CAR_Public/131016.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 16, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 205

                             Headlines



ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits "Lauria" Suit Plaintiffs' Next Move
ARUBA NETWORKS: Intends to Defend Mazzafero Lawsuit
ASIA CASH: Recalls PRAN Spice Powder Turmeric
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Awaits Ruling in One of Overdraft Fee Suits
BARREL O' FUN: Recalls Safeway Snack Artist BBQ Potato Chips

BHP BILLITON: Units Own Shares in Mining Complex Facing Suit
BLACKBERRY LTD: Misled Investors About Financial State, Suit Says
BOROUGH OF EMERSON: Filing Cabinets Contain Asbestos
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: One Suit Over Gas Markets Concluded in June
CHOICE HOTELS: Defends MDL Alleging Anti-Competitive Practices

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Court Rules on Discovery Rift in "Brecher" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Signature Organic Ground Beef
CYNTHIA DILLARD: Class Certification Bid in "Inson" Suit Denied
EFA PROCESSING: Accused of Skirting Debt Settlement Services Law
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Named as Defendant in Breach of Contract Suit

FIRST SOLAR: Dist. Court Certifies Class in "Smilovits" Suit
GLOBAL LINGUIST: Dispute Trapped Translators in Kuwait, Suit Says
GREEN OAKS: Faces Suit in Texas Alleging Racial Discrimination
HARRIS MEDICAL: Court Dismisses Counterclaim in "Nationwide" Suit
JAMES JUN WANG: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Stream" Class Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Attorneys Seek Transfer of Tylenol Suit
KAYDON CORP: Faces SKF Merger-Related Class Suit in Michigan
LEGAL HELPERS: District Court Dismisses "Fleenor" Class Action
MARATHON OIL: Dist. Court Remands "Cerny" Suit to State Court
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Issued Misleading Statements, Suit Says

MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Accused of Monopolizing Solodyn Market
MEDTRONIC INC: Supreme Court Seeks Government's Legal Views
MICHAEL ELLIS: "David Bass" Class Action Remanded to State Court
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Sued Over Death Linked to Recalled Drug
NEW YORK CITY TAXI: Sup. Ct. Dismisses "Carniol" Class Action

NEWS CORP: Bids to Dismiss Amended Avon Lawsuit Pending
NEWS CORP: HarperCollins Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Pretrial Conference in Class Suit on Nov. 21
OREGON: Class Cert. Bid Denial in "Martinez" Suit Affirmed
PACIFIC PREMIER: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit

PELLA CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Andrews" Class Action
PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Prelim. OK of Merger Suits Settlement
PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: Recalls 17 Multiple Vehicle Model Cars
REGAL SNACKS: Recalls Certain KCB Pista Khatie
SARA LEE: Appeals Court Grants Writ of Mandate in "Alsheikh" Case

SPACE SYSTEMS: "Schneider" Parties to Send Revised Notice Oct. 18
SOBTAX NY: Faces Class Suit in New York Over FLSA Violations
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Bundle of Lawsuits Over Acceleration Problems
TRADEOPIA CORP: Recalls Magnodots Magnet Sets
VELTI PLC: Faces Calif. Class Suits Over 2011 Public Offerings

VIKING RANGE: Recalls Built-In Side-by-Side Refrigerator Freezers

* Auto Recalls Put on Hold During Partial Government Shutdown
* U.S. House Passes Bill to Help Identify Counterfeit Drugs


                             *********


ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits "Lauria" Suit Plaintiffs' Next Move
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it is waiting for the
plaintiffs' next course of action in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Thomas Lauria.

On June 19, 2013, BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("BioSante")
acquired ANIP Acquisition Company ("ANIP") in an all-stock, tax-
free reorganization, in which ANIP became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of BioSante.  BioSante was renamed ANI Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.  The Merger was accounted for as a reverse acquisition
pursuant to which ANIP was considered the acquiring entity for
accounting purposes.

On February 3, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the caption Thomas Lauria, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Stephen M. Simes naming the Company and its former President
and Chief Executive Officer, Stephen M. Simes, as defendants.  The
complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
relating to the efficacy of LibiGel(R) and its commercial
potential were false and/or misleading and that such false and/or
misleading statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
price of the Company's securities resulting in violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  Although a substantially similar complaint was
filed in the same court on February 21, 2012, such complaint was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in April 2012.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's securities between February 12, 2010, and December 15,
2011, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and reasonable costs, expert fees and
attorneys' fees on behalf of such purchasers.

Management believes the action is without merit and intends to
defend the action vigorously.  On November 6, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint.  On December 28, 2012, the
Company and Mr. Simes filed motions to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  Briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss
in the district court is complete.  On July 1, 2013, the Illinois
state court judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss, without
prejudice, and gave plaintiffs until July 31, 2013, to file an
amended complaint.  On August 1, 2013, the Company was informed by
plaintiff's counsel that they do not intend to file an amended
complaint and instead will request an order dismissing the case,
with prejudice, after which the plaintiffs will consider whether
to appeal to the Illinois court of appeals.

The Company says the lawsuit is in their early stages; and,
therefore, management is unable to predict the outcome of the
lawsuit and the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with their resolution or any potential effect the lawsuit may have
on the Company's operations.  Depending on the outcome or
resolution of the lawsuit, it could have a material effect on the
Company's operations, including the Company's financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows.  No amounts have been
accrued related to the lawsuit as of June 30, 2013.

Based in Baudette, Minnesota, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a
specialty pharmaceutical company, developing and marketing generic
and branded prescription products.  In two facilities located in
Baudette, Minnesota, the Company manufactures oral solid dose
products, as well as liquids and topicals, including those that
must be manufactured in a fully contained environment due to their
potency and/or toxicity.  The Company also performs contract
manufacturing for other pharmaceutical companies.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Intends to Defend Mazzafero Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
A purported stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Mazzafero
v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., was filed on May 23, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Aruba Networks, Inc., and certain of its
officers, alleging claims for violations of the federal securities
laws, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for  the fiscal year ended July
31, 2013

On May 23, 2013, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Mazzafero v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers. The
purported class action alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to defend the
litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available,
the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or
range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable.

Aruba Networks, Inc., is a provider of next-generation network
access solutions for mobile enterprise networks. The Mobile
Virtual Enterprise (MOVE) architecture unifies wired and wireless
infrastructures into one seamless network access solution for
traveling business professionals, remote workers, corporate
headquarters employees and guests. Aruba's MOVE architecture
provides context-aware networking for the post-desktop personal
computer (PC) era. Mobility network services are delivered
centrally from the data center across thin network access devices
or on-ramps. It addresses the secured mobility problem using a
user-centric architecture that assigns network access policies to
users instead of to data ports or other infrastructure. On
November 30, 2011, it completed its acquisition of Avenda Systems
(Avenda). On May 23, 2012, it acquired a wireless technology
company. In May 2013, Aruba Networks Inc announced the acquisition
of Meridian Apps, Inc.


ASIA CASH: Recalls PRAN Spice Powder Turmeric
---------------------------------------------
Asia Cash & Carry Inc. of Maspeth, New York is voluntarily
recalling PRAN brand Spice Powder TURMERIC, Net Wt. 8.82 oz.
(250 gm) jars, because it was found to contain high levels of lead
that could cause health problems to consumers, particularly
infants, small children, and pregnant women if consumed.  Recent
analysis of the product found it contained 28 parts per million
(ppm).

Lead can accumulate in the body over time.  Too much can cause
health problems, including delayed mental and physical development
and learning deficiencies.  Pregnant women, infants and young
children especially should avoid exposure to lead.  People
concerned about blood lead levels should contact their physician
or health clinic to ask about testing.

PRAN brand Spice Powder TURMERIC was distributed in New York,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Illinois through retail
stores.

The product is packed in in a clear plastic jar with yellow
plastic lid: Net Wt. 8.82 oz./250 gm with UPC 8 31730 00551.  The
affected date code is: BEST BEFORE: 2 SEP 14.

One illness complaint has been received to date.  The recall was
initiated after it was discovered that product contained high
levels of lead based on sampling by New York State Health
Department and private laboratory testing.

Consumers who have purchased the affected PRAN brand Spice Powder
TURMERIC are urged not to consume the product and should return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-718-894-2505, Monday -
Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Awaits Ruling in One of Overdraft Fee Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., is awaiting a court decision in one of
two class action lawsuits over overdraft fees, according to the
Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and its wholly-owned state
chartered bank subsidiary, Bank of the Ozarks (the "Bank"), were
served with a summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in
the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled
Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the
Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks, No. CV-2011-777.  In
addition, on December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons
and complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043.  The complaint in each
case alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the
plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper,
unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.  According to the complaints,
plaintiffs claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software to
automate its overdraft system, and that this system unfairly and
inequitably manipulates and alters customers' transaction records
in order to maximize overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a
practice of posting of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the
actual sequence in which such items are presented for payment.  
The Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with
customers do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft
assessment policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and
misleading.  The Complaint in each case alleges that these actions
and omissions constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The Complaint in the Walker case
also includes a count for conversion.  Each of the complaints
seeks to have the cases certified by the court as a class action
for all Bank account holders similarly situated, and seeks a
declaratory judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's
overdraft fee policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class (defined as all Bank customers
residing in Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the
complaints, disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged
wrongful actions and unspecified compensatory and statutory or
punitive damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  The Company and Bank believe the
plaintiffs' claims are unfounded and intend to defend against
these claims.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case.  The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power.  The Company and Bank have
appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals
on an interlocutory basis.  Oral arguments before the appellate
court were scheduled for September 4, 2013.  During the pendency
of the appeal, the plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to
stay the proceedings in that case.

Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., is a bank holding company headquartered
in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The Company owns a wholly-owned state
chartered bank subsidiary -- Bank of the Ozarks, four 100%-owned
finance subsidiary business trusts -- Ozark Capital Statutory
Trust II ("Ozark II"), Ozark Capital Statutory Trust III, Ozark
Capital Statutory Trust IV and Ozark Capital Statutory Trust V
and, indirectly through the Bank, a subsidiary engaged in the
development of real estate, a subsidiary that owns private
aircraft and various other entities that hold foreclosed assets or
tax credits or engage in other activities.


BARREL O' FUN: Recalls Safeway Snack Artist BBQ Potato Chips
------------------------------------------------------------
Barrel O' Fun Snack Foods Co. of Perham, MN is recalling one
specific lot of Safeway Snack Artist BBQ Potato Chips (UPC 21130-
29106) because they contain undeclared milk.  People with an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.
Symptoms may include itching, hives, wheezing, vomiting,
anaphylaxis and digestive problems, such as bloating, gas or
diarrhea.  No illnesses have been reported.

The recall affects only Safeway Snack Artist BBQ Potato Chips
bearing the Best By date of 08JAN2014 3255M27 packaged in 10oz
bags and sold in Safeway stores.  The Best By date is printed on
the front of the bags in the upper right.

The product is manufactured by Barrel O' Fun Snack Foods Co. and
distributed by Safeway Inc.  The 3 cases of product affected were
distributed across Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, and
New Mexico.  No other lots or products are affected.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the BBQ
flavored potato chips bags inadvertently contained Sour Cream &
Onion flavored potato chips, which contain milk. The presence of
the milk was not declared.

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 Barrel O' Fun Snack Foods Co.
at 1-800-346-4910. Monday - Thursday 7am - 5pm CST and Friday
7am-11am CST.


BHP BILLITON: Units Own Shares in Mining Complex Facing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The non-government organization, Corporacion Colombia Transparente
(CCT), filed a action against Cerrejon Zona Norte SA (CZN) in
connection with the privatization of 50 per cent of the Cerrejon
Zona Norte mining complex in Colombia in 2002, in which BHP
Billiton Limited's subsidiaries own shares, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "The non-government organisation, Corporacion
Colombia Transparente (CCT), brought three separate class actions
(Popular Actions 1,029, 1,032 and 1,048) against various
defendants in connection with the privatisation of 50 per cent of
the Cerrejon Zona Norte mining complex in Colombia in 2002. Two of
the actions were dismissed leaving only the action against
Cerrejon Zona Norte SA (CZN). The mining complex is currently
owned by CZN and Carbones del Cerrejon Limited (CDC). Our
subsidiary Billiton Investment 3 BV owns a 33 per cent share in
CDC, and our subsidiaries Billiton Investment 3 BV and Billiton
Investment 8 BV (BHP Billiton Shareholders) collectively own a
33.33 per cent share in CZN."

CCT alleges, in part, that the defendants failed to comply with
the privatization process, and that the offer price for shares in
CZN between Stages 1 and 2 of the privatization process was not
correctly adjusted for inflation.

"Our share of the alleged adjustment of the CZN share price would
be approximately US$4.41 million. In the alternative, CCT seeks
declaration that the privatisation is null and void and forfeiture
of the transfer price paid, of which our share would be
approximately US$147.14 million. In both instances, CCT also seeks
unquantified sanctions, including payment of stamp taxes, an award
of 15 per cent of all monies recovered by the defendants, together
with interest on all amounts at the maximum rate authorised by
law," the Company said.

The CZN action was dismissed on February 18, 2011, the Court
determining that there were no irregularities in the privatization
of the Cerrejon Zona Norte mining complex.  CCT's request for a
reconsideration of the judgment was denied.  On March 15, 2011,
CCT filed an appeal against the dismissal. This appeal was
dismissed on February 1, 2013 and on February 15, 2013 the
plaintiff filed for a revision of the judgment.

Revision of judgment is a new avenue of review introduced by the
Columbian Administrative Code that applies to the last instance
judgments and may be used when the plaintiff believes certain
issues were not considered in the decision.

On March 15, 2013, Cerrejon filed an opposition to this revision
application.

A separate class action arising out of the privatization of the
CZN mining complex has been brought by Mr Martin Nicolas Barros
Choles, against various defendants including CDC.

Mr Choles claims that the transfer of rights by CDC to CZN was
ineffective because it only involved a transfer of shares and not
the transfer of the underlying rights in the properties and assets
used in the CZN mining complex. Consequently, he is seeking orders
that CDC pays for the use and lease of the properties and assets
until November 2009, and that from that date the properties and
assets of the Cerrejon project revert to the State.

BHP Billiton Limited is diversified natural resources company. The
Company generally operates through customer sector groups (CSGs).
The Company operates in nine segments: Petroleum, Aluminium, Base
Metals, Diamonds and Specialty Products, Stainless Steel
Materials, Iron Ore, Manganese, Metallurgical Coal and Energy
Coal. As of June 30, 2012, the Company was working in more than
100 locations worldwide. During the fiscal year ended June 30,
2012 (fiscal 2012), the Company total petroleum production was
222.3 millions of barrels of oil equivalent. During fiscal 2012,
its aluminium had a total production in 1.2 million tones (Mt) of
aluminium. In August 2011, the Company acquired Petrohawk Energy
Corporation. On September 30, 2011, it acquired HWE Mining
Subsidiaries from Leighton Holdings. On September 7, 2012, the
Company announced the sale of its 37.8 % non-operated interest in
Richards Bay Minerals.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Misled Investors About Financial State, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
BlackBerry misled investors about its financial state and the
success of its BlackBerry 10 smartphone, inflating the value of
its stock, a class claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Marvin Pearlstein claims BlackBerry and its
executives hid the true state of the Company's operations and
prospects, leading investors to buy stock at artificially inflated
prices.

When BlackBerry announced its real financial condition last month,
including massive charges and layoffs, its stock declined rapidly,
causing losses for thousands of investors, according to the
federal complaint filed Friday, October 4, 2013, in Manhattan.

Pearlstein claims to represent thousands of BlackBerry
shareholders who bought stock between September 27, 2012, and
September 20, 2013.

BlackBerry's CEO Thorsten Heins and Chief Financial Officer Brian
Bidulka are also named as defendants.

"Specifically, the company failed to inform investors that,
contrary to defendants' statements touting the company's new
BlackBerry 10 line of smart phones and the financial strength of
BlackBerry, the company was not on the road to recovery and re-
emerging as a lead player in the wireless communications
industry," the complaint states.  "In reality, the BlackBerry 10
was not well-received by the market, and the company was forced to
write down a nearly $1 billion charge related to unsold BlackBerry
10 devices and lay off approximately 4,500 employees, totaling
approximately 40 percent of its total workforce."

Waterloo, Ontario-based BlackBerry, formerly known as Research in
Motion, knowingly misled investors in various news releases and
quarterly conference calls, in which it claimed that BlackBerry
continued to be "a financially strong company."  The company also
allegedly claimed to have successfully implemented a cost-saving
program that put it "on the path to recovery."

BlackBerry's chief legal officer did not return a request for
comment.

Pearlstein says he and other investors were told that customers
were taking a shine to BlackBerry 10, and that the Company had
made progress as a result.

BlackBerry's misrepresentations and omissions directly caused the
recent plunge in BlackBerry stock, according to the complaint.

After BlackBerry issued the press release on September 20, shares
plunged as much as 23 percent to $8.06, before bouncing back a
bit.  They closed at $8.01 on September 25, according to the
lawsuit.

CNBC reported, however, that some financial analysts attributed
the plunge to BlackBerry's announcing of its intention to sell the
Company.

"The company has sailed off a cliff," said Collin Gillis, an
analyst at BGC Partners.  "What do you expect when you announce
you're up for sale?  Who wants to commit to a platform that could
possibly be shut down?"

Class actions are nothing new to BlackBerry.

A federal judge in March dismissed a 2011 lawsuit alleging that
Research in Motion had tried to obscure its falling market
position by misrepresenting its financial condition and the
prospects for its devices.

A BlackBerry owner filed another class action against the Company
for its system crash of October 2011.

Pearlstein seeks class certification and damages for securities
laws violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
          Bruce Whitney Dona, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          250 Park Avenue, Suit 2040
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 696-3730
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com
                  bruce.dona@ksfcounsel.com

The case is Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-07060-TPG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square).


BOROUGH OF EMERSON: Filing Cabinets Contain Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------
Lisa Spear, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that The Borough
of Emerson had filing cabinets containing asbestos removed from
borough hall in August, months after borough employees first
expressed concern that they may have been emitting clouds of dust
containing fibers of the cancer-causing material.

Clerk Carol Dray reported rumors of asbestos contamination in
April, according to borough records.  Borough Administrator Joseph
Scarpa contacted Joint Insurance Fund (JIF), the borough's
insurance company, approximately three months later to ask for the
name of an asbestos contractor to conduct tests.

"The question begs to be asked: Why did he wait until July to take
any action . . .?" Ms. Dray inquired in an email to members of the
governing body.

When asked, Mr. Scarpa gave no explanation for the lapse in time
between when he received complaints about possible asbestos
contamination and when he took action on the issue.

In a press statement Mr. Scarpa said, "I continue to believe that
any of this asbestos information should not have been released by
the borough clerk in the first place, as this is still clearly an
open matter that involves the elements of personnel, potential
litigation and HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability And
Accountability Act] protections.  The governing body recently saw
fit to take the drastic measure of censuring a council colleague
for supposedly releasing basically the same type of information .
. . I will not elaborate on this matter anymore . . . out of fear
of personal reprisal from the mayor and council, and because I
believe it is not in the best interest of the borough."

Purchased in 2009, the refurbished fire-proof cabinets showed
visible deterioration, explained Mayor Carlos Colina in an
interview.  Detail Associates, Inc., an environmental engineering
firm certified by the New Jersey Department of Labor and
Department of Health, confirmed the presence of asbestos in the
suspect cabinets and on documents inside them.

"It was the administrator's role to address that.  Why did it take
him that long to take action?" Mr. Colina asked.  "The positive
test results and finding of asbestos fibers . . . was important
enough to take action on an immediate basis."

Following initial testing in mid- July, Stephen Jaraczewski,
president of Detail Associates, Inc., explained that "Proper
removal is highly recommended."  Nearly 20 days later, Best
Removal Inc.  Asbestos Removal Contractors & Consultants rid
Borough Hall of the cabinets on Aug. 5.

Mr. Scarpa said to his knowledge there is no asbestos remaining in
Borough Hall.

Although the cabinets reportedly discharged "poofs" of dust, air
samples in Borough Hall tested in accordance with Environmental
Protection Agency standards, according to an email from
Mr. Jaraczewski to the borough.

According to Mr. Colina, the cabinets, each weighing several
hundred pounds, were located in the Finance Office, the Clerk's
Office, the Department of Public Works, and in the Police
Department storage area.

Ms. Dray, who said she had handled contaminated documents over
several years, declined to comment.  Chief Financial Officer
Catherine Henderson, whose office housed asbestos-tainted cabinets
holding vital statistic documents, said she is not concerned.

According to Mr. Jaraczewski, who declined to speak specifically
about the asbestos remediation in Emerson, said there is no risk
associated with physically touching the fibers, only with
inhalation.

Once the material makes its way into the lungs, it does become a
health concern.

"If it's not airborne, it's not a problem . . .," Mr. Jaraczewski
explained.

Asbestosis, scaring of the lungs from asbestoses fibers is the
first sign of exposure, which in healthy individuals could take up
to 25 years to manifest.  Asbestosis then leads to scar tissue
which can grow into a cancerous tumor called Mesothelioma.

"There is no cure for asbestos exposure," Mr. Jaraczewski said.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: One Suit Over Gas Markets Concluded in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the class action lawsuits over the operation of the natural
gas markets in 2000 to 2002 was concluded in June 2013, according
to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC
(CenterPoint Houston) or their predecessor, Reliant Energy,
Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of their former
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in certain lawsuits.  
Under a master separation agreement between CenterPoint Energy and
a former subsidiary, RRI (RRI Energy, Inc., Reliant Energy, Inc.
and Reliant Resources, Inc.), CenterPoint Energy and its
subsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI and its
successors for any losses, including attorneys' fees and other
costs, arising out of these lawsuits.

In May 2009, RRI sold its Texas retail business to a subsidiary of
NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) and RRI changed its name to RRI Energy,
Inc.  In December 2010, Mirant Corporation merged with and became
a wholly owned subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to
GenOn Energy, Inc. (GenOn).  In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn
through a merger in which GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary
of NRG.  None of the sale of the retail business, the merger with
Mirant Corporation, or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters
RRI's (now GenOn's) contractual obligations to indemnify
CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint
Houston, for certain liabilities, including their indemnification
obligations regarding the gas market manipulation litigation, nor
does it affect the terms of existing guaranty arrangements for
certain GenOn gas transportation contracts.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.  
These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, allege
violations of state and federal antitrust laws.  The Plaintiffs in
these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory
damages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.  
CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009.  CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since
been released or dismissed from all but one such case.  
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC
Corp., is a defendant in a case now pending in federal court in
Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas
prices in 2000-2002.  In July 2011, the court issued an order
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against other defendants in the
case, each of whom had demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission jurisdictional sales for resale during the relevant
period, based on federal preemption.  The plaintiffs appealed this
ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims.  The other defendants may seek further review
by filing a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  
CenterPoint Energy believes that CES is not a proper defendant in
this case and will continue to pursue a dismissal.  CERC does not
expect the ultimate outcome of this matter to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007.  In
September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.  
In June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States denied
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and this matter is now
concluded.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- and its subsidiaries own and  
operate natural gas distribution systems in six states.  
Subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.)
own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary of
CERC Corp. offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas
supplies primarily to commercial and industrial customers and
electric and gas utilities.


CHOICE HOTELS: Defends MDL Alleging Anti-Competitive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Choice Hotels International, Inc. is defending itself against a
multidistrict litigation alleging it engaged in anti-competitive
practices, according to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In May 2013, Choice was added to an ongoing multi-district class
action pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas.  The lawsuit
alleges that several online travel companies and hotel companies
have engaged in anti-competitive practices.  The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages and equitable relief.  Choice
disputes the allegations and is in the process of vigorously
defending itself against these claims.  The Company currently does
not believe this litigation will have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operation or
liquidity.

Based in Rockville, Maryland, Choice Hotels International, Inc. is
a hotel franchisor in 49 states, the District of Columbia and over
35 countries and territories outside the United States.  The
Company's brand names include Comfort Inn(R), Comfort Suites(R),
Quality(R), Clarion(R), Ascend Hotel Collection(R), Sleep Inn(R),
Econo Lodge(R), Rodeway Inn(R), MainStay Suites(R), Suburban
Extended Stay Hotel(R), and Cambria Suites(R).


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Court Rules on Discovery Rift in "Brecher" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued an order on a joint
motion for determination of discovery dispute in DANIEL BRECHER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 09CV1344-CAB (MDD), (S.D. Calif.).

The dispute involves responses to six requests for production and
eight interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs upon Defendants.

Procedurally, the case is on its Third Amended Complaint which has
withstood a motion to dismiss.  On behalf of a class, Plaintiffs
allege violations of law stemming from the creation of Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney.  Plaintiffs claim that the merger adversely
impacted the stock incentive plan they were provided by their
former employer, Smith Barney.  Plaintiffs also allege that
beginning in 2008, they were not reimbursed by their employer for
business expenses -- portions of their commission checks paid to
their sales assistants.

No class has been certified. The operative Case Management Order
requires that all fact and expert discovery necessary to support
or oppose class certification be completed by February 3, 2014.

A copy of the District Court's October 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/ZafEpMfrom Leagle.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Signature Organic Ground Beef
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 11, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products: 1.8 kg (3 x 600 g) Kirkland Signature Organic
Lean Ground Beef with Best Before date of 13-OC-15

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Costco Wholesale
Canada Ltd. are warning the public not to consume the Kirkland
Signature brand Organic Lean Ground Beef because it may be
contaminated with pathogenic E. coli bacteria.

The product has been sold from Costco warehouses in BC, Alberta,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

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

The importer, Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


CYNTHIA DILLARD: Class Certification Bid in "Inson" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Truman M. Hobbs denied plaintiff's motion to
certify as a class action the case, WILLIE L. B. VINSON, #121632,
Plaintiff, v. CYNTHIA DILLARD, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-
0282-TMH, (M.D. Ala.).  Judge Hobbs adopts the Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge entered on August 16, 2013, and rules that
the plaintiff's objection to the Recommendation is overruled.

A copy of the District Court's October 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/FItZuMfrom Leagle.com.


EFA PROCESSING: Accused of Skirting Debt Settlement Services Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that a debt-
relief agency skirts Minnesota law by hiring outside companies to
solicit customers, and also charges exorbitant and illegal fees
for its services, a class claims in court.

Lead plaintiff Paul Nelson sued EFA Processing LP, Consumer Law
Associates LLC (CLA), Impact Debt Settlement (IDS) and five
individuals in Minneapolis.

The complaint in Hennepin County District Court alleges that, even
though EFA Processing performs debt-settlement services with
outrageous fees, the company avoids being prosecuted under the
Minnesota Debt Settlement Services Statute (DSSS) by hiring out-
of-state attorneys from Consumer Law Associates and using "so-
called 'front-end' companies [that] perform little or no work and
merely serve as facades to conceal EFA's involvement."

IDS, one of the "front-end" companies, allegedly "holds itself out
to consumers as a business offering debt settlement services to
consumers burdened with credit card debt. IDS advertises through
the Internet and other channels under its own name . . . [but]
fails to make the disclosures require by [the DSSS]."

These disclosures include the fact that EFA, a multimillion dollar
company not registered for business in the state of Minnesota, is
actually providing the debt-settlement services, according to the
complaint.

Likewise, the class accuses CLA of duping customers into believing
that licensed attorneys, rather than EFA, will perform their debt-
settlement services.

"In furtherance of defendants' scheme, EFA prepares and mails
letters to consumers and creditors identifying itself and its
employees as assistants or employees of CLA," the complaint
states.  "Based on an agreement among defendants, all
correspondence and customer interactions by EFA are 'private
labeled' to CLA's 'brand.'

"Included in the documentation that defendants send to consumers
is a 'Welcome' brochure and a 'client retainer package.'  Both the
brochure and the package are identified as being from CLA."

The class claims that EFA and the other debt-settlement companies
both lied to them and charged exorbitant fees, most of which the
company kept rather than send on to creditors.

Specifically, Nelson says he was charged more than $15,000 in
"retainer fees" on top of a $199 "consultation fee."

"While plaintiff Nelson was enrolled in defendants' unlawful
program, defendants collected at least $34,365.00 from him," the
complaint states.  "On information and belief, approximately
$9,231.64 was disbursed to Nelson's creditors. . . .  Ultimately,
defendants refunded $5,000.00 in fees to plaintiff Nelson and
retained $13,040.69 in fees."

The class seeks reimbursement of the fees collected by the
defendants, as well as $5,000 in statutory damages for each
claimant, for violations of the Minnesota Debt Settlement Services
Statute, conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duties.

Alleged violations of the statute include the companies' failure
to inform consumers that it was splitting the fees with others,
failure to disclose that fees exceeded the amounts allowed by law,
and failure to hold the funds paid by consumers in an interest-
bearing account before disbursement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Anderson, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4605
          E-mail: janderson@heinsmills.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Named as Defendant in Breach of Contract Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., is a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit alleging breach of contract and breach of the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for  the fiscal year ended July 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We have also been named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court in Kansas. The complaint was the subject of a motion to
dismiss which was granted, in part, in August, 2011. The surviving
claims allege breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of
good faith and fair dealing, both of which allegedly arise from
the existence of an oral contract for continuous propane service.
We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
them vigorously. The case, which has not been certified for class
treatment, is currently on appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals following the denial of a motion to arbitrate the
individual plaintiff's claim. We do not believe loss is probable
or reasonably estimable at this time related to this putative
class action lawsuit."

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership. Our
common units are listed on the New York Stock Exchange and our
activities are primarily conducted through our operating
partnership, Ferrellgas, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership. We
are the sole limited partner of Ferrellgas, L.P. with an
approximate 99% limited partner interest.


FIRST SOLAR: Dist. Court Certifies Class in "Smilovits" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Smilovits, et al., Plaintiffs, v. First Solar, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, NO. CV12-00555-PHX-DGC, (D. Ariz.) is a securities
fraud class action brought on behalf of persons who purchased
First Solar, Inc. stock between April 30, 2008 and February 28,
2012.  First Solar designs and manufactures solar panel modules,
and its stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ Global Market.
Plaintiffs have sued First Solar and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging they made misrepresentations designed to
inflate its stock price in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") and Rule
10b-5. Plaintiffs moved to certify the class.

District Judge David G. Campbell granted the class certification
bid, with the Class defined as:

All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of First Solar, Inc. between April 30, 2008 and
February 28, 2012, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and their families, the officers and directors of
First Solar, at all relevant times, members of their immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns and any entity in which defendants have or had a
controlling interest.

Judge Campbell directed the Plaintiffs to file by November 8,
2013, a proposed form of class notice, as well as a proposed plan
and schedule for dissemination of the notice, receipt and
processing of opt-outs, and other class-notice suggestions.

The Court further ordered the parties to file by November 15,
2013, a joint proposal for discovery and motions for summary
judgment. The Court will hold a case management conference on
November 22, 2013, at 3:00 p.m.

A copy of the District Court's October 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/n5rk6Xfrom Leagle.com.


GLOBAL LINGUIST: Dispute Trapped Translators in Kuwait, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Elizabeth Warmerdam reports
that Americans deployed as Arabic linguists in Kuwait claim in
court that a contract dispute has left them crammed in substandard
living conditions, with no chance to work or leave the Army camps.

Lead plaintiffs Alfred Zaklit, Hany Shaker and Mokhtar Farag sued
their employers, Global Linguist Solutions, Aecom Services Inc.,
and Dyncorp International, on behalf of nearly 100 linguists
allegedly trapped in the Middle East.

The linguist services companies are the primary vendors for the
U.S. military's $9.7 billion Defense Language Interpretation and
Translation Enterprise.  Linguists for the companies provide
translation and interpretation services to the U.S. Army and other
government agencies in the Middle East.

Zaklit and the other class members were allegedly employed as
Arabic linguists and stationed in Army camps Buehring and Arifjan
in Kuwait.  Per Kuwaiti law, Global Linguist obtained a local
sponsor to obtain visas for the employees and manage their
payroll, according to the complaint.  Employers like Global
Linguist that want to switch sponsors are allegedly required,
however, to receive consent from the incumbent sponsor and the
Kuwaiti Ministry of Labor.

The linguists say that after they arrived in Kuwait, Global
Linguist decided to sever its ties with its sponsor, Al Shora
International General Trading & Contracting, and obtain a new
sponsor, KRH, to increase its profit margins.

"In switching sponsors, defendants flouted Kuwaiti immigration
laws by, among others, failing to obtain approval from their
incumbent sponsor," the complaint states.  "Defendants created a
legal dispute with Al Shora.  More importantly, and regardless of
the nature of the dispute with their sponsor, defendants
recklessly put their financial interests ahead of the safety and
well-being of plaintiffs and class members."

In response to the switch in sponsors, Al Shora allegedly turned
over the names of Global Linguist's employees to Kuwaiti
immigration authorities, declaring that they were absent from work
and, therefore, in violation of their working visas.  The
linguists' visas were subsequently canceled and the linguists were
placed on Kuwaiti's "blacklist" for arrest and deportation,
according to the complaint.

The linguists say Al Shora had been holding their passports and
never returned the documents to them.

Local Kuwaiti police issued arrest warrants for the linguists,
prompting Global Linguist to bar the linguists from leaving the
Army posts for any reason, including for work, medical
appointments, personal time or emergency matters, according to the
complaint.

The linguists have been relegated "to crammed and substandard
living conditions for months at a time," they say.  "Dozens of
linguists are assigned to live in one 300-square-feet tent with
limited air conditioning, running water and electricity."

They claim that the U.S. Army suspended the linguists' services in
light of the dispute between Global Linguist and Al Shora, and
that the U.S. Department of State said the situation was a legal
dispute between two companies in which it could not intervene.  
The Army's Intelligence and Security Command, which oversees the
linguists' contract, also refused to intervene, according to the
complaint.

"In short, plaintiffs and class members are stuck until defendants
resolve the dispute," the complaint states.  "This fact
notwithstanding, defendants have failed to 'free' plaintiffs and
class members for months; and instead, defendants have used them
-- their own employees -- as pawns in their legal and monetary
dispute with Al Shora."

The linguists say they face arrest and deportation, and have
essentially been made fugitives by Global Linguist's actions.  
Many of the linguists have developed disabilities because of the
living conditions and the stress of the situation, according to
the lawsuit.

To make matters worse, Global Linguist has allegedly fired or
demoted the linguists because of their disabilities and their
"non-working" status, both of which were created by Global
Linguist's own actions.  Global Linguist real motivation in firing
or cutting pay, however, is to save costs and increase its bottom
line, the complaint states.

The linguists seek damages on 16 causes of action, including false
imprisonment, hostile work environment, wrongful termination and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Sang J. Park, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562)435-1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  sang@carlinbuchsbaum.com

Alfred Zaklit, et al. v. Global Linguist Solutions LLC, et al.,
Case No. BC523317, in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles
County.


GREEN OAKS: Faces Suit in Texas Alleging Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chidiebere Sarah Oti v. Green Oaks SCC, LLC d/b/a Green Oaks
Nursing Rehab Senior Care Centers and Senior Care of Green Oaks,
Mark McKenzie, John Heller, and Andrew Kerr, Case No. 4:13-cv-
00816-A (N.D. Tex., October 7, 2013) accuses Green Oaks of
discriminating against the Plaintiff in terms and conditions of
employment, including performance evaluations, raises, assignments
and promotions.

Ms. Oti alleges that she was wrongfully terminated on March 25,
2013, and was subsequently contacted and offered to resume
employment in her former position.  Prior to her termination, she
asserts that she was subjected to discrimination based upon her
national origin and endured derisive comments and disparate
treatment because she was "African."  She further alleges that
Green Oaks failed and refused to pay all wages due to her,
including overtime.

Ms. Oti is a resident of Arlington, Tarrant County, Texas.  At all
times relevant to the complaint, she was employed by Senior Care
of Green Oaks.

Green Oaks is a Texas limited liability company, with its
principal place in Irvine, California.  Mark McKenzie is the
president and chief executive officer of Green Oaks.  John Heller
is the vice president of Green Oaks, while Andrew Kerr is the
Company's chief financial officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald J. Smith Sr., Esq.
          P.O. Box 200395
          Arlington, Texas 76006
          Telephone: (817) 462-4034
          Facsimile: (817) 462-4037
          E-mail: attorney@gjsmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Angela D. Kendrick, Esq.
          KENDRICK LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 56
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1737
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 492-3425
          Facsimile: (888) 389-5049
          E-mail: angela@angelakendrick.com


HARRIS MEDICAL: Court Dismisses Counterclaim in "Nationwide" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles A. Shaw granted a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim of St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the case captioned NATIONWIDE
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARRIS MEDICAL
ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:13-CV-7 CAS.,
(E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nationwide Mutual
Fire Insurance Company and Nationwide Property and Casualty
Insurance Company filed this action seeking a declaration that
they have no duty to defend their insured, defendant Harris
Medical Associates, LLC, for claims asserted against it in
underlying litigation filed by St. Louis Heart.  The litigation is
a putative class action and is based on Harris's alleged
transmission of six unsolicited fax advertisements to St. Louis
Heart in 2011. Two claims remain in the underlying case: (1)
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and (2)
conversion under Missouri common law. Nationwide is defending
Harris in the underlying litigation under a reservation of rights,
and the parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations.
Nationwide moves to dismiss St. Louis Heart's counterclaim for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
asserting that St. Louis Heart as a mere claimant in this
declaratory judgment action lacks standing to assert affirmative
relief.

A copy of the District Court's October 7, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/xpOsupfrom Leagle.com.


JAMES JUN WANG: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Stream" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned STREAM SICAV, DHARANENDRA RAI, and TIEN CHUNG,
Individually and on  Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. JAMES JUN WANG, SMARTHEAT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-4
Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 6682 (PAE), (S.D.N.Y.).

In this putative class action, lead plaintiff Stream SICAV and
named plaintiffs Dharanendra Rai and Tien Chung allege that
defendants SmartHeat, Inc. and James Jun Wang violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's
implementing rule, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.  Stream SICAV
alleges that SmartHeat and Wang omitted to reveal information that
rendered materially false and misleading statements the company
had previously made to investors with regard to a lock-up
agreement that SmartHeat had announced to boost shareholder
confidence.  First, Stream SICAV alleges that, although SmartHeat
had announced that its senior management was barred by agreement
from selling shares of company stock until 2012, the defendants
failed to disclose a secret amendment to the lock-up agreement
that permitted insiders to sell SmartHeat shares, effective
January 1, 2010.  Second, Stream SICAV alleges, defendants failed
to disclose pre-2012 sales of 380,000 of the purportedly locked-up
shares.

Three motions are presently pending: (1) SmartHeat's motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); (2) Stream
SICAV's motion to strike an exhibit which defendants submitted in
support of that motion; and (3) Stream SICAV's motion to permit
alternative service of Wang under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(f)(3).

In an October 7, 2013 Opinion & Order is available at
http://is.gd/Qx9Ntvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Engelmayer denied  
Defendants' motion to dismiss; denied Stream SICAV's motion to
strike; and granted Stream SICAV's motion for alternative service.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Attorneys Seek Transfer of Tylenol Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
attorneys representing drug companies in a products liability suit
initiated by a Georgia man who claims he sustained injuries after
mixing Tylenol and a prescription painkiller have petitioned a
federal judge to take up the matter.

Lawyers David F. Abernethy -- David.Abernethy@dbr.com -- Melissa
A. Graff -- Melissa.Graff@dbr.com -- and Meredith N. Reinhardt --
Meredith.Reinhardt@dbr.com -- of the Philadelphia firm Drinker,
Biddle & Reath, filed a notice of removal on Sept. 30 at the U.S.
District Court in Philadelphia seeking the transfer of a complaint
by Jonathon Eric Tyler out of state court.

The Georgia resident filed suit at Philadelphia's Common Pleas
Court in early September against McNeil Consumer Healthcare,
Johnson & Johnson and Amneal Pharmaceuticals over injuries he
allegedly sustained, including acute liver failure, after taking
the defendants' over-the-counter pain reliever and a generic
version of the drug Vicodin.

Attorneys Laurence S. Berman -- lberman@lfsblaw.com -- and Michael
Weinkowitz -- mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com -- of Philadelphia's Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, filed the civil action in state court
on Sept. 10.

The defense lawyers contend that the litigation should play out in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because complete diversity of
citizenship exists among the parties and because the amount in
controversy is likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit in a
Pennsylvania state court, which is $50,000.

Mr. Tyler claims in his lawsuit that he had to be taken to the
hospital on June 1, 2011, for treatment of acute liver failure, an
injury he ties to his ingestion of a mixture of Tylenol and
Vicodin.

The man claims he took the medications at "appropriate times and
in appropriate amounts for therapeutic purposes and within the
recommended daily doses for the products and as prescribed by his
physician," according to his complaint.

The lawsuit contains counts of strict liability, breach of implied
and express warranties, negligent failure to warn, negligent
design defect, negligent misrepresentation, general negligence,
fraud, and fraudulent concealment.

It also accuses the pharmaceutical manufacturers of violating
consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff's attorneys wrote that "it is unconscionable and
outrageous" that the defendants would risk the lives of consumers
by not properly warning those who use their product of the risk of
serious injury.

Tylenol, the suit states, is the leading cause of liver failure in
the United States, and the potential for acetaminophen-induced
liver damage and failure have been well-documented and known to
the defendants for many years before the incident involving the
plaintiff.

Acetaminophen is the active ingredient in Tylenol.

The complaint says that the drug companies failed to properly
market, design, manufacture, distribute, supply and test Tylenol,
that they over-promoted the product's safety and efficacy, that
they failed to place adequate warnings and instructions on
Tylenol, and that they failed to provide "timely and adequate"
post-marketing warnings and instructions after they knew of the
risk of injury associated with the pain reliever.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive
damages, together with interest, attorneys' fees and litigation
costs.

A multidistrict litigation concerning products liability claims
over Tylenol was consolidated at the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania earlier this year.


KAYDON CORP: Faces SKF Merger-Related Class Suit in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Francis, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Kaydon Corporation, James O'Leary, David A.
Brandon, Mark A. Alexander, Timothy J. O'Donovan, William Kenton
Gerber, Patrick P. Coyne, Atlas Management, Inc., Dublin
Acquisition Sub Inc., and Aktiebolaget SKF, Case No. 4:13-cv-
14258-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich., October 7, 2013) arises from the
proposed transaction through which the Company will merge with
("SKF") for alleged inadequate consideration.

The Proposed Transaction price of $35.50 per share in cash
drastically undervalues the Company's value and is the result of a
flawed process, Mr. Francis contends.  He adds that the Company's
Board of Directors failed to adequately discharge its fiduciary
duties to the shareholders by, among other things, failing to
ensure they will receive maximum value for their shares, and
failing to conduct an appropriate sales process.

Mr. Francis currently holds shares of common stock of Kaydon.

Kaydon is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  Kaydon is a designer and
manufacturer of engineered, performance-critical products
supplying a diverse customer base.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

SKF is a Swedish corporation with its principal executive offices
located at in Gothenburg, Sweden. SKF  develops, produces, and
markets products, solutions, and services in the rolling bearing
and seal business.  SKF's product line includes ball and roller
bearings, specialty bearings, sealing systems, linear motion
products, tools for mounting and dismounting bearings, and
measuring and monitoring instruments.  Atlas is a Delaware
corporation and is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of SKF.  
Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and is an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of SKF formed solely for the purpose of
consummating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Hubbard, Esq.
          HUBBARD SNITCHLER & PARZIANELLO PLC
          Chrysler House
          719 Griswold Street, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 672-7300
          Facsimile: (313) 672-7301
          E-mail: jhubbard@hspplc.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


LEGAL HELPERS: District Court Dismisses "Fleenor" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Fleenor and Verline Williams filed a putative class action
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated potential
class members. They allege that Legal Helpers Debt Resolution,
LLC, Thomas G. Macey, Jeffrey J. Aleman, Jeffrey Hyslip, Jason E.
Searns and Christopher Tang violated Georgia's Debt Adjustment
Act, O.C.G.A. Section 18-5-1 et seq.  Plaintiffs assert no claims
arising under federal law. They allege subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Defendants seek dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims
because Plaintiffs are parties to mandatory arbitration agreements
and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Plaintiffs respond that the arbitration agreements
are unenforceable and to the extent that they are enforceable,
Defendants have waived their right to insist upon mandatory
arbitration. Therefore, according to Plaintiffs, subject matter
jurisdiction exists over these claims, which Plaintiffs argue are
clearly stated claims upon which relief may be granted.

District Judge Clay D. Land grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Judge Land finds that Williams' claims are subject to an
enforceable arbitration agreement and therefore the Court does not
have subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. The Court
further finds that even if Defendants have waived their right to
demand arbitration of Fleenor's claims, Fleenor is not similarly
situated with proposed class members because the Second Amended
Complaint does not allege that Defendants waived their right to
insist upon mandatory arbitration of claims asserted by other
putative class members. Accordingly, CAFA cannot provide a basis
for subject matter jurisdiction, and since Plaintiffs have not
alleged sufficient facts to establish federal subject matter
jurisdiction over Fleenor's individual claim, that claim also must
be dismissed, ruled Judge Land.

The case is BARBARA FLEENOR and VERLINE WILLIAMS, on behalf of
themselves and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
LEGAL HELPERS DEBT RESOLUTION, LLC; THOMAS G. MACEY; JEFFREY J.
ALEMAN; JEFFREY HYSLIP; JASON E. SEARNS; and CHRISTOPHER TANG,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-338 (CDL), (M.D. Ga.).

A copy of the District Court's October 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/EelfINfrom Leagle.com.


MARATHON OIL: Dist. Court Remands "Cerny" Suit to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL A. CERNY and MYRA L. CERNY, INDIVIDUALLY AND A/N/F OF
C.A.C., A MINOR, Plaintiffs, v. MARATHON OIL CORPORATION, MARATHON
OIL EF LLC, and PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCING COMPANY,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-13-CA-562-XR, (W.D. Tex.), was
originally filed in state court, asserting claims under Texas
common law for private nuisance, negligence, and negligence per se
arising from Defendants' oilfield operations around Plaintiffs'
home. Plaintiffs allege that they have been harmed by Defendants'
emission of noxious chemicals, noxious odors, and harmful chemical
compounds.

Defendant Marathon Oil Corporation and Marathon Oil EF LLC removed
the case to the United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San
Antonio Division, on June 28, 2013, asserting that Plaintiffs'
state-law claims are completely preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. Sections 7401 et seq. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
arguing that federal question jurisdiction was lacking. The Court
denied the motion to remand, finding that certain claims were
completely preempted.  Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint and a second motion to remand, which is opposed.

Having reconsidered the applicable law and an intervening decision
from the Third Circuit, the Texas District Court now concludes
that its original order denying remand was erroneous because there
is no complete preemption.

Accordingly, District Judge Xavier Rodriguez vacates the Court's
prior order and remands the case to state court.

A copy of the District Court's October 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/hNXHzEfrom Leagle.com.


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Issued Misleading Statements, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Salberg and Family Estates Development Company Inc. v.
Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., Robert S. Cubbin, and Karen M.
Spaun, Case No. 1:13-cv-07094-UA (S.D. N.Y., October 7, 2013) is a
federal securities class action brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Meadowbrook common stock between January 25, 2012,
and August 14, 2013.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants knowingly made
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial condition and operating results, the Plaintiffs allege.  
Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend, the Defendants failed to
disclose that adverse market conditions materially impaired the
Company's business operations and the value of its intangible
assets.

The Plaintiffs purchased Meadowbrook common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Meadowbrook is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Southfield.  
Meadowbrook is a specialty insurance underwriter and insurance
administration services company that serves the needs of
underserved market segments that value service and specialized
knowledge.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
          Richard Barry Margolies, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD ABRAMS & PARADIS, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
          E-mail: aabbey@abbeyspanier.com
                  rmargolies@abbeyspanier.com


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Accused of Monopolizing Solodyn Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Lupin Limited,
Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz Inc., Mylan Inc., Matrix
Laboratories, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd.,
and Valeant Pharmaceuticals' International, Inc., Case No. 1:13-
cv-12517 (D. Mass., October 7, 2013) is a civil antitrust action
seeking treble damages and other relief arising out of the
Defendants' alleged overarching anticompetitive scheme to exclude
competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended
release tablets, a prescription drug to treat acne marketed by
Medicis under the brand name Solodyn.

Medicis orchestrated a multi-faceted scheme, undertaken alone and
with, between, and among the Generic Defendants, to improperly
restrain trade, and maintain, extend, and abuse Medicis's monopoly
power in the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release
tablets to the detriment of the Plaintiff and the class of end-
payor purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay
overcharges, the Plaintiff argues.  Solodyn was approved by the
Federal Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and quickly became
Medicis's largest selling, "flagship" product.

Painters Fund maintains its principal place of business in Aurora,
Illinois.  Painters Fund is an "employee welfare benefit plan" and
an "employee benefit plan" within the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.  Painters Fund is a not-for-profit trust, sponsored
by and administered by a Board of Trustees, established and
maintained to provide comprehensive health coverage for its
participants and beneficiaries.  Painters Fund is an indirect
purchaser of Solodyn and its AB-rated bioequivalent during the
Class Period and was injured by the Defendants' alleged unlawful
conduct.

Medicis is a brand drug manufacturer incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.  Medicis develops,
manufactures, and markets pharmaceuticals and related products in
the United States.  Impax is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Hayward, California.  Impax develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products, primarily generic products, in the United
States.

Teva USA is a Delaware corporation based in North Wales,
Pennsylvania.  Teva USA develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products, primarily generic products, in the United
States.  Teva USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd. is a corporation, headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel,
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, and
distribution of pharmaceuticals.  Through its subsidiaries, a
large portion of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.'s sales are
in the United States, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has
major manufacturing operations in the United States.  Barr is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Teva USA, and is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Barr develops,
manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products, primarily
generic products, in the United States.

Mylan Inc. is a generic drug manufacturer incorporated in
Pennsylvania and headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.  Mylan
develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products,
primarily generic products, in the United States.  Matrix
Laboratories Ltd. is a majority owned subsidiary of Mylan Inc.
with its principal place of business in Secunderabad, India.

Lupin Limited, is a business entity organized under the laws of
India with its principal place of in Mumbai.  Lupin
Pharmaceuticals is a Virginia corporation headquartered in
Baltimore, Maryland.  Lupin Pharmaceuticals develops,
manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products, primarily
generic products, in the United States.

Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a company organized and existing
under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in
Jacksonville.  Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, a public limited
liability company organized and existing under the laws of India
and headquartered in Gurgaon.  Ranbaxy is producing and
distributing pharmaceuticals, primarily generic products,
including in the United States.

Sandoz Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of
business in Princeton, New Jersey.  Sandoz develops, manufactures,
and markets pharmaceutical products, primarily generic products,
in the United States.

Valeant is a Canadian corporation headquartered in Laval, Quebec,
Canada.  Valeant's United States headquarters are in Bridgewater,
New Jersey.  Valeant acquired Medicis in an all-cash transaction
in December 2012.  The combined company's commercial dermatology
operations are in Scottsdale, Arizona, and operate under the name
Medicis, a division of Valeant, with its dermatology research and
development operations in Laval, QC, Scottsdale, AZ, and Petaluma,
CA, and corporate support functions primarily based in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: MMiller@MillerLawLLC.com
                  MVantine@MillerLawLLC.com
                  LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com

               - and -

          Joseph Burns, Esq.
          JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ
          150 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-1646
          E-mail: JBurns@JBosh.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Supreme Court Seeks Government's Legal Views
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on Oct. 7 sought the legal views of the Obama
administration in a medical device manufacturer's appeal of a
ruling that the company can be sued by a man who was left
paralyzed after using one of its products.

Arizonan Richard Stengel says federal law regulating medical
devices does not trump his claims under state law because
Medtronic Inc failed to alert the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to known risks associated with the pain medication
pump and catheter that was implanted in his abdomen.

By asking the Obama administration for its views, the Supreme
Court indicated that at least some of the nine justices were
interested in hearing the case, possibly signaling the court will
ultimately decide to review the lower court ruling against
Medtronic.

Mr. Stengel was left paraplegic as a result of his use of the
device, which was implanted in 2000 and removed in 2005 after he
collapsed at home.

In 2007, the FDA warned Medtronic that it had failed to disclose
the risks of using the device, and the product was pulled off the
market in 2008.

The case is the latest in a series of disputes before the Supreme
Court over to what extent federal laws that regulate medical
devices can shield companies from lawsuits filed by injured
patients.  In 2008 the court ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic that
defective device claims under state law were barred when the
device in question had been approved by the FDA.

Mr. Stengel and his wife Mary Lou claim in their lawsuit that
their case is different because medical device-related amendments
to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act required Medtronic to
alert the FDA about potential flaws in its products if the
products were already approved by the agency.  The failure to do
so gave rise to a negligence claim under Arizona law that is not
preempted, the couple said.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit.  In April 2012, a three-
judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld that ruling. But the court later reheard the case
and revived the lawsuit in a January 2013 ruling, prompting
Medtronic to seek Supreme Court review.

Another case in which the Supreme Court asked for the Obama
administration's views on Oct. 7 focused on whether an employee
could bring a federal whistleblower claim against Takeda
Pharmaceuticals Co Ltd for alleged fraud against the government.

Noah Nathan, a former sales manager with Takeda, sued the company
on behalf of the federal government, saying Takeda subsidiaries
Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America Inc and Takeda
Pharmaceuticals America Inc had violated the False Claims Act by
seeking payments under federal health insurance programs for uses
of a drug that were not reimbursable.

The cases are Medtronic v. Stengel, U.S. Supreme Court, 12-1351
and Nathan v. Takeda, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-1349.


MICHAEL ELLIS: "David Bass" Class Action Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in BASS v. ALEXANDER commenced their putative class
action in state court pursuant to the Arkansas Declaratory
Judgment Act, Ark. Code Ann. Section 16-111-103(a), and Defendants
removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, 1711-15. Before
the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for remand.

The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
this action and that Plaintiffs' motion for remand must be
granted.

Accordingly, District Judge Susan Webber Wright remands the case
back to the state court from which it was removed.

The case is DAVID BASS, ET AL., individually and as plaintiff
class representatives Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL ELLIS ALEXANDER, ET
AL. Defendants, NO. 4:13CV00365 SWW, (E.D. Ark.)

A copy of the District Court's October 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/uYEVmbfrom Leagle.com.


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Sued Over Death Linked to Recalled Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that the
parents of a Tennessee 5-year-old who died last year after
battling cancer are charging that drugs from the same compounding
firm that has been linked to a nationwide fungal meningitis
outbreak contributed to their child's death.

In a 19-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Knoxville,
Barry and Regennia Martin of Chattanooga charge that the drugs
from the New England Compounding Center played a role in the July
2012 death of their son Reese.

"Reese Martin, a minor, died as a result of -- in whole or in part
-- having a recalled product put into his body," the suit charges.

According to the complaint, NECC provided drugs that were
administered to the child shortly before his death, but the
parents did not discover that their son's death might be linked to
those drugs until Oct. 6 of last year.

The suit charges that the child was treated with "electrolyte and
methocarbamol products made or compounded by NECC."

Methocarbamol, a muscle relaxant, was one of the drugs recalled by
NECC after inspectors discovered fungal and bacterial
contamination in some of the company's products, according to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The suit is the first to be filed because of drugs other than the
methylprednisolone acetate produced by NECC and blamed by state
and federal regulators for a nationwide fungal meningitis outbreak
that has led to the death of 64 patients, 16 of whom were treated
in Tennessee.

Reese Martin was a patient at Children's Hospital at Erlanger in
Chattanooga at the time of his death.

The suit does not name NECC as a defendant because that firm has
filed for bankruptcy.  The defendants include NECC's owners and
affiliated companies, Ameridose LLC and Medical Sales Management.

The Martin suit is one of several to be filed at the one-year
anniversary of the outbreak.  The state's product and health-care
liability laws require that claims be filed within one year of the
time victims become aware of possible liability.

Other new suits were filed by patients who were treated with the
spinal steroid at the Saint Thomas Outpatient Neurosurgical
Center.


NEW YORK CITY TAXI: Sup. Ct. Dismisses "Carniol" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of the Application of ROBERT CARNIOL, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law
and Rules, v. THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION,
DAVID YASSKY and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents, NO.
114029/2011, SEQ. NO. 001, Mr. Carniol moved, via order to show
cause, for: 1) a declaration that the use of Global Positioning
System (GPS) technology to track taxi drivers is a search under
New York law; 2) a declaration that a search using this GPS system
violates the New York Constitution; 3) an order barring the NYC
Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) from using the fruits of GPS
searches to prosecute individual taxi drivers; 4) an order that
respondents, TLC, David Yassky and the City of New York restore
Carniol's taxi driver's license; 5) damages, including punitive
damages; and 6) certification of the action as a class action.

The City respondents cross-moved, pursuant to CPLR Section
3211(a)(2) and (7), to dismiss the amended petition.

Judge Kathryn E. Freed of the Supreme Court, Westchester County,
denied in its entirety, Mr. Carniol's motion; and granted the City
respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition.

The proceeding is dismissed.

A copy of the Supreme Court's October 3, 2013 Decision/Order is
available at http://is.gd/89rE5Qfrom Leagle.com.


NEWS CORP: Bids to Dismiss Amended Avon Lawsuit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, filed motions to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint filed by the Avon
Pension Fund, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers
of 21st Century Fox's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July
11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that false and
misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of
voicemail interception at The News of the World. The suit named as
defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and
Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for
damages sustained, and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff in the litigation and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July
3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended
consolidated complaint was to be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon
filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which
among other things, added as defendants the Company's subsidiary,
NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited),
and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February
15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants have filed their motions to
dismiss, which are pending. The Company's management believes
these claims are entirely without merit and intends to vigorously
defend this action.

In addition, U.K. and U.S. regulators and governmental authorities
continue to conduct investigations initiated in 2011 with respect
to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The investigation by the DOJ is
directed at conduct that occurred within 21st Century Fox prior to
the creation of the Company. Accordingly, 21st Century Fox has
been and continues to be responsible for responding to the DOJ
investigation. The Company, together with 21st Century Fox, is
cooperating with these investigations.

The Company has admitted liability in many civil cases related to
the voicemail interception allegations and has settled many cases.
The Company also announced a private compensation scheme under
which parties could pursue claims against it. While additional
civil lawsuits may be filed, no additional civil claims may be
brought under the compensation scheme after April 8, 2013.

The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of
the civil claims or criminal matters. The Company incurred legal
and professional fees related to the U.K. Newspaper Matters and
costs for civil settlements totaling approximately $183 million
and $199 million during the years ended June 30, 2013 and 2012,
respectively. As of June 30, 2013, the Company has provided for
its best estimate of the liability for the claims that have been
filed and costs incurred and has accrued approximately $66
million. It is not possible to estimate the liability for any
additional claims that may be filed given the information that is
currently available to the Company. If more claims are filed and
additional information becomes available, the Company will update
the liability provision for such matters.

The Company said it will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for
certain payments made by the Company that relate to, or arise
from, the U.K. Newspaper Matters, including certain of the
liabilities recorded by the Company in the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013. Accordingly, the Company also recorded an
indemnification asset of approximately $40 million as of June 30,
2013.

In connection with the Separation, the Company and 21st Century
Fox agreed in the Separation and Distribution Agreement that 21st
Century Fox will indemnify the Company for payments made after the
Distribution Date arising out of civil claims and investigations
relating to the U.K. Newspaper Matters as well as legal and
professional fees and expenses paid in connection with the
criminal matters, other than fees, expenses and costs relating to
employees (i) who are not directors, officers or certain
designated employees or (ii) with respect to civil matters, who
are not co-defendants with the Company or 21st Century Fox. In
addition, violations of law may result in criminal fines or
penalties for which the Company will not be indemnified by 21st
Century Fox. 21st Century Fox's indemnification obligations with
respect to these matters will be settled on an after-tax basis. It
is possible that these proceedings and any adverse resolution
thereof, including any fines or other penalties associated with
any plea, judgment or similar result for which the Company will
not be indemnified, could damage its reputation, impair its
ability to conduct its business and adversely affect its results
of operations and financial condition.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, was originally formed on
December 11, 2012 as New Newscorp LLC to hold certain businesses
of its former parent company, Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.
(formerly named News Corporation) ("21st Century Fox"), consisting
of newspapers, information services and integrated marketing
services, digital real estate services, book publishing, digital
education and sports programming and pay-TV distribution in
Australia.


NEWS CORP: HarperCollins Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013, that on August 5, 2013, Judge Cote granted preliminary
approval of the a settlement with HarperCollins, among others, for
a class of consumers residing in Minnesota, approval of which bars
consumers in the other states and territories from participating
in the class actions alleging that certain named defendants,
including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust and unfair
competition laws by virtue of the switch to the agency model for
e-books.

Commencing on August 9, 2011, 29 purported consumer class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York and for the Northern District of California, which
relate to the decisions by certain publishers, including
HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., to begin selling their e-books
pursuant to an agency relationship. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the various class actions to
the Honorable Denise L. Cote in the Southern District of New York.
On January 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, again alleging that certain named defendants, including
HarperCollins, violated the antitrust and unfair competition laws
by virtue of the switch to the agency model for e-books. The
actions sought as relief treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees. On June 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement with HarperCollins, among
others, for a class of consumers residing in Minnesota, which is
the only state that did not sign onto the settlement agreement
with the Attorneys General discussed below, approval of which bars
consumers in the other states and territories from participating
in these class actions.

On August 5, 2013, Judge Cote granted preliminary approval of the
Minnesota consumer settlement. While the settlement agreement is
still subject to final approval by the court, the Company believes
that the proposed settlement will not have a material impact on
the results of operations or the financial position of the
Company. However, the Company can make no assurances that the
proposed settlement will receive final approval. Additional
information about In re MDL Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 11-md-02293 (DLC), can be found on Public Access
to Court Electronic Records (PACER).

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed an
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against certain publishers, including HarperCollins, and
Apple, Inc. The DOJ's complaint alleged antitrust violations
relating to defendants' decisions to begin selling e-books
pursuant to an agency relationship. The case was assigned to Judge
Cote. Simultaneously, the DOJ announced that it had reached a
proposed settlement with three publishers, including
HarperCollins, and filed a Proposed Final Judgment and related
materials detailing that agreement. Among other things, the
Proposed Final Judgment required that HarperCollins terminate its
agreements with certain e-book retailers and placed certain
restrictions on any agreements subsequently entered into with such
retailers. On September 5, 2012, Judge Cote entered the Final
Judgment. Additional information about the Final Judgment can be
found on the DOJ's website.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 State Attorneys
General led by Texas and Connecticut (the "AGs") filed a similar
action against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western
District of Texas. On April 26, 2012, the AGs' action was
transferred to Judge Cote. On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second
amended complaint. As a result of a memorandum of understanding
agreed upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins
was not named as a defendant in this action. Pursuant to the terms
of the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered into a
settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut and Ohio
on June 11, 2012.

By August 28, 2012, 49 states (all but Minnesota) and five U.S.
territories had signed on to that settlement agreement. On August
29, 2012, the AGs simultaneously filed a complaint against
HarperCollins and two other publishers, a motion for preliminary
approval of that settlement agreement and a proposed distribution
plan. On September 14, 2012, Judge Cote granted the AGs' motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and approved
the AGs' proposed distribution plan. Notice was subsequently sent
to potential class members, and a fairness hearing took place on
February 8, 2013 at which Judge Cote gave final approval to the
settlement. The settlement is now effective, and the final
judgment bars consumers from states and territories covered by the
settlement from participating in the class actions.

On October 12, 2012, HarperCollins received a Civil Investigative
Demand from the Attorney General from the State of Minnesota (the
"Minnesota AG"). HarperCollins complied with the Demand on
November 16, 2012. On June 26, 2013, the Minnesota AG filed a
petition for an order approving an assurance of discontinuance in
the Second Judicial District Court for the State of Minnesota,
wherein Minnesota agreed to cease its investigation and not seek
further legal remedies relating to or arising from the alleged
conduct. On June 28, 2013, Judge Gary Bastion signed an order
approving the discontinuance.

The European Commission conducted an investigation into whether
certain companies in the book publishing and distribution
industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by
virtue of the switch to the agency model for e-books.
HarperCollins settled the matter with the European Commission on
terms substantially similar to the settlement with the DOJ. On
December 13, 2012, the European Commission formally adopted the
settlement.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, five purported consumer class
actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia,
Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the decisions by certain
publishers, including HarperCollins, to begin selling their e-
books in Canada pursuant to an agency relationship. The actions
seek as relief special, general and punitive damages, injunctive
relief and the costs of the litigations. While it is not possible
to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of
these class actions, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with
applicable antitrust and competition laws and intends to defend
itself vigorously.

In July 2012, HarperCollins Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
HarperCollins, learned that the Canadian Competition Bureau
("CCB") had commenced an inquiry regarding the sale of e-books in
Canada. HarperCollins currently is cooperating with the CCB with
respect to its inquiry. While it is not possible to predict with
any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the inquiry,
HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust
and competition laws.

On February 15, 2013, a purported class of independent bricks-and-
mortar bookstores filed an action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled The Book House of
Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et. al, which
relates to the digital rights management protection ("DRM") of
certain publishers', including HarperCollins', e-books being sold
by Amazon.com, Inc. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March
21, 2013. The case involves allegations that certain named
defendants in the book publishing and distribution industry,
including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of
requiring DRM protection. The action seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On April
1, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The
court heard oral argument on Defendants' motion to dismiss on
April 25, 2013. Additional information about The Book House Of
Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc. et al v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 1:13-cv-01111-JSR, can be found on PACER. While it is
not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate
outcome of this class action, HarperCollins believes it was
compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend
itself vigorously.

News Corp. said it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the unresolved HarperCollins matters. During the years
ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, the legal and professional fees and
settlements incurred in connection with these matters were not
material, and as of June 30, 2013, the Company did not have a
material accrual related to these matters.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, was originally formed on
December 11, 2012 as New Newscorp LLC to hold certain businesses
of its former parent company, Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.
(formerly named News Corporation) ("21st Century Fox"), consisting
of newspapers, information services and integrated marketing
services, digital real estate services, book publishing, digital
education and sports programming and pay-TV distribution in
Australia.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Pretrial Conference in Class Suit on Nov. 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
A pretrial conference in the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit against Novatel Wireless, Inc. is set for November 21,
2013, according to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between
February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.  On December 11, 2008,
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled
Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H
(RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C.,
S.D. Cal.).  In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case
In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who
allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007,
and November 10, 2008.  The consolidated complaint names the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers
as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that
the Company issued materially false and misleading statements
during the relevant time period regarding the strength of the
Company's products and market share, its financial results and its
internal controls.  The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified
amount of damages and costs.  The court has denied defendants'
motions to dismiss.  In May 2010, the court entered an order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 27, 2007, and September 15, 2008.  On February
14, 2011, following extensive discovery, the Company filed a
motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims.  A trial
date had been set for May 10, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new district
judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia.  Following the
reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court's
consideration of dispositive motions.  Oral argument on the motion
for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011.  On
November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion for summary judgment.  On July 9, 2012,
the court vacated the final pretrial conference date.  On
December 14, 2012, the court issued an order denying defendants'
motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' loss causation
expert.  The court set a pretrial conference for March 8, 2013,
and a trial date of June 3, 2013.  On February 7, 2013, the court
reconsidered its December 14, 2012 order and granted defendants'
motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert on loss causation.  The
court, however, gave plaintiffs the opportunity to provide a new
report from the expert seeking to cure the deficiencies in the
expert's testimony.  The court provided a schedule for the cure
process and ordered plaintiffs to bear the burden of defendants'
expenses incurred in this process.  The plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration of the court's February 7, 2013 order.

On March 6, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration with respect to the plaintiffs' expert report, but
granted the motion with respect to shifting the costs of the
defendants' expenses.  The parties have briefed the court on this
issue.  On July 30, 2013, the court issued an amended scheduling
order setting the pretrial conference for November 21, 2013, and a
trial date of January 6, 2014.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.  
At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome
of this litigation.  The Company has not recorded any significant
accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter
based on its belief that a liability, while possible, is not
probable.  Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated
at this time.

Novatel Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.novatelwireless.com/-- is a  
provider of intelligent wireless solutions for the worldwide
mobile communications market.  The Company's broad range of
products principally includes intelligent mobile hotspots, USB
modems, embedded modules for machine-to-machine and mobile
computing original equipment manufacturers, integrated asset-
management M2M devices, and communications and applications
software.  The Company was incorporated in 1996 in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


OREGON: Class Cert. Bid Denial in "Martinez" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anna J. Brown affirms a magistrate judge's order
denying plaintiff's motion for class certification in LEONEL O.
MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. COLETTE S. PETERS, Director of O.D.O.C.;
JEFF PREMO, Superintendent, O.S.P.; M. YODER, Asst. Superintendent
of Security O.S.P.; S.T.M. LT. YANCEY; S.T.M. LT. UFFORD; and
STEVE FRANKE, Superintendent, T.R.C.I., et al., Defendants, NO.
6:13-CV-00384-PK, (D. Ore.).

O.D.O.C. stands for Oregon Department of Corrections.

On March 22, 2013, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued an Order
denying Plaintiff Leonel O. Martinez's Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and
Plaintiff's Motion for Waiver of the U.S. Marshal Service Fees. On
May 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Review of the United
State Magistrate's Order, which the Court construes as Objections
to that portion of the Magistrate Judge's Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Judge Brown says the Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of
the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate
Judge's conclusion that Plaintiff has not met the prerequisites to
a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
(numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of
representation).

A copy of the District Court's October 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/l1xBy7from Leagle.com.

LEONEL O. MARTINEZ, Salem, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General, ANDREW D. HALLMAN Assistant
Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR,
Attorneys for Defendants.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
request for the dismissal of a merger-related class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Effective June 25, 2013, Pacific Premier Bank (the "Bank"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporation, acquired San Diego
Trust Bank ("SDTB") (the "SDTB Acquisition"), a San Diego,
California based state-chartered bank, pursuant to the terms of a
definitive agreement entered into by the Corporation, the Bank and
SDTB on March 6, 2013.

In June 2013, a complaint was filed against SDTB, its former
executive officers and directors, the Bank and the Corporation.  
The lawsuit alleges SDTB's former executive officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the definitive
acquisition agreement with the Corporation and the Bank that
resulted in payouts to SDTB's former executive officers and
directors at the expense of SDTB's shareholders.  The complaint
alleges that SDTB issued a materially false and misleading proxy
statement in connection with SDTB's solicitation of its
shareholders to approve the merger with the Bank.  The complaint
further accuses the Corporation and the Bank of aiding and
abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by SDTB's
executive officers and directors.  The lead plaintiff failed to
make any application to enjoin the merger in advance, and has not
made any application since the merger was concluded on June 25,
2013, to attempt to rescind it.  The complaint does not seek any
monetary damages other than the costs and disbursements.  The
Company believes the complaint to be without merit and has filed a
demurrer to have the case dismissed.

Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.ppbi.com/-- is a  
California-based bank holding company incorporated in Delaware and
registered as a bank holding company.  The Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Pacific Premier Bank, is a California state chartered
commercial bank.


PELLA CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Andrews" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTY AND GREG ANDREWS, ET AL, ETC. v. PELLA
CORPORATION, ET AL., SECTION "C" (4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-344,
(E.D. La.), Pella Corporation seeks dismissal of the first amended
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6).

The plaintiffs in the class action are Louisiana homeowners who
live in houses allegedly containing windows manufactured by Pella.
They claim that the windows were defective and caused damages to
their houses. In the First Amended Complaint filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332, the plaintiffs include claims for a "national" class
action, along with a Louisiana subclass alleging a claim under
Louisiana law for breach of express warranty under La. Rev. Stat.
Section 9:2800.58,2 and a national class and Louisiana subclass
seeking declaratory relief that the windows are defective, that
provisions of the warranty are void as unconscionable, that Pella
must notify the owners of defects and pay the cost of inspection
to determine if window replacement is needed.  Since the filing of
the motion, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the national
class action claims set forth in the First Amended Complaint.

District Judge Helen G. Berrigan ordered that the motion to
dismiss first amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)
and 12(b)(6) filed by Pella is partially granted as to Count VII,
partially denied without prejudice as to Count XI and dismissed as
moot as to Counts I-VI.

A copy of the District Court's October 7, 2013 Order and Reasons
is available at http://is.gd/dx8QwCfrom Leagle.com.


PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Prelim. OK of Merger Suits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. is awaiting preliminary court
approval of its settlement of the Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, according to the Company's August 9, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 6, 2013, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
common stock of Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pursuant to an
agreement and plan of merger dated December 10, 2012.  As a result
of the merger, each outstanding share of Somaxon common stock was
converted into the right to receive 0.477 shares of the Company's
common stock, with cash paid in lieu of fractional shares.  As a
result of the merger, the Company issued an aggregate of
approximately 3,665,689 shares of its common stock to the former
stockholders of Somaxon.  Somaxon is a specialty pharmaceutical
company focused on the in-licensing, development and
commercialization of proprietary branded products and product
candidates to treat medical conditions where there is an unmet
medical need and/or high level of patient dissatisfaction, mainly
in the central nervous system therapeutic area.  At the time of
acquisition, Somaxon was only marketing Silenor.  The company's
name was changed from Somaxon to Pernix Sleep, Inc.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of California County of San Diego by Daniele Riganello, who, prior
to the consummation of the merger between Pernix and Somaxon on
March 6, 2013 (the "Merger"), was an alleged stockholder of
Somaxon (Riganello v. Somaxon, et al., No. 37-201200087821-CU-
SLCTL).  A second purported class action was also filed in the
court by another alleged stockholder (Wasserstrom vs. Somaxon, et
al., No. 37-2012-00029214-CU-SL-CTL).  Both plaintiffs filed
amended complaints on January 18, 2013.  The lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action captioned In re Somaxon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead Case No. 37-
201200087821-CU-SLCTL).  The operative complaint named as
defendants Somaxon, Pernix, Pernix Acquisition Corp. I, as well as
each of the former members of Somaxon's board of directors (the
"Individual Defendants").  It alleged, among other things, that
(i) the Individual Defendants breached fiduciary duties they
assertedly owed to Somaxon' s former stockholders in connection
with the Merger (ii) Somaxon and Pernix aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty; (iii) the merger
consideration was unfair and inadequate; and (iv) the disclosures
regarding the Merger in the Registration Statement on Form S-4,
initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 7, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), were
inadequate.

On January 24, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Pernix and the other named defendants in
such litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
to settle such litigation.  Confirmatory discovery was completed
by April 2013.  Subject to court approval and further definitive
documentation in a stipulation of settlement, the MOU resolves the
claims brought in such litigation and provides a release and
settlement by the purported class of Somaxon's former stockholders
of all claims against the defendants and their affiliates and
agents in connection with the Merger.  The asserted claims will
not be released until such stipulation of settlement is approved
by the court, which was filed in July 2013.  There can be no
assurance that the court will approve such settlement.  
Additionally, as part of the MOU, Pernix made certain additional
disclosures related to the Merger in the Proxy Statement/
Prospectus.  Finally, in connection with the proposed settlement,
plaintiffs in such litigation intend to seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to be approved or
determined by the court.

Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.pernixtx.com/--  
is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the sales,
marketing, manufacturing and development of branded, generic and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical products for pediatric and adult
indications in a variety of therapeutic areas.  The Company is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: Recalls 17 Multiple Vehicle Model Cars
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 9, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           17
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013351
TC ID number:             2013351

On certain vehicles, a defective wiring harness in the passenger
seat may result in the deactivation of the passenger side frontal
and knee airbags, illuminating the airbag warning lamp.  Failure
of the passenger airbags to deploy during a crash (where
deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of injury to the
seat occupant.

Dealers will replace the passenger seat in affected vehicles.

Affected products:

  Maker      Model            Model year(s) affected
  -----      -----            ----------------------
  PORSCHE    911 CARRERA 4              2014
  PORSCHE    BOXSTER                    2014
  PORSCHE    911 CARRERA 4S             2014
  PORSCHE    BOXSTER S                  2014
  PORSCHE    911 CARRERA S              2014
  PORSCHE    CAYMAN S                   2014
  PORSCHE    911 CARRERA 4S CABRIOLET   2014


REGAL SNACKS: Recalls Certain KCB Pista Khatie
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 9, 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:           Regal Snacks
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8387

Affected products: 369 g. KCB Pista Khatie with UPC number 8 12042
00129 3

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Regal Snacks are
warning people with allergies to eggs not to consume the KCB brand
Pista Khatie described below.  The affected product may contain
egg 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 egg.

The importer, Regal Snacks, Etobicoke, ON, is voluntarily
recalling the affected product from the marketplace.  The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


SARA LEE: Appeals Court Grants Writ of Mandate in "Alsheikh" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner and plaintiff Sylvia Ingoglia is one of four plaintiffs
who filed a class action against real parties in interest and
defendants Sara Lee Fresh, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, Grupo Bimbo
S.A.B. De C.V, Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc. and Earthgrains
Distribution, LLC. Out of three petitioners, two of the plaintiffs
settled their case with defendants shortly before the oral
argument in this matter, leaving just plaintiff Sylvia Ingoglia as
the remaining petitioner.

Plaintiff alleged she was an employee denied wage and hour
benefits under the Labor Code. Plaintiff also alleged that if she
were an independent contractor, defendants violated state
antitrust laws by setting the price at which plaintiff was
required to sell baked goods to those stores and by imposing
territorial restrictions. Plaintiff alleged in her 12th and 13th
causes of action violations of Business and Professions Code
section 16720, California's antitrust law (Cartwright Act), and in
her 15th cause of action violation of Business and Professions
Code section 17200 (Unfair Competition Law).

Defendants demurred to plaintiff's 12th, 13th and 15th causes of
action, in which she alleged an antitrust violation and unfair
competition based on the facts of vertical price fixing and
horizontal territorial divisions. Defendants asserted that
plaintiff had failed to allege an antitrust violation. Defendants
also contended that even if plaintiff had alleged an antitrust
violation based on such acts, such acts are no longer per se
illegal under the Cartwright Act. Defendants argued that the
California Supreme Court case of Mailand v. Burckle (1978) 20
Cal.3d 367, in which the court held that the per se rule applied
to vertical price fixing under the Cartwright Act, was no longer
good law because the court relied upon federal law that
subsequently had been abandoned by the United States Supreme Court
in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007) 551
U.S. 887.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Five, holds that plaintiff's allegations in the operative
complaint do not show vertical price fixing in violation of the
Cartwright Act. "Although granting the petition for a writ of
mandate, we remand the matter to the trial court with instructions
to sustain the demurrer as to the 12th and 15th causes of action
with leave to amend," says the ruling.  "For guidance of the trial
court we note that the holding in Mailand v. Burckle, supra, 20
Cal.3d 367 that vertical price fixing is a per se violation of the
Cartwright Act is the governing law of California," it added.

The case is EDDIE ALSHEIKH et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; SARA LEE FRESH, INC. et
al, Real Parties in Interest, NO. B249822.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 7, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/tu811dfrom Leagle.com.

For Petitioners and Plaintiffs, Arias, Ozzello & Gignac, Mike
Arias -- marias@aogllp.com -- Kreindler & Kreindler, Gretchen M.
Nelson -- gnelson@kreindler.com -- Law offices of Jonathan Weiss
and Jonathan Weiss -- jw@lojw.com and:

   George A. Kaufman, Esq.
   Law Offices of George Kaufman
   1334 Park View Ave
   Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

No appearance for Respondent.

Paul Hastings, Donna Melby -- donnamelby@paulhastings.com --
Elizabeth Brown -- elizabethbrown@paulhastings.com -- Holly House
-- hollyhouse@paulhastings.com -- and Sean Unger --
seanunger@paulhastings.com -- for Defendants and Real Parties In
Interest.


SPACE SYSTEMS: "Schneider" Parties to Send Revised Notice Oct. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit commenced by Jeremy
Schneider against Space Systems/Loral, Inc., et al., must send a
revised Notice of Class Action Settlement to newly-discovery class
members on October 18, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California ruled on October 8, 2013.

The parties previously agreed to this deadline.  They further
agree in the Court-approved stipulation that a revised class
notice and claim form will be sent to the newly discovered Class
Members, and that a supplemental notice will be sent to Class
Members, who received the initial notice packet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4735
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Roger R. Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200
          Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
          E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
          Jessica R. Perry, Esq.
          Allison Riechert Giese, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 614-7400
          Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
          E-mail: lchermle@orrick.com
                  jperry@orrick.com
                  agiese@orrick.com

The case is Schneider v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5:11-cv-02489-JF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose).


SOBTAX NY: Faces Class Suit in New York Over FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Nyri Jefferies, Sobia Nazir, Jaime Persaud-Thomas, Kenneth
Springer, Kathleen Wilson, Arabia Boatwright, Evelyn Gomez,
Benjamin Granados, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Sobtax NY, Inc., Mandeep Sobti, Anjeet
Sobti, Jackson Hewitt Inc. and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:13-cv-
07092-UA (S.D. N.Y., October 7, 2013) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to unpaid wages from
the Defendants for work for which they did not receive minimum
wage and overtime premium pay, as required by law.  They add that
they are entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.

Nyri Jefferies and Sobia Nazir are residents of Bronx County, New
York.  Jaime Persaud-Thomas, Kenneth Springer, Kathleen Wilson and
Arabia Boatwright are residents of Kings County, New York.  Evelyn
Gomez is a resident of Westchester County, New York, while
Benjamin Granados is a resident of Queens County, New York.

Sobtax is a New York corporation headquartered in Bronx County.  
The Company operates tax preparation offices under the franchise
name "Jack Hewitt" at the Sobtax Headquarters.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, officers, directors and managing agents of
the Company.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown at
this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Coudert Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Bundle of Lawsuits Over Acceleration Problems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Pritchard, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
while Toyota Motor Corp. still faces a bundle of lawsuits claiming
that defective electronics caused some of its cars to accelerate
uncontrollably, often with tragic results, another courtroom
victory has given the automaker momentum heading into those other
cases.

Jurors deliberated for about five days in Los Angeles before
concluding on Oct. 10 that the automaker was not liable for the
death of Noriko Uno.  The 66-year-old was killed in 2009 when her
2006 Toyota Camry was struck by another car, then continued on a
harrowing ride until it slammed into a telephone pole and tree.

Toyota's lawyers said the sedan's design was not to blame and
Mrs. Uno likely mistook the gas pedal for the brake.  Jurors
cleared the Japanese automaker but decided that the other driver,
who ran a stop sign, should pay Uno's family $10 million.

The Uno case was one of hundreds of "unintended acceleration"
lawsuits still pending in federal and state courts against Toyota.
It is the first "bellwether" case in state courts, chosen by a
judge to help predict the potential outcome of other lawsuits
making similar claims.  Another state case began last week in
Oklahoma.

The Los Angeles case posed a different theory than the others.

Mrs. Uno's family claimed that the crash could have been avoided
if Toyota had installed a brake override system, which deadens the
accelerator if the driver hits the brakes.  Other cases claim that
an electronics defect caused the sudden, unintended acceleration
that preceded crashes.

One plaintiff's attorney who settled a class-action case against
Toyota in December for more than $1 billion said the Uno case
seemed easier to win than the cases claiming failures in vehicles'
electronic throttle control systems.

"The chances of a software glitch causing an unintended
acceleration are one in a million," said Steve W. Berman, whose
lawsuit asserted that the value of Toyota cars and trucks
plummeted after a series of recalls stemming from unintended
acceleration claims.

While plaintiff's experts will argue that lab simulations strongly
suggest crashes were caused by a software problem, Toyota's
lawyers will argue that there are other plausible explanations.
Without hard data to prove a glitch was the cause, Berman said,
jurors may reasonably have doubts.

But a lawyer whose case will go before a federal jury in early
November discounted the broader impact of the Oct. 10 verdict.

Because the Uno case involved acceleration after an initial
accident, "that gave the jury a way out and allowed them to simply
assign all the liability to the first collision," attorney
Todd A. Walburg said.  He is bringing a claim that a Camry in
Georgia accelerated uncontrollably due to defective electronics
before crashing into a school.

Mr. Walburg said he believes his case is a winner, but his legal
team faces several challenges.  One is that all 12 jurors must
agree Toyota was liable; another, he said, is that the carmaker
picked the case as a "bellwether" federal trial.

"Theoretically, it should be Toyota's strongest case," Mr. Walburg
said.  "If we're able to win this case, Toyota will have a lot of
thinking to do."

The Los Angeles verdict added to Toyota's legal victories: In
2011, a federal jury in New York found that the company wasn't
responsible for a 2005 crash.


TRADEOPIA CORP: Recalls Magnodots Magnet Sets
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 9, 2013
Posting date:             October 9, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard, Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36109

Affected products: Magnodots Magnet Sets

The recall involves small powerful magnetic balls that can be used
to build sculptures, puzzles, patterns, or shapes.

These magnet set models are affected:

   -- Magnodots Original 125;
   -- Magnodots Original 216;
   -- Magnodots Black 125;
   -- Magnodots Black 216;
   -- Magnodots Silver 125;
   -- Magnodots Silver 216;
   -- Magnodots Gold 125;
   -- Magnodots Gold 216; and
   -- Magnocubes Original 216

They are available in a range of shapes, sizes and colors.

Tradeopia Corp. is voluntarily recalling these products from the
market in response to a risk assessment conducted by Health
Canada.

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

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

Approximately 10,000 units of the affected products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
April 2011 to April 2013.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Dong Yang Ltd.
                   China

  Importer         Tradeopia Corp.
                   North York
                   Ontario
                   Canada

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


VELTI PLC: Faces Calif. Class Suits Over 2011 Public Offerings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raymund Manabat, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Velti PLC, Alex Moukas, Wilson W. Cheung,
Jeffrey O. Ross, Winnie W. Tso, Chris Kaskavelis, David W. Mann,
David C. Hobley, Jerry Goldstein, Nicholas P. Negroponte,
Jefferies & Company, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Needham &
Company, LLC, Canaccord Genuity Inc., and Thinkequity LLC, Case
No. 3:13-cv-04606-JC (N.D. Cal., October 4, 2013) arises from
Velti's 2011 initial and secondary public offerings.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, Mr. Manabat alleges.  Specifically, he contends, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, or failed to
disclose that, among other things, the Company was having
difficulties collecting certain receivables and certain of its
receivables were uncollectible.

Raymund Manabat, purchased Velti common stock during the Class
Period.

Velti is a Jersey corporation with its principal executive offices
located in Dublin, Ireland.  Velti maintains its U.S. headquarters
in San Francisco, California.  Velti engages in the provision of
mobile marketing and advertising technology and solutions for
brands, advertising agencies, mobile operators, and media
companies primarily in Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa.  
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.  Jefferies & Company, RBC Capital, Needham & Company,
Canaccord Genuity and ThinkEquity served as underwriters in
connection with the Company's public offerings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278-2600
          Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
          E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


VIKING RANGE: Recalls Built-In Side-by-Side Refrigerator Freezers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 11, 2013
Posting date:             October 11, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Appliances
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36167

Affected products: Viking 107-centimetre (42-inch) and
123-centimetre (48-inch) built-in side-by-side refrigerator
freezers with in-door water and ice dispensers

The recall involves Viking 107-centimetre (42-inch) and
123-centimetre (48-inch) built-in side-by-side refrigerator
freezers with in-door water and ice dispensers.  The recalled
refrigerator freezers come in a variety of colors, stainless steel
or a custom finish.

They were manufactured between October 2012 and May 2013 and
include the following model numbers: CVCSB5421D, CVCSB5481D,
FDSB5421D, FDSB5481D, VCSB5421D and VCSB5481D.  The first six
numbers in the serial number are the manufacture date of the unit
in MM/DD/YY format.  Both sizes of refrigerator freezers have a
serial number/date code range from 101712 through 052913.  The
model and serial numbers are located on the ceiling of the
interior of the refrigerators.

An electrical component in the refrigerators can overheat, posing
a fire hazard.

Viking Range and Health Canada have not received any reports of
incidents or injuries in Canada.

Twenty units of the recalled refrigerators were sold at appliance
and specialty stores in Canada.

The recalled refrigerators were manufactured in the United States
of America and sold from October 2012 through May 2013 in Canada.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Viking Range LLC
                   Greenwood
                   Mississippi
                   United States

Viking built-in side-by-side refrigerator freezers with in-door
dispensers with serial Number is located behind the light housing
on the top interior of the unit.

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the recalled
refrigerator freezers and contact Viking to schedule a free, in-
home repair.


* Auto Recalls Put on Hold During Partial Government Shutdown
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Lowy, writing for The Associated Press, reports that lives
and property are at greater risk because auto recalls and
investigations of safety defects have been put on hold during the
partial government shutdown, safety advocates said.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has furloughed
employees who investigate safety complaints and order carmakers to
recall vehicles.  The public can still file safety complaints
through the agency's website, but no one has been investigating
them since the shutdown began over a week ago.  Investigations
previously underway have been halted.

Manufacturers can still voluntarily recall vehicles, but major
recalls are typically negotiated between the government and
automakers.

The safety administration oversees nearly 700 recalls every year,
affecting 20 million vehicles, said safety advocate Joan
Claybrook, who was the head of NHTSA during the Carter
administration.  For every NHTSA workday lost to the furlough, an
average of three recalls covering 80,000 vehicles are delayed
indefinitely, she said.

"Safety is being undermined," Mr. Claybrook said.  "If unsafe cars
are on the highway, if the agency isn't operating so it can't put
out consumer alerts, if it can't finish up a recall notice that it
wants to publish or negotiate with an auto company they want to do
a recall, that puts the public at risk."

"And that could go on and on," she said.  "Who knows where this is
going to end."

NHTSA is required by law to halt ongoing auto investigations
during the government shutdown, Transportation Department
spokeswoman Meghan Keck said.  "Automakers can continue to
publicize their own recalls and consumers can continue to submit
concerns through our SaferCar.gov site, which we will pursue once
the shutdown is over."

Gloria Bergquist, vice president the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, said at present "it's just a matter of days . . .
and auto companies are still looking out for the best interest of
their own customers."

"Automakers, like consumers, believe NHTSA provides an important
function and should be fully funded," she said.

Some safety research paid for by federal gas and diesel taxes is
still being carried out by the agency, she said.


* U.S. House Passes Bill to Help Identify Counterfeit Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Walsh, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S.
House passed legislation that would give the government its first
uniform rules to help identify stolen or counterfeit drugs and
would put manufacturers under greater regulatory scrutiny.

The voice vote on H.R. 3204, which was written in response to
dozens of deaths linked to contaminated medicines, sends the
measure to the Senate.

"Bad actors concerned more with profit than public health will not
be able to operate with impunity again," said Representative Gene
Green, a Texas Democrat.

The bill would let the Food and Drug Administration collect and
spend fees to cover costs of inspections and licensing, impose
handling and record-keeping requirements, and create notification
rules for drugs that are potentially unsuitable for distribution.

The legislation was introduced in response to regulatory gaps
revealed by investigations into meningitis-related deaths last
year that resulted from tainted medications linked to a
compounding pharmacy.  Its provisions would replace a patchwork of
state laws governing distribution of drugs through about 4 billion
prescriptions a year filled by compounding and traditional
pharmacies, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and
House Energy and Commerce committees said in approving the measure
Sept. 26.

"How we got here is a tragedy," said Representative Timothy
Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, said during the Sept. 29
debate.

                          Deadly Outbreak

The FDA came under criticism from Congress for failing to close
New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc. before the Framingham,
Massachusetts-based company shipped fungus-tainted medications to
customers across the U.S. in last year's meningitis outbreak.  The
company subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The FDA told lawmakers that its legal authority over compounding
pharmacies needed to be clarified, which the lawmakers said would
happen if this bill becomes law.

The FDA reported last year that it had discovered counterfeit
versions of Roche Holding AG (RHHBY)'s cancer medicine Avastin --
containing no active ingredient -- in boxes identifying the
contents as Altuzan, the version of the drug that is sold in
Turkey and hasn't been approved for use in the U.S.  In 2008 the
FDA recalled Baxter International Inc. (BAX)'s blood thinner
heparin due to contamination of an ingredient imported from China;
during the crisis, neither the FDA nor Baxter was able to re-
create the supply chain, taking weeks to get close to the source,
according to a report last year by the Institute of Medicine, part
of the Washington-based National Academies of Sciences.
Distribution Chain

Under the legislation, manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale
distributors and dispensers would, within seven years, be
maintaining and sharing records of key information about each
drug's distribution history.

The measure would let larger drug compounders that produce
pharmaceuticals by the batch, rather than one prescription at a
time, register as outsourcing facilities subject to FDA oversight.
That would enable the FDA to identify providers and products, get
reports on adverse reactions and make risk-based inspections.

Compounding pharmacies prepare personalized prescriptions and are
regulated by state health authorities.  Some companies also
produce larger amounts of blended medicines.
Visible Contamination

A Senate committee staff report released in May found that in the
eight months after last year's meningitis outbreak caused by
contaminated compounded drugs, at least 48 compounding companies
were found to be producing and selling drugs contaminated or
created in unsafe conditions.  In at least three cases, visible
contamination was spotted in widely distributed sterile compound
drugs.

The report also found that according to FDA documents between 2001
and 2011, at least 25 deaths and 36 serious injuries, including
hospitalizations, were linked to large-scale drug compounding
companies, including 13 deaths in 2011.  The figures may
understate the actual number of adverse events because current law
doesn't require reporting of those events.


                             *********

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  * * *