CAR_Public/131021.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 208

                             Headlines


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces 3 Suits Over Workers' Compensation Fraud
ASIAINFO-LINKAGE: Defends Three Merger-Related Class Suits
BELMONT VILLAGE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Suit Claims
BEST VALUE: Recalls PRAN Bran Turmeric Powder Due to Lead
CONAIR CONSUMER: Recalls Infiniti Pro by ConairTM Hair Dryer

CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Voluntarily Recalls Non-Flavored Vodka
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Certain Kirkland Lean Ground Beef
DOLLAR GENERAL: Reaches Preliminary Settlement in Richter Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues Settlement Talks With Marcum Plaintiffs
DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Conference With EEOC Set for Nov. 18

DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend Varela & Main Suits in Calif.
DOLLAR GENERAL: To Mediate Wass Suit by Dec. 6
DOLLAR GENERAL: Trial in Buttry Suit Set for Feb. 17, 2015
DRAGER: Recalls Fabius Ansethesia Machine Over Voltage Defect
FOSTER FARMS: DA Won't Close Salmonella Outbreak-Linked Plants

GARDEN FRESH: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Chicken and Ham Products
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 1,140 ATS, IMPALA, SONIC & XTS Car Models
GOLDMAN SACHS: Discovery Ordered in Gender Bias Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Wants Review of Wiretap Law Before Gmail MDL Trial
GREG MORTENSON: Ninth Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Class Suit

MEDTRONIC INC: Defending Sprint Fidelis Product Liability Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Defend INFUSE Bone Graft-Related Suit
MONTANA: Hi-way Patrol Detains Suspected Migrants, Suit Says
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Has Until Nov. 29 to Answer 10b-5 Cases
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Still Defending 6.4L Diesel Engine Suit

NORTHSTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Accused of FLSA Violations in Kansas
PACWEST BANCORP: Faces CapitalSource Merger-Related Class Suits
PEOPLES BANCORP: Continues to Defend N.C. Class Suit vs. Bank
REGAL SNACKS: Recalls KCB Punjabi Sooji Cookies
SADDLE RIVER VALLEY: Shareholders Want Suit Documents Unsealed

SATILLA REGIONAL: Azmat Faces Complaints Over Stent Surgeries
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Misled Grand Theft Auto V Gamers, Suit Says
TORO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Canadian Lawnmower Engine Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Collision-Avoidance System Fails, Class Suit Says
USPLABS: Stops Nationwide Distribution of OxyELITE Pro Diet Pill

* FDA Receives 901 Reports of Adult Bed Rail-Related Deaths


                             *********


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces 3 Suits Over Workers' Compensation Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that
American International Group for nearly 40 years has been
underreporting workers' compensation premiums, causing insured
employers to pay improperly inflated state insurance surcharges,
three federal classes claim.

The coordinated suits were filed in San Francisco, Manhattan and
Newark against AIG and its subsidiaries and affiliates.  AIG is
accused of unfair business practices, fraud, unjust enrichment and
violations of federal anti-racketeering law.

The California complaint, filed by Franjo Inc. and DMS Facility
Services Inc., says it all began in the 1970s when AIG "devised,
implemented, participated in, and carried out nationwide schemes -
- later characterized by AIG's own general counsel as 'permeated
with illegality' -- to miscategorize, falsely report, and falsely
book the AIG companies' [workers' compensation] premium as other
premium (for example, as 'general liability' premium), in order to
reduce defendants' expenses, inflate their profits, and unjustly
enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiffs and the class."

AIG allegedly falsified certified annual financial reports that
underreported workers' compensation (WC) figures to evade its
equitable shares of financial responsibility for state-levied
taxes and assessments.  It caused state insurance regulators,
through no fault of their own, to assess artificially inflated
fees on insured employers, according to the complaint.

"When defendants underreported premium, policyholders throughout
the state paid artificially inflated pass-through surcharges and
assessments," the policyholders now say.  "This was equally true
of individual policyholders insured by defendants and those
insured by other insurers alike -- each policyholder who purchased
WC insurance in California during the years that defendants
underreported the amount of premium that they had collected were
subjected to the higher surcharge, calculated by state regulators
as the amount necessary to fill the [special purchase funds]
coffers based on the incorrectly reported, lesser amount of
aggregate WC premium volume that the defendants reported."

AIG and its affiliates concealed the fraud from state regulators
by keeping more than one set of books and records tracking the
amount of workers' compensation premiums they collected from their
policyholders, according to the complaint.

In addition to an accurate set of books and records, they also
"maintained a false set of books and records that tracked the
inaccurate, lesser amount of WC premium that they reported to
California state regulators, as well as the lesser amount of
aggregate [special purchase funds] surcharges, which they had
collected from their policyholder, that they then remitted to
state regulators," the complaint states.  "Only the false set of
books and records were made available to state auditors."

AIG then retained the difference between the higher aggregate
amount it collected from its policyholders and the lower amount it
remitted to the states, the policyholders say.

For example, if AIG claimed to have collected $75 million of
workers' compensation premium when it actually collected $100
million, and state regulators levied a surcharge of 1.3 percent
based on the inaccurate amount, AIG would then pass the inflated
percentage on to policyholders and receive $1.3 million.  AIG
would then pay the state only $975,000 and keep the remaining
$325,000, the policyholders say.

"In this manner, the fraudulent underreporting of WC insurance
premium allowed defendants to not only evade premium taxes they
otherwise owed but also to unlawfully profit from the state-
mandated surcharges that they levied on their policyholders,"
according to the complaint.

The policyholders claim that AIG knew its conduct was illegal and
made efforts to conceal its actions.  In 1991 and 1992, after the
scheme had already been in place for 20 years, AIG's then general
counsel, E. Michael Joye, allegedly conducted an investigation and
issued a formal report detailing the company's unlawful conduct.
The report found that AIG's actions involved "major elements of
illegality," according to the complaint.

Despite dissemination of the Joye Memorandum to AIG executives,
AIG "failed to end the false WC premium reporting, failed to
correct the false certified financial statements, failed to
disclose their misconduct and its adverse consequences, and failed
to make restitution to all those injured by defendants' fraudulent
misconduct," the policyholders say.

Around 2005, the Joye Memorandum came to light when federal and
New York state authorities launched investigations into AIG's
accounting, financial reporting, and insurance brokerage
practices.  As part of settlements with various authorities, AIG
admitted to its false-premium reporting and made payments or
placed into escrow $1.64 billion to resolve the investigations,
according to the complaint.

In addition, AIG agreed to pay $450 million to resolve litigation
brought against it by other insurance companies.  Despite these
settlements, businesses and other insured employers have not been
compensated for AIG's actions that caused them to pay inflated
fees and surcharges, the complaint states.

The San Francisco policyholders seek restitution and/or
disgorgement of profits, plus punitive damages.

An AIG spokesman slammed the three lawsuits as an "attempt to
recycle allegations of wrongdoing from decades past that AIG has
already resolved via settlements with its regulators and with
civil plaintiffs."

"AIG will defend the cases vigorously," spokesman Jon Diat added.

The Plaintiffs in the Franjo case are represented by:

          Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          455 Market Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 536-3986
          Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
          E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Drew E. Pomerance, Esq.
          Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
          ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI
          5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992-9999
          Facsimile: (818) 992-9991
          E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com
                  npr@rpnalaw.com

The Franjo case is Franjo, Inc., and DMS Facility Services, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American International Group, Inc.; AIU Insurance Company;
American Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company; American Home
Assurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company f/k/a AIG
Casualty Company f/k/a Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of
Pennsylvania; Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, Inc.;
Granite State Insurance Company; Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
PA; New Hampshire Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management Inc.,
Maurice R. Greenberg; and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No.
3:13-cv-04685-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


ASIAINFO-LINKAGE: Defends Three Merger-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
AsiaInfo-Linkage, Inc., is defending three merger-related class
action lawsuits, 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.

Upon the unanimous recommendation of the Special Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors and the approval of its Board of
Directors, on May 12, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), with Skipper Limited
("Parent") and Skipper Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"),
which are owned indirectly by CITIC Capital Partners, the private
equity arm of CITIC Capital Holdings Ltd.  Pursuant to the terms
and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
would merge (the "Merger") with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent, and each share of outstanding Company common
stock would convert automatically into the right to receive $12 in
cash without interest, except for dissenting shares, shares of
treasury stock, and shares held members of the buyer group that
will own all of Parent following the Merger.

Since the announcement that the Company entered into the Merger
Agreement, certain alleged Company stockholders have filed three
putative class actions against the Company, the members of its
Board of Directors and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, under the captions Guanghui Cai v. AsiaInfo-Linkage,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8583-VCP, Dawan Liu v. AsiaInfo-Linkage,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8634-VCP, and Loren Lowry v. AsiaInfo-
Linkage, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8695-VCP.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by favoring Parent over other
potential purchasers, favoring their own interests over the
interests of the Company's stockholders, failing to take
appropriate steps to maximize the value of the Company to its
stockholders, agreeing to preclusive deal protection devices and
otherwise agreeing to sell the Company for an unfairly low price.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Company and Merger Sub
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
Plaintiffs have requested an injunction, rescission of the Merger
to the extent consummated, money damages if the Merger is
consummated, certain other equitable relief, and an award of
plaintiffs' costs, including legal fees.  The Plaintiffs in the
Liu action have also requested a declaration that the Merger is
unfair, unjust and inequitable.

While the Company cannot guarantee the outcome of these
proceedings, the Company believes that the final results will not
have a material effect on its consolidated financial condition,
results or operations, or cash flows.

Headquartered in Beijing, China, AsiaInfo-Linkage, Inc., is a
provider of high-quality telecommunications software solutions and
information technology products and services in China.  The
Company's solutions, products and services include business
support systems containing billing and customer relationship
management and other software and services.


BELMONT VILLAGE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Brumfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Belmont Village, L.P., and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 2:13-cv-07445-BRO-CW (C.D. Cal., October 8, 2013) is a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
recover unpaid overtime.

The Defendant failed to pay her and numerous other employees
overtime at the proper regular rate, as both California and
federal law require, Ms. Brumfield alleges.  She contends that the
Defendant does not incorporate non-discretionary bonuses it pays
to employees when it calculates the regular rate of pay for
purposes of paying overtime compensation.

Ms. Brumfield is California resident, who worked for the Defendant
at its Westwood Village, California senior housing facility.

Belmont is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.
The Company is a fully integrated developer, owner and operator of
senior housing marketed under the name Belmont Village Senior
Living.  The Company is a privately held corporation and provides
independent living, assisted living, memory care services, and
dementia care for elder residents.  The Company owns and operates
numerous senior housing facilities throughout the United States,
including at least 10 in California, four in Texas, four in
Illinois, two in Tennessee, two in Georgia, and one each in
Arizona and Kentucky.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW J. SOKOLOWSKI
          2276 Torrance Boulevard
          Torrance, CA 90501
          Telephone: (424) 254-8817
          Facsimile: (866) 489-0330
          E-mail: andrew@sokolawfirm.com


BEST VALUE: Recalls PRAN Bran Turmeric Powder Due to Lead
---------------------------------------------------------
Best Value, Inc. of Detroit, MI is voluntarily recalling Pran
Turmeric Powder 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.  The
recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
contained high levels of lead (53 ppm) based on sampling by Food
and Drug Administration. No complaints have been reported to date.

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 TURMERIC POWDER 400g that is packaged in a transparent
plastic flexible bag with BEST BEFORE 26 OCT 14 and BAR CODE #8
3173000502 3.

It was distributed in and around Hamtramck, Michigan through
retail stores.

Consumers who have purchased PRAN TURMERIC POWDER 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 TEL: 313-259-2900, Monday - Friday, 10am-5pm.


CONAIR CONSUMER: Recalls Infiniti Pro by ConairTM Hair Dryer
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 16, 2013
Posting date:             October 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Miscellaneous
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36259

Affected products: Infiniti Pro by ConairTM Hair Dryer (259/279
Series)

The recall involves certain Infiniti Pro by Conair 259 / 279
Series Hair Dryer.

The recalled hair dryer has one of the following Model Number,
Type Number and Product Code listed below, and has only one (1)
screw hole on back of the hair dryer handle (please refer to the
photographs).  Any hair dryer with a Model number, Type number or
Product Code other than the ones listed below, or any hair dryer
with 2 screw holes on the back of the handle is not subject to
this recall.  The model number of the 259/279 series hair dryer is
found on the back of the hair dryer handle and on the bottom panel
of the packaging box.

Infiniti Pro by ConairTM 259 / 279 Series Hair Dryer subject to
recall:

In extremely limited circumstances, the heater coils in the barrel
of the hair dryer can come into contact with adjacent coils that
can create an electrical short during use.  As a result of the
electrical short, small coils can project out of the dryer, posing
a burn or fire hazard.

Conair Consumer Products ULC has received four reports of hot
coils exiting the hair dryer in Canada.  All four reports were
burn incidents with one report of a person seeking medical
attention.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these hair dryers.

Approximately 132,538 units of the recalled hair dryers were sold
in Canada.

The recalled hair dryers were manufactured in China and sold from
August 2010 to August 2013.

Companies:

  Distributor     Conair Consumer Products ULC
                  Woodbridge
                  Ontario
                  Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled hair dryers immediately
and contact Conair Consumer Products ULC to receive a replacement
hair dryer.


CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Voluntarily Recalls Non-Flavored Vodka
------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Malave, writing for NewsChannel4, reports that Svedka, a
Swedish brand of vodka owned by US-based Constellation Brands, is
voluntarily recalling a small quantity of its non-flavored vodka
as the product may potentially contain small piece of loose glass
settled in the bottom of the bottle.

The product subject to recall is 1.75l clear glass bottles of
80-proof vodka (non-flavored) bearing codes: G13262, G13263,
G13264, G13265, G13266 or G13267.

This recalled product has been distributed across Wisconsin,
Oklahoma and Missouri through retail outlets.

No consumer complaints or injuries have been reported yet
associated with the recall.

Customers who have purchased the recalled product are requested to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund or
replacement.

For more information call 918-630-8793


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Certain Kirkland Lean Ground Beef
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated 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
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

Kirkland Signature Lean Ground Beef, 15% Fat or less with Pack
date: 13/OC/07 and Sell by date: 13/OC/08

The public warning issued on October 11th, 2013 has been updated
to include an additional product which was sold at only one Costco
store location.

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

The product has been sold from the Costco warehouse in Lethbridge,
Alberta.

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

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


DOLLAR GENERAL: Reaches Preliminary Settlement in Richter Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation reached a preliminary settlement in
early August resolving a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al.
v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., for up to $8.5 million, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2013.

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v.
Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-
01537-LSC) ("Richter") in which the plaintiff alleges that she and
other current and former Dollar General store managers were
improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On
August 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she
asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and
former store managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion.
On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class. On December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000
current or former Dollar General store managers. Approximately
3,950 individuals opted into the lawsuit, approximately 1,000 of
whom have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to
cooperate in discovery.

On April 2, 2012, the Company moved to decertify the class.  The
plaintiff's response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012.

On October 22, 2012, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion
granting the Company's decertification motion.  On December 19,
2012, the court entered an Order decertifying the matter and
stating that a separate Order would be entered regarding the opt-
in plaintiffs' rights and Cynthia Richter's individual claims. To
date, the court has not entered such an Order.

The parties agreed to mediate the matter, and the court informally
stayed the action pending the results of the mediation.
Mediations were conducted in January, April and August 2013.  On
August 10, 2013, the parties reached a preliminary agreement,
which must be submitted to and approved by the court, to resolve
the matter for up to $8.5 million.  The Company has deemed the
settlement probable and recorded such amount as the estimated
expense in the second quarter of 2013.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action
treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some,
although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff
store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

At this time, although probable, it is not certain that the court
will approve the settlement.  If it does not, and the case
proceeds, it is not possible to predict whether Richter ultimately
will be permitted to proceed collectively, and no assurances can
be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of the
action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the
Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or
the value of the claims asserted if this action were to proceed.
For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss in such a scenario; however, if the Company
is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of
Richter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues Settlement Talks With Marcum Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation continues to engage in settlement
discussions with plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit entitled Jonathan
Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in
Virginia, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2013.

On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil
Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in which the plaintiffs, one of
whose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, allege that
certain of the Company's background check procedures violate the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  Plaintiff Marcum also alleges
defamation. According to the complaint and subsequently filed
first and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek to
represent a putative class of applicants in connection with their
FCRA claims. The Company filed its response to the original
complaint in June 2012 and moved to dismiss certain allegations
contained in the first amended complaint in November 2012.  That
motion remains pending.  The plaintiffs' certification motion was
due to be filed on or before April 5, 2013; however, plaintiffs
asked the court to stay all deadlines in light of the parties'
ongoing settlement discussions, and the court stayed the matter
until August 13, 2013. Although the stay has expired, the court
has not issued a new scheduling order or otherwise imposed any new
deadlines on the parties.

The parties have engaged in formal settlement discussions on three
occasions, once in January 2013 with a private mediator, and again
in March 2013 and July 2013 with a federal magistrate. Although
these formal discussions did not result in a resolution of the
matter, the parties have continued informally to discuss potential
settlement.  The Company's Employment Practices Liability
Insurance ("EPLI") carrier has been placed on notice of this
matter and participated in both the formal and informal settlement
discussions.  The EPLI Policy covering this matter has a $2
million self-insured retention.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court
ultimately will permit the action to proceed as a class under the
FCRA.  Although the Company intends to vigorously defend the
action, no assurances can be given that it will be successful in
the defense on the merits or otherwise.  At this stage in the
proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims raised by the
plaintiff.  Based on settlement discussions and given the
Company's EPLI coverage, the Company believes that it is likely to
expend the balance of its self-insured retention in settlement of
this litigation or otherwise and, therefore, accrued $1.8 million
in the fourth quarter of 2012, an amount that is immaterial to the
Company's financial statements taken as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Conference With EEOC Set for Nov. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation has been ordered to participate in a
settlement conference on November 18, 2013, with the Chicago
Regional Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2013.

In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or
"Commission") notified the Company of a cause finding related to
the Company's criminal background check policy.  The cause finding
alleges that Dollar General's criminal background check policy,
which excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal
convictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact on
African-American candidates and employees in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII").

The Company and the EEOC engaged in the statutorily required
conciliation process, and despite the Company's good faith efforts
to resolve the matter, the Commission notified the Company on July
26, 2012 of its view that conciliation had failed.

On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled
Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar
General (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) in which the Commission alleges
that the Company's criminal background check policy has a
disparate impact on "Black Applicants" in violation of Title VII
and seeks to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of a class of "Black Applicants."  The Company filed its
Answer to the Complaint on August 9, 2013.

The court has ordered the parties to participate in a settlement
conference on November 18, 2013.  The court has not entered a
scheduling order and there are no other pending deadlines at this
time.

The Company believes that its criminal background check process is
both lawful and necessary to a safe environment for its employees
and customers and the protection of its assets and shareholders'
investments.  The Company also does not believe that this matter
is amenable to class or similar treatment.  However, at this time,
it is not possible to predict whether the action will ultimately
be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the
size of any putative class.  Likewise, at this time, it is not
possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and,
therefore, the Company cannot estimate the potential exposure or
range of potential loss.  If the matter were to proceed
successfully as a class or similar action or the Company is
unsuccessful in its defense efforts as to the merits of the
action, it could have a material impact on the Company's financial
statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend Varela & Main Suits in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation continues to defend itself against the
lawsuits entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen California and Does 1
through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158) and Victoria Lee Dinger Main v.
Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 100 (Case No. 34-2013-
00146129), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2013.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158) was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside in which the plaintiff alleges that he and other "key
carriers" were not provided with meal and rest periods in
violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid
wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment
interest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Varela plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California
"key carriers" as to these claims.  The Varela plaintiff also
asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed
under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (Case No. EDCV
13-01172-VAP(SPx) on July 1, 2013, and filed its Answer to the
Complaint on July 1, 2013.  On July 30, 2013, the plaintiff moved
to remand the action to state court.  The Company's response to
that motion was filed on August 19, 2013, and the motion is set to
be heard on September 9, 2013.

Similarly, on June 6, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Victoria Lee Dinger
Main v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 100 (Case No.
34-2013-00146129) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento.  The Main plaintiff
alleges that she and other "key carriers" were not provided with
meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and appropriate
pay upon termination in violation of California wage and hour laws
and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Main plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
California "key carriers" as to these claims.  The Main plaintiff
also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to
proceed under the PAGA.

The Company removed this action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on August 7, 2013,
and filed its Answer to the Complaint on August 6, 2013.

The Company believes that its policies and practices comply with
California law and that the Varela and Main actions are not
appropriate for class treatment.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not
possible to predict whether the Main or Varela action ultimately
will be permitted to proceed as a class, and no assurances can be
given that the Company will be successful in its defense of either
action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the
Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or
the value of the claims asserted in the Varela and Main actions.
For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss in either matter; however, if the Company is
not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of either
action could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: To Mediate Wass Suit by Dec. 6
----------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation has been ordered by the court to
mediate the lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp, LLC (Case
No. 13PO-CC00039) on or before December 6, 2013, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2013.

On May 31, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp,
LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039) was filed in the Circuit Court of Polk
County, Missouri.  The Wass plaintiff seeks to proceed
collectively on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated
non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not properly paid
for certain breaks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  The Wass plaintiff seeks back wages (including
overtime), injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 11, 2013, the Company removed this action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
(Case No. 6:113-cv-03267-JFM).  The Company filed its Answer on
July 18, 2013. The court ordered the parties to mediate this
action on or before December 6, 2013. There are no other pending
deadlines at this time.

The Company believes that its wage and hour policies and practices
comply with both the FLSA and Tennessee law and that the Wass
action is not appropriate for collective or class treatment.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend this action; however, at this
time, it is not possible to predict whether the Wass action
ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class, and no
assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its
defense of either action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at
this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims asserted in the Wass
action. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any
potential loss or range of loss in either matter; however, if the
Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution
of either action could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Trial in Buttry Suit Set for Feb. 17, 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit entitled Rachel Buttry and Jennifer Peters v.
Dollar General Corp. (Case no. 3:13-cv-00652) is set for February
17, 2015, according to Dollar General Corporation's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2013.

On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Rachel Buttry and Jennifer
Peters v. Dollar General Corp. (Case no. 3:13-cv-00652) ("Buttry")
was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee.  The Buttry
plaintiffs seek to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under
the FLSA and as a statewide class under Tennessee law on behalf of
non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not properly paid
for certain breaks.  The Buttry plaintiffs seek back wages
(including overtime), injunctive and declaratory relief,
liquidated damages, compensatory and economic damages,
"consequential" and "incidental" damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed its Answer on August 7, 2013. The plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification is due to be filed on or
before December 20, 2013. The plaintiff's motion for class
certification is due to be filed on or before September 22, 2014.
The court has set this matter for trial on February 17, 2015.

The Company believes that its wage and hour policies and practices
comply with both the FLSA and Tennessee law and that the Buttry
action is not appropriate for collective or class treatment.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend this action; however, at this
time, it is not possible to predict whether the Buttry action
ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class, and no
assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its
defense of either action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at
this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims asserted in the Buttry
action. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any
potential loss or range of loss in either matter; however, if the
Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution
of either action could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial statements as a whole.


DRAGER: Recalls Fabius Ansethesia Machine Over Voltage Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, P.C. on Oct. 11 disclosed that
German manufacturer Drager was recalling certain Fabius anesthesia
machines it produced due to a manufacturing defect.

The company first issued its recall in August after an internal
investigation revealed that some of the machines did not pass the
company's high voltage test.

DrĄger says that some of the power supply units did not have the
required minimum clearance between an electrical component and the
unit housing.

"In extreme cases, the influence of mechanical forces -- such as
movement of the device, for example -- may cause a failure of the
automatic ventilation function of the device," the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration noted in its recall notice.

Drager has not reported a patient injuries as a result of this
product defect so far.  The company reports that the defect
impacts a single batch of its machines and that half of the
impacted machines have been replaced already.  The machines were
sold nationally.

Drager is part of Dragerwerk AG, a German medical device and
engineering company headquartered in the northern German city of
Luebeck.


FOSTER FARMS: DA Won't Close Salmonella Outbreak-Linked Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Weise, writing for USA Today, reports that the
Department of Agriculture will not close the California chicken-
processing plants linked to a nationwide outbreak of antibiotic-
resistant salmonella, officials said.

"Foster Farms has submitted and implemented immediate substantive
changes to their slaughter and processing to allow for continued
operations," USDA spokesman Aaron Lavallee said on Oct. 10.

USDA Food Safety Inspection Service inspectors will verify that
the changes are being implemented at the three plants linked to
the outbreak one "a continuous and ongoing basis," he said.

USDA inspectors will also do "intensified sampling for at least
the next 90 days," he said.

"We started this process more than two months ago and this
officially validates our progress, but we are not stopping here,"
Ron Foster, president and CEO of Foster Farms said in a statement.
"We are putting every resource and all of our energy toward food
safety with the confidence that Foster Farms plants will be the
most stringent in the industry."

While Foster Farms has not recalled chicken from the three
implicated California plants, grocery giant Kroger Co. has.  The
company has removed Foster Farms product from those plants, said
spokesman Keith Dailey.  In addition, Kroger has pulled the
chicken from Food 4 Less stores on the West Coast and Smith's in
southern Nevada and New Mexico, Dailey said.

Foster Farms is not obligated to recall chicken processed at the
three plants because USDA investigators have not yet been able to
tie the outbreak to specific products and lots.

In a statement issued on Oct. 9, company CEO Ron Foster said, "It
should be noted that while no illness is ever acceptable, the time
period for this issue was over the course of six months from March
to mid-September.  During that time, more than 25 million
consumers safely consumed Foster Farms chicken."

Foster emphasized that raw chicken is not a ready-to-eat product
and that it "must be prepared following safe handling procedures,
avoiding cross-contamination, and must be fully cooked to 165
degrees to ensure safety."

Public health officials concurred.  Ron Chapman, director of the
California Department of Public Health, said that he has not
requested Foster Farms to recall chickens because, with proper
handling and preparation, it is safe to eat.

"Chicken is a raw animal protein that is expected to have some
level of naturally occurring bacteria present," Mr. Chapman said.
If consumers cook it to 165 degrees, any salmonella bacteria in
the chicken will be killed.  "Provided that consumers do not
cross-contaminate fully cooked chicken with raw chicken juices, it
is safe to consume," he said.

Salmonella is presumed to be present and is acceptable in U.S.
poultry under USDA rules.  Up to 7.5% of chicken carcasses in a
plant may test positive for the bacteria, according to USDA
performance standards.

This outbreak differs in that the variety of salmonella is
especially virulent.

There are seven strains of salmonella Heidelberg involved in the
outbreak.  Several of them are antibiotic-resistant and "one of
the strains that we've tested is resistant to seven antibiotics,"
said Christopher Braden, director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention division of foodborne diseases.

Of the people infected, 42% have been hospitalized -- an unusually
high percentage, according to the CDC.

"That's about twice what we would normally see for a salmonella
outbreak," Mr. Braden said.  "We think that's at least in part due
to the fact that a number of these strains have resistance to one
or more antibiotics."

Thirteen percent of those sickened have salmonella septicemia, a
serious, life-threatening, whole-body inflammation, Mr. Braden
said.  Normal for salmonella would be "just a few percent," he
said.

There have been no deaths linked to the outbreak.  "The outbreak
is ongoing," Mr. Braden said.

Common symptoms of salmonella food poisoning include diarrhea,
cramps and fever that typically start eight to 72 hours after
eating food with high levels of the bacteria.  Some people get
chills, nausea and vomiting, lasting up to seven days, CDC says.

Foster Farms is one of the nation's largest poultry processors and
sellers.  Most of the chicken was sold in California, Oregon and
Washington, and 77% of the illnesses have been in California, the
CDC said.

Products from the three plants have these packaging codes: P6137,
P6137A and P7632.

While salmonella is not considered enough of a contaminant that it
is illegal, in the case of the Foster Farms plants, "the frequency
and level of contamination on chicken parts coming out of the
three facilities affected by this action is substantively higher"
than on another Foster Farm plant the agency inspected, said
Dan Englejohn, FSIS deputy assistant administrator.

The USDA notified Foster Farms on Oct. 7 that the company had 72
hours to inform the agency how it would clean up the plants.

In a letter on the company's website on Oct. 9, CEO Ron Foster
said, "On behalf of my family I am sorry for any foodborne illness
associated with Foster Farms chicken."  He said his staff is
"continuing to work around the clock to fully address this
situation."



As feds ponder solutions, bedrails pose deadly hazard to frail,
elderly, mentally impaired


GARDEN FRESH: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Chicken and Ham Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Garden Fresh Foods, a Milwaukee, WI. establishment, is recalling
approximately 6,694 additional pounds of ready-to-eat chicken and
ham products due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The company is recalling
these products in addition to the 19,054 pounds of similar
products that were recalled on Sept. 25, 2013.

The products listed are being recalled as part of this expansion:

     Pack/Size   Product                              Product Code

  -- 5 lb.      Garden Fresh Ham Salad With Sweet Relish   5121;
  -- 12 oz.     Garden Fresh Ham Salad                     6163;
  -- 5 lb.      Premium Chicken Salad                      5167;
  -- 5 lb.      Reduced Fat Chicken Salad                  5305;
  -- 5 lb.      Chicken Salad                              5113;
  -- 12 oz.     Chicken Salad                              6164;
  -- 5 lb.      Sandwich Spread                            5190;
  -- 5 lb.      Weis Ham Salad                             5212;
  -- 8 oz.      Weis Ham Salad                             05334;
  -- 5 lb.      Weis Wonder Chicken Salad                  5219;
  -- 4 lb.      Finest Traditions Ham Salad Spread         38642;
  -- 12 oz.     Finest Traditions Ham Salad Spread         38648;
  -- 8 lb.      Finest Traditions Chicken Salad Base       38770;
  -- 4 lb.      Finest Traditions Chicken Salad Spread     38886;
  -- 12 oz.     Finest Traditions Chicken Salad Spread     38892;
  -- 8 lb.    Finest Traditions Dill Pasta & Chicken Salad 38600;
  -- 8 lb.    Finest Traditions Gemelli Pasta with Chicken  38578;
  -- 4 lb.     Finest Traditions Liver Pate                 38726;
  -- 8 lb.     Finest Traditions Nevada Chicken Salad Base  38802;
     and
  -- 8 lb.     Finest Traditions Spiral Pasta With Chicken  38576

The products being recalled bear the establishment number "EST.
17256" or "Est. P-17256" inside the USDA mark of inspection, and
were distributed to retail and food service establishments
nationwide.

FSIS conducted a food safety assessment at the facility following
the initial recall.  Microbial testing and other findings as part
of the food safety assessment indicated that additional product
was contaminated.  The products included in the expanded recall
were produced between Oct. 10 and Oct. 15, 2013.  FSIS and the
company have not received reports of illnesses due to consumption
of these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should
contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:

     http://is.gd/CRPD8o

Consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact the
company at (800) 645-3367.  Media with questions about the recall
should contact the company's Vice President of Sales, Steve
Mueller at (414) 645-1000.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from
10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline
1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic Consumer
Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at:
http://is.gd/WVHyvb


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 1,140 ATS, IMPALA, SONIC & XTS Car Models
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Lights and Instruments
Units affected:           1140
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013356
TC ID number:             2013356
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13158

On certain vehicles, the brake lamps could flash intermittently
without the brake pedal being depressed.  This would convey a
confusing message to following road users who, in turn, may not
react in a timely manner when the driver does apply the brakes. As
such, this could result in a crash causing property damage and/or
personal injury.

Dealers will reprogram the Body Control Module.  Note: This recall
supersedes 2013-176.

Affected products:

  Maker         Model     Model year(s) affected
  -----         -----     ----------------------
  CHEVROLET     IMPALA    2014
  CHEVROLET     SONIC     2013
  CADILLAC      XTS       2013
  CADILLAC      ATS       2013


GOLDMAN SACHS: Discovery Ordered in Gender Bias Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
internal complaints that have a conceivable relationship to gender
discrimination must be provided in discovery in a putative class
action against Goldman Sachs, a federal magistrate judge has
ruled.

Southern District Magistrate Judge James Francis IV directed
Goldman to turn over internal complaints that could relate to
plaintiffs' claims of discrimination against female employees with
respect to compensation, promotion and performance evaluation.
The magistrate judge found that a broader range of complaints
could be relevant even if they do not contain "buzzwords" such as
"gender" or "glass ceiling."

Francis made that ruling on Oct. 15 in Chen-Oster v. Goldman
Sachs, 10 Civ. 6950, a case where women at the associate, vice
president and managing director level of employment at Goldman
allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

The plaintiffs are seeking to win certification of a class of
women in those three levels of employment in the firm's
Securities, Investment Banking, Investment Management and Merchant
Banking divisions.

In 2012, Judge Francis compelled pre-certification discovery of
the firm's computerized data on pay, promotion and evaluation.

In July 2013, the plaintiffs made a motion to compel Goldman to
produce all internal complaints made by putative class members
that relate to compensation, promotion or evaluation, unredacted
copies of all discoverable complaints and internal complaints made
by female employees who are not part of the putative class.

Their motion initially sought complaints "referring or relating to
gender discrimination" but they later amended it to cover any
complaints made by female employees "referring or relating to
unfair treatment."

Goldman, which had already produced some complaints, opposed the
motion as too broad.

Judge Francis heard oral argument on Sept. 12 where lawyers for
the plaintiffs alleged that Goldman had only turned over
complaints that contained "magic language" indicating the
complaint was directly related to gender discrimination.  Goldman
countered that it does not rely on "magic words" in assembling
responsive documents and that it had produced every internal
complaint that had some "conceivable relationship" to their
claims.

Goldman cited Zahorik v. Cornell University, 98 F.R.D. 27
(N.D.N.Y. 1983), saying the plaintiffs were engaged in a "general
'fishing expedition,'" into unrelated claims, including
"discrimination claims based on factors other than sex."

In his opinion, Judge Francis said "Broader discovery is warranted
when a plaintiff's claims are premised on a pattern or practice of
discrimination at the organization-wide level, as opposed to
specific allegations of discrimination made against an individual
supervisor."

Goldman's cite to Zahorik, Judge Francis said, was "misplaced."

"The plaintiffs do not seek discovery of non-gender related
complaints, such as those alleging race or age discrimination," he
said.  "Rather, they seek discovery of all complaints made by
female employees regarding compensation, promotion or performance
evaluation, including those complaints that appear to be based
primarily on race or age, because they believe that these
complaints are related to a disparate impact felt by female
employees resulting from a pattern or practice of gender
discrimination."

"In other words, the parties disagree about whether the complaints
are gender-related, not whether discovery of non-gender-related
complaints is also appropriate," he said.

Using principles applied to analyzing retaliation claims, Judge
Francis said the use of "buzzwords" such as "sex discrimination"
or "glass ceiling" are clearly gender-related, but they "are not
required for retaliation claims, nor should they be required at
the discovery stage in a disparate treatment case."

"Given the broader scope of discovery in pattern-or-practice
cases, together with the benefit of hindsight, complaints that
were insufficient to alert Goldman Sachs to gender discrimination
at the time they were made may be sufficiently related to gender
to make them discoverable now," he said.

An example, Judge Francis said, would be a case where a female
high-level manager complained about having to perform the
equivalent of secretarial work.

At the same time, Judge Francis said, the request for all
complaints about pay, promotion and evaluation "goes too far."

Where a female employee complains only she "should be paid more,"
and not that she "should be paid as much as or more than" somebody
else, he said, "the likelihood that such a complaint would lead to
anecdotal evidence of a disparate impact is outweighed by the
burden of production."

So Judge Francis ordered Goldman to turn over any internal
complaint where the member of the putative class "drew a
comparison between herself or another putative class member and
one or more of her male colleagues."

"These comparisons are sufficiently gender-related that such
complaints could reasonably lead to admissible evidence of value
to the plaintiffs, and thus are discoverable," he said.

Judge Francis ordered production of unredacted names of
complainants, over the objection of Goldman, so the plaintiffs
could pursue anecdotal evidence to supplement their statistical
evidence of pattern-or-practice gender discrimination.

Privacy concerns raised by Goldman, he said, are "best addressed"
by a protective order and confidentiality agreement already in
place.

Adam Klein of Outten & Golden and Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco represent the plaintiffs.

Theodore Rogers -- rogersto@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell
and Barbara Brown -- barbarabrown@paulhastings.com -- of Paul
Hastings are leading the defense for Goldman Sachs.


GOOGLE INC: Wants Review of Wiretap Law Before Gmail MDL Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Google asked a federal judge Wednesday, October 9, 2013, for
permission to take questions about federal wiretapping laws to the
9th Circuit before a Gmail class action advances any further.

Updates Google made to its privacy policy last year -- allowing
the company to collect and aggregate user information across its
many platforms and apps -- spawned a wave of actions that accuse
the company of violating federal and state wiretapping, privacy
and computer fraud laws by scanning and reading millions of user
emails daily.

The multi-district claims have since been combined into a single,
massive class action titled In re Google, Inc. - Gmail Litigation.

Google's lawyers urged U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to toss the
mega-suit last month, arguing that its practice of scanning emails
is used solely for targeted advertising and serves a legitimate
business purpose.  They also noted that Gmail users agree to
Google's terms of service when they join, including warnings that
information gleaned may be used for advertising or to enhance the
Google experience.

But Koh declined to dismiss the majority of the sprawling class
action, finding that Gmail's interceptions fall outside the narrow
"ordinary course of business" exception carved out of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, known as ECPA.  She also
noted that Google's policies do not extract explicit consent from
users, another exception to ECPA on which the company relied.

In a filing late Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Google said it wants
questions about those ECPA exceptions sent to the 9th Circuit for
review before litigation goes forward.

"The court's ruling on its construction of the 'ordinary course of
business' exception involves a controlling question of law on
which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and
as to which an immediate appeal may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation," Google said in its
filing.

The company also noted the importance of its request for the ever-
changing internet business and in the face of an antiquated law.

"This question may have widespread effects on a broad swath of
internet industries, and thus presents an issue of important
precedential value for other cases," Google said.  "As internet-
based businesses continue to grow in unexpected ways beyond what
anyone could have ever predicted when ECPA was passed in 1986,
these important questions will only arise more frequently.

"The interests of internet-based businesses, electronic
communication service providers, and the general public thus would
be served by receiving immediate appellate clarification on this
issue," Google continued.  "Further, there is every indication
that the number of lawsuits on this issue will increase -- not
only does this class action incorporate six separate complaints
gathered from across the nation, but just one week after the court
issued the order another class action was filed in this district
against Yahoo alleging claims materially identical to those here.
Expeditious resolution of this issue will thus conserve judicial
resources for this court in this case, and for courts in similar
cases."

Google said internet businesses could also use clarification of
the term "user consent" when it comes to their privacy policies
and terms of service.

"Much like the 'ordinary course of its business' exception, the
'prior consent' question presents an issue of great importance to
future litigation and to internet-based business and internet
users," Google stated.  "Whether (1) Google's terms of service and
privacy policy are sufficient to provide notice here; and (2)
websites are required to list every conceivable purpose of every
conceivable use of a user's information in its terms of service,
are both issues likely to arise in the future that could direct
the course of how such provisions are written.  Businesses and
users alike could only be served by receiving clarity on this
important issue."

The company continued: "If the 9th Circuit finds that plaintiffs
consented to Google's automated scanning and reverses the order,
the action may be terminated in its entirety.  And because the
case is at such an early stage, resolution of such a threshold
issue at the outset will save the parties and the court
significant time and resources by avoiding potentially unnecessary
discovery and motion practice."

A trial date is tentatively set for late 2014.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          James Clark Wyly, Esq.
          WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC
          4004 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646
          Facsimile: (903) 334-8645
          E-mail: srommel@wylyrommel.com
                  jwyly@wylyrommel.com

               - and -

          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Hirlye R. (Ryan) Lutz, III, Esq.
          CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: jtapley@cwcd.com
                  rlutz@cwcd.com

               - and -

          Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
          Clifford Lee Carter, Esq.
          CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS, LLP
          1111 Exposition Boulevard, Suite 602
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Telephone: (916) 567-1111
          Facsimile: (916) 567-1112
          E-mail: kirk@cwclawfirm.com
                  cliff@cwclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Travis, Esq.
          Peter Drake Mann, Esq.
          GILL RAGON OWEN, P.A.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3801
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 376-3800
          E-mail: travis@gill-law.com
                  mann@gill-law.com

               - and -

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 924-3100
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: clay@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq.
          Richard Moss Golomb, Esq.
          Tammi Ann Markowitz, Esq.
          GOLOMB HONIK
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 469-4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
                  rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  tmarkowitz@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Michael Chad Trammell, Esq.
          THE TRAMMELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          418 North State Line Ave.
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 779-1860
          E-mail: chad@thetrammellfirm.com

               - and -

          Perry D. Litchfield, Esq.
          PERRY D. LITCHFIELD LAW OFFICES
          1000 Fourth Street, Suite 875
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 459-2000

               - and -

          Cameron Michael Kennedy, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
          517 N Calhoun St.
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 224-7600
          Facsimile: (850) 224-7602
          E-mail: cmk@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Lance Gould, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: lance.gould@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          William Elvin Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES PC
          272 Commerce St.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: bill.hopkins@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Ryan Patrick Quinn, Esq.
          Kevin B. Gracie, Esq.
          SLOCUMB LAW FIRM LLC
          777 Sixth St. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 737-4141
          E-mail: rquinn@slocumblaw.com
                  kgracie@slocumblaw.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Slocumb, Esq.
          SLOCUMB LAW FIRM LLC
          145 E Magnolia Ave., Suite 201
          Auburn, AL 36830
          Telephone: (334) 741-4110
          Facsimile: (334) 321-0131
          E-mail: mike@slocumblaw.com

               - and -

          Brady Richard Dewar, Esq.
          James Matthew Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Michael Kai Ng, Esq.
          Nancy Tompkins, Esq.
          KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
          100 Spear Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 371-8500
          Facsimile: (415) 371-0500
          E-mail: dewar@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  mng@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  tompkins@kerrwagstaffe.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Kevin Paul Green, Esq.
          Mark Chandler Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI AND ROWLAND, P.C.
          2227 S. State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com
                  kevin@ghalaw.com
                  mark@ghalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          Kyle Christopher Wong, Esq.
          Maco Stewart, Esq.
          Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
          Raimondo Andre Sardo, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com
                  kwong@cooley.com
                  maco.stewart@cooley.com
                  rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  rsardo@cooley.com

               - and -

          Charles L. Babcock, Esq.
          Carl Christof Butzer, Esq.
          David T. Moran, Esq.
          Shannon Zmud Teicher, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER
          901 Main St., Suite 6000
          Dallas, TX 75202-3797
          Telephone: (214) 953-6000
          Facsimile: (214) 953-5822
          E-mail: cbabcock@jw.com
                  cbutzer@jw.com
                  dmoran@jw.com
                  szmud@jw.com

               - and -

          George L. McWilliams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          406 Walnut
          P.O. Box 58
          Texarkana, TX 75504-0058
          Telephone: (903) 277-0098
          Facsimile: (903) 334-7007
          E-mail: gmcwilliams@pattonroberts.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Marie Sullivan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Ave., 22d Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com

The case is In Re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-
02430-LHK, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose).


GREG MORTENSON: Ninth Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit refused to revive a lawsuit accusing humanitarian
and author Greg Mortenson of fabricating key parts of his memoirs
"Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones Into Schools" to boost sales,
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports.

Mortenson founded the Central Asia Institute, a nonprofit that
provides community-based education and literacy programs for girls
in remote regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In his books "Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones Into Schools," he
claims to have been inspired to build more than 50 schools in the
two countries after stumbling into a poor village in Pakistan
following a failed attempt to summit K2.

But that account drew skepticism from "Into Thin Air" author Jon
Krakauer, who told the CBS news program "60 Minutes" that he
believed Mortenson fabricated key parts of the story.

In May 2011, two Montana legislators sued Mortenson and his
charity, claiming the books contain "numerous fabrications" meant
"to entice people to buy his two books, pay him speaking fees and
donate to CAI."

By the fourth amended complaint, both legislators had been
replaced as plaintiffs by George and Susie Pfau and Dan Donovan,
who joined plaintiff Deborah Netter from a separate class action
against Mortenson, co-author David Relin and publisher Penguin
Group USA.

U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon dismissed the amended complaint
based on its inadequate pleadings, and the 9th Circuit affirmed in
an unpublished opinion Wednesday, October 9, 2013.

"Plaintiffs fail to allege that the purported misrepresentations
caused their injuries," wrote the three-judge panel in Portland,
Ore.  "They also fail to specify with the requisite particularity
defendants' individual roles in the alleged racketeering scheme to
plead an enterprise theory, or to properly plead the predicate
acts of mail or wire fraud."

Claims of fraud, deceit and breach of contract were similarly
based on "conclusory statements and minimal factual allegations,"
the panel wrote.

Based on these "defects," the 9th Circuit tossed the remaining
claims for unjust enrichment, an injunction, an accounting, class
status, punitive damages and liability damages against Penguin.

The plaintiffs are not entitled to another shot at honing their
arguments, the court added, because they "have already had
multiple opportunities to amend."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Alexander Blewett, III, Esq.
          Anders Blewett, Esq.
          HOYT & BLEWETT PLLC
          501 2nd Avenue North
          P.O. Box 2807
          Great Falls, MT 59403-2807
          Telephone: (406) 761-1960
          E-mail: zblewett@hoytandblewett.com
                  ablewett@hoytandblewett.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          John M. Kauffman, Esq.
          KASTING KAUFFMAN & MERSEN
          716 South 20th Ave., Suite 101
          Bozeman, MT 59718
          Telephone: (406) 586-4383
          E-mail: jkauffman@kkmlaw.net

               - and -

          Kevin C. Maclay, Esq.
          Todd E. Phillips, Esq.
          CAPLIN & DRYSDALE
          One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 862-7841
          E-mail: kmaclay@capdale.com
                  tphillips@capdale.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Eisenbach, III, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          E-mail: reisenbach@cooley.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Neal, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          5 Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Telephone: (650) 843-5182
          E-mail: nealsc@cooley.com

               - and -

          Carey E. Matovich, Esq.
          MATOVICH, KELLER & MURPHY, P.C.
          2812 First Ave. North
          Billings, MT 59101
          Telephone: (406) 252-5500

               - and -

          Jonathan Herman, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 415-9247
          E-mail: herman.jonathan@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Frederick Matthew Ralph, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
          50 South 6th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 492-6964
          E-mail: ralph.matthew@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Hansberry, Esq.
          Elena J. Zlatnik, Esq.
          GARLINGTON LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP
          P.O. Box 7909
          Missoula, MT 59807-7909
          Telephone: (406) 523-2500

               - and -

          Sonia A. Montalbano, Esq.
          ELLIOTT OSTRANDER & PRESTON
          707 SW Washington St.
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 224-9867
          E-mail: sonia@eoplaw.com

The appellate case is George Pfau, et al. v. Greg Mortenson, et
al., Case No. 12-35400, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is George Pfau, et al. v.
Greg Mortenson, et al., Case No. 9:11-cv-00072-SEH, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana.


MEDTRONIC INC: Defending Sprint Fidelis Product Liability Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., continues to defend itself from Sprint Fidelis
Product Liability Matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 26, 2013.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The
Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Defend INFUSE Bone Graft-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., continues to defend itself from Sprint Fidelis
Product Liability Matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 26, 2013.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3,
2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against
Medtronic and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone
Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August
3, 2011. The Company has not recorded an expense related to
damages in connection with these matters because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.


MONTANA: Hi-way Patrol Detains Suspected Migrants, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The Montana Highway Patrol unconstitutionally detains suspected
illegal immigrants for hours on minor driving infractions, Jamie
Ross at Courthouse News Service reports, citing a federal class
action.

The Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance and four individuals filed
the complaint in Butte, Mont., against Montana Highway Patrol
Colonel Tom Butler and Montana Attorney General Tim Fox.

They say the defendants "have implemented a custom, policy and
practice of seizing Latino residents and visitors of Montana and
prolonging their detention longer than necessary to resolve the
alleged violations of the law that defendants have authority to
enforce.  The sole purpose of prolonging these individuals'
detention is to hold them as defendants contact agencies within
the Department of Homeland Security ('DHS'), including Immigration
and Customs Enforcement ('ICE') and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection ('CBP'), based on suspicions of civil immigration
status violations."

The detention often lasts from 40 minutes to two hours while DHS
determines the driver's immigration status, according to the
complaint.

Shahid Haque-Hausrath, president of the Montana Immigrant Justice
Alliance and lawyer for the class, called the practice clearly
discriminatory.

"For years, Montana Highway Patrol officers have been acting like
de facto immigration enforcement agents," Haque-Hausrath said in a
statement.  "They have been pulling Latino residents and visitors
over for routine traffic infractions, and detaining them without
probable cause just to check on their immigration status."

According to the complaint, patrol officers use race to form a
suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant.

"The Montana Highway Patrol has attempted to justify this policy
and practice based on observation of 'inconsistencies' in vehicle
registration or insurance documents," it states.  "However, white,
non-Latino individuals with vehicle registration inconsistencies
are not detained solely to contact DHS to confirm their
immigration status, while Latino residents and visitors to Montana
are."

Montana Department of Justice spokesman John Barnes said the
agency has no comment at this time.

The class meanwhile says Montana Highway Patrol attributes the
detentions to "the pretense of needing a Spanish speaking
interpreter."

Such arguments fail to sway Haque-Hausrath, the plaintiffs'
lawyer.

"The law is clear that the Montana Highway Patrol can only arrest
people for crimes, and can't arrest or detain people just to check
if they have valid immigration status," Haque-Hausrath said in a
statement.

Montana Highway Patrol had even admitted recently, according to
the complaint, that recently retired Chief Administrator Col.
Kenton Hickethier ordered patrol officers "to arrest suspects
[they] believed might be illegally in the country regardless of
whether the facts supported an offense for which a person could be
arrested under Montana law.  His instructions were to get them to
jail one way or another so federal authorities could place
detainers on them."

Plaintiff Jose Ramos-Diaz, a U.S. citizen, says he was held at
least 47 minutes for speeding because the Montana Highway Patrol
officer suspected he was in the country illegally.  An
investigation by the agency attributed the delay to ICE's failure
to immediately return a phone call confirming Ramos-Diaz's
immigration status.

Ramos-Diaz says after the officer pulled him over, he asked him
for his driver's license and immediately asked: "Are you here
legally?"

The class seeks to stop defendants from engaging in racial
profiling.  It is not seeking monetary damages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shahid Haque-Hausrath, Esq.
          BORDER CROSSING LAW FIRM
          312 N. Ewing Street, 2nd Floor
          Helena, MT 59601
          Telephone: (406) 594-2004
          Facsimile: (888) 594-2179
          E-mail: Shahid@bordercrossinglaw.com

The case is Rios-Diaz, et al. v. Colonel Tom Butler, et al., Case
No. 2:13-cv-00077-SEH-CSO, in the U.S. District Court for the
District Of Montana (Butte).


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Has Until Nov. 29 to Answer 10b-5 Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation has been given until Nov. 29,
2013 to move to dismiss or answer a consolidated amended complaint
of the 10b-5 Cases, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2013.

The Company states: "In March 2013, a putative class action
complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the
Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and
Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3,
2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed
in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010
and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in
April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf
of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our
common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1,
2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our
former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J.
Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer as defendants. These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5
Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among
other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by
knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements
concerning our financial condition and future business prospects
and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings
with the SEC concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA
certification of our Advanced Exhaust Gas Recirculation ("EGR")
technology to meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in
these matters seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among
other relief.

"In May 2013, motions to establish lead counsel status for the
putative class were filed and an order was entered transferring
and consolidating all cases before one judge and setting a
briefing schedule to establish lead counsel status. In July 2013,
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel,
ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint by September 30, 2013 and ordered the defendants to move
to dismiss or answer that complaint by November 29, 2013.

"In March 2013, James Gould filed a derivative complaint on behalf
of the Company against us and certain of our current and former
directors and former officers. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that certain of our current and former directors and
former officers committed a breach of fiduciary duty, waste of
corporate assets and were unjustly enriched in relation to similar
factual allegations made in the 10b-5 Cases. The plaintiff in this
matter seeks compensatory damages, certain corporate governance
reforms, certain injunctive relief, disgorgement of the proceeds
of certain defendants' profits from the sale of Company stock, and
attorneys' fees, among other relief. Pursuant to a court order in
May 2013, this matter has been stayed until the outcome of any
motion to dismiss in the 10b-5 Cases.

"Each of these matters is pending in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois.

"In August 2013, Abbie Griffin, filed a derivative complaint in
the State of Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of the Company
and all similarly situated stockholders, against the Company, as
the nominal defendant, and certain of our current and former
directors and former officers. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that certain of our current and former directors and
former officers committed a breach of fiduciary duty, in relation
to similar factual allegations made in the 10b-5 Cases. The
plaintiff in this matter seeks compensatory damages, certain
corporate governance reforms, certain injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees, among other relief. Pursuant to a court order in
August 2013, this matter has been stayed until the outcome of any
motion to dismiss in the 10b-5 Cases.

"Based on our assessment of the facts underlying these matters, we
are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final
resolution of these matters may impact our future consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Still Defending 6.4L Diesel Engine Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend 6.4 Liter
Diesel Engine Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Plaintiff Steve Darne ("Darne") filed a
putative class action lawsuit in May 2013 against Navistar, Inc.
and Ford Motor Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The complaint seeks to certify a
class of United States owners and lessees of Ford vehicles powered
by the 6.4L Power Stroke (R) engine (and in the alternative
purports to certify a class of Illinois owners and lessees) that
Navistar, Inc. previously supplied to Ford. Darne alleges that
Ford vehicles equipped with a 6.4L engine had numerous design and
manufacturing defects and that Navistar, Inc. and Ford knew of
such engine problems but failed to disclose them to consumers.
Darne asserts claims against Navistar, Inc. based on theories of
negligence, deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, unjust
enrichment, and intentional conduct. For relief, Darne seeks
compensatory dollar damages sufficient to remedy the alleged
defects, compensate the proposed class members for alleged
incurred damages, and compensate plaintiff's counsel. Darne also
asks the Court to award punitive damages and
restitution/disgorgement.

"Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
action, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how
the final resolution of these claims may impact our future
consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows."


NORTHSTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Accused of FLSA Violations in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Seivley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Northstar Automotive Glass, Inc., Garry L. Dunnegan,
and Garry W. Dunnegan, Case No. 6:13-cv-01377-RDR-KGS (D. Kan.,
October 8, 2013), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") against the Defendants for unpaid wages,
including overtime compensation, and related penalties and
damages.

The Defendants' practices and policies are to willfully fail and
refuse to properly pay all compensation, including overtime
compensation due to him, and all other similarly situated
employees, who work or have worked for the Defendants, Mr. Seivley
alleges.  Specifically, he asserts, the Defendants' pay plans for
him and all other similarly situated employees improperly pay a
flat weekly pay rate that does not compensate for hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.

Jacob Seivley is a citizen of the state of Kansas.  He was
employed by the Defendants from March 2013 until July 2013.

Northstar Automotive Glass, Inc., is a Kansas corporation
headquartered in Wichita.  The Company is an automotive glass
repair and replacement service provider that does business as
Discount Auto Glass & Tire.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald N. Peterson, II, Esq.
          Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
          Nathan R. Elliott, Esq.
          WITHERS, GOUGH, PIKE, PFAFF & PETERSON LLC
          O.W. Garvey Building
          200 W. Douglas, Suite 1010
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 266-5023
          Facsimile: (316) 303-1018
          E-mail: dpeterson@withersgough.com
                  smcgivern@withersgough.com
                  nelliott@withersgough.com


PACWEST BANCORP: Faces CapitalSource Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
PacWest Bancorp is facing class action lawsuits arising from its
proposed merger with CapitalSource, Inc., 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 July 22, 2013, PacWest announced the signing of a definitive
agreement and plan of merger (the "Agreement") whereby PacWest and
CapitalSource Inc. will merge in a transaction valued at
approximately $2.3 billion.  The combined company will be called
PacWest Bancorp and the combined subsidiary bank will be called
Pacific Western Bank.  The CapitalSource national lending
operation will continue to do business under the name
CapitalSource as a division of Pacific Western Bank.

Between July 24, 2013, and August 6, 2013, six putative
stockholder class action lawsuits (the "Merger Litigations") were
filed against PacWest and certain other defendants in connection
with PacWest entering into the CapitalSource Merger Agreement in
which PacWest agreed to acquire CapitalSource.  The CapitalSource
Merger Agreement was publicly announced on July 22, 2013.  Three
of the six actions were filed in Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County: (1) Engel v. CapitalSource, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC516267, filed on July 24, 2013; (2) Miller v. Fremder et al.,
Case No. BC516590, filed on July 29, 2013; and (3) Holliday v.
PacWest Bancorp et al., Case No. BC517209, filed on August 5,
2013.  The other three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware: (1) Fosket v. Byrnes et al., Case No.
8765, filed on August 1, 2013; (2) Bennett v. CapitalSource, Inc.
et al., Case No. 8770, filed on August 2, 2013; and (3) Chalfant
v. CapitalSource et al., Case No. 8777, filed on August 6, 2013.

The Merger Litigations allege variously that the members of the
CapitalSource board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to
CapitalSource stockholders by approving the proposed merger for
inadequate consideration; approving the transaction in order to
obtain benefits not equally shared by other CapitalSource
stockholders; entering into the CapitalSource Merger Agreement
containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take
steps to maximize the value to be paid to the CapitalSource
stockholders.  Each of the Merger Litigations also alleges claims
against CapitalSource and PacWest for aiding and abetting these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Plaintiffs generally
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, injunctive
relief prohibiting consummation of the acquisition, rescission, an
accounting by defendants, damages and attorneys' fees and costs,
and other and further relief.  At this stage, it is not possible
to predict the outcome of the proceedings or their impact on
CapitalSource or PacWest.

PacWest Bancorp -- http://www.pacwestbancorp.com/-- is a bank
holding company headquartered in Los Angeles, California.  The
Company's principal business is to serve as a holding company for
its banking subsidiary, Pacific Western Bank.


PEOPLES BANCORP: Continues to Defend N.C. Class Suit vs. Bank
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. continues to defend a
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit pending in North
Carolina, 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 April 2, 2013, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Peoples
Bank (the "Bank"), received notice that a lawsuit was filed
against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina.  The complaint alleges
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.  The Plaintiff seeks to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.  The Bank believes that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit, including the request that the
lawsuit be certified as a class action.

Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc.'s business consists
principally of attracting deposits from the general public and
investing these funds in commercial loans, real estate mortgage
loans, real estate construction loans and consumer loans.  The
Company is headquartered in Newton, North Carolina.


REGAL SNACKS: Recalls KCB Punjabi Sooji Cookies
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Regal Snacks Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

     Brand Name   Common Name         Size      UPC
     ----------   -----------         ----      ----
  -- KCB   Punjabi Sooji Cookies      737 g.   0 12042 00148 8
  -- KCB   Badam Khatie               369 g    8 12042 00125 5
  -- KCB   Badam Khatie               850 g    8 12042 00294 8
  -- KCB   Salted Jeera Biscuits      369 g    8 12042 00132 3
  -- KCB   Salted Jeera Biscuits      624 g    8 12042 00291 7
  -- KCB   Elaichi Khatie             369 g    8 12042 00128 6
  -- KCB   Coconut Biscuits           369 g    8 12042 00127 9
  -- KCB   Nan Khatie                 369 g    8 12042 00117 0
  -- KCB   Badam & Coconut Biscuits   369 g    8 12042 00134 7
  -- KCB   Cashew Khatie              198 g    8 12042 00302 0
  -- KCB   Cashew Khatie              850 g    8 12042 00297 9
  -- RFP   Cake Rusk                  567 g    8 12042 00261 0

The public warning issued on October 9, 2013 has been updated to
include additional products.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Regal Snacks Inc.
are warning people with allergies to eggs not to consume the KCB
and RFP brand products described below.  The affected products may
contain egg which is not declared on the labels.

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

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

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


SADDLE RIVER VALLEY: Shareholders Want Suit Documents Unsealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Newman, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that Saddle
River Valley Bank shareholders, who are suing the bank's majority
owners and individual board members to try to recover millions of
dollars in losses, also are trying to get a judge in Bergen County
to unseal a report from an internal bank investigation.

If made public, the report could shed more light on $1.5 billion
in inadequately monitored transactions the bank made in recent
years for customers in Mexico and the Dominican Republic.
Shareholders say the regulatory troubles caused by the
international business contributed to the losses and that board
members failed to provide oversight.

As of Oct. 7, Robert P. Contillo, state Superior Court judge in
Bergen County, had not yet ruled on their request, and lawyers on
both sides were continuing to negotiate what information from the
report might be released by mutual agreement, a court employee
said.

The June 20 internal report by the bank board's Special Litigation
Committee contains "confidential and non-public information, is
protected by privilege, and contains information exempt from
disclosure by federal regulations," lawyer Stacey A. Scrivani, who
represents nine former board member defendants, wrote last month
in a letter to the judge.

Mr. Scrivani urged Mr. Contillo to keep the report private.  The
report includes information from regulatory examinations of the
bank's operations, which are normally confidential, she wrote.

The bank had filed the report this summer to support a motion to
dismiss the case, which is pending.

The six minority shareholders who are suing, led by former Saddle
River Mayor Conrad S. Caruso, have access to the internal report,
but they have argued in court documents that because it is sealed,
and because they are bound by a confidentiality agreement with the
bank's holding company, they cannot cite it when interviewing
witnesses or use it in an amended complaint, which is expected to
be filed this week.

By keeping the report sealed, "plaintiff's efforts to advance
their claims will be hampered," their lawyer Fernando Pinguelo
wrote in a Sept. 18 letter to Mr. Contillo.

Attorneys for the defendants and plaintiffs could not be reached
or declined to comment.

The bank, majority-owned by entities affiliated with the well-
known private equity investor J. Christopher Flowers, sold its
deposits and most of its assets last year at a loss to Union
Township-based Union Center National Bank, which is operating the
former Saddle River Valley bank branches in Saddle River and
Oakland.

Saddle River Valley Bank agreed last month to pay $8.2 million in
civil penalties to settle government accusations that the bank
violated anti-money-laundering laws.

The bank failed to adequately monitor $1.5 billion in
international wire transfers with so-called casas de cambio, or
money exchange houses, in Mexico and the Dominican Republic, and
failed to report 190 suspicious transactions to authorities in a
timely manner, the government said. The questionable business was
conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Court documents put the total amount of transactions with casas de
cambio at $1.8 billion.

The government's allegations resulted in the resignation of former
Chief Executive Officer William E. Arnold, who is one of a number
of former board members named as defendants.

Flowers' investment firm, J.C. Flowers & Co., and an affiliated
entity, SRV Holdings Inc., which acquired a majority stake in the
company in 2010, also are named as defendants.

The $8.2 million settlement with the government announced Sept. 24
has more or less wiped out what was left of the bank's
shareholders' investments.


SATILLA REGIONAL: Azmat Faces Complaints Over Stent Surgeries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney P. Freedberg, writing for Bloomberg News, reports
Najam Azmat snaked a catheter on a guide wire into Judi Gary's
groin as he tried to insert a stent in an artery supplying blood
to her pelvis and right leg.

On an X-ray monitor near where Gary lay, nurses saw blood
leakages.  The wire seemed to be in the wrong place, nurse
Evan Gourley told Azmat.  Everything was fine, the vascular
surgeon replied.  It wasn't.

Azmat tore Gary's aorta during the December 2005 procedure,
according to documents filed with a U.S. Justice Department civil
complaint.  Nurses asked another surgeon to step in.  Mr. Gourley
left in disgust.  Later, he went to administrators at Satilla
Regional Medical Center in Waycross, Georgia, with a warning about
Azmat.

"I told them that he will kill a patient if they let him continue
to work," Mr. Gourley said.  Officials at the Satilla hospital got
at least seven similar warnings about Azmat, according to another
nurse's notes.

They let him continue. One of his next patients died.

Azmat's tenure at the 231-bed hospital, as described in interviews
and more than 1,000 pages of medical records, internal documents
and witness statements that were made public last year, shows the
extremes one hospital went to in order to keep its catheterization
clinic -- or "cath lab" -- operating and producing revenue.

Other hospitals paid millions in kickbacks -- using ghost jobs,
padded fees, debt forgiveness or discounted office space -- to
induce doctors to keep up the pace in U.S. medicine's binge on
stents, according to allegations made in five federal cases and
three other private whistle-blower lawsuits.
Needless Stents

Stents, metal mesh devices that prop open clogged blood vessels,
have been implanted via catheters in seven million heart patients
over the last decade -- perhaps as many as one-third of them
needlessly, according to David Brown, a cardiologist at Stony
Brook University School of Medicine in New York.  In all, 11
hospitals have agreed to settlements with the Justice Department,
resolving civil allegations of needless stenting and related
wrongdoing.

Most of these federal lawsuits, typically filed by whistle-blowers
under seal, have slowly been made public since 2009.  They, along
with dozens of interviews with patients and doctors, reveal that
hospitals benefited financially while overlooking -- or even
encouraging -- allegedly inappropriate stent use.

At Satilla, Azmat punctured the wall of Ruth Minter's right kidney
while trying to insert a stent in an artery near the organ in
January 2006.  She died 17 days later of complications from heavy
blood loss, the federal complaint said.  The procedure "was not
medically indicated," according to a Justice Department expert's
report.
No Lifesavers

"People who should have and could have saved Mrs. Minter's life
were too interested in having Dr. Azmat continue to do procedures
and make money for the hospital to do the right thing," said
surgeon Harold Kent, who reviewed Minter's care for a lawsuit her
family filed against the doctor and the hospital.

Satilla officials denied that they kept Azmat on the job in order
to make money for the hospital's cath lab, and said his services
were both needed and valuable to patients.

"The number one concern of Satilla and the administration was
patient safety," said Joseph P. Griffith Jr., an attorney who
represented the hospital and its chief administrator.

The hospital agreed to pay $840,000 to resolve the Justice
Department's complaint that it submitted claims for cath-lab
services -- some of them unnecessary -- that Azmat was neither
qualified nor properly credentialed to perform. The hospital
admitted no wrongdoing.

Azmat declined to be interviewed for this story.  He denied in
court filings that he caused the death of Ruth Minter.

                          'Boiler Room'

The flood of money poured into cardiac stents -- at least $110
billion for procedures over the last decade -- can lead to
"corrupted practices," said William Hsiao, a health-care economist
at Harvard University.

Cardiovascular services, including stents, open-heart surgery and
other procedures, can account for as much as 40 percent of net
revenues in many hospitals, said Vikas Saini, president of the
Lown Institute, a neighboring Brookline, Massachusetts-based group
that works to extend health care to needy people and limit
unnecessary treatments.

"The cath lab is like a boiler room -- the place that makes
everything else go" in a hospital, said Saini, a cardiologist.
"Hospital administrators will tell you that they don't make the
medical decisions, they don't decide who gets a stent . . . 'It's
our doctors who do that.'  But they have no incentive to
scrutinize the behavior and appropriateness of what the doctors
are doing.  They have every incentive to look the other way."

                        Peripheral Growth

Cath labs and similar facilities will generate about $20 billion
in billings this year as cardiologists and other specialists
evaluate and treat about 4 million patients' arteries, veins and
valves via the long plastic tubes, said Brian Contos, executive
director of research for the Advisory Board Company, a health-care
consulting group.

Few dispute the benefits of coronary stents when they're used to
restore blood flow in heart-attack patients.  Since 2007, when a
national study found that coronary stents added no benefit over
medicines, exercise and dietary improvements for stable heart
patients, their use has declined.  Last year, sales of the devices
fell 5 percent to $5.5 billion.  Meanwhile, sales of so-called
peripheral stents, used to increase blood flow in vessels that
serve such areas as the legs or kidneys, has increased -- by 8
percent last year to $2.1 billion, according to Health Research
International, an industry consultant.
No-Show Jobs

Still, as of 2011, coronary stent procedures were being performed
at 1,653 sites in the U.S., Contos said -- up 58 percent from
1998.

In seeking to keep their labs bustling, some hospitals offered
cardiologists no-show jobs, according to federal lawsuits.

In Erie, Pennsylvania, Tullio Emanuele said he had just started
working as a cardiologist for a group called Medicor Associates in
2001, when his new boss asked him to become a medical director at
Hamot Medical Center under a $75,000-a-year contract.  Emanuele, a
native of Italy who attended medical school in Rome, said he found
the post had few responsibilities.

"My duties were just a few hours a month preparing for a meeting,"
he said in an interview. He suspected something was wrong when a
Medicor clerk asked him to sign timesheets that were already
filled out and inflated his hospital hours, he said.
Whistle-Blower Complaint

His "sham" contract was just one of several between Hamot and
Medicor that Emanuele says were designed to induce a steady stream
of patients for the hospital's cath lab, according to a whistle-
blower complaint he filed under the federal False Claims Act last
November.  The law gives people the right to seek to recover money
on behalf of the U.S. government in cases of overpayment. The
Justice Department has declined to join Emanuele's complaint,
which is pending in federal court.

Emanuele, who worked for Medicor until 2005, said he found cases
in which stents were inserted in patients without significant
heart disease.  One, identified in his complaint only as A.R.,
died of complications from a needless cardiac catheterization in
2004, according to his lawsuit.

Officials for Hamot, which was purchased in 2011 by the University
of Pittsburgh Medical Center, declined to comment, spokeswoman
Caroline Manino said.  Neal Devlin, an attorney for Medicor, also
declined to comment.

In legal filings, Medicor said its medical directorships at Hamot
were "legitimate and legal" and denied that any of its physicians
accepted kickbacks or performed unneeded procedures.  Hamot denied
paying kickbacks or engaging in any unlawful relationships with
physicians to induce patient referrals.
'Recycling Patients'

The cardiologists at EMH Regional Medical Center in Elyria, Ohio,
built their heart business by 'recycling patients' -- that is,
doing repeated procedures, including stents, on the same patients
in the hospital's cath lab -- according to a whistle-blower
lawsuit filed by Abdul Wattar, a cardiologist, and unsealed in
January.

"I've seen patients with an astonishing number of stents that I
hadn't heard before, sometimes exceeding 20 stents," Wattar said
in a deposition. From 2004 to 2009, he worked with a practice
called the North Ohio Heart Center, which pressured him and others
to refer patients to EMH's cath lab, he said.

In January, the hospital and the cardiology group agreed to pay
the U.S. $4.4 million to settle allegations that they billed
Medicare for unnecessary stents from 2001 to 2006.  Both deny
wrongdoing and say they acted within established practice.  EMH
has fewer inappropriate stent cases than the average hospital,
said Stephen Sozio, an attorney who represented the hospital in
the federal lawsuit.
Best Decisions

"The plaintiff's allegations in these cases had no merit," said
John Schaeffer, the president of North Ohio Heart, in an e-mailed
statement.  "We made the best medical decisions available then,
and we continue to do that now."

"It was like an assembly line," said Geraldine Koehler, whose
mother, Margarette Kerrigan, was a repeat patient.  Kerrigan, 77,
died of massive internal bleeding 10 hours after North Ohio
Heart's leading cardiologist, Charles O'Shaughnessy, inserted two
stents in 2003, an autopsy report and medical records show.
O'Shaughnessy declined to comment, said Gary Zrimec, North Ohio
Heart's chief executive officer.

In another whistle-blower suit unsealed in January, Kenny
Loughner, the former manager of EMH's cath lab, said he saw
O'Shaughnessy and another North Ohio Heart doctor "routinely
instruct EMH nurses and technicians involved in the procedures to
record fictitious and non-existent complaints of chest pain" or
falsify heart-monitoring records to justify needless operations.
'Completely Unreliable'

An expert hired by the U.S. Attorney's Office independently
determined that "false statements" were recorded in some medical
records to justify procedures, according to a memo from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector
General.

Sozio, the hospital's lawyer, called the expert's finding
"completely unreliable" and said it was "never raised in our
discussions with the government."

In 2005, the hospital opened a new cath lab that was marketed as
"North Ohio Heart Center at EMH," according to Loughner's
complaint. Tax records show 51 percent of the lab's profit went to
EMH and 49 percent to the cardiology group. The two merged in
2010.

                       'Rarely Attended'

Loughner's lawsuit accused the heart group of receiving kickbacks
from EMH's cath-lab budget and an extra $5,000 a month paid to
O'Shaughnessy "under the pretense" that the payments were for his
service as director of the cath lab.

"O'Shaughnessy rarely attended the committee meetings he was being
paid to chair," Loughner's lawsuit says.

The kickback allegations aren't true, said Sozio, the hospital's
lawyer. "There has never been any finding that any laws were
broken, and in fact none were," said Schaeffer, North Ohio Heart's
president.

The Justice Department joined the portion of Loughner's lawsuit
accusing the hospital and the doctors of unneeded stenting, and
didn't mention kickbacks or false records in the settlement
agreement.  Loughner received $660,859 of the $4.4 million
settlement in the case.  Wattar's complaint was dismissed in
January.

                             Doctors Needed

Satilla Regional Medical Center had a problem.  In the fall of
2004, two cardiologists decided not to renew their exclusive
contract with the hospital, according to the federal complaint.
They were taking their patients elsewhere, and now the hospital
needed to replace them, said Gregory Uhl, the former director of
Satilla's cath lab.

"They wanted to keep the cath lab busy," he said in an interview.

It's not easy to attract top doctors to Waycross, Georgia, about
240 miles southeast of Atlanta and perched at the edge of the 700-
square-mile Okefenokee Swamp.  Like many rural hospitals, Satilla
has to pay "higher than average physician compensation due to
pressures to recruit to the area," according to a 2011 report
prepared for Georgia's attorney general.

Robert Trimm, the hospital's chief executive officer, was already
negotiating with a surgeon; he'd drafted a $350,000 salary
proposal for Najam Azmat in May 2004, court records show, before
the talks stalled.  About a year later, Satilla went back to
Azmat, with a guaranteed salary of $600,000 in his first year.
'Full Spectrum'

A father of four married three times, Azmat arrived in the U.S. in
1983 after graduating from Khyber Medical College in Peshawar,
Pakistan.  He completed a surgical residency in New York and then
joined the staff of Hardin Memorial Hospital in Elizabethtown,
Kentucky, in 1996.  By 2004, he'd left that post and was seeking a
new one.

When he expressed interest in setting up his practice in Waycross,
Azmat e-mailed that his goal was to build a "full spectrum" of
vascular services -- including those involving work inside blood
vessels, such as inserting peripheral stents, he said in a
deposition filed last year in federal court.

When he applied, his only hands-on training in stents consisted of
two weekend courses practicing on cadavers and pigs, Azmat said
later.  In June 2005, just before he joined Satilla's staff, Azmat
said he attended a two-day class in Louisiana where he implanted
at least two stents in the renal arteries of live humans.
Credentials Questioned

Two months later, Satilla's credentialing committee granted Azmat
vascular surgery privileges.  In its lawsuit, the Justice
Department alleged that Azmat's credentials didn't cover stents.

While the three-page credentialing document doesn't mention stents
specifically, it says, "Privileges include, but are not limited
to, insertion and management of arterial catheters." In a legal
filing, the hospital said Azmat's privileges covered all the
procedures he performed at Satilla.

Azmat was soon working steadily in the lab -- and almost from the
start, nurses said they had doubts about him.  When they scrubbed
in with him, they noticed he didn't know which catheters to use or
how to thread them, former cath-lab nurses Evan Gourley and Lana
Rogers said in depositions.

"He was very, very aggressive and rough," Rogers said in her 2010
deposition.  After her second case with Azmat, Rogers went to see
Harmon Raulerson, then-manager of Satilla's Heart Center.  CEO
Trimm was also present.

                          'Teach Him'

"It's completely obvious that he's not been trained to do these
procedures," she told them, according to her deposition.

"Well, teach him," Raulerson replied, according to Rogers's
testimony.  Rogers and other nurses weren't trained in stents
either, she said.  Raulerson referred questions to Clay Thomas, a
hospital spokesman, who declined to comment.

During Azmat's first stent operation, a cath-lab equipment
salesman looked on, telling the doctor how to use the stents,
sheaths, wires and balloons, Rogers testified.

In October 2005, Azmat found a blocked artery in the left leg of
Allan G. Flower, a retired construction foreman.  Then he inserted
a stent in Flower's healthy right leg, Tony Preston Smith, a Duke
University professor of radiology, wrote in an affidavit.

The procedure was unnecessary and dangerous, wrote Smith, who was
hired as a litigation expert by some of Azmat's former patients.
Azmat placed the device behind Flower's knee, which is flexed so
often that the metal stent could cause a blood clot requiring
emergency surgery, Smith said.  Flower died last year of lung
cancer.

                           Four Tries

Norman Wayne Copeland went to the cath lab three times to get a
leg stent without success.  First, Azmat said the hospital had run
out of stents and had to order another box, Copeland said in an
interview.  Days later, on Nov. 2, 2005, Azmat tore an artery
supplying blood to Copeland's left leg, medical records show.
Azmat said he couldn't insert the stent because of a "kink" in
Copeland's blood vessels.  A third try failed too.

A fourth procedure successfully implanted the stent.  Yet the type
of operation Azmat performed was overly complex and medically
unnecessary -- and the stent was too large for his artery, Smith's
report said.

The oversized device put strain on the vessel wall and could cause
trauma leading to blockage, according to a medical review by
Joseph Stavas, a radiologist at the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill who examined Azmat's cases for the Justice
Department.

                         Two Amputations

"It's caused me a hell of a lot of pain," Copeland said, rubbing
his thigh as he sat in a rocking chair.

Lucille Peterson, a diabetic for 30 years, had gangrene in the
toes of her right foot.  In November 2005, Azmat told her stents
would increase her blood flow, said her daughter, Elizabeth.
During the procedure, he perforated an artery, the government's
expert report said.

Both legs were amputated afterward, Elizabeth said.  There was
"very little to no gain in circulation and the procedure is not
medically indicated," the government's expert report said.
Satilla billed Medicare $21,015.65 and collected $16,104.21 for
Peterson's care.  She died last year at 91.

Nurses' complaints to managers began to snowball.  By
Thanksgiving, four nurses had individually taken their concerns to
various administrators, including Trimm, the CEO, according to
witness statements.

                          'Revenue Source'

Uhl, the cath lab director, testified he had a couple of
"curbside" discussions with Azmat about his performance.  He also
spoke to Trimm and the hospital's chief operations officer,
Windell Smith, several times about Azmat, he said, and told Trimm
he didn't think the surgeon's credentials allowed for stents.

"Nothing was done because of the money Dr. Azmat was generating
for the cath lab," Uhl said in an interview.  "They saw him as a
revenue source to do procedures."

Smith and Trimm didn't respond to messages requesting comment . In
a deposition, Trimm said that he followed up on each of the
nurses' complaints and said he didn't ignore any red flags.  He
talked to Azmat, checked in with subordinates to make sure they
were dealing with concerns and questioned other physicians at
Satilla about Azmat's performance, he said. They told him they
were unaware of any problems, Trimm said.

"I will always in these types of matters, when you're questioning
a physician's training, defer to a physician to give me guidance
on how to handle that situation or to evaluate that situation," he
said.

                          Possible Cuts

Just after Christmas 2005, Raulerson, the heart center's manager,
wrote a memo about possible job cuts -- two nurses, one tech and
one registration clerk -- if the cath lab didn't make enough
money.

"I expect Dr. Azmat's procedure volume to continue to increase,"
said the memo, which is filed as an exhibit in the federal case
against Satilla.  "I will continue to monitor staffing and make
recommendations."

The next day, Azmat tried to implant a stent in an artery in Judi
Gary's pelvis.  He tore her aorta, according to the government's
complaint -- and prompted what Uhl called "a total revolt" in the
cath lab.  Nurses threatened to boycott Azmat's procedures,
according to Uhl and nurses Rogers and Gourley.

Azmat voluntarily agreed to stop installing stents, Uhl said.
Nurses decided to stay on the job.

                     'Basically Steamrolled'

That resolution lasted only 10 days before nurses noticed that
Azmat was scheduled to insert a stent in a patient's renal artery
on Jan. 12, 2006.  When they went to Raulerson for an explanation,
he said that "powers higher than within this department" had made
the call, according to notes kept by nurse Marci Johnson. The
typed notes were later entered as exhibits in state and federal
lawsuits.

Uhl said he felt "completely ignored and basically steamrolled."

Suspending Azmat's privileges "was not in Satilla's financial
interest," the Justice Department said in a 65-page civil fraud
complaint that was filed in 2010 and settled last year. The
hospital ran an ad in local newspapers touting his work in the
cath lab: "Dr. Azmat keeps things running smoothly," the ad said.
"For example, your blood."

Ruth Minter paid the highest price.  A mother of five, she loved
tending to her flower garden, according to court records.  She'd
been having back and stomach pain, and Azmat recommended a
procedure to examine her kidneys and possibly insert a stent to
improve blood flow to them, her medical records show.

                        Punctured Kidney

During her operation, Azmat ran a guide wire into the artery.  He
extended it so far that it penetrated the wall of her right
kidney, a medical review found. Minter started bleeding -- though
Azmat said in a deposition that he couldn't tell that from the
images he was seeing during the procedure.

Afterward, Azmat approached Minter's family and told them he had
placed the stent successfully, her family's lawsuit says. They
weren't reassured.  They saw nurses scurrying in and out of her
room with bloody linens, they said in written responses to
questions in the court file.  Minter complained of severe stomach
pain.

That night, she was airlifted 80 miles to Baptist Medical Center
in Jacksonville, Florida, where she had emergency surgery to stop
the internal bleeding caused by the kidney perforation, according
to the federal complaint.

Minter died of hemorrhagic shock and multiple organ failure 17
days after her operation, the complaint said.  Her stent procedure
"was not medically indicated," the Justice Department's expert
said later.  Satilla collected a $10,872.56 Medicaid reimbursement
for the procedure.
'Worthless' Care

Federal investigators found more than 30 patients who received
"worthless," poor or unnecessary care from Azmat, according to
experts' case reviews and other documents filed in federal court.
Azmat denied providing substandard or unneeded care and accused
the government of withholding medical records from expert
witnesses.

Satilla was engaged in "Russian roulette being played with federal
health care program patients," Department of Justice trial
attorney Arthur Di Dio said during a court hearing.  The
hospital's administrators knew Azmat wasn't qualified, yet allowed
him to keep working, "profiting all along the way with the
lucrative hospital service claims it received in connection with
those procedures," Di Dio said.

After Minter's procedure, Azmat agreed to suspend his work in the
cath lab, and Satilla agreed not to report any adverse actions
regarding him to a national data bank or to Georgia regulators . A
copy of the confidential agreement, dated Feb. 14, 2006, was filed
last year in federal court.

                        Insurance Dropped

In August 2007, Azmat resigned from the hospital after getting
notice that his malpractice insurance was being dropped, he said
in a deposition.

Minter's family and seven others sued Azmat, Trimm and other
administrators, along with Satilla, alleging negligence and fraud
among other counts.  All were resolved without trial.  Records
from Georgia's state medical board, which reports settlement
amounts only above certain thresholds, show three medical
malpractice payments by Azmat's insurer in 2011 and 2012 totaling
$2,025,000.

Nurse Lana Rogers filed a federal whistle-blower complaint, which
the Justice Department later joined. In an April 2010, news
release that responded to the Justice Department, Satilla called
Rogers a "disgruntled ex-employee" and said it was being targeted
by malpractice lawyers and federal officials hoping for "a
payday." When the hospital's $840,000 settlement was announced in
January 2012, Rogers received $189,501 of the total.

                        Medicare Exclusion

The HHS Office of Inspector General excluded Azmat from
participating in Medicare and other federal health insurance
programs in May 2012, records show.  He failed to meet appropriate
standards of care for six patients, the office told him in an
earlier letter.  The Justice Department dropped its civil case
against him in July 2012.

Azmat, who still has a house in Waycross, referred questions to
his lawyers.  Attorneys Thomas Withers and Christopher Ray
declined to comment.  Attorney Adam Ferrell didn't return e-mails
or telephone calls seeking comment.

The Satilla hospital became part of the Mayo Clinic Health System
last year.  Trimm, who stayed on as chief administrative officer,
left last month for a job with the Studer Group, a health care
consulting firm.

After leaving Satilla, Azmat worked at pain clinics.  In
Lexington, Kentucky, he made $7,500 a week writing prescriptions
for narcotic painkillers, though he had little formal training in
pain management, according to the Kentucky Board of Medical
Licensure.

U.S. marshals arrested him in February on charges that he operated
a pill mill with five other people in Garden City, Georgia.  He
pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.  As a condition of his
$100,000 bond, he agreed not to practice medicine.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Misled Grand Theft Auto V Gamers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that gamers were
misled into buying "Grand Theft Auto V" based on the false promise
that it would allow online multiplayer interaction, a class
claims.

Released last month to critical acclaim, the latest installment in
the popular video game series is set in a fictional version of
Southern California.  Keeping in the theme of the controversial
series, players can lead their characters through missions while a
trail of murder and mayhem burns in their wake.

With $1 billion in sales under the game's belt just three days
after its release, Guinness World Records confirmed that "Grand
Theft Auto V" set six new sales records, including highest revenue
generated by an entertainment product in 24 hours.

"GTA" players have recently complained, however, about their
inability to connect the game to the Internet -- a feature the
creators at Rockstar Games had allegedly promised to include.

Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengtson hope to represent a class
in a suit against Rockstar's parent Take-Two Interactive Software
for violations of California's false advertising and unfair
competition laws in a putative class action.

The lead plaintiffs say they each paid $59.99 plus tax for "GTA V"
and planned to play the game online with other players

"At the time of purchase on September 17, 2013 plaintiffs were
unable to play the game as an online experience with other
videogame players," the complaint in Riverside, Calif., states.
"GTA V was not available for online play as advertised.  GTA V can
only be played in single player mode without the ability to
interact with any other videogame player."

McMahon and Bengtson say they would not have bought the game if
they knew it wouldn't connect to the internet.

The makers of the gaming console Playstation 3 publicly
acknowledged the problems connecting "GTA V" to the Internet, and
has said they were working with Rockstar to fix them.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rex Sofonio, Esq.
          SOFONIO & ASSOCIATES APLC
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 260-9191
          Facsimile: (949) 260-9192
          E-mail: rex@sofoniolaw.com

               - and -

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com

McMahon, et al. v. Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., et al.,
Case No. RIC1311350, in the California Superior Court for
Riverside County.


TORO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Canadian Lawnmower Engine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to defend itself from the Canadian
Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2013.

In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against the company and
other defendants that, similar to the class action litigation
previously filed by plaintiffs in the United States and settled by
the company pursuant to a settlement agreement that became final
in February 2011, (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that the horsepower labels on the products the
plaintiffs purchased were inaccurate, (ii) seeks certification of
a class of all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994
purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30
horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the company and other
defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs
and fees, and equitable relief.

Management continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation and, in
the event the company is unable to favorably resolve this
litigation, while management does not currently believe that this
litigation would have a material adverse effect on the company's
annual consolidated operating results or financial condition, an
unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to the
company's consolidated operating results for a particular period.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Collision-Avoidance System Fails, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Matt Reynolds reports that a
collision-avoidance system for Toyota does not decelerate the car
significantly enough to prevent crashes, a class claims in Federal
Court.

Tae Hee Lee and Alan Quan are the lead plaintiffs in the suit
against Toyota Motor Sales for violation of consumer laws.

As advertised, Toyota's optional precollision system uses an on-
car radar to detect an imminent frontal collision and
automatically applies the brakes prior to impact, according to the
complaint.

It allegedly costs $5,000 to equip Toyota's Prius V and other
models with a system that includes other technology upgrades.  The
precollision system makes up $1,000 of that expense, according to
the lawsuit.

Lee and Quan say the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety tested
47 models, including the Prius V, "in frontal crash scenarios set
up at 12 and 25 miles per hour."  The independent organization
allegedly found that Toyota's system caused only a "negligible
reduction in speed," and does not pass muster as a forward-
collision warning system.

"Of those 47 models, only the Toyota Prius V and one Infinity
model failed to qualify as a crash prevention system," the
complaint states.  "Despite the PCS [precollision system] being
marketed and sold by TMS [Toyota Motor Sales] as an accident
mitigation system that provides automatic braking in unavoidable
frontal collisions, it provides no real safety benefit to
consumers who paid for the option through either a sale or a
lease."

Lee says Toyota officials responded to the institute's study by
stating that the company never said Toyota models include
collision-avoidance systems.

"This false statement makes clear that Toyota knew that the class
vehicles equipped with PCS did not provide any effective automatic
braking in unavoidable frontal collisions," the complaint says.

The class seeks $5 million for breach of warranty, fraud, breach
of contract, bad faith and other claims.

Toyota did not immediately respond to an emailed request for
comment after business hours Wednesday, October 9, 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) Kook Kim, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374-4555
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Daniel H. Chang, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP APC
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dchang@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Edward Wonkyu Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI AND ASSOCIATES APLC
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2410
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-1515
          Facsimile: (213) 233-4409
          E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz

The case is Tae Hee Lee, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:13-cv-07431-JFW-VBK, in the United States District
Court For The Central District Of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles).


USPLABS: Stops Nationwide Distribution of OxyELITE Pro Diet Pill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huffington Post reports that diet supplement manufacturer USPLabs
is stopping nationwide distribution of the diet pill OxyELITE Pro
in lieu of a staggering number of liver failure cases associated
with the supplement, Hawaii News Now reported.

The announcement comes shortly after the Hawaii Department of
Health requested the "voluntary removal" of OxyELITE Pro from
Hawaii retailers, and asked the public to stop any use of the diet
supplement.  Hawaii DOH linked OxyELITE Pro to 24 recent cases of
liver damage across the state, including one death.

A total of twenty nine cases of liver failure and acute hepatitis
have been reported in Hawaii in the last six months, all of them
linked to dietary supplements.  The Department of Health had been
reluctant to pinpoint any specific supplement in the past, but now
acknowledges that at least 24 of the patients reported using
OxyELITE Pro before being hospitalized.

"No other supplement or medication has been identified in common
among more than two patients," Dr. Sarah Park, the state
epidemiologist, said in a statement.

The FDA warned earlier this year against supplements containing
dimethylamylamine (DMAA), including OxyELITE Pro, after it was
linked to cases of serious illness and even deaths.  However,
OxyELITE Pro said in a statement that the "original version with
DMAA has not been manufactured or distributed since early 2013."

OxyELITE Pro was sold all over the United States, but all of the
known recent hospitalizations have occurred in Hawaii.  However,
health experts have not yet pinpointed the exact way the diet
pills could have spurred these effects.

A 48-year-old mother of seven died after taking OxyELITE Pro,
Hawaii News Now reported.  According to her family,
Sonnette Marras started taking the pills to lose weight but after
just a short amount of time, felt severely ill.  She was put into
a medically induced coma and required a liver transplant, but was
deemed ineligible after doctors discovered she had breast cancer.

USPLabs issued a statement regarding OxyELITE Pro regarding the
cases:

"The company stands by the safety of all of its products.  The
company is cooperating with FDA on reports coming out of Hawaii.
The cluster of liver issues in Hawaii is a complete mystery and
nothing like this has ever been associated with OxyELITE Pro in
all of the years our products have been in the market.  We know of
no credible evidence linking OxyELITE Pro to liver issues.  The
ingredients have been studied for safety, are consumed in the food
supply and widely used in dietary supplements.  The studies and
consumption history show no negative liver issues.  Due to
multiple products within the OxyELITE Pro brand, it may be
confusing as to which products are being looked at.  The specific
products are the original OxyELITE Pro with DMAA, OxyELITE Pro
with the "Purple Top" and OxyELITE Pro Super Thermo Powder.  The
original version with DMAA has not been manufactured or
distributed since early 2013.  Out of an abundance of caution, the
company has ceased domestic distribution of OxyElite Pro with the
Purple Top and OxyElite Pro Super Thermo Powder until the
investigation has been completed.  The company continues to
believe these versions are safe and are not the cause of the
cluster of liver toxicity that has occurred in Hawaii.


* FDA Receives 901 Reports of Adult Bed Rail-Related Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Wise, writing for McClatchy DC, reports that after
81-year-old Clara Marshall badly bruised herself in a tumble from
her bed at a care facility in Vancouver, Wash., the staff urged
her husband to buy a metal safety rail to protect her from another
fall.

The device had only been attached to the side of Ms. Marshall's
bed for about five weeks when she rolled over in March 2007 and
her neck became stuck in the railing.  Ms. Marshall, who suffered
from dementia, suffocated and died.

Stunned by grief, Ms. Marshall's daughter, Gloria Black, at first
assumed her mother's death was a freak accident.

It wasn't.

For years before and after Ms. Marshall's death, thousands of
frail, confused or elderly people have been injured and hundreds
killed after becoming trapped in safety rails installed to keep
them from falling out of bed.

"The underlying belief on the part of everyone was you purchase
one of these things and it makes you safer," Ms. Black said.
"Well, now I've learned otherwise."

News accounts of such tragedies are infrequent, but a review of
articles, court records and incident reports filed with federal or
state agencies reveal some victims' names and the disturbingly
similar circumstances of their deaths:

   -- Hospice patient Harry Griph Sr., 75, died in 2004 with his
neck trapped between a mattress and a bedrail at an assisted
living facility in Brookfield, Wis.

   -- Mary Campbell, 82, who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's
disease, was found suffocated to death, her neck pinned between a
bedrail and a mattress in a Kansas City, Mo., nursing home in
1996.

   -- Ouida Ethridge was 86 in 2009 when she asphyxiated, her head
wedged between the side rails and air mattress on her bed at a
rehabilitation center in Friendswood, Texas.

   -- In 2011, a nurse at a hospital in Allentown, Pa., found 88-
year-old Donald Campbell strangled in bed, with his right shoulder
and upper body between the mattress and the side rail.  Records
show he had been in a "confused state."

   -- Nanette Galbraith, an 84-year-old Alzheimer's patient, died
last year after her head became stuck between her hospital bed and
a side rail at an adult care home in Wilmington, N.C.

The federal government has long known about the dangers of
bedrails but has done little to enforce safety requirements.

"That is amazing to me that you can have a product sold in a
medical supply store and no one has verified is this safe," said
Black, who now campaigns for mandatory safety standards for
bedrails -- or preferably an outright ban.

Nationwide, nearly 37,000 people visited hospital emergency rooms
and 155 people died because of injuries caused by adult portable
bedrails between 2003 and 2012, according to the Consumer Product
Safety Commission.  Most of the accidents occurred in private
homes, nursing homes or assisted living facilities.  More than 80
percent of the victims were over age 60.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received 901 reports of
patients who became trapped, entangled or strangled in hospital
bedrails since 1985, including 531 fatalities.  Most were frail or
mentally impaired.

"It's a horrible, tragic, painful, scary way to die, and it's just
so unnecessary," said Steve Levin, a Chicago attorney who
represents residents of long-term care facilities.  Mr. Levin
believes the number of fatal incidents and near-misses involving
adult bedrails is underreported.  Elderly victims might not have
any family, or even if they do, their relatives may not know where
to report the incident.  And sometimes bedrail accidents are
covered up by care facilities fearful of lawsuits or citations, he
said.

In one case Mr. Levin worked on, a nursing home hid a bed and
mattress after a patient strangled in the rails.

"If an elderly resident dies in bed it would not be difficult for
a nursing home to attribute the cause of death to whatever medical
conditions brought them to the nursing home," he said.

Confidentiality clauses inserted into lawsuit settlements also
obscure the extent of the problem by silencing families of bedrail
victims from sharing their personal stories, Mr. Levin said.
"That creates a public safety issue," he said.

Part of the problem is that deaths and injuries in the senior
population tend to provoke less public outrage -- and fewer calls
for regulations or reform -- than deaths and injuries of infants,
said Robyn Grant, director of public policy and advocacy for
National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, a national
consumer advocacy organization.

"I think there is a societal prejudice -- call it ageism -- but we
focus more on youth and children in our society and not on
elders," Grant said.  "It's important that we focus on children,
we need to protect them and keep them safe, but we also need to
bring that same attention and concern to elders because many of
them are extremely frail and vulnerable and at risk."

Unlike children's cribs and bedrails, which must by law meet
certain design criteria and pass safety tests, adult bedrails are
relatively unregulated.

Steven Miles, a professor of medicine at the University of
Minnesota, first identified the trend of adult bedrail accidents
about two decades ago, leading the FDA to issue a safety alert for
bedrails associated with hospital beds in 1995.

Despite the FDA's alert, people continued to be injured and die
tangled in adult bedrails.  So the FDA formed a working group made
up of manufacturers, hospitals, health care providers and
government officials.  The group issued non-legally binding
guidance for hospital bedrails in 2006 but decided against
requiring warning labels after pushback from industry.

Miles has been waiting for the government to take more meaningful
action ever since.  "I haven't started holding my breath," he
said.

The FDA says voluntary guidance is "an efficient regulatory tool,"
adding that reports of patient entrapment associated with the use
of hospital bed side rails have decreased in recent years. But the
agency admits there is a lack of research on the need and purpose
of side rails.

"The FDA is concerned that the risk of serious injury to patients
from bedrails remains a problem, despite concerted efforts by
federal agencies to mitigate hazards," the agency said in response
to written questions.

Some long-term care providers argue that rails can be a helpful
tool if used properly, and that banning them completely could
increase the risk of falls.

Golden Living, which runs Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing
and assisted living facilities in 21 states, said in comments
posted in the Federal Register that its centers use half-rails or
assist rails in tandem with alternating pressure mattresses to
reduce ulcers.

Candace Bartlett, Golden Living's senior director of regulatory
affairs, wrote in the comments that while caretakers must adhere
to manufacturer guidelines, the government should "avoid
rulemaking which would eliminate their use altogether."

Recently, pressure from Ms. Black, consumer groups and members of
Congress have refocused the government on the need for closer
scrutiny of adult bedrails, especially a portable version intended
for use with an ordinary home-style bed, rather than a hospital
bed.  Since portable bedrails typically aren't considered medical
devices, the FDA guidelines for hospital bedrails don't apply to
them.

Yet portable rails are particularly dangerous, said the University
of Minnesota's Miles.

Consumers can get easily confused about how to install the devices
safely, while staff at nursing homes and long-term care facilities
sometimes mix and match them with mattresses that don't fit or
that compress easily, leaving a gap for the patient to fall into,
Miles said.

"You wind up with these ad-hoc systems that really don't work very
well," he said.

In April and May, consumer groups and patient advocates filed
petitions with the federal government asking for a ban on adult
portable bedrails as "hazardous products" or for mandatory
standards.

The next month, the Consumer Product Safety Commission joined with
the FDA to announce that the two agencies would work together to
address bedrail safety with ASTM International, a nonprofit
company that develops voluntary standards for more than 100
different industry sectors, from steel to plastics.

The committee assigned to write the voluntary standards for adult
portable bedrails has about 70 participants, including consumer
advocates, government officials, manufacturers and test labs, said
Len Morrissey, director of technical committee operations for
ASTM.

Morrissey doesn't expect an official draft of voluntary standards
to be ready before the end of October at the earliest, and a final
version realistically won't be ready for at least another year.

Voluntary standards fall short of petitioners' demands, but CPSC
spokesman Scott Wolfson said the commission is empowered under the
law to take mandatory action only if voluntary standards fall
short or don't bring down the number of deaths and injuries.

"The environment right now is not moving in direction of a ban,"
Wolfson said.  "It's about establishing performance standards that
will make these products safer. . . . If the ASTM process does not
work out in a positive way for consumers, then we could step in."

Black, who serves on the ASTM committee, is frustrated with the
slow process, especially given how long it has taken just to get
to this point.

"It's really too bad how many more people will die this year in
bedrails while we are waiting for the standards process to get
moving," she said.


                             *********

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  * * *