers is taking Ottawa to court, alleging that
the federal government's new system of compensating veterans
violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The government's new
veterans charter eliminated the lifetime disability pension for
disabled soldiers and replaced it with lump-sum payments.  The
veterans say the new disability payments are paltry compared to
awards given to those who fought in previous wars, and don't keep
up with worker's compensation claims -- or even civil settlements
in personal injury cases.

Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, said he had hoped the
government would allow the case to proceed and be decided on its
own merits.  The fight over whether the soldiers have the right to
sue is little more than a stalling tactic, Mr. Sorochan said --
one that could find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada and
delay the case for years.

"The motivation here is money, saving money on the backs and blood
of veterans that served Canada," Mr. Sorochan said from Vancouver.

Federal lawyers intend to argue that allowing the lawsuit to
proceed would undermine the authority of Parliament.

The case put forward by the soldiers hinges on the fact that ever
since the First World War, successive federal governments have
recognized the sacrifice of wounded soldiers as an extraordinary
service that places a special obligation on the Crown.  But the
Harper government's legal team notes the promises of past
governments are not -- and should not -- be binding on present and
future governments.

"While this may sound reasonable, their argument could have a far
broader impact than perhaps intended by the plaintiffs," said a
government statement released on Oct. 2 by Veterans Affairs.

"If accepted, this principle could undermine democratic
accountability as parliamentarians of the future could be
prevented from changing important legislation, including the sort
of changes that some veterans would like to see to the new
veterans charter."

During the first round of court action, federal lawyers tried to
argue that the government had no special obligation to veterans.
But B.C. Justice Gordon Weatherill dismissed the federal
government's application, saying the case "is about promises the
Canadian government made to men and women injured in service to
their country and whether it is obliged to fulfill those
promises."

The decision to appeal came on the same day as Veterans Affairs
Minister Julian Fantino met with veterans advocacy groups at the
Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, trying to sell them on the merits
of an upcoming parliamentary review of the charter.

A House of Commons committee will examine whether recent changes
to the charter are having the desired effect.  The country's
veterans ombudsman released a report on Oct. 1 that said, among
other things, that the system will penalize hundreds and perhaps
thousands of wounded soldiers who don't have pensions when they
turn 65.

In a statement, Mr. Fantino said Parliament, not the courts,
should be the ultimate decision-maker when it comes to deciding
the sort of compensation soldiers receive.

"My recent commitment to proceed with a comprehensive review of
the new veterans charter by elected officials, in our Parliament,
will provide the appropriate forum where all voices can be heard,
including those of the plaintiffs, veterans, family members, other
interested individuals and subject matter experts," said
Mr. Fantino.

"That is where we can work together on appropriate change for
veterans and their families."

An outspoken veterans advocate was astonished at the government's
argument and accused the Conservatives of trying to force veterans
out of the courts into a parliamentary process that they control.

"It is terrifying when you think about it," said Sean Bruyea, who
fought a high-profile privacy battle with the government in 2010.
"They want any mechanism for change completely controlled by
bureaucrats and politicians."

The government fought a similar but unsuccessful court battle over
clawbacks to the veterans insurance system.

"I think the government is frightened with what happened in that
case and I don't think they would suggest a (parliamentary)
mechanism if they thought they were going to win (in court),"
Mr. Bruyea said.


CONCORD MANAGEMENT: Dec. 9 Status Conference Set for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that St. Clair County Circuit Judge Vincent
Lopinot scheduled a status conference for Dec. 9 at 9 a.m. in a
Belleville man's class action lawsuit against managers of an
apartment complex who allegedly failed to pay interest on security
deposits.

Plaintiff Kyle Oller filed a class action lawsuit individually and
on behalf of a group of others last year against Concord
Management Ltd.  The lawsuit proposed to include a class of all of
the defendant's tenants since 2002 who paid a deposit and were not
paid interest.

According to the two-count complaint, Mr. Oller signed a year-to-
year lease for a two-bedroom unit at the Fairfield Place Apartment
Complex in O'Fallon in 2007, which required a security deposit.

Mr. Oller argues in the complaint that the state Security Deposit
Interest Act mandates that any company collecting security
deposits on a complex containing 25 or more units and holds that
deposit for more than six months must pay interest to the tenant
on that deposit.

According to the complaint, Concord allegedly kept Mr. Oller's
deposit for longer than six months but failed to pay interest on
that deposit.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on Oct. 5, 2012,
arguing that the statute of limitations implies that plaintiffs
have two years to file a claim under the Act.  Judge Lopinot
denied the motion for dismissal on March 13.

The defendants followed the denial with a motion to reconsider on
April 15.  The motion states that the court never did say whether
or not the statute applied and continues to say the two year
statute supports their reasoning for dismissal.  Concord also
stated that if the case is not dismissed, it requests a petition
for leave to file an appeal to the appellate court.

The proposed class is represented by David I. Cates of Swansea.

Concord Management Ltd. is represented by Robert Sprague of
Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 12-L-442


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery in Suit Over Royalties Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit over royalties,
according to Continental Resources, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the
Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural
gas wells located in Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs have alleged a
number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek
recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class.  The Company has
responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a
number of affirmative defenses.  Discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged.

The Company says it is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.  The class has not been
certified.  The Plaintiffs have indicated that if the class is
certified they may seek damages in excess of $165 million, a
majority of which would be comprised of interest.  The Company
disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the
requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the
case.

The principal business of Continental Resources, Inc., is crude
oil and natural gas exploration, development and production with
properties in the North, South, and East regions of the United
States.  The Company is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Settles ERISA Class Action for $3.6 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, report that
Maryland-based health care and insurance management firm Coventry
Health Care Inc. on Oct. 2 agreed to pay $3.6 million to resolve a
proposed class action accusing it of violating the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by concealing severe business
setbacks from investors.

The proposed settlement resolves claims by a proposed class of the
company's current and former employees, who claimed they lost
"millions of dollars of their hard-earned retirement savings"
because the company and its directors continued to have the firm's
retirement savings plan invest in the company's inflated stock.
Coventry allegedly inflated its stock by hiding difficulties that
its Medicare Private Fee-for-Service (PFFS) initiative was facing,
which caused the company's medical liability reserve calculations
to be materially understated, according to court documents.

"The proposed settlement was reached after almost four years of
hard-fought litigation and negotiation, including a full briefing
and decision on defendants' motion to dismiss, defendants' motion
to reconsider, plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery and vigorous
arms-length settlement discussions at two different mediations
while discovery was ongoing," the plaintiffs said in the
settlement motion.

The first ERISA suit against Coventry in this dispute was brought
in 2009 by Loretta Boyd and Christopher Sawney, after which
subsequent suits by Coventry's retirement plan participants were
consolidated together.

The proposed settlement resolves all claims in the consolidated
suits by current and former employees who invested in company
stock through their 401(k) plan between February 2007 and October
2008, and suffered losses as a result of their investment,
according to the proposed settlement.

"We have reached a settlement agreement in principle that is
pending approval by the court, and we look forward to resolving
the matter," Coventry spokeswoman Kristine Grow said in a
statement on Oct. 4.  "As you will see in the proposed settlement,
the parties have agreed that this is not an admission of liability
by the company."

Coventry in May agreed to pay $10 million to resolve consolidated
claims by open market investors in company stock, according to
court documents.

That settlement, which was reached after more than a year of
mediation and settlement negotiations, resolved claims that
Coventry had failed to inform investors about teething problems
with the same PFFS plan, leading to artificially inflated
financial results, according to the New England Teamsters and
Trucking Industry Pension Fund and the Southern California IBEW-
NECA Pension Plan, the lead plaintiffs in that case.

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas J. McKenna and Gregory M.
Egleston of Gainey McKenna and Egleston and Robert I. Harwood and
Tanya Korkhov of Harwood Feffer LLP.

Coventry is represented by Gregory C. Braden --
gbraden@morganlewis.com  -- Christopher A. Weals --
cweals@morganlewis.com  -- Simon J. Torres --
storres@morganlewis.com -- and Sean K. McMahan --
smcmahan@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is In re: Coventry Health Care Inc. Erisa Litigation,
case number 8:09-cv-02661, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.


CRIMSON EXPLORATION: Defends Merger-Related Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crimson Exploration Inc. is defending itself against merger-
related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 29, 2013, Crimson entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Contango Oil & Gas Company, a
Delaware corporation ("Contango"), and Contango Acquisition, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Contango ("Merger Sub"), providing for a strategic business
combination of Crimson and Contango.  Upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into Crimson (the "Merger"), with Crimson
continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Contango.  The Merger
Agreement was approved by each of the board of directors of
Crimson and Contango on April 29, 2013.

Several class action lawsuits have been brought by Crimson
stockholders in Delaware Chancery Court challenging the proposed
Merger and seeking, among other things, injunctive relief to
enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger on the agreed-
upon terms, compensatory damages, and costs and disbursements
relating to the lawsuits. Various combinations of Crimson,
Contango, Merger Sub, members of Crimson's board of directors,
members of Crimson management and Oaktree Capital Management L.P.
have been named as defendants in these lawsuits.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action for all
purposes referred to as In Re: Crimson Exploration Inc.
Stockholder Litigation; C.A. 8541-VCP (the "Consolidated Action").

The known plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action appear, based on
the most current information of Crimson, to collectively own a
very small percentage of the total outstanding shares of Crimson
common stock.  The lawsuits allege, among other things, that
Crimson's board of directors failed to take steps to obtain a fair
price, failed to properly value Crimson, failed to protect against
alleged conflicts of interest, failed to conduct a reasonably
informed evaluation of whether the transaction was in the best
interests of stockholders, failed to fully disclose all material
information to stockholders, acted in bad faith and for improper
motives, engaged in self-dealing, discouraged other strategic
alternatives, took steps to avoid competitive bidding, and agreed
to allegedly unreasonable deal protection mechanisms, including
the no-shop and fiduciary-out provisions and termination fee.  The
lawsuits seek damages and injunctive relief.

Additionally, on July 13, 2013, a separate and similar complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County Texas, in the
matter of Fisichella Family Trust v. Crimson Exploration Inc.  The
Company says it is possible that additional, similar lawsuits may
be filed.

One of the conditions to the closing of the Merger is that no
order or injunction shall be in effect that prohibits consummation
of the Merger.  Consequently, if a settlement or other resolution
is not reached in the lawsuits and the plaintiffs secure
injunctive or other relief prohibiting, delaying or otherwise
adversely affecting the defendants' ability to complete the
Merger, then such injunctive or other relief may prevent the
Merger from becoming effective within the expected timeframe or at
all.

Houston, Texas-based Crimson Exploration Inc. is an independent
energy company engaged in the exploitation, exploration,
development and acquisition of crude oil and natural gas
properties.  The Company has historically focused its operations
in the onshore U.S. Gulf Coast, Texas and Colorado regions.


D.F. STAUFFER: Recalls Market Pantry Animal Cookies
---------------------------------------------------
D. F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc. is voluntarily recalling several
lots of 44 oz. Market Pantry White Fudge Coated Animal Cookies
because they may contain undeclared milk and eggs.  People with an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk or eggs run the risk of
serious or life- threatening allergic reactions if they consume
this product.  Symptoms may include itching, hives, wheezing,
shortness of breath, anaphylaxis, runny nose, watery eyes,
vomiting, cramps, or diarrhea.  No illnesses have been reported to
date.

The recall affects only 44 oz. Market Pantry White Fudge Coated
Animal Cookies in bear-shaped jugs with the following with Best By
date and Lot Number etched on the back shoulder of the product
above the label:

  Lot Number      Best By
  ----------      -------
  Y072913B       29APR2014
  Y072913C       29APR2014
  Y073013A       30APR2014
  Y073013B       30APR2014
  Y073013C       30APR2014
  Y073113A       01MAY2014
  Y082113A       21MAY2014
  Y082113B       21MAY2014
  Y082113C       21MAY2014
  Y082213A       22MAY2014
  Y082913A       29MAY2014
  Y082913B       29MAY2014
  Y082913C       29MAY2014
  Y083013A       30MAY2014
  Y083013B       30MAY2014
  Y090313B       03JUN2014
  Y090313C       03JUN2014
  Y090413A       04JUN2014
  Y090413B       04JUN2014
  Y090413C       04JUN2014

The products are sold in Target stores across the United States.
No other lots or products are affected.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
incorrect rear label was applied to the container by the jug
manufacturer and the presence of the milk and eggs was not
declared.  The correct label has UPC 8523981769 with the
description 'Animal Cookies - White Fudge'; the incorrect label
has UPC 8523908259 with the description 'Alphabet & Number
Crackers - Chocolate'.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc at
888-480-1988.


DELTA PETROLEUM: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Naso, writing for Law360, reports that Delta Petroleum
Corp. dodged on Sept. 30 a proposed shareholder class action that
accused the now bankrupt oil and gas company's top executives of
defrauding investors by misrepresenting Delta's financial position
so as to artificially inflate stock prices.

U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello dismissed the case on
Sept. 30, saying the suit failed to specifically identify how
statements made by the executives were false or could have misled
a reasonable investor, according to the order.

"A corporation's self-praise about its business strategy plays no
serious role in market participants' evaluation of potential
investments," she wrote.  "Reasonable investors do not normally
rely on vague, optimistic statements in making investment
decisions."

In 2008 and 2009, Delta used an investment banker to help reduce
debt and improve liquidity, the order stated.  In November 2009,
Delta announced that it was considering either selling assets,
entering a partnership or joint venture, or selling the company.
The following year, Delta entered into a nonbinding agreement to
sell Opon International 37.5 percent of a nonoperated working
interest in Delta's Vega Area assets for $400 million. The
proposed deal fell through in July 2010 because, according to
Delta, Opon could not finance the transaction.

Then in November 2011, Delta saw a net loss of $429.4 million,
which was reportedly due to its $420.1 million write-down of the
Vega assets.  A month later, with Opon off the table and no other
potential buyers or partners, Delta announced its intention to
file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The following day, stocks dipped
from $1.31 to $0.71 per share, according to the order.

Shareholder Patipan Nakkhumpun alleged in his putative class
action, which was refiled in 2013 after being consolidated with
another shareholder suit, that Delta's top executives hid from
investors the magnitude of their liquidity concerns and omitted
that the company's assets were allegedly worth less than the value
of its debt. Their actions, he said, caused stock prices to reach
falsely high levels before collapsing on the news of Delta's
intentions to file for Chapter 11.

The suit specifically named Board Chairman Daniel Taylor,
CEO Carl Lakey and Chief Financial Officer Kevin Nanke as
defendants.

Central to Mr. Nakkhumpum's allegations were press releases,
earnings calls and SEC filings in which Messrs. Taylor, Lakey and
Nanke discussed Delta's financial standing and future prospects.

Judge Arguello said that four of the eight alleged misleading
statements are "too vague to be susceptible to objective
verification and, therefore, are immaterial."  While she conceded
that the four others are "more than mere corporate optimism,"
Judge Arguello sided with the defendants' argument that
Mr. Nakkhumpum did not allege any facts showing that the
statements or their factual basis were false.

Representatives for both parties were not immediately available
for comment.

Mr. Nakkhumpum is represented by William Federman --
wbf@federmanlaw.com -- of Federman & Sherwood.

Messrs. Taylor, Lakey and Nanke are represented by Travis
Shenandoah Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Eric Neil Landau --
elandau@jonesday.com -- and Rana Nader -- rnader@jonesday.com --
of Jones Day.

The lead case is Darwin v. Taylor et al., case number 1:12-cv-
01038, and the consolidated case is Nakkhumpun v. Taylor et al.,
case number 1:12-cv-01521, both in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.


DIRECT PLUS: Recalls Certain Grimm's Fine Foods Pizza Pack
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Direct Plus Food Group, a division of
                          Premium Brands Operating Limited
                          Partnership
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8371

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Direct Plus Food
Group, a division of Premium Brands Operating Limited Partnership,
are warning the public not to consume the Grimm's Fine Foods brand
Pizza Pack because it may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes.

The product was sold at Pemberton Valley Supermarket, Pemberton,
British Columbia and Three Hills IGA, Three Hills, Alberta.

There has been no reported illness associated with the consumption
of this product.

The manufacturer, Freybe Gourmet Foods Ltd., Langley, BC, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products: 175 g. Grimm's Fine Foods Pizza Pack with Best
Before Date of 2013 OCT 11


ELMWOOD PLACE, OH: Class Status Sought for Speeding Ticket Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimball Perry, writing for Cincinnati Enquirer, reports that
attorneys for those who paid tickets issued by Elmwood Place's
automatic cameras asked a judge on Oct. 3 to declare a lawsuit a
class action so they can have returned to them the $1.7 million
the village collected from the tickets.

In September 2012, the village adopted an ordinance that allowed
it to install cameras to catch speeders and mail them tickets that
cost drivers $105.  It enraged ticketed drivers, many of whom
joined in a lawsuit against the village that alleged it installed
the cameras not to make the area safer but to increase village
revenues.

The cameras detected speeders, took a photo of the car's license
plate and provided other information that allowed the ticket to be
mailed to the car owner's home address.  All of that happened
without a police officer detecting a speeder, pulling the driver
over or writing a ticket.

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman declared
the ordinance unconstitutional and ordered the cameras and
accompanying equipment removed in March.

In an Oct. 3 hearing, attorneys for the drivers asked the judge to
declare their lawsuit a class-action.  That would allow all of
those who paid speeding tickets generated by the cameras to be
repaid.

"There are thousands of those," attorney Paul DeMarco,
representing the drivers, told the judge.

Attorney Mike Allen, also representing the drivers, said there are
7,000 to 10,000 drivers who could be reimbursed.  That includes
those who paid the speeding tickets, late penalties or separate
charges such as paying the ticket online.

Judd Uhl, the attorney for the village, countered that the class
action should be denied because few of those who received tickets
appealed their cases.

If Judge Ruehlman grants the decision and the class-action has
returned to it the $1.7 million in ticket revenue, it will be
devastating for the village's finances.  The village's annual
budget this year, Police Chief William Peskin said on Oct. 3, is
$1.3 million.

"Obviously," the chief said of the prospect of returning ticket
fines, "it would be a real detriment, a hit to us financially.
Some of that money already has been spent."

The village also could have to pay the fees for the driver's
attorneys.  So far, that's more than $20,000.

Judge Ruehlman will rule Oct. 22.

Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill that would prevent such
cameras from being used.


EQT PRODUCTION: Judge Certifies Five Gas Royalties Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Owens, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
after three years of legal wrangling, a handful of Southwest
Virginia landowners have won the right to a class-action battle
against energy companies for millions of dollars in natural gas
royalties.

"It's been a long time coming," landowner representative Don
Barrett said on Oct. 1.  "This is a great day for Southwest
Virginia."

With a class-action ruling, they can potentially bring in
thousands more landowners to seek at least $30 million in
royalties held in a state-mandated escrow account as well as to
argue that some people were shortchanged when leasing the gas to
energy companies.

U.S. District Judge James P. Jones certified a series of five
lawsuits being fought in Abingdon as class actions on Sept. 30.
In doing so, he accepted a magistrate judge's June recommendation
to hand the cases over for juries to decide.

Mr. Barrett said his next move is to ask the judge to issue a
summary judgment declaring the clients winners in the case before
it even reaches a jury.  The request likely will be filed this
week, he said.

Plans by his legal team also are in the works to wrestle from the
energy companies an itemized list of all the royalties made off
the gas wells and whether the cash was properly dumped into escrow
accounts.

"We don't think they can do it," Mr. Barrett said.  "They've been
arrogant for so long . . . that they didn't think they'd have to
account to anybody."

A planned appeal by defendant EQT Production, one of two main
energy companies being sued, might prolong the case.  On Oct. 1,
it noted plans to send an appeal to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond
on the claims concerning leased gas.

"We do not believe those claims can be resolved on a class-wide
basis," EQT spokeswoman Linda Robertson wrote in an email answer
to a question from the Bristol Herald Courier about whether the
company will appeal.

Such a move could delay the cases in Abingdon by as much as a
year, said legal expert Carl W. Tobias, of the University of
Richmond School of Law.

"That would slow things down some," he said.

The other main company, CNX Gas, has yet to note a clear-cut legal
reaction.

"At this time, CONSOL Energy continues to weigh our options in how
to proceed in this matter," company spokeswoman Cathy St. Clair
wrote in an email to the Herald Courier.

In one set of cases, a small group of landowners say they were
shortchanged when leasing out gas because the energy companies
deducted from royalties the post-production costs of moving and
cleaning the product.

The other cases involve a 20-year-old state law allowing energy
companies to siphon gas from coal seams without the owners'
permission, and then dump a percentage of the disputed royalties
into a closed escrow account until ownership can be decided later.

The dispute revolves around the fact that Virginia legislators
never declared whether the natural gas pulled from coal seams --
called coalbed methane -- belongs to the person holding the deed
to the coal or the person holding the deed to the gas estate.

Ownership, and access to the royalties, must be decided either in
deed-by-deed court battles, in out-of-court arbitration, or by an
agreement to split the money among the gas and the coal owners.

Landowner representatives note that no one has tried the
arbitration route, added by state legislators in 2010, and that
the cost an individual landowner can incur by hiring a lawyer to
fight deed by deed could cost more than is held in some escrow
accounts.

The class-action route, the representatives say, is the only real
chance regional landowners have to get the money owed them.

In her June recommendation to Judge Jones, Magistrate Judge Pamela
Meade Sargent addressed the cost issue by noting that none of the
potential class-action members have pursued individual lawsuits.

"The common-sense inference to be drawn from these facts is that
many potential CBM royalty owners simply cannot afford to pursue
individual actions," she wrote.

Energy companies disagree, and in recent court hearings have
pointed to deed by deed litigation in front of Virginia circuit
court judges as the only true solution.

"CONSOL Energy disagrees with the Court's decision to grant class
certification," St. Clair wrote on Oct. 1.  "The issues in this
case, including ownership of mineral and real property interests,
cannot be decided in the aggregate by . . . class action."

According to The Associated Press, in its statement, Consol said
it has paid millions of dollars into the escrow fund, as directed
by state law.  "Consol Energy continues to support efforts to
release those funds," the company said.

"Now they have to go back and tell us what they've taken out of
the ground, exactly every penny that was spent for expenses and so
on, and why it was reasonable," Mr. Jones said on Oct. 1.  "They
can't do it.  The burden is on them."

If that's the case, he said, "our experts can go back and figure
out what the best price was for natural gas at that particular
time and that's what they owe."

Mr. Barrett estimated that the class actions will encompass
thousands of landowners, and that the escrow account doesn't fully
represent all the disputed payments, The Associated Press reports.

"We're going to find that the money put in escrow is not nearly
what should have been put in escrow," he said.  "What's in escrow
is not half of it."

At the center of the disputed claims is the question of who owns
the gas: coal companies or individual property owners who point to
a 2004 Virginia Supreme Court ruling to support their claim.

The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy reports that
CNX had 4,261 wells and EQT had 3,347 wells in Virginia in 2012,
according to The Associated Press.


FLORIDA GAMING: Awaits Dismissal of Suit Over Silvermark Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Gaming Corporation is still awaiting an order of dismissal
to be entered in the suit Coby Jacobs v. Florida Gaming
Corporation, W. Bennett Collett, W. Bennett Collett, Jr., George
Galloway, Jr., William Haddon, Florida Gaming Centers and
Silvermark, LLC; Miami-Dade County, Florida Circuit Court Case #:
12-48014 CA 21, according to the company's Aug. 19, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 11, 2012, Jacobs, a shareholder of Florida Gaming
Corp. ("Corp"), filed a class action suit alleging W. Bennett
Collett, W. Bennett Collett, Jr., George Galloway, Jr., and
William Haddon (deceased), as directors of Corp., breached their
fiduciary duties with respect to entering into a Stock Purchase
Agreement with Silvermark, LLC.

The suit also alleged Florida Gaming Centers, Corp. and
Silvermark, LLC aided and abetted these breaches. The Defendants
denied all allegations of wrongdoing and moved to dismiss the
complaint. No class was certified, and the suit has since been
resolved and the parties expect an order of dismissal to be
entered in the near future.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 900 C-MAX and FOCUS Model Cars
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           900
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013340
TC ID number:             2013340
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13C07

Affected products:
  Maker     Model    Model year(s) affected
  -----     -----    ----------------------
  FORD      FOCUS    2012, 2013
  FORD      C-MAX    2013

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114 - Theft Protection and Rollaway
Prevention.  No audible chime is provided when the door is opened
and the electronic key code remains in the ignition.  This could
increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will update vehicle software.


HARRIS MEDICAL: Insurer's Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. HARRIS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants,
NO. 4:13-CV-7 CAS, (E.D. Miss.), plaintiffs seek a declaration
that they have no duty to defend their insured Harris Medical
Associates, LLC for claims asserted in underlying litigation filed
by St. Louis Heart, Inc.  A declaratory judgment matter is before
the Court on plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
St. Louis Heart Center, opposes the motion, and its opposition is
joined in by Harris Medical.

In a September 23, 2013 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/0MjT2pfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Charles A.
Shaw denied the plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

"Any future dispositive motion filed in this case by either party
must provide sufficient facts to permit the Court to determine
which state's substantive law applies, and include citation to
relevant authority from that state's case law to support the
party's position," Judge Shaw said.


ILLINOIS: Supreme Court Picked Up Suit Over Union Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Supreme Court said it will decide whether in-home "personal
assistants" who provide Medicaid-subsidized rehabilitation
services must pay union costs even if they opt out of joining.

Supreme Court precedent already allows unions to collect fees from
nonmembers, but personal assistants who work for Illinois agencies
argue in the latest suit that they are actually employees of their
patients, not the state.

A majority of the approximately 20,000 personal assistants who
work for the Division of Rehabilitation Services had voted to
designate SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana as their
representative in 2003.  Six years later, a majority of the 4,500
personal assistants working for the Division of Developmental
Disabilities rejected such representation.

Members of both groups are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, even though
disabilities assistants do not currently pay for any
representation.

They claimed in a class action that requiring all assistants to
pay "fair share" fees violates the First Amendment by compelling
their association with, and speech through, the union.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit disagreed in 2011,
affirming dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim.

Because Illinois establishes assistants' job duties, sets and pays
their salaries and work hours, and pays for training, it is, at
least, a joint employer for the purposes of collective bargaining,
according to that ruling.

Illinois has a compelling interest in labor peace, and union
monopoly over employees is desirable, the court found.

The opinion was a narrow one, however, with Judge Daniel Manion
noting that the panel did not consider whether Supreme Court
precedent "would still control if the personal assistants were
properly labeled independent contractors rather than employees.
And we certainly do not consider whether and how a state might
force union representation for other health care providers who are
not state employees, as the plaintiffs fear."

Since the disabilities assistants do not pay union costs, the
court also barred claims from that group.

"The plaintiffs' claims are contingent on events that may never
occur and thus are not ripe," Manion wrote, affirming dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction.

"The courts cannot judge a hypothetical future violation in this
case any more than they can judge the validity of a not-yet-
enacted law, no matter how likely its passage," he added.  "To do
so would be to render an advisory opinion, which is precisely what
the doctrine of ripeness helps to prevent."

If the disabilities assistants ever elect union representation,
they can refile.

In granting the assistants, led by Pamela Harris, a writ of
certiorari on Tuesday, October 1, 2013, the high court followed
its custom of not offer any statement.

It noted simply that The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
could file a friend-of-the-court brief.

The Petitioners are represented by:

          William L. Messenger, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org

The Respondents are represented by:

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: skronland@altber.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Scodro, Esq.
          SOLICITOR GENERAL
          100 West Randolph Street
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 814-3698
          E-mail: mscodro@atg.state.il.us

The Other Parties (Center for Constitional Jurisprudence, and
Pacific Legal Foundation; Cato Institute, et al.; and the United
States of America) are represented by:

          Anthony T. Caso, Esq.
          c/o Chapman University School of Law
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE
          One University Drive
          Orange, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 628-2666
          E-mail: caso@chapman.edu

               - and -

          David B. Rivkin Jr., Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1731
          E-mail: drivkin@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2217
          E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

The case is Pamela Harris, et al., Petitioners v. Pat Quinn,
Governor of Illinois, et al., Case No. 11-681, in the Supreme
Court of United States.


IMH FINANCIAL: Court Approves Accord in Fund Unitholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware entered a Final
Order and Judgment which approved the terms of the settlement of
In Re IMH Secured Loan Fund Unitholders Litigation, according to
IMH Financial Corporation's Aug. 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Various disputes have arisen relating to the consent
solicitation/prospectus used in connection with seeking member
approval of the Conversion Transactions. Three proposed class
action lawsuits were subsequently filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (on May 26, 2010, June 15, 2010 and June 17, 2010)
against the company and certain affiliated individuals and
entities.

The May 26 and June 15, 2010 lawsuits contain similar allegations,
claiming, in general, that fiduciary duties owed to Fund members
and to the Fund were breached because, among other things, the
Conversion Transactions were unfair to Fund members, constituted
self-dealing and that the information provided about the
Conversion Transactions and related disclosures was false and
misleading. The June 17, 2010 lawsuit focuses on whether the
Conversion Transactions constitute a "roll up" transaction under
the Fund's operating agreement, and seeks damages for breach of
the operating agreement.

The parties in the referenced actions were ordered to consolidate
the actions for all purposes into a putative class action lawsuit
captioned In Re IMH Secured Loan Fund Unitholders Litigation
pending in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware
("Litigation"). A consolidated class action complaint was filed on
December 17, 2010. After defendants filed a motion to dismiss that
complaint, the Chancery Court ordered plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint.

On July 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint
entitled "Amended and Supplemental Consolidated Class Action
Complaint" ("ACC"). On August 29, 2011, defendants filed a Motion
to Dismiss in Part the ACC. Plaintiffs filed their brief in
opposition on September 28, 2011 and defendants filed their reply
brief on November 2, 2011.

On January 31, 2012, the company reached a tentative settlement in
principle to resolve all claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the
Litigation, other than the claims of one plaintiff.

The tentative settlement in principle, memorialized in a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") previously filed with the
company's 8-K dated February 6, 2012, was subject to certain class
certification conditions, confirmatory discovery and final court
approval (including a fairness hearing).

Following the entry of the MOU, the parties completed the
confirmatory discovery and on March 19, 2013, filed a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release
("Stipulation"), along with all of the related agreements, with
the Court. The following are some of the key elements of the
proposed settlement:

a) the company will offer $20.0 million of 4% five-year
subordinated notes to members of the Class in exchange for
2,493,765 shares of IMH common stock at an exchange rate of one
share per $8.02 in subordinated notes ("Exchange Offering");

b) the company will offer to Class members that are accredited
investors $10.0 million of convertible notes with the same
financial terms as the convertible notes previously issued to NW
Capital ("Rights Offering");

c) the company will deposit $1.57 million in cash into a
settlement escrow account (less $225,000 to be held in a reserve
escrow account that is available for use by the company to fund
the company's defense costs for other unresolved litigation) which
will be distributed (after payment of notice and administration
costs and any amounts awarded by the Court for attorneys' fees and
expense) to Class members in proportion to the number of the
company's shares held by them as of June 23, 2010;

d) the company will enact certain agreed upon corporate governance
enhancements, including the appointment of two independent
directors to the company's board of directors upon satisfaction of
certain conditions and the establishment of a five-person investor
advisory committee (which may not be dissolved until such time as
the company established a seven-member board of directors with at
least a majority of independent directors); and

e) provides additional restrictions on the future sale or
redemption of the company's common stock held by certain of the
company's executive officers.

Three separate objections were filed with the Chancery Court. The
Chancery Court held a settlement hearing on July 18, 2013 during
which it heard, among other things, argument as to the fairness of
the settlement and arguments from each objector. Following the
settlement hearing held on July 26, 2013, the Court of Chancery in
the State of Delaware entered a Final Order and Judgment which
approved the terms of the settlement of the Litigation as outlined
in the MOU, with slight modifications.

IMH's rights and obligations under the settlement and Final Order
are contingent upon Final Approval of the settlement. Final
Approval will occur at the expiration of the period to file
appeals or, if any appeal is filed, upon the final resolution of
any appeal. The Exchange Offering and the Rights Offering are
required to be initiated within 30 days following Final Approval
which, given the potential for appeals, is indeterminable at this
time. If no appeals are filed, the offerings could commence before
the end of October 2013.

However, if any appeals are filed, it may be six to nine months
before the offerings can be made. The company vigorously denied,
and continue to vigorously deny, that the company committed any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were
alleged in the Litigation, but the company believes it is in the
company's best interests and the interests of the company's
stockholders to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been
asserted to rest.

As of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the company accrued the
payment required of $1.57 million, as well as the offsetting
related anticipated insurance proceeds, which have been deposited
into settlement escrow accounts. In addition, due to the
significance of the anticipated settlement and related costs, the
company separately identified such costs in the accompanying
consolidated statement of operations.

Such amounts consist primarily of legal, accounting and other
professional fees incurred in connection with the settlement,
including costs surrounding the proposed Rights Offering and
Exchange Offering.


INCAN GLOBAL: Recalls Certain Nirapara Chutney Powder
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Incan Global Corp
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Incan Global Corp.,
are warning the public not to consume the Nirapara brand Chutney
Powder described below because it may be contaminated with
Salmonella.

The product has been sold at Kairali's Thousand Spices in
Edmonton, Alberta.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The importer, Incan Global Corp., Edmonton, Alberta, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products:

   -- 100 g. Nirapara Dosa / Iddli Chutney Powder with ICP 02 03
      04/2013, 03/2015, 8 904010 697354 and best before date of
      03/2015


INVESTORS TITLE: "Backel" Suit Remains Pending in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against several
title insurance companies, including Investors Title Insurance
Company, entitled Backel v. Fidelity National Title Insurance et
al. (6:2008- CV-00181).  The plaintiff in this case contends a
lack of meaningful oversight by agencies with which title
insurance rates are filed and approved.  There are further
allegations that the title insurance companies have conspired to
fix title insurance rates.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages,
including treble damages, as well as injunctive relief.  Similar
lawsuits have been filed in other jurisdictions, several of which
have already been dismissed.  In West Virginia, the case has been
placed on the inactive docket pending the outcome of several
similar cases. The Company believes that this case is without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.
At this stage in the litigation, the Company does not have the
ability to make a reasonable range of estimates in regards to
potential loss amounts, if any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Investors Title Company is a holding company that engages
primarily in issuing title insurance through two subsidiaries,
Investors Title Insurance Company and National Investors Title
Insurance Company.  The Company is headquartered in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.


JP MORGAN: FPI Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur D. Postal, writing for PropertyCasualty360.com, reports
that a federal court in Miami has cleared the way for final action
in a force-placed insurance (FPI) lawsuit against J.P. Morgan
Chase that is consistent with the emerging belief that federal
courts are going to come down harshly on the side of consumers in
FPI litigation.

"This settlement can be a road map for settlements with other
defendants," says Adam M. Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com -- of Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton in Miami, co-counsel in the J.P. Morgan
Chase case. "This is the first nationwide settlement for hazard
claims (the majority of the coverage)."  Mr. Moskowitz has class
action lawsuits pending in the same court before the same judge in
four other FPI cases involving major mortgage servicers.

Judge Frederico Moreno, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in
Miami, on Oct. 1 granted preliminary approval and set a final
fairness hearing for next February in a case involving 1.3 million
people.

According to the proposed agreement, the deal could be worth as
much as $300 million to 1.3 million homeowners nationwide. In
addition, plaintiffs' lawyers could get up to $20 million.

The agreement also calls for J.P. Morgan Chase to stop accepting
commissions for placing FPI from Assurant, the nation's top
provider of FPI.

J.P. Morgan and Assurant, under the agreement, will also be
required to make payments to homeowners equal to 12.5 percent of
the insurance premium each affected homeowner was charged.

The proposed deal is the first nationwide settlement of
allegations that banks and FPI carriers overcharged homeowners for
insurance in cases where the homeowners were having problems
paying their mortgages.

Florida, lawyers there said, has been a hotbed for these cases
because the impact of the housing bust has been most acutely felt
there.  Mr. Moskowitz says, "Florida has more FPI in place than
any other state."

The court did not act on clearing the way for a final deal without
being required to referee a battle between competing plaintiff's
lawyers.  Judge Moreno did so by denying a motion to intervene
filed by plaintiffs in a case first filed in California.  The
potential interveners claimed in their motion that the Florida
settlement will inappropriately render their case moot in return
for what the potential interveners charged will be an "illusory
settlement structured to ensure minimum claimant participation."

Documents filed in the case indicate that the California
plaintiffs tried to intervene because the court that determines
whether multi-district cases should be consolidated decided last
year not to centralize the FPI cases.

According to documents filed by the lawyers for the California
interveners, the settlement circumvents the interim class
counsel's authority because the Chase and

Assurant defendants "have negotiated a settlement . . . that will
extinguish the claims of the putative class in the consolidated
action."

The motion for intervention alleges, "As interim co-class counsel
was making arrangements for a further mediation, defendants'
attorneys, while refusing to confirm that they were engaging in
settlement discussions, quickly agreed to terms of a settlement
. . . putatively resolving the claims of the class in the
consolidated action."

In his brief, Mr. Moskowitz contended that the rights of the
California interveners have not been violated.  They argued that
the interveners are seeking to "derail a settlement that provides
substantial relief to a nationwide class of more than one million
Chase mortgagors."

The motion argued that the conflicting parties' request to
intervene is "untimely, and they will not be prejudiced by its
denial -- they would still have the right to opt out or object to
the settlement during the approval process."

Intervention, Mr. Moskowitz contended "would prejudice the
original parties to this action, as it could turn back months of
hard-fought, arm's-length negotiations that culminated in
settlement, and delay, if not undermine, the distribution of
valuable relief to the nationwide class."

Industry lawyers, who asked not to be named for fear it would
impact their relationships with the courts as well as opposing
counsel, say conflicts are arising because courts are now viewing
FPI arrangements harshly, and are consistently rejecting various
defense theories and giving plaintiff's lawyers leverage over
settlement talks.

For example, in a New York case, a federal district court judge in
Manhattan on Sept. 30 refused to throw out a portion of a suit
against GMAC and Balboa alleging violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.  Judge Alison
Nathan also ruled that even when force-placed insurance rates have
been approved by state regulators, they can be challenged, a
decision that industry lawyers said was significant.


KELLOGG CANADA: Recalls Certain Pringles Salt & Vinegar Chips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kellogg Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products: 168 g and 181 g Pringles Salt & Vinegar Potato
Chips with UPC 0 64100 85246 4 and 0 37000 23009 0

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Kellogg Canada Inc.
are warning people with allergies to milk not to consume certain
Pringles brand Salt & Vinegar Potato Chips.  The affected product
contains milk which is not declared on the label.

All lot codes and best before dates of the following product where
milk is not declared on the list of ingredients are affected by
this alert.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

Consumption of this product may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk.

The importer, Kellogg Canada Inc., is voluntarily recalling the
affected product from the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the
effectiveness of the recall.


KRAFT CANADA: Recalls Shake'n Bake Cajun Coating Mix
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kraft Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8373

Affected products: 152 g. Kraft Shake'n Bake CAJUN coating mix
with UPC 0 66188 04510 3

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Kraft Canada Inc.
are warning people with allergies to mustard not to consume Kraft
brand Shake'n Bake CAJUN coating mix.  The affected product
contains mustard which is not declared on the label.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

The importer, Kraft Canada Inc., Don Mills, Ontario, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


LAMBORGHINI: 51 Cars Recalled in Canada
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           51
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013341
TC ID number:             2013341

On certain vehicles, the brake rotor fixing screws may fail.  This
could result in reduced braking performance, which could increase
stopping distances and increase the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the screws with an updated design.

Affected products:

   Maker          Model                 Model year(s) affected
   -----          -----                 ----------------------
  LAMBORGHINI   MURCIELAGO            2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011
  LAMBORGHINI   GALLARDO              2007, 2008, 2009
  LAMBORGHINI   MURCIELAGO ROADSTER   2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
                                      2010, 2011
  LAMBORGHINI   GALLARDO SPYDER       2007, 2008, 2009


LEGZ CLUBS: Judge OKs Settlement in Exotic Dancers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Umstead, writing for The Herald-Mail, reports that U.S.
District Judge Gina M. Groh on Oct. 1 approved a $347,000
settlement in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of "exotic"
dancers seeking unpaid wages at Legz Clubs in Martinsburg and two
other West Virginia cities.

The dancers in the case will split $194,500, Martinsburg attorney
Garry Geffert announced on Oct. 1.  Nineteen dancers submitted
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and 53 submitted Wage
Payment and Collection Act claims, he said.  The remainder of the
settlement proceeds will be paid to Mr. Geffert and two other law
firms that represented the dancers, according to a five-page order
filed in the federal court in Martinsburg on Oct. 1.

The club owners agreed to make payments over a two-year period,
with the first payment to be made Jan. 2, Mr. Geffert said in a
news release on Oct. 1.

Messages and emails left with attorneys for the Entertainment of
the Eastern Panhandle Inc., doing business as The Legz Clubs, were
not immediately returned on Oct. 1.

Patrice Ruffin, who brought the case on behalf of herself and
others who danced at the clubs, alleged that the owners did not
pay any wages to the dancers, according to Mr. Geffert.

Ms. Ruffin is to receive an additional $1,500 for her effort in
bringing the lawsuit, Mr. Geffert said.

"It (is) inconceivable that, in the 21st century, any employer
could think it was right to require people to pay him to go to
work for him," Mr. Geffert said in the release.

The lawsuit alleged that the dancers were required to pay $10 per
shift to be allowed to work and were fined $5 to $10 by the club
if they were late for a shift or late appearing on stage,
Mr. Geffert said.

The dancers also claimed that each dancer was required to pay the
club $10 to $75 from tips they received from customers for table
side dances or dances in private rooms.

The dancers asserted that the clubs' practices violated the
minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
wage assignment restrictions of the West Virginia Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Court records indicate the parties in the case actually reached a
settlement of the class action lawsuit in March 2013, but the
defendants then defaulted on their payment obligations due to
"unforeseen financial circumstances," according to court records.

The new settlement changed the timing and disbursement of payment,
according to court records.


LIBERTY CREDIT: Arbitration Ruling in "Yonker" Suit Overturned
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Yonker appealed the judgment of the Portage County Court
of Common Pleas requiring arbitration and dismissing, with
prejudice, her claim against Liberty Credit Services, assignee of
or successor in interest to Capital One, and Slovin & Associates,
L.P.A., Randy Slovin, Esq. and Bradley Council, Esq.

In a September 16, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/ceKiph
from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District,
Portage County, reversed the ruling and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

According to the Ohio Appeals Court, the case "does not present a
situation in which class certification was addressed or motions
for summary judgment were filed; however, the parties did engage
in the discovery process. Both Liberty and Slovin made what appear
to be attempts at forum shopping. Neither Liberty nor Slovin
asserted arbitration as an affirmative defense until after the
case had been removed to, and then remanded from, federal court.
Under these circumstances, any right to arbitrate was waived. We
find the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion
to compel arbitration, as both Liberty and Slovin acted
inconsistently with the right to arbitrate."

The case is LIBERTY CREDIT SERVICES ASSIGNEE OF OR SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO CAPITAL ONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRYSTAL YONKER,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SLOVIN & ASSOCIATES,
LPA, et al., Third Party Defendants-Appellees, NO. 2012-P-0096,
2013-Ohio-3976.

Alan H. Abes -- alan.abes@dinsmore.com -- and Elizabeth M. Shaffer
-- elizabeth.shaffer@dinsmore.com -- 255 East Fifth Street, Suite
1900, Cincinnati, OH 45202 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Anand N. Misra -- misraan@misralaw.com -- The Misra Law Firm,
L.L.C., 3659 Green Road, Suite 100, Beachwood, OH 44122; and
Robert S. Belovich -- rsb@belovichlaw.com -- 9100 South Hills
Blvd., Suite 300 Broadview Heights, OH 44147 (For Defendant/Third
Party Plaintiff-Appellant).

Franklin C. Malemud -- fmalemud@reminger.com -- James O'Connor --
joconnor@reminger.com -- and Holly Marie Wilson --
hwilson@reminger.com -- Reminger & Co., L.P.A., 1400 Midland
Building, 101 Prospect Avenue, West, Cleveland, OH 44115-1093 (For
Third Party Defendants-Appellees).


MADISON SQUARE: Antitrust Suit v. NHL Now in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------------
Purported antitrust lawsuits brought in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the National
Hockey League (NHL) and certain NHL member clubs are now in the
discovery phase, according to The Madison Square Garden Company's
Aug. 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors.

The complaints, which are substantially identical, primarily
assert that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements
entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to
provide certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect
to the television and online distribution of live hockey games,
violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The complaints seek injunctive relief against the defendants'
continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble damages,
attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On July 27,
2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss and the
case is now in the discovery phase. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the claims against the Company. Management does
not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


MERSCORP INC: Ala. High Court Denies Writ of Mandamus Petitions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Murdock of the Supreme Court of Alabama denies requests
for mandamus relief in these two cases:

* Ex parte MERSCORP, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration
  Systems, Inc. (In re: Nancy O. Robertson, in her official
  capacity as Probate Judge of Barbour County, on behalf of
  herself and all others similarly situated v. MERSCORP, Inc., and
  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.), NOS. 1111370

* Ex parte U.S. Bank National Association. (In re: Walker County,
  on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Alabama
  counties and Rick Allison, Walker County Probate Judge v. U.S.
  Bank National Association.), 1111567

The two petitions for a writ of mandamus seek review of orders
denying motions to dismiss the actions based on the alleged lack
of standing by the plaintiffs and, in turn, the alleged lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial courts and seek an order
requiring the trial courts to grant the motions to dismiss.

Justice Murdock concludes that these cases do not fall within the
subject-matter-jurisdiction exception to the general rule that the
Supreme Court will not engage in mandamus review of a trial
court's denial of a motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Supreme Court's September 20, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/axLlB8from Leagle.com.


MINNESOTA: Counties Settle Driver Data-Snooping Suit for $2-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Roper, writing for StarTribune, reports that an insurance
trust representing Minnesota counties has agreed to pay $2 million
to settle a potential class action lawsuit over drivers license
data snooping.

The proposed settlement, presented on Oct. 3 in federal court, is
the largest payout so far over misuse of drivers license files --
which has spurred a raft of lawsuits in recent months.  The impact
on taxpayers will likely be felt through governments paying higher
insurance premiums to the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust,
which provides liability coverage to all but the state's largest
counties.

The only other major drivers license snooping case that reached a
settlement was brought by former cop Anne Marie Rasmusson, who won
more than $1 million in damages from local governments after
alleging her data had been routinely viewed.

The Oct. 3 case involved a child support officer in Rock County,
Janet Patten, who allegedly made more than 4,000 photo queries of
the Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) database in 2010 and 2011.
Patten was fired and several law firms sued on behalf of about
3,000 people who received data breach letters.

"She looked up friends and neighbors and co-workers and workers in
other counties," Rock County administrator Kyle Oldre said last
year.  "It was just people she knew.  And she spent a ton of time
doing it."

A criminal investigation did not turn up any nefarious intent.

The DVS database, which is protected by federal law against
misuse, contains photographs, addresses and driving records on
Minnesotans with a license.  A state audit last year found that it
was being routinely abused by law enforcement and other public
employees.

Plaintiffs in the case are attempting to certify it as a class
action, which would cover anyone who Ms. Patten illegitimately
looked up during the specified time period.  The targets of
illegitimate lookups will receive a share of the money "based on
the number of times they were illegitimately searched."

The "named" plaintiffs who initially brought the suit would
receive an "incentive payment" of $500 each.  The complete
settlement must still be approved by a federal judge.

The implications for other DVS cases are murky.  The Patten suit
was the largest case brought against the counties insurance trust,
whose members have been named in 44 claims, and one of only two
seeking class action status.

Robyn Sykes, executive director of the counties insurance trust,
said the size of the case influenced their decision.   "We talked
about the fact of the case, the size of the class, all of those
kinds of things I think kind of played into the issue of settling
this one," said Ms. Sykes, who could only remember one other
settlement of $2 million since the mid-1990s.

Rock County, one of Minnesota's smallest counties, will pay a
deductible as a result of the settlement, but "everybody's going
to feel a little of the tremor of this particular case and all the
other [DVS] claims," Ms. Sykes said.

Plaintiffs' attorneys said on Oct. 3 that the size of the class
would likely be about 2,400 people, making the award per lookup
approximately $300.  Many people were looked up once, while
several were looked up several times.

The attorneys said that the federal law outlining penalties for
misuse of driver records, the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, was
intended to have a deterrent effect.

"Violation of laws enacted by our Congress is not a trivial
thing," said attorney Bob Bennett.  "Those of us that went to law
school, and sensible people who didn't, understand that you can't
have a right without a remedy."

Last month, a judge dismissed another major class action DVS claim
against the state, ruling that state officials could not be held
liable for the actions of one employee.


NESTLE PURINA: Dog Treats Suit Junked; May Be Amended by Oct. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jack Bouboushian reports that
a federal judge dismissed claims against the stores that continue
to sell Nestle Purina's chicken jerky dog treats, which allegedly
killed plaintiffs' dogs.

Lead plaintiff Dennis Adkins says he bought Yam Good dog treats
from Wal-Mart in March 2012 for his 9-year-old Pomeranian,
Cleopatra.  Waggin' Train, a Nestle Purina company, makes the
chicken jerky and yams treats in China.

"Between March 13, 2012 and March 15, 2012, Mr. Adkins gave one of
the treats to Cleopatra daily, which he chopped into two to three
pieces," the lawsuit states.  "Mr. Adkins made no other changes in
her diet."

"Immediately thereafter, Cleopatra became sick and, on March 26,
2012, died of kidney failure."

"Mr. Adkins owns another nine year old Pomeranian, named Pharaoh,"
the complaint continues.  "Mr. Adkins did not feed any of the 'Yam
Good' treats to him.  Pharaoh did not become ill."

Other class members' dogs died or became ill shortly after being
fed these treats and without any other change in diet.

Although the FDA has issued a warning about the safety of the
product, Waggin' Train continues to market its treats as
"wholesome" and "nutritious."

The complaint also names Wal-Mart, Target, Cosco, BJ's, CVS, Pet
Supplies, and Walgreens as defendants for selling the allegedly
contaminated treats.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman handed the class a setback
last week, finding that the laws of the plaintiffs' home states
should be applied to each plaintiff's claims.

"In the instant case, 19 out of 21 plaintiffs allege that they
reside in states other than Illinois and that they purchased the
chicken jerky treats and fed them to their pets in their home
states. With the exception of the two plaintiffs who reside in
Illinois, the complaint alleges no other facts tying any of
defendants' alleged misconduct or the plaintiffs' alleged injuries
to Illinois," the judge said.

Therefore, a number of plaintiffs' claims were dismissed because
they are preempted by product liability statutes in their home
states of Connecticut, Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Washington.

Gettleman also dismissed most allegations against the stores that
sold Yam Goods.  Plaintiffs claimed that the sellers were not
"'innocent' because they were warned about the dangers these
treats cause yet continued to sell them.  However, as noted above,
mere service of process in this case says nothing about their
knowledge at the time of plaintiffs' purchases," the judge said.

However, Waggin' Train cannot defend itself by claiming plaintiffs
did not rely on any alleged misstatements about the treats'
safety.

Plaintiffs' say they relied on statements printed on the jerky
treats' packaging extolling the treats health benefits, which is
sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, the judge ruled.

In addition, "plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to
plausibly suggest the existence of a defect in defendants' chicken
jerky treats.  Plaintiffs also allege that they paid valuable
consideration for these 'toxic' treats which harmed their dogs.
Thus, plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for unjust
enrichment," Gettleman found.

Class counsel did not return a request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Catherine Anne Ceko, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tara Leigh Goodwin, Esq.
          Thomas Everett Soule, Esq.
          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          120 S. LaSalle, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: cceko@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  tgoodwin@edcombs.com
                  tsoule@edcombs.com
                  courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Bruce Edward Newman, Esq.
          BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
          747 Stafford Avenue
          Bristol, CT 06010
          Telephone: (860) 583-5200
          E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com

               - and -

          Reginald Terrell
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          Po Box 13315, Pmb #148
          Oakland, CA 94661
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Miranda L. Berge, Esq.
          Edward Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          555 13th Street Nw
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          E-mail: miranda.berge@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          HOGAN & HARTSON
          555 Thirteenth Street, Northwest
          Washington, DC 20004-1109
          Telephone: (202) 637-5875
          E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Richard George Douglass, Esq.
          Stephen Novack, Esq.
          NOVACK AND MACEY LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 419-6900
          E-mail: rdouglass@novackandmacey.com
                  sn@novackandmacey.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Gunn, Esq.
          MORRIS & STELLA
          200 West Adams Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-2345
          E-mail: jeffrey.gunn@morrisandstella.com

The case is Adkins, et al. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, et
al., Case No. 1:12-cv-02871, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).


NEW FLYER: 17 XD40 Model Buses Recalled in Canada
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           17
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013339
TC ID number:             2013339

Affected products: 2013 New Flyer XD40 model

On certain buses, air brake circuits at the treadle valve may have
been crossed during assembly.  In the event of an air leak in the
rear air reservoir, this would result in a loss of both the front
and rear service brakes, a reduction of braking performance and
increased stopping distances.  This could increase the risk of
injury and/or damage to property.

Vehicles will be inspected and corrected if necessary.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Final Order in Product Defect Suit on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal against the Final Judgment in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation
is currently under submission, according to NVIDIA Corp.'s Aug.
19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2013.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against  the company, asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of the company's previous generation products
used in notebook configurations.

On February 26, 2009, the various lawsuits were consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU
Litigation." On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed
motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing
certain related issues.

On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead
counsel.  On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27
other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

After extensive motion practice and litigation, plaintiffs on
December 14, 2009 filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
seeking unspecified damages and asserting claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and
Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the
District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached
a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The
settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals,
including final approval by the court.

As a result of the settlement in principle, and the other
estimated settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements,
NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general
and administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal
year 2011.

In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges
the company recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak
die/packaging set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011,
relates to estimated additional repair and replacement costs
related to the implementation of these settlements.

On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement and Release. On September 15, 2010, the
Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement and providing for notice to the potential class
members. The Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010,
and on that same day the Court approved the settlement and entered
Final Judgment over several objections.

In January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the
Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on August 13, 2013,
and the appeal is currently under submission.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Appeal Hearing in Stock Suit Yet to be Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by plaintiffs against the dismissal of a securities suit
against NVIDIA Corp. has been fully briefed, but a hearing has not
yet been held, according to the company's Aug. 19, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 28, 2013.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the
Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California arising out of the company's
announcements on July 2, 2008, that the company would take a
charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and
expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain
versions of the company's previous generation MCP and GPU products
and that the company was revising financial guidance for the
company's second quarter of fiscal year 2009.

The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act. On October 30, 2008, the Actions were
consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL).

Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on
December 23, 2008. On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a
Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.

On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District
Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending
resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On
February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On November 5,
2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the
District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs'
counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings.   On
December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The consolidated
complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages. The company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010
and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010 before Judge Seeborg.

On October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.  the
company moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
on February 14, 2011. Following oral argument, on October 12,
2011, Judge Seeborg granted the company's motion to dismiss
without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully
briefed, but a hearing has not yet been held.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
OCZ Technology Group, Inc., a provider of high-performance solid-
state drives (SSDs) and power management solutions for computing
devices and systems, on Oct. 2 disclosed that it has reached a
settlement in principle in the federal shareholder class action
litigation filed in connection with the Company's financial
restatement.

The settlement is subject to negotiation of final documentation
and court approval.  Subject to Court approval, the settlement of
$7.5 million will be funded by the Company's D&O liability
insurance.  The settlement may include an additional payment of
the lesser of $6M or 4% of the net proceeds in the event that the
company or any portion of it is sold within six months of the
executed settlement agreement.  This settlement would resolve the
consolidated shareholder class actions pending in connection with
the restatement.

"We are pleased to have reached a settlement in principle in
regards to the shareholder class action litigation, and we believe
this is a positive step for the Company," said Ralph Schmitt, CEO
of OCZ Technology.  "The team is highly focused on completing the
financial restatement process shortly and becoming current with
our filings."


ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCE: Recalls Bell Peppers Over Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orange County Produce, LLC ("OC Produce") is voluntarily working
with the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and California
Department of Public Health ("CDPH") to coordinate a recall of
fresh red and green Bell Peppers for potential contamination with
Salmonella.  The FDA has advised that a random sample of OC
Produce Bell peppers has tested positive for Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The red and green Bell Pepper recall is limited to 3 lots
(Lot # SB 7 920, 923, 924) containing 1,208 25# cartons of
peppers.  The source of the contamination is unknown.  The lots
were distributed to farmer's markets and wholesale food service
within Southern California between September 21 and September 24,
2013.  The product was shipped in cases under the OC Harvest (25
pound cartons) labels.  The product is typically sold to retail,
food service, and farmer's market level in bulk weight and has no
retail packaging associated with it.  All retail suppliers that
received these affected lots have been notified and were directed
to immediately remove and destroy any remaining product in their
inventories.

The recall was the result of a random sampling event on September
25, 2013 by the USDA which revealed the presence of Salmonella on
some of the product. OC Produce's recall and traceability program
enabled the company to quickly identify the company field and
harvest dates of the affected product, which originated in
Southern California.  OC Produce has ceased the distribution and
harvest of product from the implicated field while the FDA, the
California Department of Public Health and the company continue
their investigation into the source of the contamination.

Consumers who purchased the above described Bell peppers between
the dates of September 21 and October 5, 2013 should contact the
store, restaurant or farmers market from where they purchased the
product and inquire as to whether the affected product was sold by
that store, restaurant or farmers market location.  If so, the
customer should discard or return any unused product to that store
for a refund.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  Other than the red and
green Bell peppers described above, no other OC Produce product
has been affected by this recall.

Orange County Produce is proud of its longstanding reputation for
safety and quality throughout its operations and has taken
immediate precautionary measures to protect public health by
issuing this voluntary recall and removing product from the
market.  OC Produce takes its food safety responsibilities very
seriously and is working diligently to investigate and prevent any
further occurrence.

Consumer questions may be directed to OC Produce at 949-451-0880
between 8am and 5pm PST.


PARAGON FAMILY: Faces Second Class Action Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valarie Honeycutt Spears, writing for Lexington Herald-Leader,
reports that a second federal class-action lawsuit has been filed
against several Lexington-based health care firms, this one
contending that employees weren't fully paid.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 2 on behalf of an estimated 300
current and former employees against interrelated entities,
including Paragon Family Practice and Horizon Healthcare Center
LLC, operated by Ann Giles and Lu Anne Wallace.

The lawsuit alleges the health care firm's officials committed
"willful and repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act."

An attorney representing the firms in federal court could not be
immediately reached on Oct. 3.

In the most recent action, employees Linda Shellhammer and Narda
Shipp, and former employee Erin Wilson represent hundreds of
others.

In addition to Ms. Giles and Ms. Wallace, the lawsuit identified
25 "John Doe corporate defendants" whose names are unknown.

The lawsuit said the employees have been paid by numerous
corporate entities this year and have been asked to work
interchangeably for the various defendants at times, demonstrating
the interrelated nature of companies owned and/or managed by Giles
and Ms. Wallace.

In the August lawsuit, employees alleged that some firms operated
by Ms. Giles and Ms. Wallace caused the company's health insurance
plan to lapse by failing to pay premiums.  Employees alleged in
the previous lawsuit that the defendants withdrew retirement
contributions from their paychecks but didn't deposit the money in
the employees' 401(k) accounts.

Plaintiffs in the previous lawsuit said that they weren't informed
that their insurance had been terminated and that some employees
incurred thousands of dollars in medical bills before learning
they had no coverage.

The two lawsuits have some of the hundreds of plaintiffs in
common, said Robert Roark, an attorney representing the employees.

Some employees didn't participate in the 401(k) plan, but they
lost wages, and some employees had problems with the retirement
plan and their wages, he said.  Mr. Roark said he would ask the
judge to merge the two lawsuits.

The most recent lawsuit asks for unspecified punitive damages.

Among those filing the Oct. 2 lawsuit is an employees' committee,
authorized by U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
filed Sept. 3 by a firm called Resources in Healthcare Management,
according to the lawsuit.

The committee was authorized to protect the rights of the
employees of Resources in Healthcare Management and to protect the
creditor rights of the RHM bankruptcy estate, according to wording
in the lawsuit filed on Oct. 2.

RHM said in its bankruptcy filing that it had estimated assets of
no more than $50,000 and estimated liabilities of $1 million to
$10 million, the Herald-Leader previously reported.

Resources in Healthcare Management estimated that it has 200 to
999 creditors.

RHM is a defendant in the federal class-action lawsuit filed in
August but not in the lawsuit filed on Oct. 2.


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Pays Settlement in Niederklein Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PCS Edventures!.com, Inc. has paid all settlement funds in the
lawsuit Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, according to
the company's Aug. 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company, along with its former CEO and former CFO, was named
in a class action lawsuit (Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com,
Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Case
1:10-cv-00479-CWD). The class action was brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
during the period between March 28, 2007 and August 15, 2007.

In September, the Company announced that it had entered into an
agreement to settle the class action lawsuit, subject to further
proceedings and approval by the Court. While the Company denies
the allegations made in the class action lawsuit, the settlement
was entered to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.

On October 5, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement, and approved the notices that were sent to potential
class members. At the Settlement Fairness Hearing on February 22,
2012, the Court gave final approval to the settlement and entered
the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice. The
class action was settled for $665,000, with the Company's
insurance carrier providing most of the settlement funds. In
accordance with the Court ordered settlement, all settlement funds
were paid on or before February 29, 2012.


RAYMOND JAMES: Defends Suit Over Municipal Bonds vs. MK & Co.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc., is defending a subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit relating to the underwriting and sale of
certain municipal bonds, according to the Company's August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 2, 2012 (the "Closing Date") RJF completed its
acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of Morgan
Keegan & Company, Inc. (a broker-dealer hereinafter referred to as
"MK & Co.") and MK Holding, Inc. and certain of its affiliates
(collectively referred to hereinafter as "Morgan Keegan") from
Regions Financial Corporation ("Regions").

The SEC and the states of Missouri and Texas are investigating
alleged securities law violations by MK & Co. in the underwriting
and sale of certain municipal bonds.  An enforcement action was
brought by the Missouri Secretary of State on April 4, 2013,
seeking monetary penalties and other relief.  A civil action was
brought by institutional investors of the bonds on March 19, 2012,
seeking a return of their investment and unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.  A class action was brought on behalf of
retail purchasers of the bonds on September 4, 2012, seeking
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  These actions are
in the early stages.  These matters are subject to the
indemnification agreement with Regions.

Based in St. Petersburg, Florida, Raymond James Financial, Inc. is
a financial holding company whose broker-dealer subsidiaries are
engaged in various financial service businesses, including the
underwriting, distribution, trading and brokerage of equity and
debt securities and the sale of mutual funds and other investment
products.  Other subsidiaries of the Company provide investment
management services for retail and institutional clients,
corporate and retail banking, and trust services.


RAYMOND JAMES: Merger-Related Suit Settlement Approved in August
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc., disclosed in its August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that its settlement of one of
the class action lawsuits arising from its acquisition of Morgan
Keegan & Company, Inc. was approved in August 2013.

On April 2, 2012 (the "Closing Date") RJF completed its
acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of Morgan
Keegan & Company, Inc. (a broker-dealer hereinafter referred to as
"MK & Co.") and MK Holding, Inc. and certain of its affiliates
(collectively referred to hereinafter as "Morgan Keegan") from
Regions Financial Corporation ("Regions").

Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions, have
been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state
courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions and investors who
purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan
Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds").  The Regions Funds were
formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity
which was at one time a subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan
affiliates, but an entity which was not part of the Company's
Morgan Keegan acquisition.  The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Regions Funds and the
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts
relating to the activities of the Funds.  In August 2013, the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
approved the settlement of the class action and the derivative
action regarding the closed end funds for $62 million and $6
million, respectively.  No other class has been certified.
Certain of the shareholders in the Funds and other interested
parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual
civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action
lawsuits.

Based in St. Petersburg, Florida, Raymond James Financial, Inc. is
a financial holding company whose broker-dealer subsidiaries are
engaged in various financial service businesses, including the
underwriting, distribution, trading and brokerage of equity and
debt securities and the sale of mutual funds and other investment
products.  Other subsidiaries of the Company provide investment
management services for retail and institutional clients,
corporate and retail banking, and trust services.


RESER'S FINE: Recalls Cheesy Macaroni Salad Over Listeria Fears
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Reser's Fine Foods Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8372

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Reser's Fine Foods
Inc. are warning the public not to consume certain Reser's Fine
Foods brand Cheesy Macaroni Salad, because it may be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes.

These products have been distributed in Walmart stores located in
Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and nationally in Loblaw
banner stores.

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

The manufacturer, Reser's Fine Foods Inc., Beaverton, Oregon, USA,
is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the
marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the
recall.

Affected products:

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Cheesy Macaroni Salad with best
      before dates of 2013 OC 20 until 0 71117 18241 5;

   -- 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Cheesy Macaroni Salad with best
      before dates of 2013 OC 20 until 0 71117 61227 1


SAMAN BAKERY: Recalls Crackers Over Undeclared Egg Content
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Saman Bakery
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8357

Affected products:

   -- 200 g. Saman Bakery Crispy Pumpkin Crackers product with
      best before dates up to and including 05NO2013 (Nov 5)
      8 70839 00201 4;

   -- 200 g. Saman Bakery Crispy Sunflower Crackers product with
      best before dates up to and including 05NO2013 (Nov 5)
      8 70839 00120 8; and

   -- 200 g. Saman Bakery Crispy Almond Crackers with product with
      best before dates up to and including 05NO2013 (Nov 5)
      8 70839 00190 1

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Saman Bakery are
warning people with allergies to eggs not to consume the crackers.
The affected products contain egg which is not declared on the
label.

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

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

The manufacturer, Saman Bakery, North Vancouver, BC, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Del. and Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation continues to defend itself against
consolidated merger-related class action lawsuits pending in
Delaware and Illinois, according to the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 30, 2013, the Company entered into a merger agreement
pursuant to which it agreed to acquire WMS Industries Inc., a
leading supplier of gaming machines and interactive gaming systems
and content ("WMS"), for $26.00 in cash per common share, for a
total enterprise value of approximately $1,500.0 million.  In
March 2013, the Company received confirmation from the Federal
Trade Commission of early termination of the waiting period under
the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 in
connection with the merger, which satisfied the related closing
condition.  In May 2013, WMS' stockholders approved the merger.
The closing of the merger remains subject to approval by various
regulatory authorities and other customary closing conditions.
The Company has filed an application for approval (or otherwise
provided the required documentation or information), or has
received confirmation that such approval is not required prior to
the closing of the merger, in each of the jurisdictions where
gaming regulatory approval is a condition to closing under the
merger agreement.

Complaints challenging the pending WMS merger were filed earlier
this year in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, and the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois.  The actions are putative
class actions filed on behalf of the WMS stockholders.  The
complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and
approval of the merger and in connection with their public
disclosures concerning the merger.  The complaints allege that
other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and
certain affiliates of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and
abetted those alleged breaches.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP).  The
plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the
Delaware Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had
conferred with the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed
to stay the consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions have been transferred to Cook
County.  All of the Illinois actions have been consolidated in
Cook County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013
CH 3540).

On April 1, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder
vote on the merger.  On April 26, 2013, lead counsel in the
Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions
in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for
preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger.  WMS made those
supplemental disclosures on a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on
April 29, 2013.

Scientific Games Corporation denies all liability with respect to
the claims alleged in the Delaware and Illinois litigation, denies
that it or any of its affiliates aided and abetted any purported
breaches of fiduciary duty by the WMS directors and denies that
any further disclosures are or were required to supplement the
definitive proxy statement filed by WMS with the SEC.

The Company says additional lawsuits relating to the merger
agreement or the merger may be filed in the future.  The outcome
of the existing lawsuits or any future lawsuits cannot be
predicted with certainty.  An adverse judgment for monetary
damages could have a material adverse effect on the operations and
liquidity of WMS or the Company, as the case may be, and therefore
could adversely affect the combined business if the merger is
completed.  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.

Scientific Games Corporation -- http://www.scientificgames.com/--
was incorporated in Delaware in 1984 and is headquartered in New
York.  The Company is a global leader in providing customized,
end-to-end gaming solutions to lottery and gaming organizations
worldwide.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Suits by Former Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation faces several collective labor suits
including one in California, according to the company's Aug. 22,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 3, 2013.

The company is a defendant in several lawsuits containing class or
collective action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current
and former hourly and salaried associates who allege violations of
various wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining to
alleged misclassification of certain of the company's employees
and the failure to pay overtime and/or the failure to pay for
missed meal and rest periods. The complaints generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.

Further, certain of these proceedings are in jurisdictions with
reputations for aggressive application of laws and procedures
against corporate defendants. The company also is a defendant in
several putative or certified class action lawsuits in California
relating to alleged failure to comply with California laws
pertaining to certain operational, marketing and payroll
practices. The California laws alleged to have been violated in
each of these lawsuits provide the potential for significant
statutory penalties. At this time, the Company is not able to
either predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably
estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuits.


ST. JOE CO: Time to Seek Writ of Certiorari Expired in July
-----------------------------------------------------------
The St. Joe Company said in its August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that the plaintiff's time to file a petition
for writ of certiorari with respect to the dismissal of a
securities class action lawsuit expired on July 29, 2013.

On November 3, 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against St. Joe and certain of its current and former officers in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Meyer v. The St. Joe Company et al., No. 5:11-cv-27).  On
January 12, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted with
prejudice and judgment was entered in favor of St. Joe and the
individual defendants.  On February 25, 2013, the trial court's
dismissal of the lawsuit complaint was affirmed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and judgment was
entered in favor of the defendants.  On April 30, 2013, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition
for rehearing or rehearing en banc.  The plaintiff's time to file
a petition for writ of certiorari expired on July 29, 2013.

Founded in 1936, WaterSound, Florida-based The St. Joe Company --
http://www/joe.com/-- operates as a real estate development
company in Florida.  The Company operates in four segments:
Residential Real Estate, Commercial Real Estate, Rural Land Sales,
and Forestry.  The Company owns approximately 573,000 acres of
land concentrated primarily in northwest Florida.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid for Writ of Certiorari Filed in ATM Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit titled In re ATM Fee
Antitrust Litigation filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court in July 2013, according to
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that
have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco,
California under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master File No. C04-2676 CR13.  In these actions, the Plaintiffs,
on behalf of a class, assert that Concord EFS and a number of
financial institutions have unlawfully fixed the interchange fee
for participants in the Star ATM Network.  The Plaintiffs claim
that Defendants' conduct is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  The Plaintiffs initially asserted the Defendants' conduct
was illegal per se.  In August 2007, Concord and the bank
defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
per se claim.  In March 2008, the Court granted the motions on the
ground that the Defendants' conduct in setting an interchange fee
must be analyzed under the rule of reason.  The Court certified
this question for interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Plaintiffs' petition for
permission to appeal on August 13, 2008.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint in
which they asserted a rule of reason claim.  This complaint was
dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were given leave to
file another amended complaint.  The Plaintiffs filed yet another
complaint and Defendants moved to dismiss the same.  The Court
granted this motion in part by dismissing one of the Plaintiffs'
two claims but denied the motion as to one claim.  On
September 16, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to the remaining claim on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert that claim.  The Plaintiffs
filed an appeal of this decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decision.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing en banc;
however, this motion was denied.  The Plaintiffs filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in
July 2013.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Captive Reinsurance Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the remaining class action lawsuit related to
captive reinsurance arrangements remains pending, according to
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin
Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class
actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal "captive
reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.  More
specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of
private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to
them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks"
in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers.  The
Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust
enrichment to the detriment of borrowers.  The first of these
cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et
al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  This case was stayed by the
Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial
Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before
the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.  The second of these cases,
Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in December 2011.  This case
was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also.  In June
2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of certiorari in
Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted.
The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily dismissed this case.  A
motion to dismiss is pending in the Thurmond case.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the Colonial BancGroup Securities Litigation
remains pending, according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"),
certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of
Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain
debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks
unspecified damages.  The Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections
11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and
misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and
prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,
mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality.  On
August 28, 2009, the Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy.  The
defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the
Court subsequently ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  This amended complaint was filed and the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Mutual Funds Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a new class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of Plan participants, who held the STI
Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts, remains pending,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by offering
certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan").  The plaintiff
purports to represent all current and former Plan participants who
held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from
April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged
losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of
their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.  This action was
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court").  On June 6,
2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The Company filed a
subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the
ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
remaining claims.  On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all
claims in this action.  Immediately thereafter, the plaintiffs'
counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the
Company substituting two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal
of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.  SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss in the new action
and will defend itself in the appeal filed with the Eleventh
Circuit.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend Lehman-Related Suits vs. STRH
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., continues to defend its subsidiary against
individual and class action lawsuits relating to various debt and
preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.
("STRH") along with other underwriters and individuals, were named
as defendants in several individual and putative class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas,
California, Texas, and Washington.  The Plaintiffs alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933
and/or state law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in
connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought
unspecified damages.  All cases were transferred for coordination
to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers
Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the class action.  On
July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the other
underwriter defendants in the class action.  A settlement with the
class plaintiffs was approved by the Court and the class
settlement approval process was completed.  A number of individual
lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained pending
following the class settlement.  STRH has settled one such
individual action and is in settlement discussions in another.
The other individual lawsuits have been dismissed, subject to an
appeal in one case and a potential appeal in another.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Plea to Certify in Overdraft Fee Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification is pending in one of the three
class action lawsuits over overdraft fees, according to SunTrust
Banks, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class
actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer
accounts.

The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et
al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009.
This action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009,
and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation
Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009.  The Plaintiffs asserted claims
for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust
enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result of the
method of posting order used by the Company, which allegedly
resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint checking
account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a putative
class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an
overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient balance
of actual funds to cover all debits that have been submitted to
the bank for payment," as well as "all SunTrust account holders
who incurred one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust
Bank's reordering of charges."  The Plaintiffs sought restitution,
damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief
deemed equitable by the Court.  The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both motions were
denied.  The denial of the motion to compel arbitration was
appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Eleventh
Circuit remanded this matter back to the District Court with
instructions to the District Court to review its prior ruling in
light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion.  The District Court then denied SunTrust's motion to
compel arbitration for different reasons.

SunTrust appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit and, on
March 1, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's
decision and ordered that SunTrust's Motion to Compel Arbitration
be granted.  The Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc, which was denied.  The Plaintiffs have filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
also was denied.  This matter is now closed.

The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed
in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.  The Plaintiff asserts that
all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit
card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and
therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia.  The Plaintiff has
brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws,
conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the
action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such
overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee
resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury
rate.  SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on
March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out
for the putative class members.  SunTrust filed an appeal of this
decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that
the appeal was prematurely granted.  On April 8, 2013, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion
is pending.

The third of these cases, Byrd v. SunTrust Bank, was filed on
April 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.  The Plaintiff asserts claims for
breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust
enrichment for alleged injuries suffered as a result of the method
of posting order used by SunTrust, which allegedly resulted in
overdraft fees being assessed to his checking account, and purport
to bring this action on behalf of a putative class of "all
SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge
despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds
to cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for
payment," as well as "all SunTrust account holders who incurred
one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering
of charges."  The Plaintiff seeks restitution, damages, expenses
of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable
by the Court.  The District Court granted SunTrust's motion to
compel arbitration in July 2013.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Suit Alleging ERISA Violations Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 remains pending, according
to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan").  The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.  On
December 9, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On October 25, 2010, the District Court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The Defendants and plaintiffs filed
separate motions for the District Court to certify its October 25,
2010 order for immediate interlocutory appeal.  On January 3,
2011, the District Court granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, the defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court").  On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals.  The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these
appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home
Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented.  On
May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The
Home Depot.  On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings
in light of its decision in The Home Depot case.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- one of the
nation's largest commercial banking organizations, is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate clients.  SunTrust was incorporated in 1984 in Georgia
and its executive offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia.


T&T SUPERMARKET: Recalls Sanritsu Products Over Allergens
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           T&T Supermarket Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8377

Affected products:

   -- Sanritsu Couque D'Asses - Langue de Chat Cookies & Chocolate
      with all codes where eggs are not declared in the ingredient
      list;

   -- Sanritsu Couque D'Asses - Langue de Chat Cookies & White
      Chocolate with all codes where eggs are not declared in the
      ingredient list;

   -- Sanritsu Couque D'Asses - Langue de Chat Cookies & Maccha
      Chocolate with all codes where eggs are not declared in the
      ingredient list;

   -- Sanritsu Cigarettes Langue - Langue de Chat Cookies with all
      codes where eggs and milk are not declared in the ingredient
      list;

   -- Sanritsu Green Tea Cookie - Biscuit with all codes where
      eggs and milk are not declared in the ingredient list.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
McClatchy-Tribune reports that Israeli generics giant Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. will disclose the salaries and
compensation of its top executives on an individual basis, and not
as an aggregate amount as it has reported until now.  The change
will start to be implemented in its financial report for 2013.
This comes after approval of the settlement in the class-action
suit against Teva over the way it reports executive compensation.
Tel Aviv District Court Judge Danya Kareth-Meyer approved the
settlement on Sept. 29, saying, "The disclosure that Teva has
promised in the context of the settlement unequivocally creates a
benefit for Teva's shareholders."

Until now, the salary cost of the executives of Teva, the company
with the highest weighting on the Tel Aviv 25 Index, has been
confidential.  The background to the class-action suit against
Teva is the fact that, 13 years ago, Teva began operating under
dual-listing rules of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (as soon as they
came into effect), and switched to US reporting rules, which
include the filing of reports and documents required of a foreign
company listed on Wall Street, rather than as an Israeli company
listed on the TASE.

As a result, Teva ceased disclosing the salary cost of its top
five executives (Regulation 21 in periodic financial reports), and
for 13 years (2000-12) it has not been possible to know the
salaries that the company paid its executives.  The request to
recognize the class-action suit against Teva, filed by
Prof. Sharon Hannes and Prof. Ehud Kamar of Tel Aviv University,
claims that, since 2000, Teva has been in breach of its duty to
disclose the compensation of its executives and directives in its
periodic financial reports.

Teva claimed, and still claims, that it is acting legitimately and
legally, but it nonetheless decided to settle the case on the
condition that it could cease publishing salaries on an individual
basis at any time.

Even though the approved settlement is only binding on Teva, the
decision of the Israeli giant to disclose the details could have a
major effect on other dual-listed Israeli companies listed on the
TASE and in New York, and this effect is also what the petitioners
are hoping for.

There are currently 50 dual-listed companies, 30 of which have
chosen, like Teva, to cease disclosing executive compensation on
an individual basis.  Among them are: Perrigo Company, Partner
Communications Ltd., Cellcom Israel Ltd., Protalix Biotherapeutics
Inc., NICE Systems Ltd., Tower Semiconductor Ltd., and Elbit
Systems Ltd.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Has Yet to File Merger-Related Suits Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc., has yet to file its settlement
agreement resolving two merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

A putative class action entitled Koehler v. NetSpend Holdings,
Inc. et. al. (the "Koehler action") was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on March 1, 2013, and a putative
class action entitled Bushansky v. NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et al.
(together with the Koehler action, the "Actions") was filed in the
District Court of Travis County, Texas, on February 25, 2013, each
in connection with TSYS' proposed merger with NetSpend pursuant to
the Merger Agreement.  On May 21, 2013, the Delaware Chancery
Court issued a memorandum opinion in the Koehler action denying
the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought
to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger.

While TSYS and the other defendants believe that each of the
Actions is without merit, in an effort to minimize the cost and
expense of any litigation relating to such Actions, on May 29,
2013, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs regarding settlement of the Actions.  In connection
with the settlement contemplated by that agreement in principle,
as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), dated as of
May 29, 2013, the Actions and all claims asserted therein will be
dismissed.  In addition, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, TSYS
and/or NetSpend, where applicable, agreed (a) to make certain
amendments to the Merger Agreement; (b) that, consistent with the
terms of the Merger Agreement, prior to the receipt of approval of
the NetSpend stockholders, NetSpend could furnish information to,
and engage in discussions and negotiations with, third parties who
make unsolicited bona fide acquisition proposals if certain
conditions were met; (c) that the special meeting of NetSpend
stockholders that was scheduled to be held on May 31, 2013, would
be adjourned to June 18, 2013; (d) that NetSpend would not take
certain positions with respect to any appraisal proceeding
perfected under Delaware law; (e) that certain information would
be provided to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Actions in
connection with any perfected appraisal proceeding; and (e)
without admitting that any of the claims in the Actions have merit
or that any supplemental disclosure was required under any
applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, that they would
acknowledge that the filing and prosecution of the Actions were
the cause, in whole or in part, of certain supplemental
disclosures made in connection with the proposed merger.  The
parties to the MOU further agreed that their agreement in
principle would be described in greater detail in a stipulation of
settlement, which will be submitted to the Court of Chancery at
the appropriate time.  The Company says there can be no assurance
that the court will approve the settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the agreement in principle.

Total System Services, Inc. -- http://www.tsys.com/-- through its
North America Services and International Services segments,
processes information through its cardholder systems to financial
and nonfinancial institutions throughout the United States and
internationally.  The Company is headquartered in Columbus,
Georgia.


TREX COMPANY: Wins Approval of Settlement in Product Defect Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. announced that on August 19, 2013, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
preliminary approval of a Settlement Agreement that will resolve a
nationwide class action lawsuit filed in California alleging
certain misrepresentations and defects in Trex's first-generation
composite products relating to mold growth and color issues,
according to the company's Aug. 22, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

In addition to the relief, Trex has agreed to discontinue the
manufacture of non-capped composite products (Trex Accents) by
December 31, 2013, provide a video demonstrating cleaning
instructions for non-capped composite products on its website, and
distribute warranty pads to retailers.

The Company has denied any liability in the settlement and has
agreed to the settlement in order to avoid additional expensive,
time consuming litigation.


TRUNKBOW INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Lawsuits by Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Trunkbow International Holdings Limited continues to face
shareholder lawsuits, according to the company's Aug. 21, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On November 8, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
a purported Trunkbow shareholder in District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, captioned Hansen v. Trunkbow, et al., Case No. A-12-
671652-C. The complaint named as defendants several directors and
officers of Trunkbow, namely, Wanchun Hou, Qiang Li, Jihong Bao,
Xin Wang, Albert Liu, Regis Kwong, Kokhui Tan, Iris Geng, Tingjie
Lv, Zhaoxing Huang and Dong Li (the "Individual Defendants").

Although Trunkbow was included among the defendants listed in the
caption, the complaint did not assert a cause of action against
the Company. The plaintiff in Hansen seeks recovery on behalf of
all Trunkbow shareholders for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by the Individual Defendants in connection with the Proposed
Transaction in which the Chairman of Trunkbow's Board of
Directors, Wanchun Hou, and Trunkbow's CEO, Qiang Li, have offered
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common
stock not currently owned by them.

On November 14, 2012, another putative class action lawsuit was
filed by a purported Trunkbow shareholder in District Court, Clark
County, Nevada, captioned Robert Davis v. Hou, et al., Case No. A-
12-671946-C. Trunkbow is named as a defendant in this action,
along with each of the Individual Defendants named in the Hanson
complaint.

The plaintiff in Davis seeks recovery on behalf of all Trunkbow
shareholders for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
and for aiding and abetting such alleged breaches by Trunkbow. The
plaintiffs in both cases allege that the share price proposed by
Hou and Li is inadequate in light of the Company's intrinsic value
and anticipated future growth.

Among other things, the plaintiffs in both actions seek to enjoin
the Proposed Transaction until such time as the Individual
Defendants have acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties.

Only the Company has been served in the actions, but it need not
respond to the complaints until after a transaction agreement has
been signed, if that occurs, and an amended complaint has been
filed.


TURKEY HILL: Recalls Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup Premium Ice Cream
------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkey Hill Dairy of Conestoga, Pa., is recalling specific
packages of 1.5 qt. (48 oz./1.42L) of Fudge Ripple Premium Ice
Cream and 1 Pint (16 oz./473 ml) packages of Chocolate Peanut
Butter Cup Premium Ice Cream, and Moose Tracks Stuff'd Frozen
Dairy Dessert due to the possibility that some packages may
contain metal shavings.

Specific Product identification:

Turkey Hill Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup Premium Ice Cream
          Size: 1 Pint (473 ml)
          UPC Code: 0-20735-42005-8
          Sell By Date: 10/04/2014  42-092

Turkey Hill Fudge Ripple Premium Ice Cream
          Size: 1.5 quart (48 Ounce)
          UPC Code: 0-20735-11011-9
          Sell By Date: 09/30/2014  42-092

Turkey Hill Moose Tracks Stuff'd Frozen Dairy Dessert
          Size: 1 Pint (473 ml)
          UPC Code: 0-20735-42025-6
          Sell By Date: 09/27/2014   42-092

There have been no reports of any foreign objects being found or
any injury/illness occurring.

The recalled items are limited to packages sold at select Turkey
Hill Minit Markets in Pennsylvania, select Wal-Marts in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and other small grocers and
convenience stores in Maryland and Pennsylvania.  All affected
stores are directly delivered to and serviced by Turkey Hill Dairy
and have been instructed to remove the product from their shelves.

All affected containers would have been purchased by consumers
after October 1, 2013.

Consumers who have purchased affected packages of the products
listed with the code cited above can return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund or contact Turkey Hill Dairy at
1-800-MY-DAIRY (1-800-693-2479).


TYSON FOODS: Ordered to Pay Nearly $5-Mil. in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that a Nebraska federal
judge ordered Tyson Foods Inc. to cough up nearly $5 million on
Oct. 2 in a donning and doffing class action brought on behalf of
beef processing plant workers, calling Tyson's damages proposal an
attempt to dodge its obligations to pay employees for actual time
worked.

Current and former workers at Tyson's Dakota City, Neb., facility,
however, are only in line for $3.3 million awarded under the Fair
Labor Standards Act because punitive damages aren't allowed under
the Nebraska constitution, according to U.S. District Judge Joseph
Bataillon's memorandum and order.

That means in addition to the $3,307,191.20 FLSA judgment for the
plaintiffs, Tyson must remit an additional $1,653,595.60 in
damages called for under the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection
Act to the state's treasurer, the ruling said.  The FLSA award
represents $1,653,595.60 in compensatory damages plus liquidated
damages in the same amount.

"The liquidated damages that double the award under the FLSA are
effectively subsumed in the triple damages awarded under the
NWPCA.  The additional NWPCA damages that are not encompassed by
the FLSA liquidated damages award, however, must be paid to the
state treasurer for distribution to the common school fund under
Nebraska law," the decision said.

In addition to damages, the court said the plaintiffs could
collect attorneys' fees, which would be determined at a later
date.

The court had previously ruled as a matter of law that liquidated
damages were in order because Tyson's conduct was "willful and
unreasonable," Judge Battaillon said.  The plaintiffs had already
won summary judgment on liability when the case was tried in March
and April of this year, leaving the jury to decide how much time
it took for workers to perform the activities -- donning and
doffing and walking to and from the production line -- which the
court had deemed compensable.

Both sides submitted damages calculations, and the court adopted
the calculations of the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Liesl Fox.  The
criticisms Tyson's expert leveled against Fox's calculations
lacked merit, the order said.

"The court finds Tyson's damages proposal is yet another attempt
by Tyson to skirt its obligations, clear since IBP, Inc. v.
Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), to record and pay its employees for
actual time," Judge Battaillon said.

The lawsuit was filed in January 2008, invoking federal and state
law and seeking minimum and overtime wages.  The plaintiffs were
paid on a "gang time" system that only covered time spent on the
actual production line, they said, meaning time spent on
activities such as donning and doffing protective gear and walking
time were not covered.  But Tyson claimed it paid some workers for
extra four minutes per day for time spent changing clothes, the
complaint said.

The class covered more than 8,000 Tyson workers and stretched back
to 2004, court papers said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Hamilton of Provost
Umphrey Law Firm LLP; Robert Wiggins -- rwiggins@wcqp.com --
Candis McGowan -- cmcgowan@wcqp.com -- and Daniel Arciniegas --
darciniegas@wcqp.com -- of Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis LLC;
Brian McCafferty of Kenney & McCafferty; and Roger Doolittle.

Tyson is represented in this matter by Michael Mueller, Emily
Burkhardt Vicente and Evangeline C. Paschal of Hunton & Williams
LLP, as well as Thomas Johnson -- tjohnson@bairdholm.com -- and
Allison Balus -- abalus@bairdholm.com -- of Baird Holm LLP.

The case is Gomez et al v. Tyson Foods, case number 8:08-cv-00021,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.


UNITED STATES: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Gary" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed a district court's judgment of dismissal entered in the
case, CATHLEEN R. GARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in his
official capacity, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY
SERVICE, GENERAL KEITH B. ALEXANDER, U.S. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY, et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-15394.

Cathleen Gary appealed the district court's sua sponte dismissal
of her pro se civil complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).  Ms. Gary filed a civil complaint
against a number of high-level government officials, including
President Barack Obama and various national intelligence agencies,
asserting that they had implanted microchips into her body that
caused tumors and tissue damage. She alleged that these microchips
were used to conduct biomedical research regarding her
reproductive system, to track her movements, and to cause her
pain. She further alleged that the defendants drugged and
assaulted her in order to cover up evidence of her damages, and
that these assaults included invasive surgery, tissue removal, and
inserting foreign objects into her body. Ms. Gary sought leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and she also filed a motion for
injunctive relief and a motion for class action certification.

A magistrate judge issued an order and a report and
recommendation, which granted Ms. Gary's motion to proceed IFP.
However, the magistrate judge determined that Gary's allegations
were "fanciful and delusional" and recommended dismissing her
complaint pursuant to Section 1915(e)(B)(i) and (ii) for frivolity
and for failure to state a claim. Ms. Gary objected to the R&R,
but the district court adopted the R&R as the order of the court.
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and dismissed as
moot Ms. Gary's motion for an injunction and motion for class
action certification.  Ms. Gary appealed.

The 11th Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing Ms. Gary's complaint as frivolous, as
a review of the complaint shows that her allegations were
irrational and wholly incredible.  Furthermore, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by not affording Ms. Gary an
opportunity to amend her complaint because any amendment would
have been futile, as none of her allegations are credible or
rational, says the 11th Circuit.

A copy of the Circuit Court's September 16, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/NJn5sQfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Court Grants Dismissal Bid in "Bagnall" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD BAGNALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KATHLEEN
SEBELIUS, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant, NO.
3:11CV1703 (MPS), (D. Conn.), District Judge Michael P. Shea
granted a motion to dismiss, saying the plaintiffs' claims fail as
a matter of law.

The Plaintiffs are 14 Medicare beneficiaries, or representatives
of their estates, who were taken to a hospital for various acute
medical conditions between 2009 and 2011.  Each of the Plaintiffs
suffered serious financial consequences as a result of the fact
that they were not admitted and were instead placed on observation
status. Because they were not considered inpatients, the medical
services that Plaintiffs received while in the hospital were
covered under Medicare Part B rather than Part A. Plaintiffs
brought the putative class action against the "use" of observation
status, which, according to Plaintiffs, deprives "thousands of
Medicare beneficiaries annually of Part A coverage for their
hospitalization and [denies] coverage of their follow-up nursing
home care."

The Secretary moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.

A copy of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Memorandum of
Decision is available at http://is.gd/NuHFNdfrom Leagle.com.


VERMONT COUNTRY: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Times Argus reports that a former employee of the Vermont Country
Store has initiated a class action lawsuit claiming the company
violates federal labor practices.

Rutland-based attorney Christopher Larson filed the lawsuit in
U.S. District Court on behalf of Doreen Forauer, who, according to
the lawsuit, worked as a customer service representative at the
company's call center in Manchester from 2004 until 2012.

The lawsuit alleges the Vermont Country Store "knowingly required
Plaintiff Ms. Forauer and similarly situated individuals to
perform unpaid work before their shifts."

Such off-the-clock tasks included turning on and logging onto a
computer; initializing software programs and opening the company's
website; and reviewing work-related email and Internet messages.

According to the lawsuit, the company has policies in place that
would negatively affect the performance scores of an employee who
was not ready to take a phone call at the start of a shift.

The lawsuit alleges the company also forced Ms. Forauer to work
during her break or after her shift, performing tasks ranging from
reviewing the work schedule and requesting changes; documenting
daily activities and turning off the computer.

According to the lawsuit, the store's alleged policies forced
Ms. Forauer and others work between 20 minutes and 30 minutes
every day without pay.

Reached by phone, Chris Vickers, president and CEO of the Vermont
Country Store, rejected the allegations in the lawsuit.

"It's without merit," Vickers said. "Our policies are clear that
we don't want work done off the clock."

He denied an allegation in the lawsuit claiming the company does
not have a policy or procedure in place where Ms. Forauer or
others could be paid for their work before or after a shift.

Mr. Vickers said the company does in fact have such a policy,
under which an employee can be paid for work done off the clock.
Moreover, he said, Ms. Forauer had followed this policy many
times.

The alleged practices would violate the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act's minimum-wage requirements by "regularly and
repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff Forauer and similarly
situated individuals for time spent on work activities as
described in this Complaint," the lawsuit says.

Ms. Forauer is seeking unpaid back wages with interest and
attorney's fees.

Ms. Forauer might not be the only person to sue the Vermont
Country Store over alleged illegal labor practices; her attorney
has sent notice to hundreds of current and former customer service
and telemarketing sales representatives to see if they want to
join Ms. Forauer in a class action lawsuit.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Inks MOU in Suit Over Acquisition by Actavis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the lawsuit Martin v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited
Company, Case No. 2:33-AV-00001 has executed a memorandum of
understanding to settle the suit, according to the company's Aug.
22, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In the definitive proxy statement/prospectus (the "Proxy
Statement") dated July 31, 2013 relating to the proposed
acquisition (the "Acquisition") of Warner Chilcott Public Limited
Company ("Warner Chilcott") by Actavis, Inc. ("Actavis"), it was
revealed that on on July 29, 2013, a purported shareholder of
Warner Chilcott filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
styled Martin v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, Case No.
2:33-AV-00001 (the "Action"), challenging the Acquisition.

The complaint alleges that Warner Chilcott violated Section 14 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated
thereunder by disseminating, with Actavis, a preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus in connection with the Acquisition
containing certain material omissions and misstatements.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, that consummation of the
Acquisition be enjoined, as well as an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages.

On August 22, 2013, the parties to the Action executed a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") setting forth an agreement
in principle, subject to court approval and certain other
conditions, to settle the Action on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the MOU, Warner Chilcott agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures as set forth in this Form 8-K.

The MOU further provides that, among other things, (a) the parties
will replace the MOU with a definitive stipulation of settlement
(the "Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the court
for review and approval; (b) the plaintiff will not pursue his
efforts to enjoin the proposed Acquisition; (c) the Stipulation
will provide for dismissal of the Action with prejudice on the
merits; (d) the Stipulation will include a customary release of
Warner Chilcott from any and all claims relating to the
Acquisition and any disclosures made in connection therewith; and
(e) the proposed settlement is conditioned on, among other things,
consummation of the Acquisition, completion of certain
confirmatory discovery, class certification, and final approval by
the court following notice to Warner Chilcott's shareholders.
Pending final approval by the court of the Stipulation, the
plaintiff has agreed to stay all proceedings in the Action and not
to initiate any other proceedings, except those relating to the
settlement.

Warner Chilcott has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing or
liability with respect to all claims, events and transactions
complained of in the Action or that it has engaged in any
wrongdoing. Warner Chilcott has entered into the MOU solely to
eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction
of further litigation. Warner Chilcott does not concede that any
of the supplemental disclosures made pursuant to the MOU in this
Form 8-K are material or otherwise required by law.  Warner
Chilcott and Actavis believe that the Action is without merit and,
if the proposed settlement is not approved, intend to vigorously
defend against it.  There is no assurance that Warner Chilcott and
Actavis will be successful in the outcome of the pending or any
potential future lawsuits.

The settlement will not affect the form or amount of consideration
to be received by Warner Chilcott shareholders in the transaction.


WATTS WATER: Suit Over Faulty Toilet Connectors Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The nationwide class action lawsuit over alleged failure of toilet
connectors remains pending, according to Watts Water Technologies,
Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies (Taizho) Co., Ltd., among
other companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking to recover damages and
other relief based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors.
The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified
amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Company says it is unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss for the matter in which damages have not been
specified because: (i) the proceedings are in the early stages;
(ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being
certified or the ultimate size of the class; (iii) there are
significant factual issues to be resolved; and (iv) there are
novel legal issues presented.  However, based on information
currently known to the Company, it does not believe that these
proceedings will have a material effect on its financial position,
results of operations, cash flows or liquidity.

Headquartered in North Andover, Massachusetts, Watts Water
Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.wattswater.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in 1985 and the parent company of Watts
Regulator Co.  Watts Regulator was founded by Joseph E. Watts in
1874 in Lawrence, Massachusetts.  Watts Regulator started as a
small machine shop supplying parts to the New England textile
mills of the 19th century and grew into a global manufacturer of
products and systems focused on the control, conservation and
quality of water and the comfort and safety of the people using
it.


                             *********

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  * * *