---

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

              Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 210

                               Headlines

ABC: Wins Racial Discrimination Class Action Over "The Bachelor"
ANDATEE CHINA: Continues to Defend "Going Private" Proposal Suits
BALTIMORE, MD: Court Clerk Mulls Class Action Over Water Bills
BUCK'S ICE: Recalls Iskream Peanut Butter and Jelly Ice Cream
CAMDEN, NJ: Parents of Public School Students File Class Action

CANADA: Mid-Level Executives Fired Amid Class Action Negotiations
CATHAY FOREST: Judge Issues Securities Class Action Leave Order
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Prisoner Tortures
CHINA EDUCATION: Reached Agreement to Settle Consolidated Suit
DEL MONTE: Faces Suit Over Milo's Chicken Jerky Dog Treats

DELAWARE: Former Over-Detained Inmates File Class Action vs. DOC
DREAM ON ME: Recalls 560 Infant Swings Due to Strangulation Risk
DREAM ON ME: Recalls 90 High Chairs Due to Strangulation Hazard
DRIFTCOVE: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Commission
EAST RAMAPO, NY: Class Action Challenges Improper Use of Funds

ENVIVIO: Faces Class Action Over Initial Public Offering
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Breaks Ground on Kansas City Headquarters Expansion
FLEETMATICS GROUP: Faces "Prisoner Transport" Suit in Florida
FSI INT'L: Faces Two Suits Over Proposed Tokyo Electron Merger
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Suit Dismissal Bid to Be Heard This Month

LAO CHAREUNE: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
LOS ANGELES, CA: Disabled Inmates Obtain Class Certification
MERISEL INC: Saints Capital Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Saints Ticketholders File Class Action
NATURAL SELECTION: Recalls Earthbound Farm Grab & Go Salad Kits

NEW MEXICO: Class Action Over College Savings Plan Proceeds
NORFOLK, VA: Police Officers File Overtime Class Action
OLIVE GARDEN: Owner Settles Hepatitis A Class Action
RAYMOND-HADLEY: Expands Recall of Wegmans Gluten Free Brownie Mix
RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Defends Forged Speed Ticket Camera Signature

STERLING SAVINGS: Overdraft Fee Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
TAPHANDLES LLC: Recalls 24,000 Ceramic Beer Tap Handles
TBD BRANDS: Recalls Yoghund Organic Frozen Yogurt Dog Treats
TMX FINANCE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Unit in Missouri
TOSHIBA CORP: Sued By Various Attorney Generals Over DRAMs

TREND LAB: Recalls 16,850 Children's Upholstered Toddler Chairs
TRIFECTA FOODS: Recalls Fresh Pak(R) and Energy Club(R) Peanuts
TYSON FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
VIKING SYSTEMS: May Soon Face Suits Over Proposed CONMED Merger
WYETH: December 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set


                          *********

ABC: Wins Racial Discrimination Class Action Over "The Bachelor"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that ABC and
Warner Horizon Television have won a class action lawsuit that
contended The Bachelor violated racial discrimination laws.

A group of Nashville residents led by Nathaniel Claybrooks and
Christopher Johnson brought the lawsuit earlier this year,
alleging that the roles of the Bachelor and Bachelorette on the
hit reality series have failed to feature non-white cast members,
and that civil rights law "plainly prohibits whites from refusing
to contract with African Americans because of their race."

The defendants pointed to the First Amendment as a bar against
such claims.

On Oct. 15, a federal judge agreed and ruled that the lawsuit must
be tossed:

"As defendants persuasively argue, casting decisions are a
necessary component of any entertainment show's creative content .
. . The plaintiffs seek to drive an artificial wedge between
casting decisions and the end product, which itself is
indisputably protected as speech by the First Amendment.  Thus,
regulating the casting process necessarily regulates the end
product.  In this respect, casting and the resulting work of
entertainment are inseparable and must both be protected to ensure
that the producers' freedom of speech is not abridged."

Warner Bros. is cheering the decision.  In a statement, the
company says, "We felt from the onset this case was completely
without merit and we are pleased the Court has found in our
favor."

From the get-go, when the lawsuit was filed in April in a
Tennessee federal court, the plaintiffs figured to have a tough
road in overcoming a First Amendment roadblock.

Attorneys for Messrs. Claybrooks and Johnson, who both tried out
for the show and didn't make it, argued that their lawsuit
"underscores the significant barriers that people of color
continue to face in media and the broader marketplace," and
attempted to present the legal theory that producers needed to
heed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and other anti-discrimination
laws.

The Bachelor made an attractive target for plaintiffs.  As a
popular reality show, it has been the subject of those attempting
to read larger social messages.  And Bachelor executive producer
Mike Fleiss has responded to criticisms about the show's diversity
by joking in interviews about who has appeared on the show.  This
might have given the plaintiffs hope of identifying smoking-gun
evidence of racism in the show's "decision-making process."
But many courts have given producers wide-latitude in the
formulation of expressive free speech like entertainment content.
For example, when a former writer's assistant on the NBC show
Friends sued about a decade ago for sexual harassment over jokes
told in the writers' room, the case was dismissed on grounds that
the alleged offensive conduct was part of the creative process.

In June, the defendants pointed to the First Amendment, citing a
1995 Supreme Court decision that determined that parade organizers
weren't compelled to include the participation of a gay group and
argued, "Defendants' expressive choices regarding both the message
their programming conveys, and the individuals who convey it, are
entitled to broad protection."

In handling a motion to dismiss The Bachelor racial discrimination
lawsuit, U.S. District Court judge Aleta Trauger was judicially
obligated to assume the truth of the plaintiffs' allegations that
the racial composition of the show conveys an influential message
to the viewing public, that ABC/Warner made casting decisions to
control the message, and that the plaintiffs strongly disagree
with that message.

But even if the plaintiffs are correct that the show adopts an
"outdated" sense of mating, Judge Trauger says it is within the
defendants' rights.

"The Shows' casting decisions are part and parcel of the Shows'
creative content, which the plaintiffs seek to reform," writes the
judge.  "That is plainly an attempt to regulate the content of the
Shows, which the First Amendment forbids."

Judge Trauger continues, "The plaintiffs' goals here are laudable:
they seek to support the social acceptance of interracial
relationships, to eradicate outdated racial taboos, and to
encourage television networks not to perpetuate outdated racial
stereotypes.  Nevertheless, the First Amendment prevents the
plaintiffs from effectuating these goals by forcing the defendants
to employ race-neutral criteria in their casting decisions in
order to 'showcase' a more progressive message."

The ruling is subject to appeal.

The defendants were represented by Adam Levin and Seth Pierce at
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp.


ANDATEE CHINA: Continues to Defend "Going Private" Proposal Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
During the fourth quarter of 2011, a number of class action
lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by or on behalf of current shareholders against Andatee
China Marine Fuel Services Corporation and certain of its officers
and directors (the "Individual Defendants") in connection with a
contemplated "going private" proposal by the Company's Chief
Executive Officer and majority shareholder, An Fengbin (the
"Proposed Transaction").  These lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
violated fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the
value of the Company to its public shareholders in a change of
control transactions.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified damages and other relief, including, without
limitation, to enjoin the Individual Defendants from consummating
the Proposed Transaction.

The lawsuits are in the early stages of their respective
proceedings.  The Company anticipates that actions similar to the
above-mentioned actions may be filed in the future.

The Individual Defendants are contesting each of the lawsuits
vigorously, however, are not in a position to predict the outcome
or impact of the lawsuits.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 17, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Andatee China Marine Fuel Services Corporation --
http://www.andatee.com-- through its subsidiaries, engages in
production, storage, distribution, and trading of blended marine
fuel oil for cargo and fishing vessels in the Peoples Republic of
China.  The Company also produces blended marine fuel according to
customer specifications.  Its blend of marine diesel oil is used
as substitute for the traditional diesel oil.  The Company is
based in Shanghai City, China.


BALTIMORE, MD: Court Clerk Mulls Class Action Over Water Bills
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Broadwater, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that just
days after Comptroller Joan M. Pratt filed suit against the city,
another prominent Baltimore official has filed notice of his
intention to take City Hall to court.

Baltimore Circuit Court Clerk Frank M. Conaway has formally
notified the city of his plans to file a class-action lawsuit over
erroneous charges to residents by the municipal water billing
system.

"People have been overcharged and taken advantage of," Mr. Conaway
said.  "People have lost their homes.  It's horrible."

Some big businesses owe millions in city water bills

Conaway's attorney, Neal M. Janey -- a former city solicitor --
sent a formal "Notice of Claims" letter to current City Solicitor
George A. Nilson, alerting him of plans for the suit, which he
said arises from the failure to collect water bills owed by
businesses and nonprofit organizations even as some residents are
being forced from their homes for overdue bills.

In response, Mr. Nilson accused the men of taking legal actions as
part of a publicity stunt.

"Mr. Janey and Mr. Conaway are making a habit of this," Mr. Nilson
said in an e-mail, referring to recent suit filed by Mr. Janey
that accuses the city of discriminating against minority
contractors. "It seems to be a disease (or something in the water)
that affects some elected officials and former City Solicitors in
desperate need of public attention."

Ms. Pratt filed a lawsuit on Oct. 12 seeking to stop Mayor
Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's technology office from installing a new
phone system for city offices, alleging that the administration
used an "underhanded, illegal technique" to bypass the competitive
bidding process.  The law firm of Orioles owner Peter Angelos is
handling the case pro bono.

A Rawlings-Blake spokesman accused Pratt of wasting city resources
by engaging in a legal fight over a matter that should be handled
through collaboration among the branches of city government.
Spokesman Ryan O'Doherty also noted that an investigation by the
city's inspector general -- whose probe found apparent conflicts
of interest and wasteful practices -- did not produce findings of
illegal activity.

Mr. Conaway said he's paying for his suit with his own money, and
has "a number of residents already signed up."  He said his suit
will seek monetary damages.  "I want people to be made whole," he
said.

The court clerk has asked Baltimore's finance director, Harry E.
Black, for the names and addresses of people who have had liens
placed against their homes in the past two years over water bills.

"Hundreds of city homeowners have lost their homes because of $300
or $400 delinquent bills directly because of the aggressive
actions by the city to collect revenues," Mr. Conaway said.

In August, Mr. Conaway first announced his plans for a class-
action suit.  He cited a Baltimore Sun article that reported the
city had failed to collect more than $10 million in overdue water
bills owed by corporations, nonprofits and government offices.
The total included about $7 million owed by the bankrupt RG Steel
in Sparrows Point.

Mr. O'Doherty said at the time that the city's finance and public
works departments work "very hard to collect from delinquent
accounts."

"The law department's working very aggressively to make sure that
we're doing everything we can to retrieve what is owed," he said.

Mr. Conaway ran against Ms. Rawlings-Blake in the last mayoral
election.  He said his political opposition to the mayor played no
role in his decision to sue.

"I'm very serious about this," Mr. Conaway said.  "This has
nothing to do with me running for mayor."

Mr. Conaway's legal action comes as the water system has been
grappling to resolve problems identified in a city audit released
in February.  City officials acknowledged that they had
overcharged 38,000 mostly residential customers by at least $4.2
million and issued refunds.  The auditor has called for another $5
million in refunds.

The administration has outlined a broad, long-term effort to
address billing problems attributed to faulty water meters, an
outdated computer system, human error and, in some neighborhoods,
meter readings allegedly fabricated by two employees who no longer
work for the city.


BUCK'S ICE: Recalls Iskream Peanut Butter and Jelly Ice Cream
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buck's Ice Cream of Milford, Connecticut, co-pack manufacturer for
Iskream, Inc., is voluntarily recalling all lot codes of Iskream
Brand Peanut Butter and Jelly No Sugar Added Ice Cream, because it
has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.  The
decision was made as the result of the expanded recall of peanut
butter, nut butters and peanut products by Sunland because of
potential contamination with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
those 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 (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The Iskream brand Peanut Butter and Jelly was distributed to
retail customers through several wholesale distributors in the
Northeast between March 1, 2012, and October 17, 2012.

The ice cream is packaged in ice cream pint containers under the
Iskream brand, and is labeled as Reduced Fat No Sugar Added Peanut
Butter and Jelly.  The UPC code is 858452020554, and the Lot Code
and Best by Date is printed or stamped in the bottom of the
container.  The Pints could also be packaged in white corrugated
cases containing 8 pints per case.  Each case has a label
identifying the product as Iskream Peanut Butter and Jelly, and
has the UPC code, and best by dates on label wrapped around one
corner of the box.  Picture of the recalled products is available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm324349.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased any of the recalled products are
urged not to eat them and to return products to the place of
purchase for a full refund or dispose of them immediately, or
contact Iskream directly for refund information.  Please visit
http://www.iskream.com/for up to date information.


CAMDEN, NJ: Parents of Public School Students File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Gregory, writing for NewsWorks, reports that the parents of
three Camden public school students have filed a class-action
lawsuit seeking to have their children transferred to better-
performing schools.

Lawyers for the parents maintain the Camden school district is not
providing a thorough and efficient education -- which is
guaranteed by the state Constitution -- despite getting more state
money under the school-funding formula.

Sandra Vargas, who joined the suit on behalf of her 12-year-old
son, says the majority of students in the Camden public schools
who apply to college have to go to community college.

"Your grade levels . . . your academics are not to where they
should be, and I don't want that for my child," she said.  "I want
my son to be able to come out school, graduate from high school,
and go straight into college to continue his education."

The suit seeks to have the state Education Department transfer the
three children in the lawsuit immediately -- and to find ways of
having all 15,000 public school students in Camden get access to
better schools.


CANADA: Mid-Level Executives Fired Amid Class Action Negotiations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for Canadian Press, reports that three
mid-level civilian executives at National Defence were
inexplicably fired earlier this month, including a director at the
centre of a class-action lawsuit that could cost the federal
treasury up to C$600 million.

Andre Bouchard, Gerry Mahon and Randy Helgason were let go Oct. 3
in what defense sources say was "an attempt to change the
direction of each organization."

The dismissals came out of the blue, according to defense sources.
And in the case of Mr. Bouchard, president of the department's
insurance program, it came at a critical juncture as the federal
government negotiates its way through a class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Mahon headed CANEX, the chain of military base retail stores.
Mr. Helgason was in charge of personnel support programs.

A senior defense official in charge of support programs confirmed
their departure, but wouldn't discuss details.

"Because of privacy issues, we do not discuss information related
to employees' employment," Commodore Mark B. Watson, the director
general of Personnel and Family Support Services, said in an
e-mail.

"However, we can confirm that their departures are not related to
their performance."

Mr. Bouchard has been intimately involved in National Defence's
response to a class-action lawsuit launched by Halifax veteran
Dennis Manuge, a case that resulted in a Federal Court ruling
compelling the government to cease the clawback of military
pensions.

Long-term disability payments to ex-soldiers have for decades been
reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability
pension they receive.  Veterans successfully argued it was unfair
and unjust to treat pain and suffering awards as income.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided in May not to appeal the
case, ordered the clawback to cease and directed a team to
negotiate retroactive payments with as many as 4,500 people
involved in the case.

Internal government estimates suggest a final settlement could run
up to $600 million, depending on the cut-off date for payments.

Veterans groups expressed concern about Mr. Bouchard's departure,
describing him as a compassionate bureaucrat working hard to
correct the injustice of the clawback.

"Usually I'm very skeptical of people at that level," said
Mike Blais, of Canadians Veterans Advocacy.

"But here we have a guy that has been proactively trying to get
this thing resolved and now, as we're in a state of limbo where
veterans are still waiting on retroactive (payments), one of our
champions has been dismissed."

Mr. Watson said the "leadership changes" would have "no direct
impact on the quantity and quality" of services and benefits
provided to the members of the military.

The positions would be filled permanently at a later date
following a "thorough and proper Non-Public Funds (NPF) hiring
procedure."

National Defence is in the middle of an extensive cost-cutting
exercise that an outside analysis recently predicted would chop as
much as C$2.5 billion off the department's bottom line.

The Harper government has been vague about how the savings will be
achieved and the Parliamentary budget officer is in the midst of a
high-profile battle to obtain data on the cuts.

As many as 1,100 civilian jobs at defense are expected to be cut
over the next two years.


CATHAY FOREST: Judge Issues Securities Class Action Leave Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is directed to all persons, wherever they may reside
or be domiciled, who acquired securities of Cathay Forest Products
Corp. during the period from and including November 9, 2009 to and
including February 1, 2011.

On September 14, 2012, The Honourable Madam Justice H. A. Rady of
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the proposed class
proceeding styled Snelgrove v Cathay Forest Products Corp., et
al., Court File No. 4369-11CP granted leave to D. Kingsley
Snelgrove, pursuant to section 138.8 of the Ontario Securities
Act, RSO 1990, c S. 5, to assert, as against the Defendant Anthony
Ng, the statutory cause of action for misrepresentation in certain
core documents of Cathay.

The Leave Order means that the Plaintiff can assert, under Part
XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, that the Defendant Anthony
Ng has liability for alleged misrepresentations in Cathay's
secondary market disclosure documents disseminated during the
Proposed Class Period.

Leave is a preliminary procedural matter.  The merits of the
claims in the Action, and the allegations of fact on which the
claims are based, have not been finally determined by the Court.
Leave has not yet been obtained against the Defendants other than
Anthony Ng.  The Defendants other than Mr. Ng have appeared in the
Action and deny that the claims in the Action have merit.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice offices cannot answer any
questions about the matters in this notice.  The claim, orders of
the court and other information are available on the Plaintiff's
counsel's Web site at http://www.classaction.ca

Questions relating to the Action should be directed by e-mail or
telephone to the Plaintiff's counsel:

         Nicholas C. Baker Esq.
         Siskinds LLP
         680 Waterloo Street
         London, ON N6A 3V4
         Telephone: 1-800-461-6166 ext. 7868 (toll free)
         E-mail: nicholas.baker@siskinds.com


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Prisoner Tortures
------------------------------------------------------
G. Flint Taylor, writing for Huffington Post, reports that on
Oct. 16 lawyers from the People's Law Office (PLO) and the
Roderick MacArthur Justice Center filed a ground breaking class
action petition seeking new evidentiary hearings for a group of
Illinois prisoners who allege that they were tortured by notorious
Police Commander Jon Burge and his cabal of Chicago Police
officers into giving confessions that provided the basis for their
convictions and imprisonment.

This group of prisoners, all of whom have spent more than 20 years
behind bars, allege that they were victims of racially motivated
torture tactics that included electric shock, suffocation, mock
executions, and beatings with flashlights, telephone books, lead
pipes, rubber hoses, and batons.  The petition asserts that
lawyers from the PLO have documented the cases of 117 torture
victims, while the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission,
which was recently refunded by the governor as a result of public
pressure, has received more than 100 Burge-related torture
complaints from Illinois prisoners.

The petition details the torture alleged by class representatives
Johnnie Plummer and Vincent Wade.  Mr. Wade alleges that in 1984
he was forced to confess after Mr. Burge's detectives smashed him
on the nose with a flash light, kneed him in the groin, punched
him in the eye, and beat him on his chest with a baton and
phonebook while his arms and legs were pinned down.  Mr. Plummer,
who was a 15-year-old juvenile at the time, alleges that in 1991
he confessed after Mr. Burge's henchmen threatened him, repeatedly
hit him in his side with a flashlight, struck him in the face, and
pulled his hair.  Both men sought to have their confessions thrown
out because they were the product of torture, but their motions
were denied by judges who were unaware of the overwhelming
evidence of systemic police torture that has emerged in the
decades since their hearings and convictions.  This evidence
includes numerous court decisions, the report of the Cook County
special prosecutor, the findings of former Illinois Governor
George Ryan and several internal police investigations, the
admissions of Chicago Mayors Richard M. Daley and Rahm Emanuel,
and the perjury and obstruction of justice conviction of Jon
Burge.

The petition also cites serious but less egregious law enforcement
scandals that have arisen in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia,
West Virginia, Tulia, Texas, and, most recently, in Boston, and
contrasts the dismissal of hundreds of criminal cases in each of
those locales with the failure of the Cook County Courts and
State's Attorneys' Office to take similar action in the face of
the undisputed "mountain of evidence" that has come to light since
the class of prisoners were convicted.  The petition further
points out that the prisoners do not seek outright dismissal of
their cases, but rather only a full and fair hearing where they
can challenge their confessions with all the evidence of systemic
police torture that is now in the public record.

A friend of the court brief, signed by former Illinois Governor
James Thompson, an impressive group of former judges, politicians,
and prosecutors, and numerous well known lawyers, has also been
filed on Oct. 16 in support of the prisoners.  The petition, which
will first be heard before the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court
of Cook County on October 29, 2012, raises fundamental issues of
human and constitutional rights and seeks, decades after the fact,
to give the criminal courts of Cook County yet another chance to
belatedly enforce the rule of law that has been so blatantly and
repeatedly flaunted for the past four decades.

Mr. Taylor, a founding partner of the People's Law Office, his law
partner, Joey Mogul, and MacArthur Justice Center lawyers Locke
Bowman and Alexa Van Brunt are counsel for the class of prisoners
who have filed the petition.  The People's Law Office is a Chicago
civil rights law firm whose attorneys have been fighting for
victims of police torture, brutality, wrongful convictions, false
arrest and other government abuses for over 40 years.

Jason Keyser, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
lawsuit gives new hope to more than 100 people who filed claims of
torture with a commission of inquiry before its work was halted
this summer due to state budget cuts.  Only six of those cases
have been referred to a judge for further action.

The suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, is also a chance to
learn the true extent of a scandal in which dozens of men --
almost all of them black -- claim that, starting in the 1970s,
police Lt. Jon Burge and his officers beat or shocked them into
confessing to crimes ranging from armed robbery to murder.

"It is time -- it is past time -- for there to be closure in the
Burge scandal," said Locke Bowman, one of the attorneys on the
case and legal director of the Roderick MacArthur Justice Center.
"That closure will come about in one way and one way only -- full,
fair hearings for each and every one of the victims with a
credible claim that his conviction rests in part or in whole on a
confession produced by torture."

The mother of one of the petitioners, Johnnie Plummer, said at a
news conference about the filing that she hoped the suit would be
the beginning of a journey home for her son, who was arrested at
age 15 for two killings and has spent the past 21 years behind
bars.  He claims officers beat him with a flashlight, struck him
in the face and pulled his hair so he would confess.

"It's not fair," Jeanette Plummer said.  "Twenty-one years is
wasted.  My son needs to come home.  So do the other men.  And I
hope this petition that they filed will give my son a fair
hearing, so I can see my baby come home.  It's long overdue.  I
hope we get justice for Johnnie."

Mr. Burge was convicted in 2010 of lying under oath by testifying
in a lawsuit that he'd never witnessed or participated in the
torture of suspects.  He is serving a 4 1/2-year sentence in
federal prison for perjury and obstruction of justice.

But Mr. Bowman said that until all of these "forgotten group of
men" get hearings, the scandal will "continue to fester, it will
continue to plague us."

Former prisoner Darrell Cannon, who also spoke at the news
conference, said his story is proof that with a fair hearing, the
wrongfully convicted can get justice.

"On behalf of all those who are still locked up, I say unto you,
'Continue to keep your hope alive,'" said Mr. Cannon, who was
freed after 24 years in prison when a review board determined that
evidence used to convict him was tainted.

Mr. Cannon said police pretended to load a shotgun, put it in his
mouth and pulled the trigger to terrify him into confessing to a
murder that he didn't commit.  He said they also shocked him below
the belt with an electric cattle prod.

The total number of torture victims is still unknown, Mr. Bowman
said.

"It's fair to say there may well be scores," he said.

The petition filed on Oct. 16 names 12 inmates who were first
identified in 2006 in an investigation led by a special
prosecutor.

The lawsuit says it also includes some or all of the 110 people
who filed complaints with the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief
Commission, which was effectively shut down in June by lawmakers
who stripped it of all of its funding as they grappled with a
budget shortfall.

The commission recently received a stopgap grant of federal money
that will allow it to resume operations until the end of the year,
when its director hopes the state will resume funding its work.

Mr. Bowman, however, believes the class action lawsuit will
provide a more certain avenue to justice for those who have been
wrongfully convicted because it comes with more clarity about the
process and rules of evidence, and it clearly requires a judge to
issue a decision in each case.

"Our view is that this is the only way that we can be assured that
we will get definitively to the bottom of this scandal," Mr.
Bowman said.


CHINA EDUCATION: Reached Agreement to Settle Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
China Education Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its August 20, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it has recently reached
an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit.

The Company is presently involved in two putative class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The first action, Apicella v. China Education
Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS)(JCx), was filed on
December 2, 2010; the second action, Clemens v. China Education
Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09987 (JFW) (AGRx), was filed on
December 28, 2010.  On March 2, 2011, both actions were
consolidated in In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS) (JCx) (C.D. Cal.).  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that the Company, Xiqun Yu,
Zibing Pan, Susan Liu, Chunqing Wang, James Hsu, Liansheng Zhang,
and Yizhao Zhang are liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 for allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions in the Company's public
filings between 2008 and 2010 and in an investor conference call
in December 2010.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint also
asserted claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against the individual defendants as persons who allegedly
controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions were made.  The Court denied
the company's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint
on October 11, 2011, and granted (with leave to replead) James
Hsu's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on
November 14, 2011.

On December 5, 2011, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint alleging claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 against the Company, Xiqun Yu, Zibing Pan, Susan Liu, and
Chunqing Wang, and alleging claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Xiqun Yu, Zibing Pan,
Susan Liu, Chunqing Wang, James Hsu, Liansheng Zhang, and Yizhao
Zhang.  The Company answered the Consolidated Second Amended
Complaint on January 5, 2012.  On April 6, 2012, the Court ruled
on motions to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint
filed by James Hsu, Liansheng Zhang, and Yizhao Zhang, the only
other defendants served to date, denying the motions of James Hsu
and Yizhao Zhang but granting (with leave to replead) that of
Liansheng Zhang.  After the plaintiffs elected not to amend their
pleadings, James Hsu and Yizhao Zhang answered the Consolidated
Second Amended Complaint on May 7, 2012.  The parties to the
consolidated securities class action have recently reached an
agreement in principle to settle the case, subject to court
approval.


DEL MONTE: Faces Suit Over Milo's Chicken Jerky Dog Treats
----------------------------------------------------------
Maxine S. Ruff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Del Monte Corporation d/b/a Del Monte Foods and Milo's
Kitchen, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-05251 (N.D. Calif., October 10,
2012) is brought on behalf of consumers, who purchased chicken
jerky dog treats manufactured, marketed, and sold by the
Defendants.

The Dog Treats were defectively manufactured, unsafe and
dangerous, Ms. Ruff alleges.  She contends that the Defendants
knew or should have known that the Dog Treats were unsafe, yet
they failed to cease marketing and selling the Dog Treats and
failed to warn her and the Class of the dangers associated with
the Product.

Ms. Ruff is a resident of Gaston County, North Carolina.  She
purchased a package of Milo's Kitchen Chicken Jerky dog treats on
November 12, 2011.  She gave her dog the Product, and within one
week her dog became gravely ill and passed away.  Plaintiff did
not know of any FDA warnings relating to chicken jerky treats in
general, or the Product in particular, until several months after
her dog's death.  She asserts that she has suffered economic
damages associated with the purchase of Defendants' Product,
veterinary costs incurred for treating the dog and trying to save
his life, antibiotic costs to try to treat the dog, and costs
associated with the disposition of the dog's body, not to mention
the loss of the value of the dog.

Del Monte is incorporated in Delaware with its principle executive
offices located in San Francisco, California.  Milo's Kitchen is a
Delaware limited liability corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Del Monte.  In 2011, Del Monte launched the new
Milo's Kitchen brand of dog snacks to "focus on the emerging
consumer demand for real ingredient pet snacks."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  livesay@whafh.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
          E-mail: levitt@whafh.com
                  aronowitz@whafh.com

               - and -

          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          Julie D. Miller, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: jamie@complexlitgroup.com
                  julie@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 553-7980
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


DELAWARE: Former Over-Detained Inmates File Class Action vs. DOC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Nuzback, writing for CapeGazette.com, reports that former
inmates of Delaware Department of Corrections say they were kept
in prison for days after they were scheduled for release.

Lewes resident Philip Wharton and three other plaintiffs -- Joseph
Roundtree, James Maddox and Lamar Correa -- filed a class action
lawsuit against Delaware DOC for holding prisoners for more than
12 hours after the prisoner's sentence has ended.

According to the suit, Mr. Wharton was admitted to Sussex
Correctional Institution in Georgetown on June 27.  His release
date was scheduled for July 9, but Mr. Wharton served nine
addition days in jail because the DOC Central Offender Records
division failed to process his release report in a timely manner.

Mr. Maddox was admitted to SCI March 11 and scheduled for release
March 14.  But according to the suit, Mr. Maddox was not released
until March 19 -- more than double his sentence.

Mr. Correa served 30 days at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
in Smyrna for what should have been a three-day sentence, the suit
states; Roundtree was not released from Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution until a full week after he was scheduled
to exit.

The lawsuit names 10 other individuals who say they were over-
detained in DOC facilities.  Plaintiffs say they are pressing
charges on behalf of all prisoners who have been over-detained,
many of whom do not have the financial resources or English-
speaking skills to press charges on their own.

Dover attorneys Stephen Hampton and John Grady filed the complaint
Oct. 1 against DOC Commissioner Carl Danberg, Director of Central
Offender Records Rebecca McBride and former Director Cathy
Escherich, in U.S. District Court of Delaware.  Mr. Hampton, who
wrote the suit, says Mr. Danberg, Ms. McBride and Ms. Escherich
are well aware of the problem, but have taken no steps to address
it.

The suit asserts it is not uncommon for individuals with poor
English-speaking skills and inmates with mental health illnesses
to be held for days or weeks longer than their sentence requires.
"It is these individuals for whom a class action is particularly
appropriate, as without a class action, these individuals most
likely would not have the ability or opportunity to bring a
lawsuit for their over-detention," Mr. Hampton wrote.

According to the State of Delaware Web site, the office of Central
Offender Records is responsible for calculating sentences and
release dates.  According to the suit, court clerks and bail
bondsmen in the state say the office denies receiving release
orders for inmates or takes days to process the orders.

"The standard practice of COR employees and of all other DDOC
employees who work with prisoner release records is to refuse to
respond to any inquiries from inmates," Mr. Hampton wrote.  As a
result, inmates have no way to obtain information if they are
being over-detained, Mr. Hampton wrote.

Mr. Hampton wrote the defendants' actions, and failure to act,
were the moving force behind the continuing violations of
prisoners' Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights.

The suit names two similar cases pending in Delaware Courts.  In
Nancy Dinote v. Carl Danberg, Ms. Dinote claims she was over-
detained for nearly a day; in Errol Springer v. Carl Danberg, Mr.
Springer claims he was over-detained for nearly three years
because of dysfunction in Central Offender Records.

According to the suit, plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages
and injunctive relief, and Mr. Hampton asks for a jury trial.  He
also asks the court to appoint an independent monitor to supervise
the records office to ensure inmates are released on or before
their release dates.

In an Oct. 8 press release, House Minority Leader Greg Lavelle, R-
Sharpley, and State Rep. Deborah Hudson, R-Fairthorne, said Gov.
Jack Markell should hire a replacement for Corrections
Commissioner Carl Danberg.  "Either Mr. Danberg is complicit in
this mismanagement or he has become alarmingly ineffective at
recognizing and dealing with the many shortcomings of this
department.  It's clear he has lost the respect and credibility he
needs to lead, and his continued tenure as head of the DOC can no
longer be tolerated," Mr. Lavelle said.

"Illegally detaining someone past their release date is a waste of
resources, exacerbates the problem of prison overcrowding and
exposes taxpayers to potentially steep liability," Mr. Lavelle
said.

DOC Spokesman John Painter said the department could not comment
on pending litigation.


DREAM ON ME: Recalls 560 Infant Swings Due to Strangulation Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dream On Me Inc., of South Plainfield, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 560 Happy Swing II infant swings.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The opening between the tray and seat or the grab bar and seat can
allow a child's body to pass through and become entrapped at the
neck, posing a strangulation hazard to young children if the belt
is not engaged.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The Happy Swing II is a fabric infant swing that comes in red and
green with a tray and grab bar attachment.  The model/style number
included in the recall is "432" which is printed on a label on the
frame of the swing.  The fabric swing sits on a triangular frame
and is battery operated.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13014.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
juvenile products stores and CSN stores nationwide and online at
Wayfair and Amazon.com from October 2010 through September 2012
for between about $80 and $130.

Consumers should stop using the recalled infant swings immediately
and contact Dream On Me for a replacement product.  Consumers will
have a choice between a free replacement swing or a Melody Musical
baby walker.  For additional information, contact Dream On Me
toll-free at (877) 201-4317 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.dreamonme.com/


DREAM ON ME: Recalls 90 High Chairs Due to Strangulation Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dream On Me Inc., of South Plainfield, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 90 Bistro high chairs.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The front openings between the tray and seat bottom and on the
side openings of the high chair between the armrest and seat
bottom can allow a child's body to pass through and become
entrapped at the neck.  This poses a strangulation hazard to young
children if the belt is not engaged.  In addition, exposed springs
between the seat and armrest on both sides of the high chair can
create a pinch hazard to the child.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Bistro high chairs with model/style
number "255" which is printed on a tag attached to the back of the
seat.  The high chair was sold in blue or pink.  The fabric on the
seat has a polka-dot design and "Dream On Me" is printed on a
label attached to the front of the white tray.  The recalled high
chair was manufactured in July 2011 and has a date code printed on
a label on the back of the chair.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13013.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Americas Kids, Kid Pro USA and independent juvenile specialty
stores and online at Toysrus.com between November 2011 and
September 2012 for about $75.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled high chair
and contact Dream On Me Inc. for instructions on receiving a free
replacement high chair.  For additional information, contact Dream
On Me Inc. toll-free at (877) 201-4317 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.dreamonme.com/


DRIFTCOVE: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Commission
---------------------------------------------------------
Martin Rasini, writing for Gold Coast, reports that the Phoenician
resort at Broadbeach appears set to become the subject of a no-
win, no-fee class action, in a case that could have multimillion-
dollar ramifications for the management rights industry.

The bid seeks compensation for undisclosed commissions and is
planned by former unit owner Wayne Stevens, who is urging past and
present Phoenician unit owners to be party to the action.

It relates to the time when the resort's letting rights were held
by Driftcove, an arm of accommodation company S8, and, if
successful, claims against other letting industry players could
follow.

Bookings at the Phoenician were made via Gold Coast Booking
Centre, also an S8 entity, which took an undisclosed commission
and passed remaining funds to Driftcove, which took a disclosed
commission.

The practice is understood to have been widespread in the industry
and S8 director Chris Scott claimed the undisclosed commissions
were legal as they were provided for in the letting agreement.

Now, law firm Johnson Winter & Slattery has advised Mr. Stevens it
believes the undisclosed commissions could be illegal and damages
and compensation claims are viable in the Phoenician and other
buildings.

Mr. Stevens, Unit Owners Association of Queensland president, said
class-action costs would be met by a litigation funder in return
for about one-third of any sum awarded.

"We need unit owners past and present to sign up to make the class
action a reality and they need only visit the UOAQ Web site," he
said.

John McDonald, of R&R Lawyers, said the class action should be
pursued to bring clarity to what constituted adequate disclosure.

"In 2007, the English appeal court saw fit to pursue the question
in detail, considering rulings made in 1875, 1899 and 1904," he
said.

"It held that a mortgage broker had failed to obtain borrowers'
informed consent to commissions despite a contractual provision
stating that 'in certain circumstances the lender does pay
commission to brokers/agents'.

"The lender was required to refund commission . . .

"If the class action is pursued, we will all be the wiser for it."

Discontent at the Phoenician surfaced in 2003 and the body
corporate later hired an investigator to book a stay in the
building in a bid to expose any inflated commissions.

The Office of Fair Trading raided buildings in August 2006 after
receiving complaints S8 was double-dipping on fees by directing
bookings to its wholesale businesses.  In December 2006, S8 was
taken over by MFS.

In July 2007, OFT launched an action against Driftcove and Chris
Scott alleging 2900 breaches of law, but the case was dismissed in
February 2009.

However it immediately raided the Phoenician, alleging there were
irregularities in accounting practices.

In December 2010, Mr. Scott was fined $130,000, ordered to pay
$66,000 in OFT costs, and banned for life from operating as a
letting agent in Queensland.

Also, Driftcove paid more than $25,000 in compensation to 83
Phoenician unit owners and a further $215,000 in OFT costs after
the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found it failed
to fully disclose letting charges.

Driftcove admitted no liability.


EAST RAMAPO, NY: Class Action Challenges Improper Use of Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mareesa Nicosia, writing for Lohud.com, reports that supporters of
a class-action lawsuit against the East Ramapo school district
want to block the Board of Education from using public money to
defend school officials in several ongoing legal actions.

In a petition served on the district on Oct. 12, Spring Valley
residents Steven White and Betty Carmand ask the state education
commissioner to grant an "emergency stay" on up to $2 million in
district money they say is earmarked for legal costs to defend
board members, administrators and former employees.

The petition is backed by New York City public interest law firm
Advocates for Justice, which filed a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of some 200 parent plaintiffs against the district this
summer.

Superintendent Joel Klein and other officials are named in the
lawsuit, which claims defendants illegally schemed to divert
millions of public dollars to support private religious schools.
It also alleges the district segregates students in special-
education programs based on their race.

Advocates for Justice also is backing a separate petition to oust
five sitting board members, alleging a "pattern of impropriety."

School board members, through their lawyers, have called the
claims untimely and without merit, and have asked the education
commissioner to dismiss the petition.  In recent court documents,
they argue that complaints about their performance would be
addressed more appropriately through the electoral process.

Mr. White, whose son is a recent East Ramapo graduate, and
Ms. Carmand, a mother of three current students, are plaintiffs in
both actions.

They said on Oct. 15 though district officials are entitled to
proper legal defense, using taxpayers' money for that purpose is
wrong and will further hurt East Ramapo students who've lost
teachers and programs in multiple budget cuts in the past few
years.

"We think that money is better spent on educating the kids,"
Ms. Carmand said, noting that the recent loss of collaborative
classes, school psychologists and funding for summer school has
impacted her children.


ENVIVIO: Faces Class Action Over Initial Public Offering
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse New Service reports that Envivio, its officers and the
banks that underwrote its initial public offering misled
shareholders about expected revenues, a class claims in San Mateo
County Superior Court.

The case is Joe Wiley v. Envivio; Julien Signes; Goldman, Sachs &
Co.; Deutsche Bank Securities.


EPIQ SYSTEMS: Breaks Ground on Kansas City Headquarters Expansion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Epiq Systems, Inc., on Oct. 17, 2012, announced it has initiated
construction on a 20,000 square foot expansion to its corporate
headquarters in Kansas City, Kansas.  The approximate $7.5 million
facility expansion will primarily accommodate the company's
growing requirements for technology professionals.  Upon
completion in summer 2013, Epiq will be positioned to expand its
Kansas City workforce to more than 200 associates. Epiq
currently employs approximately 1,000 associates worldwide.

The company expects to receive approximately $4.5 million of
incentives related to the facility and employment expansion in the
form of property tax reductions, sales tax exemptions and Kansas
income tax credits.

"Through the expansion of our corporate headquarters, we will be
better equipped to fulfill the growing demand for Epiq's
technology-enabled solutions," said Tom W. Olofson, chairman and
CEO, Epiq Systems.  "Additionally, we are pleased to reinvest in
the local community and bring additional jobs to Kansas City,
Kansas."

"Connecting business and technology is vital for our community,"
said Kansas City, Kansas Mayor Joe Reardon. "Epiq's expansion
aligns with that goal by employing top business and technology
professionals in the area, helping to strengthen our city's
dynamic and diverse culture. This expansion continues what
promises to be a record setting year for new business and economic
development in Wyandotte County."

                        About Epiq Systems

Epiq Systems is a leading global provider of technology-enabled
solutions for electronic discovery, bankruptcy and class action
administration. We offer full-service capabilities, which include
litigation, investigations, financial transactions, regulatory
compliance and other legal matters for eDiscovery. Our innovative
technology and services, combined with deep subject-matter
expertise, provide reliable solutions for the professionals we
serve.

CONTACT: Lew Schroeber, Investor Relations
         Telephone: 913-621-9500
         Email: ir@epiqsystems.com
         or visit us online at www.epiqsystems.com


FLEETMATICS GROUP: Faces "Prisoner Transport" Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
FleetMatics Group Limited is facing a class action lawsuit in
Florida initiated by U.S. Prisoner Transport, et. al., according
to the Company's August 20, 2012, Form F-1 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled
U.S. Prisoner Transport, et. al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et. al.,
Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20.  The complaint alleges that the Company
recorded telephone conversations with plaintiffs in violation of
Florida Statutes Section 934.03.  The complaint seeks statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and interest.
This matter is in its very early stages.


FSI INT'L: Faces Two Suits Over Proposed Tokyo Electron Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
FSI International, Inc. disclosed in its August 17, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is
facing two class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger-
related with Tokyo Electron Limited.

On August 16, 2012, FSI International, Inc. ("FSI") was served
with two purported class action lawsuits by FSI shareholders.
Both lawsuits are filed in Minnesota state court, Carver County,
and name FSI, the individual directors of FSI and Tokyo Electron
Limited as defendants.  The first lawsuit is titled Barry Bragger
v. Donald S. Mitchell, et al. and the second is titled Elizabeth
Kuzio v. Donald S. Mitchell, et al.  Both plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the directors of FSI breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with FSI's decision to enter into the merger
agreement, and that Tokyo Electron has aided and abetted the FSI
directors in committing such breach.  In addition, the plaintiff
in the Kuzio action alleges derivative claims on behalf of FSI for
corporate waste, abuse of control, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiffs in both actions seek declaratory and equitable
relief, including an order enjoining consummation of the proposed
transaction, plus an award of attorney's fees, expenses, and
costs.  The plaintiff in the Bragger action also seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

FSI believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the lawsuits.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Suit Dismissal Bid to Be Heard This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit filed by The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. will be heard this
month, according to the Company's August 20, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On November 15, 2011, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. filed a class
action lawsuit, alleging the Company had violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and omitting material facts with regard to disclosure
of related party transactions and the effectiveness of internal
controls in past public filings.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss on July 27, 2012, which is presently scheduled to be heard
by the Court in October 2012.  Discovery has not yet commenced,
and will be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.
The Company believes there is no basis to the lawsuit filed by the
Rosen Law Firm and intends to contest the case vigorously.


LAO CHAREUNE: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
beef and pork products that have been recalled by Lao Chareune
Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/KXwaHs,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name                  City and State
    -------------                  --------------
    Bao Bao Food Market            Shreveport, Louisiana
    Pakse Market                   Portland, Oregon
    Carrollton Plaza Supermarket   Carrollton, Texas
    Vietnam Plaza Market           Carrollton, Texas
    Asian Market                   Corpus Christi, Texas
    Saigon Mall                    Garland, Texas
    Truong Nguyen Market           Garland, Texas
    Hong King City Mall            Houston, Texas
    Hong Kong Market               Houston, Texas
    My Queana                      Houston, Texas
    Thang Hung                     Gears Rd., Houston, Texas
    Thang Hung                     Veterans Memorial, Houston, TX
    Thang Hung                     Kempwood Drive, Houston, Texas
    TNL Super Food Store           Irving, Texas
    Mai's Oriental Market          Rockport, Texas
    Vietnam Market                 San Antonio, Texas
    Savanxiy Supermarket           Everett, Washington


LOS ANGELES, CA: Disabled Inmates Obtain Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge certified a class complaining over allegedly poor conditions
for disabled inmates in Los Angeles County jails.

The class, certified by U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson, could
include thousands of inmates.

There is also room to include disabled inmates who enter the jail
system in the future, according to the American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation of Southern California, which represents the
inmates alongside the Disability Rights California, the Disability
Rights Legal Center, and Winston & Strawn.

The May 2008 complaint against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department and Sheriff Leroy Baca sought accommodations under the
American with Disabilities Act, federal statutes, and the Eighth
and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Critics say Los Angeles keeps disabled prisoners apart from other
inmates, excluded them from jail programs and services, and denies
them proper access to outdoor activities, showers, bathrooms.

A dearth of grab bars in jails also causes injuries among this
group, according to the complaint.

The inmates claim that a lack of wheelchair accessible toilets
forces them to "sit in their own feces for hours or days."  They
say they are imprisoned in "windowless, decaying facilities."

Though the sheriff's department has fixed some of the problems,
the ACLU says inmates still go without wheelchairs, crutches,
walkers or canes.

"The jail lacks adequate procedures to ensure that inmates with
physical disabilities receive the accommodations they need, and
those who complain are often thrown into solitary confinement as
punishment," Winston & Strawn attorney Stephen Smerek, assisting
the case pro bono, said in a statement.  "This type of brutal
retaliation is simply outrageous."

ACLU attorney Jessica Price called the order "just and fair."

"Conditions in the L.A. County jails are generally abysmal, but
those facing inmates in wheelchairs or with other mobility
problems can be absolutely barbaric," she said in a statement.

Named plaintiffs are Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson and Michael
Curfman, Andre Butler, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, and Derrick
White.

Pasadena-based law firm Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson &
Renick also represents the plaintiffs, as does Heller Ehrman of
San Francisco.

The Los County Sheriff's Department said it does not comment on
pending litigation.

A copy of the Order in Johnson, et al. v Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department, et al., Case No. 08-cv-03515 (C.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/18/Baca%20Order.pdf


MERISEL INC: Saints Capital Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
All of the class action lawsuits brought in connection with the
Saints Capital Granite, L.P. proposal to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Merisel Inc. at a price of $1.35 per share
have been voluntarily dismissed, according to Merisel's August 20,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In the first quarter of 2012, four class action lawsuits were
filed by shareholders of the Company naming as defendants Merisel,
members of the Company's Board of Directors, and Saints Capital
Granite, L.P. ("Saints Capital Granite"), and its general partner,
Saints Capital Granite, LLC (collectively, "Saints Capital").  The
lawsuits arose from a proposal received by Merisel on December 28,
2011, from Saints Capital Granite, the holder of approximately
69.3% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Company and
100% of the outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock of the
Company, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Merisel at a
price of $1.35 per share (the "Proposal").

Plaintiffs generally alleged that the Board of Directors failed to
adequately consider whether the Proposal maximizes shareholder
value and, therefore, the Board should have been enjoined from
consummating the transaction.  Plaintiffs further averred causes
of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the Board of
Directors, breach of duty of loyalty against Saints Capital and
certain individual directors of Merisel, and aiding and abetting
such breaches of fiduciary duty against Merisel and Saints
Capital.

In a February 8, 2012 letter from Saints Capital Granite addressed
to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company,
Saints Capital Granite informed the Company that it withdrew its
Proposal.  The February 8th letter referenced the December 28th
letter, which stated that Saints Capital Granite would have a
termination right in the event that the transaction becomes the
subject of shareholder litigation.

All of the actions were voluntarily dismissed.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Saints Ticketholders File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that Saints
ticketholders sued NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in a class
action, claiming his suspensions of coaches and players in the
bounty-hunting scandal "punished the innocent ticket holders more
than anyone."

Lead plaintiff David James Mancina sued Mr. Goodell and the NFL in
Federal Court.  He claims Mr. Goodell's suspensions were
"devastating" to "the confidence and emotional attachment" of the
purported class of 85,000 ticketholders.

Mr. Mancina seeks more than $5 million in damages.

He complains that Mr. Goodell and the NFL waited until after this
year's season tickets had been sold before telling the public the
results of their 2-year-long investigation of the bounty hunting.

Saints players were accused of offering cash bounties to teammates
who knocked opponents out of a game, and coached were accused of
tolerating it.

Saints defensive captain Jonathan Vilma allegedly offered $10,000
to anyone who knocked Vikings quarterback Brett Favre out of the
2009-2010 NFC title game.

Mr. Goodell handed out tough suspensions, which were challenged in
court, then by and large reinstated.

Mr. Mancina's complaint states: "The class purchased their tickets
with the representation, and expectation, from the commissioner
and the league that the Saints would be capable of competitively
fielding a contending team comprised of the finest athletes, and
the best coaches, under contract with the New Orleans Saints, or
available to them through normal trades and draft choices, without
dictatorial, unreasonable, vindictive, and unfounded, interference
from the commissioner and the league, devoid of due process.

"The commissioner and the league on March 21, 2012, subsequent to
the purchase of tickets by plaintiff and the class, or prior
notice to the fan public of an alleged investigation ongoing from
2009, without due process, sufficient evidence, and without
consideration for the rights of the paying ticket holder
plaintiffs, and the 85,000 members of the class, summarily,
without due process or credible evidence, suspended Sean Payton,
the head coach for the entire year; Joe Vitt, the assistant head
coach for the first six games of the 2012 season; Jonathan Vilma,
the defensive captain for the entire 2012 season; Will Smith, the
leading defensive end for the first four games of the 2012 season;
Mickey Loomis, the general manager, for the first eight games of
the 2012 season; and forfeiture of second round draft choices in
the 2012 and 2013 drafts, thereby devastating: the quality of the
Saints; the value of the tickets purchased by plaintiff and the
class subsequent to their purchase; and the confidence and
emotional attachment of plaintiff, and the class, to the Saints,
due to the unfair, prejudicial, unreasonable, and vindictive,
actions of the Commissioner and the League."

Mr. Mancina claims that rather than suspend the coaches and
players, "assuming that their (sic) was some misconduct on the
part of Saint players, coaches, or executives, which is denied,
could have fashioned non-ticket holder penalties, such as hefty
fines, that would have impacted the alleged violators, or those
responsible for their actions under respondent superior alone,
without impacting the quality of play. However, they chose a form
of punishment that punished the innocent ticket holders more than
anyone, without any consideration of the impact on the group,
fans, that make the league, the commissioner, and the NFL teams,
successful."

Mr. Mancina seeks class damages for "diminishment in the value of
their tickets; their personal emotional reaction to the
unwarranted penalties inflicted on their beloved team, players,
coaches, and executives; and the deliberate reduction of the
competitive capability of the Saints due to the selective gutting
of the critical components needed to justify the loyalty of
plaintiff and the class."

Mr. Mancina is represented by Lawrence Wiedemann, of Metairie.


NATURAL SELECTION: Recalls Earthbound Farm Grab & Go Salad Kits
---------------------------------------------------------------

   * Salad Kits Have Peanuts and May Pose Possible Health Risk
     Associated with Sunland Inc. Peanut Products.

   * No risk associated with spinach.

Natural Selection Foods is voluntarily recalling Earthbound Farm
Baby Spinach Grab & Go Salad Kits with Peanuts.  The product is
sold in a 3.5 ounce clamshell with UPC 0-32601-08875-0.  All "Use
By" dates are affected.


NEW MEXICO: Class Action Over College Savings Plan Proceeds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Scarantino, writing for New Mexico Watchdog.org, reports that
class action notices have gone out to families who invested in New
Mexico's poorly performing college savings plans.  Thousands of
New Mexicans trusted that the tax advantaged plans selected for
them by the State of New Mexico could help with the increasing
expense of a college education.  But New Mexico's college savings
plans proved to be the worst in the country due to high costs and
reckless management.  Instead of seeing their savings grow,
families experienced painful losses that dashed college hopes for
many graduates.

The class action lawsuit, Ping Lu, et al., v. The Education Trust
Board of New Mexico and The Education Plan Trust of New Mexico, is
pending in the First Judicial District Court of Santa Fe before
Judge Stephen Pfeffer.  Plaintiffs' counsel are the Keller
Rohrbach firm from Seattle, Washington and the Rothstein,
Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenberg & Bienvenu firm of Santa
Fe, New Mexico.

The complaint alleges that Education Trust Board of New Mexico
mismanaged fixed income assets such as bonds in two college
savings plans sponsored by the State of New Mexico -- The
Education Plan and the Scholar's Edge Plan -- by investing heavily
in the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, the Oppenheimer Limited Term
Government Fund, and the Oppenheimer Strategic Income Fund.  These
were supposed to be stable conservative income funds.  Without
notifying investors Oppenheimer sought higher returns through
higher risk by dramatically increasing its use of leverage to
purchase derivative instruments and highly volatile mortgage-
related bonds.  Plaintiffs allege that this risky strategy caused
the college saving plans to lose more than $175 million.

The Education Trust Board governs New Mexico's college savings
plans, known also as 529 plans to reflect their tax advantages
under that section of the Internal Revenue Code.  Federal law
allows investments in a 529 savings plan to grow tax-free.  New
Mexico residents can deduct their contributions to an approved 529
plan dollar-for-dollar from their taxable income.  The Board is
administratively attached to the New Mexico Higher Education
Department.  Its members are appointed by the Governor, the Senate
President Pro Tempore, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.  The Board currently is chaired by Dr. Jose
Garcia, Secretary of NMHED.

The Education Trust Board had given Oppenheimer Funds a total
monopoly over its 529 plans.  It relied completely on Oppenheimer
to oversee investment of college savings plans.  Parents saving
for college who wanted to tap the tax benefits of a 529 college
savings plan had to invest their funds in the limited selection of
Oppenheimer funds mandated by the Board.

Supposedly "safe" Oppenheimer bond funds tanked.  Supposedly
stable bond funds suffered losses exceeding 40%.  After writing
the two op-ed pieces for the Albuquerque Journal, this writer
received letters and e-mails from dozens of distressed parents and
grandparents who had seen years of savings in what they thought
were prudent investments vetted by the State of New Mexico
evaporate overnight.  Some families wrote how their children had
to leave college.  Other children had to give up plans to start
college immediately after high school.

The New Mexico Attorney General joined Maine, Nebraska, Illinois
and Texas in seeking redress for investors.  The AG reached a
settlement with Oppenheimer Funds requiring the investment manager
to pay $67.3 million in exchange for a release of liability from
the State of New Mexico.  The Education Trust Board claimed the
settlement was fair and reasonable based on an evaluation by
professors at the New York University Law School.  The amount of
the settlement, the Board said, was "in excess of" half the full
amount of the losses.  Counsel in the private class action argue
the AG and the Education Trust Board settled too cheaply and
quickly.  The private class action seeks to recover the balance of
losses not covered by the AG's settlement.

The AG's settlement has been completed.  The final distribution of
funds was made October 12, 2012.

Individual investors who opted into the AG's settlement saw
Oppenheimer invest new money into their depleted investment
accounts.  Individual investors were required to accept new
investments in existing Oppenheimer accounts and did not have the
option of receiving a cash payout.  Persons who had closed their
accounts received a check.  Payments  have now been sent to all
investors in the Oppenheimer portfolios, regardless of whether
they signed releases.  If they do not cash their checks, the
monies revert to the State's unclaimed property funds.

Persons who signed releases in the AG settlement waived all other
claims against Oppenheimer, but are not foreclosed from claims
against The Education Trust Board.  Persons who did not sign
releases but still received checks in the final distribution can
keep the money and pursue claims for the balance of their losses,
says John Bienvenu, one of the plaintiff class' attorneys.

Oppenheimer has settled claims brought by other states, including
Oregon and Illinois.   Some states have eliminated Oppenheimer
investments from their approved portfolio of 529 plans.  Despite
the enormous problems with Oppenheimer funds, the outgoing
Richardson administration extended Oppenheimer's contract to
continue management of New Mexico's 529 college savings program.
Mutual funds other than Oppenheimer products are now available
within The Education Plan, though the majority are still
Oppenheimer products.  That plan ranked at number eleven in the
country for its one year performance ending June 30, 2012, by the
independent college savings authority Savingforcollege.com.  That
is a sharp turnaround from 2009 when Morningstar was advising
parents to "steer clear" of the same college savings plan due to
its high costs and abysmal returns.  Over the past three years
Savingforcollege.com ranks New Mexico's Education Plan at #44
nationally, reflecting the continuing drag of its history of
problems.

The claims brought by the New Mexico Attorney General sought
recovery only from the Oppenheimer Funds and related entities.
The private class action is pursuing Oppenheimer as well as
seeking to hold the Education Trust Board accountable.  Claims
directly against the State of New Mexico itself were dismissed by
Judge Pfeffer on grounds of sovereign immunity.  Plaintiffs have
appealed that ruling.  A decision is pending from the New Mexico
Court of Appeals.


NORFOLK, VA: Police Officers File Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mila Mimica, writing for WAVY, reports that in a class action
lawsuit, 310 Norfolk police officers are suing the City of
Norfolk, claiming they did not receive compensation for working
overtime.

The lawsuit, filed Oct. 11, claims the following as examples of
situations in which the officers were not compensated for their
work:

* Officers being required by subpoenas to appear in court 30
minutes prior to hearings and not getting paid for the full time
served

* Using smart phones to respond to phone calls and text messages
from witnesses, colleagues or informants during hours outside of
work

* Some officers were called in to work during off-duty hours only
to be sent home

* Cleaning weapons during off-duty hours

* Not paid for break time worked

The lawsuit states the officers "worked and were and are expected
to work hours in excess of their regularly scheduled 40 hours in
an individual week."

The lawsuit does not offer exact amounts of compensation owed to
every worker because the information is "within control" of the
City of Norfolk.

It claims human resources professionals, supervisors and managers
had to have known about the "substantial uncompensated overtime"
with the City of Norfolk's knowledge with "reckless disregard."

The lawsuit states the city only paid overtime in cases when
officers worked 43 hours or more per week instead of the 40 hours
per week as stated by Virginia law.

The plaintiffs are suing the city on two counts: The first, for
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the second for
violating Va. Code 9.1-701 through 9.1-703.  For both counts, the
officers are asking for their attorney fees to be covered as well
as all overtime compensation during the past three years and
damages.

The officers spelled out they are demanding a trial by jury.


OLIVE GARDEN: Owner Settles Hepatitis A Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Catherine Pritchard, writing for Fayobserver.com, reports that
people who were immunized against hepatitis A in August 2011 after
eating at the Olive Garden restaurant in Fayetteville are eligible
for payments of up to $250 apiece.

The payments would come from a $375,000 fund set up by the
restaurant's parent company, GMRI Inc., to settle a class-action
lawsuit.  The suit was filed after hundreds of people got
immunizations after learning that one of the restaurant's workers
had tested positive for the virus, which causes liver
inflammation.

In the settlement agreement, Florida-based GMRI denied any
wrongdoing but said it wanted to settle to end the litigation.

The suit alleged that the restaurant chain exposed customers to
potentially contaminated food or people, cost them wages and
medical expenses, and caused fear and physical pain.  It also
alleged that Olive Garden was negligent by failing to require
employees to be vaccinated against hepatitis A -- something that's
not required of food service workers -- and by failing to prevent
the infected employee from working.

At the time, Olive Garden officials said the worker had reported
the infection when it was diagnosed and could not return to work
until it was cleared.  They noted the chain's strict cleanliness
policies for employees and said it was safe for people to eat at
the restaurant.

But local health officials urged precautionary immunizations for
anyone who had eaten at the restaurant in the previous two weeks
when the worker was there. More than 3,000 people took that
advice.

Most were immunized for free at the Cumberland County Health
Department.   A small number likely went to private physicians.
No one is known to have developed hepatitis A from the Olive
Garden worker.

Eligible people can file claims over the next several weeks.
Claims must be mailed and in the hands of the administrator by
Nov. 27.  If the settlement agreement is approved in a final
hearing in Cumberland County Superior Court in December, payments
would likely go out either later that month or in early January,
said William D. Marler, a Seattle lawyer who represented the
plaintiffs.

The amount of the payments may depend on how many people file
claims.  If no more than 1,500 eligible people file claims, they
will receive $250 each. If more claimants file, their payments
will be prorated based on the $375,000 total fund that is
available.  If fewer than 1,500 people file claims and money is
left over, it will be donated anonymously to a charity, Mr. Marler
said.

Mr. Marler said he and the other plaintiffs' lawyers are doing the
work for free.

He said that is partly because of the nature of the case.
Fortunately, he said, no one got sick as a result of the infected
restaurant worker.  But many went to the trouble of getting
immunized and will now get some compensation for their hassle.

"It's obviously a really low amount," he said.  "If the lawyers
got compensated, it would be an exponential amount more than the
people."

That just would not look fair, he said.

This way, he said, the claimants will likely receive more than
they would have if the lawyers had not waived their fees and
costs.

For claim forms or more information, check Fayette ville-HepA.com,
call 800-662-5988 or write the claims administrator at the Notice
Co., GMRI Hepatitis Class Action, P.O. Box 778, Hingham, MA 02043.


RAYMOND-HADLEY: Expands Recall of Wegmans Gluten Free Brownie Mix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Raymond-Hadley Corp. of Spencer, New York, is recalling
Wegmans Gluten Free Double Chocolate Brownie mixes because they
may be contaminated with the undeclared allergen Milk.  People who
have an allergy to milk run the risk of serious, or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Wegmans 17.2 oz Double Chocolate Brownie mixes were distributed in
the United States through the Wegmans retail stores.

The mixes are packaged under the Wegmans brand in chipboard boxes.

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
chocolate chunks used in the mix were received in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of the allergen milk.  Subsequent
investigation confirms milk as a possible cross-contaminate in the
chocolate chunks used in the brownie mixes.

As of October 12, 2012, two reports of rash have been received.

Consumers who have purchased the product listed above are urged to
return it to Wegmans for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
may contact the manufacturer at 1-800-252-2220, Monday - Friday
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.


RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Defends Forged Speed Ticket Camera Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper reports that Riverdale Park, Maryland argues it does
not need to refund speed camera tickets issued with a forged
signature.

Riverdale Park, Maryland refuses to back down in the face of a
class action lawsuit challenging the town to refund citations
bearing the forged signature of a police officer.  Between
February 17, 2010 and April 3, 2010, citations were issued bearing
the signature of Police Corporal Clayton Alford, even though
Alford was on medical leave on those dates and could not have
signed the tickets, as required under state law.  Attorney Timothy
P. Leahy, who filed the class action suit, blasted the town's
conduct in papers filed with the Prince George's County Circuit
Court on Oct. 15.

"As far as I know no one has been fired and no charges have
brought against anyone from Riverdale Park," Mr. Leahy told
TheNewspaper.  "It looks like Riverdale Park believes it can forge
an officer's signature and there be no consequences."

Judge John Paul Davey will decide whether to honor the town's
request that the suit be summarily dismissed.  Riverdale Park's
lawyer, Kevin Karpinsky, argued the town cannot be sued for
violating the state's speed camera statute, under the precedent
set by Maryland's highest court in August (view ruling).  The
town's court filing did not deny that the citation signatures were
forged. Instead, it denied any member of the public could
challenge a citation for such a violation of state law.

"Because there is no such duty creating an express or implied
private cause of action for plaintiffs' claim against defendant,
under Section 21-809 or otherwise, plaintiffs' tort claims must be
dismissed," Mr. Karpinsky wrote.  "In the absence of a statutory
directive, the Maryland courts have uniformly held that it is not
appropriate to expand a statute to include remedies that were not
specified."

The town also argued that the plaintiffs, who live in College Park
and Lanham could not file a "taxpayer lawsuit" because they were
"neither a taxpayer nor a landowner" in Riverdale Park.  The town
insisted the lawsuit had to first be filed in district, not
circuit, court.

Mr. Leahy countered that the Court of Appeals speed camera ruling
specifically stated violations of the state camera statute could
be treated separately from consideration of individual tickets.

"That petitioners did not litigate their Section 21-809(j) claim
in the district court is not fatal at the threshold, in and of
itself, to the present claim," the high court ruled.

Moreover, Mr. Leahy pointed out that Corporal Alford only came
forward in August, so the ticket recipients were not aware of
Riverdale Park's unlawful conduct in time to file a timely
challenge in district court.  Unlike Riverdale Park, the town of
Brentwood refunded fines it illegally issued between June 24, 2010
and July 13, 2010 after learning citations were signed by someone
who was not a police officer.  Mr. Leahy also seeks to have the
for-profit vendor in charge of the program held liable.

"Optotraffic's failure to reject citations it knew contain a
forged signature of a police officer means they are a direct
participant in the fraud committed on the plaintiffs as well as a
conspirator," Mr. Leahy wrote.


STERLING SAVINGS: Overdraft Fee Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation on Oct. 16 disclosed that recently
filed lawsuits alleging that Sterling's subsidiary Sterling
Savings Bank ("Sterling Bank") improperly manipulated the posting
order of debit card transactions to generate a greater number of
overdraft fees have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.
The two lawsuits, one in Washington state court and one in Oregon
federal court, were brought as putative class actions, with the
plaintiffs seeking to represent checking account customers of
Sterling Bank in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho and
Montana.  After investigation into Sterling Bank's practices with
regard to debit card transactions and overdraft fees, the
plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss their claims without any
payments by Sterling Bank.

The outcomes of these two cases stand in contrast to similar
lawsuits brought against many other banks, some of which have
recently paid large settlements to resolve accusations that they
improperly posted debit card transactions high-to-low by amount
(rather than chronologically), thereby increasing the number of
overdraft fees charged on a given day.

Commenting on the dismissal of these class action lawsuits, Ezra
Eckhardt, Sterling Bank's President, said, "We are pleased with
this outcome.  The results in these cases reflect the fact that
Sterling did not manipulate its electronic posting sequence and
processed electronic debit card transactions in the order
received." Andrew Schultheis, Sterling's Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, concurred, "We strongly believed from the
outset that these cases had no merit, and we were prepared to
vigorously defend them."

Sterling Financial Corporation of Spokane, Wash., --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation.com-- is the bank holding
company for Sterling Savings Bank, a Washington state chartered
and federally insured commercial bank.  Sterling Savings Bank does
business as Sterling Bank and Sonoma Bank (in California).
Sterling offers banking products and services, mortgage lending,
and trust and investment products to individuals, small
businesses, corporations and other commercial organizations.  As
of June 30, 2012, Sterling had assets of $9.6 billion and operated
187 depository branches in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and
California.


TAPHANDLES LLC: Recalls 24,000 Ceramic Beer Tap Handles
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
retailer, Taphandles LLC, of Seattle, Washington, and
manufacturer, B&C Industries Ltd, of China, announced a voluntary
recall of about 24,000 Ceramic Beer Tap Handles.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The ceramic beer tap handle can break during normal use, posing a
laceration hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves ceramic beer tap handles sold in 25 custom-
made designs.  "Taphandles Inc." and "Made in China" are engraved
on the gray metal base of the tap handle.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13011.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Taphandles sold the recalled ceramic beer tap handles directly to
breweries from November 2002 to May 2006 for between $10 and $23.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ceramic beer
tap handles and contact Taphandles to receive a free replacement
tap handle.  Taphandles: toll-free at (877) 855-6383 9:00 a.m.
through 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.taphandles.com/recall/for more information.


TBD BRANDS: Recalls Yoghund Organic Frozen Yogurt Dog Treats
------------------------------------------------------------
TBD Brands, LLC, announced that it is issuing a voluntary recall
of Yoghund brand Organic Banana & Peanut Butter flavor, frozen
yogurt dog treats.  This is a cautionary action, as these products
contain organic peanut butter linked to recent recalls of Sunland,
Inc. of Portales, New Mexico, for possible Salmonella
contamination.


TMX FINANCE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Unit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
TMX Finance LLC continues to defend its subsidiary from a class
action lawsuit commenced in Missouri, according to the Company's
August 20, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

TitleMax of Missouri, Inc. is a party to a putative class action
lawsuit alleging that the entity failed to pay certain employees
overtime compensation as required by Missouri law.  In the opinion
of management, an appropriate accrual has been established related
to the legal matter.  The Company says outcome of such proceeding
is not expected to have a material adverse effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


TOSHIBA CORP: Sued By Various Attorney Generals Over DRAMs
----------------------------------------------------------
The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera,
The County of Santa Clara, and the Los Angeles Unified School
District on behalf of all political subdivisions similarly
situated; The State of Arizona by its Attorney General Tom Horne;
The State of Arkansas by its Attorney General Dustin McDaniel; The
State of Colorado by its Attorney General John W. Suthers; The
State of Florida by its Attorney General Bill McCollum; The State
of Hawaii by its Attorney General David M. Louie; The State of
Idaho by its Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden; The State of
Illinois by its Attorney General Lidsa Madigan; The State of Iowa
by its Attorney General Thomas J. Miller; The State of Louisiana
by its Attorney General James D. "Buddy" Caldwell; The State of
Maine by its Attorney General William J. Schneider; The State of
Maryland by its Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler; The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts by its Attorney General Martha
Coakley; The State of Michigan by its Attorney General Bill
Schuette; The State of Minnesota by its Attorney General Lori
Swanson; The State of Mississippi by its Attorney General Jim
Hood; The State of Nebraska by its Attorney General Jon Bruning;
The State of Nevada by its Attorney General Catherine Cortez
Masto; The State of New Mexico by its Attorney General Gary King
and the County of Sandoval on behalf of all other political
subdivisions similarly situated; The State of New York by its
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman; The State of North Carolina
by its Attorney General Roy Cooper; The State of North Dakota by
its Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem; The State of Oklahoma by its
Attorney General W. A. Drew Edmondson; The State of Oregon by its
Attorney General John R. Kroger; The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
The State of Rhode Island by Peter F. Kilmartin in his capacity as
Attorney General; The State of South Carolina by its Attorney
General Alan Wilson; The State of Tennessee by its Attorney
General Robert E. Cooper, Jr.; The State of Utah by its Attorney
General Mark L. Shurtleff; The Commonwealth of Virginia by its
Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II; The State of
Washington by its Attorney General Rob McKenna; The State of West
Virginia by its Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.; The State
of Wisconsin by its Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen v. Toshiba
Corporation and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., Case
No. 3:12-cv-05230 (N.D. Calif., October 9, 2012) arises from
indictments of, and admissions of guilt by members of, an alleged
cartel to fix the price of dynamic random access memory ("DRAM").

The Plaintiffs allege that among the members of the cartel were
Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Electronic Components,
Inc.  The Plaintiffs contend that during the time period from 1998
to 2002, the Defendants and their co-conspirators DRAM
manufacturers discussed and coordinated the prices that they
charged to Original Equipment Manufacturers ("OEMs"), and to their
other customers.

The Plaintiffs bring this action by and through their Attorneys
General.  In general, the Attorneys General may represent one or
more of the state agencies, political subdivisions, political
subdivisions as a class representative, natural person consumers
as parens patriae, natural person consumers as a class
representative and business consumers as parens patriae.

Toshiba Corporation is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.  Toshiba
America is headquartered in Irvine, California.  During the time
period covered by this Complaint, the Defendants manufactured and
sold DRAM and modules containing DRAM to OEMs for incorporation
into end products, such as computers, servers, printers, and
routers and hubs, which were sold to natural persons and state
agencies in California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kamala D. Harris, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of California
          Mark Breckler, Esq.
          Chief Assistant Attorney General
          Kathleen E. Foote, Esq.
          Senior Assistant Attorney General
          Emilio E. Varanini, Esq.
          Deputy Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
          455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5908

               - and -

          Lisa Madigan, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Illinois
          Blake L. Harrop, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS
          James R. Thompson Center
          100 W. Randolph Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 814-1004

               - and -

          Thomas C. Horne, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Arizona
          Nancy Donnell, Esq.
          Antitrust Unit Chief
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1275 West Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926
          Telephone: (602) 542-7728
          E-mail: aginfo@azag.gov

               - and -

          John W. Suthers, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Colorado
          Devin M. Laiho, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Consumer Protection Section
          COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          1525 Sherman Street - 7th Floor
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 866-5079
          E-mail: Devin.Laiho@state.co.us

               - and -

          Pamela Jo Bondi, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Florida
          Patricia A. Conners, Esq.
          Associate Deputy Attorney General
          Antitrust Division
          Lizabeth A. Brady, Esq.
          Chief, Multistate Antitrust Enforcement
          FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          PL-01, The Capitol
          Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
          Telephone: (850) 414-3300
          Facsimile: (850) 488-9134

               - and -

          David M. Louie, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State Of Hawaii
          Deborah Day Emerson, Esq.
          Supervising Deputy Attorney General
          Rodney I. Kimura, Esq.
          Deputy Attorneys General
          DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII
          425 Queen Street
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 586-1180

               - and -

          Lawrence G. Wasden, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Idaho
          Brett T. DeLange, Esq.
          Deputy Attorney General
          Consumer Protection Unit
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          954 W. Jefferson St., 2nd Floor
          Boise, ID 83720-0010
          Telephone: (208) 334-4114
          Facsimile: (208) 334-2830
          E-mail: brett.delange@ag.idaho.gov

               - and -

          Thomas J. Miller, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Iowa
          John F. Dwyer, Esq.
          Attorney
          Layne M. Lindebak, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Special Litigation Division
          IOWA DEP'T OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Second Floor Hoover Office Building
          1305 East Walnut Street
          Des Moines, IA 50319
          Telephone: (515) 281-7054
          E-mail: webteam@ag.state.ia.us

               - and -

          James D. "Buddy" Caldwell, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Louisiana
          Stacie Deblieux, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Public Protection Division, Antitrust
          LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1885 N. 3rd Street, 4th Floor
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 326-6400

               - and -

          William J. Schneider, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Maine
          Christina M. Moylan, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          6 State House Station
          Augusta, ME 04333-0006
          Telephone: (207) 626-8838

               - and -

          Douglas Gansler, Esq.
          Maryland Attorney General
          Ellen S. Cooper, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Chief, Antitrust Division
          John R. Tennis, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Gary Hohick, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANTITRUST DIVISION
          200 St. Paul Place, 19th Floor
          Baltimore, MA 21202
          Telephone: (410) 576-6470
          Facsimile: (410) 576-7830
          E-mail: oag@oag.state.md.us

               - and -

          Martha Coakley, Esq.
          Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
          Mary B. Freeley, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          One Ashburton Place
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 727-2200
          E-mail: ago@state.ma.us

               - and -

          Bill Schuette, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Michigan
          D. J. Pascoe, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Appearing Pro Hac Vice
          Corporate Oversight
          ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
          G. Mennen Williams Building, 6th Floor
          525 W. Ottawa Sweet
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 373-1160
          Facsimile: (517) 335-6755
          E-mail: PascoeD1@michigan.gov

               - and -

          Lori Swanson, Esq.
          Attorney General, State of Minnesota
          Karen D. Olson, Esq.
          Deputy Attorney General
          THE OFFICE OF THE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400
          St. Paul, MN 55101-2130
          Telephone: (651) 757-1370
          Teletypewriter: (651) 297-7206

               - and -

          Jim Hood, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
          Crystal M. Utley, Esq.
          Special Assistant Attorney General
          Consumer Protection Division
          MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          Post Office Box 22947
          Jackson, MS 39225
          Telephone: (601) 359-4213
          Facsimile: (601) 359-4231
          E-mail: cutle@ago.state.ms.us

               - and -

          Jon Bruning, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Nebraska
          Lynne R. Fritz, Esq.
          Melissa R. Vincent, Esq.
          Assistant Attorneys General
          NEBRASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          2115 State Capitol
          Lincoln, NE 68509-8920
          Telephone: (402) 471-2682
          Facsimile: (402) 471-2957
          E-mail: ago.consumer@nebraska.gov

               - and -

          Catherine Cortez Masto, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Nevada
          Eric Witkoski, Esq.
          Chief Deputy Attorney General, Consumer Advocate
          Brian Armstrong, Esq.
          Senior Deputy Attorney General
          Bureau of Consumer Protection
          STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          555 East Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 486-3420

               - and -

          Gary King, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
          Matthew E. Jackson, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Drawer 1508
          Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508
          Telephone: (505) 827-6021
          E-mail: psisneros@nmag.gov

               - and -

          Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of New York
          Richard L. Schwartz, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Antitrust Bureau
          NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8274
          E-mail: nyag.pressoffice@ag.ny.gov

               - and -

          Roy Cooper, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of North Carolina
          K. D. Sturgis, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P. O. Box 629
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 716-6000
          Facsimile: (919) 716-6050
          E-mail: ksturgis@ncdoj.gov

               - and -

          Wayne Stenehjem, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of North Dakota
          Michael C. Thompson, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division
          OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Gateway Professional Center
          1050 E. Interstate Ave, Suite 200
          Bismarck, ND 58503-5574
          Telephone: (701) 328-5570

               - and -

          E. Scott Pruitt, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
          Julie A. Bays, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          313 NE 21st Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73105
          Telephone: (405) 522-1015

               - and -

          John R. Kroger, Esq.
          Attorney General for the State of Oregon
          Tim D. Nord, Esq.
          Senior Assistant Attorney General
          OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1162 Court Street NE
          Salem, OR 97301-4096
          Telephone: (503) 934-4400
          Facsimile: (503) 378-5017
          E-mail: Tim.D.Nord@state.or.us

               - and -

          Linda L. Kelly, Esq.
          Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
          Alexis L. Barbieri, Esq.
          Executive Deputy Attorney General
          Public Protection Division
          James A. Donahue, III, Esq.
          Chief Deputy Attorney General
          Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
          Antitrust Section
          PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          14th Floor, Strawberry Square
          Harrisburg, PA 17120
          Telephone: (717) 787-4530
          Facsimile: (717) 705-7110

               - and -

          Peter F. Kilmartin, Esq.
          Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island
          Edmund F. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Special Assistant Attorney General
          150 South Main Street
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 274-4400, ext. 2401

               - and -

          Alan Wilson, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of South Carolina
          C. Havird Jones, Jr., Esq.
          Assistant Deputy Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 11549
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 734-3680
          Facsimile: (803) 734-3677

               - and -

          Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Tennessee
          Victor J. Domen, Jr., Esq.
          Senior Counsel
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          425 5th Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37202
          Telephone: (615) 253-3327
          Facsimile: (615) 532-5732
          E-mail: Vic.Domen@ag.tn.gov

               - and -

          Mark L. Shurtleff, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Utah
          Ronald J. Ockey, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UTAH
          160 East 300 South, Fifth Floor
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 366-0359

               - and -

          Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Esq.
          Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia
          Charles E. James, Jr., Esq.
          Chief Deputy Attorney General
          David B. Irvin, Esq.
          Senior Assistant Attorney General and
          Chief Antitrust & Consumer Litigation Section
          Sarah Oxenham Allen, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Antitrust & Consumer Litigation Section
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          900 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 786-6557

               - and -

          Rob Mckenna, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Washington
          Tina E. Kondo, Esq.
          Deputy Attorney General
          Brady R. Johnson, Esq.
          Senior Counsel
          OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL
          800 Fifth Avenue, #2000
          Seattle, WA 98104-3188
          Telephone: (206) 464-7744
          Facsimile: (206) 587-5636

               - and -

          Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of West Virginia
          Frances A. Hughes, Esq.
          Chief Deputy Attorney General
          Jill L. Miles, Esq.
          Section Deputy Attorney General
          Douglas L. Davis, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          812 Quarries Street, Floor 1
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 558-8986

               - and -

          J.B. Van Hollen, Esq.
          Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin
          Gwendolyn J. Cooley, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Post Office Box 7857
          Madison, WI 53707-7857
          Telephone: (608) 261-5810
          Facsimile: (608) 267-2778
          E-mail: cooleygj@doj.state.wi.us


TREND LAB: Recalls 16,850 Children's Upholstered Toddler Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------

   * Laceration and Choking Hazards Cited

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trend Lab LLC, of Burnsville, Minnesota, announced a voluntary
recall of about 16,850 units of Children's upholstered toddler
chairs.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

Staples in the binding on the back of the chair may come loose,
posing a laceration or choking hazard if swallowed.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled children's upholstered toddler chairs in Club style
and Mod style are 24" wide by 18" tall by 17" deep.  The Club
style chairs come in three fabrics and colors: 1) suede in brown,
pink, avocado green, red and turquoise blue; 2) velour in blue,
green, pink and red; and 3) print fabric in chocolate dot on pink
or blue.  The Mod style chairs come in dark pink or zebra printed
velour in chocolate on blue or pink; or on printed fabric of
chocolate stripes on pink or blue.  The Trend Lab name is on a
label attached on the bottom of the chair with date codes TL1007C
through TL0812C, which are read as TL two-digit month and two-
digit year followed by C.  These date codes include 10/07 thru
08/12 or October 2007 thru August 2012 production.  All chairs
were sold with matching ottomans, which are not part of the
recall.  New chairs with "Remedy 2012" stamped in ink on the
bottom side of the chair are not subject to this recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13010.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at trend-lab.com, Amazon.com, BabiesRUs.com, Target.com,
Walmart.com and Seussland.com, as well as in Buy Buy Baby and
other specialty stores from November 2007 to August 2012 for about
$100 to $140.

Consumers should immediately take the chair away from children and
inspect the binding.  Contact the firm for a repair kit with
instructions.  Trend Lab toll-free at (866) 814-7978 between 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, e-mail
Recall@trend-lab.com, or Web site http://www.trend-lab.com/and
link to Recall Information.


TRIFECTA FOODS: Recalls Fresh Pak(R) and Energy Club(R) Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trifecta Foods, LLC in Pacoima, CA is voluntarily recalling
products containing IN-SHELL ROASTED SALTED AND UNSALTED PEANUTS
supplied to Trifecta Foods by SUNLAND, INC. because they may be
contaminated with Salmonella.  SUNLAND, INC. advised Trifecta
Foods that it was declaring a recall of its peanuts and, although
in-shell peanuts is a small part of its business, Trifecta Foods
moved immediately to withdraw the products from the public
containing peanuts from SUNLAND, INC.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
those 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 (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The products being recalled are IN-SHELL ROASTED SALTED AND
UNSALTED PEANUTS available to retail customers under the Fresh Pak
and Energy Club labels distributed nationally to independent
stores, grocery and retail chains.  The products being recalled
were distributed during the six month period immediately prior to
the October 12, 2012 recall date (April 12, 2012 - October 12,
2012) and distribution of the products has ceased.  The products
being recalled will have "Best By"/expiration dates on the
packaging from November 23, 2012, through April 10, 2013.

The "Best By" date is printed on the front of the package.  The
recall lot numbers are as follows:
                                                          Case
  Item #   Brand       Product Description     Unit Wt.   Pack
  ------   -----       -------------------     --------   ----
  304      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     8 oz     12

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00304 6
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-25-12 and 4-10-13

  304P     Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     8 oz     12

  Retail UPC: 1 70334 00304 6
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-25-12 and 4-10-13

  305      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell,         8 oz     12
                       R Unsalted

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00305 3
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-25-12 and 1-16-12

  307      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     8 oz     36

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00304 6
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-23-12 and 4-10-13

  308      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell,         8 oz     36
                       R Unsalted

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00305 3
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-23-12 and 4-10-13

  317      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     16 oz    24

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00317 6
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-24-12 and 4-10-13

  318      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell,         16 oz    24
                       R Unsalted

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00318 9
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-25-12 and 4-10-13

  327      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell,         8 oz     4/12
                       R&S Clip Strips

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00304 6
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-25-12 and 4-10-13

  334      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     4.5 oz   12

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00330 5
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-25-12 and 4-10-13

  360      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell,         8 oz     12
                       R&S - Display Ready

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00304 6
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-29-12 and 4-10-13

  361      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell,         8 oz     12
                       R Unsalted - Display Ready

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00305 3
  Best By Date: Dates between 12-7-12 and 1-16-13

  383      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     3 lb     8

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00383 1
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-24-12 and 4-10-13

  384      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell,         3 lb     8
                       R Unsalted

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00384 8
  Best By Date: Dates between 11-23-12 and 1-17-13

  530      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     3 oz     60

  Retail UPC: 1 70334 00530 9
  Best By Date: Dates between 12-6-12 and 4-10-13

  530V     Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     3 oz     60

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00530 9
  Best By Date: Dates between 1-28-12 and 3-25-13

  530VP    Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell, R&S     3 oz     60

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00530 9
  Best By Date: Dates between 12-27-12 and 1-23-13

  535      Fresh Pak   Peanuts In Shell,         3 oz     8/12
                       R Unsalted - Caddies

  Retail UPC: 0 70334 00535 4
  Best By Date: Dates between 12-27-12 and 1-2-13

  1950     Energy Club Peanuts In Shell, R&S     7.5 oz   24

  Retail UPC: 0 52679 01950 0
  Best By Date: Dates between 12-4-12 and 1-23-13

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm324332.htm

Consumers who have purchased any of the recalled products are
urged not to eat them and to return products to the place of
purchase for a full refund or dispose of them immediately.  The
"Best By" date or product expiration date is printed on the
packaging.

Consumers can contact the Company at 1-888-232-4242 for
information regarding this recall.  This toll-free number is
operational Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Pacific
Standard Time).

No FreshPak, Energy Club, or other brands products, other than
those listed above, are affected by the recall and the recalled
products make up a very small fraction of the Company's total
offerings.  All products leaving the Company's  plant as of
October 15, 2012, are NOT affected by the SUNLAND, INC. recall.

This recall is being conducted in cooperation with the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The most current
information available from the FDA is posted at the following Web
site: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/


TYSON FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
Chicken Wyngz products that have been recalled by Tyson Foods,
Inc.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/lq7hvN,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name         Location
    -------------         --------
    Bottom Dollar         Stores in Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio,
                          Pennsylvania

    Food Lion             Stores in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
                          and West Virginia

    Hannaford             Stores in Maine, Massachusetts,
                          New Hampshire, New York and Vermont

    H-E-B                 Stores in Texas

    Kroger                Nationwide

    Price Chopper         Stores in Connecticut, Massachusetts,
                          New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania,
                          and Vermont

    Publix                Stores in Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
                          South Carolina, and Tennessee

    Redner's Markets      Stores in Delaware, Maryland and
                          Pennsylvania

    Roundy's              Stores in Wisconsin and greater Chicago
                          area

    Shaw's Supermarkets   Stores in Maine, Massachusetts, New
                          Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont

    Target                Stores in Florida, Georgia, and
                          South Carolina

    Wal-Mart              Nationwide

    Wegmans               Stores in Maryland, New Jersey,
                          New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia

    Weis                  Stores in Maryland, New Jersey,
                          New York, Pennsylvania and
                          West Virginia

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name                     City and State
    -------------                     --------------
    Davis Monthan                     Davis Monthan, Arizona
    Luke Air Force Base Commissary    Glendale, Arizona
    Camp Pendleton Commissary         Camp Pendleton, California
    Fort Irwin                        Fort Irwin, California

    Imperial Beach Naval              Imperial Beach, California
    Air Station Commissary

    San Diego Naval Base Commissary   San Diego, California
    Price Chopper                     Torrington, Connecticut
    Dover AFB Commissary              Dover AFB, Delaware
    Bolling AFB Commissary            Washington, DC
    Aberdeen Commissary               Aberdeen, Maryland
    Andrews AFB Commissary            Andrews AFB, Maryland
    Fort Meade Commissary             Fort Meade, Maryland
    Fort Detrick Commissary           Frederick, Maryland
    Patuxent River NAS Commissary     NAS Patuxent River, MD
    Walter Reed Commissary            Silver Spring, Maryland
    McGuire AFB Commissary            McGuire AFB, New Jersey
    Picatinny Arsenal Commissary      Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
    Fort Hamilton Commissary          Brooklyn, New York
    Camp Lejeune Commissary           Camp Lejeune, NC
    Fort Bragg North Commissary       Fort Bragg, North Carolina
    Fort Bragg South Commissary       Fort Bragg, North Carolina
    Seymour Johnson AFB Commissary    Goldsboro, North Carolina
    Cherry Point MCAS Commissary      Cherry Point, NC
    New River Commissary              Jacksonville, NC
    Carlisle Barracks Commissary      Carlisle Barracks, PA
    C.E. Kelly SF Commissary          Oakdale, Pennsylvania
    Tobyhanna Commissary              Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA
    Fort Buchanan Commissary          Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico
    Fort Myer Commissary              Arlington, Virginia
    Dahlgren Commissary               Dahlgren, Virginia
    Fort Belvoir Commissary           Fort Belvoir, Virginia
    Fort Eustis Commissary            Fort Eustis, Virginia
    Fort Lee Commissary               Fort Lee, Virginia
    Langley AFB Commissary            Langley AFB, Virginia
    Norfolk NAVSTA Commissary         Norfolk, Virginia
    Portsmouth NNSY Commissary        Portsmouth, Virginia
    Quantico MCB Commissary           Quantico MCCB, Virginia
    Oceana NAS Commissary             Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Sugar Grove Commissary            Sugar Grove, West Virginia


VIKING SYSTEMS: May Soon Face Suits Over Proposed CONMED Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Viking Systems, Inc. said in its August 20, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that it may soon face class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed merger with CONMED Corporation.

On August 13, 2012, the Company announced that it had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger with CONMED Corporation, a New
York corporation, and Arrow Merger Corporation, a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub"), whereby Merger Sub will commence a tender offer to purchase
all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a
price of $0.27 per share of common stock in cash, subject to
adjustment as described in the Merger Agreement.

Several law firms have published information regarding class
action lawsuits that may be brought against the Company by its
shareholders challenging aspects of the proposed merger.  As of
August 17, 2012, to its knowledge, the Company has not been served
with any lawsuits.  If filed, class action or other lawsuits may
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief,
including orders enjoining the Company from completing the
proposed merger and, in certain circumstances, damages.  The
Company does not know if any lawsuits will actually be filed or
what the claims will be and, therefore, the Company cannot predict
the outcome of any lawsuits, including the costs associated with
defending potential lawsuits or any other liabilities or costs any
parties may incur in connection with the litigation or settlement
of these lawsuits.  The Company believes its actions and the
actions of its officers and directors related to the proposed
merger were appropriate, followed sound business judgment and
complied with all applicable Delaware law.  The Company would
intend to defend itself vigorously against any lawsuits in this
connection.  It is also possible that a lawsuit may be filed
which, if successful, could have the effect of preventing or
delaying the closing of the merger.  In the event one or more
lawsuits are filed against the Company, the Company's management
may be required to focus their efforts on defending the lawsuits
rather than continuing to operate its business which could have an
adverse effect on closing the merger and its business operations.
Additionally, if any lawsuits are filed, the Company may have
significant expense to defend such lawsuits which could also
adversely affect its ability to close the merger and operate its
business.


WYETH: December 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Beasley Allen, P.C., Gary Holt & Associates,
P.A., and Rushall & McGeever on Oct. 16 issued a statement
regarding the Wyeth class action:

Official notice to potential Class Members has begun in a class
action lawsuit that claims that drug manufacturer Wyeth violated
California laws by misrepresenting the benefits and/or failing to
disclose the risks of the prescription hormone replacement therapy
(HRT) medications Premarin, Prempro, and Premphase.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California has certified the case as a class action.  At this
stage, no determination has been made as to which side is right
and the case is proceeding to trial.  Wyeth denies it did anything
wrong and lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims in
Court.

California residents who purchased the drugs in California between
January 1995 and January 2003 may be included in the lawsuit, if
they were exposed to 1) oral or written statements from Wyeth or
from a healthcare provider, or 2) written statements in
publications in which Wyeth advertised or that originated from
Wyeth, that:

Premarin, Prempro, and/or Premphase lowered cardiovascular,
Alzheimers, and/or dementia risk; or

Premarin, Prempro, and/or Premphase did not increase breast cancer
risk.

To be included in the Class, consumers must also not be claiming
any personal injury from the use of Prempro, Premarin, and/or
Premphase.

Class Members do not need to do anything to stay in the Class.
However, Class Member rights will be affected if they do nothing.
Class Members that do not want to be legally bound by what the
Court does must exclude themselves from the case by December 19,
2012.  Class Members that do not exclude themselves will not be
able to sue for any claim relating to the lawsuit.


                           *********

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  * * *