/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130822.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 22, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 166


ABBOT LABORATORIES: Millions More Demanded After Settlement
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Tankermen Say Firm Failed to Pay Overtime
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Hourly Workers Sue Firm for Overtime Pay
APPLE INC: Judge Tells Plaintiffs to Amend Monopoly Claims
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Faces Suit Over Asbestos Health Hazards

COMPTON, CA: Cops Accused of Racial Profiling in Class Suit
CROSSROADS RV: Recalls 217 Redwood Model Travel Trailers
CR BARD: Jury Awards $2MM in Transvaginal Mesh Device Trial
CRUSADER SERVICING: Tax Lien Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
ECOLAB INC: 6 Wage Hour Lawsuits Still Pending

ECOLAB INC: Unit Still Faces Suits Over COREXIT
ECOLAB INC: Nalco Still Facing Claims in "B3 Bundle" Litigation
ECOLAB INC: Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Okayed
ECOLAB INC: Court Stays "Franks" Suit Due to MDL 2179 Order
FORD MOTOR: Ford Escape Accelerator Defects Result to Fatalities

FURNITURE BRANDS: Saxena White Files Class Action in Missouri
GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Reinstates "Nunez" Class Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Final Approval of Hydroxycut MDL Accord Pending
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Certain Blood Sets Over Piercing Pin
ITT CORPORATION: Seeks Coverage for Asbestos Liabilities

JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Pension Trust Suit for $23 Million
LINNCO LLC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
LINNCO LLC: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Vacates Hearing in Securities Suits
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Tenn. Victims Win New Avenue for Lawsuits

OHIO NORTHERN UNIV: Bartning Gets OK to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
PENN STATE: Settlement of Sandusky Sexual Abuse Claims Begins
PETROLEUM COS: Sued by Estate Over Quebec Train Disaster
PILOT FLYING J: Two Trucking Companies File Fuel Rebate Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls Iams & Eukanuba Dry Pet Food

SEE'S COMPANY: Recalls Dark Chocolate Blueberries
SIRIUS XM: Sued for $100 Million in Class Suit by Musical Artists
SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Recalls Sterile Products After Infections
TELLABS INC: Asks Illinois Court to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
TORRENT PHARMA: Recalls Anti-Psychotic Drug Over Packaging Defect

TOYS 'R' US: Motion to Dismiss Smith-Wheeler Suit Denied
TOYOTA MOTOR: Moves to Strike Evidence of Accelerator Software Bug
WESTLAND MILK: Faces Lactofferin Powder Contamination Problem
WPX ENERGY: Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment Ruling

* Gender Discrimination Cases Growing in Tech Industry
* Medical Malpractice Payouts Continue to Shrink in US
* Political Groups Introduce Class Action Bill in Russia


ABBOT LABORATORIES: Millions More Demanded After Settlement
Courthouse News Service reports that Abbott Laboratories' $1.6
billion settlement for promoting Depakote for off-label uses was
not enough to make insured workers whole, three unions claim in a
federal class action.

Abbott paid $1.6 billion in state and federal settlements last
year to resolve allegations that it promoted the anticonvulsant
for off-label uses. That money included a $700 million criminal
fine, $800 million in civil penalties, and $100 million to states
for consumer protection.

Physicians are allowed to prescribe drugs for off-label uses, but
drug companies cannot legally promote them for that.

Plaintiffs in the federal class action, filed Aug. 16, 2013, are
the Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, the Teamsters
Health Services and Insurance Plan Local 404, and the United Food
and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health
Benefits Fund.

The plaintiffs seek to represent "health benefit providers,
individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated
entities (the 'Class' and three individual state 'Subclasses'" as
defined below), to recoup not less than hundreds of millions of
dollars they paid to defendant Abbott Laboratories ('Abbott,' or
the 'Company') as a result of Abbott's scheme to increase sales of
the drug Depakote by illegally marketing it for uses for which it
was neither approved nor shown to be efficacious."

The lawsuit continues: "Since its initial approval by the Food and
Drug Administration ('FDA') in 1983, Abbott has marketed and sold
Depakote (divalproex sodium) in various forms. The FDA has
approved the various forms of Depakote for three limited

"Depakote is an anticonvulsant (anti-seizure drug): it is
indicated as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in the treatment
of patients with complex partial seizures that occur either in
isolation or in association with other types of seizures. Depakote
was approved in 1995 for the treatment of acute mania or mixed
episodes associated with bipolar disorder. Depakote has not been
approved, however, for the long-term treatment of mania and
controlled clinical trials have failed to demonstrate its
effectiveness for such use. Depakote was approved in 1996 for the
prophylaxis (prevention) of migraine headaches. It is not,
however, indicated for the treatment of migraine headaches, nor is
there evidence that Depakote is effective in the treatment of
acute migraine headaches.

"Rather than market Depakote for its limited indications, Abbott,
embarked on a scheme to market the drug for a variety of uses for
which it had never sought or obtained FDA approval, including
treatment of schizophrenia, control of agitation/aggression in
elderly dementia patients, bipolar depression (in adults and
children), developmental delay in children, and symptoms of
narcotic drug withdrawal. Abbott had no reliable evidence of the
drug's safety or efficacy for the treatment of those conditions.
Moreover, Abbott knew or should have known that its misbranding of
Depakote could jeopardize patients' safety.

"Abbott's promotion of Depakote for off-label purposes, alone and
in combination with misrepresentations or intentional omissions of
material information with regard to the drugs' safety and
efficacy, violated, among other things, the Food, Drug and
Cosmetics Act. 21 U.S.C. Sections 301, et seq.

"When the FDA approves a drug, it also approves labeling which
lists the drug's 'indications,' that is, the conditions under
which the product is to be used. Although physicians need not
limit their prescriptions to the FDA approved indications,
pharmaceutical manufacturers generally are prohibited from
promoting their products for other than the indicated uses
(sometimes referred to as 'off-label' uses).

"With the help of intermediary marketing firms and shadow entities
funded by Abbott, as well as physicians paid to influence other
doctors in exchange for lucrative kickbacks, Abbott aggressively
marketed and sold Depakote for off-label uses.

"From 1998 through 2012 (the 'Class Period'), Abbott implemented
these marketing schemes, dramatically increasing Depakote sales
and paving the way for Abbott to profit at the expense of
plaintiffs and other class members. By 2005, Abbott's sales of
Depakote hit the billion dollar mark. In 2007, Depakote sales
reached $1.5 billion.

"Abbott controlled and conducted one or more enterprises through
which it promoted Depakote's off-label use and made
misrepresentations regarding the safety and efficacy of the drug
for unapproved uses. In addition, Abbott paid, or with the
assistance of intermediaries, caused to be paid, kickbacks to
promote both on-label and off-label sales.

"On May 7, 2012, Abbott was held accountable for years of wrongful
conduct when it pled guilty to a violation of the Food, Drug and
Cosmetics Act and agreed to pay $1.6 billion to federal and state
governments to address criminal sanctions and sanctions under
relevant False Claims Acts. Unfortunately, these sanctions were
insufficient to compensate for the harm caused to the Class and

Indeed, Abbott probably calculated both its risk of being caught
and its potential civil and criminal exposure assuming its only
liability would be to the Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare systems.
But Abbott's illegal conduct also created significant liability to
private payors of Depakote under Federal law (the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962),
state deceptive trade practice acts, and the common law."

The classes include a nationwide class, an Illinois subclass, and
a New York State subclass.

They seek hundreds of millions of dollars in damages,
disgorgement, costs and treble damages for illegal marketing, RICO
violations, FDA violations, unjust enrichment, intentional
misrepresentation, concealment, fraud, wire fraud, deceptive

Lead counsel is Adam Levitt, Esq., with Grant & Eisenhofer.

AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Tankermen Say Firm Failed to Pay Overtime
Courthouse News Service reports that American Commercial Lines
made "tankermen" work as much as 84 hours a week without overtime
pay, a class action claims in Federal Court.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Hourly Workers Sue Firm for Overtime Pay
Courthouse News Service reports Anheuser-Busch stiffs hourly
workers for overtime at its Van Nuys brewery, a class action
claims in Superior Court.

APPLE INC: Judge Tells Plaintiffs to Amend Monopoly Claims
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that IPhone
users must amend claims that Apple choked competition and inflated
prices in the software applications aftermarket, a federal judge

The consolidated class action at issue here, In re Apple iPhone
Antitrust Litigation was filed in March 2012. It alleged that
Apple entered into a secret five-year contract establishing
nonparty AT&T Mobility as the exclusive provider of voice and data
services for the iPhone through 2012.

Apple was also accused of putting software locks on iPhones to
prevent purchasers from switching to another provider, and of
using its agreement with AT&T to control which developers could
create apps for iPhones, including those for ringtones, instant
messaging and Internet access.

U.S. District Judge James Ware refused to compel arbitration but
dismissed some claims against Apple after holding that the class
had improperly left out AT&T though it was a necessary party for a
conspiracy suit. He said the plaintiffs would not have to maintain
claims based on the iPhone's voice and data services aftermarket,
meaning the market involving parts and accessories used in the
repair or enhancement of a product.

The iPhone purchaser plaintiffs said Apple charged app developers
an annual $99 fee to submit apps for distribution and collected 30
percent of the sale of each application that it does not give away
for free, with the developer receiving the other 70 percent. Apple
also allegedly refused to approve applications from developers who
did not pay the annual fee and told customers that it would void
and refuse to honor the warranty for any customer who downloaded
third-party apps. Customers who bought a song from the Apple
iTunes store also had to pay 99 cents to convert that song into a
ringtone, according to the complaint.

The class said Apple denied them a means by which to download
unapproved third-party apps and that it "unlawfully stifled
competition, reduced output and customer choice, and artificially
increased prices in the aftermarket[] for. . . . iPhone software

Apple moved to dismiss, but the plaintiffs emphasized that they
have been "deprived lower cost alternatives, paid higher prices
for 'Apple 'approved' applications' and/or had their iPhones
disabled or destroyed."

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who took charge of the
case after Ware retired last year, found the allegations
"insufficient to establish Article III standing."

While the class claims to have bought iPhones for voice and data
services and many say they would have liked the option of
switching to another provider or unlocking their SIM card, "none
of these allegations speak to named plaintiffs' standing with
respect to the applications aftermarket claims," according to the

"Plaintiffs do not satisfy Article III standing with collective
allegations that they have been deprived of lower cost
alternatives, paid higher prices for Apple-approved applications,
and/or had their iPhones disabled or destroyed," Rogers wrote. "At
a minimum, plaintiffs must allege facts showing that each named
plaintiff has personally suffered in injury-in-fact based on
Apple's alleged conduct. This requires that plaintiffs at least
purchased applications."

The judge granted the plaintiffs leave to amend, noting that their
declarations provide information that might satisfy certain
deficiencies in their pleading.  She also dismissed and struck
from the record a claim for conspiracy to monopolize the voice and
data aftermarket because she found that the plaintiffs failed to
add AT&T Mobility as a party, as Judge Ware had required. The
dismissal of that claim is currently on appeal.

Rogers also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that collateral
estoppel bars Apple's arguments in its motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs had argued that because Apple raised and lost "each
of the central arguments" of this case before Judge Ware, it is
precluded from raising them again, and that Ware's order was
sufficiently "final" for collateral estoppel purposes.

This argument points to the outcome of an earlier class action
filed in 2007, alleging that Apple and AT&T Mobile tried to
monopolize the aftermarket in iPhones for voice and data services.
They accused Apple separately with regard to its control of the
iPhones software applications aftermarket, meaning the market
involving parts and accessories used in the repair or enhancement
of a product.

Those allegations were consolidated in In Re Apple & AT&TM
Antitrust Litigation.

Ware certified a class of iPhone purchasers in 2010 but later
decertified the class and ordered arbitration in the wake of a
landmark Supreme Court decision, Concepcion v. AT&T Corp.

Rogers found Thursday last week that while the allegations in the
two actions are "similar and significantly overlap, [they are not]

"Further, the court does not agree with plaintiffs that Judge
Ware's order on a motion to dismiss is sufficiently final, where
the rulings could not have been appealed while the action was
pending in this district and Judge Ware ultimately ordered the
action to arbitration," Rogers added.

The plaintiffs must file their second amended complaint within 21
days of the order, Rogers said, setting a case-management
conference for Nov. 4.

A copy of Judge Rogers' ruling is available at http://is.gd/pYxzVo
from Courthouse News Service.

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Faces Suit Over Asbestos Health Hazards
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that one Harris County resident and two Orange County residents
have filed an asbestos suit against four defendant corporations,
claiming the asbestos-related disease with which a man was
diagnosed was wrongfully caused.

Audrey J. Hawkins, Terri Banken and Gina Daigle claim Floyd
Hawkins was diagnosed with lung cancer after being exposed to
large amounts of asbestos in products manufactured, sold,
designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled, relabeled, resold,
processed, applied or installed by the defendant companies.

Defending companies named in the complaint are Atlantic Richfield
Co., Beazer East Inc., Certainteed Corp. and Guard-Line Inc.

The plaintiffs allege Floyd Hawkins's disease was caused because
he inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers while
at work.  They claim he did not know of the hazards of asbestos
exposure, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs state the defendants failed to adequately warn
Floyd Hawkins of the serious health hazards related to asbestos
exposure and failed to provide him with what would be considered
adequate and safe working apparel.

In addition, the defending companies failed to provide Floyd
Hawkins with a safe workplace, allowed a dangerous condition to
exist, failed to warn Floyd Hawkins of the hazardous condition and
to warn him that asbestos particles could lead to disease and
failed to market asbestos products that were safe to use,
according to the complaint.

The defendants negligently failed to test their products before
they were released into the stream of commerce; failed to place
warning labels on the asbestos products; failed to warn Floyd
Hawkins on the proper way to handle asbestos products; failed to
enforce a safety plan; and failed to follow government
regulations, the suit states.

Because of his disease, Floyd Hawkins experienced physical pain,
suffering and mental anguish; endured emotional distress and
physical impairment; and incurred medical costs, the complaint

After Floyd Hawkins's death, his children claim they lost his
care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel and
reasonable contributions and suffered mental anguish.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking general, punitive,
special and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest and other relief to which they may be entitled.

They will be represented by Tina H. Bradley --
tbradley@hobsonlaw.com -- of Hobson & Bradley in Beaumont.

The case has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District

Case No. B194-570

COMPTON, CA: Cops Accused of Racial Profiling in Class Suit
Courthouse News Service reports Compton police racially profile,
unlawfully arrest and use excessive force against Latinos, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

The case is captioned: Victor Lopez, an individual; and DOES 1-
100, inclusive, plaintiffs, vs. City of Compton; Percy Perrodin
Jr., sued in his official capacity; The City of Compton Municipal
Law Enforcement Services and Code Enforcement, MLES; and DOES 1-
10, inclusive, defendants.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division-Los Angeles.

Mr. Lopez is represented by:

     Martin J. Kaufman, Esq.
     Eric Christopher Morris, Esq.
     The Kaufman Law Firm
     2300 Westwood Boulevard, 2nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Tel: (213) 239-9400
     Fax: (213) 239-9409

A copy of the complaint is available from Courthouse News Service
at http://is.gd/bMhaP7

CROSSROADS RV: Recalls 217 Redwood Model Travel Trailers
Starting date:            August 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           217
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013283
TC ID number:             2013283

Affected products: Crossroads Redwood 2012, 2013 and 2014 models.

On certain fifth wheel trailers, the power awning switch (located
in the cargo compartment) can inadvertently be activated by
shifting cargo.  As a result, the awning can unfurl unexpectedly,
and could strike another vehicle, a stationary object, or a
bystander, causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will install a cover over the switch.

CR BARD: Jury Awards $2MM in Transvaginal Mesh Device Trial
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a jury in the first federal trial over transvaginal mesh
devices awarded $2 million on Aug. 15 to a woman who alleged that
the manufacturer failed to warn about defects in its product that
caused her bleeding and pain.

Donna Cisson claims she had to undergo two surgeries to remove the
device, one of C.R. Bard Inc.'s line of Avaulta products, which is
inserted surgically into women to treat pelvic organ prolaspse --
a condition that can cause urinary incontinence or pain, sometimes
during sex.  Her case is the first bellwether trial of about
20,000 lawsuits coordinated in multidistrict litigation in
Charleston, W.V.

The jury, finding that Bard failed to warn about a design defect
in its product, awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages and
$1,750,000 in punitive damages.  The jury rejected a claim by her
husband, also a plaintiff in the case, for loss of consortium.

Bard's attorney, Lori Cohen, chairwoman of the pharmaceutical,
medical device & health care litigation practice at Greenberg
Traurig in Atlanta, did not return a call for comment.

Scott Lowry, Bard's vice president and treasurer, issued an
emailed statement following the verdict: "We disagree with the
verdict reached by the jury and believe there are compelling
grounds for reversal.  We will appeal, and continue to vigorously
defend against all other lawsuits regarding this product.  Our
Avaulta mesh products are safe and effective medical devices,
cleared by the FDA, and provide significant benefits to patients.
While we empathize with plaintiff's health issues, they were not
caused by our product."

Ms. Cisson's attorney, Henry Garrard III -- hgg@bbgbalaw.com -- a
partner at Blasingame Burch Garrard & Ashley in Athens, Ga., did
not respond to a request for comment.

In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety
warning that "serious complications associated with surgical mesh
for transvaginal repair of [pelvic organ prolapse] are not rare."
The FDA asked manufacturers to submit additional studies of the
safety and effectiveness of their products.  Bard pulled its
Avaulta devices off the market last year.

The litigation against Bard was coordinated for pretrial purposes
in 2010 before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, who now is
overseeing separate multidistrict litigation proceedings against
five other manufacturers of transvaginal mesh devices.

A second bellwether trial against Bard is scheduled for Monday.
Bard, which is based in Murray Hill, N.J., also faces the first
trial in state court coordinated litigation in Atlantic City,
N.J., on September 23.

In state courts, two cases involving transvaginal mesh devices
have resulted in jury verdicts during the past year.  In the first
trial in the nation, a state court jury in Bakersfield, Calif.,
awarded a woman and her husband $5.5 million in damages last year;
Bard has appealed that verdict.

And earlier this year, a state court jury in Atlantic City, N.J.,
awarded more than $11 million to a South Dakota woman who sued
Johnson & Johnson and its Ethicon Inc. unit after undergoing 18
operations in six years following implantation of it Gynecare
Prolift device.  That award, based on the company's failure to
warn, included $7.76 million in punitive damages.  Johnson &
Johnson has appealed that verdict.

CRUSADER SERVICING: Tax Lien Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
Lillian Shupe, writing for Hunterdon County Democrat, reports that
tax lien holders who conspired to keep interest rates high will
offer discounts to property owners under a settlement that was
recently granted preliminary approval.

A dozen New Jersey homeowners are parties in a suit claiming that
they were victims of a conspiracy.  The homeowners were either
facing foreclosure or had been foreclosed upon.

Many of the more than two dozen defendants in the federal suit are
among those pleading guilty to federal criminal charges.

One defendant, Crusader Servicing Corp., purchased a lien in
Lebanon Township.  In March 2012, the owner of that home was the
first to file suit in Superior Court in Hunterdon County.  The
suit was transferred to federal court and then consolidated with
other suits like it.

So far, 17 defendants have reached six different settlement

On Aug. 8, preliminary approval of the settlements was granted in
federal court and the class was provisionally certified.  A
fairness hearing will be held at a later date to determine if the
settlements should get final approval.

Under the preliminary settlements the tax lien holders will offer
discounts of 10% to 15% for property owners to redeem the
certificates.  The lien holders also agreed to delay any
foreclosure proceedings until at least 90 to 120 days following
final approval of the settlement.

The provisionally certified settlement class includes "All persons
who owned real property in the State of New Jersey who had a Tax
Sale Certificate issued with respect to their property that was
purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period from and
including January 1, 1998 through February, 2009 at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above zero

The defendants also made payments to a settlement fund.  The fund
totaled $955,000 in July.  Attorneys are still negotiating with
the other defendants.

When the owner of real property fails to pay taxes on that
property, the municipality in which the property is located may
attach a lien for the amount of the unpaid taxes.  If the taxes
remain unpaid after a waiting period, the lien may be sold at

State law requires that investors bid on the interest rate
delinquent homeowners will pay upon redemption.  By law, the bid
opens at 18% interest and, through a competitive bidding process,
can be driven down to 0%.  If a lien remains unpaid after a
certain period of time, the investor who purchased the lien
may begin foreclosure proceedings against the property to which
the lien is attached.

The Department of Justice said that the conspiracy limited
competition in public auctions for municipal tax liens so the
liens could be purchased at higher interest rates, many at the
maximum 18% interest rate.

"Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are New Jersey
taxpayers who became delinquent on their real property tax
obligations, often as a result of disability and/or economic
hardship.  Because of the unlawful conspiracy, Class members
either paid or owe Defendants an inflated amount in order to
redeem their TSCs (municipal tax lien certificates), and keep
their home or other property from falling into the possession of
one of the Defendants.  Indeed, some class members have already
lost their properties as a result of Defendants' illegal
behavior," the complaint says.

The tax lien auction process is meant to create "competitive
bidding in an effort to try and help the delinquent tax payer who
is already likely experiencing financial difficulty," the
complaints says.  Even in the absence of collusion, the lien
process can often lead to harsh results for the property owner,
the complaint says.  Some of the defendants failed to pay a few
hundred dollars in taxes and ended up owing the lien holder tens
of thousands, according to the complaint.

"The Defendants' conspiracy alleged herein acted to make it even
more punitive by colluding and artificially raising the interest
rate associated with the property owner's delinquent obligation.
Quite simply, the defendants' conspiracy was akin to pouring salt
in the wounds of plaintiffs and the members of the Class," the
complaint says.

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of $100
million criminal fine for corporations.  The maximum fine for a
Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived
from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either
amount is greater than the statutory maximum.

A dozen guilty pleas have been entered as part of the DOJ's
investigation.  Most recently, in April Norman T. Remick of
Barnegat pleaded guilty.

Crusader, two other companies and eight individuals -- Isadore H.
May, Richard J. Pisciotta, Jr., William A. Collins, Robert W.
Stein, David M. Farber, Robert E. Rothman, Stephen E. Hruby, and
David Butler -- previously pleaded guilty.

ECOLAB INC: 6 Wage Hour Lawsuits Still Pending
Ecolab Inc. is a defendant in six pending wage hour lawsuits
claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a
similar state law, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Of the six suits, two have been certified for class action status,
three seek class certification and one has reached a tentative

Doug Ladore v. Ecolab Inc., et al., United States District Court
for the Central District of California, case no. CV 11-9386 GAF
(FMOx), is a wage hour class action brought on behalf of
California Pest Elimination employees. The case has been certified
for class treatment, and on January 22, 2013, the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment was granted and the court found that
the class of employees was entitled to overtime pay.

On February 22, 2013, pursuant to court-ordered mediation, the
company reached a preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs,
which remains subject to court approval. The company has
established an accrual for the settlement amount, which is not
material to its operations or financial position.

A second suit, a California state action, has been certified for
class treatment of California Institutional employees. A third
suit involving Institutional employees seeks nationwide class
certification for alleged FLSA violations as well as purported
state sub-classes in two states (New York and New Jersey) alleging
violations of state wage hour laws.

A fourth suit involving Pest Elimination employees seeks
nationwide class certification for alleged FLSA violations as well
as a purported California sub-class for alleged California wage
hour law violations.  A fifth suit seeks certification of a
purported class of terminated California employees of any business
for alleged violation of statutory obligations regarding payment
of accrued vacation upon termination.

Tentative settlement, subject to Court approval, has been reached
in a sixth suit involving a California class of technicians in the
company's Equipment Care subsidiary (formerly GCS). The class in
this suit was certified for settlement purposes only. The
settlement amount is not material to the company's operations or
financial position.

ECOLAB INC: Unit Still Faces Suits Over COREXIT
Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab Inc.,
continues to face lawsuits filed on behalf of various potential
classes of persons who live and work in or derive income from the
Coastal Zone, alleging negligence relating to the use of COREXIT
dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
according to Ecolab's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,

In June, July and August 2010, in April 2011 and in April 2012,
Nalco Company, was named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in nine putative class action complaints filed in
either the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana (Parker, et al. v. Nalco Company, et al., Civil
Action No. 2:10-cv-01749-CJB-SS; Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et
al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02078-CJBSS; Irelan v. BP Products,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00881; Adams v. Louisiana, et
al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-01051; Elrod, et al. v. BP Exploration
& Production Inc., et al., 12-cv-00981), the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern
Division (Lavigne, et al. v. BP PLC, et al., Civil Action No.
1:10-cv-00222-KD-C; Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil
Action No. 1:10-cv-00397-B) or the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division (Walsh,
et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00143- RV-MD;
Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-
EMT) on behalf of various potential classes of persons who live
and work in or derive income from the Coastal Zone.

The Parker, Lavigne and Walsh cases have since been voluntarily
dismissed. Each of the remaining actions contains substantially
similar allegations, generally alleging, among other things,
negligence relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in
each of these putative class action lawsuits are generally seeking
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

ECOLAB INC: Nalco Still Facing Claims in "B3 Bundle" Litigation
Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab Inc., has
received a draft list of previously filed lawsuits that assert
claims within the B3 Bundle, including some that are putative
class actions, according to Ecolab's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Referenced cases pending against Nalco Company have been
administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, Civil Action No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179").

Pursuant to orders issued by Judge Barbier in MDL 2179, the claims
have been consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Bundle").

Plaintiffs are required by Judge Barbier to prepare a list
designating previously-filed lawsuits that assert claims within
the B3 Bundle regardless of whether the lawsuit named each
defendant named in the B3 Bundle master complaint. Nalco has
received a draft list from the plaintiffs' steering committee. The
draft list identifies 15 cases in the B3 Bundle, some of which are
putative class actions.  Six cases previously filed against Nalco
Company are not included in the B3 Bundle.

ECOLAB INC: Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Okayed
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted final approval of the Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement related to the Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, according to Ecolab
Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 18, 2012, BP plc and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
("PSC") for In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Civil Action No. 10-md-
02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179") filed motions for preliminary
approval of two proposed class action settlements: (1) a proposed
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement; and (2) a proposed
Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement.

Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members agree to
release claims against BP and other released parties, including
Nalco Energy Services, LP, Nalco Holding Company, Nalco Finance
Holdings LLC, Nalco Finance Holdings Inc., Nalco Holdings LLC and
Nalco Company. Potential class members were permitted to opt-out
of the settlements. The opt-out period closed November 1, 2012.
The court permitted potential class members to revoke their opt-
outs until the date final settlement approval was entered.

On May 2, 2012, the Court preliminarily approved the Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement and Economic and Property Damages
Class Action Settlement. A hearing to consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlements took place
on November 8, 2012. On December 24, 2012, the Court granted final
approval of the Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement. On January 11, 2013, the Court granted final approval
of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement.

ECOLAB INC: Court Stays "Franks" Suit Due to MDL 2179 Order
The Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, Second Judicial
District stayed proceedings in Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss,
Inc., et al., Cause No. A2402-10-228, according to Ecolab Inc.'s
Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In March 2011, Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of
Ecolab, was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in an
amended complaint filed by an individual in the Circuit Court of
Harrison County, Mississippi, Second Judicial District (Franks v.
Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc., et al., Cause No. A2402-10-228
(Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi)).

The amended complaint generally asserts, among other things,
negligence and strict product liability claims relating to the
plaintiff's alleged exposure to chemical dispersants manufactured
by Nalco Company. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, medical expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff's allegations place him within the scope of the MDL 2179
Medical Benefits Class (MDL 2179: In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico).

In approving the Medical Benefits Settlement, the MDL 2179 Court
barred Medical Benefits Settlement class members from prosecuting
claims of injury from exposure to oil and dispersants related to
the Response.  As a result of the MDL court's order, on April 11,
2013, the Mississippi court stayed proceedings in the Franks case.

FORD MOTOR: Ford Escape Accelerator Defects Result to Fatalities
Victoria Schneider, Esq., at The Cooper Firm, reports that most
people would consider the death of a young girl enough to do a
Recall Query, but in the case of the Ford Escape, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) didn't feel that it
was necessary.  In January 2012, Saige Bloom, a 17-year-old
driver, in Payson, Arizona was driving home her first car, a 2002
Escape, when she died in an unintended acceleration crash.
Ms. Bloom's mother was following her home when she lost control of
her car causing it to roll over.  Ms. Bloom succumbed to her
injuries a short time later at the hospital.

Clarence Ditlow, the executive director of the Center for Auto
Safety, petitioned to have the agency open a Recall Query after
Ms. Bloom's death, but nothing was done . . . at least not for
8 years.

In December 2004, Ford filed two Part 573 Defect and
Non-Compliance Reports stating that it was recalling approximately
591,245 Escapes and Tributes between the years of 2002-2004
because of an accelerator cable inner liner that could migrate out
of the conduit at the dash panel and may come in contact with the
accelerator pedal assembly causing the pedal to not return to the
fully released position ("idle").  The repair was simply replacing
the old accelerator cable with a new one.  Unfortunately, the
repair increased the odds that the throttle could get stuck.  Ford
then sent a Technical Service Bulletin in 2006 to the dealers
telling them to disregard the previous repair because it could
damage the cruise control cable, which in an open throttle
situation could become jammed.

What was worse was Ford never told drivers of the Escape who had
bought their car previously that the recall would make their
vehicle even more dangerous.

Ford saw more fatalities as a result.  Since the NHTSA has no
policy in place to see that the manufacturer met the recall
obligations, they have no way of determining if the deadly defects
are being fixed.  So instead, the agency just slapped Ford with A
$17.3 million civil penalty.

FURNITURE BRANDS: Saxena White Files Class Action in Missouri
Thomas Russell, writing for Furniture Today, reports that a law
firm here has filed a class action lawsuit against Furniture
Brands International that alleges the company violated federal
securities laws by artificially inflating its stock price.

A suit filed Aug. 16 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri by the law firm Saxena White P.A. of Boca
Raton, Fla., seeks a jury trial to address concerns of persons
that purchased shares of FBI common stock between Feb. 13 and
Aug. 5.

The plaintiffs allege that the company fraudulently inflated the
stock price by communicating "materially false and misleading
statements," and failing to disclose material information
concerning the "company's true financial condition, operation and
business prospects."

Chiefly, the plaintiffs argue, the company made false or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose it was
experiencing weakness in its wholesale business and that the
company's trade names were carried at inflated values.  The
plaintiffs also allege that the company failed to disclose it was
experiencing liquidity issues.

The suit also claims that the board increased company CEO Ralph
Scozzafava's salary despite the company's poor performance.

The suit does mention press releases that cite quarterly
performance, including sales declines and quarterly losses.
However, the suit claims, the company made false and misleading
statements that caused its securities to trade at artificially
inflated prices during the period.

During the Feb. 13-Aug. 5 period, FBI's stock price fell from just
over $7 a share to around $2 a share. The suit claims the
plaintiffs have suffered significant financial damages and seeks
remedies through various sections of the Securities Act of 1934.

"As a result of defendant's wrongful course of conduct, FBN
shareholders have lost millions of dollars in their investment in
the company," the suit said.

Furniture Brands officials did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Reinstates "Nunez" Class Suit
Merly Nunez, a class representative, appealed a district court's
dismissal of her complaint, captioned MERLY NUNEZ, a.k.a. Nunez
Merly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 10-13183, for failure to state a claim and
denying her motion for reconsideration.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reversed the district court's judgment of dismissal and the order
denying the motion for reconsideration. The Eleventh Circuit
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 8, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/Ors9tMfrom Leagle.com.

GNC HOLDINGS: Final Approval of Hydroxycut MDL Accord Pending
GNC Holdings, Inc. is awaiting final court approval of the
settlement it reached in In re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087, according to the company's
Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration issued a warning
on several Hydroxycut-branded products manufactured by Iovate
Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. ("Iovate") based on 23 reports of
liver injuries from consumers who claimed to have used the
products between 2002 and 2009. As a result, Iovate voluntarily
recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded products.

Following the recall, the Company was named, among other
defendants, in approximately 93 lawsuits, including a number of
putative class action cases, related to Hydroxycut-branded
products in 14 states.  Iovate accepted the Company's tender
request for defense and indemnification under its purchasing
agreement in these matters.

As of June 30, 2013, there were 73 pending lawsuits related to
Hydroxycut in which the Company has been named, including 67
individual, largely personal injury claims and six putative class
action cases, generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty. The
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated pretrial proceedings of many of the pending actions
in the Southern District of California (In re: Hydroxycut
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087).

The parties in the consolidated class actions reached a
settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court. There
are two objectors to the settlement.  The parties' motion for
final approval of the settlement was heard on April 23, 2013. The
judge indicated at the hearing that he would grant final approval
of the settlement, but ordered the objectors to appear at an
evidentiary hearing, which was held on July 16, 2013, to provide
evidence of their standing to object to the settlement.

The Court has not yet issued its decision with respect to the
matters addressed at the July 16th hearing.  The Company is not
required to make any payments under the settlement agreement.

HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Certain Blood Sets Over Piercing Pin
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration disclosed that Hospira, Inc.
announced a recall of certain blood sets.  There have been reports
from customers of instances in which the outer wall of blood bags
were punctured with the piercing pin on certain Hospira blood sets
during insertion of the pin into the blood bag.  If the piercing
pin on this product punctures the outer wall of a blood bag, it
may result in spillage of the blood and blood products stored in
the bag, resulting in a delay/interruption in therapy.
Delay/interruption in therapy can potentially lead to significant
injury or death.  This issue has been identified as a contributing
factor in one report of a patient death due to a
delay/interruption in therapy.

The impacted list numbers are: 14200-04-28 Secondary Blood Set;
14203-04-28 Blood Set; 14206-04-28 Y-type Blood Set; 14207-04-28
Blood Set; 14210-04-28 Plum(TM) Blood Set; 14211-04-28 Plum Blood
Set; 14212-04-28 Plum y-type Blood Set, 14217-04-28 y-type Blood
Set and 14219-04-28 Y-type Blood Set.  These sets were distributed
July 2011 through February 2013.

The root cause of the punctures has been identified as the design
of the new International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-
compliant pin, which has a sharp point that can sometimes pierce
the wall of non-ISO-compliant blood bags.

BACKGROUND: Hospira blood sets are used for the administration of
blood and blood products.  Hospira distributed an Important Safety
Information Letter to customers regarding this issue in April

RECOMMENDATION: At this time, there is no need for customers to
discontinue use of or return Hospira blood sets.  However, Hospira
recommends users exercise extreme caution when piercing blood bags
with a Hospira blood set mentioned above and make sure that all
instructions for use included with the blood bag and facility's
protocol for spiking blood bags are completely followed in order
to minimize the possibility of puncturing the outer wall of the
blood bag.  Hospira has begun distribution of sets with a blunter
piercing pin that is shorter than the pins in the Impacted List
Numbers which came available in March 2013.  Customers should
contact Hospira or their local representative for information
about these sets.

Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report
adverse events or side effects related to the use of these
products to the FDA's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse
Event Reporting Program:

* Complete and submit the report Online:

* Download form or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting
form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed
form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

ITT CORPORATION: Seeks Coverage for Asbestos Liabilities
ITT Corporation continues to seek settlement agreements providing
coverage for its legacy asbestos liabilities, according to the
company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 13, 2003, Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins.
Co., Sup. Ct., Los Angeles County, was commenced to seek recovery
of costs related to asbestos product liability losses. During this
coverage litigation, the company entered into coverage-in-place
settlement agreements with ACE, Wausau and Utica Mutual dated
April 2004, September 2004, and February 2007, respectively. These
agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's legacy
asbestos liabilities.

In the first quarter of 2012, Goulds Pumps, Inc. resolved its
claims against Fireman's Fund and Continental Casualty. In January
2012, ITT and Goulds Pumps filed a putative class action against
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (ITT Corporation and Goulds
Pumps, Inc., v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna
Casualty and Surety Company)), alleging that Travelers is
unilaterally reinterpreting language contained in older Aetna
policies so as to avoid paying on asbestos claims. The company
continues to negotiate settlement agreements with other insurers,
where appropriate.

JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Pension Trust Suit for $23 Million
The Associated Press reports that JPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed
to pay $23 million to settle claims that it mishandled pension
fund money by investing with Lehman Brothers.

A court document filed on Aug. 16 shows that the New York bank
denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid
the burden, expense and distraction of litigation.  A U.S.
District Court must approve the settlement before it is final.

The lawsuit was filed by the Operating Engineers Pension Trust in
2009.  They claim JPMorgan handled its funds recklessly by
investing in notes issued by failed investment firm Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc.

Lehman's bankruptcy filing in September 2008 helped spark a credit
crisis that plunged the nation into its deepest recession since
the Great Depression.

A representative for JPMorgan did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Paul Geller, an attorney for the plaintiffs said in an email that,
"We are pleased with the resolution for our client and other class
members," but noted that the case still requires court approval.

LINNCO LLC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Aug. 19 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit on August 19, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased the publicly-traded
common stock of LinnCo, LLC pursuant or otherwise traceable to the
Company's October 12, 2012 initial public offering and/or between
October 12, 2012 and July 1, 2013, inclusive.

The action charges LinnCo and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
Complaint alleges that, in statements made throughout the Class
Period, including in offering documents filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Company's October 2012 IPO, LinnCo misrepresented its revenues,
earnings, and distributable cash flow ("DCF"), thereby
artificially inflating the price of LinnCo's stock.

LinnCo, based in Houston, Texas, is a limited liability company
whose sole purpose is to own units of Linn Energy, LLC, a master
limited partnership that is among the largest publicly traded oil
and natural gas production companies.  LinnCo has no substantial
operations or assets other than those related to the Company's
ownership interest in Linn Energy.  Consequently, the
organization, operation, and financial reporting of Linn Energy is
central to the value of LinnCo shares. Linn Energy and LinnCo
share the same executive management.

The Complaint alleges that the falsity of LinnCo's statements
during the Class Period was revealed through a series of
disclosures.  First, on Saturday, May 4, 2013, Barron's published
an article stating that Linn Energy "may be the country's most
overpriced large energy producer" and "has for years used
aggressive accounting to prettify its financial statements."  In
response to the claims in Barron's, LinnCo's share price fell
$3.32 per share, or 7.80 percent, on May 6, 2013.

Then, on Saturday, June 15, 2013, Barron's published another
article about Linn Energy's accounting, highlighting a recent
revelation by Linn Energy concerning the costs of Linn Energy's
hedging strategy, which had theretofore not been disclosed to
investors.  According to Barron's, "the expense [was]
significant." On this news, LinnCo's share price declined $1.69
per share, or 4.58 percent, to close at $35.17 per share on June
17, 2013.

Finally, on July 1, 2013, Linn Energy and LinnCo disclosed that
the SEC had opened an informal inquiry into Linn Energy and
LinnCo.  In particular, the SEC was probing Linn Energy's and
LinnCo's hedging strategy and use of non-GAAP financial measures.
In reaction to this development, LinnCo's share price fell
sharply, declining 6.17 per share, or 16.64 percent, to close at
$30.90 on July 2, 2013.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at:


If you purchased LinnCo common stock during the Class Period, you
may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than September 9, 2013.  A
lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
Class members.  You do not need to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about the lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709,
or via e-mail at ravan@labaton.com

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents
institutional investors in class action and complex securities
litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions
seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices.  The law
firm has offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware.

LINNCO LLC: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. on Aug. 19 disclosed
that a class action has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of LINN Energy, LLC units during the period between
February 25, 2010 and July 3, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 9, 2013.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates
Jr., Esq. at 1-800-391-5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by
e-mail.  Please visit http://yatesclassactionlaw.com

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

The complaint charges LINN and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged
material misrepresentations during the Class Period regarding the
true risk associated with the Company's ability to continue to
issue stable or increasing cash distributions.

On July 1, 2013, after the market closed, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the Securities and Exchange
Commission had commenced an informal inquiry and it "ha[d]
requested the preservation of documents and communications that
are potentially relevant to . . . . LINN's . . . use of non-GAAP
measures and hedging strategy." In reaction to this news, LINN
units fell $6.24 per unit, or nearly 19%, to close at $27.05 per
unit on July 2, 2013.  The next day, the price of LINN units fell
an additional $4.26 per unit, or nearly 16%, to close at $22.79
per unit on July 3, 2013.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
LINN units during the Class Period (the "Class").

The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders
for the following companies: Maidenform, Inc., Microsoft
Corporation, Nash Finch Co., Omnicom Group Inc., Saks
Incorporated, Sourcefire, Inc., and Tower Group International,

If you are a shareholder of any of the above companies and wish
learn more about any of the investigations or have any questions,
please contact Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164,
toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.  Please visit

MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Vacates Hearing in Securities Suits
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California vacated the hearing on motions to consolidate four
securities actions filed against Maxwell Technologies, Inc.,
according to the company's Aug. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against the company
and three of our current and former officers.

These actions are entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013),
Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686
(S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April
11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No.
13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013).

The complaints allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding our financial performance and
business prospects and overstated our reported revenue. The
complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The
complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees
and costs. On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed
motions to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead

On June 11, 2013, the Court vacated the hearing on those motions
and indicated that it would issue a written order in the near
future. At this preliminary stage, we cannot determine whether
there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred
nor can we estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, we
have not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with
this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse
impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Tenn. Victims Win New Avenue for Lawsuits
Tim McLaughlin, writing for Reuters, reported that victims in
Tennessee of a deadly U.S. meningitis outbreak won the right to
pursue a new avenue of litigation against healthcare facilities
and doctors there, after a ruling by a U.S. bankruptcy judge.

According to the report, Tennessee was the second hardest-hit
state, behind Michigan, in a meningitis outbreak that has injured
or killed more than 700 people nationwide.  There were about 65
healthcare facilities and doctors in Tennessee on the customer
list of New England Compounding Center, which U.S. authorities
said made and shipped the fungus-tainted steroid cited in the
deadly outbreak.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Henry J. Boroff declared NECC insolvent,
clearing the way for meningitis victims from Tennessee to file
product-liability claims against medical providers, health clinics
and other sellers of the tainted product, the report said.

Without the insolvency declaration, meningitis victims in
Tennessee would only have been able to pursue professional or
medical negligence claims, according to Tennessee law, the report

The winning motion was filed by lawyers representing Bertram
Walker Bryant Jr., a Tennessee man whose wife died from a steroid
injection she received at a medical center in Nashville, the
report said.

New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc., filed a Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 12-19882) in Boston on Dec. 21, 2012,
after a meningitis outbreak linked to an injectable steroid,
methylprednisolone acetate ("MPA"), manufactured by NECC, killed
39 people and sickened 656 in 19 states, though no illnesses have
been reported in Massachusetts.  The Debtor owns and operates the
New England Compounding Center is located in Framingham, Mass.  In
October 2012, the company recalled all its products, not just
those associated with the outbreak.

OHIO NORTHERN UNIV: Bartning Gets OK to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman granted Vincent Henry
Bartning's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 in his lawsuit against Ohio Northern

Judge Newman said "Plaintiff's application in support of his
request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by
28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(1)."

Mr. Bartning claims to be the CEO of the USA KIA/DOW Family
Foundation and asserts that he is currently obtaining a second
graduate degree at Regis University in Software Engineering. He
alleges that he completed his first year of law school at Ohio
Northern University after scoring in the top-25th percentile on
the LSAT, but that Ohio Northern University and the United States
Department of Education somehow discriminated against him based on
his age, sex, and other possible classifications.  Mr. Bartning
seeks a refund or forgiveness of all loans associated with the
first year of law school, cancelation of any further debt at Ohio
Northern University, and/or correction of his grades that resulted
in dismissal from the university.  He also suggests that he is
somehow attempting to bring a class action on behalf of members of
the USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation.

The case is VINCENT HENRY BARTNING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OHIO
NORTHERN UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-1540-MCE-KJN
PS, (E.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 7, 2013 Order and Findings
and Recommendations is available at http://is.gd/3lwCLGfrom

PENN STATE: Settlement of Sandusky Sexual Abuse Claims Begins
Amaris Elliott-Engel and Zack Needles, writing for The Legal
Intelligencer, report that a 25-year-old has settled with Penn
State for an undisclosed amount for the sexual abuse he
experienced at the age of 13 by convicted serial child molester
Jerry Sandusky in a shower, according to the plaintiff's lawyer,
Tom Kline -- Tom.Kline@KlineSpecter.com -- of Kline & Specter.

Meanwhile, seven other accusers have agreed to settlement of their
claims with Penn State over being abused by Mr. Sandusky,
according to Joel Feller, of Ross Feller Casey, the firm
representing those victims.

Mr. Kline, who represented a man known as Victim 5, said there was
a "direct causal link in the knowledge of [the late head football
coach Joe] Paterno, [former athletic director Tim] Curley, [former
vice president of business and finance Gary] Schultz, and
president of [Penn State] University [Graham] Spanier and their
failure to report" to law enforcement a prior incident that had
been reported to them by former assistant football coach
Mike McQueary, who also saw Sandusky in a shower with another
young victim.

There are 31 claims pending against Penn State for Mr. Sandusky's
alleged or confirmed abuse, with more than 15 lawyers representing

Earlier this summer, the Penn State board of trustees approved a
number around $60 million to settle a majority of the claims made
by people claiming Sandusky sexually abused them.

Penn State's lead negotiator has been Michael K. Rozen of Feinberg
Rozen in Washington, D.C., and New York.  The firm has worked on
such high-profile matters as the 9/11 victim fund and settlements
related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Mr. Rozen declined comment, but said he would not disagree with
the proposition that settlement agreements have gone out and that
only one has been returned with signatures.

Penn State is settling the claims without the participation of
their insurers, Mr. Kline said.  Settling the cases both
liquidates Penn State's damages and diminishes the exposure of the
university, Mr. Kline said, thus leaving Penn State in the
position to seek contribution from its insurers.

Further, Penn State in the Victim 5 case has agreed and other
victims in the other settlements may agree to not sue any other
defendants for Mr. Sandusky's abuse and to allow Penn State to
step into their shoes to sue Mr. Sandusky's former and now-closed
charity, The Second Mile, and its insurer, Mr. Kline said.

Mr. Kline said his understanding is that The Second Mile had
coverage as much as $3 million per year for each of the years in
which the claimants were abused.

PETROLEUM COS: Sued by Estate Over Quebec Train Disaster
Courthouse News Service reports that the estate of a woman killed
in the Quebec train disaster this summer has sued the railroad,
its CEO and various petroleum-transport companies.

The lawsuit is captioned: Pascal Charest v. Rail World Inc.; World
Fuel Services Corp.; Western Petroleum Co.

Last month, the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway train
derailed and crashed into a building killing 50 people.  Hundreds
of people were forced out of their homes in the hours following
the explosions.

PILOT FLYING J: Two Trucking Companies File Fuel Rebate Suit
Matthew Fondacaro, writing for The Jersey Journal, reports that
two North Bergen trucking companies have filed a lawsuit against a
national truck stop chain operated by the owner of the NFL's
Cleveland Browns, claiming the chain cheated them out of customer
loyalty rebates.

National Retail Transportation and Keystone Freight, both owned by
National Retail Systems of Hasbrouck Heights, joined more than a
dozen other trucking firms in its claims that Pilot Flying J
officials condoned and encouraged representatives to skim money
from trucking companies that bought diesel fuel from the
Tennessee-based company.

The lawsuit was filed in June, but was recently moved from state
Superior Court in Bergen County to federal court in Newark.  It is
among the flurry of lawsuits filed after FBI agents raided Pilot
Flying J's headquarters in April and the subsequent release of a
120-page affidavit detailing what the federal government called
rebate fraud.

Pilot Flying J owns the national truck stops Pilot and Flying J.
Owner of the Cleveland Browns, Jimmy Haslam, is CEO of the multi-
billion dollar private corporation that was founded by his father.

According to the lawsuit, Pilot Flying J and the two trucking
companies entered into a contract under which the trucking
companies would be granted a discount on diesel fuel in the form
of a monthly rebate.

The lawsuit claims that "executives, directors, principals, sales
agents, administrative staff conspired to reduce the amount of
payments made under the rebate program . . . to increase their

According to the federal affidavit, Pilot intentionally decreased
the amount rebated to truckers whom they believed to be
"unsophisticated" and would not detect the skimmed rebate.
The lawsuit says the North Bergen trucking companies are seeking
compensation for lost rebate money, damages, attorneys' fees and
related court costs.  An attorney for the firms would not comment
on how much is being sought in damages and lost rebates,

The USA Today newspaper reported that industry experts believe
Pilot Flying J may have cheated more than 20 trucking companies
out of millions of dollars.

According to published reports, Pilot Flying J has reached
settlement agreements with other trucking companies, including one
in Arkansas.  The settlement includes all rebates the companies
were denied of and an additional 6 percent in interest.

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls Iams & Eukanuba Dry Pet Food
Schuyler Velasco, writing for The Christian Science Monitor,
reports that parent company Procter & Gamble has issued a recall
of several lots of Iams and Eukanuba dry pet food that could be
contaminated with salmonella and were distributed nationwide.  So
far, no illnesses have been reported as a result of the recall.

"The affected product was distributed to select retailers across
the United States," a statement on the Food and Drug
Administration's recalls website reads.  "These products were made
during a 10-day window at a single manufacturing site.  P&G's
routine testing determined that some products made during this
timeframe have the potential for Salmonella contamination, No
other dry dog food, dry cat food, dog or cat canned wet food,
biscuits/treats or supplements are affected by this announcement."

The affected lots of food have "Best by" dates between Nov. 6,
2014, and Nov. 14, 2014.

Pet owners who have purchased one of the recalled products listed
below should throw it out and contact P&G at 800-208-0172 (Monday
to Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern time), or via website at
www.iams.com or www.eukanuba.com.  For specific lot numbers and
UPC codes, visit the announcement on the FDA's recalls website,
here. Photos of the food packages included can be seen here.

The Eukanuba dry dog food types include:

    Base Large Breed Mature Adult (15 and 30 pounds)
    Base Maintenance Mature Adult (30 pounds)
    Base Maintenance Puppy (5, 16.5, and 33-pound bags)
    Base Small Breed Adult (4 and 16 pound bags)
    Base Small Breed Puppy (4, 16, and 40 pounds)
    Breed Specific Boxer Adult (36 pounds)
    Breed Specific Chihuahua Adult (4 pound bags)
    Breed Specific Labrador Retriever Adult (36 pounds)
    Premium Performance 30/20 Adult (33 pounds)
    Professional Feeding Bag Small Breed Puppy (44 pounds)
    Weight Control Large Breed Adult (33 pounds).

The Iams dry dog food types include:

    Healthy Naturals Chicken Adult (2.9, 5, 13.3, and 25.7 pound
    Healthy Naturals Weight Control Adult (13.3 pounds)
    Premium Protection Chicken Adult (12.1 pounds)
    ProActive Health Large Breed Mature Adult (30 pounds)
    ProActive Health Large Breed Senior Plus (13.3 and 26.2
    ProActive Health Large Chunks Adult (15 pounds)
    ProActive Health Small Breed Adult (3.1, 5, and 13.3 pounds)
    ProActive Health Small Breed Puppy (5 pounds)

The Iams dry cat food types include:

    Healthy Naturals Chicken Adult (5 and 16 pounds)
    Healthy Naturals Weight Control Adult (5 pounds)
    ProActive Health Chicken Adult (3.2, 5.7, 10.8, and 17.4
    ProActive Health Chicken Kitten (3.2, 5.7, and 17.4 pounds)
    ProActive Health Digestive Care Adult (3,5, and 16 pounds)
    ProActive Health Hairball Adult (3.1, 5, 9.8, and 16 pounds)
    ProActive Health Hairball Mature Adult (5 pounds)
    ProActive Health Weight Control & Hairball Adult (2.9, 5, 5.5,
       9.8, and 16 pounds)
    ProActive Health Weight Control Adult (5, 9.8, and 16 pounds)
    Professional Feeding Bag Chicken Adult (33 pounds)

SEE'S COMPANY: Recalls Dark Chocolate Blueberries
See's Company of San Francisco is recalling all Dark Chocolate
Blueberries because it contains undeclared milk.  People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this

Product was distributed nationwide through See's Candies Retail
Shops, Licensees and Mail Order.  The product is sold bulk and
packaged at the shops in 8oz clear cellophane bags.  One illness
has been reported to date.  The product UPC is: 737666094479.
Pictures of the Products are available at:


The recall was initiated after a customer reported having an
allergic reaction to the product.  Subsequent investigation
indicates the label had milk omitted.

Consumers who have purchased Sees' Candies Dark Chocolate
Blueberries and are sensitive to milk are urged to return the
blueberries to the place of purchase for a full refund or
exchange.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-
800-789-7337 (Monday thru Friday, 8:30am to 4:30pm PDT).

SIRIUS XM: Sued for $100 Million in Class Suit by Musical Artists
Courthouse News Service reports Flo & Eddie (The Turtles) sued
Sirius XM Radio for $100 million, in a federal class action on
behalf of all musical artists whose copyrights were registered
before Feb. 15, 1972.

Eriq Gardner at Billboard.com reported early August that a new
proposed class action raises the theory that SiriusXM has
infringed millions of these older recordings from thousands of
song artists. Damages are alleged to be at least $100 million, but
for a company that last reported quarterly revenues of $940
million, the attorneys representing the plaintiff believe that
damage figure to be on the conservative side.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Flo & Eddie of The Turtles, the
iconic band whose hits include "Happy Together," "It Ain't Me
Babe" and "She'd Rather Be With Me."

The band has a history of bringing big cases, but the reason why
this lawsuit filed in L.A. Superior Court commands notice comes
down to the magical number of 1972.

February 15, 1972 is the exact moment in which sound recordings
began falling under federal copyright protection. For recorded
music created before then, the situation is a bit more murky. The
question this lawsuit addresses is what laws cover those

The complaint identifies claims for misappropriation, unfair
competition and conversion.  It also demands for a jury trial.

A copy of the complaint was shared by Billboard.com here:


The Plaintiff Flo & Eddie, Inc., is represented by:

     Henry Gradstein, Esq.
     Maryann R. Marzano, Esq.
     Robert E. Allen, Esq.
     6310 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 510
     Los Angeles, CA 90048
     Tel: 323-776-3100
     Fax: 323-931-4990
     E-mail: hgradstein@gradstein.com

          - and -

     Evan S. Cohen, Esq.
     1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 510
     Los Angeles, CA 90035
     Tel: 310-556-9800
     Fax: 310-556-9801
     E-mail: esc@manifesto.com

SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Recalls Sterile Products After Infections
Liz Szabo, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the Food and Drug
Administration has announced a voluntary nationwide recall of all
sterile products from a Texas compounding pharmacy, the latest in
a series of recalls since last year's outbreak of fungal

Fifteen patients at two Texas hospitals have developed bacterial
bloodstream infections after receiving injections from Specialty
Compounding from Cedar Park, Texas, the FDA said on Aug. 11.

The patients had received infusions of a mineral supplement called
calcium gluconate injections.  It can be used as part of treatment
for cardiac arrest, to treat calcium deficiency, or to treat very
high potassium levels.

The patients developed bacterial bloodstream infections caused by
an organism called Rhodococcus equi.

The FDA has stepped up inspections since last September's outbreak
of fungal meningitis, caused by steroid injections from the New
England Compounding Center in Massachusetts.  Those injections
caused a nationwide outbreak, which killed 63 people and sickened
749, with conditions ranging from abscesses to meningitis, a brain
inflammation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and

Compounding pharmacies have come under increased scrutiny since
that outbreak.  Although compounders traditionally made small
amounts of drug for individual patients, many compounding
pharmacies today function more like major manufacturers, shipping
thousands of products at a time.

"I am saddened to learn of yet another incident where patients
have been potentially harmed due to tainted drugs produced by a
compounder," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, in a statement.  "The
Senate has before it a unique opportunity to take bipartisan
action and improve the safety of compounded drugs.  I hope that
the Senate takes up and passes the bipartisan Pharmaceutical
Quality, Security, and Accountability Act as soon as possible so
that the FDA and state boards of pharmacy can have the guidance
necessary to carry out their work to protect all Americans."

The legislation would improve the safety of compounded drugs,
Sen. Harkin said, by clarifying how much oversight authority is
held by state and federal authorities.  The bill would also
protect the nation's drug supply chain, he said, by establishing a
uniform, national prescription drug-tracing framework.  The bill
was approved by a Senate committee in May and is now pending
consideration by the full Senate.

Recent recalls include:

     * Earlier this month, Illinois-based Nexus Pharmaceuticals
voluntarily recalled two lots of another injectable drug,
benztropine mesylate, used in the treatment of Parkinson's
disease.  The recall occurred after visible particles were
discovered in the injections.

     * In July, Beacon Hill Medical Pharmacy of Michigan recalled
certain products after questions were raised about their

     * In June, Illinois-based Fresenius Kabi USA recalled four
lots of benztropine mesylate Injection due to the potential
presence of glass particles in the vials.

No illnesses were linked to these three recalls.

According to CBS News' Ryan Jaslow, Specialty Compounding, LLC of
Cedar Park, Texas is recalling all lots of its unexpired sterile
medications that have been dispensed since May 9, 2013 in all
strengths and doses after at least 15 people at two Texas
Hospitals developed bacterial infections.

According to CBS News, the Texas hospitals affected so far are
Corpus Christi Medical Center Bay Area and Corpus Christi Medical
Center Doctors Regional, according to the company.  The patients
had received intravenous (IV) infusions of calcium gluconate, a
drug used to treat calcium deficiencies and patients with too much
potassium in the blood.

The infection implicated in these cases, a bloodstream infection
caused by Rhodococcus bacteria, can cause symptoms like fever and

Recalled products were sent directly to hospitals and doctors'
offices in Texas but also to patients nationwide in all states
except North Carolina.  Customers have been notified of the
recall, the company said, and anyone with products should
immediately stop using them and return them.  They can contact
Specialty Compounding at (512) 219-0724 Monday through Friday,
between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CDT.

"Because of the potential association between the hospital-based
infections and sterile compounded medications produced by
Specialty Compounding, we are voluntarily recalling all sterile
products out of an abundance of caution," Ray Solano, RPh,
pharmacist in charge at Specialty Compounding, said in a statement
posted on the FDA's website.  "We deeply regret the impact this
recall has on our patients and the hospitals that we serve, but
patient safety must always be our first concern."

In March, FDA investigators visited the Cedar Park facility and
found questionable testing practices and a lack of some procedures
in place to establish drug sterility, according to an FDA "483"
document detailing the investigation.  For example, investigators
found improper clothing for people processing drugs and inadequate
testing of drugs to make sure the product is free of objectionable

Last year, an outbreak of fungal infections including meningitis
were linked to contaminated drugs made at the compounding pharmacy
the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass.  About 750
people in 20 states were sickened, including 63 deaths.  The
infections were linked to more than 17,600 doses of
methylprednisolone acetate steroid injections used to treat back
and joint pain that were shipped to 23 states.  FDA investigators
last Oct. found mold and fungal contamination in vials of the
drugs, and areas used to prepare sterile drugs at the facility.

Lawsuits have been filed by some affected patients.

In April, a new Senate bill aimed at tighter regulations for the
drug compounding industry was proposed.  The FDA had previously
called for more regulatory powers of these drug mixing pharmacies,
which typically fall under state regulation.

TELLABS INC: Asks Illinois Court to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
Tellabs, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
suit filed against it in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's Aug. 1,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2013.

Mahmood Alizadeh v. Tellabs, Inc., et al. and Lawrence Sasala v.
Tellabs, Inc., et al.  Beginning on January 23, 2013, two
purported stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, against Tellabs, Inc. and certain of our former officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The lawsuits were consolidated and the court appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on June 3, 2013, which purports to bring claims on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between June 9, 2010, and April 26, 2011.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's revenues and prospects, and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 24, 2013. The Company
believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the
actions vigorously.

TORRENT PHARMA: Recalls Anti-Psychotic Drug Over Packaging Defect
Jayati Ghose, writing for The Financial Express, reports that
packaging defect prompts recall of Torrent Pharma's anti-psychotic
drug in US The US Food and Drug Administration has asked Torrent
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to recall a batch of anti-psychotic drugs --
Olanzapine tablets of 10 mg -- citing defects in its packaging.
The medicines are used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar
disorders.  This is the latest case of drug recall for an Indian
company; in June, Sun Pharma was asked to withdraw some lots of
Nimodine capsules from the US since the capsules were turning into
crystals.  Nimodine helps treat brain haemorrhage.

"This action is being taken as a precautionary measure due to the
product being re-packaged in the US using a filler material that
(removes or blocks) less moisture than what is approved in the
application," the FDA enforcement report said.  The Ahmedabad-
based pharmaceutical major had launched its generic olanzapine
orally-disintegrating tablets in the US in 2011 after FDA
approval.  Referring to a particular lot (BS392004A, expiry
9/2014) of the drug, the report said that this was a firm
initiated voluntary recall.

In June, the UK drugs regulator MHRA had asked Wockhardt to recall
16 medicines from pharmacies and wholesalers after it found
deficiencies in manufacturing procedures at the company's Waluj
plant.  Earlier, the FDA had also imposed an "import alert" on the
same plant.  In May, Glenmark Generics, a subsidiary of Glenmark
Pharmaceuticals, had also made voluntary recall of multiple lots
of three of its drugs from the US market due to "odd smell",
according to USFDA. Last

November, the FDA asked Dr. Reddy's Laboratories to recall a batch
of anti-psychotic drug quetiapine fumarate tablets of 25 mg, which
failed dissolution test requirements.

Torrent's Olanzapine is a generic version of Elli Lilly's
blockbuster drug Zyprexa, which had $3.2-billion US sales as on
September 2011.  The innovator drug went off-patent in
October 2011.  Analysts said the market size for the generic
version for the drug was currently $360 million.

Torrent produced the specific batch of Olanzapine at its Indrad
facility in Gujarat for US-based Prasco Laboratories, the
enforcement report said.  Torrent has a significant presence in
the gastrointestinal, anti-infective, anti-diabetics and pain
management segments, according to its website.  Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories, Sun Pharmaceuticals and Jubilant Lifesciences are
other Indian pharma players who sell Olanzapine tablets in the US
market.  Torrent Pharma reported a 44% rise in its net profit and
a 27% increase in revenues in Q1FY14, saying its US business grew
by 43% y-o-y.

TOYS 'R' US: Motion to Dismiss Smith-Wheeler Suit Denied
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied, without prejudice,
a motion to dismiss, transfer or stay the proceedings in NAKIA
SMITH and CINDA WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYS 'R' US-DELAWARE, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 1:13-CV-00254-AWI-
JLT, (E.D. Cal.).

Judge Ishii held that the Defendant may renew its motion after the
Plaintiffs' proposed class has been certified.

A copy of the District Court's August 6, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/u18Uzxfrom Leagle.com.

Nakia Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann --
cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- at Ackermann & Tilajef, PC, Michael
Malk -- MM@malklawfirm.com -- at Michael Malk, Esq., Apc & Nancy
Villarreal -- Nancy.Villarreal@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson
Lewis LLP.

Cinda Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann,
Ackermann&Tilajef, Nancy Villarreal, Jackson Lewis LLP & Michael
Malk, Michael Malk, Esq., Apc.

Toys 'R' Us-Delaware, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Yuda
Siegel -- siegela@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis LLP, Mia
Farber -- FarberM@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis Llp & Nancy
Villarreal, Jackson Lewis LLP.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Moves to Strike Evidence of Accelerator Software Bug
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Toyota Motor Corp. has moved to strike evidence from a
software expert who claims to have identified a bug in the
electronic throttle control system source code that plaintiffs
attorneys blame for unintended acceleration by Toyota vehicles.

Michael Barr, who specializes in embedded software programming,
was deposed on July 3 in as a plaintiffs expert in the first
bellwether trial of hundreds of cases pending in federal court in
Santa Ana, Calif.  The case, scheduled to go to trial on
November 5, was brought by the estate of Ida St. John, 83, who
suffered back injuries after her 2005 Camry accelerated while at a
stop sign.

Toyota moved on August 9 to strike Mr. Barr's report, arguing that
plaintiffs attorneys were merely attempting to improperly assert a
new defect theory.  Plaintiffs attorney Todd Walburg --
twalburg@lchb.com -- in an August 14 response, insisted that Mr.
Barr was merely supplementing his own testimony and that of
another expert.

"Plaintiff's source code experts have located the software bug in
Toyota's electronic throttle control system source code that
explains why Mrs. Ida St. John's 2005 Toyota Camry accelerated
out-of-control from a stop sign," Mr. Walburg wrote.  "This
software bug likely also explains the numerous other reported
Unintended Acceleration incidents that have initiated at low
speeds and when drivers are parking or stopped at an

A hearing on Toyota's motion was scheduled for August 20.

The bellwether case, selected by Toyota to go before a jury,
alleges that St. John's vehicle accelerated on April 15, 2009,
while at a stop sign in Columbus, Ga. St. John allegedly hit the
brakes, but the car sped toward an elementary school, where it
crashed into the gymnasium.  Her grandson, William Curtis Grasty
Jr., filed an amended complaint after she died last year.

In its motion, Toyota attorney Joel Smith --
joel.smith@bowmanandbrooke.com -- managing partner of the
Columbia, S.C., office of Bowman and Brooke, wrote that Mr. Barr's
report is an attempt by plaintiffs attorneys to explain how the
throttle valve of St. John's vehicle opened beyond the idle angle
without admitting that she hit the accelerator pedal accidentally.
Mr. Barr and other experts previously had been unable to explain
the alleged software glitch, referred to for the first time last
month as the "full throttle bug."

"Plaintiff's late submission of Barr's new opinions in his August
2, 2013, report is yet one more change in direction for
Plaintiff's ever illusive, moving target of a defect theory,"
Mr. Smith wrote.  "Plaintiff cannot dress new opinions in the
disguise of 'supplemental' disclosures by claiming that Barr's
August 2, 2013, report merely provides a name to a general concept
allegedly contained in Barr's initial report."  He added: "The
changes to Barr's opinion are not substantially justified or
harmless, especially given the highly complex nature of this

Toyota also has filed a motion for summary judgment under seal.

Mr. Walburg, a partner at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein, insisted that this month's report merely supplements
Mr. Barr's initial findings, submitted on April 12, and expands on
an electronic defect theory that has long been part of the case.

"This is not a new argument, and it should not be a foreign
concept to Toyota," he wrote.  "As Toyota is well aware, the
existence of a software defect in Mrs. St. John's 2005 Camry will
be a central issue for the jury to decide in this bellwether

Both sides have moved to strike the testimony of more than a dozen
additional experts; a hearing on those motions is scheduled for
September 20.

Toyota is in trial now in another bellwether case in coordinated
state court litigation in California, alleging that Toyota failed
to install a brake override system that would have prevented
Noriko Uno's 2006 Camry from sudden accelerating on a residential
street in Upland, Calif.  A Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior
Court jury began hearing the case, brought by the husband and son
of Uno, who died from the 2009 crash, on August 8.

Two other trials against Toyota are scheduled this year in state
courts in Oklahoma and Michigan; Mr. Barr was deposed in both of
them on August 2, according to court records.

WESTLAND MILK: Faces Lactofferin Powder Contamination Problem
The Associated Press reports that New Zealand's dairy industry
faces another contamination problem following a recent botulism

The Westland Milk Products company said on Aug. 19 that some of
the lactoferrin powder it exported to China was found to have high
levels of nitrate.  The company said all 390 kilograms (860
pounds) of contaminated product have been located and quarantined.

Chief Executive Rod Quin said in a statement it appears that
cleaning products containing nitrates were not properly flushed
from its factory.  He said the contamination didn't pose a health
risk because lactoferrin, an iron-binding protein used in food
supplements, is a minor ingredient in the final products that are
sold to consumers.

New Zealand company Fonterra sparked a global recall of infant
formula made with its ingredients this month after tests found a
bacteria that can cause botulism.

WPX ENERGY: Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment Ruling
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued
its opinion on the Western States Antitrust Litigation,
reversing the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants,
according to WPX Energy Inc.'s Aug. 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the company and others,
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. The company is currently a
defendant in class action litigation and other litigation
originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers
of natural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to
the federal court in Nevada.

In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case
in favor of WPX Energy and most of the other defendants based on
plaintiffs' lack of standing. On January 8, 2009, the court denied
the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the Colorado
dismissal and entered judgment in WPX Energy's favor. When a final
order is entered against the one remaining defendant, the Colorado
plaintiffs may appeal the order.

On July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX Energy's
joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs'
state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the
FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues.  The court
also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.

The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on the Western States Antitrust
Litigation.  The panel held that the Natural Gas Act does not
preempt the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims, reversing the
summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants.  The panel
further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend complaints.

The Ninth Circuit granted an order staying the mandate for a
period of 90 days pending defendants' consideration of whether to
file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme

"Because of the uncertainty around pending unresolved issues,
including an insufficient description of the purported classes and
other related matters, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposures at this time," WPX Energy said.

* Gender Discrimination Cases Growing in Tech Industry
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that Vivek Wadhwa
wears many hats in Silicon Valley.  He is a fellow at Stanford
Law.  He's founded two software companies.  And he's a VP at
Singularity University on NASA's research campus, which brings
together innovators, scientists and philanthropists to collaborate
on world problems.  He's also the Valley's critic-in-chief when it
comes to the lack of diversity.

As a board member of one Valley company, "I noticed that they had
all males on their development team," he recounted.  So
Mr. Wadhwa, an Indian-born U.S. citizen in his 50s who has written
extensively on bias in the hiring practices at tech firms,
threatened to quit if they didn't bring on women and minorities.

"It's the dark secret," he said.  "There's a problem with age
discrimination, sex discrimination.  And there's a problem with
blacks and Latinos being left out."

"I'm a big cheerleader of Silicon Valley," Mr. Wadhwa added.  "But
there's a problem here."

Employment suits are up in Silicon Valley -- and discrimination
cases are the fastest-growing slice.  Last year, the region got a
wake-up call when VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers was
slapped with a sex discrimination suit that shined an unflattering
light on the Valley's employment practices.  And Sheryl Sandberg's
bestseller "Lean In" has reportedly inspired a wave of demand
letters from female tech employees.

Plaintiffs lawyers say they see the industry's lack of diversity
as fertile ground for litigation, especially against younger
companies where rookie execs may ride roughshod over employment
laws in their rush from start-up to industry behemoth.

"We've seen these tech companies play fast and loose with the
rules," said Gary Gwilliam of Oakland-based plaintiffs firm
Gwilliam Ivary Chiosso Cavalli & Brewer.  "I think a lot of these
companies don't have good human resource practices . . . They
haven't crossed their t's and dotted their i's."

Defense attorneys take a softer view, insisting self-selection
among job candidates, not bias, is the principal explanation for
relatively low numbers of women and older workers in the labor
force at technology companies.

Rising employment litigation against tech firms doesn't
necessarily indicate illegal behavior, argued Kim Stone, president
of the Civil Justice Association of California, or CJAC -- a tort-
reform group founded, in part, by a group of Silicon Valley tech
and venture capital executives.

"My hunch is that lawyers are like gas," said Stone. "They expand
to fill the space.  When there's a growing business, there's going
to be a number of lawyers filing lawsuits."

                            Leaning In

Employment suits against tech firms roughly doubled in California
between 2000 and 2012, according to data collected by a Thomson
Reuters litigation monitoring service.  That mirrors an overall
surge in employment suits across the private sector.

But during that period, the growth in employment complaints
premised on discrimination outpaced other types of claims and now
makes up the largest category of employment suits against tech

San Francisco employment lawyer Alan Exelrod, who represents Ellen
Pao in her 2012 sexual harassment and sexual discrimination suit
against former employer Kleiner Perkins, says gender
discrimination is at the forefront of litigation exposure for
technology companies.

"Sex discrimination is the bigger problem," said Mr. Exelrod, a
partner at Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, adding that he's seeing
more claims for state and federal maternity and disability leave.

Since Ms. Pao's suit, female employees at other Valley venture
capital firms -- Pantheon Ventures and CMEA Capital -- filed their
own suits alleging sex discrimination.

More recently, Facebook exec Sheryl Sandberg's bestselling book,
"Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead," has already been
credited with spurring demand letters from female tech workers who
allege they were unfairly denied promotions.

"Despite the tremendous success of a few women in tech, the sad
truth is that it is an industry plagued by gender stereotyping and
bias," said Kelly Dermody -- kdermody@lchb.com -- a partner at
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.  "It may be a relatively new
and undeniably innovative sector, but it has remained remarkably
traditional in terms of maintaining an old-style gender glass
ceiling and in underpaying women."

While tech sector employment records are hard to come by, publicly
available data points to a gender gap.  In 2012, female software
developers comprised only 20 percent of their occupation and made
18 percent less than their male counterparts, according to an
analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the Institute for
Women's Policy Research.

Ms. Dermody chairs the employment practice group at Lieff
Cabraser, which has brought large class actions against some of
the region's tech titans.  In January, the San Francisco-based
firm filed a class action against Hewlett-Packard Co. over
allegations that the company misclassified thousands of its
technical workers to avoid paying overtime wages.

And if a federal judge in San Jose certifies the 60,000-member
class of workers once employed by Apple, Intel, Google and other
Silicon Valley firms in a case targeting so-called "no-poach"
agreements, Ms. Dermody could represent one of the largest classes
of employees to ever sue the tech industry.

Ms. Dermody has praised Ms. Sandberg's book, saying it offered
tech companies a teachable moment to increase diversity and
business advancement for women in the workplace.  But she's not
expecting the industry to change course on sex discrimination.

"I have no reason to believe the problem will be resolved any time
soon," she said.

But Sedgwick partner James Brown says the stereotype of an
industry rife with sex discrimination is overblown.

"I haven't seen that gender imbalance," said Mr. Brown, who co-
chairs Sedgwick's employment and labor law group.  "I just don't
see it as a heightened risk."

Mr. Brown said he sees more traditional employment issues like
employees mislabeled as independent contractors, workers wrongly
classified as exempt, and unenforceable non-compete contracts as
more pressing employment problems for tech companies than sex and
racial or ethnic discrimination.  That's particularly true at
startups, he said, which "don't want to spend the money" on
employment law counsel.

                             Aging Out

Mr. Brown takes a different view of age bias in the technology
industry.  There, he concedes, the industry faces "heightened
risk."  In 2010, the California Supreme Court reversed summary
judgment on Google's behalf in a case filed by 54-year-old
employee Brian Reid who alleged that he was fired due to age bias.
As evidence of discrimination, Mr. Reid said a supervisor and
other employees often made derogatory age-related comments,
calling him an "old man" and an "old fuddy-duddy."  While a lower
court called those comments insufficient grounds for proving a
company's actual bias, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that
those "stray remarks", though uttered by non-decision making
employees, could be evidence of discrimination. The case later
settled for an undisclosed amount.

"The takeaway from Reid v. Google is watch the remarks at work and
how you treat people over 40," said Charles Louderback of the
Louderback Group.  "You have to be careful how you treat those

The San Francisco attorney, who represents parties on both sides
of employment litigation, said the industry is "ripe for age
discrimination cases" and Mr. Reid will likely make it harder for
companies to get those claims dismissed.  Moreover, the holding
could carry over into other types of discrimination cases, he

But to Orrick's Joe Liburt -- jliburt@orrick.com -- whose Valley
clients include Apple Inc., Mr. Reid is less sweeping.

"Even if the plaintiff submits evidence of a remark by a non-
decision maker, the employee still has to show that the remark
influenced whatever decision the plaintiff is challenging," said
Mr. Liburt.  Plaintiffs must also show that decision makers acted
with discriminatory intent, he said.

Recent Supreme Court decisions, including Wal-Mart v. Dukes, favor
employers and make employment class actions more expensive for
plaintiffs, Mr. Liburt said.

One plaintiffs lawyer concedes the point, estimating the outlay
from complaint to class certification has swollen from about
$500,000 to more than seven figures.  But plaintiffs attorneys
also say the greater cost is a negligible consideration for big
firms with the resources for playing the long game.

Mr. Liburt insists any under-representation of women and older
workers points to a highly specialized and self-selecting labor
pool, not discrimination.

There's data to back him up.  Although 57 percent of those
receiving undergraduate degrees in 2010 were female, women made up
only 18 percent of computer and information science degrees that
year, states a report by the National Center for Women and
Information Technology.  The center also reports that the number
of first-year undergraduate women interested in computer science
fell by 79 percent between 2000 and 2011.

But if the industry has nothing to hide, asks Mr. Wadhwa, why
won't it share its statistics?

"I want companies to disclose the data publicly," he said.  "They
should be disclosing gender stats on how many applications they've
received and how many they hired."

Mr. Wadhwa, 56, said he didn't have to resign from the board of
the tech start-up as he threatened earlier this year.  The company
has since hired "a couple women, but they're not software
developers," he said.  "They've complained they don't have enough
female applicants."

Mr. Wadhwa's response: "I told them to find them."

* Medical Malpractice Payouts Continue to Shrink in US
David Wenner, writing for PennLive.com, reports that medical
malpractice payouts continue to shrink in the United States,
according to a report from Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-
based organization.

Meanwhile, separate data from Pennsylvania courts shows a major
decline in medical malpractice lawsuits from a decade ago.

Public Citizen contends it's important to highlight the drop,
given that some congressional Republicans continue to cite medical
malpractice payouts as a major driver of health care costs, and
argue that limits are needed.

Public Citizen said the latest national figures show medical
malpractice payouts and malpractice insurance premiums account for
barely one-half of one percent of the nation's health care bill.

The organization also says the $3.1 billion in malpractice awards
paid on behalf of doctors in 2012 is the lowest since 1998, and
the lowest on record when adjusted for inflation.

"Medical malpractice payments continue to fall and health care
costs continue to rise.  It doesn't take a math whiz to determine
they are not correlated," Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen said in a
news release.

Still, in an interview, Public Citizen spokesman Taylor Lincoln
acknowledged the payout figures only include payouts on behalf of
doctors, not hospitals, which are often the subject of medical
malpractice lawsuits.

While there's a national database pertaining to malpractice
payouts involving doctors, there's no similar source of data on
hospitals, he said.  He said Public Citizen would love to have
such data, and he suggested the public should press legislators to
make it available.

Also, Lincoln said the figures related to insurance premiums,
which are from A.M. Best, reflect premiums of both doctors and

If those figures are at the lowest point in a decade, it stands to
reason payouts on behalf of hospitals also have fallen, he said.

The figures on Pennsylvania medical malpractice lawsuits come from
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

According to those figures, there were 1,508 medical malpractice
lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania in 2012, down from 1,675 in 2011;
and down from an average of 2,733 in 2000-2002.

That amounts to 44.8 percent drop compared to the 2000-2002
average.  The state court system, which compiles and publishes the
numbers, compares the newest figures to 2000-2002 because that was
right before a set of legal reforms in Pennsylvania intended to
weed out frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

Still, the Hospital & Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania
contends medical malpractice lawsuits remain a serious problem.

Martin Ciccocioppo, HAP's vice president of research, pointed out
there were three malpractice jury awards that topped $10 million
in 2012.

"The looming problem in Pennsylvania is there is no limitation on
what a jury can award in terms of pain and suffering and that's
the wildcard that every (health care) provider lives in fear of,"
he said.

Mr. Ciccocioppo said fear of being sued causes doctors to order
unnecessary tests which drive up health care costs.

He also noted a state-run fund called MCARE, which helps pay
malpractice awards that exceed the $500,000 per incident state law
requires doctors and hospitals to carry, paid out $196 million in
2012, up from $170 million the previous year.

Still, those figures are well below the $379 million the fund paid
out in 2003, according to figures from the Pennsylvania Insurance
Department. Since then, the low was $146 million in 2010.

Many of the medical malpractice lawsuits filed in a given year are
thrown out or settled before going to a jury. Others take years to
reach a jury.

In Pennsylvania in 2012, there were 135 jury verdicts, with nearly
80 percent being decided in favor of the doctor or hospital. Of
the 28 that resulted in a payout, 14 were for $500,000 or less;
two were for $500,000 to $1 million; seven were for $1 million to
$5 million; two were for $5 million to $10 million; and three
topped $10 million, according to figures compiled by the court

Another three cases were decided by non-jury trial, resulting in
one payout that was $500,000 or less.

Here are some figures on medical malpractice lawsuit filing in
central Pennsylvania counties:

Berks County: 26 medical malpractice lawsuits in 2012; up from 22
in 2011;

Cumberland County: 20 in 2012, down from 27 in 2011;

Dauphin County: 34 in 2012, down from 51 in 2011;

Lancaster County: 35 in 2012, up from 26 in 2011;

Lebanon County: 3 in 2012, down from 11 in 2011;

York County: 16 in 2012, the same as in 2011.

Public Citizen contends changes in state laws restricting
patients' legal rights are responsible for the decline in
lawsuits.  It says studies show that between one-in-four and one-
in-seven patients sustain unexpected injury of death.

In Pennsylvania, hospitals are required to report "serious events"
to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority, a state agency.
Serious events are unexpected injuries and deaths related to
medical care.

About 8,000 serious events were reported to the Patient Safety
Authority in 2012.

The Patient Safety Authority is part of the medical malpractice-
related reforms passed in 2002.  The purpose is to collect reports
on serious events and near-misses to figure out ways to prevent
them.  The actual incident reports are kept confidential, so that
mistakes can be studied without hospitals and doctors having to
fear admitting the mistake will result in a lawsuit.

Another change made in 2002 requires an independent doctor to
certify a lawsuit has merit before it can be filed.

* Political Groups Introduce Class Action Bill in Russia
The Moscow Times reports that a new law introducing class action
lawsuits to Russia has been propelled ahead by powerful political
groups, despite businesses' worries that it will encourage a slew
of unfounded legal claims.

On Aug. 19, representatives of the Economic Development Ministry,
the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service, the Justice Ministry and NGOs
discussed a draft of the bill, Vedomosti reported.

The State Duma is expected to review the bill in September,
meaning it could go into force as early as 2014.

A version of the law was developed by the Justice Ministry more
than a year ago as part of the "road map" to encourage economic
competition, but it has since been taken up and redrafted by
President Putin's All-Russia People's Front.

The proposal follows the American model, which enables groups with
the same grievance against a corporation to sue collectively in a
single case, ideally allowing disadvantaged groups to protect
their rights and shared interests.

One legal obstacle is that Russia's Constitutional Court has
outlawed "contingency fees" (shares in the final settlement) as
recompense for lawyers, though this is the typical form of payment
for class action lawsuits abroad.

Another outstanding question is whether or not the law would allow
potential plaintiffs to opt-out of the lawsuit, a provision which
individuals in the USA can use if they believe their grievances
outweigh those of the collective lawsuit and warrant a separate

The current draft has not yet resolved the question of opt-outs
but enables contingency fees, All-Russia People's Front co-chair
Alexander Galushka said.

Lawyers expect that the threat of a class-action lawsuit would
compel most companies to reach settlements prior to trial.


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *