---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, October 11, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 202

                               Headlines

ARIZONA HEALTH: Judge Certifies Medicaid Copay Rate Class Action
ASTRAZENECA: Settles Nexium Deceptive Marketing Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Modification
CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq Continues to Defend "Fulghum" Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Qwest in Negotiations in Rights-of-Way Suits

CFA: Around 20 People Join Fiskville Class Action
CITY HOLDING: Expects "Casto" Case to be Closed by Year End
COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Sued by Wait Staff Over Tips Law Violations
COMMUNITY BANK: Unit Faces Class Action Suit in Pennsylvania
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery in Royalty Fee Suit Continues

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Faces Suits Over Wheatland Transaction
CVB FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
DREW INDUSTRIES: Class Action vs. Kinro Now Terminated
EBAY: Public Citizen Balks at New User Agreement
EMPIRE STATE: Awaits Filing of Consolidated Amended Complaint

FACEBOOK: Seeks Dismissal of $15-Bil. Wiretap Class Action
FOREST LABORATORIES: Awaits "Martinez" Suit Dismissal Bid Ruling
FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Discrimination Suit in New York
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Class Suits Over "Fu Proposal" Remain Pending
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suits

GEOKINETICS INC: "Moncada" Suit Deal Final Hearing on Oct. 19
GOOGLE: Settles with Publishers; Authors' Guild Suit Remains
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Reaches Deal to Settle Suit in Massachusetts
HOLIDAY INN: Employees Launch Wage Class Action
KILWINS QUALITY: Recalls Sugar Free Peanut Butter Fudge

KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Jalapeno Variety of Kraft String Cheese
LA SHER OIL: Employees' Class Action to Proceed Against Owner
LG CHEM: Accused of Fixing Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery Prices
MOLYCORP INC: "Albano" Suit Still Pending in Colorado Court
NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Signs Agreement to Settle "Baker" Class Suit

NEW YORK: Public Housing Residents' Class Action Can Proceed
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Defends Two Consolidated Merger-Related Suits
PARK STERLING: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Citizens Merger
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
ROBBINS & MYERS: Being Sold to Varco for Too Little, Suit Claims

ROBERT K. MERICLE: Settlement Conference Set for November
SAMSUNG: Class Action Over Galaxy S Smartphone Defects Resolved
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Truck Drivers Obtain Class Certification
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Anwar" Suit Still Ongoing
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Millennium-Related Class Suit

SUMITON, AL: Police Department Sued Over Sexual Assault
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Griner" Suit Remains Pending
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Bid to Vacate "Green" Suit Transfer Pending
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Defends "Childs" Suit Over Overdraft Fees
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Suit

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Visa to Pay $4.4 Bil. in $6.6 Bil. Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Says Gender Bias Class Action Claims Expired
WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Mortgage Rate Class Action
WISE MEDIA: Faces Suit Over Involuntary SMS Subscription Plans
XL FOODS: Siskinds Launches Class Action Over Beef Recalls


                          *********

ARIZONA HEALTH: Judge Certifies Medicaid Copay Rate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that an Arizona federal
judge on Oct. 5 certified a class action brought on behalf of
123,000 Medicaid recipients who claim the state's Medicaid program
illegally increased copay rates on low-income residents starting
in 2003.

In seeking to beat certification, the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System had argued that the interests of the class
representatives were at odds with those of the rest of the class.


ASTRAZENECA: Settles Nexium Deceptive Marketing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that just before
a class action trial was scheduled to begin, AstraZeneca has
settled allegations that it deceptively marketed the heartburn
medication Nexium.

The trial was scheduled to begin on Oct. 8 in Suffolk County
Superior Court in Massachusetts, but the two sides reached an
agreement before that could happen, said David Siegel of Courtroom
View Network.

CVN had planned to broadcast the two-week bench trial.

The plaintiffs argued AstraZeneca marketed Nexium as superior to
another drug, Prilosec.  They wanted restitution for the amounts
they allegedly overpaid to buy Nexium instead of Prilosec.

They were not arguing that Nexium was unsafe in any way.
AstraZeneca said physicians used their own judgments to prescribe
Nexium, and that some patients saved money by purchasing Nexium
instead of Prilosec.

Representing the plaintiffs was the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro.  The class is anyone who purchased Nexium in
Massachusetts since March 2001.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Modification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America reneged on a
mortgage modification that homebuyers timely accepted, then
demanded $13,000 in "supposed arrears" and is trying to foreclose,
a couple claims in a federal class action.


CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq Continues to Defend "Fulghum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007, in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative
class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain
modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life
insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits,
generally effective January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008 (which,
at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated
future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300
million).  Defendants include Embarq, a subsidiary of CenturyLink,
Inc., certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits
Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its
benefits plans.  Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and
certain of its benefit plans.  The Court certified a class on
certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as
to other claims. Embarq and other defendants continue to
vigorously contest these claims and charges.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al.  Neither
CenturyLink nor Embarq is named a defendant in the new lawsuit.
In Abbott, approximately 1,800 plaintiffs allege breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits
that also are at issue in the Fulghum case.  The Abbott plaintiffs
are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on
claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the
Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty
claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class
certification.  The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott
indefinitely.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company says it has not accrued a liability for these matters
as it is premature to determine whether an accrual is warranted
and, if so, a reasonable estimate of probable liability.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The Company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  It also offers
advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.  In addition, the Company
provides data, voice and managed services to enterprise,
government and wholesale customers in local, national and select
international markets through its high-quality advanced fiber
optic network and multiple data centers.


CENTURYLINK INC: Qwest in Negotiations in Rights-of-Way Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in class action lawsuits involving a CenturyLink, Inc.
subsidiary are currently engaged in negotiating and finalizing
settlements for unresolved claims relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way, according to the
Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest Communications International Inc. on behalf of landowners on
various dates and in various courts in Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana (in both Illinois and Indiana there is a federal and a
state court case), Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.  For
the most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to
install its fiber-optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.  The
complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an
easement that did not include the right to permit the Company to
install its fiber-optic cable in the right-of-way without the
Plaintiffs' consent.  Most of the actions purport to be brought on
behalf of state-wide classes in the named Plaintiffs' respective
states, although two of the currently pending actions purport to
be brought on behalf of multi-state classes.  Specifically, the
Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of landowners
in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio
and Wisconsin, and the Indiana state court action purports to be
on behalf of a national class of landowners.  In general, the
complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages.  On July 18, 2008, a
federal district court in Massachusetts entered an order
preliminarily approving a settlement that would have resolved all
of the claims now asserted in the actions, except the action
pending in Tennessee.  On December 9, 2009, the court denied final
approval of the settlement on grounds that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction.

The parties are now engaged in negotiating and finalizing
settlements on a state-by-state basis, and have filed and received
final approval of settlements in Alabama and Illinois federal
court, and in Tennessee state court.  Final approval also has been
granted in federal court actions in Idaho, Montana and North
Dakota, to which Qwest is not a party.  The Company has accrued an
amount that it believes is probable for these matters; however,
the amount is not material to its financial statements.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The Company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  It also offers
advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.  In addition, the Company
provides data, voice and managed services to enterprise,
government and wholesale customers in local, national and select
international markets through its high-quality advanced fiber
optic network and multiple data centers.


CFA: Around 20 People Join Fiskville Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Peter Begg, writing for Geelong Advertiser, reports that almost 20
people from the Geelong region associated with the CFA's Fiskville
training center have signed up with lawyers Slater & Gordon for a
potential class action.

Slater & Gordon lawyer Andrew Baker said the region was over-
represented on a list of about 200 Victorians connected to the
facility who had contacted the firm since health risks associated
with the site became public.

Mr. Baker said about a third of the firm's Fiskville clients had
been diagnosed with cancer, while others had conditions including
respiratory illnesses or auto-immune diseases.

"In the Geelong region itself, we are dealing with a mix of
clients, including a number of people who are now suffering from
illness after spending time at Fiskville," he said.

"We are also seeing family members who, sadly, have lost loved
ones to illnesses that are now being linked to the training
practices employed at Fiskville."

Mr. Baker said the firm was also being inundated with inquiries
from CFA volunteers, career firefighters and others exposed to
Fiskville who were yet to develop any associated illnesses.

"It's fair to say there is a lot of concern in the volunteer
community about what might happen next," he said.

Point Lonsdale father of three Andrew Conlan, 47, was among those
to contact the firm.

Mr. Conlan grew up on a farm next door to Fiskville.  His parents
worked at the training facility during quiet periods on the farm.

"Our father was one of the pad operators who Professor Joy's
report recognized as some of those most at risk and mum worked in
the kitchen," he said.

His father died of heart disease and his mother of bone cancer,
but it wasn't until late last year that Mr. Conlan began to draw a
solid connection between their parents' illnesses and their CFA
work.

"Myself, schoolmates and my two brothers and sister were exposed
going to school every day," Mr. Conlan said.

He said he contacted Slater & Gordon to safeguard his rights in
the event Fiskville exposure caused him to fall ill.


CITY HOLDING: Expects "Casto" Case to be Closed by Year End
-----------------------------------------------------------
City Holding Company disclosed in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that a West Virginia court has
approved its settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by
Thomas Casto against a subsidiary, and expects the case to be
closed by the end of 2012.

City National Bank, N.A. is currently in a civil action pending in
the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, in a case
styled Thomas Casto v. City National Bank, N.A ("Casto").  This
putative class action asserts that the plaintiffs, and others
similarly situated, were wrongfully assessed overdraft fees in
connection with City National Bank accounts.  The plaintiffs
alleged that City National Bank's policy of posting debit and
check transactions from high to low order was in violation of the
West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, constituted a
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
created an unjust enrichment to City National Bank.

In February 2012, City National Bank and the plaintiffs' attorneys
in the Casto case submitted an Amended Preliminary Motion to
Approve Settlement to the Kanawha County Circuit Court.  This
motion asked the Court to approve a settlement in which City
National Bank will pay the eligible members of the class a total
of $3.366 million and will forgive and release $3.5 million in
account balances of accounts of former customers who are no longer
customers of the bank, but left overdrawn accounts.  The amounts
were increased from the initial Preliminary Motion for Approval
due to a systems error in harvesting information regarding City
National Bank's customers.  The Court has approved the settlement
and the Company anticipates that the case will be closed by the
end of 2012.

At December 31, 2011, the Company had accrued for this probable
loss.  During the first quarter of 2012, the Company deposited the
funds into a qualified settlement fund.


COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Sued by Wait Staff Over Tips Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Laughlin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Columbus Restaurant Group LLC, dba Columbus
Hospitality Group, Jamie Mammano, and Paul Roiff, Case No.
SUCV2012-03626 (Mass. Super. Ct., October 2, 2012) is brought on
behalf of wait staff employees at Sorellina, a fine dining
restaurant that is owned and operated by the Defendants.

The Defendants violated the Massachusetts Tips Law because their
wait staff employees did not retain all of their tips, and
instead, the wait staff employees were required to pool their tips
with employees, who are ineligible to participate in tip pools
under the Tips Law, Mr. Laughlin alleges.  He adds that the
Defendants violated the "tip credit" provision of the
Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law by paying their wait staff
employees less than the full state minimum wage while failing to
comply with the Tips Law.

Mr. Laughlin is a resident of Somerville, Massachusetts.  From
September 2011 until approximately March 2012, he was employed as
a server by the Defendants at Sorellina in Boston, Massachusetts.

Columbus Restaurant is a limited liability corporation organized
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Columbus
Restaurant owns and operates several restaurants in Boston,
Massachusetts, including Sorellina.  Jamie Mammano is a resident
of Milton, Massachusetts, and one of the owners of Columbus
Restaurant.  Paul Roiff is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts,
and one of the owners of the Columbus Hospitality.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  hschwab@llrlaw.com
                  Bcasavant@llrlaw.com


COMMUNITY BANK: Unit Faces Class Action Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a class action
lawsuit in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's August 9,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Subsequent to the quarter ended June 30, 2012, Community Bank,
N.A. (the" Bank"), the wholly-owned banking subsidiary of the
Company, was named a defendant in a class action proceeding filed
July 20, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.  The complaint seeks to establish and
represent a class of customers allegedly harmed by the Bank's
overdraft practices and alleges that the Bank unfairly re-ordered
customer transactions to maximize the number of overdraft charges.
The claims asserted against the Bank include breach of contract
and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law
unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of any overdraft fees
wrongfully paid by plaintiffs, damages, expenses of litigation,
attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the court.
At this stage of the proceeding, the Company says it is too early
to determine if the matter would reasonably be expected to have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery in Royalty Fee Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against
Continental Resources, Inc. alleging it improperly deducted post-
production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory
damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of
the alleged class.  The Company has responded to the petition,
denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative
defenses.  Discovery is ongoing and information and documents
continue to be exchanged.  The Company is not currently able to
estimate what impact, if any, the action will have on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows given the
preliminary status of the matter and uncertainties with respect
to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the
potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties
and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the
ultimate potential outcome of the matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Faces Suits Over Wheatland Transaction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. is facing two shareholder lawsuits
arising from a proposed acquisition of certain Wheatland Oil Inc.
assets, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 27, 2012, the Company entered into a Reorganization and
Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Agreement") with Wheatland Oil
Inc. ("Wheatland"), and the shareholders of Wheatland.  Wheatland
is owned 75% by the Revocable Inter Vivos Trust of Harold G. Hamm,
a trust of which Harold G. Hamm, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Chairman of the Board and principal shareholder is the
trustee and sole beneficiary, and 25% by the Company's Vice
Chairman of Strategic Growth Initiatives, Jeffrey B. Hume.  The
Company's Board of Directors formed a special committee comprised
of independent board members to protect the interests of the
Company and its minority shareholders in connection with the
Agreement.  The special committee negotiated the Agreement with
Wheatland and its shareholders.

The Agreement provides for the acquisition by the Company of all
of Wheatland's right, title and interest in and to certain crude
oil and natural gas properties and related assets, in which the
Company also owns an interest, in the states of Mississippi,
Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma and the assumption of certain
liabilities related thereto.  Wheatland's assets included in the
transaction are primarily comprised of approximately 37,900 net
acres in the North Dakota and Montana Bakken play and interests in
producing properties with production of approximately 2,500 net
barrels of oil equivalent per day as of December 31, 2011.

On June 12, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System ("MPERS"), a purported shareholder, filed a
lawsuit against the Company, Wheatland, Harold G. Hamm, Jeffrey B.
Hume and the directors serving on the special committee formed in
connection with the proposed transaction with Wheatland in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
In the complaint, MPERS alleges each of the individuals named in
the lawsuit breached fiduciary duties in connection with their
participation in the Wheatland transaction, and the Company failed
to provide its shareholders with sufficient material information
to enable them to make an informed decision regarding whether to
approve the transaction.  In its prayer for relief, MPERS seeks
the following relief: (i) enjoin the consummation of the Wheatland
transaction (or rescission of the transaction if consummated);
(ii) enjoin the trusts benefitting the children of Mr. Hamm from
voting in connection with the Unaffiliated Vote Requirement; and
(iii) recover costs and attorney fees in connection with the
lawsuit.

On July 18, 2012, a second lawsuit was filed by Winston O.
Watkins, a purported shareholder, as a derivative action against
the Company as a nominal defendant, Wheatland, Mr. Hamm, Mr. Hume
and the directors serving on the special committee formed in
connection with the proposed transaction with Wheatland in the
District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.  The
Complaint contains allegations against the defendants similar to
those described in the lawsuit brought by MPERS, but in his prayer
for relief, Mr. Watkins seeks the following relief: (i) a
declaration that the lawsuit is properly maintainable as a class
action and/or derivative action; (ii) an award of damages; (iii)
equitable relief; and (iv) recover costs and attorney fees in
connection with the lawsuit.


CVB FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in
California, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On July 26, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Los
Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company's allowance for
credit loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology
for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan
losses.  In addition, the subpoena requested information regarding
certain presentations Company officers have given or conferences
Company officers have attended with analysts, brokers, investors
or prospective investors.  The Company is fully cooperating with
the SEC in its investigation, including its follow-up requests.
The Company says it cannot predict the timing or outcome of the
investigation.

In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation,
on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief
Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants.  On
September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.
On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx).  That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville
Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved
the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action.  On March 7, 2011, the
Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same
defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the
purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21,
2009, and August 9, 2010.  The complaint seeks compensatory
damages and other relief in favor of the purported class.  On May
13, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  Following the filing by each side of supplemental
motions and memoranda, the District Court conducted a hearing on
August 29, 2011.

The District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but
provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint
within 45 days of the date of the order.  On February 27, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the same
defendants, and the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's amended complaint on March 26, 2012.  The District
Court conducted a hearing on June 4, 2012, on the Company's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, and the parties are awaiting the
issuance of the Court's order with respect to the Company's
motion.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously contest the
plaintiff's allegations in this case.


DREW INDUSTRIES: Class Action vs. Kinro Now Terminated
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of Drew Industries
Incorporated has been terminated, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

At December 31, 2011 a case was pending against Kinro Inc.,
purporting to be a class action, in which it was alleged that
certain bathtubs manufactured by Kinro for use in manufactured
homes failed to comply with certain safety standards relating to
flame spread.  Kinro denied the allegations, vigorously defended
against the claims and, based on extensive investigation, believes
that the bathtubs were in compliance with applicable regulations.
The named plaintiffs asserted seven claims against Kinro, all of
which were dismissed by the United States District Court, Central
District of California during the course of the proceedings.  The
named plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 7, 2012, Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the
decision of the District Court dismissing all claims against
Kinro.  Consequently, the litigation is terminated.


EBAY: Public Citizen Balks at New User Agreement
------------------------------------------------
Shara Tibken, writing for CNET, reports that a consumer rights
group accused eBay of making it tough for users to pursue
litigation against the company and said the auction site
operator's new user policy goes against the company's "commitment
to openness."

Public Citizen, which called eBay's new user agreement
"underhanded," takes issue with a section in eBay's policy that
details how eBay and users' will handle legal disputes.  In the
agreement (scroll down to the section about legal disputes), eBay
says that all claims that arise against eBay should be "resolved
exclusively through final and binding arbitration," rather than in
court.  Some users may be able to argue their dispute in small
claims court if the claims qualify, the agreement says.
Public Citizen, which sent a letter to eBay, says the terms
prevent people from banding together in class action lawsuits and
also forces users to give up their right to go to court.  And it
says the terms "disproportionately favor the company in disputes."
It's starting an online petition to garner support for its
requested changes.

"Most eBay users accept the take-it-or-leave-it contract language
without reviewing it, and most don't understand that the forced
arbitration clause means they will be shut out of court if they
are harmed by company misconduct, particularly when large numbers
of users each suffer small-dollar losses," Public Citizen said.

EBay, meanwhile, said it recently updated its user agreement to
provide clarity about its policies and stay current with changing
laws as its business and service offering evolve.

"The arbitration provision encourages swift and reasonable
resolution as opposed to litigation that can be protracted,
expensive and often dissatisfying to customers," a spokeswoman
said.  "We believe this approach will benefit both eBay Inc. and
our customers."

eBay's added arbitration policy isn't the first time companies
have included such language in their user contracts.  The Supreme
Court last year upheld a company's right to include a clause in
contracts prohibiting subscribers from suing the company as part
of a class action.  U.S. wireless carriers include such
arbitration-only clauses in their contracts, and that has helped
them avoid multibillion-dollar lawsuits.

AT&T, for example, faced a suit earlier this year related to data
speed throttling, with a customer complaining the carrier slowed
down his access despite the fact he had an unlimited plan.
Instead of facing a large class-action suit, AT&T battled one
person and had to pay him only $850.

Consumer advocates warn that allowing companies to ban class
actions is bad for consumers in part because individuals must
fight the same complaint multiple times.  Rulings are often
inconsistent, and individual claims lack the necessary financial
muscle to prevent future corporate abuses.  In AT&T's case, it
continues to throttle customers.

eBay says users can opt out of the arbitration provision if they
don't agree with it, and their accounts will remain active.
Public Citizen, however, attacked eBay's opt-out provision, which
requires users to respond via mail rather than online.

"To put it charitably, eBay's requirement that opt-outs be
submitted through traditional mail raises questions about the
sincerity of its commitment to permitting users to protect
themselves," President Robert Weissman said.

The group wants eBay to either remove the "Agreement to Arbitrate"
from its user agreement or at least eliminate the provision
barring class-action suits.  It also wants eBay to change the opt-
out procedure so it can be done online and forward a message from
Public Citizen explaining to users why they should opt-out.

"Average users have no way to appreciate what they may be
sacrificing in permitting eBay to impose arbitration provisions on
them," Mr. Weissman said in a letter to eBay.  eBay revamped its
user agreement several weeks ago, with the agreement going into
effect this week.   The company said its previous amendment to the
user agreement came a couple years ago.


EMPIRE STATE: Awaits Filing of Consolidated Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. awaits the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint in a class action lawsuit pending
in New York, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. was originally organized
on July 11, 1961, as a general partnership.  On October 1, 2001,
the Company converted to a limited liability company under New
York law.  The conversion did not change any aspect of the assets
and operations of the Company other than to protect its investors
from any future liability to a third party.  Through April 16,
2002, the Company owned the tenant's interest in a master
operating leasehold (the "Master Lease") of the Empire State
Building (the "Building"), located at 350 Fifth Avenue, in New
York.  On April 17, 2002, the Company acquired, through a wholly-
owned limited liability company (Empire State Land Associates
L.L.C.), the fee title to the Building, and the land thereunder
(the "Land") (together, the "Real Estate" or "Property"), at a
price of $57,500,000, and obtained a $60,500,000 first mortgage
with Capital One Bank to finance the acquisition and certain
related costs.

The Company does not operate the Building, and subleases the
Building to Empire State Building Company L.L.C. (the "Sublessee")
pursuant to a net operating sublease (the "Sublease") which
included an initial term which expired on January 4, 1992.  The
Company's members are Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and
Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. (collectively, the "Agents"), each of whom
also acts as an agent for holders of participations in his
respective member interest in the Company (the "Participants").
Sublessee is a New York limited liability company in which Peter
L. Malkin is a member and entities for Peter L. Malkin's family
members are beneficial owners.  All of the Members in the Company
hold senior positions at Malkin Holdings LLC ("Malkin Holdings" or
the "Supervisor") (formerly Wien & Malkin LLC), which provides
supervisory and other services to the Company and to Sublessee.

Five putative class actions have been brought by Participants in
the Registrant and several other entities supervised by Malkin
Holdings that own fee or leasehold interests in various properties
located in New York City, the first of which was filed March 1,
2012 (the "Class Actions").  As currently pending in New York
State Supreme Court, New York County, each Class Action challenges
the proposed consolidation of those and other properties
supervised by Malkin Holdings into a real estate investment trust
(the "REIT") and the initial public offering of shares of Class A
common stock in Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland
corporation which intends to qualify for U.S. tax purposes as a
REIT.  The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin Holdings,
Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C.,
Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp.,
Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, Estate of Leona M. Helmsley,
Empire State Realty OP, L.P., and Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.
("Defendants") for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, alleging,
inter alia, that the terms of the transaction and the process in
which it was structured (including the valuation which was
employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities,
the consolidation provides excessive benefits to the Malkin
Holdings group and the prospectus/consent solicitation fails to
make adequate disclosure.  The complaints seek money damages and
injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction.  On April
3, 2012, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the actions and for
appointment of co-lead counsel.  The motion was granted on June
26, 2012, and the plaintiffs have 120 days from that date to file
a consolidated amended complaint.

The Class Actions are in a very preliminary stage, with no
responses to the complaints having been filed to date.

The Company says the outcome of this litigation is uncertain,
however, and as a result, the Defendants may incur costs
associated with defending or settling such litigation or paying
any judgment if they lose.  In addition, the Defendants may be
required to pay damage awards or settlements.  At this time, the
Defendants cannot reasonably assess the timing, outcome of this
litigation, and an estimate of the amount of loss, or its effect,
if any, on the Defendants' financial statements if applicable.
Defendants have stated they believe the Class Actions are baseless
and intend to defend them vigorously.


FACEBOOK: Seeks Dismissal of $15-Bil. Wiretap Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kim LaCapria, writing for SocialNewsDaily, reports that a federal
court in May 2012 hit Facebook with a $15 billion lawsuit after it
was found that the social network was tracking customers after
they logged out of its system.  The court filing claims that
Facebook is violating federal wiretap laws.

The Menlo Park company is now asking that the case be dismissed
because the defendants behind the case have failed to specify how
they were harmed by the error in Facebook's judgment.

According to Bloomberg: The complaint suffers from an "utter lack
of allegations of any injury to these particular named
plaintiffs," Matthew Brown, a lawyer for Facebook, told U.S.
District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California.  The
plaintiffs haven't identified what Web sites they visited, what
kind of data or information was collected, or whether Facebook
used it or disclosed it to anyone else, Mr. Brown said.  "They
have not done anything close to that."

The $15 billion class action lawsuit filed in federal court has
combined 21 separate cases filed in the US in 2011 and early 2012.
The Federal Wiretap Act provides statutory damages per user of
$100 per day per violation (up to a maximum of $10,000 per user).

The lawsuit also asserts that Facebook violated the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, various California
Statutes, and California common law.

It should be noted that other lawsuits have found that browser
cookies which track user activities are not part of wiretap rules.

Facebook has not yet commented on its decision to ask for a
dismissal.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Awaits "Martinez" Suit Dismissal Bid Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on parties'
joint proposal to voluntarily dismiss a class action lawsuit
brought by Elmaria Martinez, according to the Company's August 9,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On August 11, 2010, the Company was named as a defendant (along
with Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI)), in an action brought by
Elmaria Martinez, a Company Sales Representative, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption Elmaria Martinez v. Forest Laboratories Inc. and
Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.  The action is a putative class and
collective action brought on behalf of all current and former
sales representatives employed by the Company throughout the
United States over the past three years and all current and former
sales representatives employed anywhere in the State of New York
over the past six years.  The action alleges that the Company
failed to pay its sales representatives overtime pay as
purportedly required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law.  On June 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court
issued its decision in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
which held, among other things, that the FLSA's outside sales
exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.  In
light of this decision, on July 11, 2012, the parties jointly
proposed to voluntarily dismiss the entire action with prejudice.
This proposal is subject to objections from the opt-in plaintiffs
and court approval.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Discrimination Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in New
York alleging discrimination, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In July 2012, the Company was named as a defendant (along with
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI)) in an action brought by Megan
Barrett, Lindsey Houser, Jennifer Jones, and Jennifer Seard,
former Company Sales Representatives, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption Megan
Barrett et al. v. Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The action is a putative class and
collective action alleging class claims under Title VII related to
pay, promotion, and pregnancy discrimination, and collective
action claims under the Equal Pay Act.  The Title VII action is
brought on behalf of a proposed class of all current and former
female Sales Representatives employed by the Company throughout
the United States from 2008 to the date of judgment, and also
includes a sub-class of all current and former female Sales
Representatives who have been, are, or will be pregnant during
their employment by the Company throughout the United States from
2008 to the date of judgment.  The proposed Equal Pay Act
collective action includes current, former, and future female
Sales Representatives who were not compensated equally to
similarly-situated male employees during the applicable liability
period.  The complaint also includes non-class Title VII claims
for sexual harassment and retaliation, and non-class claims for
violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.  The Company
believes there is no merit to Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
vigorously defend this lawsuit.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Class Suits Over "Fu Proposal" Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits arising from an acquisition proposal by
Fushi Copperweld, Inc.'s chief executive officer remain pending,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On November 3, 2010, the Company's Board of Directors received a
proposal from its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Li Fu
("Mr. Fu") and Abax Global Capital (Hong Kong) Limited on behalf
of funds managed by it and its affiliates ("Abax") for Mr. Fu and
Abax to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
Fushi not currently owned by Mr. Fu, Abax and their respective
affiliates in a going private transaction for $11.50 per share in
cash, subject to certain conditions (the "Initial Fu Proposal").
According to the proposal letter, Mr. Fu and Abax will form an
acquisition vehicle for the purpose of completing the acquisition
and plan to finance the acquisition with a combination of debt and
equity capital.  The proposal letter states that the equity
portion of the financing would be provided by Mr. Fu, Abax and
related sources.  A Special Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors, comprised solely of independent directors (the "Special
Committee"), has retained BofA Merrill Lynch as its financial
advisor and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal advisor to
assist the Special Committee in its consideration of the Fu
Proposal.  On November 17, 2011, the Special Committee received a
revised proposal from Mr. Fu and Abax for $9.25 per share in cash,
subject to certain conditions, which was further revised by a
proposal on December 28, 2011, from Mr. Fu, Abax and TPG Growth
Asia, Inc. (an affiliate of TPG Capital, L.P.) ("TPG"), for $9.50
per share, subject to certain conditions (the "Current Fu
Proposal").

On May 25, 2012, TPG delivered a letter to the Special Committee
indicating that it was no longer interested in participating in an
acquisition of the Company.  According to the Current Fu Proposal,
Mr. Fu and Abax plan to finance the acquisition with a senior term
loan from China Development Bank Corporation and the proceeds from
an equity investment from Abax and an equity investment from Mr.
Fu and his affiliates.  On June 26, 2012, the Special Committee
and the Company's Board of Directors approved an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), which was subsequently
executed on June 28, 2012.

Shareholder class action complaints have been filed in Nevada
against Fushi and certain officers and directors in connection
with the Initial Fu Proposal in November 2010.  In the complaints,
the plaintiffs alleged that the consideration in the proposal was
grossly inadequate.  The complaint sought, among other relief, to
enjoin defendants from consummating the Initial Fu Proposal and to
direct defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of the shareholders.
There are no definite claims for damages, though the plaintiffs
claim that the proposed offer price in the Initial Fu Proposal is
unfair.  The Company believes the allegation is without merit and
the Company has viable defenses to the allegations.  Nevertheless,
there is a possibility that a loss may have been incurred.  In
accordance with ASC Topic 450, no loss contingency was accrued as
of June 30, 2012, since the possible loss or range of loss cannot
be reasonable estimated.

Fushi Copperweld, Inc., is a producer and innovator of bimetallic
wire products, principally copper-clad aluminum, or CCA, and
copper-clad steel, or CCS, products.  CCA and CCS conductors are
generally used as a substitute for solid copper conductors in
applications for which either cost savings or specific electrical
or physical attributes are necessary.  The Company is
headquartered in Beijing, China.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fushi Copperweld, Inc. continues to defend itself from shareholder
class action lawsuits arising from its restatement of certain
consolidated financial statements, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Shareholder class action complaints have been filed against Fushi
and certain of its present and former officers and directors in
connection with the Company's restatement of its consolidated
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2008
and 2009, and the unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2010, June 30, 2010,
and September 30, 2010.  In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks
damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities who purchased the Company's common stock
between August 14, 2007, and March 29, 2011.  The plaintiff
alleges that the Company's financial statements for the periods
contain material misstatements and omissions, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company believes the
allegation is without merit and the Company has viable defenses to
the allegations.  Nevertheless, there is a possibility that a loss
may have been incurred.  In accordance with ASC Topic 450, no loss
contingency was accrued as of June 30, 2012, since the possible
loss or range of loss cannot be reasonable estimated.

Fushi Copperweld, Inc., is a producer and innovator of bimetallic
wire products, principally copper-clad aluminum, or CCA, and
copper-clad steel, or CCS, products.  CCA and CCS conductors are
generally used as a substitute for solid copper conductors in
applications for which either cost savings or specific electrical
or physical attributes are necessary.  The Company is
headquartered in Beijing, China.


GEOKINETICS INC: "Moncada" Suit Deal Final Hearing on Oct. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on final approval of Geokinetics Inc.'s settlement of a
wage and hour class action lawsuit will be held on October 19,
2012, according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

In July 2011, the Company was named as a Defendant in a lawsuit
styled Reuben Moncada, et al. v. Petroleum Geo-Services, et al.
filed in the Superior Court of California in Kern County.  This is
a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit where the plaintiffs claim
that they were not properly compensated from June 2009 to April
2010 for meal and rest breaks, in addition to overtime pay.  The
parties entered into a settlement agreement on or around
July 9, 2012, subject to Court approval.  On August 6, 2012, the
Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement.  A subsequent hearing has been scheduled for
October 19, 2012, during which the Court will determine final
approval of the settlement.


GOOGLE: Settles with Publishers; Authors' Guild Suit Remains
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy B. Lee, writing for Ars Technica, reports that five large
publishers have made a separate peace with Google over the
inclusion of their books in Google Books, announcing a settlement
that resolves the seven-year-old litigation with the search giant.

Google had been fighting a two-front war over its Google Books
program.  In addition to its dispute with the publishers, it is
also defending a lawsuit by the Author's Guild, which is seeking
to head a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the nation's authors.
Last year, a federal judge threw out a class-action settlement
that would have resolved both lawsuits and given Google permission
to scan and print thousands of out-of-print books.

"It's been obvious for several years that the authors are going
forward [with the lawsuit] and the publishers are uninterested,"
said James Grimmelmann, a copyright scholar at New York Law
School.  He said that after the class-action settlement was
rejected, the publishers were ready to cut a private deal.  It
just took a few months to hammer out the specifics.

Because this settlement is not a class action, the terms are not
public and the deal is not subject to court approval.  "I can't
imagine there's anything interesting in there," Mr. Grimmelmann
told Ars Technica.  "The only question is how much money changed
hands," and neither side is talking about that.

"This does exacerbate the publisher-author tension," Mr.
Grimmelmann told Ars Technica.  "It used to be the publishers and
authors are in this together against Google."  Now, he said,
"Google is going to increasingly use the consent of the publishers
as an argument that the authors don't even speak for copyright
owners."

In an e-mailed statement, a spokesman for the publishers said that
the deal "shows that digital services can provide innovative means
to discover content while still respecting the rights of
copyright-holders."

Google says the settlement will allow it to "stay focused on our
core mission and work to increase the number of books available to
educate, excite and entertain our users via Google Play."


HEALTHMARKETS INC: Reaches Deal to Settle Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
HealthMarkets, Inc. said in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that it has reached a preliminary agreement
in principle to settle a class action lawsuit pending in
Massachusetts.

On July 6, 2010, HealthMarkets, Inc., The MEGA Life and Health
Insurance Company ("MEGA") and Mid-West National Life Insurance
Company of Tennessee ("Mid-West") were named as defendants in a
putative class action (Jeffrey Cutter, Rina Discepolo, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. HealthMarkets, Inc.
et al.) pending in the Norfolk County Superior Court, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:10-cv:11488-JLT.  On August 13, 2010,
this matter was removed to the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  The complaint alleges that the
named plaintiffs (former district sales leaders contracted with
the Company's insurance subsidiaries) were employees (rather than
independent contractors) under Massachusetts law and are therefore
entitled, among other relief, to recover certain business costs
under the Massachusetts Wage Act.  On July 21, 2011, the Court
certified the class and on September 26, 2011, the First Circuit
Court of Appeals denied defendants' motion to appeal the class
certification.  Following a mediation held on July 31, 2012, the
parties reached a preliminary agreement in principle to settle
this matter on terms that, after consideration of applicable
reserves and/or potentially available insurance coverage benefits,
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


HOLIDAY INN: Employees Launch Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that employees of
Holiday Inn at the Los Angeles International Airport on Oct. 4
launched a putative class action suit alleging violations of
California wage laws, claiming they have not been paid for
overtime hours and been denied meal and rest breaks.

The suit, filed in California state court, alleges that
bartenders, housekeepers, cooks and other workers at the Holiday
Inn at LAX have been subject to repeated violations of the state's
employment laws.


KILWINS QUALITY: Recalls Sugar Free Peanut Butter Fudge
-------------------------------------------------------
Kilwins Quality Confections, Inc. of Petoskey, Michigan, is
recalling all 7 ounce packages of S/F PEANUT BUTTER FUDGE, bar
code 000648, lots 67936, 67105, 66959, 66413, 66248, 65123, 63124,
62693, 62612, 61658, 61621 sold in the Company's retail stores
between October 1, 2011, and October 5, 2012, because the peanut
butter ingredient used to make the product is associated with the
Sunland, Inc. recall and has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella.  Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (infected aneurysms),
endocarditis, or arthritis.

The recalled sugar free peanut butter fudge packages were sold in
Kilwins retail stores located in the following states: Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
and Wisconsin.

The product comes in either a light beige box with a small window
area, or a black and white box with a small window area and a
yellow sicker across the top corner that states "Sugar-Free."  The
lot code can be found on the box label, just to the left of the
bar code. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm322981.htm

To date no illnesses have been reported in connection with this
product.

Consumers who have purchased this product within the affected
dates are urged to return the product to the place of purchase for
a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact Jean Hammond
at Kilwin's at 231-758-3903 Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m.
Eastern Standard Time through 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Jalapeno Variety of Kraft String Cheese
------------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is voluntarily recalling the Jalapeno
variety of Kraft String Cheese with the Best When Used By date of
23 NOV 2012 as a precaution due to the possibility that a thin
layer of plastic film from the package may remain adhered to the
product.  If the film sticks to the cheese and is not removed, it
could potentially cause a choking hazard.

The following single code date of this product is being recalled:

                                                Best When
   Name of Product           Size               Used By Date
   ---------------           ----               ------------
   Kraft String Cheese -     12 oz bag with      23 NOV 2012
   Jalapeno Variety          12 individual
                             1 oz snacks
   UPC: 2100002977

Consumers can find the Best When Used By date on the back of the
12 oz package in the lower-right corner.

A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm323008.htm

No other code dates of Kraft Jalapeno String Cheese and no other
varieties of Kraft String Cheese or any other Kraft Foods products
are being recalled.

There has been one consumer complaint.  Approximately 2,700 cases
of the affected product were shipped to customers across the
United States.  The affected product was not distributed in
Canada.

Consumers who purchased the product with the Best When Used By
date of 23 NOV 2012 should not eat it.  They should return it to
the store of purchase for an exchange or full refund.  Consumers
also can contact Kraft Foods Consumer Relations Monday through
Friday at 1-800-396-2133.

The affected product was produced in Campbell, New York.

                     ABOUT KRAFT FOODS GROUP

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRFT) is a new company that has
been around 109 years.  North America's fourth largest consumer
packaged food and beverage company, Kraft had revenues of
approximately $19 billion in 2011.  The company has an unrivaled
portfolio of products in the beverages, cheese, convenient meals
and grocery categories.  Its iconic brands include Kraft, Maxwell
House, Oscar Mayer, Planters and JELL-O.  Kraft's 25,000 employees
in the U.S. and Canada have a passion for making the foods and
beverages people love.  Kraft Foods Group became an independent
company on October 1, 2012, and will be a member of the Standard &
Poor's 500 index.  For more information, visit
http://www.kraft.com/



LA SHER OIL: Employees' Class Action to Proceed Against Owner
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas said a class action lawsuit filed by
workers of La Sher Oil Company may proceed against the company's
owner, Roger Mason, but stayed against the company, which has
sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Jeff Boyer and John Matthew Laureano bring the putative collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act against La Sher
and Mr. Mason, alleging they frequently worked in excess of 40
hours a week without receiving overtime compensation.  The
Plaintiffs seek overtime pay due under the FLSA, and they bring a
supplemental claim for violation of the Arkansas Minium Wage Act.

The case is JEFF BOYER and JOHN MATTHEW LAUREANO, Individually and
on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. LA SHER OIL
COMPANY and ROGER MASON, Individually and as Owner of La Sher Oil
Company Defendants, No. 4:12CV00431 SWW (E.D. Ark.).  A copy of
the Court's September 27, 2012 Order is available at
http://is.gd/wGCUIffrom Leagle.com.

La Sher Oil Company, Inc., in North Little Rock, Arkansas, filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. E.D. Ark. Case No. 12-15176) on
September 5, 2012.  Kevin P. Keech, Esq., at Keech Law Firm, PA,
serves as the Debtor's Chapter 11 counsel.  In its petition, the
Debtor estimated $1 million to $10 million in assets and debts.  A
copy of the Company's list of its 20 largest unsecured creditors
filed with the petition is available for free at
http://bankrupt.com/misc/areb12-15176.pdf. The petition was
signed by Roger D. Mason, president.


LG CHEM: Accused of Fixing Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hanlon, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LG Chem, Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.; Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Sanyo
Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America Corporation; Sony
Corporation; Sony Energy Devices Corporation; Sony Electronics,
Inc; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Hitachi,
Ltd.; Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; and Maxell Corporation of America,
Case No. 3:12-cv-05159 (N.D. Calif., October 4, 2012) is brought
as a proposed class action against the Defendants, which are the
world's largest manufacturers of Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries, for engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix and
artificially raise the prices of Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries.

Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries are an important source of
energy for portable computers, personal electronic devices and
other products.  The Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, or
affiliates have orchestrated some of the largest global price-
fixing conspiracies witnessed in the past decade -- fixing the
prices of key components for consumer electronic goods, in
particular computers, televisions, and cellular phones, Mr. Hanlon
alleges.  He contends that these entities, and many of their
executives, have pleaded guilty to price-fixing dynamic random
access memory (DRAM) chips, liquid crystal display (LCD) screens,
and optical disclosed in its drives (ODDS).

Mr. Hanlon is a resident of San Francisco, California.  During the
proposed Class Period, he purchased a Sony notebook computer
containing a Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery containing a cell
manufactured by a Defendant.

LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea.  LG
Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics.
LG Chem America is a New Jersey corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.
Panasonic is a Japanese Corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic was formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the name of
Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation.  Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.  Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.

Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.  Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation
based in San Diego, California and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.  Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in
Gyeonggi, South Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate
Samsung Electronics, Inc.  Samsung SDI America is a California
corporation based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Samsung SDI.  Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company
based in Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi Maxell is a Japanese corporation
based in Tokyo, Japan, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi,
Ltd.  Maxell is a New Jersey corporation based in Woodland Park,
New Jersey.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.
The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

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


MOLYCORP INC: "Albano" Suit Still Pending in Colorado Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
Angelo Albano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Molycorp, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado.  This federal court action alleges,
among other things, that the Company and those officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with statements relating to its third quarter fiscal 2011
financial results and fourth quarter 2011 production guidance that
the Company had filed with or furnished to the SEC, or otherwise
made available to the public.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages and other relief.  The Company believes the
allegations are without merit and that it has valid defenses to
such allegations.  The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.  The Company is unable to provide meaningful
quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may
impact its future consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Molycorp, Inc. -- http://www.molycorp.com-- a development stage
company, engages in the production and sale of rare earth oxides
in the western hemisphere.  The Company's rare earth products
include oxides, metals, alloys, and magnets for various inputs in
existing and emerging applications comprising clean energy
technologies, multiple high-tech uses, defense applications, and
water treatment technology.  The Company primarily owns and
operates the Molycorp Mountain Pass facility, an open-pit mine
containing rare earth deposits outside of China located in San
Bernardino County, California.  It also intends to produce and
sell rare earth oxides and rare metals in Europe; and rare earth
alloys in the United States.  Molycorp, Inc. is headquartered in
Greenwood Village, Colorado.


NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Signs Agreement to Settle "Baker" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetSpend Holdings, Inc. said in its August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it has reached an agreement in
principle to settle a class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey.

Frederick J. Baker ("Baker") filed a purported consumer class
action case against NetSpend, as well as one of its Issuing Banks
and card associations (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the U.S
District Court (the "Court") for the District of New Jersey in
November 2008 seeking damages and unspecified equitable relief.
In May 2009 Baker filed an amended complaint alleging that the
Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the
New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act
(TCCWNA) and claiming unjust enrichment in connection with the
Defendants' alleged marketing, advertising, sale and post-sale
handling of NetSpend's gift card product in the State of New
Jersey.  In March 2011, the court heard oral arguments on
Defendants' motion to dismiss Baker's amended complaint.  In
January 2012, the court granted Defendants' motion in part and
dismissed all claims except for the cause of action based on the
alleged violation of the CFA.  NetSpend filed its answer and
affirmative defenses in February 2012.

NetSpend has reached an agreement in principle with the attorneys
representing the purported plaintiffs in this case to contribute
approximately $0.1 million to a fund that would be used to
reimburse the consumers who may have been inadvertently
overcharged and to reimburse the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs for up to $0.3 million in fees.  This settlement is
subject to approval by the Court.


NEW YORK: Public Housing Residents' Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Basil Katz, writing for Reuters, reports that a lawsuit by a group
of black and Latino New York City public housing residents who say
police violated their civil rights may proceed to trial, a judge
ruled on Oct. 4.

The case, filed in 2010, is one of three proposed class action
lawsuits before Manhattan Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin.  All
three suits say the New York Police Department's controversial
crime-fighting tactic known as "stop and frisk" improperly targets
minorities.

The plaintiffs argue that their encounters with police are
representative of a systemic problem, and that the case should be
granted class action status to encompass the 400,000 mostly non-
white, New York public housing residents.

The NYPD has strongly defended the tactic, arguing it has been
critical in taking guns off the streets and achieving a historic
drop in crime rates.  The police deny that race or quotas motivate
stops and say they are stopping people considered suspicious.

In an opinion on Oct. 4, Judge Scheindlin denied the city's bid to
toss claims by eight individual plaintiffs who claim they were
unlawfully stopped, searched or arrested by police patrolling New
York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings.

A ninth plaintiff, Eleanor Britt, was never stopped or arrested,
but alleged her rights had been violated.

"It is an important first step because the court is clearly
rejecting the city's claims that there is no basis for litigating
the lawsuit," said Steven Banks, chief lawyer for the Legal Aid
Society, which helped bring the case.

The judge did not allow all of the plaintiffs' claims to proceed,
tossing out some discrimination claims and refusing to rule on
other issues at this time.

"That some claims made by tenants and their guests regarding how
the NYPD patrols NYCHA buildings were not dismissed does not mean
that such patrols are indeed unlawful or that the NYPD's measures
to insure that they are lawful are inadequate," city attorney
Brenda Cooke said in a statement.

In her opinion, Judge Scheindlin said the case raises questions
"involving matters of grave public concern."  She questioned
whether police officers, in their zeal to provide protection, are
"violating the rights of the very residents (and guests) whom they
seek to protect?"

The judge also found that a NYCHA sign that notifies residents and
visitors that "trespassing and loitering" in the "lobby, roof,
hallway and stairs" is prohibited is unconstitutionally vague
because, if read literally, it also would prohibit activities that
are perfectly innocent, such as waiting for a taxi to arrive.

The city said it disagreed with the judge's analysis.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Defends Two Consolidated Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp is defending two consolidated merger-
related class action lawsuits in California and Delaware,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company and the individual members of its Board of Directors
have been named as defendants in a number of purported shareholder
class action lawsuits arising out of the proposed merger between
the Company and UnionBanCal Corporation, which merger was
announced on March 12, 2012.  Five lawsuits were filed in Superior
Court in Santa Barbara County, California, and three lawsuits were
filed in Delaware Chancery Court.  The California and Delaware
lawsuits have been consolidated in their respective jurisdictions
(consolidated California case is captioned Monty v. Ford, et al.,
and consolidated Delaware case is captioned In re Pacific Capital
Bancorp Shareholder Litigation).  The consolidated lawsuits in
both jurisdictions allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty by
the individual directors, and claims against the Company and
UnionBanCal Corporation for aiding and abetting that breach of
fiduciary duty.  The Company expects that this matter will be
resolved without any material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or cash flow.


PARK STERLING: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Citizens Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Park Sterling Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit arising
from its proposed merger with Citizens South Banking Corporation,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On May 13, 2012, the Company and Citizens South Banking
Corporation ("Citizens South") entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, pursuant to which Citizens South will be merged with
and into the Company, with the Company as the surviving entity.

On June 6, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed against Citizens South, Citizens South's directors and the
Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery in connection with the
merger agreement: Heath v. Kim S. Price, et al., C.A. No. 7601-VCP
(Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware).  The lawsuit asserts
that the members of the Citizens South board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Citizens South stockholders in
connection with the approval of the proposed merger with the
Company and that Citizens South and the Company aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  On August 6, 2012, an
amended complaint was filed adding an allegation that the members
of the Citizens South board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties of disclosure.  The Company believes this lawsuit is
without merit.


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or purchased Questcor
call options, or sold Questcor put options between April 26, 2011
and September 21, 2012, inclusive, against the Company and certain
of the Company's officers, alleging securities fraud pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Secs.
78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC [17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5] (the "Class").

The case name is styled Danon v. American Superconductor Corp., et
al.  A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available
from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com

During the Class Period, Questcor issued materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that
rendered their affirmative statements misleading as they related
to the Company's financial performance, business prospects, and
financial condition.  As a result of these materially false and
misleading statements, the prices of the Company's securities were
artificially inflated during the Class Period.  As the truth of
the Company's materially false and misleading statements entered
the market, the Company's stock plummeted.

Questcor's primary product is H.P. Acthar(R) Gel, a sixty year old
drug, which it provides for a variety of indications.  Questcor
made repeated false and misleading statements concerning the
efficacy of Acthar, the potential for Acthar to be prescribed for
additional ailments, the controversial marketing of Acthar, and
the Company's resulting growth prospects.  What transpired has
proven to be a scheme on behalf of Company insiders to inflate the
stock price by making false and misleading statements to the
investing public in order to liquidate their personal holdings at
elevated prices, netting insiders in excess of $100 million.

The stock plummeted 48% on September 19, 2012 when Citron Research
reported that Aetna had issued a "clinical policy bulletin"
stating it considers Acthar medically necessary to treat infantile
spasms, but not medically necessary for certain other uses,
including conditions that can be treated by corticosteroids.  The
stock plummeted another 37% on September 24, 2012 when Questcor
filed a Form 8-K stating it had become aware of a U.S. government
investigation involving the Company's promotional practices.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of Questcor common stock.  Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they
would not have purchased Questcor Securities, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased Questcor securities during the Class Period, you
may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
November 26, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve
as your counsel in this action.

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

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. or Derek Behnke), via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.whafh.com


ROBBINS & MYERS: Being Sold to Varco for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Robbins & Myers is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to National Oilwell
Varco, for $60 a share or $2.5 billion, shareholders claim in
Federal Court.


ROBERT K. MERICLE: Settlement Conference Set for November
---------------------------------------------------------
Dave Janoski, writing for Citizens Voice, reports that kids-for-
cash figure Robert K. Mericle has given up his last chance to
withdraw from a $17.75 million class-action settlement with more
than 1,000 former juvenile offenders who appeared in Luzerne
County Court.

The plaintiffs claim their rights were violated in an alleged
scheme in which the wealthy developer paid $2 million to two
county judges who placed offenders in detention centers built by
his construction firm.

A settlement conference in the case is scheduled for next month
before U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo in Wilkes-Barre.

Under the December 2011 settlement agreement and subsequent
revisions, Mr. Mericle had until Oct. 5 to back out of the deal.
The withdrawal option gave Mr. Mericle and his attorneys time to
evaluate the claims of plaintiffs who rejected the settlement
agreement and could continue to pursue him in court.

In a letter to Judge Caputo filed with the court on Oct. 5,
Mericle attorney Eric Kraeutler wrote that only 14 plaintiffs had
refused the settlement agreement and each had reached separate
settlements with Mericle.  The terms of the settlements and the
names of the 14 plaintiffs were not disclosed.

Efforts to reach Messrs. Kraeutler and Mericle by telephone on
Oct. 5 afternoon were not successful.

Mr. Mericle, 49, pleaded guilty to failing to report a felony in
the kids-for-cash case.  His sentencing is on hold pending his
expected testimony in another political corruption case involving
former state Sen. Raphael J. Musto.

The two judges in the kids-for-cash case, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr.
and Michael T. Conahan, are serving 28 and 17 1/2 years in prison,
respectively.

Mr. Ciavarella, Mr. Conahan and the owners of the juvenile
detention centers did not participate in the settlement and remain
defendants in the class-action suit.


SAMSUNG: Class Action Over Galaxy S Smartphone Defects Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aisling Swift, writing for Naples Daily News, reports that after a
10-month fight with Samsung, a Bonita Springs lawyer's class-
action lawsuit over random shutdowns and other purported defects
in Galaxy S smartphones has been resolved.

The lawsuit filed in December by attorney Kenneth Gilman was among
several across the nation that alleged Galaxy S cellphones,
including the Captivate, Fascinate, Vibrant and Epic 4G, had
numerous defects, including random shutdowns; the inability to
shut off calls; a darkened screen after three seconds that
rendered it inoperable; and defective voicemail and e-mail.

They were the target of complaints on Internet forums and law firm
Web sites, which urged consumers to join class-action lawsuits.

The Sept. 27 dismissal came after both sides negotiated a
settlement, agreeing to drop the case without costs to either
side.

"The stipulated dismissal was not part of a settlement, refund or
any other type of monetary or nonmonetary agreement," said David
E. Cannella, of Orlando, a Samsung Telecommunications America LLC
attorney, who said he couldn't elaborate.

Mr. Gilman and his Fort Myers attorney, David H. Harris, had filed
papers saying they'd reached terms agreeable to both sides.  They
couldn't be reached for comment.

Mr. Gilman filed his lawsuit eight months after the U.S. Supreme
Court handed down a 5-4 ruling that may eliminate citizens' rights
to band together to file class-action lawsuits against large
corporations.

The decision involved AT&T Mobility cellphones and a common
contract requiring customers to settle claims through arbitration,
not lawsuits.  Such contracts, often in fine print, are becoming
increasingly common with companies offering cellphones, credit
cards, cable service, furnaces, water heaters, loans and other
products.

In March, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit or compel
arbitration, arguing that it sells its phones "as is" and
Mr. Gilman never returned his Fascinate cellphone for repair or
replacement, as required under his contract, which mandates that
consumers undergo arbitration, not sue.

Samsung noted Mr. Gilman purchased his cellphone through Verizon
and had a Verizon contract, so he should dispute his claim through
Verizon, which tested the Samsung cellphones before deciding to
sell them.

A week before the dismissal, a federal magistrate gave Mr. Gilman
until Sept. 26 to reply to Samsung's motion to dismiss or compel
arbitration.  In July, a judge agreed with the magistrate's report
that the lawsuit was a "shotgun pleading," a lawsuit containing
excessive claims with no clear organization.

"The plaintiff does not distinguish which facts are relevant to
each count, making the reader wonder which of the prior factual
allegations support the elements of the claim," U.S. District
Court Magistrate Douglas Frazier wrote, noting that would force a
judge to sift through facts to decide which were relevant.

The magistrate allowed the lawyers to amend the lawsuit.

In August, they filed an amended complaint alleging Samsung told
consumers its phones were "free from defects in material and
workmanship under normal use and service" for a year after
purchase.

But despite receiving complaints about the random shutdown within
a week of the smartphones' July 2010 release, the suit said
Samsung continued to ship millions of defective phones, even
issuing a press release lauding itself for such high sales
figures.  The lawsuit notes that it sold 14 million worldwide
within a year.

Samsung again asked to dismiss the lawsuit or compel arbitration,
prompting the dismissal.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Truck Drivers Obtain Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Kell-Holland, writing for Land Line, reports that truck
drivers' allegations that Schneider National Carriers Inc. short-
changed them on meal and rest breaks, actual miles driven and
detention pay will be decided as a class in California, following
a recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White.

Christina A. Humphrey, of the law firm Marlin and Saltzman, LLP,
in Los Angeles, is the lead attorney in the class action lawsuit
against Schneider National in California.

"This is a huge victory on behalf of the plaintiffs because now
they can collectively make these assertions and all of it can be
decided in one swoop by the judge," Ms. Humphrey told Land Line on
Wednesday, Oct. 3.

Plaintiffs in the case allege that Schneider is instituting
improper pay practices and fails to pay drivers for every hour
they work, instead paying them only "when the wheels are turning,"
according to Ms. Humphrey.

"We are claiming that the drivers are not paid for items such as
inspections of the truck, wait time they may be incurring at the
railway if they are an intermodal driver, or wait times at
customer sites," Ms. Humphrey said.  "Basically, there is a lot of
time during the day for which they don't receive any compensation,
which we are claiming is illegal under California law."

In the lawsuit Bickley v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc.,
drivers also allege they are not being compensated for all of the
miles they drive.  The company's pay system is based on the
Household Movers Guide software system, which pays drivers ZIP
code to ZIP code.

"For example, they may only be compensated for 500 miles when in
actuality they drove 700 miles," Ms. Humphrey said.  "The drivers
are not being accurately compensated for those additional 200
miles they drove.  The DOT logs that the drivers have to fill out
require that they record their actual miles driven, regardless of
what the HHMG says they should be paid for."

Drivers in the case also allege that the company failed to provide
them with timely and accurate itemized wage statements and that
they weren't paid for accrued vacation wages.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Anwar" Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Merits discovery is still ongoing in the class action lawsuit
involving a subsidiary of SS&C Technologies Holdings Inc.,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On May 31, 2012, SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. through its
indirect wholly owned subsidiary, SS&C Technologies Holdings
Europe S.a.r.l. ("Bidco"), declared its offer to acquire all of
the outstanding share capital of GlobeOp Financial Services S.A.
wholly unconditional and gained control of GlobeOp and its
subsidiaries (the "Group"), replaced certain members of the board
of directors of GlobeOp and subsequently acquired all of the
outstanding share capital of GlobeOp pursuant to the terms of its
offer of GBP4.85 per outstanding share (the "Acquisition").
GlobeOp became a subsidiary of Bidco and its shares no longer
trade on the London Stock Exchange.

On April 29, 2009, GlobeOp was added as a defendant in an ongoing
putative class action (the "Anwar Action") filed oby Pasha S.
Anwar, et al., and pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against multiple defendants,
relating to Greenwich Sentry L.P. and Greenwich Sentry Partners
L.P. (the "FG Funds") and the FG Funds' losses as a result of
their investments managed by Bernard Madoff.  The complaint
alleges breach of fiduciary duties by GlobeOp and negligence in
the performance of its duties and seeks damages of an
indeterminate amount.  Motions to dismiss have been filed by all
parties to the action, including on behalf of GlobeOp.  The judge
dismissed one allegation regarding gross negligence against
GlobeOp but denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. GlobeOp
has filed a motion to deny class certification and the ruling on
that motion has not yet been rendered.

Merits discovery among the plaintiffs, GlobeOp and the co-
defendants is ongoing.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

GlobeOp believes it has complied with the terms of its service
agreements with the FG Funds and that it does not have any
fiduciary obligations relating to the FG Funds or its investors,
and therefore intends to defend this matter vigorously.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Millennium-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. continues to defend its
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit filed in New York
relating to the Millennium Funds, according to the Company's
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 31, 2012, SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. through its
indirect wholly owned subsidiary, SS&C Technologies Holdings
Europe S.a.r.l. ("Bidco"), declared its offer to acquire all of
the outstanding share capital of GlobeOp Financial Services S.A.
wholly unconditional and gained control of GlobeOp and its
subsidiaries (the "Group"), replaced certain members of the board
of directors of GlobeOp and subsequently acquired all of the
outstanding share capital of GlobeOp pursuant to the terms of its
offer of GBP4.85 per outstanding share (the "Acquisition").
GlobeOp became a subsidiary of Bidco and its shares no longer
trade on the London Stock Exchange.

Several actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in
various jurisdictions or threatened naming GlobeOp as a defendant
in respect of claims arising out of valuation agent services
performed by GlobeOp related to the Millennium Global Emerging
Credit Fund L.P. and Millennium Global Emerging Fund Ltd. (the
"Millennium Funds"), including an arbitration proceeding in the
United Kingdom on behalf of the Millennium Funds' investment
manager that commenced with a request for arbitration on July 11,
2011 with a yet-to-be-determined claimed amount, a threatened
arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom involving the
liquidator on behalf of the Millennium Funds in an amount yet-to-
be-determined, and a putative class action in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors in
the Millennium Funds filed on May 14, 2012, asserting claims of
$844 million, which is alleged to be the full amount of assets
under management by the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak
valuation.  These actions allege that GlobeOp was negligent and in
breach of contract in the performance of services for the funds
and that, inter alia, GlobeOp did not discover and report a
fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the funds' portfolio manager.
GlobeOp says it cannot predict the outcome of this matter.


SUMITON, AL: Police Department Sued Over Sexual Assault
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the late Sumiton police
Officer Chris Daughtery sexually assaulted a woman who was jailed
for unpaid traffic tickets, she claims in a federal class action
against Mr. Daughtery's estate, the city and its Police
Department.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Griner" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Bank's appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit captioned Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank,
et. al. remains pending, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s
August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Synovus Bank was also named as a defendant in a putative state-
wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft
fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are
usurious under Georgia law.  The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus
Bank, et. al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of
Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury,
conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's
assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit
and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer
accounts.  Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges
constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury
laws.  Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges
constitute non-interest fees and charges under both federal and
Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits.
On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.  On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered
an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the
Gwinnett County State Court.  Synovus Bank subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss.

On February 22, 2012, the state court entered an order denying the
motion to dismiss.  On March 1, 2012, the state court signed and
entered a certificate of immediate review thereby permitting
Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of Appeals for a
discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss.  On
March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for
interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals.  On
April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's
application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order
denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss.  On April 11, 2012,
Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal.  The case remains pending
on appeal.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Bid to Vacate "Green" Suit Transfer Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to vacate a conditional transfer order remain pending in
the class action lawsuit captioned Green et al. v. Synovus Bank,
according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On January 25, 2012, Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in
another putative multi-state class action relating to the manner
in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers.  The
case, Green et al. v. Synovus Bank, was filed in the Middle
District of Georgia, Columbus Division, and asserts claims for
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs
as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in
connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards
allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the
plaintiffs' accounts.

On February 14, 2012, Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
to add a claim under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.  On
March 22, 2012, Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  That motion remains pending.  On April 19, 2012, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional
Transfer Order conditionally transferring the case to the multi-
district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida, In Re;
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036.  On April 20,
2012, Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed objections to
the Conditional Transfer Order.  On May 4 and 5, 2012, Synovus
Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed motions to vacate the
Conditional Transfer Order.  Those motions remain pending.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Defends "Childs" Suit Over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against a class action lawsuit over overdraft fees,
according to the Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and
Trust Company ("CB&T") were named as defendants in a putative
multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus
Bank charges overdraft fees to customers.  CB&T is a division of
Synovus Bank.  Synovus Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Synovus Financial Corp.  The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank
and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged
injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's
assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit
and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the
sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts.  On
October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-
district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida, In Re;
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036.  Plaintiffs
amended their complaint on October 21, 2011.  The Synovus entities
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 22,
2011, and the motion was denied on July 26, 2012.  Synovus was set
to file an answer to the amended complaint on August 16, 2012.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated lawsuit filed by
shareholders against Synovus Financial Corp., according to the
Company's August 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on
June 11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National
Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and
the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock
price in violation of the federal securities laws.  Lead
Plaintiffs' allegations are based on purported exposure to
Synovus' lending relationship with the Sea Island Company and the
impact of such alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition.
Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an
unspecified amount.  On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the
amended complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading
requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The
Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the
opportunity to submit a further amended complaint.  Lead
Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27, 2011.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July 27,
2011.

On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part
that Motion to Dismiss.  On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a
motion requesting that the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012
order, which motion was denied on July 27, 2012.  Defendants filed
their answer to the second amended complaint on May 21, 2012.
Discovery in this case is ongoing.

On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-3069) (the "Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit"),
against certain current and/or former directors and executive
officers of Synovus.  The Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary
duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the
Securities Class Action.  The plaintiff is seeking to recover
damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive
relief.

On December 1, 2009, at the request of the parties, the Court
consolidated the Securities Class Action and Federal Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit for discovery purposes, captioned In re Synovus
Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-JOF, holding that the two cases
involve "common issues of law and fact."  Plaintiff in the Federal
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit served a verified amended
shareholder derivative complaint on June 5, 2012.  On July 25,
2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended shareholder
derivative complaint.  Discovery in this case is ongoing.

On December 21, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Georgia (the "State Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuit"), against certain current and/or former directors and
executive officers of Synovus.  The State Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their
fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as
alleged in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit.  The
plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount
and equitable and/or injunctive relief.  On June 17, 2010, the
Superior Court entered an Order staying the State Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit pending resolution of the Federal Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit.

The Company says there are significant uncertainties involved in
any potential class action and derivative litigation.  Synovus may
seek to mediate the Securities Class Action and Related Litigation
in order to determine whether a reasonable settlement can be
reached.  In the event the Securities Class Action and the related
litigation are not settled, Synovus and the individually named
defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves
against the Securities Class Action and Related Litigation.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Visa to Pay $4.4 Bil. in $6.6 Bil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa's share of the $6.6 billion settlement of a multidistrict
interchange litigation entered in July 2012, is approximately $4.4
billion, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s August 9, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Synovus is a member of the Visa USA network and received shares of
Visa Class B common stock in exchange for its membership interest
in Visa USA in conjunction with the public offering by the Visa
initial public offering in 2008.  Visa members have
indemnification obligations with respect to the Covered
Litigation, which is certain Visa litigation for which Visa is
indemnified by Visa USA members.  Visa Class B shares are subject
to certain restrictions until March 25, 2011, or settlement of the
Covered Litigation.  As of June 30, 2012, all of the Covered
Litigation had not been settled.  Visa has established a
litigation escrow to fund settlement of the Covered Litigation.
The litigation escrow is funded by proceeds from Visa's conversion
of Class B shares.

On July 13, 2012, Visa announced that it had signed a memorandum
of understanding with the class plaintiffs in the multi-district
interchange litigation, and that Visa's share of the proposed $6.6
billion in settlement payments would represent approximately $4.4
billion.  This announcement was factored into the fair value
determination as of June 30, 2012, using a certain probability
model.  Management believes that the estimate of Synovus' exposure
to the Visa Indemnification and fees associated with the Visa
Derivative is adequate based on current information, including
Visa's recent announcement.  However, future developments in the
litigation could require potentially significant changes to
Synovus' estimate.


WAL-MART STORES: Says Gender Bias Class Action Claims Expired
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Davis, writing for Law360, reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
argued in Texas federal court on Oct. 4 that the claims of a
putative class of 50,000 women who allege the retailer
discriminated against its female employees expired after the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down a broader class in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

Wal-Mart asked U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor to throw out the
claims, brought in October 2011 by former members of the Dukes
class, that allege women were paid less and wrongly denied
promotions.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Mortgage Rate Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, reports that Wells Fargo NA had
no contractual obligation to shield homeowners from higher
payments by tying adjustable mortgage rates to a more affordable
benchmark, a California federal judge ruled on Oct. 3 in wiping
out a proposed class action against the lender.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer's decision rejected an
argument from borrowers Charles and Gina Haggarty that the bank
was required to abandon a cost index that spiked dramatically in
2009, saying the couple's loan left the bank sole discretion to
decide if such action was warranted.


WISE MEDIA: Faces Suit Over Involuntary SMS Subscription Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Fields, an individual, Cathie O'Hanks, an individual, and
Erik Kristianson, an individual, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Wise Media, LLC, a Georgia
Limited Liability Company, Mobile Messenger Americas, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:12-cv-
05160 (N.D. Calif., October 4, 2012) concerns an alleged scheme by
the Defendants to enroll consumers, without their knowledge or
consent, in short message service text subscription plans with
monthly membership fees of $9.99.

According to the Defendants, consumers voluntarily subscribe to
receive three SMS texts per week, delivered to their cellular
phones, which texts provide various tips or trivia, such as
flirting tips, via "lovegenie," or horoscope updates, via
"horoscopegenie," the Plaintiffs assert.  The truth is, no
consumers voluntarily subscribed to any such service; rather, the
Defendants sent unsolicited texts to consumers, who had no prior
relationship with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs allege.

Mr. Fields is a resident of Albany, California.  Ms. O'Hanks and
Mr. Kristianson are residents of El Cerrito, California.

Wise Media is a Georgia limited liability company based in
Grayson, Georgia.  Mobile Messenger is a Delaware corporation
based in Los Angeles, California.  The Plaintiffs do not know the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Virginia A. Sanderson, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
          E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
                  jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
                  ginny@KRInternetLaw.com


XL FOODS: Siskinds Launches Class Action Over Beef Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP has launched a class action regarding the recalls of
XL Foods Inc. beef products due to possible contamination with E.
coli O157:H7.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has issued various public
warnings that certain beef products produced by XL Foods Inc. may
be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.  To date, more than 2,500
products have been recalled. A complete list of the products
recalled is available on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Web site: http://www.inspection.gc.ca

Among other things, the Statement of Claim alleges that XL Food
Inc. negligently produced certain beef products and seeks to
recover on behalf of purchasers of those products and their family
members.

Siskinds LLP along with Docken & Company and James H. Brown &
Associates act in proposed class actions across Canada seeking
compensation for physical injury, medical expenses, lost wages or
employment income, and a refund for the cost of purchasing the
recalled product.  Siskinds LLP, Docken & Company and James H.
Brown & Associates continue to investigate the case.

Consumers who purchased recalled beef products should retain
copies of related receipts.  Consumers who believe they might have
consumed recalled beef products and are experiencing physical
discomfort (symptoms are similar to food poisoning, some people
may suffer more serious symptoms) should seek medical advice and
retain copies of any related medical reports, prescriptions, etc.

Linda Visser -- linda.visser@siskinds.com -- a lawyer with
Siskinds LLP, describes the purpose of the proceeding: "We believe
that through this lawsuit XL Foods Inc. will be required to
compensate persons in Canada and elsewhere who have been affected
by the possible contamination of XL Foods Inc. beef products.  In
this case, as with all of these types of cases, we are concerned
about recovering compensation for consumers that are affected by
the product recall."

Docken & Company, James H. Brown & Associates and Siskinds LLP
have been counsel in many product liability and other class
actions, recovering millions of dollars for consumers.  Notably,
Siskinds LLP was counsel in the Walkerton E. coli outbreak class
action and recovered more than $72 million for class members.

                           *********

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., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 $575 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 Chapman
at 240/629-3300.




                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *