CAR_Public/131031.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 31, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 216

                             Headlines



ADOBE SYSTEMS: Judge Certifies Class in "No-Poach" Suit
AGROPUR DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Quebon Milk from Montreal Plant
AMERICAN EQUITY: Reaches Prelim. Class Action Settlement Agreement
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Sued by Beck's Beer Consumers in Florida
ATP OIL: "Stackhouse" Suit Transferred From Texas to Louisiana

BANK OF AMERICA: Subprime Loan Suit Ruling May Spur Class Actions
BIOSCRIP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
BP PLC: Attorneys Linked to Settlement Payout Fraud Fight Back
BRANCH BANKING: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss ADA Class Action
CANADIAN NATURAL: Recalls Mrs. Crimble's Macaroons Due to Allergen

CLIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Flavored Marshmallow Due to Allergen
COACH AMERICA: P/E Firm Ducks Bus Driver's Employment Suit
DGSE COMPANIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
FAMILY DOLLAR: Ruling Highlights Lower-Court Rejection Trend
FERRARINI USA: Recalls 15,118 Pounds of Salami Products

FRITO-LAY: Judge Trims Class Action Over Nutrition Label
GARDEN FRESH: Recalls Ready-to-Eat Chicken and Ham Products
GOOGLE INC: Judge Okays Settlement in Shareholder Stock Split Suit
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Settles Misleading Advertising Class Action
HOMEOLAB USA: Sued Over Misleading Marketing of Kids Relief Brand

ITFC IMPORTERS: Recalls Aslan Chocolate Golbon Hazelnut
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Residential MBS Suit for $5.1 Billion
JUSTICE COMMISSIONED: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over Mental Health Care
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Seaquest Frozen Bay Scallops

LONE STAR WHEEL: Fails to Pay OT; Tells Employees to Use Aliases
LOREAL USA: Models File Class Action Over Image Use in Ads
LORILLARD TOBACCO: Florida Jury Awards $3.5MM Mesothelioma Damages
LUMINA HEALTH: New Jersey Judge Refuses to Remand Class Action
MCCABE ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Suit Over 2013 PGA Championship

MERCK & CO: Incretin Products MDL Moves Forward in California
MONDELEZ INT'L: Plaintiff Appealed Dismissal of "Manchouck" Suit
NATROL INC: Health Benefit Claims Are False, Suit Says
NOVO NORDISK: Recalls NovoMix30 FlexPen & Penfill Treatments
NVIDIA CORP: Court Approves Class Action Settlement Over GPUs

OKLAHOMA: Foster Home Recruitment Data Inaccurate, Experts Say
PERDUE FARMS: Faces Second Class Action Over "Humane" Claims
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Salad Products Over Listeria Risk
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Additional Chicken, Ham and Beef Products
RESER'S FINE FOODS: Expands Recall of Ready-to-Eat Foods

RHYTHM & HUES: Gets Nod for $1 Million Workers Deal
SSM HEALTH CARE: Judge Approves $3.5MM Class Action Settlement
STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Faces Setback in Fight Against TCPA Class Action
STRATASYS INC: Settles Stockholder Suit
STRATEGIC REALTY: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO

TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Broccoli Salad Kits
THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Judge Denies Class Certification
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Sudden-Acceleration Case for $3 Million
VECTOR GROUP: Enters Into Settlement on Engle Tobacco Litigation
VERGER BELLIVEAU: Recalls Sweet Apple Cider Products

* FDA Asks Pet Owners, Vets to Send Jerky Treat Samples, Info


                             *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Judge Certifies Class in "No-Poach" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that in one of
Silicon Valley's most closely watched cases, a federal judge on
Oct. 24 certified a class of more than 60,000 skilled workers who
accuse Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Intel Corp.
of illegally suppressing their pay through a conspiracy not to
compete for each other's employees.

"This court could not identify a case at the class certification
stage with the level of documentary evidence plaintiffs have
presented," wrote U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern
District of California.

Her 86-page order is a victory for plaintiffs and their attorneys
at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and the Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, who have alleged an "overarching conspiracy" between 2005
and 2009 limiting competition for employees among the Valley's
largest companies.

"It's a significant milestone in our prosecution," Joseph Saveri
said on Oct. 25, adding, "I think it's fair to say that everything
we have said in our complaint we've been able to validate."

Robert Van Nest -- rvannest@kvn.com -- who argued the motion for
the defendants, declined to comment.

Lieff Cabraser's Kelly Dermody and Mr. Saveri brought the suit a
year after the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division
filed a complaint in 2010 against the same four defendants as well
as Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm and Pixar.  The seven corporations
settled the government suit without admitting wrongdoing but
agreed to end coordination of their recruitment and hiring
policies.

Last month, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to pay a combined
$20 million to settle the civil antitrust claims.  According to
the plaintiffs' court filings, the four remaining corporate
defendants employed about 92 percent of the class, with Intel
workers representing the largest portion of the class.

Plaintiffs' recent victory also marks a reversal of fortune for
plaintiffs.

In April, Judge Koh rejected their first push for certification,
pointing to a lack of evidence that the so-called no poach pacts
hurt salaries across a broad swath of employees, but she gave
plaintiffs a chance to amend their motion using a trove of
deposition testimony and internal company communications.

Plaintiffs trimmed their class from about 100,000 employees to
approximately 60,000, focusing on the most highly skilled workers
-- the so-called technical class, consisting of employees from
computer programmers and engineers to digital and graphic artists.

At an August hearing on certification, Judge Koh said that the
evidence in the case was stronger.  Still, she seemed at least
partially persuaded by arguments made by Google attorney Van Nest
of Keker & Van Nest, who emphasized a wide variation in pay across
the companies -- a fact, he argued, that showed signs of healthy
competition for workers rather than the rigid pay structure
plaintiffs had alleged.

Ultimately, Judge Koh found the new evidence convincing, citing in
her order declarations and depositions of executives and emails
exchanged among the heads of those companies.  The order makes
several references to the role played by deceased Apple founder
Steve Jobs, who emerges from her order as an aggressive enforcer,
if not ringleader, of the conspiracy to suppress employee wages.

Testimony that she cites depicts Mr. Jobs as "very adamant about
protecting his employee force" from other defendants.  In fact,
according to a declaration by Edward Colligan, former president
and CEO of Palm Inc., Mr. Jobs threatened Mr. Colligan that if he
did not agree to the pact, "Palm could face lawsuits alleging
infringement of Apple's many patents."  Mr. Colligan refused, and
Palm was not part of the alleged conspiracy.

Referencing that declaration and similar allegations, Judge Koh
wrote, "Plaintiffs' evidence suggests not only that the
antisolicitation agreements eliminated a key tool of recruitment,
cold calling, but also that the impact of this elimination
affected the entire technical class."

Judge Koh's order also emphasizes the class' satisfaction of new
requirements imposed by recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, including
Walmart v. Dukes, Comcast v. Behrend and Amgen v. Connecticut
Retirement Plans.

Kelly Dermody, a partner leading the case for Lieff Cabraser,
called Judge Koh's review of those precedents "comprehensive and
careful."

"She needed to see evidence that we weren't just making
inferences" about common harms across the class, said Ms. Dermody.

Cohen Milstein partner Joseph Sellers --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- who represented plaintiffs in Dukes,
said he thought Judge Koh's order was "a fair interpretation of
the legacy of the Walmart and Comcast decisions. I think she's
wisely making reference to the Supreme Court's authority.  And
that this case found that those requirements were satisfied."

Referencing Dukes and Comcast in light of Judge Koh's order
granting certification, Sellers added, "They clearly do not spell
the end of class actions, as some have predicted."


AGROPUR DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Quebon Milk from Montreal Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Agropur
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

   -- Quebon White Milk Carton formats: 150 ml, 200 ml, 473 ml,
      1 litre, 2 litres and Bags formats: 4 litres, 10 litres,
      20 litres, Products Skim, 1%, 2%, 3.25%;

   -- Quebon Chocolate Milk Carton formats: 200 ml, 473 ml,
      Products: Chocolate Milk; and

   -- Quebon White and Chocolate Milk Plastic formats: 473 ml,
      2 litres Products: Skim, 1%, 2%, 3.25%

Agropur cooperative advises consumers not to consume the Quebon
brand white and chocolate milks produced at the Montreal plant
(AGRT 2889) in all indicated formats, with the November 1st, 2nd
and 3rd, 2013 expiry dates.

These products do not meet Agropur's quality standards.

Although complaints have been filed and products have been
consumed for a few days, there have been no reported illnesses
associated with the consumption of these products.

Agropur asks consumers to return the products to their retailer
for an exchange or refund.

Consumers can also call the Agropur, Division Natrel, consumer
help line at: 1-800-501-1150, www.quebon.ca.

Agropur is sorry for the trouble and inconvenience this may cause.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Reaches Prelim. Class Action Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Wood, writing for Life Health PRO, reports that a
preliminary agreement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against American Equity Investment Life Insurance Co. involving
the sale of deferred annuities to seniors.

According to a statement from the Evans Law Firm, one of the law
firms that represented the plaintiffs, the preliminary agreement
was handed down last month in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California, Western Division.  It involved two class
actions suits brought against American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Co. for alleged deceptive sales practices in regards to
the sale of deferred annuity products to senior citizens.  The
suit contended that the products were marketed to seniors without
disclosing all the costs and risks associated with the annuities.

The case involved two separate class actions that were eventually
combined into one.  There is a California-only class that covered
California residents at least 60 years old who purchased an
American Equity deferred annuity between Jan. 3, 2000 and June 30,
2011.  The second is a nationwide class consisting of
non-California residents who purchased the product between Jan.3,
2000 and Dec. 31, 2009.  Those plaintiffs were at least 65 years
old at the time of purchase.  All told, the proposed settlement
encompasses more than 110,000 seniors, according to the Evans Law
Firm.

Ingrid Evans of the Evans Law Firm said the maximum payout by
American Equity could reach $40 million.  Other proposed
settlement benefits may include: An annuitization bonus up to
10.75 percent of the annuity's accumulation value on the date of
annuitization; a 1.75 percent enhancement of annuity payments to
previously annuitized policies; up to a 67.5 percent refund of
previously incurred surrender charges; or up to a 67.5 percent
reduction of surrender charges incurred in the future.

Executives from American Equity declined to give an official
statement on the case.  However, in the court document, the
company denied any wrongdoing and said the settlement was agreed
to in order not disrupt its ongoing business operations and to
conclude a lengthy litigation.

A final settlement is scheduled to be reached by late January,
according to Elliot Wong, an attorney with the Evans Law Firm.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Sued by Beck's Beer Consumers in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Rene Marty, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Case No.
1:13-cv-23656-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 9, 2013) is brought on
behalf of consumers of Beck's beer, who have allegedly been
deceived that Beck's, a historically German beer, is manufactured
in and imported from Germany.

The Company, a subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, is a
Delaware limited liability company headquartered in St. Louis,
Missouri.  AB InBev is the world's largest producer of alcoholic
beverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          David R. Matz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: TR@kttlaw.com
                  AMM@kttlaw.com
                  drm@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq.
          Lance August Harke, Esq.
          Allison Harke, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: hbushman@harkeclasby.com
                  lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  aharke@harkeclasby.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Rodriguez, Esq.
          ROBERT W. RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
          66 West Flagler Street, Suite 1002
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 444-1446
          Facsimile: (305) 907-5244
          E-mail: RobertWRodriguez@gmail.com


ATP OIL: "Stackhouse" Suit Transferred From Texas to Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Stackhouse v. Bulmahn, et al.,
Case No. 4:13-cv-2557 (S.D. Tex., August 30, 2013) was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(New Orleans) on October 9, 2013.  The case is now captioned
Stackhouse v. Bulmahn, et al., Case No. is 2:13-cv-06084 (E.D. La.
Oct 09, 2013).

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of ATP Oil & Gas Corporation during
the period from December 16, 2010, through the Company's
bankruptcy filing on August 17, 2012.  ATP Oil was not named as
defendant.

Following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in April 2010,
the U.S. Department of the Interior issued two moratoria that
essentially halted all drilling in water depths greater than 500
feet in the Gulf of Mexico, which also halted all or most of the
Company's operations in the Gulf of Mexico.  As a result of the
alleged false and misleading misstatements and omissions by the
Company relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident, the price of
the Company's stock fell from $15.36 at the beginning of the Class
Period to $0.30 at the time of the bankruptcy filing.

The Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
          800 Commerce Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-7211
          Facsimile: (713) 225-0827

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul R. Bessette
          KING & SPALDING, LLP (AUSTIN)
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 3200
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2100
          E-mail: pbessette@kslaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Subprime Loan Suit Ruling May Spur Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Investor's Business Daily reports that the nation's largest bank
has assured shareholders its mortgage liability is winding down.
But it's just getting started, thanks to the feds' big trial win
against it in New York.

A jury on Oct. 23 agreed with the Justice Department that Bank of
America defrauded government-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
when its Countrywide unit sold the mortgage giants subprime loans
in the run-up to the financial crisis.  Prosecutors have asked
BofA to pay a nearly $1 billion fine.

It's a major victory for Attorney General Eric Holder and his war
on banks.  In fact, the war has turned into a rout.  The verdict
will more than likely trigger an avalanche of class-action suits
that could cost BofA and other major banks many billions in
settlement payoffs.

It opens the entire banking industry up to parasites.  Unions,
state pensions, community organizers and trial lawyers will all be
bleeding the industry for years.

BoA's acquisition of Countrywide has proved costly.  It paid $4
billion for Countrywide, but it faces $50 billion in fines and
settlements due to liabilities related to the subprime lender, and
that figure will only grow larger.

That's because the government has set up the subprime lender as
the patsy for the crisis the government caused.  It this case, it
claims Countrywide misled bankrupt Fannie and Freddie, now in
federal conservatorship, about the quality of the home loans sold
to them.

Prosecutors cite a program Countrywide used to churn out subprime
loans, gleefully reported in the media as "the hustle."  Sounds
bad, but "hustle" merely stands for the program's initials, HSSL.
Unreported is that Countrywide started the high-speed program to
meet Fannie's demand for subprime loans.

It began in 1995, when Fannie courted Countrywide to secure a
steady supply of subprime loans to meet its ever-rising Affordable
Housing Goals from HUD.  If there was a subprime crime, they were
partners in it.

Fannie even discounted fees it charged to guarantee Countrywide
loans sold to investors.  In exchange, Countrywide sold huge
volumes of subprime and other nonprime mortgages to Fannie.
Countrywide soon became the biggest single seller of such loans to
Fannie.

One of the products Countrywide designed for Fannie was the Fast-
N-Easy loan, which fit into Fannie's "Expanded Approval"
portfolio.  It was plainly subprime, designed for folks with low
income and lousy credit, and everyone knew it, most of all Fannie
and its regulators at HUD, which actually encouraged Fannie to
dive deeper into the subprime market.

In 2000, HUD demanded it blur the line between subprime and prime
to erase the "stigma" of subprime.

Countrywide didn't mislead or victimize Fannie.  Countrywide was a
Fannie clone and, in effect, a federal subcontractor.  Countrywide
actually signed subprime loan volume contracts with HUD.

Separate 2011 lawsuits filed against Fannie and Freddie by the SEC
allege it was Fannie and Freddie that defrauded Wall Street by
selling subprime loans and securities disguised as prime.
The government-chartered mortgage giants would report one thing to
investors on Wall Street and another to their affordable-housing
mission regulators in Washington.  The fraud was a function of
their dual mission.

"We see it as part of our mission and our charter to make safe
mortgages available to people who don't have perfect credit,"
Fannie's CEO testified in 2007.  "We continued our careful entry
into the subprime market, by and large supporting lenders,
products and practices that met our standards, and which helped us
meet our HUD affordable housing requirements."

Those lenders included Countrywide.  Those products included
mainly Fast-N-Easy, which met the low standards Fannie set for the
industry, as HUD ordered.

That makes the government a co-conspirator in the subprime
mortgage fraud.  Yet it gets to prosecute and, in the case of
BofA/Countrywide, convict private-sector partners to absolve
itself and its social lending arms, Fannie and Freddie, of
culpability in the worst financial scandal in U.S. history.


BIOSCRIP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
BioScrip, 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-6922, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of BioScrip between August 8, 2011 and
September 20, 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 BioScrip securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 29, 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.

BioScrip is a pharmacy benefit management and specialty
pharmaceutical organization that partners with managed care
organizations and healthcare providers to control prescription
drug costs.  The Company provides pharmacy benefit products and
services and mail order pharmacy services, and is the fulfillment
center for online retailers offering prescription and OTC
products.

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 distributed the product Exjade through its
specialty pharmacy operations; (2) the Company was in violation of
certain federal and state laws and regulations; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 23, 2013, the Company announced in a Form 8-K, that
it received a civil investigative demand issued by the United
States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and
a subpoena from the New York State Attorney General's Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit, regarding the distribution of the Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation product Exjade by the Company's legacy
specialty pharmacy division.

On this news, BioScrip securities declined $2.60 per share or 23%
within two trading sessions, to close at $8.47 per share on
September 24, 2013.

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


BP PLC: Attorneys Linked to Settlement Payout Fraud Fight Back
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that four attorneys targeted for potential fraud in the dispersal
of BP PLC's $9.6 billion Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement
are fighting back, filing lawsuits, challenging court orders and
alleging a conflict of interest.

Former FBI director Louis Freeh, appointed by U.S. District Judge
Carl Barbier as special master to investigate potential corruption
in the settlement's claims process, in a September 6 report
alleged improprieties in the claims process and referred four
lawyers to federal authorities.  Judge Barbier has ordered the
attorneys to respond by November 15.

All four allege that they have been denied materials that could
exonerate them. U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan granted access
to some of those materials on Oct. 24.

One of the attorneys, Christine Reitano, has moved to dismiss
Judge Barbier's order against her.

"There's just no basis for the court to order her to come in and
prove something," said Ms. Reitano's attorney, Mary Olive Pierson,
a solo practitioner in Baton Rouge, La.

Ms. Reitano, who was fired as senior attorney for claims
administrator Patrick Juneau, also sued her former boss and BP on
Oct. 21 in Orleans Parish, La., Civil District Court, seeking
unspecified damages for defamation and breach of contract.

Another attorney, Jonathan Andry, claims that Mr. Freeh, chairman
of Pepper Hamilton's executive committee, has a conflict of
interest with BP's law firm, Kirkland & Ellis.  He is seeking
documents related to that potential conflict to establish whether
Freeh should be disqualified as special master in the BP case.

"All these things should have been very detailed and set out
precisely so that everyone involved could make a fair decision,"
said Mr. Andry's attorney, Lewis Unglesby -- lisa@unglesbylaw.com
-- of Unglesby Law Firm in Baton Rouge.

On Oct. 22, Mr. Freeh filed a response saying that he previously
had disclosed six matters in which Pepper Hamilton "is adverse to
BP."

In his report, Mr. Freeh concluded that Mr. Reitano and her
husband, Lionel "Tiger" Sutton, also a former senior attorney for
Mr. Juneau, accepted fees for a client that they referred to The
Andry Law Firm in New Orleans.  Mr. Andry, part owner of The Andry
Law Firm, and Glen Lerner, the fourth attorney, are principals of
Andry Lerner in New Orleans.


BRANCH BANKING: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur G. Boylan, Esq., and Katherine E. Devlaminck, Esq. at
Leonard, Street and Deinard report that more than 100 nearly
identical class action lawsuits alleging noncompliance with
Americans with Disability Act accessibility standards for ATM
machines have been filed against banks and credit unions since new
standards went into effect in March 2012.  The ADA requires ATMs
to have certain accessibility features allowing visually impaired
individuals to use the machines independently and with privacy.

A recent decision demonstrates that these lawsuits may not be easy
to dismiss.  On October 16, a federal judge in Georgia denied a
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging that the
defendant bank failed to meet ADA standards for making its ATM
machines accessible to the plaintiff and other visually impaired
consumers.  Thomas v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., No. 13-CV-
00656 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 16, 2013).  The defendant made a facial (as
opposed to factual) attack on the plaintiff's standing and argued
that the plaintiff failed to allege a real and immediate threat of
future injury.  The Georgia court held that the plaintiff
sufficiently alleged individual standing by pleading that she
lives in close proximity to the allegedly noncompliant ATMs, used
the ATMs in the past, plans to return to the ATMs in the future
and frequently travels in the area where the ATMs are located.
The court indicated that class standing issues would not be
addressed until later in the litigation.

The ADA requires financial institutions and other businesses
housing ATM machines to ensure that at least one ATM in each
location offers voice guidance, Braille instructions, keys with
tactile buttons and other features for the visually impaired.  The
complete ADA Standards for Accessible Design are available here.

Failure to comply with the ADA standards for ATMs can be costly
for defendants.  The Department of Justice may impose civil
penalties up to $55,000 for a first violation and $110,000 for
subsequent violations.  Individual plaintiffs can recover
injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney's fees.


CANADIAN NATURAL: Recalls Mrs. Crimble's Macaroons Due to Allergen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Canadian Natural & Specialty Brands
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8383

Affected products:

   -- 220 g. Mrs. Crimble's Macaroons with Chocolate Flavoured
      Coating with All codes where milk is not properly declared
      on the label. and UPC 6 26222 00012 5; and

   -- 70 g. Mrs. Crimble's Giant Chocolate Macaroon - Macaroon
      with Chocolate Flavoured Coating with All codes where milk
      is not properly declared on the label and UPC 5 010822
      990682


CLIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Flavored Marshmallow Due to Allergen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 26, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Clic International Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8423

Affected product: 250 g. Clic Strawberry Flavored Marshmallow with
Best Before Date 17/01/2014

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Clic International
Inc. are warning people with allergies to milk not to consume
certain Clic brand Strawberry Flavored Marshmallow.  The affected
product may contain milk which is not declared on the label.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/mY3HKK

There has been one reported illness associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

The importer, Clic International Inc., Montreal, Quebec, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


COACH AMERICA: P/E Firm Ducks Bus Driver's Employment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Delaware bankruptcy judge on Oct. 23 tossed
a putative class action against Fenway Partners LLC, finding
claims brought on behalf of bus drivers once employed by bankrupt
Coach America Inc. had no plausible connection to the private
equity firm.

According to the report, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross
dismissed the suit, which was filed as an adversary proceeding in
Coach America's Chapter 11 case, finding its claims of alleged
employment law violations lacked any viable connection to Fenway
Partners.


DGSE COMPANIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DGSE Companies, Inc., a wholesaler and retailer of jewelry,
diamonds, fine watches, and precious metal bullion and rare coin
products, on Oct. 24 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas has granted final
approval of the previously announced proposed settlement of class
action and derivative litigation relating to the Company's
previously disclosed accounting irregularities and subsequent
restatement of financial results.

The approved settlements resolve all issues which were pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, in the two filed cases entitled Grant Barfuss, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated vs. DGSE Companies,
Inc.; L. S. Smith, John Benson and William Oyster (Civil Action
No. 3:12-cv-3664), and Jason Farmer, Derivatively on Behalf of
Nominal Defendant DGSE Companies, Inc., Plaintiff, v. William H.
Oyster, James D. Clem, William Cordeiro, Craig Alan-Lee, David
Rector, L. S. Smith, and John Benson, Defendants, and DGSE
Companies, Inc., Nominal Defendant (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-
3850).

As previously disclosed, the defendants have agreed to pay $2
million to resolve all claims in both suits (including obligations
to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees).  The Company has also
incurred its own attorneys' fees and expenses associated with
finalizing the settlement.  It is expected that approximately 90%
of the total settlement amount and related expenses will be paid
from insurance proceeds.

"We are pleased to have this issue resolved and behind us," stated
James Vierling, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.
"DGSE has experienced tremendous change in the last few years, and
we are pleased to conclude this legacy issue from prior management
enabling us to focus even more on the Company's going-forward
operations. With a solid plan for sustainable, profitable growth,
an experienced leadership team and strong strategic partner, we
look optimistically to the future."

                       About DGSE Companies

DGSE Companies, Inc. wholesales and retails jewelry, diamonds,
fine watches, and precious metal bullion and rare coin products
through its Bullion Express, Charleston Gold & Diamond Exchange,
Dallas Gold & Silver Exchange, and Southern Bullion Coin & Jewelry
operations.  DGSE also owns Fairchild International, Inc., one of
the largest vintage watch wholesalers in the country.  In addition
to its retail facilities in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, the Company operates Internet
websites which can be accessed at www.bullionexpress.com,
www.dgse.com, www.cgdeinc.com, and www.sbcoin.com.  Real-time
price quotations and real-time order execution in precious metals
are provided on another DGSE website at www.USBullionExchange.com.
Wholesale customers can access the full vintage watch inventory
through the restricted site at www.FairchildWatches.com. The
Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and its common stock
trades on the NYSE MKT exchange under the symbol "DGSE."


FAMILY DOLLAR: Ruling Highlights Lower-Court Rejection Trend
------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reports that elections have judicial
consequences, and nowhere is that more evident than on the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which brushed off a Supreme Court class-
action ruling like a lapful of cracker crumbs.  The case has
damaging consequences for business and highlights a growing trend
of lower-court rejection of High Court precedents.

In Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, 51 current or former managers
allege that the low-cost retail chain uses "subjectivity and
gender stereotyping that causes disparate impact to compensation
paid to female store managers."  A Fourth Circuit panel by 2 to 1
overturned a lower court ruling and granted class certification
despite clear rules set down in 2011 by the Supreme Court in
Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  Class certification typically means a big
payday for lawyers because companies quickly settle rather than
endure the costs of a trial with huge potential damages.

The Family Dollar plaintiffs hang their case on varied judgments
by a wide range of middle managers across the country, the kind of
group that Wal-Mart made clear makes a class certification
impermissible. As Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson writes in a dissent
that blisters his colleagues for ignoring precedent, "in the
majority's view, middle managers at Family Dollar are purely
robotic with respect to those they supervise, but no American
company operates in such a way."

Judge Wilkinson, who was one of George W. Bush's finalists for the
High Court, adds that "the fact that a company sets pay ranges or
values prior experience or performance as factors in compensation
is not sinister."  And: "If centralized delegations of discretion
such as these are enough for a nationwide class action to get
rolling, then few companies will be exempt."  The majority's
logic, he concludes, "has drained" the Wal-Mart ruling "of
meaning."

This latest ruling continues a troubling trend of lower appellate
courts ignoring Supreme Court precedents, perhaps on the
assumption that the Justices can't take every case.  Think of it
as a war of attrition against lover-not-a-fighter Chief Justice
John Roberts.

Similar behavior was in evidence recently in the Sixth Circuit's
Whirlpool v. Glazer and the Seventh Circuit's Sears v. Butler over
whether to certify class actions among consumers with allegedly
moldy washing machines.  In Sears, Judge Richard Posner clearly
disregarded the Supreme Court's certification guidelines.  The
High Court vacated those judgments and remanded them in light of
their ruling in 2013's Comcast v. Behrend, but the lower courts
simply reinstated their prior decisions. Both cases are now
bidding for another High Court hearing.

The Family Dollar majority was made up of Obama appointee Barbara
Keenan and Clinton recess-appointee Roger Gregory, who was later
renominated by George W. Bush as an olive branch to Senate
Democrats.  Democratic Presidents have appointed 10 of the 15
active Fourth Circuit judges, including six by President Obama.

Consider this disdain for precedent a preview if Mr. Obama gets a
new majority on the Supreme Court.  Chief Justice Roberts and his
colleagues need to deliver some remedial instruction in class-
action law and legal hierarchy.


FERRARINI USA: Recalls 15,118 Pounds of Salami Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Ferrarini USA, Importer of Record in San Fernando, Calif., is
recalling approximately 15,118 pounds of salami products that were
not presented for import reinspection, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
Import reinspection by FSIS is required before an imported product
is eligible to enter commerce.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 7.7 lbs. Salame Emilia Ferrarini Log with Boxes of 5 logs
      weighing each and Package Code of 60516 3222 3208;

   -- 7.7 lbs. Salame Parma Ferrarini Log with Boxes of 5 logs
      weighing each. and Package Code of 60518 3224 3295;

   -- 7.7 lbs. Salame Parma Ferrarini Log with Boxes of 4 logs
      weighing each. and Package Code of 60518 2685 2686; and

   -- 250 g. Ferrarini Salame Parma with Boxes of 20 chubs
      weighing each and Package Code of 61082 3320 3320

Each box bears the code "IT G4279 CE" inside the Italian mark of
inspection, though individual logs may not.  The products were
shipped to distributors in Arizona and California for further
distribution to retailers.

FSIS import inspection staff and the import house discovered the
problem when the shipment was not presented for reinspection as
scheduled. 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.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Grant Linebach at (818) 256-1622.

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. ET Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  To report a
problem with a meat, poultry or processed egg product to FSIS at
any time, visit: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


FRITO-LAY: Judge Trims Class Action Over Nutrition Label
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Sean McLernon, writing for Law360,
report that a federal judge on Oct. 24 trimmed a proposed
marketing class action accusing Frito-Lay North America Inc. of
misrepresenting the nutritional content of its products, finding
that claims based on products the plaintiffs did not buy should be
dismissed.

Plaintiffs Markus Wilson and Doug Campen claim Frito-Lay is
deceiving customers by making false claims about certain brands of
potato chips, corn chips and other snacks, including assertions
that they are "all natural."  The company contends that there is
nothing illegal about the labels because they merely state that
natural items such as potatoes and vegetable oil are among the
ingredients.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti said the plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate standing by sufficiently pleading detailed facts that
the 85 nonpurchased products are "substantially similar" to the
purchased products, for which they have standing.

"Plaintiffs do not plead to have bought these products.  Instead
they simply provide long lists of products that they flatly state
contain unlawful or misleading statements," Judge Conti said.
"The [second amended complaint] provides no other detail about
these products . . . Plaintiffs have taken lists of snack foods,
appended them to paragraphs of their SAC, and asserted in their
briefs -- not in their pleadings -- that they are all basically
the same."

The judge said he previously instructed plaintiffs to be clear
about why any of the nonpurchased products were similar enough to
the purchased products for standing purposes, but they failed to
do so.

"The court cannot just assume that every one of the nonpurchased
products' labels is actionable in the same way as the more fully
described purchased products' labels are," he said.

The judge also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that Frito-Lay
website content constituted "labeling."

"It is true that statements not actually printed on a label itself
can constitute 'labeling' for [Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act]
purposes.  What matters is whether the separate material serves
the purpose of labeling, which is to supplement or explain the
product," he said.

The plaintiffs alleged that by printing "Visit our website @
fritolay.com" on the back of packaging, any language on the
websites constituted misleading labeling under the FDCA.  But the
judge said the website address is printed underneath the physical
address, not near the ingredients list or any nutritional facts,
and nowhere on any product's packaging does the company direct
consumers to its website for more facts about the labeled product.

And the judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under California's
Unfair Competition Law to the extent that the claim relies solely
on Frito-Lay's alleged violation of the Sherman Law or FDA
regulations because they failed to allege reliance under this
theory.

"Plaintiffs' argument that they were harmed because the allegedly
misbranded products were 'legally worthless and had no economic
value,' is insufficient to save this claim," the judge said.

"Plaintiffs' SAC supports their allegations of having been harmed
by being deceived into buying products whose ingredients they
specifically wanted to avoid, not that they were harmed in some
nonspecific way by purchasing products that they later learned
were 'legally worthless.'"

The judge said the plaintiffs did, however, plausibly allege
violations of the California False Advertising Law and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and he said the UCL unlawfulness claim
survives to the extent that it is predicated on violations of
those laws.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates.

Frito-Lay is represented by Andrew S. Tulumello --
atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Geoffrey M. Sigler --
gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- and Jason R. Meltzer --
jmeltzer@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The case is Wilson, et al. v. Frito-Lay North America Inc., et
al., number 3:12-cv-01586 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


GARDEN FRESH: Recalls Ready-to-Eat Chicken and Ham Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Garden Fresh Foods, a Milwaukee, WI. establishment, is recalling
approximately 103,080 additional pounds of ready-to-eat chicken
and ham products due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The company is recalling
these products in addition to the 25,748 pounds of similar
products that were recalled on Sept. 25 and Oct. 17, 2013.

The products are being recalled as part of this expansion:

   -- 5 lb.Garden-Fresh Crunchy Poppy Seed Chicken Salad Kit
      with Product Code 5001;

   -- 5 lb. Garden-Fresh Chicken Salad with Product code 5113;

   -- 12 oz. Garden-Fresh Chicken Salad with Product code: 6164;

   -- 5 lb. Garden-Fresh All White Meat Chicken Salad with
      Cranberries with Product code 5114;

   -- 5 lb. Garden-Fresh Greek Brand Pasta with Chicken with
      Product code: 5116;

   -- 5 lb. Garden-Fresh Ham Salad with Sweet Relish with Product
      code: 5121;

   -- 12 oz. Garden-Fresh Ham Salad with Product code: 6163;

   -- 5 lb. Garden-Fresh Creamy Ceasar Pasta with Breast of
      Chicken with Product code: 5133;

   -- 5 lb. Garden-Fresh Premium Chicken Salad with Product code:
      5167;

   -- 5 lb. Garden-Fresh Sandwich Spread with Product code: 5190;

   -- 5 lb. Garden-Fresh Reduced Fat Chicken Salad with Product
      code: 5305;

   -- 10 lb. Garden-Fresh Chipotle Chicken Wrap Filling with
      Product code: 5319;

   -- 5 lb. Grandpa's Bacon Parmesan Dip with Product code: 5904;

   -- 6 oz. Archer Farms Rotisserie Chicken Breast Salad with
      Product code: 002216;

   -- 16 oz. Archer Farms Rotisserie Chicken Breast Salad with
      Product code: 402108;

   -- 11 oz. Archer Farms Bacon Parmesan Dip with Product code:
      69017;

   -- 12 oz. Market Pantry All White Meat Chicken Salad with
      Product code: 24103;

   -- 6 oz. D'Amico & Sons Farfalle with Chicken, Bacon & Sun
      Dried Tomato with Product code: 100219;

   -- 14 oz. D'Amico & Sons Farfalle with Chicken, Bacon & Sun
      Dried Tomato with Product code: 100226;

   -- 6 oz. D'Amico & Sons Ranch Pasta Salad with Chicken, Spinach
      & Bacon with Product code: 100233;

   -- 14 oz. D'Amico & Sons Ranch Pasta Salad with Chicken,
      Spinach & Bacon with Product code: 100240;

   -- 14 oz. D'Amico & Sons Chicken & Dried Cherry Pasta Salad
      with Product code: 101216;

   -- 6 oz. D'Amico & Sons Chicken & Dried Cherry Pasta Salad with
      Product code: 101223;

   -- 14 oz. D'Amico & Sons Chicken Salad with Rosemary with
      Product code: 101254; and

   -- 6 oz. D'Amico & Sons Chicken Salad with Rosemary with
      Product code: 101261

The products being recalled bear the establishment number "EST.
17256" or "Est. P-17256" inside the USDA mark of inspection, and
were distributed to retail and food service establishments
nationwide.  Although product included in this recall may be
expired, FSIS is concerned that some product may be frozen in
consumer or retail freezers.

FSIS conducted a food safety assessment at the facility following
the initial recall.  Microbial testing and other findings as part
of the food safety assessment indicated that additional product
may have been contaminated due to harborage of Listeria
monocytogenes within the facility.  The products included in the
expanded recall were produced between Sept. 6 and Oct. 10, 2013.
FSIS and the company have not received reports of illnesses due to
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness
should contact a healthcare provider.

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

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

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


GOOGLE INC: Judge Okays Settlement in Shareholder Stock Split Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Delaware judge on Oct. 28 approved a settlement in a shareholder
lawsuit challenging Google Inc.'s plans to split its stock and
issue a new class of nonvoting shares.

The ruling by Chancellor Leo Strine Jr. clears the way for the
Internet search leader to issue shares of "Class C" nonvoting
stock for each share of existing stock.

The judge approved the settlement despite noting that, while it is
designed to ensure that co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin
retain control of Mountain View, Calif.-based Google, the two are
not being forced to give any concessions to other shareholders.
Instead, like other shareholders, Page and Brin will receive Class
C shares in an amount equal to their current Class B stock
holdings -- more than 24 million shares each.

"There's no economic sacrifice," Mr. Strine told Jeffrey Block, an
attorney representing shareholders who filed the lawsuit in April
2012.

At the same time, Mr. Strine noted that Google, under the
leadership of Messrs. Page and Brin, has been "a rather
astonishing market success," implying that there's currently no
reason to second-guess the company's governance.

"Not everybody can create a verb," the judge said, referring to
the evolution of the company's name from a corporate label to the
description of a ubiquitous online activity.

Mr. Strine also noted that there was no guarantee that the
plaintiffs could have won their lawsuit, and that the settlement
includes important corporate governance protections and gives more
authority to independent board directors.

Messrs. Page and Brin own about 15 percent of Google's outstanding
stock, but they hold 56 percent of shareholder voting power
because their Class B stock gives them 10 votes per share,
compared to one vote per share for Class A stock.

Google argued that by creating a new class of nonvoting shares,
the company could continue rewarding employees with stock and
finance acquisitions without undermining the voting power of
Messrs. Page and Brin.

But in a class-action lawsuit led by the Brockton Retirement Board
in Massachusetts and another Google shareholder, Philip Skidmore,
other stockholders alleged that Messrs. Page and Brin engineered
the stock split in a way that would unfairly benefit the two
founders while shortchanging other Google shareholders.

According to court documents, the proposed stock split was the
subject of internal deliberations for more than a year before it
was announced in April 2012.  Shareholders approved the split in
June 2012; the lawsuit has prevented Google from issuing the new
nonvoting shares.

Under the settlement, Google must provide a price support that
compensates owners of the new nonvoting stock, including
Messrs. Page and Brin, if it's worth less than the existing class
of stock after one year of trading.


HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Settles Misleading Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
CPT Group, Inc. on Oct. 25 disclosed that a proposed settlement
has been reached in the class action lawsuit Hoover v. Hi-Tech
Pharmacal Co., Inc., No. EDCV 13-00097-JGB-OP, brought on behalf
of the Class, and pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Eastern Division relating to
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc.'s product Nasal Ease.  The lawsuit
claims advertising concerning the product was misleading.  The
manufacturer of Nasal Ease stands by its advertising and denies it
did anything wrong.

The settlement Class includes all persons who purchased Nasal Ease
in the United States for personal use between April 1, 2010 and
February 25, 2014 "Class Period," and were domiciled or resided in
the U.S. at the time of purchase.

The manufacturer of Nasal Ease has agreed to pay: refunds to
eligible Class Members who submit a valid claim form; Class
Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed
$250,000; and an incentive award to Plaintiff for her effort in
bringing the Action in an amount not to exceed $2,500.  The
manufacturer has also agreed to make certain changes to the manner
in which it advertises Nasal Ease.

Class Members seeking to secure a settlement benefit must mail a
completed claim form and, if available, proof of purchase of Nasal
Ease, to the Claims Administrator at the address below by no later
than February 25, 2014.  Those without a receipt must swear or
affirm under penalty of perjury that they purchased Nasal Ease
during the Class Period. Those filing timely and valid claims are
eligible to receive a product refund.

Those objecting to the settlement must file a written statement
with the court and serve a copy on Class Counsel, Counsel for
Defendants, and the Claims Administrator, postmarked by February
25, 2014.  Those excluding themselves from the settlement must
send a letter to the Claims Administrator, postmarked by February
25, 2014, at the address below requesting to be excluded and
cannot receive a benefit from this Settlement.  Those who do
nothing will receive no payment from the Settlement, and will be
barred from filing or participating in any lawsuit against
Defendant and the Released Persons for any of the released claims.
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Eastern Division will hold a hearing on March 24, 2014
at 9 a.m. at the federal courthouse located at 3470 Twelfth St.,
Courtroom 1, Riverside, Calif. 92501, to consider final approval
of the settlement, including payment of reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs to Class Counsel related to obtaining settlement relief,
an incentive award to the named Plaintiff, and related issues.
Participating Class Members may appear at the hearing in person or
through their attorney at their own cost, but are not required to
do so.

For more information on this lawsuit, including how to file a
claim, object, or exclude yourself or to obtain a detailed notice,
claim form, or other documents, visit --
http://www.NasalEaseSettlement.com -- call toll -free 1-(888)
699-8593, or write to Nasal Ease Settlement Claims Administrator,
16630 Aston, Irvine, Calif. 92606.


HOMEOLAB USA: Sued Over Misleading Marketing of Kids Relief Brand
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of disgruntled parents claims that
a homeopathic medicine manufacturer targets children for its
"worthless" products sold under the Kids Relief brand.  The
lawsuit claims that HomeoLab USA has "wrongfully taken millions of
dollars" through misleading marketing.

Lead plaintiff Jessica Medina and three other named plaintiffs
allege that HomeoLab claims, falsely, that its Kids Relief
products provide "safe, effective relief" for colds and flu,
Courthouse News Service reported.

"In fact," the lawsuit states, "HomeoLab's products are worthless,
and HomeoLab unfairly, deceptively and unjustly enriches itself
o[n] the backs of children to turn a corporate profit."

The suit takes issue with the basis of homeopathy, a treatment
philosophy that originated more than 300 years ago in Germany,
before the era of modern chemistry and medicine.  It is generally
dismissed as, at best, ineffective by medical authorities.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) says that there is "little
evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any
specific condition" but warns that not all homeopathic drugs are
harmless.

In the lawsuit, the parents say that HomeoLab pushes its Kids
Relief Flu by claiming that its ingredients -- "autolysate of the
heart and liver of the duck" -- relieves flu-like symptoms in
children 2 years and over."

"But the heart and liver of a Muscovy duck, at least at the
dilutions claimed, can be scientifically and mathematically shown
to have no medical value, no biological effect on humans," the
complaint states.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was
filed on behalf of the parents by attorneys Thomas O'Connell and
Sheila Zolnoor.


ITFC IMPORTERS: Recalls Aslan Chocolate Golbon Hazelnut
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           ITFC Importers & Distributors
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8414

Affected products: 297 g. Aslan Chocolate Golbon Hazelnut with
Exp. Date: 24.12.2013 and Lot Number: 4313 629045 161 066


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Residential MBS Suit for $5.1 Billion
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Todd Ruger at The Blog of Legal
Times, the Federal Housing Finance Agency reached settlements
worth $5.1 billion with JPMorgan Chase & Co. in connection with
residential mortgage-backed securities and single-family mortgages
purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the agency announced on
Oct. 25.

JPMorgan agreed to pay $4 billion -- $1.26 billion to Fannie Mae
and $2.74 billion to Freddie Mac -- to address claims that the
company violated federal and state securities laws when it sold
securities to the companies between 2005 and 2007.  That
settlement includes securities sold by JPMorgan, Bear Stearns Cos.
Inc. and Washington Mutual.

JPMorgan also agreed to pay $1.1 billion -- $670 million to Fannie
Mae and $480 million to Freddie Mac -- to resolve representation
and warranty claims related to single-family mortgage purchases by
the two companies.  The deal is reportedly part of a larger $13
billion settlement that JPMorgan is preparing to make with the
U.S. Department of Justice.

"The satisfactory resolution of the private-label securities
litigation with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. provides greater certainty
in the marketplace and is in line with our responsibility for
preserving and conserving Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's assets on
behalf of taxpayers," FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco said in
a written statement.  "This is a significant step as the
government and J. P. Morgan Chase move to address outstanding
mortgage-related issues."

In the deal with the FHFA, JPMorgan did not admit liability or
wrongdoing.  The terms also said the settlement was not an
admission or concession from JPMorgan of any alleged liability of
Washington Mutual Bank, which collapsed in 2008.

JPMorgan is fighting allegations in Washington federal district
court that the company is liable for WaMu's shoddy securities.
The bank's lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell are pointing fingers at
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.  The plaintiff,
Deutsche Bank, is suing JPMorgan and the FDIC.

Alfred Pollard, the housing agency's general counsel, lauded the
work of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which sued on behalf of
the FHFA.  Philippe Selendy -- philippeselendy@quinnemanuel.com --
who lead Quinn's securities and structured finance practice, said
in a written statement the firm will continue to pursue FHFA's
claims against the defendants in eleven remaining cases.

"After more than two years of hard-fought litigation in the
federal district and appellate courts, this landmark $4 billion
settlement with J.P. Morgan is a clear victory for the integrity
of the financial markets and the American taxpayer," Mr. Selendy
said.

Mr. Pollard also credited the "strong work" of the FHFA Office of
General Counsel's litigation group under Stephen Hart and the
legal and business teams at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.


JUSTICE COMMISSIONED: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad Azfar Syed, and all others similarly situated v. Justice
Commissioned Officer, LLC; and, Sirwan Hasan Muhammed, Case No.
4:13-cv-02982 (S.D. Tex., October 9, 2013) seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all costs of
the action, and post-judgment interest for the Defendants' alleged
willful failure to pay overtime to the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated, in the course of their employment with the
Defendants.

Defendant Justice Commissioned Officer, LLC, is a Texas limited
liability company based in Austin.  Sirwan Hasan Muhammed is the
sole managing member and the sole director of Justice Commissioned
Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over Mental Health Care
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Raskin-Zrihen, writing for Times-Herald, reports that a
lawsuit served at Kaiser Permanente's Oakland headquarters on
Oct. 24 alleges that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan facilities,
including Vallejo's, routinely deny its members timely access to
mental health services.

Kaiser officials call the suit a ploy in ongoing contract
negotiations.

The Oakland-based law firm of Siegel LeWitter Malkani that works
closely with the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) --
which represents Kaiser's mental health professionals and optical
workers -- filed the suit earlier this month on behalf of "three
named plaintiffs and thousands of other Kaiser members who have
been harmed" by this alleged practice, attorney Jonathan Siegel
said on Oct. 24.

The union represents some 70 members at Kaiser Permanente Vallejo
Medical Center. The firm has sued Kaiser before, Mr. Siegel said.

Kaiser officials called the suit the "NUHW's latest attempt to use
inaccurate claims about our mental health care services to apply
pressure in their protracted labor negotiations with Kaiser
Permanente."

The union's actions do "nothing to further the negotiations that
should be taking place at the table," they said.

The lawsuit alleges that Kaiser routinely violates state law by
refusing to provide critical mental health services to its members
within the time frame set by law.

"As a result, Kaiser members have been denied urgent services,
forced to wait for long periods of time to receive needed
services, discouraged from seeking services altogether, or
compelled to incur out-of-pocket expenses for treatment outside of
the Kaiser system," according to the suit.

The lead plaintiff, Point Richmond resident Susan Futterman, said
her husband, Fred Paroutaud, killed himself after "desperate"
requests for an urgent mental health appointment were delayed
until his psychiatrist returned from vacation.

Los Angeles area plaintiff Megan Mortensen wound up seeking an
urgent mental health appointment outside the system after Kaiser
allegedly "refused" her request for a timely appointment after the
loss of her brother.  The third plaintiff, Acianita Lucero of
Oakland, allegedly "made repeated requests for Kaiser to provide
her with an urgent mental health appointment but Kaiser refused to
see her within the 48 hours required by law," according to the
suit.

The suit follows a report from earlier this year by the California
Department of Managed Health Care which suggested Kaiser needed to
reduce mental health appointment wait times. Kaiser was fined $ 4
million -- the second largest fine issued by the Department -- and
issued a Cease and Desist Order to correct the problems, Siegel
said.

Kaiser officials say the report did not fault Kaiser's mental
health care quality or member's ability to obtain urgent or
emergency mental health care.

"What was identified in the DMHC survey were some areas where our
non-urgent appointment wait times and data tracking needed
improvement," officials said.  "We took the findings seriously,
have submitted a corrective action plan to the DMHC, and have
worked to correct the issues identified in the survey."

The class action lawsuit seeks compensatory and statutory damages
for class members as well as an injunction requiring Kaiser to
comply with the law, Mr. Siegel said.

"We're suing for Kaiser to clean up their act and provide mental
health services to their clients that complies with the law," he
said.  "And we want damage compensation for the tens of thousands
of Kaiser members who have been victimized by this."


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Seaquest Frozen Bay Scallops
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Labelling
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8401

Affected products: 454 g. Seaquest Frozen Bay Scallops with Best
Before 2014 AL 01, 2014 AL 02, 2014 MR 31, 2014 MA 16, 2014 JN 03,
2014 JN 04and UPC 0 60383 69512 5


LONE STAR WHEEL: Fails to Pay OT; Tells Employees to Use Aliases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acencion Adolfo Calderon Campos a/k/a Adolfo Calderon a/k/a Campos
Acencion and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B)
v. Lone Star Wheel Components, Inc., Jerry L. Coffey, Case No.
3:13-cv-04088-N (N.D. Tex., October 9, 2013) is brought as a
collective action on behalf of similarly situated employees, who
have not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed
in excess of 40 hours weekly.

From January 17, 2012, through May 3, 2013, Mr. Campos relates
that he worked an average of 94.5 hours per week and was paid an
average of $8 per hour, but was never paid the extra halftime
overtime rate for hours worked above 40 hours in a week as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He contends that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay his overtime
wages as required by the FLSA.  Specifically, he alleges that he
was told by the Defendants to use two different names under the
payroll because he worked too many hours for the Defendants.

Mr. Campos was a resident of Dallas County, Texas, at the time
that this dispute arose.

Lone Star Wheel Components, Inc., is a company that regularly
transacts business within Dallas County.  Jerry L. Coffey, is a
corporate officer and owner of the Defendant Company who runs the
day-to-day operations of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


LOREAL USA: Models File Class Action Over Image Use in Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene and Erin Coe, writing for Law360, report that a group
of models on Oct. 24 filed a proposed class action in New York
Supreme Court against at least seven agencies, two advertising
firms, Loreal USA Inc. and the owner of Procter & Gamble, saying
the companies had breached their contracts and cheated the models
out of money with the repeated use of their photos.

At least 10 models filed suit against the agencies, including
Wilhemina Models Inc., Ford Models Inc. and Elite Model Management
New York LLC, alleging they had collected checks from ad agencies
and companies that used the models' likenesses on products such as
hair color boxes and in television commercials but had not paid
the models for that work, according to the complaint filed on
Oct. 24.

Photos of the respective models were used in advertisements for
products such as toothpaste, hair color and tequila in the U.S.
and abroad, but the models were never informed of this by their
agencies, according to the suit.  They are seeking payment for use
of their images.

"[The models] performed their obligations by providing their
images," the models wrote in the Oct. 24 complaint.  "The modeling
agency defendants failed to perform when they failed to pay to the
plaintiffs moneys received as agents on the plaintiffs' behalf."

Louisa Raske, one of the named plaintiffs in the class action,
said she was in a CVS drugstore in Miami in June 2012 when she
spotted her face on Loreal hair color boxes.  She had signed a
contract with Next Management LLC's Miami and New York offices in
1997, when she was 16, according to the suit.  The agency later
dropped her but had apparently continued to sell her images to
companies, Ms. Raske alleged.

Ms. Raske said in the complaint that the agency tried to avoid her
when she asked for a billing statement accounting for the use of
her image.  She turned instead to advertising agency McCann
Erickson Corp., which she remembered having worked with during the
booking for the boxes, she said.

McCann provided her with an accounting of how much they'd spent
for the use of her image, which Ms. Raske then took to Next,
according to the suit.  Next paid her $31,000 to match what McCann
had told her but refused to provide her with an independent
accounting of what it had earned off her image without paying her,
according to the Oct. 24 complaint.

Each model in the suit lodged similar complaints, adding up to
claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment for the
modeling agencies and breach of two sections of New York's Civil
Rights Law for the advertising agencies and companies.

In a similar individual suit in 2011, model Ann Kirsten Kennis
settled with the band Vampire Weekend over the use of her photo on
the cover of their album "Contra."

U.S. District Judge Valerie Fairbank Kennis' dismissed with
prejudice her case against the band, commercial record label XL
Recordings Ltd. and photographer Tod Brody after all of the
parties except Brody entered into a settlement agreement. The
judge on Oct. 25 also dismissed without prejudice Vampire Weekend
and XL's cross claim against Mr. Brody.

Ms. Kennis, who was a high-fashion model in New York City in the
1980s and 1990s, filed suit in July 2010 in state court claiming
misappropriation of her likeness, unjust enrichment and other
allegations, but it was removed a month later to federal court.

The suit alleged that Vampire Weekend contracted Brody to produce
a photograph for the cover of the album "Contra," and Mr. Brody
submitted a photograph of Ms. Kennis wearing a yellow Polo
monogrammed shirt standing against a wall, along with a forged
photographic release signed by someone claiming to be "Kirsten
Johnsen," who had the same address as Mr. Brody.

Mr. Brody was paid $5,000 for the photograph and was set to
receive additional payments if the CD album met certain sales
thresholds, according to the complaint.

Vampire Weekend and XL were accused by Ms. Kennis of failing to
conduct any investigation to determine Mr. Brody's background or
to verify the legitimacy of the sham release.

Ms. Kennis claimed the band used her image during its concerts and
in promotional posters, ads and merchandise, and after the album
was released in January 2010, it debuted as No. 1 on the Billboard
Top 200.

The models are represented by Mark E. Seitelman --
mark@seitelman.com -- and S. Skip Taylor of Mark E. Seitelman Law
Offices.

Counsel information for the defendants could not be immediately
determined.

The case is Alex Shanklin et al. v. Wilhemina Models Inc. et al.,
case number 653702/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York.


LORILLARD TOBACCO: Florida Jury Awards $3.5MM Mesothelioma Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Myron Levin, writing for FairWarning, reports that it's hard to
think of anything more reckless than adding a deadly carcinogen to
a product that already causes cancer -- and then bragging about
the health benefits.

That's what Lorillard Tobacco did 60 years ago when it introduced
Kent cigarettes, whose patented "Micronite" filter contained a
particularly virulent form of asbestos.  Smokers puffed their way
through 13 billion Kents from March, 1952 until May, 1956, when
Lorillard changed the filter design.  Six decades later, the legal
fallout continues -- including last month when a Florida jury
awarded record damages of more than $3.5 million.

Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose, the company that supplied the
asbestos filter material, have faced numerous lawsuits by victims
of mesothelioma, an extremely rare and deadly asbestos-related
cancer that typically shows up decades after initial exposure.
Plaintiffs have included factory workers who produced the
cigarettes or filter material, and former smokers who say they
inhaled microscopic asbestos fibers through the filters (Lorillard
says hardly any fibers escaped.).

While there is no official count, records and interviews suggest
that the number of mesothelioma claims filed against the companies
since the 1980s is at least in the low hundreds.  Lorillard
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show the
company settled 90 cases in a recent period of just over two
years, and that 60 more cases are pending.

Time is on the companies' side.  Since factory workers and smokers
with potential claims all are at least in their 70s and 80s, the
strange saga of the asbestos filter should soon be coming to an
end.

Surprisingly, however, there has been a burst of new cases in the
last few years, according to filings with the SEC.  Growing
awareness of the asbestos episode is probably the cause.
Nowadays, a mesothelioma patient is almost certain to be asked by
his doctor or lawyer: Did you happen to smoke Kents in the 1950s?

Lorillard officials did not reply to emails and calls seeking
comment.  H&V also declined interview requests, though company
lawyer Andrew McElaney noted that the companies have won most
cases tried to verdicts.

Kent was Lorillard's response to the health scare of the early
1950s, when the link between smoking and lung cancer began drawing
wide attention.  Tobacco companies scurried to roll out filters to
calm jittery smokers and keep them from quitting in droves.  The
health benefits would prove illusory, but the switch to filters
averted the potential loss of millions of customers.

Lorillard named its first filter for Herbert A. Kent, briefly its
president, and aggressively touted the superiority of the Kent
Micronite filter.  It was a blend of cotton, acetate, crepe paper
and crocidolite asbestos -- sometimes called "African" or
"Bolivian blue" asbestos because of its bluish tint.

At the time, the risk of deadly lung disease to heavily exposed
asbestos miners and plant workers was already well-documented.
But asbestos also was known to be an effective filter material,
dense enough to stop minute particles and gases, as long as it
stayed put.  Lorillard had learned of the use of crocidolite in
gas masks made for the Army Chemical Corps.  In contracting with
H&V to supply the material, Lorillard agreed to be held solely
responsible for any "harmful effects'' of the cigarette filters.
The smokers' exposures were "very, very low.  I don't believe it
increased the risk."

Lorillard launched Kent at a press conference at New York's
Waldorf-Astoria, touting the Micronite filter as offering "the
greatest health protection in cigarette history."  Playing on the
public's gee-whiz faith in science and technology, Kent ads told a
glamorous, though vague, back story of how the quest for the new
filter "ended in an atomic energy plant, where the makers of KENT
found a material being used to filter air of microscopic
impurities."

"What is 'Micronite'?" another ad asked.  "It's a pure, dust-free,
completely harmless material that is so safe, so effective, it
actually is used to help filter the air in operating rooms of
leading hospitals."

The marketing blitz included advertising in medical journals and
mailing gift boxes of Kent to physicians, along with "Dear Doctor"
letters talking up the advantages for "patients whom you have felt
obliged to advise to cut down or cut out smoking."

The filter material was produced at H&V plants in West Groton and
Rochdale, Mass., and shipped to Lorillard cigarette plants in
Louisville, Ky., and Jersey City, N.J. For H&V workers, the
results were catastrophic, with whole families destroyed by
asbestos disease.  A woman named Elizabeth Jacobs buried her
husband and brother, both H&V workers, who died of mesothelioma
and asbestosis, respectively.  Then Jacobs also died of
mesothelioma in 1985 at the age of 54.  Her only known exposure to
asbestos came from laundering her husband's dusty work clothes.

                    "Dust-creating monster"

The plant was a "dust-creating monster," said Dr. James A.
Talcott, an oncologist who co-authored a study of H&V filter
workers.  Published in the New England Journal of Medicine in
1989, it tracked the health status of 33 former employees of the
West Groton plant.  By then, 28 had died -- more than three times
the expected number, based on average life spans -- including 18
from asbestos-related illnesses.  Of the five surviving workers,
four were suffering from asbestos diseases.

Dozens of Lorillard plant workers also contracted mesothelioma.
An exhibit in a court case in Louisville listed 34 victims by
initials only, under the heading: "Lorillard Workers With
Mesothelioma At Louisville And Jersey City Plants."

How much asbestos Kent smokers inhaled has been a more contentious
and ambiguous subject.  Internal documents produced in lawsuits
highlight Lorillard's deep anxieties that Kent smokers were
breathing asbestos.  For example, an April, 1954 letter from
Lorillard research director Harris B. Parmele to company president
W.J. Halley stated that researchers had found "traces of mineral
fiber" in the smoke.  "We are embarked upon a program of
attempting to work out a method for the elimination of the
presence of such fibers in the smoke," the letter said.

A memo in September, 1954, H&V official Peter Breymeier discussed
the need "to find a way of anchoring asbestos  . . . All efforts
are to be exerted to solve the asbestos-dust-in-Kent smoke
problem."

And H&V president A.K. Nicholson stated in a memo two months
later: "It is Lorillard's belief that asbestos must be eliminated
from the Kent cigarette as soon as possible because of a
whispering campaign started by their competitors of the harmful
effects of asbestos."

As a result, the memo said, H&V would "discontinue that part of
our research program devoted to the fixing of asbestos fibres and
direct the entire attention of the program toward the complete
elimination of asbestos."

Even so, Lorillard continued using asbestos in the filters for the
next 16 months, and continued to sell existing stocks of Kents for
several more months.

                         Litigating Hard

The filter litigation is hardly Lorillard's biggest challenge.

The company depends for nearly 90 percent of sales on its popular
Newport menthol brand.  The Food and Drug Administration is
considering whether to restrict the use of menthol in cigarettes
-- which would be a bigger blow to Lorillard than to its rivals.

The company also faces some 4,500 lawsuits by individual smokers
in Florida, thanks to a Florida Supreme Court ruling that made it
easier to sue tobacco companies for smoking-related harms.

Though the filter lawsuits are a fraction of that number,
Lorillard fiercely defends the ones that go to trial.

"They litigate hard," said Timothy F. Pearce, a lawyer with the
Levin Simes firm in San Francisco who successfully tried a filter
case in 2011.  "It's no small undertaking to be in a trial with
them," he said.  "They had, like, 13 lawyers" working on the case.

Lorillard and H&V have won 17 of 23 trials of filter cases.  One
of their six losses came last month in Broward County, Fla., when
jurors ordered them to pay more than $3.5 million in damages to
former Kent smoker and mesothelioma victim Richard Delisle.

A key contention of the companies is that little or no asbestos
leaked from Kent filters, so plaintiffs contracted mesothelioma in
some other way.  Despite the nervous tone of internal letters and
memos, they say that tests of Kent smoke in the early '50s never
found more than three fibers per cigarette.  The smokers'
exposures were "very, very low," Kevin H Reinert, Lorillard's
director of regulatory science policy, testified in a deposition
in April "I don't believe it increased the risk." Plaintiffs have
found this hard to challenge, since Lorillard failed to preserve
most of the original test reports.

Plaintiff experts testing cigarettes from old packs of Kents have
found abundant asbestos fibers in the smoke.  Lorillard and H&V
contend the tests were unreliable because the cigarettes had
deteriorated with age.

However, the companies' first line of defense has been to convince
juries that plaintiffs didn't smoke Kents in the first place, and
only say they did because they have a bad memory or are shading
the truth.  To undermine their credibility, defense lawyers and
investigators fan out around the country to track down and
interview family members, school chums, Army buddies -- anyone who
might have known the plaintiff in the 1950s.

It's hard to establish the brand of cigarette a person smoked
decades ago, and the strategy has often proved successful.  It
failed in the case of Don Lenney, who not only won in court, but
nearly four years after being diagnosed is still alive (Many
mesothelioma victims die within a year.).

Mr. Lenney, 76, a former insurance agent in Northern California,
says he started smoking in high school, and soon switched from
unfiltered brands to Kent.  "The Kent Micronite filter was
supposed to be the healthy alternative," he told FairWarning, "so
I started smoking Kents."

Diagnosed with mesothelioma in November, 2009, Mr. Lenney had his
left lung removed and underwent chemotherapy and radiation
treatments. He also sued Lorillard and H&V.

"They attacked my credibility as far as whether I had actually
smoked Kent cigarettes," Mr. Lenney recalled.  Their investigators
"were very pushy," Mr. Lenney said.  "They would knock on
somebody's door and just ask to interview them . . . without even
calling first to set up an appointment," he said.  "A number of
people were put out with that kind of treatment."

In March, 2011, Lorillard and H&V were found liable by a state
court jury in San Francisco.  The judge later awarded Lenney and
his wife about $1.1 million in damages and costs.  The companies
appealed and the case was resolved in a confidential settlement.

Dimitris O. Couscouris, a Los Angeles-area resident with
mesothelioma, did not fare as well.

Lorillard mounted a relentless attack on Mr. Couscouris'
credibility, suggesting that during his teenage years in Australia
he had evaded the draft, and had once improperly received
unemployment benefits.

Defense lawyers also seized on a statement by a plaintiff witness
that Mr. Couscouris had become too sick to walk.  They sent a
private investigator to conduct surveillance at Mr. Couscouris'
home, and videotaped him and his wife getting into their car and
making a few stops, including at a restaurant and a shopping mall.

In October, 2012, a Los Angeles jury found that Mr. Couscouris had
failed to prove he'd smoked Kents, handing a victory to the
defense.

"The trial ended up being more of an attack on my client," said
Mr. Couscouris' lawyer Trey Jones.  "Almost like a 'blame the
victim' type thing."


LUMINA HEALTH: New Jersey Judge Refuses to Remand Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal
judge on Oct. 24 refused to remand to state court a proposed class
action alleging Lumina Health Products Inc. misled consumers on
the efficacy of its dietary supplement Cell Food, ripping the
plaintiff's argument that the case is "non-class certifiable."

U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler denied plaintiff Harold M.
Hoffman's motion to remand the case to New Jersey Superior Court,
rejecting his argument that his putative class action didn't meet
the $5 million damages threshold to warrant federal jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Mr. Hoffman, who also is a Bergen County attorney who appointed
himself lead counsel in the suit, had argued that his dual role as
class counsel and class plaintiff rendered the suit "non-class
certifiable" in the Third Circuit, and, as such, his alleged
individual damages cannot be aggregated to satisfy CAFA's
$5 million jurisdictional threshold, according to the opinion.

"Plaintiff's argument is perplexing," Judge Chesler wrote.  "To
read his complaint, this case concerns the fraudulent marketing
and distribution of defendant's Cell Food product to 'thousands of
consumers throughout the United States'; Plaintiff, who himself
has allegedly suffered at least $29.95 in damages from his
purchase of Cell Food, just happens to be one of those consumers.
According to the complaint, at least, this is exactly the type of
case CAFA is intended to address."

Mr. Hoffman essentially argued that the amount in controversy for
his putative nationwide class action was just the $29.95 he paid
for Cell Food and the amount in controversy would be $30 or $90,
if trebled.

Additionally, Mr. Hoffman's argument fails because CAFA expressly
defines "class members" for purposes of the jurisdictional
calculation to include those persons "who fall within the
definition of the proposed or certified class," the judge said.

"It would thus run contrary to the plain language of the statute
to only aggregate, as plaintiff suggests, the claims of the
members who might end up in the as-of-yet certified (or not
certified) class, whatever that class may end up being (or not
being)," Judge Chesler said.

Furthermore, Lumina has submitted evidence that, in the two-year
period covered by Judge Hoffman's complaint, it sold at least
$5 million of its Cell Food nationwide, so the suit clearly falls
within the federal court's jurisdiction under CAFA, according to
the opinion.

Mr. Hoffman launched suit in July alleging that Florida-based
Lumina made "blatant misrepresentations" regarding the
effectiveness of Cell Food, duping consumers nationwide into
buying the product with the belief that it was "effective in
delivering improved energy, endurance and health," in violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Lumina has argued that Mr. Hoffman's attempt to have his suit
moved to state court is based on arguments that are absolutely
devoid of legal merit, according to its brief opposing Hoffman's
motion to remand.

Furthermore, Lumina argued that Hoffman is something of a serial
class action plaintiff who purchases products and subsequently
sues merchants and manufacturers claiming consumer fraud
violations.  Since January 2011, Mr. Hoffman has filed at least
75 putative class actions in the New Jersey Superior Court, in
which he purported to serve as both class representative and class
counsel, pro se, according to Lumina.

"But to avoid federal jurisdiction, Mr. Hoffman, though claiming
to be a fiduciary for a putative class, has thrown the class
'under the bus' by arguing that a class could never be certified
in federal court, because he has chosen a dual role for himself,"
Lumina said.

Mr. Hoffman did not immediately respond to requests for comment on
Oct. 25.  Counsel for Lumina was not immediately available for
comment.

Mr. Hoffman represents himself.

Lumina is represented by Michael R. McDonald --
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- and Jennifer Marino Thibodaux --
JMarino@gibbonslaw.com -- of Gibbons PC.

The case is Hoffman v. Lumina Health Products Inc., case number
2:13-cv-04936, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


MCCABE ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Suit Over 2013 PGA Championship
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Recino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McCabe Associates, Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-06558-MAT
(W.D.N.Y., October 9, 2013) arises from alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

From August 5, 2013, through August 16, 2013, McCabe employed Mr.
Recino as a security guard at the 2013 PGA Championship event at
Oak Hill Country Club in Rochester, New York.

The Plaintiff contends that he and others similarly situated were
and are entitled to be paid at least one and one-half of their
respective regular rates of pay for each hour in excess of 40
hours that they worked in any workweek pursuant to the FLSA.  Mr.
Recino alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and the class
all of their earned wages.

Mr. Recino is a citizen of the state of New York.

McCabe Associates, Inc., is a New York corporation headquartered
in Rochester.  McCabe provides security services in New York,
Florida and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Joel Katz, Esq.
          Nicole D. Grunfeld, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          137 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com
                  ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com


MERCK & CO: Incretin Products MDL Moves Forward in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Rieders, Esq. at Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris Waters &
Waffenschmidt report that the federal litigation concerning
products liability claims brought by users of Janvuia, Byetta,
Janumet and Victoza is moving forward in a multi-district
litigation (MDL) established in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  Attorneys for Plaintiffs
submitted a Joint Status Report to the Court on October 7, 2013
which, among other things, proposes a Plaintiff Steering Committee
leadership structure for the ongoing proceedings.  The initial
conference on the litigation will be held on October 17, 2103.
The litigation is called In Re: Incretin Products Liability Sales
and Marketing Litigation, MDL 2452.

The lawsuits filed allege that plaintiffs developed pancreatic
cancer, pancreatitis and thyroid cancer while taking Januvia,
Byetta, Janumet and Victoza to regulate blood sugar to control
Type 2 diabetes.  There are approximately 60 lawsuits that have
been consolidated into the California MDL involving the incretin
mimetic class of drugs.

In 2009, for example, the manufacturer of Januvia was ordered to
add new warnings to the Januvia label about a possible association
with pancreatitis, after the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
became aware of 88 cases of Januvia patients developing acute
pancreatitis.  However, there is no warning concerning development
of pancreatic or thyroid cancer.

A 2014 study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) showed that patients taking incretin mimetic
drugs such as Januvia and Janumet are significantly more likely to
develop pancreatic ailments and be hospitalized for acute
pancreatitis, often a precurser to pancreatic cancer.  A 2011
study published in the Journal of Gastroenterology showed that the
incretin mimetic class of drugs increased the risk of pancreatic
and thyroid cancer, as well as pancreatitis.

This past March, the FDA announced a new review of the entire
incretin mimetics class after a small study indicated that the
drugs could cause dangerous changes in the cells of the pancreas.
While the FDA recently announced it was unable to confirm this
risk, the agency's review of the drugs is ongoing.


MONDELEZ INT'L: Plaintiff Appealed Dismissal of "Manchouck" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Manchouck appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit from an order dismissing her class action lawsuit
against Mondelez International, Inc., an Illinois corporation,
doing business as Nabisco.

The lawsuit arose from Nabisco's labeling and advertising
displayed on the front packaging of certain of its products
stating that those products were "made with real fruit."  In her
complaint, Ms. Manchouck alleges four claims for relief: (1)
unfair and fraudulent business practices; (2) unlawful business
practices; (3) false and misleading advertising; and (4)
violations of Section 1750 of the California Civil Code.  She
sought injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution, actual and
punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.  On September 26,
2013, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted
without leave to amend.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Benjamin Michael Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 494-7701
          E-mail: blopatin@gmail.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Kenneth K. Lee, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK, LLP
          633 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
          Telephone: (213) 239-5152
          E-mail: KLee@jenner.com

               - and -

          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 923-2765
          E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com

The appellate case is Monique Manchouck v. Mondelez International,
Inc., Case No. 13-17029 (9th Cir., October 9, 2013).  The original
case is Monique Manchouck v. Mondelez International, Inc., Case
No. 3:13-cv-02148-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.


NATROL INC: Health Benefit Claims Are False, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Linda Dao, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Natrol, Inc. d.b.a. Delaware Natrol, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation and Does 1 through 20, Case No. 3:13-cv-02433-BEN-WMC
(S.D. Cal., October 9, 2013) relates to Natrol Glucosamine
Chondroitin supplements ("Natrol GC"), a line of Glucosamine and
Chondroitin based supplements that purportedly provides a variety
of health benefits focused on improving joint health, mobility,
flexibility, and lubrication.  The Defendants distribute, market,
and sell Natrol GC.

These claimed health benefits are the only reason a consumer would
purchase Natrol GC, Ms. Dao says.  She alleges that the
Defendants' advertising claims are false, misleading, and
reasonably likely to deceive the public.  She asserts that all
available scientific evidence demonstrates that the Natrol GC
products have no efficacy at all: that they are ineffective in the
improvement of joint health, provide no benefits related to the
reduction of pain in human joints, and they do not protect
cartilage from breakdown.

Linda Dao is a resident of San Diego County, California.  In early
March of 2013, she purchased one bottle of Natrol GC at a Ralph's
grocery store in San Diego, California.

Natrol, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in
Chatsworth, California.  Natrol researches, develops,
manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells its Natrol GC
products to tens of thousands of consumers in California and
throughout the United States.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 347-3517
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, California 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com


NOVO NORDISK: Recalls NovoMix30 FlexPen & Penfill Treatments
------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Xpress reports that batches of Novo Nordisk's diabetes
treatments NovoMix 30 FlexPen and Penfill are being recalled, the
European Medicines Agency said on Oct. 25.

"In the affected cartridges the level of insulin may vary between
50 percent and 150 percent of the labelled insulin units, which
could lead to hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia," the agency said in
a statement.

Only a small percentage of cartridges, 0.14 percent, contain the
wrong amount, the Danish company said.

Patients whose products were labeled with numbers from the
affected batches should "make an appointment with their doctor or
nurse for switching treatment as soon as it is feasible," the EU
regulator said.

A spokesperson for the company was not immediately available on
Oct. 25.

Novo Nordisk has almost half the global insulin market, which has
grown rapidly in recent years following a rise in the number of
people suffering from diabetes, estimated by the World Health
Organization to stand at around 347 million.


NVIDIA CORP: Court Approves Class Action Settlement Over GPUs
-------------------------------------------------------------
NPT RicePoint Class Action Services on Oct. 25 disclosed that a
settlement has been reached and approved by the Court whereby
NVIDIA Corporation has agreed to pay CAD $1,900,000.00 in exchange
for a full release of claims brought on behalf of Canadians who
purchased a computer for use and not for resale equipped with a
defective NVIDIA graphics card known as either a Graphics
Processing Unit or a Media Communications Chip ("GPUs").

Consumers are eligible for compensation if they purchased certain
laptop computers for use and not for resale made by Apple, Compaq,
Dell, HP, or Sony that contain a defective GPU made by NVIDIA.
For a full list of "Affected Computers", visit.
http://www.canadiannvidiasettlement.com

An Affected Computer is one that contains the defective NVIDIA GPU
and which suffered or exhibited one or more of the following
"Qualifying Symptoms":

a. distorted or scrambled video;

b. no video on the screen even when the computer is on;

c. random characters, lines or garbled images;

d. intermittent video issues; or

e. failure to detect wireless adaptor or wireless networks.

The Qualifying Symptoms vary by computer manufacturer.  To view a
list of the symptoms by computer, visit
http://www.canadiannvidiasettlement.com

Qualifying class members will receive cash compensation based on
the severity of the Qualifying Symptoms experienced, the loss of
use of the computer, the age of the Affected Computer, any out-of-
pocket repair expenses, any loss of use, and other relevant
factors.

To submit a claim, class members can obtain a Claim Form at
http://www.canadiannvidiasettlement.comor by regular mail by
contacting the Administrator at 1-866-432-5534.

In order to make a successful claim, class members should provide
the following:

   * Proof they bought one or more Affected Computers;

   * Proof of the date of purchase of an Affected Computer;

   * A description of the Qualifying Symptoms experienced and when
they were experienced;

   * A brief explanation of whether they lost the use of the
computer permanently as a result of the Qualifying Symptoms or
temporarily until there was a repair; and,

   * Proof of any out of pocket expenses paid for in connection
with the Qualifying Symptoms (e.g. repair bills, external memory
drives, cooling pads, computer rental, shipping costs).

Cash payments will be made once satisfactory proof of purchase and
a declaration respecting the experience of Qualifying Symptoms has
been received by the Claims Administrator.

Cash payments will be made for total loss of use based on the age
of the computer; temporary loss of use having regard to the nature
and duration of the loss of use; and reimbursement for out-of-
pocket expenses.

The amount of compensation will be determined by the Claims
Administrator who will apply a compensation grid and settlement
administration guidelines.  To view the Distribution Protocol,
visit http://www.canadiannvidiasettlement.com

To receive compensation, class members must mail or otherwise
submit a completed Claim Form and any supporting documents to the
Administrator no later than February 25, 2014.


OKLAHOMA: Foster Home Recruitment Data Inaccurate, Experts Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Ellis, writing for The Oklahoman, reports that Oklahoma has
gotten off to a rocky start in its initial efforts to implement
child welfare reforms as part of a settlement agreement to a
federal class-action lawsuit.

State Department of Human Services officials have submitted
inaccurate data concerning foster home recruitment and shelter
stays by children in state custody, according to the initial
report released on Oct. 23 by three out-of-state experts hired to
monitor Oklahoma's compliance with the settlement agreement.

The state also has jeopardized reform efforts by failing to fully
deliver promised annual pay increases for child welfare workers
and foster parents, the report said.

"The report findings are troubling, and certainly call into
question whether DHS is meeting its commitments to Oklahoma's
children," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of
Children's Rights, the national advocacy organization that filed
the lawsuit against DHS.

"In the face of acknowledged problems, DHS has been unable to
supply adequate data and has adopted some seemingly questionable
practices.  Perhaps most detrimental, the state has failed to
increase payments to foster parents or bolster caseworker
salaries, both of which are critical to create lasting change."

Ms. Lowry told The Oklahoman that her organization is so concerned
by the report that it plans to file a formal complaint with the
out-of-state monitors that could lead to the state being ordered
to comply with its agreed upon reform plan.

DHS Director Ed Lake called his agency's reform efforts "a work in
progress."

"It's not a sprint.  It's a marathon," he said.

The outside monitors found that DHS repeatedly overcounted the
number of new foster and adoptive homes it had recruited in
reports the agency submitted.

DHS officials initially reported that 1,543 new foster and
adoptive homes were recruited in fiscal year 2011, but that number
was later lowered to 1,169 after the overseers identified numerous
homes that had been double counted or otherwise should not have
been included.

DHS also initially reported it had recruited 796 new traditional
foster homes during fiscal year 2013 -- 15 more that the agency's
approved target.

However, the monitors said 53 of those homes had been double
counted.

Mr. Lake said counting foster homes is more complicated than it
sounds, because homes can be approved for various types of care.

For example, the same home can be approved as both a foster home
and an adoptive home, which can lead to it being mistakenly
counted twice, depending upon how data is gathered.

"We're not double counting homes on purpose," Mr. Lake said.
"Nobody's trying to manipulate the data."

                       Overseers' concerns

The overseers expressed concerns that more than a fourth of the
1,744 resource homes that DHS reported as being open and available
on June 30 had no children placed in them, even though the state
has been keeping children in shelters while complaining of a
shortage of available foster homes.

Of the 456 foster homes with no children on the last day of June,
171 had not had a child in three months and 28 had not had a
placement for more than a year, the report stated.

The data raise "serious questions about DHS' foster home
practices," as well at the process the agency uses for closing
homes that are no longer accepting child placements, the report
stated.

Overseers said their review of cases also raised concerns that DHS
workers have been pushing kinship homes that provide foster care
for relatives to also provide foster care or emergency foster care
for non-relatives -- even in cases where records indicate the
providers had indicated they only wanted to care for relatives.

Lowry called the tactic "extremely questionable" and said it can
lead to children being bounced around among placements, which she
said is harmful.

Lowry joined the out-of-state monitors in voicing concern about
the agency's high turnover rate and its backlog of 1,833 child
welfare investigations.

"The situation is quite dangerous to children," Ms. Lowery said,
describing Oklahoma's backlog as the biggest she has seen in any
state.

Overseers said that after some initial success in reducing the
number of infants and toddlers in state shelters, the numbers have
increased in recent months as the agency has struggled with an
increase in the number of children taken into state custody.

The overseers did praise DHS for its progress in some areas,
including its reorganization of the agency to create a Child
Welfare Division and its appointment of a new leadership and
management team.

Mr. Lake said trying to make child welfare reforms while going
through such a drastic overhaul has been a challenge.

"In some cases, this is sort of like building a plane while you're
flying a plane," Mr. Lake said.

"We've made progress in a lot of areas, but the context is,
unfortunately, we still feel like we're paddling upstream because
of the influx in the number of children in custody.  The increased
numbers put more pressure on everything else we're trying to do."

Mr. Lake said DHS has accelerated its hiring of child welfare
workers, but it takes time to get employees trained and out in the
field.

"We're committed to funding and carrying out every initiative of
this plan," Mr. Lake said.


PERDUE FARMS: Faces Second Class Action Over "Humane" Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Poultry Site reports that the Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS) on Oct. 25 announced the filing of a second class
action lawsuit against the nation's fourth-largest poultry
producer, Perdue Farms, Inc. over the company's alleged false
advertising of factory farmed chicken products as "humane".

The suit -- filed on behalf of Florida consumers who allegedly
purchased Perdue's Harvestland chicken -- alleges that Perdue is
deceptively marketing the chicken products as "Humanely Raised"
even though the chickens are subject to standard mass-produced
industry practices.

According to HSUS, those practices include inhumane handling and
shackling of live birds, the transport of birds on cramped trucks
for long periods of time in extreme temperatures with no food or
water, and inhumane slaughter of birds.

"Animals in Perdue's factory farms suffer many of the same
conditions found in other industrial facilities," said
Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel of Animal
Protection Litigation for The HSUS.  "Perdue has apparently been
exploiting the good intentions of its customers and selling them a
factory-farmed product dressed up as 'humane'."

The complaint allegedly seeks a jury trial and compensation for
the class members.  It also seeks to end Perdue's use of the
"Humanely Raised" claim on Harvestland products.

According to HSUS, earlier this year, a federal court in New
Jersey rejected Perdue's attempt to have a similar case dismissed,
paving the way for that action to proceed.  Both lawsuits allege
that Perdue's "humanely raised" labels mislead consumers.

HSUS reports that public records obtained from USDA -- which
Perdue fought to keep hidden from public view -- show that the
standards upon which Perdue bases its "Humanely Raised" claim are
the voluntary so-called "Animal Welfare Guidelines" of the
National Chicken Council -- the trade group for the chicken
industry.  The suit alleges that those guidelines allow for
mistreatment that no reasonable consumer would consider humane.

The plaintiffs are being represented in the case by Tycko &
Zavareei LLP, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Keechl and
attorneys with The HSUS' Animal Protection Litigation Section.


RESER'S FINE: Recalls Salad Products Over Listeria Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 26, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Reser's Fine Foods Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8426

The public warning issued on October 24, 2013 has been updated to
include additional products and Best Before dates.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Reser's Fine Foods
Inc. are warning the public not to consume the salad products
described below, because they may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at: http://is.gd/65LUfL

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

The following products, marked with a Best Before Date followed by
a plant identifier code of 20, are affected by this alert:

Affected products

   -- 425 g. Market Pantry Coleslaw with Best Before Date(s)
      followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 10 to 2013
      NO 03;

   -- 454 g. Market Pantry Macaroni Salad with Best Before Date(s)
      followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 20 to 2013
      NO 11;

   -- 454 g. Market Pantry Potato & Egg Salad with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 NO 03
      to 2013 NO 17;

   -- 454 g. Market Pantry Potato Salad with Best Before Date(s)
      followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 20 to 2013
      NO 14;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Creamy Spinach Dip with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 OC 17 to 2013 NO 14;

   -- 425 g. Reser's Fine Foods Crunchy Cole Slaw with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 10
      to 2013 NO 08;

   -- 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Crunchy Cole Slaw with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 OC 10 to 2013 NO 08;

   -- 1.81 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Gourmet Red Potato Salad with
      Best Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20
      from 2013 OC 12 to 2013 NO 15;

   -- 340 g Reser's Fine Foods Gourmet Red Potato Salad with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 OC 12 to 2013 NO 10;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad with Deviled Egg with
      Best Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20
      from 2013 OC 12 to 2013 NO 15;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad with Egg with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 OC 23 to 2013 NO 26;

   -- 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad with Egg with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 OC 23 to 2013 NO 26;

   -- 425 g Reser's Fine Foods Traditional Cole Slaw with Oil &
      Vinegar with Best Before Date(s) followed by plant
      identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 10 to 2013 NO 07;

   -- 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Cheesy Macaroni Salad with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 OC 20 to 2013 NO 18;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Cheesy Macaroni Salad with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 OC 20 to 2013 NO 18

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Ranch Pasta Salad with Bacon with
      Best Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20
      from 2013 OC 11 to 2013 NO 07;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 23
      to 2013 NO 21;

   -- 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 23
      to 2013 NO 26;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Macaroni Salad with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 23
      to 2013 NO 26;

   -- 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Macaroni Salad with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 23
      to 2013 NO 21;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Homestyle Potato Salad with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 OC 10 to 2013 NO 07;

   -- 3.63 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad* with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 23
      to 2013 NO 27.  * These affected products were sold in bulk
      and may have been repacked at retail. Consumers who cannot
      determine the original product identity are advised to check
      with their retailer to determine if they have one of the
      affected products.

   -- 2.27 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Loaded Baked Potato Salad* with
      Best Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20
      from 2013 OC 08 to 2013 NO 10.  * These affected products
      were sold in bulk and may have been repacked at retail.
      Consumers who cannot determine the original product identity
      are advised to check with their retailer to determine if
      they have one of the affected products.

   -- 3.18 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Cole Slaw* with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 08
      to 2013 NO 10 0 71117 15124 4 *  These affected products
      were sold in bulk and may have been repacked at retail.
      Consumers who cannot determine the original product identity
      are advised to check with their retailer to determine if
      they have one of the affected products.

   -- 3.63 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Chicken Salad Dressing* with
      Best Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20
      from 2013 OC 24 to 2013 NO 20 * These affected products were
      sold in bulk and may have been repacked at retail.
      Consumers who cannot determine the original product identity
      are advised to check with their retailer to determine if
      they have one of the affected products.

   -- 3.63 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Macaroni Salad* with Best Before
      Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from 2013 OC 25
      to 2013 NO 20.  * These affected products were sold in bulk
      and may have been repacked at retail.  Consumers who cannot
      determine the original product identity are advised to check
      with their retailer to determine if they have one of the
      affected products.

   -- 3.63 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Four Bean Salad* with Best
      Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20 from
      2013 NO 24 to 2013 DE 15.  * These affected products were
      sold in bulk and may have been repacked at retail.
      Consumers who cannot determine the original product identity
      are advised to check with their retailer to determine if
      they have one of the affected products.

   -- 3.63 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Diced Potato with Egg Salad*
      with Best Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code
      20 from 2013 OC 23 to 2013 NO 26.  * These affected products
      were sold in bulk and may have been repacked at retail.
      Consumers who cannot determine the original product identity
      are advised to check with their retailer to determine if
      they have one of the affected products.

   -- 2.27 kg. Stonemill Kitchens Red Potato Salad with Dijon with
      Best Before Date(s) followed by plant identifier code 20
      from 2013 OC 15 to 2013 NO 18


RESER'S FINE: Recalls Additional Chicken, Ham and Beef Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reser's Fine Foods, a Topeka, Kan. establishment, is expanding its
recall of chicken, ham and beef products to include all products
produced between Sept. 5 and Oct. 9, 2013.  This is in addition to
the 22,800 pounds of product recalled on Oct. 22, 2013.  The
products are being recalled 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 here.  Products regulated by FSIS bear
the establishment number "EST. 13520" or "P-13520" inside the USDA
mark of inspection.  Only products made at this Topeka, KS
facility, also designated by the plant code #20 after the code
date, are affected by this recall.  No other Reser's facilities
are involved in this action.

Products subject to this expansion of the recall include the
following:

   -- Block and Barrel Imperial Gourmet White Meat Chicken Salad
      with use by date of 10/5/13 - 11/17/13;

   -- Chef Solutions Cranberry Pecan White Meat Chicken Salad with
      use by date of 10/14/13 - 11/16/13;

   -- Dillons Ham Salad with use by date of 10/15/13 - 11/16/13;

   -- Cobble Street Market Chicken Salad with use by date of
      10/12/13 - 11/15/13;

   -- Kroger BBQ Beans With Beef & Sauce with use by date of
      10/17/13 - 11/14/13;

   -- Kroger BBQ Beans With Beef & Sauce with use by date of
      10/20/13 - 11/12/13;

   -- Millers Bar-B-Que Beans with Beef with use by date of
      10/16/13 - 11/18/13;

   -- Millers Bar-B-Que Beans with Beef with use by date of
      10/20/13 - 11/19/13;

   -- Mrs. Weaver's Ham Salad with use by date of 10/18/13 -
      11/14/13;

   -- Mrs. Weaver's Chicken Salad with use by date of 10/22/13 -
      11/19/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Chicken Salad with use by date of 9/19/13
      - 11/12/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Gourmet White Chicken Salad with use by
      date of 10/7/13 - 11/9/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Smoked Chicken Salad with use by date of
      10/8/13 - 11/9/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods White Meat Chicken Salad with Cranberries
      & Pecans with use by date of 10/11/13 - 11/13/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods White Meat Chicken Salad with use by date
      of 10/11/13 - 11/13/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Chicken Salad with use by date of
      10/12/13 - 11/15/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods White Chicken Salad Artificially Whitened
      with use by date of 10/15/13 - 11/17/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Carolina BBQ Beans with Meat with use by
      date of 10/17/13 - 11/19/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Classic Chicken Salad with use by date of
      10/19/13 - 11/16/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Shredded White Chicken Salad with use by
      date of 10/20/13 - 11/22/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Ham Salad Supreme with use by date of
      10/21/13 - 11/23/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Ham Salad with use by date of 10/21/13 -
      11/22/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods Ham Salad with use by date of 10/28/13 -
      11/26/13;

   -- Reser's Fine Foods White Meat Chicken Salad with Rotisserie
      Seasoning with use by date of 11/3/2013

   -- Sav-A-Lot Ham Salad with use by date of 10/16/13 - 11/17/13;

   -- Stonemill Kitchens Loaded Potato Salad with Bacon with use
      by date of 10/11/13 - 11/12/13;

   -- Stonemill Kitchens Low Fat White Chicken Salad with Agave
      and Cranberries with use by date of 11/6/2013;

   -- Stonemill Kitchens Cranberry Pecan White Chicken Salad with
      use by date of 11/7/2013;

   -- Essential Everyday White Meat Chicken Salad with use by date
      of 10/11/13 - 11/8/13;

   -- Classic Chicken Salad with use by date of 10/11/13 -
      11/13/13;

   -- Cross Valley Farms Chicken Salad with use by date of
      10/10/13 - 11/13/13;

   -- Cross Valley Farms Ham Salad with use by date of 10/25/13 -
      11/23/13;

   -- CHICKEN MKTSDE SS with use by date of 10/11/13 - 11/12/13;

   -- Walmart Deli Chicken Salad with use by date of 10/11/13 -
      11/8/13;

   -- Walmart Deli Ham Salad with use by date of 10/18/13 -
      11/19/13;

   -- Yoder's Ham Salad with use by date of 10/17/13 - 11/17/13

The products were distributed to retailers and distributors
nationwide.

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.  Upon further review,
the company determined that products produced on additional dates
should be recalled.  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/recalls

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.  To report a problem with a meat, poultry or processed egg
product to FSIS at any time, visit:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


RESER'S FINE FOODS: Expands Recall of Ready-to-Eat Foods
--------------------------------------------------------
JoNel Aleccia, writing for NBC News, reports that Reser's Fine
Foods Inc. of Beaverton, Ore., has expanded a recall of
refrigerated ready-to-eat foods including potato salad, cole slaw
and salsa distributed in the U.S. and Canada because they may be
contaminated with listeria, which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections.

Earlier, the firm recalled 109,000 cases of refrigerated foods and
22,800 pounds of chicken, ham and beef products produced at the
company's Topeka, Kan., plant.  In a recall notice issued earlier
by the Food and Drug Administration, the firm had said there were
no reports of illness tied to the recalls.  On Oct. 26, the firm
issued an expanded recall notice and said there were no
"confirmed" reports of illness.

That means consumers should check their refrigerators for any of
the products sold widely at stores including Walmart, Safeway and
Target.  In healthy people, infections from listeria bacteria can
cause symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness,
abdominal pain and nausea.  In children, the elderly or those with
compromised immune systems, the infections can cause severe
illness. They can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths in
pregnant women and severe infections in newborns.

The recalled products were manufactured at the Topeka salad
manufacturing facility, the firm said.  No other Reser's Fine
Foods, Inc. manufacturing facilities are involved in this recall.
Representatives for Reser's would not say what the volume of
product was covered by the expanded recall or elaborate on the
possible number or type of illnesses reported in connection with
the original or expanded recalls.  A company representative said
consumers should check the list of potentially affected food
products.

The problem was discovered through microbiological testing by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency.  A traceback investigation and
follow-up testing by the FDA determined that there was potential
cross-contamination of products with Listeria monocytogenes from
contaminated surfaces, according to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service.

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 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. EST.
Consumers concerned about illness should contact a healthcare
provider.


RHYTHM & HUES: Gets Nod for $1 Million Workers Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Los Angeles federal bankruptcy judge on
Oct. 23 approved a $1 million settlement for a class of workers
that claims the now-bankrupt visual effects studio behind "Life of
Pi" breached the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act when it didn't pay them after the company shut down.

According to the report, the Oscar-winning Rhythm & Hues Inc.
agreed to pay at least $1 million to the workers out of its
bankruptcy estate, ending six months of adversary proceedings.

Rhythm and Hues, Inc., aka Rhythm and Hues Studios Inc., filed its
Chapter 11 petition in Los Angeles bankruptcy court on Feb. 13,
2013, estimating assets ranging from $10 million to $50 million
and liabilities ranging from $50 million to $100 million.  Judge
Neil W. Bason oversees the case.

R&H provided visual effects and animation for more than 150
feature films and has received Academy Awards for Babe and the
Golden Compass, an Academy Award nomination for The Chronicles of
Narnia and Life of Pi.  R&H owned a 135,000 square-foot facility
in El Segundo, California, and had more than 460 employees.

Key clients Universal City Studios LLC and Twentieth Century Fox,
a division of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, provided DIP
financing.  They are represented by Jones Day's Richard L. Wynne,
Esq., and Lori Sinanyan, Esq.

At the end of March 2013, the Debtor sold the business to 34x118
Holdings Inc., an affiliate of competitor Prana Studios Inc.  The
buyer agreed to pay $1.2 million cash, take over payment of the
loan financing the Chapter 11 effort, pay defaults on contracts
going along with the sale, and assume liabilities to employees for
as much as $5 million.  On May 24, 2013, the Debtor obtained Court
permission to change its corporate name to AWTR Liquidation, Inc.


SSM HEALTH CARE: Judge Approves $3.5MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that a Wisconsin federal
judge approved a $3.5 million settlement on Oct. 23, in a class
and collective action brought against SSM Health Care of Wisconsin
Inc. on behalf of approximately 1,400 nurses who allegedly had
meal periods automatically deducted from their pay despite their
having to remain on duty.

U.S. District Judge William M. Conley gave the pact final approval
and also signed off on a $1.16 million fees and costs award for
plaintiffs' counsel Hawks Quindel SC and Habush Habush & Rottier
SC, wrapping up the case a little more than two years after it was
filed.

"The court held a fairness hearing at which only the parties'
counsel appeared. Based on their representations, the parties'
written submissions, the lack of any objections, and the entire
record in this case, the court concludes that the parties'
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate," Judge Conley said.

The case was lodged in August 2011 by Roberta Fosbinder-Bittorf,
who worked at SSM-operated St. Mary's Hospital from 2006 through
July 2011.  She said that she was denied wages for on-duty meal
periods pursuant to an illegal pay policy.

Her January 2012 amended complaint leveled minimum wage and
overtime claims and proposed a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
class and a Wisconsin state law class comprised of SSM-employed
nurses at St. Mary's.

The court granted Ms. Fosbinder-Bittorf's bid for conditional
certification in March.  Judge Conley certified the state-law
class for settlement purposes on Oct. 23.

The Oct. 23 order also approved a $15,000 enhancement payment for
Ms. Fosbinder-Bittorf and 5,000 payouts to opt-ins Carolyn
Mannina, Trisha Bratten and JoLynn Meyers.

In an unopposed motion for final approval of the pact filed on
Oct. 15, the plaintiffs said that none of the 1,416 class members
had objected to the settlement and that only 27 had opted out.
All but $60,301.45 of the settlement fund -- more than 98 percent
-- had been claimed and would be paid out, the motion said.

Hawks Quindel's William Parsons, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
said on Oct. 24 that he was pleased with the settlement and that
the average recovery per nurse was $1,625.  There have been
numerous other wage and hour suits over automatic deductions to
hospital workers pay for meal breaks, and this deal appears to
rank at or near the top of the heap in terms of class recovery, he
added.

"We took a pretty good look at it, and we think this is the
largest recovery to date," Parsons said.

An attorney for SSM could not be immediately reached for comment.
The defendant, which is part of the St. Louis, Mo.-based Catholic
nonprofit health system SSM Health Care, owns and operates three
hospitals and two skilled nursing facilities in the Badger State.

The plaintiffs are represented by William Parsons --
wparsons@hq-law.com -- David Zoeller -- dzoeller@hq-law.com --
Danielle Schroder -- dschroder@hq-law.com -- Summer Murshid --
smurshid@hq-law.com -- and Larry Johnson -- ljohnson@hq-law.com --
of Hawks Quindel SC; and Daniel Rottier -- rottier@habush.com --
Robert Habush -- rhabush@habush.com -- and Jason Knutson and
Habush Habush & Rottier SC.

SSM is represented by Kyle Petersen of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Fosbinder-Bittorf et al. v. SSM Health Care of
Wisconsin Inc., case number 3:11-cv-00592, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.


STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Faces Setback in Fight Against TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that Stonebridge Life
Insurance Co. faced a possible setback on Oct. 23 in its fight
against a California text-spamming class action when its onetime
marketing firm, a co-defendant, flipped and agreed to finger
Stonebridge as a culprit.

Trifecta Marketing Group LLC, which allegedly sent tens of
thousands of unsolicited text messages to generate customer leads
for Stonebridge, will escape the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
litigation in exchange for helping a certified class of message
recipients make their case, according to settlement documents
entered on Oct. 23.

Under the deal, Trifecta must "cooperate fully" with class counsel
and provide documentary evidence and witness testimony pinning the
blame on Stonebridge.  The evidence will purportedly indicate that
Stonebridge authorized Trifecta's outbound text messaging
activities and disprove the insurer's long-standing position that
it was unaware of any TCPA violations.

"As Trifecta has confirmed through the settlement, Stonebridge's
position in this case that they had 'no idea' text messages were
being used to generate leads for its products is not grounded in
fact," the plaintiffs' motion in support of the agreement said.
"Instead, Stonebridge continued to accept leads generated from
Trifecta with the full knowledge that Trifecta was using outbound
text messaging to generate these leads."

The evidence will corroborate documents Stonebridge itself was
forced to cough up at a July discovery hearing indicating it had
the chance to stop Trifecta's text-spamming but chose to look the
other way, according to the filing.  The plaintiffs purportedly
consented to the deal after determining that Trifecta was
essentially broke and had no insurance coverage that could pay
class members.

"Given Trifecta's financial insolubility . . . complete
cooperation in providing documents and testimony to plaintiff is
perhaps the most valuable benefit it could offer the class," the
filing said.

Lead plaintiff Jennifer Lee mounted the suit in 2011, contending
she had received an unsolicited text message encouraging her to
call a toll-free number and promising a free $100 Wal-Mart gift
card if she did.  The number listed in the text allegedly
connected customers with a Trifecta call center operator who would
offer a number of products and services, including the chance to
enter a sweepstakes sponsored by Stonebridge, but no gift card.

If a consumer showed any interest at all in the products, their
number was transferred to Stonebridge so the insurer could reach
out to the caller directly, according to the suit.

As Ms. Lee argued, Trifecta was under contract to push Stonebridge
insurance products, but Stonebridge inserted itself into the
process by drafting the call-center scripts, obtaining access to
the calls and controlling when its offers would be presented to
those who called the text-message number back.

Trifecta and Stonebridge also allegedly consulted on maximizing
the number of callbacks and discussed how texts should be crafted,
as well as the possibility of using so-called short messaging
service traffic from third parties that could drive additional
callbacks.

But no one at Stonebridge ever advised Trifecta that using
unsolicited texting to generate leads was forbidden under the
TCPA, according to the complaint.

Trifecta later allegedly built its own in-house messaging platform
and sent 60,000 individuals short messages during a four-day span
in late 2010 that are the subject of Lee's suit.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seebord granted class certification to
recipients of those messages in February.

In addition to turning on Stonebridge, Trifecta agreed under
Wednesday's settlement to swear off outbound text messages for the
next four years and submit to an injunction.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Oct. 24.

The putative class is represented by Sean Reis --
sreis@edelson.com -- Ryan D. Andrews -- randrews@edelson.com --
and John C. Ochoa -- jochoa@edelson.com -- of Edelson LLC.

Stonebridge is represented by Dan Marmalefsky --
dmarmalefsky@mofo.com -- and Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com --
of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Trifecta is represented by Stuart D. Kirchick of the Law Offices
of Stuart D. Kirchick and Alexander E. Sklavos of the Law Offices
of Alexander E. Sklavos PC.

The case is Lee v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., case number
3:11-cv-00043, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


STRATASYS INC: Settles Stockholder Suit
---------------------------------------
In June and July 2012, putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
in Hennepin County and in the Delaware Court of Chancery
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of April 13, 2012, among Stratasys, Inc.,
Objet Ltd., which is now Stratasys Ltd., Seurat Holdings Inc., and
Oaktree Merger Inc.  Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub agreed
to merge with Stratasys, Inc., and Stratasys, Inc. would become
the surviving corporation of the Merger and our indirect, wholly
owned subsidiary.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are purported
holders of the common stock of Stratasys, Inc. and are purportedly
acting on behalf of a putative class of Stratasys Stockholders.
These suits name as defendants Stratasys, Inc., the former members
of its Board of Directors, Holdco, Merger Sub, and in certain
instances Objet.

As disclosed in the Stratasys, Inc. Current Report on Form 8-K
dated September 6, 2012, Stratasys, Inc. and the other defendants
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the parties to the
actions pending in the Chancery Court and the Minnesota Court,
pursuant to which Stratasys, Inc. and such other parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those
stockholder lawsuits.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the
parties agreed, after arm's-length negotiations, that Stratasys,
Inc. would file the September 6 Form 8-K amending and
supplementing the applicable disclosure in our joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Merger.  Plaintiffs' counsel
also undertook and conducted confirmatory discovery as provided in
the MOU.

The Merger was approved by Stratasys, Inc. stockholders on
September 14, 2012, and was consummated on December 1, 2012, which
resulted in Stratasys, Inc. becoming our indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary. In connection with the Merger, we changed our name
from Objet Ltd. to Stratasys Ltd.

On October 3, 2013, Stratasys, Inc. and the other defendants
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement
and Release with the plaintiffs in the two stockholder lawsuits.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which is subject to
approval by the Chancery Court, the plaintiffs agreed to a
dismissal of the Delaware Action with prejudice, to voluntarily
dismiss the Minnesota Action with prejudice and without costs, and
to release all claims against the defendants, subject to certain
conditions.  The defendants agreed not to oppose an award of
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed
$450,000.  However, court approval of the settlement is not
conditioned on court approval of such fees, costs and expenses.


STRATEGIC REALTY: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
--------------------------------------------------------
Girard Gibbs LLP and Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr LLC on Oct. 23
announced that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Strategic Realty Trust, Inc.'s common stock in or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") between September 23,
2010 and February 7, 2013, pursuant to a registration statement
and prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Prior to August 23, 2013, the Company was known as
TNP Strategic Retail Trust, Inc.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 23, 2013. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Girard Gibbs attorney John
Kehoe at (866) 981-4800 or (415) 981-4800, or via e-mail at
jak@girardgibbs.com or Peiffer Rosca attorney Alan Rosca at (888)
998-0520, or via email at arosca@praclawfirm.com

The complaint alleges that the Company, its former affiliates
Thompson National Properties, LLC, TNP Strategic Retail Advisor,
LLC and TNP Securities, LLC, and certain of the Company's current
or former officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Among other things, the
complaint alleges that the offering materials provided to
investors during the IPO contained material misrepresentations and
omissions about the financial health of the Company and its
affiliates and about the performance of earlier real estate
programs sponsored by the Company's affiliates.

On January 16, 2013, the Company revealed that it had defaulted on
a $29 million loan that its CEO and Chairman had personally and
unconditionally guaranteed and on its $45 million revolving credit
facility.  Then, on August 28, 2013, the Company issued a press
release disclosing that a board-level "Special Committee" had been
formed a year earlier "for the protection of shareholders" after
one of the Company's affiliates was found to be paying fees to
itself that had not been earned; and that its affiliates had
defaulted on certain corporate debt obligations and had sustained
significant corporate losses.  In the wake of this disclosure, the
Company replaced its CEO and Chairman and severed its relationship
with its affiliates.

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
filed complaint or join this class action online at
http://www.girardgibbs.com/strategic-realty-trust-investor-
lawsuit/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Girard Gibbs LLP -- http://www.GirardGibbs.com-- is a law firm
that represents individual and institutional investors in
securities fraud class actions and litigation to correct
abusive corporate governance practices, breaches of fiduciary duty
and proxy violations.

Based in Louisiana with an office in Ohio, Peiffer Rosca --
http://www.praclawfirm.com/-- deals with complex and difficult
legal and business matters, and has developed expertise in
a variety of specialized areas of law to provide innovative
solutions to its clients' various needs.


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Broccoli Salad Kits
-----------------------------------------
Taylor Farms, a Jessup, Md. establishment, is recalling
approximately 5,084 pounds of broccoli salad kit products.  The
kits contain salad dressing in packets that are the subject of a
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall due to concerns about
possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The salad kits were shipped to distributors and retail locations
(delis) for consumer purchase in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.  The following
products are subject to recall:

   -- 6.06-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH
      BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310151, produced on
      Oct. 21 and Oct. 22, 2013.

   -- 12.13-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH
      BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310153, produced
      Oct. 21 through Oct. 23, 2013.

Case labels bear the establishment number "EST. 34522" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.  Retail consumers and the general public
will not typically see the boxes and labels, because the product
is typically unboxed by retailers (such as deli counters and
restaurants) and the kit used to make salads for retail sale.  The
boxes and labels would be more likely to be seen by distributors
and retailers.

Taylor Farms informed FSIS that salad dressing subject to an FDA
recall was contained in the salad kits produced on the dates
listed above.  FSIS, FDA and the company have received no reports
of illnesses associated with 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
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Garth Borman
of Taylor Farms, at 209-830-3103.  Consumers with questions
regarding the recall can contact Taylor Farms Customer Service at
866-508-7048.

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


THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Judge Denies Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Alaburda v. Thomas Jefferson School of Law was the class action
that spawned a wave of suits brought by alumni claiming their law
schools duped them with misleading post-graduate employment
statistics.

But the case, filed in 2011 by 2008 graduate Anna Alaburda, was
dealt a major blow last week when a San Diego County Superior
Court judge denied class certification.

The four plaintiffs had sought to certify a class of all
Thomas Jefferson law graduates from 2006 to 2013 who live in
California and consulted U.S. News & World Report's law school
rankings when deciding where to enroll.

But Judge Joel Pressman ruled that there was no objective and
reliable way to determine who turned to U.S. News.  "In this case,
determining membership rests exclusively on self-authentication,
which seems in this case to be unreliable," he wrote in his order
on Oct. 21.

Moreover, the Thomas Jefferson graduates chose the law school for
a variety of reasons and don't constitute a "well-defined
community of interest," he added.

"Given these vastly different reasons for attending TJSL and the
differing weight placed upon the U.S. News & World Report article,
there are significant individual issues with respect to reliance
and causation," Judge Pressman wrote.  Given that the plaintiffs
had different employment outcomes, they should pursue individual
actions rather than a class action, he ruled.

Attorney Brian Procel, representing the Thomas Jefferson grads,
did not respond to calls for comment on Oct. 24.  Dean Thomas
Guernsey, meanwhile, said administrators were pleased with the
outcome.  "The ruling supports our unwavering position that there
never was any basis for a class action lawsuit of this nature
against the Thomas Jefferson School of Law," he said in a prepared
statement.

The ruling raised questions about four similar suits pending
against California law schools.  Another 15 fraud suits filed
against law schools across the country over the past two years
have met little success.  Cases in New York, Illinois and Michigan
have since been dismissed, although the New Jersey case against
the Widener University School of Law survived an initial
challenge.

But California and its more liberal state consumer protection laws
had been a bright spot for plaintiffs.  Cases against Thomas
Jefferson; Golden Gate University School of Law; and the
University of San Francisco School of Law all survived initial
motions to dismiss.

Attorney Jesse Strauss, who represents the plaintiffs in the
Golden Gate and San Francisco cases, said Judge Pressman's ruling
was little cause for concern.

"These cases are very unpredictable and there has been no
uniformity among the courts in how they address them," Mr. Strauss
said.  "While I would have liked the certification motion to be
granted, I don't think the denial will have much impact as it will
likely be up on appeal while the motions in my cases are
determined."


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Sudden-Acceleration Case for $3 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Toyota Motor Corp. has agreed to settle allegations of sudden
acceleration defects following a $3 million verdict in a case in
which a jury that was scheduled to determine punitive damages
today.

On Oct. 24, Toyota lost the second major verdict over sudden
acceleration defects when an Oklahoma state jury found in favor of
an injured driver and the family of a passenger who was killed
when their 2005 Camry accelerated at a highway exit ramp.  The
jury gave $1.5 million to each plaintiff.  The panel was poised to
take up punitive damages but Toyota settled the case before that.
The terms were confidential.

"While we strongly disagree with the verdict, we are satisfied
that the parties reached a mutually acceptable agreement to settle
this case," Toyota spokeswoman Carly Schaffner wrote in an emailed
statement.  "We remain committed to providing our customers with
safe and reliable vehicles, and we will continue to defend our
products vigorously at trial in other legal venues."

The case, in Oklahoma County, Okla., District Court, was the first
to present evidence that defects in the electronic throttle
control system were responsible for sudden acceleration in Toyota
vehicles.  Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles of
Montgomery, Ala., was the lead plaintiffs' team.

"We are fully convinced that Toyota's conduct from the time the
electronic throttle control system (ETCS) was designed has been
shameful," Beasley Allen shareholder J. Cole Portis --
cole.portis@beasleyallen.com -- said in a prepared statement.  "We
appreciate that the jury had the courage to let Toyota and the
public know that Toyota was reckless. Hopefully, Toyota will
recall all of their questionable vehicles and install a computer
that will be safe."

Mr. Portis, who heads the firm's product liability and personal
injury section, told The National Law Journal that the plaintiffs'
team had sought between $3 million to $6 million for the driver
and $5 million to $8 million for the family of the deceased
passenger.  Under Oklahoma law, punitive damages would have been
capped at $3 million -- the amount of the compensatory damage
award, he said.

But founding shareholder Jere Beasley --
jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com -- said jurors, unaware of that
statute, had been prepared to grant at least $15 million in
punitive damages. His team met with jurors this morning.

"They saw it as a monumental case, a landmark case, and one that
would have an effect on Toyota going down the road in the future,"
he said.  "Their intent was to come back this morning and award a
very large punitive award."

A jury in Los Angeles found on October 10 that Toyota's failure to
install a brake override system did not contribute to an accident
that killed Noriko Uno in 2009.  That jury issued a $10 million
verdict against the driver of another vehicle that hit Uno's 2006
Camry, which accelerated down a residential street and into a
tree.

The Oklahoma case was filed by Jean Bookout, who suffered internal
bleeding and a broken ankle in the crash six years ago.  Her
friend, Barbara Schwartz, who was in the front seat, was killed.
Trial began earlier this month.

The case is an outlier in that it is not part of a coordinated
proceeding, and lawyers have not selected it as a bellwether
trial, defined as one whose outcome could guide the resolution of
other cases against Toyota.

But the trial was the second significant one against Toyota this
year.  Toyota faces a third trial -- the first bellwether in the
multidistrict litigation pending in federal court in Santa Ana,
Calif. -- on November 5.


VECTOR GROUP: Enters Into Settlement on Engle Tobacco Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. On Oct. 23 disclosed that the Company and its
Liggett Group tobacco subsidiary have reached a comprehensive
settlement resolving substantially all of the individual Engle
progeny tobacco litigation cases pending in Florida.  Under the
settlement, which does not require court approval, more than 4,900
of the approximately 5,300 individual Engle plaintiffs will be
dismissing their claims against Vector Group and Liggett.

The Company expects to incur an after-tax charge of $53 million in
the third quarter of 2013 related to the settlement agreement.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Liggett will pay a total
of $110 million (or a present value, net of income taxes, of $53
million), with approximately $61 million ($38 million, net of
income taxes) to be paid in a lump sum, and the balance of
approximately $49 million (or a present value, net of income
taxes, of $15 million) to be paid over 15 years.  The settlement
is expected to be finalized within 90 days and is contingent upon
delivery of the required settlement documents by plaintiffs'
attorneys.

Bennett S. LeBow, Chairman of Vector Group's Board of Directors,
said, "We are pleased to reach this landmark settlement, which
prudently resolves substantially all of the Engle progeny cases
pending against us.  The Engle progeny cases have been the biggest
litigation overhang on our company in the last decade, and this
settlement substantially reduces the ongoing litigation risks, as
well as related legal fees and expenses, of these cases."

As background, the Engle litigation was originally filed against
Liggett Group and other cigarette manufacturers as a class action
in Miami-Dade County, Florida in May 1994.  The class consisted of
all Florida residents who, by November 21, 1996, ". . . have
suffered, presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical
conditions caused by their addiction to cigarette smoking."  In
July 2006, after a multi-year trial, the Florida Supreme Court
decertified the class action, but determined that certain jury
findings from the class trial could be used in individual Engle
progeny cases, including jury findings that smoking causes lung
cancer, among other diseases, that nicotine in cigarettes is
addictive, and that the cigarette companies concealed material
information concerning the health effects or addictive nature of
smoking.  To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to accept
any appeals by Liggett and other tobacco companies of adverse
verdicts in the Engle progeny cases.

Vector Group -- http://www.VectorGroupLtd.com-- is a holding
company that indirectly owns Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco
Inc. and directly owns New Valley LLC.


VERGER BELLIVEAU: Recalls Sweet Apple Cider Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Verger Belliveau Orchard
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince
                          Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8415

Affected products:

   -- 375 ml. Verger Belliveau Orchard Sweet Apple Cider with Best
      Before dates from NO 30 13 to DE 20 13, inclusive;

   -- 1 L. Verger Belliveau Orchard Sweet Apple Cider with Best
      Before dates from NO 30 13 to DE 20 13;

   -- 2 L. Verger Belliveau Orchard Sweet Apple Cider with Best
      Before dates from NO 30 13 to DE 20 13; and

   -- 4 L. Verger Belliveau Orchard Sweet Apple Cider with Best
      Before dates from NO 30 13 to DE 20 13


* FDA Asks Pet Owners, Vets to Send Jerky Treat Samples, Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie DiBlasio, Kim Painter and Calum MacLeod, writing for USA
TODAY, report that the Food and Drug Administration is asking pet
owners and veterinarians to help solve a mystery: Why have jerky
treats coming mostly from China sickened more than 3,600 dogs and
cats and killed at least 580 of them since 2007?

The number of illnesses and deaths -- the vast majority of which
have affected dogs -- has risen since January.

"Much like us humans, these pets ought to be able to eat their
food and not get sick from it," says Michael Blackwell, president
of the Humane Society University.

Mr. Blackwell says there is little the consumer can do.  "It you
are dealing with a contaminant or an adulterant, it's not going to
show up on the label."

The agency is not issuing a recall or naming brands of jerky
treats.  It says most have been made in China, but notes that
manufacturers are not required to list the country of origin for
ingredients on pet food labels.

There was no comment on the allegations in Chinese media on
Oct. 17.

Poor food safety remains a major problem in China despite numerous
recently publicized crackdowns on factories.  Worries about food
safety regularly tops surveys here of people's most pressing
concerns, as some manufacturers continue to break the law by using
fake, low-quality or toxic ingredients to boost profit margins.

The FDA, in partnership with the USDA, makes sure that the food
that is fed to animals in America is a safe and high-quality
product.  However, just as with human food, the FDA handles pet
food complaints but doesn't pre-emptively study every product
brought into the U.S.

The FDA now needs details on more cases and more blood, tissue and
urine samples from affected pets, according to an update posted on
Oct. 22.

The FDA will cover the cost of the tests to get to the bottom of
the outbreak.  Official Bernadette Dunham called the wave of pet
illnesses "one of the most elusive and mysterious outbreaks we've
encountered."

The FDA says several jerky pet treats were removed from the market
in January after testing found they contained "up to six drugs."
The agency says it's unlikely the drugs caused the illnesses, but
that the rate of illnesses dropped after that, probably because
fewer of the products were available.

The update says consumers should "be cautious about providing
jerky treats" to pets.  "If you do provide them and your pet
becomes sick, stop the treats immediately, consider seeing your
veterinarian and save any remaining treats and the packaging for
possible testing."

Tina Wismer, medical director of the ASPCA Animal Poison Control
Center, says that this outbreak is different than those in the
past because of how long it has lasted.

"The fact that this has gone on for an extended period of time is
different.  In the past, all of the contaminated food has gone out
at once, they figure out what it is, and there is a recall,"
Ms. Wismer says.  "The earliest cases in this were reported years
ago."

What the pets have in common: They became ill, usually within
hours, after consuming treats sold as jerky tenders or strips.
The treats are made of chicken, duck, sweet potatoes or dried
fruit.  Typical symptoms include decreased appetite and activity,
vomiting, diarrhea, increased water consumption and increased
urination.  Some affected pets suffer kidney failure.

Dunham directs the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, which
says it has already conducted 1,200 tests and visited jerky
manufacturers in China.

"Americans value their pets as family members," says KC Theisen,
director of pet care issues for the Humane Society of the United
States.  "An obvious answer is not jumping off the page. The FDA
needs more data and more information, so they are turning to the
public."

Pet ownership has boomed in the past decade in China, a nation
better known worldwide for its citizens' delight in eating all
manner of animals.  China's economic development has spurred
social changes too, such as growing interest in keeping pets for
companionship.

The Chinese government has been faced with several scandals
involving food for people, but pet food is also a target of
illegal and often dangerous product adulteration.  Beijing's
promises to get tough on law-breakers have long been hampered by a
highly fragmented regulatory system.

The FDA opened its first overseas office in China in 2008 in
response to increasing food and drug imports into the USA from
China.  The move followed a series of food safety scares ranging
from pet food to powdered milk to candy.

Chinese Internet users often post online their worries about the
quality of Chinese pet food.  In recent months some have posted
details about pet deaths they blame on toxic products.

Many blame the dog food they bought from individual sellers on the
highly popular Internet shopping website Taobao.  Some owners say
they are now preparing their dogs' food by themselves and share
online details of ingredients and recipes.


                             *********

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  * * *