CAR_Public/131029.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 29, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 214

                             Headlines


ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Recorded Private Calls
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: January 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ACTAVIS INC: Amended Securities Class Action Dismissed in N.J.
AMERICAN HONDA: Responds to Window Regulator Defect Class Action
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Judge Approves $19.5MM Class Action Settlement

BANK OF HAWAII: Legal Aid, Other Nonprofits Get Settlement Share
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces 9,873 Yasmin/Yaz Lawsuits as of Oct. 17
BLACKBERRY LTD: Reassures Global Investors Following Class Action
BOSTON SALADS: Recalls USDA-Regulated Ready-To-Eat Products
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Enters Into C$4.2M Accord in Lawnmower Suit

BRIGGS & STRATTON: Discovery Underway in Suit Over Retiree Plans
BROADBAND INTERACTIVE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overtime Class Action
CASSELS BROCK: Court Awards Plaintiff $300,000 in Tax Class Action
CONDE NAST: Discontinues Internship Program Following Suits
CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES: Black Business Council Mulls Class Action

COSTCO: Recalls Ground Beef Products Over Likely E. Coli Presence
CRATE AND BARREL: Recalls Finley Hanging Pendant Lamps
DEMILEC LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Toxic" Foam Class Action
DIEBOLD INC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Recalls Tommy Bahama Outdoor Ceiling Fans

FIESTA SHOWS: Class Action Moved to Massachusetts District Court
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Judge Rejects Bid to Replace Class Counsel
ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Parolee Rights Violation
IMMUCOR INC: Dismissed From Case After $22 Million Settlement
IMMUCOR INC: Final Okay of Securities Suit Accord Entered in June

INTELIQUENT INC: "Stamatiades" Suit Filed in N.D. Ill. Court
IOWA: First Trial in Hiring Discrimination Class Action Begins
ITURAN LOCATION: Accord in Customer Discrimination Suit Approved
JC PENNEY: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 11 Pelvic Mesh Cases Remanded to State Court

KASHMIR CROWN: Recalls KCB Pista Khatie Due to Traces of Eggs
KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Gets $5MM Pre-Tax Distribution From Suits
L & L ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued in Virginia Over Deceptive Business Practices
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-USC Gamecock Player Files Concussion Suit

NATUREMOST LABORATORIES: Recalls Vanilla Almond Whey Power
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Suit Active Despite Ch. 11
PANALPINA: Enters Into Preliminary Class Action Settlement
PANDORA MEDIA: Seeks to Junk New Claim Over Personal Info Access
PANDORA MEDIA: Dismissal of Privacy Suit Under Appeal

PARK UNIVERSITY: Seeks Removal of Unwanted Fax Ad Class Actions
PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Lights Suit Obtains Class Action Status
PRICE CHOPPER: Recalls Coconut Custard Pies
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Chicken, Ham and Beef Products
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Refrigerated Ready-to-Eat Products

REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Berger & Montague Files Investor Class Action
SIM PROPERTIES: Judge Reschedules Tenant Class Action Hearing
SUNNY PINE: Recalls Chevre Cheese Due to Health Risk
UNITED STATES: Over 100 Christian Ministries File Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over ADA Violation

* Asbestos, Class-Action Among Leading Lawsuit Trends, ILR Says


                             *********


ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Recorded Private Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that pharmaceutical
company Abbott Laboratories Inc. was slapped with a putative class
action in California federal court on Oct. 22, in which the
company is accused of recording phone conversations without
customers' consent.

Maggie Franco's complaint, filed on behalf of tens of thousands of
estimated class members dispersed throughout California, alleged
that Abbott violated California privacy law by secretly and
intentionally recording calls without informing customers.
According to the complaint, Abbott's behavior violated section 632
of 1976's California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits the
nonconsensual recording of, monitoring of and eavesdropping on
confidential telephone communications.

"[The law] prohibits the intentional, nonconsensual recording of
any telephone communication without the consent of all parties,"
the complaint said.  "No expectation of confidentially or privacy
is required, nor is any other wrongful or surreptitious intent
required -- only that the defendant intended to record the
communication."

According to the complaint, Ms. Franco called Chicago-based Abbott
in June 2013 and spoke to a customer service representative to
inquire about the company's Similac infant formula products.
Ms. Franco was not aware that the call was being recorded, the
complaint said, and the customer service representative never made
Franco aware that it was.  The complaint said that Ms. Franco
never gave either express or implied consent to the recording.
After completing the call, Ms. Franco learned that Abbott records
all incoming calls, but does not disclose that information to
callers, the complaint said.

"[Franco] expected that her telephone call would be private due to
the sensitive and confidential nature of the conversation," the
complaint said.

According to the complaint, Ms. Franco's expectation of privacy
was reasonably based upon societal norms, citing a recent poll
that showed that 73 percent of Americans believe it is "extremely
important" that conversations never be recorded or monitored
without the consent of all parties.

Ms. Franco is seeking class certification, statutory remedies and
attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction barring the company
from continuing the illegal practice.  In addition, Ms. Franco
requested a trial by jury.

Representatives for the class and Abbott were not immediately
available for comment on Oct. 23.

The class is represented by Thomas D. Mauriello --
tomm@maurlaw.com  -- of Mauriello Law Firm APC and James C. Shah
-- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- and Rose F. Luzon -- rluzon@sfmslaw.com --
of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP.

Counsel information for Abbott was not immediately available on
Oct. 23.

The case is Maggie Franco et al. v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., case
number 5:13-cv-01906, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: January 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP pursuant to an order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division:

LINDA WONG, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ACCRETIVE HEALTH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-03102

CLASS ACTION


Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF ACCRETIVE HEALTH, INC. BETWEEN NOVEMBER 10, 2010 AND
APRIL 27, 2012, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a
hearing will be held on January 17, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman, United States District Judge, at
the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, Courtroom
1425, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, for the
purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
Action for the sum of Fourteen Million Dollars ($14,000,000.00) in
cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, which would result in this Action being dismissed with
prejudice against the Released Persons as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement dated September 19, 2013; (2) whether the
Plan of Distribution of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (3) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with this Action,
together with interest thereon.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Accretive Health common
stock, your rights may be affected by this Action and the
settlement thereof.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to Accretive Health Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990,
or by downloading this information at http://www.gilardi.com
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release form postmarked no later than January 13, 2014,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to
be excluded, in writing, to the above address, postmarked by
December 27, 2013.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than by December 27, 2013, and
received by the following no later than by December 27, 2013:

           ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
           ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
           655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
           San Diego, CA 92101

          Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          ANDREW B. CLUBOK
          ADAM T. HUMANN
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022

          Counsel for Defendants

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK 'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: October 4, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


ACTAVIS INC: Amended Securities Class Action Dismissed in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Laboratories, Inc. on Oct. 23 announced that the
previously disclosed Consolidated Second Amended Class Action
Complaint to the putative class action lawsuit filed against the
Company, Actavis, Inc. and certain officers of both companies in
the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled
In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, has been
dismissed.  The court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to
their first amended complaint "still do not create a strong
inference that [Columbia] acted with an intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud."  The court ordered that if the plaintiffs
sought to attempt to plead a cognizable action for a third time,
they must do so within thirty days and specifically address why
the attempt would not be futile.  The Company continues to believe
the case is without merit.

                   About Columbia Laboratories

Columbia Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.columbialabs.com-- is a
publicly traded company with a rich heritage in drug development.
The Company's revenue streams include sales and royalty revenues
from CRINONE(R) 8% (progesterone gel), which is marketed by
Actavis, Inc. in the United States and by Merck Serono S.A. in
over 60 other countries worldwide, and revenues from its wholly-
owned subsidiary Molecular Profiles(TM) Ltd., a U.K.-based
provider of pharmaceutical formulation development and
manufacturing services.


AMERICAN HONDA: Responds to Window Regulator Defect Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Honda has
filed a motion in the U.S. Central District Court of California,
western division, denying plaintiffs' claims in a master class
action complaint which alleges some of the automaker's vehicles
have defective window regulators.  In the case, Grodzitsky versus
American Honda Motor Co., the plaintiffs argue the window regular
defect results in the sidelite falling into the door frame or
becoming stuck in the fully-open position.

"Honda denies each and every allegation of the second-amended
complaint," Honda's attorneys write in court documents.

The automaker's attorneys also pointed out that the sales
contracts which the defendants agreed to when they purchased their
vehicles contain "arbitration clauses that may require some or all
of the claims asserted [in the case] to be resolved through
arbitration."

Honda's attorneys go on to claim the alleged window regulator
defect could be the result of plaintiffs' actions.

"The claims of plaintiffs and/or members of the proposed class may
be barred, in whole or in part, to the extent any injury sustained
by plaintiffs and/or members of the proposed class was caused by
their own conduct, whether negligent or otherwise, including
without limitation driving habits, the use of accessories in the
vehicle, maintenance of the vehicle, usage of the vehicle and
numerous other factors within the control of the plaintiffs and
members of the proposed class," Honda's attorneys claim.
"Further, plaintiffs and/or members of the proposed class who
misused and/or abused the vehicle are barred, in whole or in part,
from recovery."

Honda's attorneys asked the court to enter a judgment in favor of
Honda for the costs of the lawsuit, to deny the class action and
to award "further relief as the court deems just and proper."

Attorneys concluded by demanding a trial by jury.

Earlier this year, Judge Stephen Wilson denied Honda's motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit.

Phyllis Grodzitsky, a California owner of a Honda Odyssey, and
Jeremy Bordelon a Tennessee owner of a Honda Element, alleged in
the original complaint that they reported repeated failures of the
window regulators in their vehicles.  Ms.  Grodzitsky further
claims that she contacted her local Honda service manager and was
told, "all [Honda Odysseys] have that problem."


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Judge Approves $19.5MM Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a Nevada federal
judge on Oct. 21 approved a class action settlement worth up to
$19.5 million between Yerington, Nev., residents and Atlantic
Richfield Co. and BP America Inc. involving groundwater
contamination from operations at the former Anaconda copper mine,
a Superfund site.

U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones certified two settlement
classes -- a property damage settlement class and a medical
monitoring settlement class -- and signed off on a deal that
provides their members with approximately $7 million in payments.
The deal caps off a 2011 suit launched by the Yerington property
owners and residents against ARCO and BP alleging hazardous
substances from the Anaconda copper mine site leaked into the
groundwater and contaminated the area's drinking water, damaged
properties and required future medical monitoring for exposure to
the contaminants.

Judge Jones agreed with the parties, which filed their joint
motion seeking final approval of the deal Oct. 15, that the case
would be better off settled and found the deal was fairly and
honestly negotiated, according to the order.

"In this court's view, after reviewing the entire matter, there
are several apparently undisputed facts as well as serious
disputed questions of law and fact that place the outcome of this
litigation, if tried rather than settled, in substantial doubt,"
Judge Jones said.  "This court concurs with the parties and their
counsel that there is risk for each side of an adverse outcome at
trial."

Also under the deal, ARCO and BP America have agreed to fund the
extension of, and connection to, the city of Yerington water
system for residences within the class area currently without
access to city water at an estimated cost ranging from $6.5
million to $12.5 million.

The settlement includes a provision that allows property owners
within the class area on which a domestic well was located to
obtain water rights at defendants ' expense.  Securing these
rights enables well owners to maintain the use of their well for
nonpotable uses once their properties is connected to the potable
city water supply.

The plaintiffs launched the class action in February 2011 alleging
that arsenic, uranium and other hazardous substances had been and
were still being released into the environment from the Anaconda
copper mine site.  They further alleged that the hazardous
substances seeped into the groundwater beneath the mine site,
migrated and were present in the groundwater beneath the
plaintiffs' properties, according to court documents.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in April 2011 reached a
nearly $1 million settlement with ARCO over cleanup costs at the
Superfund site in northern Nevada. Through other settlements, the
agency recouped $6 million from responsible parties for the
cleanup.

ARCO owned the company that had acquired the mine, Anaconda
Minerals, from 1977-82, until ARCO sold it to a local resident,
Don Tibbals, according to the EPA.  Mr. Tibbals eventually sold
most of his interest to Arimetco Inc., the EPA said.  ARCO was
acquired by a unit of BP in 2000.  BP sold its ARCO assets to
Tesoro Corp. earlier this year.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs told Law360 on Oct. 23 that they were
pleased to have the settlement approved.

"We are pleased that the settlement provides safe drinking water
to this community while also allowing the well owners to continue
using their wells for nonpotable purposes," Howard Janet of Janet
Jenner & Suggs LLC said.

Joel Rubenstein -- JRubenstein@germanrubenstein.com -- of German
Rubenstein LLP agreed, saying the deal addressed the community's
top concerns.

"We worked hard to secure a settlement that addressed the
community's top concerns in a timely manner -- safe drinking
water, continued use of domestic wells, water rights and financial
compensation," he said.

William J. Duffy -- william.duffy@dgslaw.com -- of Davis Graham &
Stubbs LLP, who represents ARCO and BP, told Law360 on Oct. 23
that his clients were pleased that the settlement has been
approved.

"There were multiple sources of metals contributing to the water
quality in that area and my clients supported this settlement in
this instance because it does provide a good outcome for the
community which benefits from a reliable municipal supply of
water," he said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Howard A. Janet, Robert K.
Jenner, Kenneth M. Suggs and Leah K. Barron of Janet Jenner &
Suggs LLC; Joel Rubenstein and Steven J. German --
SGerman@germanrubenstein.com -- of German Rubenstein LLP; Allan
Kanner -- a.kanner@kanner-law.com -- and Elizabeth B. Petersen --
e.petersen@kanner-law.com -- of Kanner & Whiteley LLC; and Kent R.
Robison -- krobison@rbsllaw.com  -- and Kristen Martini --
kmartini@rbsllaw.com -- of Robison Belaustegui Sharp and Low.

ARCO and BP are represented by William J. Duffy and Jonathan W.
Rauchway -- jrauchway@dgslaw.com -- of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
as well as Greg Brower -- gbrower@swlaw.com -- and Joshua D. Cools
-- jcools@swlaw.com -- of Snell & Wilmer LLP.

The case is Philip Roeder et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et al.,
case No. 3:11-cv-00105, in the U.S. District Court in the District
of Nevada.


BANK OF HAWAII: Legal Aid, Other Nonprofits Get Settlement Share
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Blakely, writing for Pacific Business News, reports that the
Legal Aid Society of Hawaii has been awarded $100,000 as one of
the charitable beneficiaries of surplus funds from a $9 million
settlement with Bank of Hawaii in a class-action lawsuit over
overdraft fees, the nonprofit said on Oct. 22.

The cy pres award is money that couldn't, for whatever reason, be
distributed to members of the class-action lawsuit, so is
distributed to charities instead.

The $9 million settlement between Bank of Hawaii and 160,000
customers in the class action lawsuit was approved by a state
Circuit Court judge in February 2012.  The lawsuit was filed over
the method that the bank used to calculate overdraft and ATM fees
by reordering transactions from the highest dollar amount to the
lowest amount, as PBN previously reported.

In July, a Circuit Court judge ordered that members of the class-
action could designate charities in their settlement agreement to
distribute the remains of the $9 million.

"Legal Aid was a natural choice as a worthy cy pres beneficiary,"
attorney Brandee J.K. Faria -- bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com -- of Perkin
& Faria said in a statement.  "They do so much in giving back to
the community and I am always happy to be able to do my part in
supporting their continued ability to do good deeds.  Righting the
wrongs against the little guy in our Robin Hood-esqe crusades is
something which our firm takes much pride in."

Perkin & Faria was the lead local counsel for the plaintiffs,
overseeing the distribution of the $9 million in settlement funds
to class members and holders of checking accounts with Bank of
Hawaii.

Attorney Paul Alston of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing represented Bank
of Hawaii, which had agreed to settle the lawsuit without
admitting liability, according to terms that included the
distribution of surplus settlement money to nonprofits.

The $100,000 given to the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii will be used
for volunteer income tax assistance and foreclosure mitigation
programs.

Other beneficiaries of the surplus settlement money include Aloha
United Way, Junior Achievement of Hawaii, The Hawaii Alliance for
Community-Based Economic Development, Goodwill Industries of
Hawaii, Hawaii Home Ownership Center, Housing Solutions, and the
Counsel of Native Hawaiian Advancement.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces 9,873 Yasmin/Yaz Lawsuits as of Oct. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
AttorneyOne.com, a recognized authority on law, updated the
website recently and they are now actively providing expert
opinion in view of the recent news on Yasmin/Yaz lawsuits and
potential Yasmin Class Action lawsuit.

On September 16, a new lawsuit was filed by a woman in Louisiana
Eastern District Court (case no. 2:2013cv05844) alleging that
Yasmin and Yaz caused her to suffer several miscarriages.  Yasmin,
which was approved by the FDA in 2001, and its sister drug Yaz,
which was approved in 2006, are oral contraceptives that combine
estrogen and a fourth generation progestin, drospirenone, to
prevent pregnancy.  Yasmin and Yaz are manufactured by Bayer
Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.  In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims
that she was prescribed Yasmin/Yaz around 2007 and she suffered
miscarriages in 2008 and 2011.

Court data indicate that on October 17, there were 9,873 actions
pending in the Yasmin/Yaz Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2100, US
District Court, Southern District of Illinois).

Taking into consideration the latest developments, AttorneyOne.com
updated the website and, now, can actively provide an expert
opinion including how to get in contact with legal counsel easily
and inexpensively in case of alleged Yasmin severe complications.
Sean Burke, director of Media Relations at AttorneyOne.com, adds
that the relevant information illustrates that people continue to
file Yasmin and Yaz lawsuits.  "For that reason", he continues,
"our focus should squarely fall on getting the word out and
assisting people in finding the right legal assistance."

On July 31, Bayer announced in its second-quarter 2013 report
that, as of July 8, the company had reached agreements to settle
approximately 6,760 Yasmin/Yaz lawsuits alleging deep vein
thrombosis or pulmonary embolism for about $1.4 billion.

AttorneyOne.com has further information on Yasmin lawsuits
including how to get in contact with legal counsel.

Headquartered in San Diego, CA Attorney One --
http://www.attorneyone.com-- was founded in 2004 and is not a law
firm.  They offer a nationwide legal service which helps consumers
find the best representation for their legal needs.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Reassures Global Investors Following Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rahul Sharma, writing for BasicsMedia, reports that BlackBerry
Ltd.'s market cap now stands at $4.18 billion.  This is quite low
compared to other companies that emerged later but have grown into
powerhouses in the tech industry.  BBRY has been overtaken by
companies such as Nokia Corporation, with a market cap of $7.15
billion, and Sierra Wireless with a market cap of more than $19
billion, among others.  The company has endured a troubled 2013,
and yet things do not seem as if they are about to get any better.
Its shareholders have instituted a class-action lawsuit against
BBRY.

Why Are BBRY's Shareholders Proceeding with the Class-Action
Lawsuit?

BBRY's shareholders have raised a number of pertinent issues that
form the basis of their class-action lawsuit against this company.
They are concerned that the company has misrepresented or
deliberately ignored consumer demands in developing its latest
brands of Smartphone devices.  They opine that the
misrepresentation does not stop with the company's Smartphone
devices.  The shareholders say that BBRY misrepresented certain
facts when declaring its financial position and that this is not
providing them with the chance to get the best deal in its shares.

BBRY is the subject of a bid from its largest shareholder, Fairfax
Financial Corp, worth around $4 billion.  It has also been linked
with a non-disclosure agreement with Lenovo, which will look at
BBRY's books before placing a bid, or not, depending on the
company's financial health.  BBRY says that the company is in a
healthy state and that it has a long-term future in the industry.
It said this through a letter it published in some nine countries
across the world, despite the negative reports that continue to
come up every day indicating the dire situation facing BBRY.

Now the company's shareholders, especially those who bought its
shares between September 27 2012 and September 20 2013, say the
company misled them into thinking that it was in a healthy
financial position.  They aver that they have lost hundreds of
millions of dollars by believing what the company had told them
all along regarding its true financial position.  BBRY has a lot
of work to do in order to prove that this is not what actually
transpired.  This class-action lawsuit also alleges that BBRY lied
that its latest Smartphones were received well across the world.

BBRY Writes a Letter to Reassure Investors Around the Globe

The letter BBRY published across 30 major dailies in nine
countries may do very little to convince the public and investors
that it is truly in a healthy place financially.  If BBRY loses
this class-action lawsuit and is guilty, serious ramifications in
terms of getting a good bid could be the result.  Let us not
forget that BBRY recently announced that it expects to cut down
its workforce by close to a third between 2013 and 2014.  The
company is fighting all allegations made regarding its financial
status by saying it is debt-free and has substantial cash on hand.

BBRY faces real battle to remain in business.  It now has to
convince bidders, the Canadian courts, and investors that it is
still attractive, and is a stock worth adding to any investor's
portfolio.


BOSTON SALADS: Recalls USDA-Regulated Ready-To-Eat Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Salads and Provisions Company, Inc., a Boston, Mass.,
establishment, is recalling approximately 222,959 pounds of ready-
to-eat chicken salad products due to possible contamination with
Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products were produced between Aug. 23, 2013, and Oct. 14,
2013, and shipped to wholesalers for further distribution to
retail locations in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  The products
subject to recall include:

   -- 5 lbs. Boston Salads Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Boston Salads Chicken Salad;
   -- 30 lbs. Boston Salads Chicken Salad;
   -- 7 oz. Boston Salads Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 12 oz. Boston Salads Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Boston Salads Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Boston Salads Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 30 lbs. Boston Salads Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 7 oz. Boston Salads White Chicken Salad;
   -- 12 oz. Boston Salads White Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Boston Salads White Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Boston Salads White Chicken Salad;
   -- 30 lbs. Boston Salads White Chicken Salad;
   -- 12 oz. Dietz & Watson Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 7 oz. Dietz & Watson Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Dietz & Watson Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Dietz & Watson Tropical Cranberry Walnut;
   -- 7 oz. Dietz & Watson White Chicken Salad;
   -- 12 oz. Dietz & Watson White Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Dietz & Watson White Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Market Source Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Northern Haserot Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Price Chopper Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Rachael's Gourmet Caesar Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Rachael's Gourmet Chicken Caesar Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Rachael's Gourmet Chicken Salad;
   -- 10 lbs. Rachael's Gourmet Chicken Salad;
   -- 5 lbs. Rachael's Gourmet Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 10 lbs. Rachael's Gourmet Cranberry Walnut Chicken Salad;
   -- 7 oz. Rachael's Gourmet White Chicken Salad; and
   -- 5 lbs. Rachael's Gourmet White Chicken Salad

Case labels or packaging may bear the sell by dates ranging from
"9/13/2013" through "11/4/2013" as well as the establishment
number "P-17999" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Although
product included in this recall may be expired, FSIS is concerned
that some product may be frozen in consumer or retail freezers.

The problem was discovered when the New Hampshire Department of
Public Health (NHDPH) determined that two non-intact samples
tested positive for Lm with matching PFGE patterns.  The
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH) was alerted to
these findings and tested intact samples of product, with two
testing positive for Lm with matching PFGE patterns.  MADPH then
alerted FSIS of the positive results.  The firm's investigation
has identified a likely source of the contamination.  FSIS is
continuing to work with federal and state public health partners
on this investigation, including the U.S. Health and Human
Services' Food and Drug Administration and the MADPH and NHDPH.

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.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns.  Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms.  An invasive
infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract.  In pregnant
women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths,
premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn.
In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older
adults and persons with weakened immune systems.  Listeriosis is
treated with antibiotics.  Persons in the higher-risk categories
who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating
contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health
care provider about eating the contaminated food.

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
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Sales Department of Boston Salads at (617) 307-6340, ext. 21.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
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://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Enters Into C$4.2M Accord in Lawnmower Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation entered into a Canadian Lawnmower
Class Action National Settlement Agreement in the amount of C$4.2
million, according to the company's Aug. 26, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears
Canada, Inc. et al., Court File No. 766-2010) against the Company
and other engine and lawnmower manufacturers alleging that the
horsepower labels on the products they purchased were inaccurate
and that the Company conspired with other engine and lawnmower
manufacturers to conceal the true horsepower of these engines.

On May 3, 2010, other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Montreal
Superior Court in Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere &
Company, et al., Court File No. 500-06-000507-109). Both
proceedings are based on various theories of Canadian law and seek
unspecified damages.

On June 27, 2013, the Company entered into a Canadian Lawnmower
Class Action National Settlement Agreement ("Settlement") that, if
given final court approval, will resolve all of the Canadian class
actions. Other parties to the Settlement are Electrolux Canada
Corp., Electrolux Home Products Inc., John Deere Limited, Deere &
Company, Husqvarna Canada Corp., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor
Products N.A., Inc., Kohler Canada Co. Kohler Co., The Toro
Company (Canada), Inc. and The Toro Company (collectively with the
Company referred to below as the "Settling Defendants").

As part of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all
liability and seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and
expensive litigation. If finally approved, the Settlement will
resolve all horsepower claims brought by all persons in Canada who
purchased lawn mowers in Canada during the class period, defined
as January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2012, except certain
specified persons.

As part of the Settlement, the Settling Defendants as a group
agreed to pay an aggregate amount of CAD $4.2 million. The
monetary contribution of each of the Settling Defendants is
confidential. The Courts in Ontario and Quebec will hold hearings
to consider motions to approve the form of notice of the
settlement approval hearing and (in the case of Ontario) to grant
certification of the action as to the Settling Defendants for
settlement purposes. A subsequent settlement approval motion will
be conducted in the Ontario Court, which, if granted and after the
running of the 30 day appeal period, would terminate the
involvement of the Settling Defendants in the proceedings.

As a result of the pending Settlement, the Company recorded a
total charge of US $1.9 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal
2013 representing the total of the Company's monetary portion of
the Settlement. The amount has been included in engineering,
selling, general and administrative expenses on the Statement of
Operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Discovery Underway in Suit Over Retiree Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in the case Merrill, Weber, Carpenter, et
al; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO/CLC v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation; Group Insurance Plan
of Briggs & Stratton Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket
No. 10-C-0700, according to Briggs & Stratton's Aug. 26, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 14, 2010, the Company notified retirees and certain
retirement eligible employees of various changes to the Company-
sponsored retiree medical plans. The purpose of the amendments was
to better align the plans offered to both hourly and salaried
retirees.

On August 16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who retired prior
to August 1, 2006 and the United Steel Workers filed a complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
(Merrill, Weber, Carpenter, et al; United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v. Briggs &
Stratton Corporation; Group Insurance Plan of Briggs & Stratton
Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket No. 10-C-0700),
contesting the Company's right to make these changes.

In addition to a request for class certification, the complaint
seeks an injunction preventing the alleged unilateral termination
or reduction in insurance coverage to the class of retirees, a
permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever making
changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution with
interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs. The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint and believes the changes
are within its rights.

On April 21, 2011, the district court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a
motion with the court to reconsider its order on May 17, 2011, and
on August 24, 2011 the court granted the motion and vacated the
dismissal of the case. The Company then filed a motion with the
court to appeal its decision directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, but the court denied this motion on
February 29, 2012. On October 9, 2012 the court granted the
parties' unopposed motion for class certification. Discovery is
underway in the case.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss,
the Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.


BROADBAND INTERACTIVE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge declined to end a class action against cable company
Broadband Interactive Inc., denying motions by both the company
and 24 workers who say the company cheated them out of overtime
pay by illegally classifying them as independent contractors.

U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew denied motions by both the
conditionally certified class and the defendant for summary
judgment in the case, finding the two parties fundamentally
disagreed about whether the workers -- a group of technicians
tasked with disconnecting the cable of customers who hadn't paid
their bills -- were required to show up at set times and whether
they were required to work on weekends, among other disputes of
facts in the case.

The judge divided the process into two parts -- liability and
damages -- and found that the information from the 24 technicians
may be enough to prove the group members were treated as employees
rather than contractors, but that damages will have to be proven
with individually collected information.

"While the court agrees that the number of hours worked and extent
of overtime damages owed to plaintiffs, if any, must be addressed
on an individualized basis, that is not the only issue in this
case," Judge Bucklew wrote in the Oct. 21 order.  "Common evidence
can be used for the liability phase.  The fact that common
evidence, by itself, will not be sufficient for the damages phase
-- if liability is proven -- does not undermine the judicial
economy that can be achieved from this case proceeding as a
collective action."

Allen Bobbitt and Robert Butler are leading the class of
technicians, workers who signed contracts with the company over
the course of three years.  The two initially filed suit in
December 2011. The suit is at least the second faced by Broadband
in as many years.

In an earlier suit, Matthew Thomas and David Ortiz -- two
different lead plaintiffs who had the same jobs as Messrs. Bobbitt
and Butler -- filed suit in October 2010 in the same court.

That suit, like Bobbitt and Butler's, alleged Broadband improperly
classifies collection specialists as independent contractors
rather than employees and included two counts of Fair Labor
Standards Act violations -- one for withholding overtime
compensation and the other for denial of minimum wage.

Thomas and Ortiz were granted voluntary dismissal without
prejudice in February 2011, according to court records.  The two
settled before the suit became a collective action, attorney
Harold Lichten told Law360 on Oct. 21.  Mr. Lichten represented
those two plaintiffs and continues to represent the class in the
new suit.

Chicago-based Broadband contracts with major cable companies such
as Time-Warner Cable Inc. and Comcast Corp. to provide various
services, one being the cutting off of cable services for
nonpaying customers.

In Florida, Broadband contracts with Bright House Networks LLC,
running a network of at least 100 collection specialists in Polk,
Hernando, Citrus, Pasco and Hillsborough counties, according to
the suit.

The class is represented by Loren Bolno Donnell, Sam Jones Smith
and Christine M. Jalbert of Burr & Smith LLP and Harold L. Lichten
-- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC.

Broadband is represented by Caren Rachel Skversky, Kathleen A.
Liever -- kathleen.liever@ogletreedeakins.com -- Kevin Douglas
Zwetch -- kevin.zwetsch@ogletreedeakins.com -- William Edward Grob
-- william.grob@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Gretchen M. Lehman --
gretchen.lehman@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins PC, as
well as Elizabeth Pierce Kuhn.

The case is Allen Bobbitt et al. v. Broadband Interactive Inc.,
case number 8:11-cv-02855, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.


CASSELS BROCK: Court Awards Plaintiff $300,000 in Tax Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Times reports that the Ontario Superior Court has awarded the
plaintiff in a class action against Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
almost $300,000 in costs related to a certification motion.

Representative plaintiff Jeffrey Lipson is among those unhappy
with Cassels Brock for providing a favorable tax opinion about
charitable donations.  He launched the class action after the
Canada Revenue Agency disallowed anticipated tax credits.

While the Superior Court initially denied certification, the
Ontario Court of Appeal reversed that decision earlier this year.
It also sent the matter back to the Superior Court to consider
costs for the certification motion.  Mr. Lipson sought $355,000
(or, alternatively, almost $299,000 on a partial indemnity basis)
while Cassels Brock argued the amount was excessive and suggested
$100,000.  Among other things, Cassels Brock suggested class
counsel "was inefficient in involving five lawyers and no
students" and that claiming almost 330 hours for legal and factual
research was excessive, wrote Justice Paul Perell in his Oct. 16
ruling in Lipson v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell.

Given the two years since the certification motion, Justice Perell
said it was difficult to tell whether class counsel "indulged
itself in running up costs in expectation of financing the rest of
the litigation and thereby reducing the risk of its involvement in
precariously risky litigation."

But he expressed concern about the "ever-upward spiral in costs
awards" that mean "there is little incentive to do only what is
necessary for certification and little to curb the tendency to use
the certification motion as a road test for the merits of the
litigation, notwithstanding that the focus on the certification
motion is whether the certification criteria are satisfied and
notwithstanding that the some-basis-in-fact evidentiary standard
in this regard is very low."

While he found merit to the argument that up to $350,000 in costs
was excessive, Justice Perell also disagreed with Cassels Brock's
submission of $100,000.

"I think the appropriate exercise of discretion is [to] award
Mr. Lipson the $298,582.71 that he seeks but to make $150,000.00
payable to him by Cassels Brock in the cause and the balance of
$148,582.71 payable forthwith," wrote Justice Perell.


CONDE NAST: Discontinues Internship Program Following Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erik Maza, writing for Women's Wear Daily, reports that Conde Nast
has decided to discontinue its internship program starting in
2014.  The end of the program comes after the publisher was sued
this summer by two former interns who claimed they were paid below
the minimum wage during internships at W and The New Yorker.

Conde is just one of several media companies facing similar
litigation from summer interns.  In February 2012, a former intern
at Hearst's Harper's Bazaar sued, claiming the magazine violated
minimum wage and overtime laws.  A judge threw out the case, but
the intern appealed and the suit remains unresolved.  In another
case that was settled in June, two interns who worked for Fox
Searchlight successfully sued the studio for similar reasons.

Several days after that case was settled, Lauren Ballinger, an
intern at W in 2009, and Matthew Leib, who worked at The New
Yorker in 2009 and 2010, filed their lawsuit, which is still
pending.

The size of the average Conde intern class is unclear.  Current
interns are not affected and will remain employed through the end
of their terms.  WWD is part of Conde Nast, which declined
comment.  Hearst did not comment on the status of its internship
program.


CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES: Black Business Council Mulls Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sibonelo Radebe, writing for The New Age Online, reports that The
Black Business Council (BBC) is seriously considering the idea of
launching a class action against construction companies who were
found guilty of collusion by the competition authorities.

This was spelt out on Oct. 22 during a symposium organized by the
BBC where top litigants from the US were present to address the
matter.  The symposium focused on the impact of collusion on
transformation of the South African economy.

The BBC invited Michael Hausfeld, chairperson of the US-based law
firm Hausfeld LLP who was described as a top civil litigant.
Addressing the symposium, Hausefeld said cartels were like a
disease in the economy.  "They empty your pockets while filling
theirs."

Mr. Hausfeld was clearly pushing for the civil action path.  He
said there were two main ways to fight against rampant cartels
across the globe.  Firstly, through the public where laws could be
used to punish transgressors.  He added that the public arm was
not enough to deter cartels' behavior.  He said big corporations
who participated in cartels could budget to cover penalties if
busted.

He said victims of cartels have to fight back.  They could claim
back the money taken away illegally by the cartels.

When asked if the South African situation was ripe for class
action, Mr. Hausfeld agreed it was, adding that parties would have
to look for a path which promises the best chance of winning these
cases.

Is the BBC that path? The BBC has made one of the "loudest
complaints" around collusion in the construction sector.  The BBC
argued that its members had been taken for a ride in being made to
believe that mainstream contractors were engaged in competitive
bids only to find that the "bidding processes were rigged".

BBC CEO Xolani Qubeka reiterated the BBC's stance that collusion
was the enemy of economic transformation.  He said people launched
companies with the hope of breaking into the market.  They
mortgaged their houses not knowing that "you have to be part" of
an old boys club to make headway.  The BBC has stated that it was
exploring the possibility of a class action.

The BBC's intention may be "propelled" after the Oct. 22 symposium
called by Makgiyla Mohlana, principal investigator of the cartel
division in the Competition Commission.  He said while the
commission's work had established clear evidence of collusion in
the construction sector, the public reaction had been
disappointing.

He said only a few people seemed to be interested in claiming
damages.  One would have hoped that clients, organizations and
rights groups would have taken the matter more seriously. "The
interest we have shown has been disappointing," Mr. Mohlana said.

Secretary of the Black Business Council in the Built Environment
Gregory Mofokeng who chaired the Oct. 22 symposium reiterated that
the BBC was interested in civil action.

"We are serious about launching class action against construction
companies.  That is why we have invited international experts," he
said.

Cosatu president Sdumo Dlamini berated the limitations of the law
in dealing with cartels.  Using the analogy of the unfolding JP
Morgan saga, Mr. Dlamini said it would seem big business was
immune from the laws that apply to ordinary people.

He described the penalties paid by big companies emanating out of
plea bargaining as "a slap on the wrist".  He said criminality was
pervasive in the industry.

Mr. Dlamini said Cosatu has proposed amendments to the Competition
Act to enable the law to pursue criminal charges against
executives found guilty of collusion. "They must be arrested and
go to jail," Mr. Dlamini said.


COSTCO: Recalls Ground Beef Products Over Likely E. Coli Presence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco, in Coon Rapids, Minn., is recalling an undetermined amount
of lean fresh ground beef products that may be contaminated with
E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The product subject to recall is 383 units of 88% lean fresh
ground beef (88/12).  It bears the Costco item number 33724 under
the Costco label.  This product was sold directly to 342 consumers
in a Costco located at 12547 Riverdale Blvd., Coon Rapids, Minn.,
between Sept. 4 and Sept. 7.

FSIS was notified of an E. coli O157:H7 illness on Oct. 17, 2013.
Working in conjunction with Minnesota's Department of Agriculture
and Department of Health, FSIS determined that there is a link
between the ground beef product from Costco and this illness.
Based on epidemiological and traceback investigations, 1 case-
patient has been identified in Minnesota with an estimated illness
onset date of Sept. 29, 2013.  The product was prepared from bull
meat and finely ground beef from the Costco Wholesale plant in
Tracy, Calif., and bench trim prepared at the Costco Wholesale in
Coon Rapids, Minn.  The steaks or roasts that were the source of
the bench trim may have originated from as many as 16 federally
inspected establishments.  FSIS continues to work with the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Department of Health on
this investigation and will provide updated information as it
becomes available.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure the organism.  While most people
recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).  This condition can occur
among persons of any age but is most common in children under
5-years old and older adults.  It is marked by easy bruising,
pallor, and decreased urine output.  Persons who experience these
symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS and Costco are concerned that some product may be frozen and
in consumers' freezers.

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.  Costco has already taken steps to contact
every customer who purchased the ground beef product.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 F.  The only way to
confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to
kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Costco at (800) 774-2678.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
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:
www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Problems_With_Food_Products


CRATE AND BARREL: Recalls Finley Hanging Pendant Lamps
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Euromarket Designs, Inc. dba Crate and Barrel, of Northbrook,
Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 19,000 and 860 in
Canada hanging pendant lamps.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lamp's wires can be connected incorrectly because the wires'
polarity labels can fall off or be mislabeled, posing fire and
shock hazards to consumers.

Crate and Barrel has received four reports of lamps shorting out,
including minor property damage and a minor burn.

The recall includes Crate and Barrel Finley Collection pendant
lamps with a white or wheat (off-white) linen large, small drum or
rectangular lamp shades.  They have a 9-inch long silver
electrical wire with tandem metal support cables and chrome-plated
steel ceiling plate.  The large lamp with SKU number 684-069 or
684-077 measures12-inches high and 28-inches in diameter, the
small lamp with SKU number 676-384 or 440-755 measures 12-inches
high and 20-inches in diameter; and the rectangular lamp with SKU
number 322-067 or 322-423 measures 14-inches high, 12.25 inches
wide and 30-inches long.  The lamps are illuminated by two 60-watt
bulbs.  The SKU number can be found on a white label inside the
ceiling plate.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Crate and Barrel stores nationwide, Crate and
Barrel's catalog and Crateandbarrel.com from January 2009 through
July 2013 for between $149 and $249.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamp and
contact Crate and Barrel for a replacement lamp of equal value or
a full refund, including shipping and $100 reimbursement for
charges incurred in removing and replacing recalled lamps by using
a licensed electrician.


DEMILEC LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Toxic" Foam Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360,
report that a New Jersey federal judge on Oct. 22 refused to free
insulation products manufacturer Demilec (USA) LLC from a proposed
class action alleging the company's spray polyurethane foam caused
injuries and damages, saying plaintiffs aren't required to provide
a safer alternative design for the products.

Demilec argued in a motion for judgment that plaintiffs must plead
that a reasonable alternative design exists for an allegedly
defective product under the New Jersey Products Liability Act, the
Oct. 22 order said.

But Judge Faith S. Hochberg said Oct. 22 that under New Jersey
law, plaintiffs in such a case must prove one of two things: that
a product's risk outweigh its usefulness or that a feasible
alternative design exists that would make the product safer.
Because the law states that the plaintiffs can do one or the
other, Judge Hochberg determined that there is no rule stating
they must provide a reasonable alternative design.

"Because there is no rule that plaintiffs must provide a
reasonable alternative design, Demilec's motion for judgment on
the pleadings is denied," Judge Hochberg wrote.

The spray foam litigation, first filed in September 2012, sought
class certification in a suit against Demilec and the distributor
and installer of the products, Energy Improvement Group LLC.  It
alleged that Demilec's spray polyurethane foam insulation
installed in consumers' properties was defectively designed and
dangerous.  The suit said that the foam remains toxic after being
installed in homes, and that it poses such risk to homeowners and
their residences that the only remedy is complete removal.

Plaintiffs said that though Demilec has marketed the spray foam as
nontoxic and environmentally safe, the product continues to emit
chemicals after innstallation under a process known as off-
gassing, in which dangerous volatile organic compounds are
released into the air.

In June, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
rejected an attempt to consolidate eight similar suits in
Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin in addition to New Jersey, ruling that the cases were
too unique to decide as a group.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and Demilec were not
immediately available for comment on Oct. 23.

Lead plaintiff David Schraeder is represented by David T. Sirotkin
of Morelli Alters Ratner PC.

Demilec is represented by Michael E. Longo -- ml@lydeckerdiaz.com
-- and Matthew A. Sacharoff of Lydecker Diaz.

The case is David Schraeder et al. v. Demilec LLC, et al., case
number 2:12-cv-06074, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


DIEBOLD INC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2013 the San Francisco labor lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against
Diebold, Incorporated for alleged wage and hour violations.
Litton, et al. vs. Diebold, Incorporated, Case No. CIV 524776 is
currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court.

According to the class action complaint filed against Diebold, the
company allegedly failed to pay their Customer Service Engineers
for time spent preparing for and driving to their first job of the
day, and instead insisted that the employees clock in only after
they reached the work site.  The suit alleges that although the
Customer Service Engineers were required to log on to their
computers to look up routes and work sites, load equipment into
Diebold trucks and drive to the first job of the day while
conducting no other personal business, Diebold allegedly refused
to pay the Customer Service Engineers for this time worked,
according to the class action Complaint.

The founding and managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhomwik, Norman Blumenthal stated, "Any time an employee is under
the control of their employer the employee should be paid for that
work time."

The San Francisco employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
Bhowmik dedicate its legal practice to helping employees fight
back against violations of California labor laws.  If you need to
collect wages due to you from your employer, call (800) 568-8020
to speak to an experienced California employment lawyer today.


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Recalls Tommy Bahama Outdoor Ceiling Fans
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Air Comfort Products, a division of Emerson Electric Co., of
St. Louis, Mo, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,800 in the
United States and 80 in Canada Tommy Bahama Outdoor Ceiling Fans.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The brackets holding the fan blades can break and cause the blades
to fall, posing a risk of injury to bystanders.

Emerson Air Comfort has received three reports of fan blades
detaching, including one report of a laceration to a consumer who
was hit in the back of the head by a falling blade.

The recall involves Tommy Bahama brand 52-inch outdoor ceiling
fans sold under the "The Copa Breeze" style name.  The fan has
model number TB311DBZ and a distressed bronze color.  Each of the
five oval-shaped paddles/blades has a metal accent in the shape of
an oval with a figure-8 inside the oval.  The lower part of the
motor housing has "Tommy Bahama" embossed on it.  A date code is
represented by three letters printed on the lower right corner of
a label on the top of the motor housing.  Fans with one of the
following three-letter combinations are included in the recall:
AJL, BAA, BAB, BAC, BAD, BAE, BAF,BAG, BAH, BAI, BAJ, BAK, BAL,
BBA, BBB, BBC, BBD, BBE, BBF, BBG, BBH, BBI, BBJ, BBK, BBL, BCA,
BCB, BCC and BCD

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Fan
and lighting stores nationwide and online at
http://www.EmersonFans.comand Amazon.com from April 2010 through
July 2012 for about $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fans and
contact Emerson Air Comfort Products to schedule a free in-home
repair or to order a free do-it-yourself repair kit.


FIESTA SHOWS: Class Action Moved to Massachusetts District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Moore, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that a
class action lawsuit against Fiesta Shows, which operates rides at
the Topsfield and Marshfield fairs among other carnivals in
Massachusetts, has moved from state court to U.S. District Court
in Massachusetts.

In June, Fiesta Shows was named in a class action lawsuit filed in
Massachusetts Superior Court by workers who allege that the
amusement ride operator violated state minimum wage and overtime
laws.  A brief filed by Fiesta Shows states that the amount of
damages in question could be as much as $6.1 million.

According to the original complaint, the Fiesta Shows workers
"have worked extremely long hours but have not received overtime
for hours worked in excess of forty per week."

In addition, they "routinely" have not received minimum wage, the
lawsuit says, and many have had to pay their own expenses in order
to obtain the work -- expenses that "should have been borne by the
employer."

Many of the company's workers travel to the United States on work
visas in order to work for Fiesta, which is based in New
Hampshire, the lawsuit says.

There are four named plaintiffs in the case and one of them is
Jorge Pilar Garcia who, according to the complaint, was employed
as a maintenance worker and was responsible for assembling,
dismantling and operating Fiesta Shows' amusement park rides
throughout New England.  The lawsuit states that Fiesta has
employed about 200 workers doing the same type of work as
Mr. Garcia.

These maintenance workers were paid a flat rate per week,
typically less than $400 per week, regardless of how many hours
they worked. As a result, their pay fell "far below minimum wage,"
the lawsuit contends.

Many of them traveled to the United States on visas and bore the
cost of the visa and travel expenses that Fiesta should have
shouldered, the complaint contends.

The plaintiffs allege Fiesta violated Massachusetts' laws and also
New Hampshire wage laws because the company is headquartered
there.

Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston-based Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
who is representing Mr. Garcia and the other plaintiffs, said an
organization in Mexico first brought the case to her attention.
Mr. Garcia is in Mexico now, Ms. Liss-Riordan said.  She said she
believes there are 200 workers who were treated similarly to Mr.
Garcia.  Mr. Garcia and the others worked around the clock, she
said, and "lived on site."

Eugene Dean, who is a member of the board of directors of Fiesta
Shows, said that the allegations in the lawsuit were not true.

"We are a very responsible and respectable company," he said.

Mr. Dean said Fiesta Shows has long used "foreign labor" in the
company, including British college students, and has never had
such an allegation lodged against it.

Mr. Dean's attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Carleton Chandler, secretary treasurer of the Marshfield
Horticultural Society, which runs the Marshfield Fair, said Fiesta
Shows has had a contract to supply the carnival rides, games and
associated food stands for about 40 years.  Mr. Chandler said that
there have never been any major issues with Fiesta Shows.

"Knowing the people I deal with at Fiesta Shows, in my own mind, I
have to think there's something (in this lawsuit) that hasn't been
mentioned or something that doesn't meet the eye," he said.

He confirmed that some of the workers do sleep at the Marshfield
Fair grounds in trailers that they bring.  Mr. Chandler said his
understanding is that Fiesta Shows provided sleeping arrangements
for other workers who did not have trailers, though he did not
know who covered the cost of those accommodations.

Similarly, James O'Brien, general manager of the Topsfield Fair,
said in a statement that the Essex Agricultural Society, which
runs the Topsfield Fair, has had "an excellent working
relationship" with Fiesta Shows "for decades."


GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Judge Rejects Bid to Replace Class Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yamri Taddese, writing for Law Times, reports that a Superior
Court judge has rejected a law firm's motion to replace the class
action counsel with carriage of the file in a drug case after
finding lawyers may take as long as they see fit to move on a
matter provided the delay is reasonable.

Kim Orr Barristers Professional Corp. had won a carriage motion
over McPhadden Samac Tuovi LLP in Waheed v. Glaxosmithkline Inc.,
a class action involving a diabetes medication called Avandia. But
after three years went by and Kim Orr hadn't proceeded with the
certification motion, McPhadden Samac Tuovi started getting
impatient.

The firm said the delay was unreasonable and suggested the court
should remove Kim Orr as counsel for the plaintiffs.  If it
replaced Kim Orr, the other firm also said it would bring a motion
for certification immediately.

But in ruling on the issue on Oct. 8, Justice Edward Belobaba
dismissed the application after finding a law firm has discretion
to decide on the structure of a case, including its pace.

Won Kim of Kim Orr tells Law Times the firm was watching the
proceedings in Martin v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals PLC before
taking any major steps.

Waheed is "a massive file," he adds, noting "you don't want to
gamble."

Kim says Justice Belobaba got it right when he said class counsel
know what's best for the class members.

"As class counsel, we have a lot of confidential information that
we couldn't say.  We were in the best position to make strategic
decisions about where the case is going to go," he says.

Justice Belobaba reflected that sentiment in his ruling.  "In my
view, any test for the removal and replacement of plaintiffs'
counsel in a proposed or actual class action proceeding must
recognize that as a general rule class counsel, acting on
plaintiffs' instructions, should be able to run the lawsuit as
they see fit," he wrote.

"This includes deciding the shape, content, and pace of the
litigation.  Class counsel may choose to slow matters down because
of pending appeals, or developments in other jurisdictions, or
indeed for any good reason that class counsel believes is in the
best interests of the proposed or actual class.

"Generally speaking, no carriage transfer motion should ask the
court to review and second-guess the action or inaction of class
counsel."

But there are still some occasions where it would be appropriate
to replace a law firm that's taking too long to get things done,
Justice Belobaba suggested.  "One such case is where there is
clear and unreasonable delay," he wrote.

To successfully replace a law firm, according to Justice Belobaba,
a party moving a carriage transfer motion must prove the delay is
unreasonable "by current class action litigation standards"; that
there's evidence of harm to class members; and that the firm's
explanation for the time lag is inadequate.  Removal of a firm is
also justifiable if bringing a certificate motion in due time is
either unworkable or against the interests of the class,
Justice Belobaba added.

McPhadden Samac Tuovi's motion "fails on each of the four
criteria," he continued.  The law firm "failed to show that most
class proceedings are certified in less than three years," he
noted.

"It is well-known that class proceedings generally move at a
glacial pace. (One need only recall the difficulty that
plaintiffs' have in securities class actions of even commencing an
action within the prescribed three-year time limit.) If a moving
party alleges unreasonable delay on the part of carriage counsel,
it must provide comparative evidence to support this submission.
No such evidence was provided."

McPhadden Samac Tuovi didn't show any evidence of harm or
prejudice to the class members, said the judge, who added he was
satisfied with Kim Orr's explanation of why the delay occurred.
Counsel needed to co-ordinate with experts on the American side of
the matter and wait for the outcome of appeal proceedings in a
related case, he said, noting the reasoning was "credible, and
certainly could not be described as 'inadequate.'"

The issue was a novel one, according to Justice Belobaba.
Joel Rochon -- jrochon@rochongenova.com -- who leads the class
action practice at Rochon Genova LLP, says the judge set out a
useful first framework.  "His decision seems to have recognized
the reality that there is typically a complex back story, an
unseen choreography, which frequently informs the pace of class
action litigation.  This is particularly true in complex cross-
border class actions," says Mr. Rochon.

"That said, when delays become patently unreasonable and there is
evidence of prejudice, motions to replace class counsel seem
logical and will be demanded by class members who are left
dangling through the perceived inaction of lawyers."

Bryan McPhadden -- bmcphadden@mcst.ca -- counsel for McPhadden
Samac Tuovi, says the firm applauds the court's finding that
subsequent carriage transfers are permissible.

"I think that will be helpful to prosecution of class actions," he
says.  "That this kind of motion can be brought is significant.
We applaud it."

On the point that Kim Orr's delay was reasonable, "We obviously
felt differently," he says.

Mr. McPhadden suggests the test for unreasonable delay set out in
Justice Belobaba's decision will evolve over time.

Justice Belobaba declined to award costs to Kim Orr after finding
the motion had forced the firm to commit to speeding things up.

"I am denying costs because it was obviously this motion and the
threat of being replaced as carriage counsel that encouraged Kim
Orr to commit to filing a certification motion within two months,"
he wrote.


ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Parolee Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a new class-action lawsuit
accuses Illinois authorities of systematically violating the
rights of thousands of parolees by sending them back to prison for
alleged violations following hurried and fundamentally unfair
hearings.

The 21-page suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago late
Tuesday by the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center and
the Uptown People's Law Center.  It names the Illinois Prisoner
Review Board, the Illinois Department of Corrections and Gov. Pat
Quinn.

The lawsuit alleges that more than 10,000 improper parole
revocation hearings happen each year and typically last five
minutes or less.  It describes the process as a "procedural
vortex" that usually ends in imprisonment.  It asks for an order
forcing changes to the process.

Messages seeking comment from the Quinn administration weren't
immediately returned on Oct. 23.


IMMUCOR INC: Dismissed From Case After $22 Million Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc. was dismissed in an antitrust suit it faced before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
after final approval of the settlement in the case, according to
the company's Aug. 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2013.

In 2009, a series of class action lawsuits was filed against the
company, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging certain violations of federal
antitrust laws. These cases were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The company agreed
to settle these actions in January 2012 and paid $22.0 million
into a qualified settlement trust fund in April 2012.

In September 2012 the court granted final approval of the
settlement.  Under the settlement agreement, all potential class
members released the company and the company was dismissed from
the case with prejudice.


IMMUCOR INC: Final Okay of Securities Suit Accord Entered in June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of North Georgia granted final approval to
a settlement entered by Immucor, Inc. in a securities lawsuit,
according to the company's Aug. 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2013.

In 2009, securities litigation was filed in the U.S. District
Court of North Georgia against the company and certain of the
company's former directors and officers asserting federal
securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between October 19, 2005
and June 25, 2009.

In June 2011 the Court dismissed the complaint and closed the case
and in September 2011 the plaintiffs appealed. The company agreed
to settle these actions in December 2012 and the company received
preliminary approval of the settlement in March 2013. Final
approval was granted in June 2013. The settlement is covered under
the Company's insurance and did not impact the company's financial
results.


INTELIQUENT INC: "Stamatiades" Suit Filed in N.D. Ill. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal securities class action lawsuit was filed on August 9,
2013, against the Inteliquent, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Costas Stamatiades,
individually and on behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated
v. Inteliquent, Inc., f/k/a Neutral Tandem Inc., G. Edward Evans,
Robert Junkroski, and David Zwick, 13-CV-5701), according to the
company's Aug. 27, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to
the matters addressed in the Audit Committee's internal
investigation. As of the date of this filing, the Company has not
been formally served with the complaint, and intends to vigorously
defend itself in this lawsuit. No reasonable estimate of the loss,
if any, associated with this litigation is possible.


IOWA: First Trial in Hiring Discrimination Class Action Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that jury selection started on
Oct. 22 in the first of what could be several trials over claims
that managers in Iowa's executive branch discriminated or
retaliated against black state workers and job applicants.

The cases stem from a class-action lawsuit in which up to 6,000
blacks passed over for state jobs alleged a pattern of
discrimination in state government hiring practices, based on
statistics and research suggesting Americans subconsciously prefer
whites to blacks.  A judge dismissed the case last year and the
Iowa Supreme Court is considering whether to reinstate it on
appeal.

Four individual class members will have their claims tried in the
coming weeks under a deal between their lawyers and the Iowa
Attorney General's Office, which is defending the state.  About
three dozen other claims could also go to trial if a broad
settlement isn't reached.

The first four cases involve workers who were fired from jobs at
Iowa Workforce Development between 1999 and 2006.  The plaintiffs'
lawyers, Thomas Newkirk and Leonard Bates, will argue that a
culture of discrimination and retaliation existed under the
agency's then-human resources director, Jackie Mallory.

Their trial brief notes that former Department of Administrative
Services director Mollie Anderson testified in a deposition that
Mallory was fired in 2006 after a review by then-Gov. Tom
Vilsack's administration uncovered concerns of racism and other
problems under Mr. Mallory's management.  Mr. Mallory has called
racism allegations against her "absolutely ridiculous," and other
state officials have said that Mallory was fired for other
reasons.

Still, Mr. Mallory will be a leading figure in the cases, with
plaintiffs' lawyers arguing that she routinely manipulated the
state's merit system rules in ways that opened up jobs for whites,
limited opportunities for blacks and punished those who filed
complaints.  Mr. Mallory did not respond to a phone message on
Oct. 22 seeking comment.

The trial that started on Oct. 22 at the Polk County Courthouse in
Des Moines involves 53-year-old Dorothea Polk.  Ms. Polk started
working in 2003 as a temporary clerk in Mr. Mallory's office and
applied for a full-time clerk position two years later and was
deemed highly qualified.  But Mr. Mallory later sent a letter
saying she would not be considered for the job because she failed
to properly submit her resume.  Ms. Polk claims she was shocked
because she had hand-delivered her application to Mallory's
secretary.

When Ms. Polk confronted Mr. Mallory about what happened and asked
questions about the hiring process, she claims that Mr. Mallory
responded, "You people think you get special privilege."
Ms. Polk claims that she later learned a white male from a
staffing agency was hired to fill the position on a temporary
basis.

Ms. Polk filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.
Months later, she was fired after a review found she did not meet
performance expectations and "disrespectfully challenges
authority."

State lawyers have argued that Ms. Polk did not fill out the
application correctly for the full-time job, and the position was
closed without anyone being hired.  But Judge Brad McCall rejected
their request to dismiss her failure-to-hire claim, saying jurors
should decide.

In another ruling, Judge McCall said that he would allow testimony
from University of Washington psychologists Anthony Greenwald and
Cheryl Kaiser, who are experts in a concept known as implicit
racial bias.

Some scholarly studies have found an inherent preference for
whites over blacks in about 70 percent of Americans, including
many who don't consider themselves racist.  Mr. Greenwald
testified in the class-action lawsuit that a similar percentage of
Iowa managers likely had preferences for whites and that could be
a cause of hiring discrimination in Iowa, which is 91 percent
white.

Judge Robert Blink dismissed the case last year after ruling that
the plaintiffs failed to show any particular practice was
discriminatory. He said the data showed wide discrepancies in the
hiring of blacks at different agencies, with some appearing to
disadvantage them but others favoring them.

The Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments last month during which
Newkirk asked justices to reinstate the lawsuit, which is seeking
tens of millions of dollars in lost wages and court-ordered
changes to hiring practices to track and eliminate disparities.  A
decision is expected in the coming months.


ITURAN LOCATION: Accord in Customer Discrimination Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv approved a
settlement reached in a suit alleging Ituran Location and Control
Ltd. unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated
between its customers, according to the company's Aug. 27, 2013,
Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 2) filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 21, 2011, the Company received a purported class action
lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court
of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, by one plaintiff who is a
subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company (see Note
12C), which was declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive
Trade Practices Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a
monopoly and discriminated between its customers.

The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from
the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from
customers who are obliged by insurance company requirements to
install location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the
monthly subscription fees that are charged from customers who are
not required by insurance companies to install location and
recovery systems in their vehicles.

On March 5, 2012 the court approved a settlement without admission
reached with the plaintiff, for a payment of an immaterial amount
as reimbursement of the plaintiff's legal fees and dismissal of
the lawsuit as a class action.


JC PENNEY: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 23 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Texas, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities (including
common stock, debt securities, call and put options) of J.C.
Penney Co., Inc. between May 16, 2013 and September 26, 2013,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors, alleging securities fraud pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
[15 U.S.C. ---- 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. -- 240.10b-5].

The litigation is styled Murphy v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 6:13-cv-0800. A copy of the Complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
http://www.whafh.com

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, J.C. Penney
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements, and failing to disclose material
information regarding the Company's true financial status and
operations, thereby damaging Plaintiff and other similarly
situated investors.  In particular, throughout the Class Period,
the Company falsely stated that it had sufficient operating
liquidity and was primed for a "return to profitable growth."
Indeed, as recently as August 20, 2013, the Company's Executive
Vice President and CFO, Kenneth H. Hannah, assured investors that
he expected the "total liquidity available to the Company . . . to
be in excess of $1.5 billion at year-end given the improvements
. . . in the [Company's] business."

On September 27, 2013, however, the Company shocked the market
when it announced the pricing of 84 million shares of its common
stock in a secondary offering and indicated that it planned to
"use the proceeds from the offering for general corporate
purposes."  On this news, the price of J.C. Penney's common stock
dropped 13% to close at $9.05 per share on unusually heavy volume.

The Complaint further alleges that the true facts, which were
known by Defendants, but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were that the Company did not have
sufficient operating liquidity and would require a substantial
cash infusion in order to remain a going-concern through year-end.
Thus, despite the Company's looming liquidity crisis, Defendants
affirmatively misled investors by representing that the Company
was financially stable and well on its way to achieving a complete
turnaround in results.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the Complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said Defendants, Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of J.C. Penney securities.  Had
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they
would not have purchased said securities, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased JCP securities during the Class Period, you may
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
December 2, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.  The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com
or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com
All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "J.C. Penney".


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 11 Pelvic Mesh Cases Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that 11 pelvic mesh actions
brought against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon Inc. have been
remanded to state court by an Oklahoma federal judge, who found
the nondiverse plaintiffs were not fraudulently joined.

On Oct. 18, Judge Tim Leonard of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma further held that the cases do not
constitute a "class action" under the Class Action Fairness Act
because the plaintiffs announced their intention not to jointly
try the cases.

On July 18, Joy L. Halliburton and 47 other named plaintiffs sued
J&J and Ethicon.


KASHMIR CROWN: Recalls KCB Pista Khatie Due to Traces of Eggs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kashmir Crown Baking, LLC of Linden, NJ is recalling its "KCB
Pista Khatie (13oz & 30oz)".  Recently CFIA reported the presence
of traces of eggs in "KCB Pista Khatie" after their analysis of
the product.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction
if they consume this product.

The recalled "KCB Pista Khatie (13oz)" was distributed in retail
shops in Ontario (Greater Toronto Area).  The recalled "KCB Pista
Khatie (30oz)" was distributed in retail shops in California.

This product comes in 13oz (369g) & 30oz (850g), transparent
plastic container labeled as "Pista Khatie" with an expiration
date of May 16, 2014 printed on the label of the container and
barcodes as follows: 13oz - 812042 001292 and 30oz- 812042 002962.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm372026.htm

KCB company is taking further actions to make sure that every
product is clear of fault; and reaches its customers safe, healthy
and with the highest quality.

Consumers who purchased the 13oz (369g) & 30oz (850g) packaging of
"KCB Pista Khatie (13oz & 30oz)", made to expire on May 16, 2014,
are suggested by KCB, to return them to the place of purchase with
a full refund.  Consumers with questions can contact the company
at 1-908-474-1470, anytime from 10am until 4pm Eastern Standard
Time.

To date, no illnesses have been reported to Kashmir Crown Baking
LLC.


KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Gets $5MM Pre-Tax Distribution From Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimball International, Inc. was a party to two class action
lawsuits from which the company received pre-tax distributions of
$5.0 million subsequent to June 30, 2013, according to the
company's Aug. 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The lawsuits alleged that certain suppliers of the Electronic
Manufacturing Services segment conspired over a number of years to
raise and fix the prices of electronic components, resulting in
overcharges to purchasers of those components.


L & L ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 21
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against L & L
Energy, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 13-cv-06704, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of L&L between September 11, 2012 and September 18,
2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased L&L securities during the
Class Period, you have until November 22, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

L&L, formerly known as L&L International Holdings, is a coal-
mining company founded in 1995.  L&L purports, through its
subsidiaries, to engage in coal mining, clean coal washing, coal
coking, and coal wholesaling businesses in China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company improperly accounted substantial revenue from
operations that were already shut down; (2) the Company claimed
acquisitions and divestitures of various properties through swap
transactions that never occurred through the exchange of assets it
never owned in the first place; (3) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 19, 2013, GeoInvesting published an article on
Seeking Alpha disclosing that the Company has been "defrauding
investors by booking substantial revenue from operations that have
been idled for quite some time."  Specifically, GeoInvesting
stated that the Company's numerous acquisitions and divestitures
through the years have amounted "to a bait and switch shell game"
by utilizing "swap transactions that never occurred.  "Moreover,
the article concluded "that revenue of $77.6 million disclosed in
LLEN's 2013 10K, generated from its Hong Xing coal washing
factory, was actually close to zero, if it is not actually zero, "
as the factory "has been shut down since 2012."

On this news, the Company's stock plummeted $0.80 per share or
more than 38%, to close at $1.27 on September 19, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued in Virginia Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kallies, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
Regina Anderson, on behalf of herself and a class of other
similarly situated, filed suit against Liberty Mutual Insurance in
the Circuit Court of Wyoming County.

In her suit filed Sept. 16, Ms. Anderson claims Liberty Mutual
violated West Virginia law by using deceptive business practices.
Liberty Mutual removed it to U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia on Oct. 15.  The lawsuit stems from what
Ms. Anderson believes to be collusion between Liberty Mutual and
auto repair shops.

According to Ms. Anderson, her claim is focused on Liberty
Mutual's "Total Liberty Care" program for auto insurance.
Ms. Anderson claims that under this program, Liberty Mutual steers
its insured customers in need of auto repairs to Liberty Mutual's
preferred list of auto repair shops.

In return, the repair shops allegedly agree to comply with certain
conditions and targets imposed by Liberty Mutual, including the
time spent on repairs, in exchange for their spot on Liberty
Mutual's preferred facilities list.

Ms. Anderson goes on to say the insureds are not required to go to
the preferred shops, but Liberty Mutual makes it much simpler and
convenient to use the preferred shops.  Ms. Anderson also alleges
Liberty Mutual encouraged the preferred shops to use replacement
auto parts in violation of West Virginia law.

Ms. Anderson was in an accident and claims Liberty Mutual steered
her to the preferred shop called Greg Chandler's Frame and Body
LLC.  According to Ms. Anderson, she found out that Liberty Mutual
told Chandler to use a replacement part on her vehicle, in
violation of West Virginia law, or else risk losing its status on
the preferred shop list.

Ms. Anderson now files suit for her injuries as well as injuries
to those who have experienced similar injuries based on their
relationship with Liberty Mutual.  Ms. Anderson is seeking
compensatory damages for the difference in value of the new parts
she claims Liberty Mutual should have provided and the replacement
parts installed in her car.  She is also seeking punitive damages
to deter future violations by Liberty Mutual and other auto
insurers.  Ms. Anderson is represented by Stuart Calwell and Alex
McLaughlin of Charleston.

Circuit Court of Wyoming Co. Case No. 13-C-128
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Case No. 5:13-cv-25760


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-USC Gamecock Player Files Concussion Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
WLTX reports that Stanley Doughty, who played as a defensive
tackle for the USC Gamecocks from 2003 to 2006, says he suffered
injuries that prevented him from having a career in the NFL.

In a Class Action filed in U.S. District Court in Columbia October
22nd, Mr. Doughty's filing asks the Courts order the NCAA to set
up a Medical Monitoring fund to cover long-term and latent brain
injuries.

Mr. Doughty's filing also notes this Class Action is for all
former NCAA players who suffered traumatic head impacts while
playing in the NCAA: "The members of the Class are so numerous and
geographically widely dispersed that joinder of all members is
impracticable."

Having suffered repeated head impacts during his college career,
Mr. Doughty notes he even experienced temporary paralysis
following one in-practice collision in 2004.  In a game in 2005,
Mr. Doughty says he collided with a running back that left him
temporarily unable to move.

Mr. Doughty's filing says the Gamecocks did not order an MRI, and
that he also suffered similar head impacts during his college
career, but cannot recall specific instances.

Then in 2007 Mr. Doughty opted to leave South Carolina in hopes of
gaining a slot with an NFL team.  He was signed shortly after with
the Kansas City Chiefs, but their medical tests revealed he would
not be medically cleared to play professional football.

The tests performed by the team revealed Mr. Doughty had an
"acquired spinal injury," often the result of sudden, traumatic,
helmet to helmet collisions.

The Chief's medical staff advised him to seek surgery to prevent
worsening of symptoms that include limited use and a burning
sensation of his right arm, along with anxiety, depression, mood
swings, sleeplessness, and an inability to concentrate.

Following his release from Kansas City, Mr. Doughty has not been
able to obtain the necessary surgery, or other medical treatments
available for his conditions.

In the class action, Mr. Doughty claims the NCAA has a duty to
protect college football players, and the organization has
"ignored this duty, and provided immensely from its inaction and
denial, all to the detriment of the players."

Mr. Doughty and the other plaintiffs in the case are seeking
lifelong medical monitoring for the long-term risks of brain
injury.

The class action goes on to detail risks of head injuries
sustained by football players of all ages, presenting evidence of
short-term and long-term effects of sports-related head injuries.

The class also includes specific items that they claim
demonstrates the NCAA was aware of the risks associated with head
impacts and concussions, including highlighting a 1982
implementation of an NCAA injury surveillance system, put in place
to document injuries to the head and neck in Collegiate Athletics.

Mr. Doughty's filing asks for a Court certified Medical Monitoring
Class be set up for former players, for their increased risks of
neurodegenrative disorders and diseases.

The Class seeks damages to compensate the Plaintiffs for injuries
sustained, and "an injunction creating a Court-supervised, NCAA-
funded, comprehensive medical monitoring program for Plaintiffs
and the members of the Class, which would facilitate the early
diagnosis and adequate treatment in the event that a
neurodegenerative disorder or disease is diagnosed in Plaintiffs
or members of the Class."


NATUREMOST LABORATORIES: Recalls Vanilla Almond Whey Power
----------------------------------------------------------
NatureMost Laboratories of Middletown, Connecticut is recalling
Vanilla Almond Whey Power because it may contain undeclared milk,
almond and soy allergens and Strawberry Banana Whey Power, because
it may contain undeclared milk and soy allergens.  People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, almond and soy allergens
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

The product was distributed in Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas through retail
stores and mail order.

The product was sold between 2009 and 2013.  It was sold in 3
pound, 3000cc white plastic jars.  The product can be identified
by product codes:

  -- NatureMost Whey Power Vanilla Almond Lot Numbers: 9950/3491,
     9950/3636, 9950/3766, 9950/4011, 9950/4374, 9950/5025,
     9950/5559; and

  -- NatureMost Whey Power Strawberry Banana Lot Numbers:
     9954/3793, 9954/4043, 9954/4205, 9954/4861

Pictures of the Products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm372007.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated during a Food and Drug Administration
inspection.  It was discovered that the "contains milk, almond and
soy" allergens statement was omitted from the label.  Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary
breakdown in the company's production and labeling processes.

Consumers who have purchased NatureMost Strawberry Banana Whey
Power or Vanilla Almond Whey Power are urged to return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-800-234-2112.


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Suit Active Despite Ch. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bankruptcy Court has stayed class suits against the former
President and former Chief Financial Officer of Overseas
Shipholding Group, Inc., except with respect to currently pending
motions to dismiss, according to the company's Aug. 26, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

After the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K on October
22, 2012 disclosing that on October 19, 2012 the Audit Committee
of the Board of Directors of the Company, on the recommendation of
management, concluded that the Company's previously issued
financial statements for at least the three years ended December
31, 2011 and associated interim periods, and for the fiscal
quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, should no longer
be relied upon, several putative class action suits were filed in
federal court in the Southern District of New York against the
Company, its then President and Chief Executive Officer, its then
Chief Financial Officer, its then current and certain former
members of its Board of Directors, its current and former
independent registered public accounting firm, and underwriters of
the Company's public offering of notes in March 2010 (the
"Offering").

The Company's former independent registered public accounting firm
was later added as a defendant. Subsequent to the Company's filing
for relief under Chapter 11, these suits were consolidated and the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that does not name the
Company as a defendant. The consolidated suits are on behalf of
purchasers of Company securities between March 1, 2010 and October
19, 2012 and purchasers of notes in the Offering.

The plaintiffs allege that documents that the Company filed with
the SEC were defective, inaccurate and misleading, that the
plaintiffs relied on such documents in purchasing the Company's
securities, and that, as a result, the plaintiffs suffered losses.
The plaintiffs seek recovery of such losses from the defendants.

The Bankruptcy Court has stayed the suits against the individual
defendants (the former President and former Chief Financial
Officer of the Company and certain current and certain former
directors of the Company), except with respect to currently
pending motions to dismiss, until September 2013, subject to the
Company's right to request further extensions.

On November 13, 2012, the Company received from the staff of the
SEC a request for documents relating to the statements in the
Company's October 22, 2012 Form 8-K, to which the Company has
responded. On January 29, 2013, the SEC issued a formal order of
private investigation of the Company. The Company intends to
continue to cooperate fully with the SEC's investigation.


PANALPINA: Enters Into Preliminary Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Transportation and Logistics reports that Panalpina has
entered into a preliminary agreement to settle a U.S. class action
lawsuit alleging anticompetitive industry practices regarding
certain freight surcharges.  Panalpina agreed to pay an amount of
US$35 million, which includes previously received proceeds of
US$5.8 million, in an unrelated class action against various
airlines.  The settlement is subject to U.S. court approval and
will impact the fourth quarter 2013 results, the company said.

The civil class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. in 2008
against a large number of air freight forwarders, including
Panalpina, as a direct consequence of investigations by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act regarding certain surcharges imposed on
international air freight forwarding services.  This case was
settled with the U.S. DOJ in 2010 by entering into a plea
agreement (see media release from October 1, 2010).  Panalpina
agreed to enter into the current settlement agreement to avoid
cost and risk of trial.


PANDORA MEDIA: Seeks to Junk New Claim Over Personal Info Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a second amended
complaint over allegations it unlawfully accessed and transmitted
personally identifiable information, according to the company's
Aug. 27, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2013.

In June 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Pandora in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that it unlawfully accessed and
transmitted personally identifiable information of the plaintiffs
in connection with their use of the Company's Android mobile
application.

In addition to civil liability, the amended complaint includes
allegations of violations of statutes under which criminal
penalties could be imposed if the Company were found liable.

Pandora's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was
granted on March 26, 2013. The court allowed the plaintiff to
amend his complaint. The second amended complaint, filed May 9,
2013, contains allegations similar to those contained in the
previous complaint. Pandora's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint was filed May 30, 2013. The motion is set for hearing on
October 4, 2013.


PANDORA MEDIA: Dismissal of Privacy Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
No date has been set for oral argument in an appeal against the
dismissal of a suit alleging Pandora Media, Inc. violated
Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection,
according to the company's Aug. 27, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2013.

In September 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Pandora in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that it violated
Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection
statute by allowing Pandora listeners' listening history to be
visible to the public.

Pandora's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on September
28, 2012, judgment was entered on November 14, 2012. The plaintiff
appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. Briefing of the appeal was completed on August 2, 2013.
No date has been set for oral argument.


PARK UNIVERSITY: Seeks Removal of Unwanted Fax Ad Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that Park University filed a notice of removal in
a local insurance company's claim that it incurred printing and
paper costs over unwanted advertisement faxes.

Plaintiff Warma, Witter, Kreisler, Gregov and Associates in
O'Fallon filed two proposed class action lawsuits on Aug. 13
against Park University Enterprises, doing business as Fred Pryor
Seminars, and Roadside Trailer Services.

Park University filed its removal notice Sept. 25 through
attorneys Bart T. Murphy and Isaac J. Colunga --
bart.murphy@icemiller and isaac.colunga@icemiller.com -- of Ice
Miller LLP in Lisle, arguing that federal court has jurisdiction
over Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims, which the
defendants are accused of violating.

In the complaint against Park University, Warma claims it received
11 fax advertisements featuring products and services from Park
University between Feb. 13 and April 11.  An unwanted fax from
Roadside was also received on Feb. 13, according to the complaint.

"On information and belief, defendants sent the same facsimiles to
plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without first
receiving the recipients' express permission or invitation," the
suit against Park University states.  "This is based, in part, on
the fact that plaintiff never gave permission to anyone to send
the subject fax advertisement to it, and that sending
advertisements by fax is a very cheap way to reach a wide
audience."

Warma also blames the defendants for failing to include a proper
opt out notice in their advertisements, which were placed in tiny
font at the very bottom of the pages they sent.  Proper opt out
notices, which allow businesses to choose not to receive the fax
advertisements, are supposed to be large and clear, the insurance
company says.

The defendants are also accused of violating the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by forcing the
insurance company to incur costs without receiving anything in
return, the suit states.

"Defendants' practice effectively forced plaintiff and the other
class members to pay for defendants' advertising campaign," the
complaint states.

Warma seeks a class action status plus damages of $500 to $1,000
for each violation of TCPA and an injunction prohibiting the
defendants from engaging in similar actions in the future.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien scheduled a
mandatory status conference for both cases for Nov. 12 at 9:30
a.m.

Phillip A. Bock, James M. Smith and Phillip J. Bullimore of Bock
and Hatch in Chicago and Robert J. Sprague of Sprague and Urban in
Belleville are representing the plaintiff.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers 13-L-422 and 13-L-423


PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Lights Suit Obtains Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge in Arkansas has granted
class-action status to a lawsuit that claims Philip Morris USA
deliberately exaggerated the safety of its Marlboro Lights
cigarettes.

Attorneys for Philip Morris had argued that any lawsuits should be
filed individually, but Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox
approved class-action status on Oct. 22 for the litigation.
Neither side estimated the number of potential plaintiffs, but
lawyers for Philip Morris said the group would be the largest in
Arkansas history, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported on
Oct. 23.

A company spokesman said Philip Morris will appeal the class-
action designation.

The lawsuit was filed in 2003 and seeks refunds for every pack of
Marlboro Lights sold in Arkansas from 1971 until 2009, when
Congress banned tobacco companies from advertising cigarettes as
"light" or "low-tar."  In 2010, Marlboro Lights were renamed
Marlboro Gold, and Ultra Lights became Marlboro Silver.

The suit alleges that Philip Morris, which is part of Altria
Group, deliberately deceived smokers about health risks of smoking
light cigarettes.

Attorney Tom Thrash, representing the plaintiffs in the case, said
Lights smokers wouldn't have been bought the cigarettes if they
knew the brand was riskier than regular cigarettes.

"They advertised in a deceptive manner in a way likely to deceive
a reasonable consumer," Mr. Thrash said.

Attorneys for Philip Morris denied deliberate deception and
wrongdoing, saying that light cigarettes did what they were
advertised to do -- deliver less tar and nicotine.  The company
said the filters on Lights cigarettes were specially ventilated to
reduce tar and nicotine, but smokers could get more by inhaling
deeper or more often.

The company also argued that many consumers bought Lights
cigarettes for reasons other than the reduced nicotine and low-tar
claims -- because of the taste, packaging or the brand's
reputation.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs Wayne Miner of Franklin
County and James Easley of Miller County smoked about two packs of
Lights a day until learning about the health allegations in early
2000.  The first two plaintiffs, Lisa Watson and Loretta Lawson,
have withdrawn from the case.

Last month, a judge in California ruled in favor of Philip Morris
in a similar case that sought up to $1 billion in restitution.


PRICE CHOPPER: Recalls Coconut Custard Pies
-------------------------------------------
Price Chopper Supermarkets is issuing a recall on Price Chopper
eight inch (8") and ten inch (10") coconut custard pies, with UPC
numbers 41735 23713, 41735 23721 and 41735 22453 due to a lack of
ingredient information on the label; the pies contain milk, egg,
soy, wheat and tree nut (coconut), which are known allergens.
Other than this labeling issue, the product is safe for
consumption for those not allergic to the above allergens.

The pies were sold between August 11 and October 18.

Products should be returned to a local Price Chopper for a full
refund.  For more information visit pricechopper.com or call 800-
666-7667, option 3, Monday through Friday, 8:30am - 7pm and
Saturday and Sunday from 10am - 4pm.

In addition to alerting the media, Price Chopper has initiated its
Smart Reply notification program, which uses purchase data and
consumer phone numbers on file in connection with the company's
AdvantEdge (loyalty) card to alert those households that may have
purchased the product in question.  All customers who purchased
the product except for one have already been contacted using Smart
Reply.


RESER'S FINE: Recalls Chicken, Ham and Beef Products
----------------------------------------------------
Reser's Fine Foods, a Topeka, Kan. establishment, is recalling
approximately 22,800 pounds of chicken, ham and beef products due
to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The company announced that these products are being recalled in
conjunction with other foods regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).  A full list of products being recalled can
be found on FDA's website at
www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/Recalls/default.htm.
Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number "EST.
13520" or "P-13520" inside the USDA mark of inspection and include
the following:

   -- 5 lbs. Cobble Street Market Chicken Salad with UPC 22486
      15887 and Best By Date of 11/15/13;

   -- 5 lbs. Cross Valley Farms Chicken Salad with UPC 58108 30149
      and Best By Date of 11/13/13;

   -- 5 lbs. Cross Valley Farms Ham Salad with UPC 58108 30166 and
      Best By Date of 11/23/13;

   -- 5 lbs. Reser's Fine Foods White Meat Chicken Salad with
      Cranberries & Pecans with UPC 71117 11392 and Best By Date
      of 11/13/13;

   -- 5 lbs. Reser's Fine Foods Chicken Salad with UPC 71117 11400
      and Best By Date of 11/15/13

   -- 5 lbs. Reser's Fine Foods Ham Salad with UPC 71117 11402 and
      Best By Date of 11/26/13

   -- 5 lbs. Reser's Fine Foods Ham Salad Supreme with UPC 71117
      14139 and Best By Date of 11/23/13

   -- 3 lbs. Millers Bar-B-Que Beans with Beef with UPC 71117
      14179 and Best By Date of 11/19/13

   -- 12 oz. Reser's Fine Foods White Meat Chicken Salad with UPC
      71117 19008 and Best By Date of 11/13/13

   -- 5 lbs. Classic Chicken Salad with UPC 71117 68007 and Best
      By Date of 11/13/13

   -- 12 oz. Chef Solutions Cranberry Pecan White Meat Chicken
      Salad with UPC 77509 63308 and Best By Date of 11/16/13; and

   -- 3 lbs. Stonemill Kitchens Loaded Potato Salad with Bacon
      with UPC 71117 61502 and Best By Date of 10/23/13

The products were distributed to retailers and distributors in
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The problem was discovered through microbiological testing by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. A traceback investigation and
follow-up testing by FDA at the facility determined there was
potential cross contamination of products with Listeria
monocytogenes from product contact surfaces.  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://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-
public-health-alerts/current-recalls-and-alerts.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Reser's Fine Foods Consumer Hotline at 1-888-257-7913 (8 a.m.
- 8 p.m. Eastern Time).

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
www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Problems_With_Food_Products.


RESER'S FINE: Recalls Refrigerated Ready-to-Eat Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Reser's Fine Foods of Beaverton, Oregon is recalling approximately
109,000 cases of refrigerated ready-to-eat products because it may
be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.  Listeria is an
organism which can cause serious and sometime fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people and individuals with
weakened immune systems.  Healthy people may suffer only short
term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness,
nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant woman.

The recalled refrigerated ready-to-eat products were distributed
nationwide and Canada.

The product is sold in retail and food service establishments.
The packages will be marked with a Use-by-Date or Best By Date and
followed by a plant identifier code of 20.

NO illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled products were manufactured at the Topeka, KS salad
manufacturing facility.  No other Reser's Fine Foods, Inc.
manufacturing facilities are involved in this recall.

Consumers who purchased the product may take it back to the store
for a refund or discard it.

For more information please contact Reser's Fine Foods Consumer
Hotline 1-888-257-7913 (8am-8pm EST) or visit the FDA website:
http://www.fda.gov

Affected Products:

  Item Number              Item Description
  -----------              -----------------
  58108.30144      SLAW DIXIE HMSTYLE CVF 2/7#
  58108.30155      SLAW SHORT SHRED CVF 2/7#
  71117.18232      SLAW COLE DILLON'S 12/14z
  71117.67307      PASTA ITALIAN SYSCO 2/8#
  74865.79731      PASTA CALIFORNIA SALAD BB 2/5#
  22486.15881      SLAW COLE SHORT SHRED IMA 2/7#
  22486.15888      PASTA ITALIAN SALAD IMA 2/8#
  71117.67123      SLAW HSTYLE DELI DESIGN 6/2.75
  71117.67690      SLAW HOMESTYLE SHRED SYSCO 2/7
  28919.00240      SLAW COLE TARGET CAD 12/425g
  58108.30156      PROT SEAFOOD SALAD CVF 2/8#
  58108.30157      POTATO RED ROYALE CVF 2/8#
  71117.00210      POTATO CLASSIC RESER 2/8#
  71117.00282      SALSA MANGO BAJA CAFE 2/5#
  71117.11150      POTATO BAKED CHEFS CHOICE 2/8#
  71117.14105      POTATO RED SPEC CUT W/SKIN 2/8
  71117.14195      RSTD CORN/BLACK BEAN SLD 2/5#
  71117.18231      POTATO RED DILLON'S 6/16z
  71117.19010      PROT SEAFOOD SALAD AM CL 6/12z
  71117.61581      SLAW COLE HOMESTYLE RSR 6/4.5#
  73474.55031      POTATO MY PREMIER 2/5#
  81131.91755      PROT TUNA SLD WALMART 12/12z
  71117.00265      COOKIES & CREAM RESER 2/6#
  71117.11415      PROT SEAFOOD SALAD RESER 2/8#
  71117.11446      KIT RED POTATO W/BC&BCN 2/5.5#
  71117.18257      POTATO DEVIL EGG DILLON 12/16z
  71117.18262      DELIGHT PISTACHIO RESER 6/11z
  71117.18424      POTATO DEVILED EGG DILLON 6/32
  71117.19038      POTATO DEVILED EGG AM CL 6/16z
  71117.85500      POTATO REDSKN TEXAS RESER 3/8#
  73474.01038      SLAW COLE YODER 6/30 oz
  58108.30162      SPEC CARROT/RAISIN CVF 2/8#
  71117.06125      PASTA TRI-ROTINI RSR 6/3.1875#
  71117.15345      POTATO NEW ENGLAND RESER 2/8#
  81131.91687      POTATO REDSKIN WALMART 6/32z
  71117.14177      BEANS SPICY/BOLD MILLER'S 6/3#
  71117.14178      BEANS W/BEEF MILLER'S 12/16z
  71117.19005      POTATO RED SKIN AM CL 6/16z
  71117.14210      SPEC CARROT/RAISIN RESER 2/8#
  71117.16987      DIP CREAMY SPINACH RESER 2/8#
  71117.67273      SPEC CARROT/RAISIN SYSCO 2/8#
  72299.15160      POTATO HOMESTYLE GILES 2/5#
  72299.15260      SLAW AMISH SHREDDED GILES 2/5#
  06795.28683      PASTA CALIFORNIA WC 2/5#
  58108.30148      PASTA CALIFORNIA CVF 2/5#
  58108.30164      PASTA ROTINI CVF 2/8#
  58108.30168      PASTA BOW TIE CVF 2/4.5#
  71117.00556      POTATO BAKED SALAD RESER 2/5#
  71117.11439      KIT SEAFOOD RESER 2/4.9375#
  71117.11464      KIT SEAFOOD SALAD 2/6#
  71117.14807      PASTA TWIST BASE RESER 2/2.5#
  71117.15314      PASTA BOW TIE FLORENTINE 2/4.5
  71117.67307      PASTA ITALIAN SYSCO 2/8#
  74865.79731      PASTA CALIFORNIA SALAD BB 2/5#
  74865.79733      PASTA BOW TIE FLORTNE BB 2/4.5
  81131.91682      SLAW WALMART 12/15z
  81131.91688      SLAW WALMART 6/30z
  71117.14820      KIT BROCCOLI SALAD 2/1.75#
  22486.15888      PASTA ITALIAN SALAD IMA 2/8#
  28919.00237      POTATO SLD TARGET CAD 12/454g
  28919.00239      MACARONI TARGET CAD 12/454g
  41303.82021      SLAW COLE EE 6/15z
  52548.51755      PASTA MEXICAN 7-11 12/7z
  54627.20863      MACARONI CREAMY ELBOW YUM 3/8#
  58108.30146      POTATO DICED w/EGG CVF 2/8#
  58108.30150      POTATO STHRN MUSTARD CVF 2/8#
  58108.30160      MACARONI SC & CHEDDAR CVF 2/8#
  58108.37387      POTATO FAMILY STYLE CVF 2/8#
  71117.14107      POTATO MUSTARD DILLON'S 6/4#
  71117.14256      PASTA ZESTY ROT W/BTN MUSH 2/8
  71117.14270      PASTA CALIFORNIA RESER 2/5#
  71117.14729      RSG. ROTISSERIE CHICKEN 6/32z
  71117.14759      PASTA ITALIAN RESER 2/8#
  71117.15124      SLAW REGULAR RESER 2/7#
  71117.18031      DIP ART/JALAPENO SMK 6/10z
  71117.18233      MACARONI ELBOW DILLON 12/16z
  71117.18234      POTATO DILLON'S 12/16z
  71117.18235      POTATO MUSTARD DILLON'S 12/16z
  71117.18431      POTATO MUSTARD DILLON'S 6/32z
  71117.61586      POTATO SOUTHERN SAM'S 6/4#
  71117.67504      POTATO REGULAR SYSCO 3/8#
  71117.67505      POTATO CLASSIC W/EGG SYSCO 3/8
  71117.67517      POTATO HOMESTYLE SYSCO 1/30#
  71117.67685      SLAW COLE COURSE SYSCO 2/7#
  71117.67687      SLAW SHREDDED SYSCO 2/7#
  74865.79728      PASTA GOUR W/CHDR CHSE BB 2/5#
  81131.91685      POTATO MUSTARD WALMART 6/32z
  81131.91689      BEANS BAKED WALMART 6/32z
  81131.91745      MACARONI AMISH WALMART 6/32z
  81131.91747      POTATO AMISH WALMART 6/32z
  71117.00224      MACARONI HMSTYLE SEASHELL 2/8#
  22486.15885      POTATO SALAD w/EGG IMA 3/8#
  22486.15905      POTATO S STYLE MUSTARD IMA 3/8
  41303.82013      POTATO SALAD ORIG. EE 6/16z
  41303.82014      POTATO SALAD HMSTYLE EE 6/16z
  41303.82016      POTATO SALAD MUSTARD EE 6/16z
  41303.82023      MACARONI CLASSIC EE 6/16z
  41303.82029      MACARONI & CHEDDAR EE 6/16z
  41303.82034      POTATO DEVILED EGG EE 6/16z
  58108.30157      POTATO RED ROYALE CVF 2/8#
  71117.00158      SALSA BLACK BEAN BAJA 2/5#
  71117.00210      POTATO CLASSIC RESER 2/8#
  71117.00213      MACARONI GOUR W/CHS RESER 2/8#
  71117.00214      POTATO SOUTHERN MUST. RSR 3/8#
  71117.00215      POTATO REGULAR RESER 3/8#
  71117.00221      POTATO HOMESTYLE RESER 1/30#
  71117.00485      POTATO RANCH HVR AM CL 2/8#
  71117.00557      POTATO DEVILED EGG RESER 2/8#
  71117.11150      POTATO BAKED CHEFS CHOICE 2/8#
  71117.11588      POTATO ORIGINAL DICKEY'S 3/8#
  71117.14138      PROT TUNA SALAD RESER 2/5#
  71117.14163      PASTA SPIN w/CAVTAPI SFY 2/4.5
  71117.17000      POTATO REGULAR SS 12/3.5z
  71117.17010      MACARONI ELBOW  12/3.5z
  71117.17100      POTATO REGULAR SS 12/5.5z
  71117.18263      DELIGHT AMBROSIA RESER 6/11z
  71117.18339      BEANS SMOKEHOUSE BBQ RSR 6/16z
  71117.19010      PROT SEAFOOD SALAD AM CL 6/12z
  71117.19014      SLAW CHOPPED AM CL 6/15z
  71117.19044      MACARONI AMISH AM CL 6/16z
  71117.19045      POTATO AMISH SLD AM CL 6/16z K
  71117.19047      POTATO SALAD HVR AM CL 6/16z
  71117.19300      POTATO ORIGINAL AM CL 6/3#
  71117.19303      POTATO MUSTARD AM CL 6/3#
  71117.19315      MACARONI AMISH AM CL 6/3#
  71117.19316      POTATO AMISH SLD AM CL 6/3#
  71117.19318      POTATO SALAD HVR AM CL 6/3#
  71117.61502      POTATO LOADED w/BACON SMK 6/3#
  71117.61581      SLAW COLE HOMESTYLE RSR 6/4.5#
  71117.65135      POTATO DICED W/EGG 3/8#
  71117.67120      POTATO REG. DELI DESIGN 6/3#
  71117.80400      SPEC CRANBRY/ORANGE SALAD 2/8#
  73474.01039      POTATO AMISH YODER 6/32 oz
  73474.01045      MACARONI AMISH YODER 6/32 oz
  73474.01046      POTATO AMERICAN YODER 6/32 oz
  73474.01047      POTATO MUSTARD YODER 6/32 oz
  73474.01048      MACARONI DELI MATE YODER 6/32z
  73474.55009      POTATO AMERICAN YODER 2/5#
  73474.55010      POTATO MUSTARD YODER 2/5#
  71117.00225      POTATO DEVILED EGG RESER 2/8#
  71117.00265      COOKIES & CREAM RESER 2/6#
  71117.00446      SLAW AMISH RESER 2/7#
  71117.00480      POTATO DEVILED EGG AM CL 6/3#
  71117.14251      PASTA ROMA FETA RESER 2/5#
  71117.15190      SLAW OIL AND VINEGAR 2/9#
  21130.06741      POTATO R SKN w/DILL SFY 12/16z
  71117.15345      POTATO NEW ENGLAND RESER 2/8#
  81131.91681      POTATO REDSKIN WALMART 12/16z
  81131.91687      POTATO REDSKIN WALMART 6/32z
  71117.19005      POTATO RED SKIN AM CL 6/16z
  72299.15870      SPEC APPLES SPICED GILES 2/5#
  58108.30151      POTATO COUNTRY STYLE CVF 2/8#
  58108.30158      SPEC CUCUMBER SALAD CVF 2/8#
  71117.14106      POTATO DILLON'S 6/4#
  71117.14107      POTATO MUSTARD DILLON'S 6/4#
  71117.14135      SPEC 4-BEAN SALAD RESER 2/5#
  71117.14743      BASE ROTISSERIE CHICKEN 6/2#
  71117.18042      DIP CREAMY SPINACH SMK 6/11z
  71117.19012      PROT TUNA SALAD AM CL 6/12z
  71117.67546      POTATO COUNTRY SYSCO 3/8#
  71117.67780      POTATO MUSTARD GOURMET SYS 3/8
  71117.67785      POTATO MUSTARD CLASSIC SYS 3/8
  74865.79728      PASTA GOUR W/CHDR CHSE BB 2/5#
  79453.46925      POTATO SLD SLCD STKHSE OK 2/5#
  81131.91678      POTATO ORIGINAL WALMART 12/16z
  81131.91686      MACARONI WALMART 6/32z
  81131.91690      POTATO REGULAR WALMART 6/4#
  81131.91691      POTATO MUSTARD WALMART 6/4#
  81131.91745      MACARONI AMISH WALMART 6/32z
  81131.91747      POTATO AMISH WALMART 6/32z
  21130.06716      POTATO CLASSIC SFWY SS 12/5.5z
  71117.06035      DRSG. CHICKEN SLD RESER 5/4#
  22486.15883      POTATO HOMESTYLE DLXE IMA 3/8#
  41303.82013      POTATO SALAD ORIG. EE 6/16z
  41303.82016      POTATO SALAD MUSTARD EE 6/16z
  41303.82023      MACARONI CLASSIC EE 6/16z
  41303.82029      MACARONI & CHEDDAR EE 6/16z
  71117.00162      POTATO REG PARTY-PACK RSR 6/4#
  71117.00189      POTATO COUNTRY RESER 3/8#
  71117.00193      DELIGHT AMBROSIA RESER 2/8#
  71117.00219      POTATO HOMESTYLE RESER 3/8#
  71117.00223      POTATO ORIGINAL RESER 3/4#
  71117.00224      MACARONI HMSTYLE SEASHELL 2/8#
  71117.00227      POTATO MUSTARD RESER 3/4#
  71117.00258      POTATO MUSTARD CLASSIC 3/8#
  71117.00278      POTATO REGULAR RESER 2/10#
  71117.00286      MACARONI ELBOW RESER 3/4#
  71117.06103      DRSG. COLE SLAW 18/20z
  71117.14283      SPEC CUKE & ONION 2/8#
  71117.17000      POTATO REGULAR SS 12/3.5z
  71117.17010      MACARONI ELBOW 12/3.5z
  71117.17100      POTATO REGULAR SS 12/5.5z
  71117.19000      POTATO ORIGINAL AM CL 12/16z
  71117.64600      POTATO OLD FASH KNG SOOPR 3/4#
  71117.64605      MACARONI ELBOW K SOOPER 3/4#
  71117.64640      POTATO MUSTARD KING SOOPR 3/4#
  71117.67121      POTATO MUST. DELI DESIGN 6/3#
  71117.67122      MACARONI ELBW DELI DESIGN 6/3#
  71117.80400      SPEC CRANBRY/ORANGE SALAD 2/8#
  73474.01047      POTATO MUSTARD YODER 6/32 oz
  41303.82019      POTATO SALAD MUSTARD EE 6/3#
  41303.82020      POTATO SALAD ORIGINAL EE 6/3#
  71117.00215      POTATO REGULAR RESER 3/8#
  71117.18405      MACARONI ELBOW RESER 6/32z
  06795.28683      PASTA CALIFORNIA WC 2/5#
  58108.30148      PASTA CALIFORNIA CVF 2/5#
  71117.00556      POTATO BAKED SALAD RESER 2/5#
  71117.11396      PROT SEAFOOD DELUXE RESER 2/5#
  71117.11439      KIT SEAFOOD RESER 2/4.9375#
  71117.14807      PASTA TWIST BASE RESER 2/2.5#
  71117.67307      PASTA ITALIAN SYSCO 2/8#
  74865.79721      PROT TUNA DELUXE SLD BB 2/5#
  74865.79731      PASTA CALIFORNIA SALAD BB 2/5#
  74865.79736      PROT SEAFOOD DLX SALAD BB 2/5#
  22486.15888      PASTA ITALIAN SALAD IMA 2/8#
  41303.82021      SLAW COLE EE 6/15z
  71117.11586      POTATO LOADED BAKED RESER 2/5#
  71117.14270      PASTA CALIFORNIA RESER 2/5#
  71117.15124      SLAW REGULAR RESER 2/7#
  71117.67685      SLAW COLE COURSE SYSCO 2/7#
  71117.85506      PROT TUNA GOURMET RESER 2/5#
  06795.28681      SLAW COLE CLASSIC WC 2/4.75#
  58108.30149      PROT CHIX SALAD CVF 2/5#
  71117.00485      POTATO RANCH HVR AM CL 2/8#
  71117.00486      PASTA BCN RANCH HVR AM CL 2/8#
  71117.00557      POTATO DEVILED EGG RESER 2/8#
  71117.11392      PROT CHIX CRANBERRY/PECAN 2/5#
  71117.11587      POTATO O.F. DILL DICKEY'S 2/5#
  71117.18274      DELIGHT CRANBERY AMBROSIA 6/9z
  71117.19008      PROT CHIX SALAD AM CL 6/12z
  71117.19010      PROT SEAFOOD SALAD AM CL 6/12z
  71117.19047      POTATO SALAD HVR AM CL 6/16z
  71117.68007      PROT CHIX SYSCO 2/5#
  73474.55031      POTATO MY PREMIER 2/5#
  73474.55032      POTATO MUSTARD MY PREMIER 2/5#
  73474.99042      SPEC BEAN KIDNEY SALAD DS 2/5#
  74865.79725      POTATO RD SKN W/SC&DILL BB 2/5
  79453.21477      PASTA ITAL STYL ZITI OK 2/4.5#
  81131.91755      PROT TUNA SLD WALMART 12/12z
  21130.06688      POTATO DEVILED EGG SFWY 12/16z
  21130.06731      POTATO PICNIC SAFEWAY 12/16z
  22486.15887      PROT CHIX SALAD IMA 2/5#
  71117.00225      POTATO DEVILED EGG RESER 2/8#
  71117.00272      STRAWBERRIES & CREAM RSR 2/6#
  71117.00400      POTATO BAKED SALAD RESER 2/8#
  71117.11400      PROT CHIX RESER 2/5#
  71117.11446      KIT RED POTATO W/BC&BCN 2/5.5#
  71117.14251      PASTA ROMA FETA RESER 2/5#
  71117.18262      DELIGHT PISTACHIO RESER 6/11z
  71117.85500      POTATO REDSKN TEXAS RESER 3/8#
  77509.63308      PROT CHICKEN/CRAN/PECAN 6/12z
  21130.06741      POTATO R SKN w/DILL SFY 12/16z
  71117.15345      POTATO NEW ENGLAND RESER 2/8#
  71117.16902      PROT SEAFOOD SALAD RESER 2/5#
  81131.91681      POTATO REDSKIN WALMART 12/16z
  81131.91687      POTATO REDSKIN WALMART 6/32z
  71117.00281      BEANS CAROLINA BBQ w/MEAT 2/5#
  71117.14177      BEANS SPICY/BOLD MILLER'S 6/3#
  71117.14179      BEANS W/BEEF MILLER'S 6/3#
  72299.15260      SLAW AMISH SHREDDED GILES 2/5#
  06795.28677      MACARONI ELBOW WC 2/5#
  58108.30145      PROT TUNA SALAD CVF 2/5#
  58108.30146      POTATO DICED w/EGG CVF 2/8#
  58108.30151      POTATO COUNTRY STYLE CVF 2/8#
  58108.30159      POTATO MUSTARD DICED CVF 2/8#
  58108.30166      PROT HAM SALAD CVF 2/5#
  71117.11428      KIT HONEY DRSG F & NUTS 6/40z
  71117.14135      SPEC 4-BEAN SALAD RESER 2/5#
  71117.14139      PROT HAM SLD SUPREME RSR 2/5#
  71117.18233      MACARONI ELBOW DILLON 12/16z
  71117.18234      POTATO DILLON'S 12/16z
  71117.18235      POTATO MUSTARD DILLON'S 12/16z
  71117.19012      PROT TUNA SALAD AM CL 6/12z
  71117.67505      POTATO CLASSIC W/EGG SYSCO 3/8
  71117.67513      MACARONI HOMESTYLE SYSCO 3/8#
  71117.67546      POTATO COUNTRY SYSCO 3/8#
  71117.68049      PROT TUNA SALAD SYSCO 2/5#
  74865.79728      PASTA GOUR W/CHDR CHSE BB 2/5#
  81131.91679      POTATO MUSTARD WALMART 12/16z
  81131.91685      POTATO MUSTARD WALMART 6/32z
  81131.91744      MACARONI AMISH WALMART 12/16z
  21130.06685      POTATO CLASSIC SAFEWAY 12/16z
  21130.06686      MACARONI CLASSIC SFWAY 12/16z
  21130.06689      POTATO MUSTARD SAFEWAY 12/16z
  1303.82023       MACARONI CLASSIC EE 6/16z
  41303.82029      MACARONI & CHEDDAR EE 6/16z
  71117.00189      POTATO COUNTRY RESER 3/8#
  71117.00193      DELIGHT AMBROSIA RESER 2/8#
  71117.00212      POTATO MUSTARD RESER 3/8#
  71117.00224      MACARONI HMSTYLE SEASHELL 2/8#
  71117.00278      POTATO REGULAR RESER 2/10#
  71117.00286      MACARONI ELBOW RESER 3/4#
  71117.00288      MACARONI HMSTYLE ELBOW RSR 3/8
  71117.11402      PROT HAM RESER 2/5#
  71117.14172      BEANS SMOKEHOUSE BBQ 2/8#
  71117.14282      DELIGHT HAWAIIAN RESER 2/6#
  71117.18263      DELIGHT AMBROSIA RESER 6/11z
  71117.18330      POTATO ORIGINAL RESER 12/16z
  71117.18334      POTATO MUSTARD RESER 12/16z
  71117.18335      MACARONI ELBOW RESER 12/16z
  71117.19000      POTATO ORIGINAL AM CL 12/16z
  71117.19300      POTATO ORIGINAL AM CL 6/3#
  71117.19303      POTATO MUSTARD AM CL 6/3#
  71117.19305      MACARONI SALAD AM CL 6/3#
  71117.19316      POTATO AMISH SLD AM CL 6/3#  K
  71117.61650      POTATO REGULAR SAM'S 6/5#
  71117.64605      MACARONI ELBOW K SOOPER 3/4#
  71117.65135      POTATO DICED W/EGG 3/8#
  71117.80400      SPEC CRANBRY/ORANGE SALAD 2/8#
  73474.55010      POTATO MUSTARD YODER 2/5#
  73474.55015      MACARONI YODER 2/5#
  71117.00215      POTATO REGULAR RESER 3/8#
  71117.06102      DRSG. BROCCOLI RESER 18/18z
  71117.00266      SPEC 4-BEAN RESER 2/8#
  71117.17050      DIP RANCH SS 12/4z
  51933.19720      PIMENTO SPRD SAV-A-LOT 12/12z
  71117.00003      PIMENTO SPREAD MRS WEAVR 12/7z
  71117.00134      SALSA PICO DE GALLO 2/5#
  71117.02793      PIMENTO SPRD MRS WEAVER 6/24z
  71117.02793      PIMENTO SPRD MRS WEAVER 6/24z
  71117.14752      DRSG. COLE SLAW RESER 2/4#
  71117.02400      PIMENTO SPRD MRS WEAVR 12/12z
  71117.02793      PIMENTO SPRD MRS WEAVER 6/24z
  71117.15235      PARFAIT STRAWBERRY RESER 2/8#

Canadian Distribution

  71117.18244      SLAW CRUNCHY CAD 12/425g
  71117.61225      SLAW CRUNCHY RSR CAD 6/1.25kg
  71117.61251      POTATO HOMESTYLE CAD 6/454g
  71117.61254      SLAW OIL/VINEGAR CAD 6/425g
  71117.00164      POTATO GOURMET CAD 6/1.81kg
  71117.61209      POTATO GOURMET RED CAD 12/340g
  71117.61252      POTATO DEVILED EGG CAD 6/454g
  71117.61629      POTATO HMS RED CAD 6/2.27kg
  71117.61206      DIP CREAMY SPINACH CAD 12/454g
  71117.18241      MACARONI CHEESY CAD 12/454g
  71117.61227      MACARONI CHEESY CAD 6/1.25kg
  71117.18240      MACARONI ELBOW CAD 12/454g
  71117.18242      POTATO SALAD CAD 12/454g
  71117.18243      POTATO w/EGG CAD 12/454g
  71117.61320      POTATO SLD CAD 6/1.25kg
  71117.61321      POTATO w/EGG CAD 6/1.25kg
  71117.61322      MACARONI REG CAD 6/1.25kg
  71117.00164      POTATO GOURMET CAD 6/1.81kg
  71117.61629      POTATO HMS RED CAD 6/2.27kg
  71117.61206      DIP CREAMY SPINACH CAD 12/454g
  71117.61227      MACARONI CHEESY CAD 6/1.25kg
  71117.61322      MACARONI REG CAD 6/1.25kg
  71117.00164      POTATO GOURMET CAD 6/1.81kg
  71117.61252      POTATO DEVILED EGG CAD 6/454g
  71117.61629      POTATO HMS RED CAD 6/2.27kg
  71117.18240      MACARONI ELBOW CAD 12/454g
  71117.18243      POTATO w/EGG CAD 12/454g
  71117.61320      POTATO SLD CAD 6/1.25kg
  71117.61321      POTATO w/EGG CAD 6/1.25kg


REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Berger & Montague Files Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Berger & Montague, P.C. and Kreindler & Kreindler
LLP have filed a class action Complaint in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court on behalf of investors in Rexford Industrial Fund
III, LLC, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the
California Corporate Securities Laws of 1968, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud on the part of the managers of
Rexford III in connection with a July 2013 rollup transaction
where Units of Rexford III were converted into shares or Units
convertible into shares of Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc.

Rexford III was a California Limited Liability Company formed in
2005 for the purpose of investing in Southern California
industrial real estate.  From 2005 to 2013, it was managed by
Rexford Industrial, LLC.  In 2013, the principals of Rexford
Industrial, LLC initiated a transaction through which the Units of
Rexford III would be converted into common shares (or Units
convertible into common shares) of a new publicly traded Real
Estate Investment Trust, Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that the rollup transaction resulted in the
Rexford III investors losing over 95% of the value of their
capital investments, while the three principal officers of Rexford
Industrial, LLC received shares worth over $42 million.  The
Complaint further alleges that Rexford Industrial, LLC and its
three principals breached their fiduciary duties to the Unit
Holders of Rexford III by arranging for a rollup transaction that
resulted in the huge losses, grossly undervalued Rexford III and
unlawfully overvalued the interests of the manager and affiliated
entities.  It further alleges that the same defendants are also
liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation for their role in
drafting or disseminating disclosure documents through which
investors' consent to the rollup transaction was procured.  As
alleged in the Complaint, those documents did not disclose either
the value of the consideration that Rexford III Unit Holders would
receive, or the amount by which the principals of Rexford
Industrial, LLC would be enriched, and they were otherwise
materially misleading.

The attorneys listed below represent the plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          Russell Paul, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 800-424-6690
          E-mail: info@bm.net
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com

               - and -

          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
          Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
          KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 622-6469
          E-mail: gnelson@kreindler.com
                  gbarenfeld@kreindler.com
          Web site: http://www.kreindler.com

Berger & Montague, P.C., founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class
action litigation and have extensive expert in securities
litigation and a long track record of success in such cases.  The
firm's 60 attorneys concentrate their practice in complex
litigation, including securities fraud, whistleblower and false
claims actions and have recovered several billion dollars for
consumers and investors.

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, based in Los Angeles, also concentrate
their practice in class action and multi-district litigation.


SIM PROPERTIES: Judge Reschedules Tenant Class Action Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge
rescheduled a motion hearing regarding defendant SIM Properties'
motion to dismiss a proposed class action after the plaintiffs
failed to appear.

Judge Mudge set the hearing for Nov. 1 at 9:00 a.m.  The original
hearing was scheduled for Oct. 2.  Judge Mudge stated the case
would be dismissed for want of prosecution if they fail to appear
again.

On Sept. 6, Judge Mudge granted Maag Law Firm's motion to withdraw
as counsel for the plaintiffs and allowed all other attorneys to
withdraw if interested.  He then granted the plaintiffs 21 days to
enter their appearance pro se or with new counsel.  They were to
appear on Oct. 4, but the hearing was continued.

According to the complaint filed in January, plaintiffs Ronald and
Dorothy Jones filed a lawsuit against SIM Properties in
Edwardsville and its employee Idrees Muhammad claiming their home
in Edwardsville had been entered without their consent and their
possessions had been unlawfully removed.

The plaintiffs also accuse the company of unlawfully charging them
a $5 penalty per day in late fees.  They are acting individually
and on behalf of other SIM tenants.

SIM Properties filed its motion to dismiss on March 21 through
attorney Jeffery A. Cain -- jcain@freeark.com -- of Freeark,
Harvey & Mendillo in Belleville, arguing that the complaint fails
to identify by location or address the "residential property"
allegedly involved. SIM also states that the complaint fails to
contain a plain and concise statement as to whether the plaintiffs
are attempting to state a cause of action for trespass to personal
property or real property.

The plaintiffs are currently acting pro se.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-161


SUNNY PINE: Recalls Chevre Cheese Due to Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Sunny Pine Farm of Twisp, Washington is voluntarily recalling
Organic Chevre, Organic Parsley Chive Chevre and Organic Honey
Lavender Chevre due to possible improper pasteurization.
Pasteurization heats milk to effectively eliminate all illness-
causing bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella.
Sunny Pine Farm does not know of any illness or complaints
associated with the recalled Chevre cheese.

The recalled Chevre cheeses were sold in plastic 6 oz tubs in the
Twisp-Winthrop area in Washington State.  Recalled Chevre cheese
sold through community supported agriculture (CSA) and retail
outlets have an expiration date of 10/16/2013 on a sticker located
on the bottom of the container.

Chevre cheese products sold at Methow Valley Farmers Market (aka
Twisp Farmers Market) between 7/27/13 and 10/12/13 are also
recalled.  These products were not labeled with an expiration
date.

Washington State Department of Agriculture discovered inadequate
pasteurization records during a routine inspection.  A review of
the pasteurization recorder charts did not prove adequate time for
pasteurization.  The recorder chart may have not been operating
correctly.  While it's possible the products were adequately
pasteurized, Sunny Pine Farm has made the decision to recall any
products which could affect consumer safety.  While producing
organic goat cheese since 2007 Sunny Pine Farm has not received
any complaints of illness from customers nor has there been any
products recalls before this one.

Consumers who have purchased these products should not consume
them and are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund or replacement.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 509-997-4812 between 8AM and 6PM PST.


UNITED STATES: Over 100 Christian Ministries File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Bohon, writing for The New American, reports that over 100
Christian ministries have filed a class-action lawsuit to stop the
implementation of the mandate of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) requiring employers to provide free
contraceptives -- including abortion-causing drugs -- to their
employees.  The ministries, which all provide health benefits to
their employees through the Southern Baptist Convention's (SBC)
GuideStone Financial Resources, do not qualify for the exemption
that HHS offers to churches and a few narrowly defined religious
organizations.

Three non-profit religious organizations are named as complainants
in the suit against the mandate, filed by the Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty: GuideStone, the SBC's benefits arm, which has
been providing retirement and health benefits to Southern Baptist
churches and affiliated ministries for nearly a century; Reaching
Souls International, a nonprofit evangelistic ministry with
outreaches to Africa, India, and Cuba; and Truett-McConnell
College, a Baptist higher education institution in Cleveland,
Georgia.

The two non-profits represent the class of over 100 organizations
that provide their employee health benefits through GuideStone,
all of which are on a collision course with exorbitant federal
fines if they do not compromise their Christian convictions and
begin to offer the free contraceptives -- including abortifacient
drugs -- to their workers.  The deadline to comply with the
mandate is January 1, 2014.

"The government's refusal to treat these ministries as 'religious
employers' is senseless," said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the
Becket Fund.  "These people spend their lives teaching and
preaching their religious faith.  If they do not qualify as
'religious employers,' the government needs to get a new
definition."

O.S. Hawkins, GuideStone's president and CEO, said in a prepared
statement that "the very purpose of the GuideStone plan is to
provide ministry organizations with employee health benefits
according to biblical principles.  The government shouldn't
prohibit us from continuing in that ministry."

Hawkins emphasized that GuideStone health plans "do not cover
drugs or devices that can or do cause abortions."  He said that
his group "reluctantly" filed the lawsuit "because we are
committed to protecting the unborn and preserving the religious
freedom that is guaranteed under the laws of this nation. This
mandate runs rough-shod over these foundational principles."

He noted that since the mandate was announced and HHS moved
forward with its implementation, "GuideStone has diligently
pursued a number of avenues with Congress and the Administration
to protect those we serve.  While we have secured some partial
relief, it does not go far enough.  Many ministry organizations
are still in harm's way despite the fact that they also share core
convictions regarding the sanctity of life."

Reaching Souls International, founded in 1986 by an SBC pastor,
trains and provides support to indigenous Christian ministers in
India, Africa, and Cuba. The group also rescues orphans in the
countries and places them in loving homes. The organization says
it has impacted over 20 million people through its services in the
past 27 years.  The organization faces at least $365,000 per year
in federal fines if it does not comply with the HHS mandate.

Addressing the contraception mandate issue, Dustin Manis, Reaching
Souls' CEO, said that "because everyone is made in the image of
God, even the most vulnerable people in society should be
respected, served, and loved.  That's why Reaching Souls is
committed to reaching the neediest people with the gospel and
caring for orphaned children, and it's why we believe that human
life should be protected from conception.  We want to offer a
health plan that reflects those commitments."

Founded in 1946, Georgia's Truett-McConnell College provides over
700 students per year with a "biblically centered" education. The
school faces nearly $3 million per year in federal fines if it
does not comply with the mandate.  "We teach our students what it
means to think biblically about all areas of life," said Dr. Emir
Caner, president of Truett-McConnell.  "We can't tell them that
human life is sacred from the time of conception and then turn
around and offer health benefits that are inextricably linked to
providing abortion-causing drugs."

The class-action lawsuit represents at least the 74th suit filed
against the contraception mandate by religious non-profits as well
as private companies whose owners are opposed to being forced to
provide abortion-inducing drugs to their employees.  The lawsuit
being led by the Becket Fund seeks a preliminary injunction
blocking enforcement of the mandate until judicial actions are
completed.

The SBC's Baptist Press News reported that "the U.S. Supreme Court
is expected to announce soon if it will review lower court
decisions regarding the abortion/contraception mandate.  Both the
Department of Justice and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a
Pennsylvania business owned by pro-life Christians, asked the high
court September 19 to review separate decisions that clashed at
the appeals court level.  The DOJ petition came in an appeal won
by Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma City-based retail chain owned by pro-
life evangelicals."

Should it review either or both cases, the High Court would likely
hear arguments in early 2014 and announce its decision next
summer.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, reports that Wal-Mart Stores
Inc.'s policy to not employ pharmacists who have faced
disciplinary action by a state pharmacy board discriminates
against disabled workers in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, says a proposed class action filed on Oct. 22 in
a Washington federal court.

Worker James H. Bryant filed the suit after he was allegedly fired
from his job as a staff pharmacist at Wal-Mart after the company
instituted a policy in 2011 not to employ pharmacists with a
history of adverse actions taken against their state licenses.

Mr. Bryant's Washington state pharmacy license was suspended for
five years because of an addiction he had to prescription drugs,
according to the suit.  It was reinstated after he completed a
rehabilitation program before joining Wal-Mart.

Mr. Bryant, who wants to represent a class of workers and job
candidates, argued that Wal-Mart's policy discriminates against
disabled employees and potential employees who have recovered from
past problems with drug or alcohol, or chemical dependency.

"This policy discriminates against disabled employees because it
screens out or tends to screen out qualified individuals with
disabilities, i.e., who have been addicted to alcohol or drugs,
and/or have a record of chemical or alcohol dependency, and who
have successfully participated in a supervised rehabilitation
program," the complaint said.

In response to the lawsuit, Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said
in a statement on Oct. 22 the policy at issue was implemented to
ensure customer safety.

"Pharmacists whose record with the state pharmacy board showed
disciplinary action had been taken against them for inappropriate
conduct, such as theft or diversion of drugs, addiction to and
abuse of prescription drugs or other activities which may have put
patients at risk, were no longer eligible to work for us,"
Hargrove said.  "Mr. Bryan was a pharmacist terminated under this
program."

According to the complaint, Mr. Bryant received his pharmacy
license in 1996 but by 2002 he had become addicted to prescription
drugs.  That year his license was suspended and he underwent a
supervised rehabilitation program with the Washington Recovery
Assistance Program for Pharmacists.

In 2007, after Mr. Bryant's license was reinstated, he started
working for Wal-Mart stores in central Washington, first as a
pharmacy intern and then as a staff pharmacist, the complaint
said.  Wal-Mart was aware of Mr. Bryant's prior drug addiction and
license suspension, he said.

In October 2011, Wal-Mart fired Mr. Bryant after instituting a
nationwide policy that "anyone with a history of adverse action by
a board of pharmacy would no longer be eligible for employment."

Mr. Bryant alleged this policy has a disparate impact on
individuals who are recovered addicts because many others have
been fired from or denied employment at Wal-Mart's pharmacies.

"Wal-Mart's policy and practice has deprived qualified individuals
with disabilities of employment and employment opportunities,
which has resulted in the loss of past and future wages and other
job benefits," the complaint said.  "Wal-Mart has displayed a
reckless disregard and/or callous disregard for the federally
protected rights of the class."

Wal-Mart has approximately 10,900 stores under 69 different names
in 27 countries.

Plaintiff James H. Bryant is represented by Daniel F. Johnson --
djohnson@bjtlegal.com -- of Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC and
Jeffrey Needle of the Law Office of Jeffrey L. Needle.

Counsel information for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was not immediately
available.

The case is Bryant v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case No. 3:13-cv-05934
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
at Tacoma.


* Asbestos, Class-Action Among Leading Lawsuit Trends, ILR Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) on Oct. 23
identified asbestos, class-action, data privacy, and False Claims
Act lawsuits among the leading lawsuit trends, in a paper released
at its 14th Annual Legal Reform Summit.  The first-of-its-kind
large-scale survey of lawsuits, The New Lawsuit Ecosystem --
Trends, Targets, and Players, details litigation trends, and the
growing alliance between state attorneys general and plaintiffs'
lawyers.

"This broad look at the lawsuit ecosystem demonstrates that
litigation abuse remains a multi-billion dollar industry with
plaintiffs' lawyers constantly searching for new profit centers,"
said Lisa A. Rickard, president of ILR.  "Abusive lawsuits rarely
benefit anyone other than the lawyers who file them, and drain
millions of dollars from business expansion and the creation of
new jobs."

The New Lawsuit Ecosystem also identifies the industries most
frequently targeted by emerging theories of liability, and for the
first time names the individual plaintiffs' lawyers behind the
litigation.

At the Summit, ILR also released research related to False Claims
Act reforms at the state and federal levels, closing loopholes for
class action abuse, making the case for state-based legal reforms,
and third-party litigation financing in Australia.

At the Summit, ILR honored key individuals and organizations who
are working to improve America's litigation environment with its
annual Legal Reform Awards.

In addition, the Oct. 23 Summit was held in conjunction with ILR's
15th anniversary.

"Over the last 15 years, we made great progress in stabilizing our
broken legal system, but we must remain vigilant as certain
problems have persisted and new ones have emerged," said
Ms. Rickard.  "From challenges in state legislatures and taking on
jackpot jurisdictions, to combating an explosion of arbitrary
federal enforcement activity, only by remaining proactive and
persistent can we continue to heal the lawsuit system."

To view a full list of research released and award recipients,
visit http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com
Join the conversation via Twitter using hashtag #ILRSummit.

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,
state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state
and local chambers and industry associations.


                             *********

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  * * *