CAR_Public/140121.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 14

                             Headlines


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces "Hosino" Suit Over Network Security Breach
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 23,000 Lawnmowers Due to Laceration Hazard
ANGIE'S LIST: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Indiana
ATLAS ROOFING: Suit Over Defective Shingles Removed to Georgia
AURORA LOAN: Faces "Haney" Suit Alleging Fraud in California

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Antitrust Suit Related to Aggrenox
DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY: Removes "Thomas" Suit to C.D. Cal. Court
DR HORTON: NRLB Ruling May Spell End of Employment Class Actions
FARMERS INSURANCE: Removes "Shipp" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
FCOA LLC: Removes "Keller" Suit to Western District of Arkansas

FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Elk River Chemical Spill
HOLIDAY ISLAND: Jan. 21 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
INTEGRATED TECHNIQUE: "Garcia" Suit Removed to W.D. Florida
INTEL CORP: Seeks Dismissal of No-Poaching Class Action
JD HOMES: Central Valley Tenants File Class Action

MASIMO CORP: Class Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Facsimiles
MATAMOROS MEAT: Do Not Pay Hourly Employees Overtime, Suit Says
MONRO MUFFLER: Sued by Technicians Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Settlement Fails to Get Prelim. Okay
NET1: Faces Securities Class Action in US Over SASSA Contract

NEW JERSEY: Six Bergen Residents Sue Governor Over GWB Scandal
NMI RETIREMENT: Parties in Johnson's Suit Urged to Work With Judge
NTN DRIVESHAFT: Faces "Hartford" Suit Over Overtime Calculation
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Filed Motion to Dismiss Calif. Antitrust Suit
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Removed Suit to N.D. Illinois Court

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Orbitz LLC Faces Lawsuit in Circuit Court
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Arkansas Court Denied Appeal v. Class Cert.
PASSMORE TOWING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
PHILIPS ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls 5,500 Stage Light Barndoors
PINNACLE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

PIONEER ENERGY: Sued by Oil Field Workers Over Unpaid OT Wages
PREMIER FLEET: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
RAYMOND'S TACOS: Failed to Pay Overtime Premium, Class Claims
RSI HOME: Recalls Bathroom Medicine Cabinets Due to Injury Hazard
SEARS HOLDINGS: Recalls 42,500 Kenmore Oscillating Fan Heaters

SOUTHEAST COMMERCIAL: Accused of Violating FLSA in Louisiana
SITEL WORLDWIDE: Settled Debt Collection Practices Suit for $180K
ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY: Feb. 26 Hearing Set for Class Action
STATE FARM: Removes "Dennington" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
TARGET CORP: Faces "Gaizo" Class Suit Over Customer Data Theft

TARGET CORP: To Swiftly Address Data Breach Problem, CEO Says
TIER REIT: Still Faces Securities Litigation in Texas Court
TITEFLEX CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Gastite Class Action
UNDER ARMOUR: Recalls 62 Infant Sports Jersey Kits
VERISK ANALYTICS: Argument to Certify Suit v. Intellicorp Heard

VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Faces Suit Over FCRA "Violations"
VERISK ANALYTICS: Court Approves Settlement of Lawsuits v. iiX
VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Colo. Suit by Fraud Detection Employees
VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Lawsuit by Former Mortgage Auditor
VERMINTS: Settles Vermont's Suit Over Mislabeled Products

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Consumers May Suffer If Class Action Ruling Upheld
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Challenge Dismissal
XPO LOGISTICS: 3PD Sued Over "Misclassification" of Employees

* Class Action Threat May Slow M&A Transactions in India
* Study Finds Lack of Class Action Settlement Payment Data


                             *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces "Hosino" Suit Over Network Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Hosino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, Case No. 4:14-cv-00014-DMR
(N.D. Cal., January 2, 2014) is brought for damages, injunctive
relief, and other equitable remedies, resulting from the alleged
illegal actions of Adobe Systems Incorporated and its related
entities in failing to secure and protect its users' personal
information provided to the Defendant, which encompasses e-mail
addresses, passwords, credit and debit card numbers, expiration
dates, and mailing and billing addresses.

Despite assuring its users that it will provide them with
"reasonable administrative, technical, and physical security
controls" in handling its users' information, the security
standards employed by the Defendant have resulted in breaches of
its networks and software, Ms. Hosino asserts.  On October 3,
2013, Adobe made public its largest and most wide-reaching
security breach.

Adobe Systems Incorporated is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in San Jose, California.  Adobe is a self-proclaimed global leader
in digital marketing and digital media solutions whose software
allows its customers, who the Company identifies as including
creative professionals, publishers, developers, and businesses, to
create digital content and deploy it across media and devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq.
          Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
          ORSHANSKY AND YEREMIAN LLP
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1245
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 205-1212
          E-mail: anthony@oyllp.com
                  justin@oyllp.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 23,000 Lawnmowers Due to Laceration Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Honda Motor Company, of Torrance, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 20,800 Honda brand in U.S. and 48
Columbia brand lawnmowers in U.S. and 3,000 in Canada Walk-behind
21" lawnmowers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The engine stop switch can malfunction allowing the blade to
continue to rotate after the handlebar blade control lever is
released, which poses a laceration hazard.

Honda has received 11 reports of the lawnmower's blade continuing
to rotate after the handlebar control lever was released.  No
injuries were reported.

The recall involves two Honda models and one Columbia brand
electric start lawnmowers with Honda engines and 21" cutting
blades.  The Honda lawnmowers are red and silver (HRR) and red and
gray (HRX).  Both have "Honda" on the engine cover.  The model and
serial numbers are located on the certification label that is
affixed to the cutter housing deck behind the engine.  Honda
recalled lawnmowers are:

   Honda Models           Serial Number Range
   ------------           -------------------
   HRR2169VLA           MZCG-8764914  ~  MZCG-8824353
   HRX2174VLA           MAGA-2255148  ~  MAGA-2260227

The Columbia brand lawnmower, model number 12ALD33Q897, comes in
orange and black.  "Honda" is printed on the engine cover.  The
Honda engine serial number is located on a label on the back of
the engine.  It is also stamped into the engine block adjacent to
the oil filler cap/dipstick.  A range of affected Honda engines
installed in Columbia brand lawnmowers sold in the U.S. follows:

   Columbia Model          Honda Engine Serial Number Range
   --------------          --------------------------------
   1A313KC0835           GJARA 3641724  through  GJARA 3642215

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/EIif5Z

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Honda
brand lawnmowers at Honda Power Equipment dealers and Home Depot
stores nationwide from January 2013 through December 2013 for
between $580 and $780.  Columbia brand lawnmowers were sold at
Beaver Valley Supply, Denver, Colo; Lawn Equipment Parts Co, Inc.,
Marietta, Penn. and at Smiths South-Central Sales Co., Spring
Hill, La. from January  2013 through December 2013 for $500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lawnmowers.
Honda model owners should contact a Honda Power Equipment dealer
to schedule a free repair.  Columbia model owners should contact a
Honda Engine dealer to schedule a free repair.  American Honda is
contacting all registered customers directly.


ANGIE'S LIST: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 9 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Angie's List, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of Indiana, and docketed under 14-cv 0023LJM-MJD, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Angie's List securities between
February 14, 2013 and October 23, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Angie's List securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 24, 2014 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Angie's List, Inc. operates a consumer-driven solution for its
members to research, hire, rate, and review local professionals
for home, health care, and automotive service needs.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Angie's List had increased its
reliance on providing free memberships in order to artificially
boost its subscriber figures; (ii) that contrary to Angie's List's
repeated Class Period statements that the online reviews were
unbiased because Angie's List did not permit service providers to
buy ratings on its website, the Company was consistently deriving
more than half of its revenues from the service provider side of
its business -- where it relied heavily on collecting fees for
listing paid service providers more prominently; (iii) that
because Angie's List sometimes charged service providers hundreds
of dollars for "hot leads," those costs were being passed along to
Angie's List subscribers, increasing the prices consumers were
paying and decreasing the benefit to them of using the website;
(iv) that the legitimacy of the service provider side of Angie's
List's business model was called into question by Angie's List's
practice of forcing service providers to pay high fees to be
listed as highly rated service providers, knowing that if they did
not, they would not get customer referrals from Angie's List; (v)
that because Angie's List did not vet the service providers listed
and recommended on its website, either for qualifications or for
safety, many consumers were questioning the value of its
recommendations, making them unwilling to continue paying outsized
membership fees; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
strength of Angie's List's business model.

The complaint alleges that through a series of disclosures between
September 30, 2013 and October 24, 2013, investors learned that:
(i) Angie's List's Chief Technology Officer had been terminated -
without explanation or naming a replacement; (ii) Angie's List had
slashed membership prices by roughly 75% in several key markets,
in a bid to attract new members; (iii) the Company's third quarter
2013 financial results were much weaker than defendants had led
the market to expect, and the same declining business metrics had
forced Angie's List to issue weaker fourth quarter 2013 financial
guidance; and (iv) certain analysts were questioning the Company's
ability to meet its future financial obligations.

On this news, the price of Angie's List common stock declined
$20.99 on October 2, 2013 to close at $14.64 on October 24, 2013,
a decline of over 30.25%, on unusually high trading volume.

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


ATLAS ROOFING: Suit Over Defective Shingles Removed to Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled Brooks v. Atlas
Roofing Corporation, Case No. 4:13-cv-00187, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta).  The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-00001-TWT to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought in connection with alleged defective
shingles, known as Atlas Chalet Shingles, designed, manufactured,
marketed, advertised and sold by Atlas.

Atlas Roofing Corporation is a Mississippi corporation
headquartered in Meridian, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Reeves, Jr., Esq.
          REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
          P.O. Drawer 1388
          Biloxi, MS 39533
          Telephone: (228) 374-5151
          Facsimile: (228) 374-6630
          E-mail: jrr@rmlawcall.com


AURORA LOAN: Faces "Haney" Suit Alleging Fraud in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Haney, an individual; and Sharon Haney, an individual; on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Aurora
Loan Services, LLC; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-00002-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal.,
January 2, 2014) accuses the Defendants of unfair, unlawful and
fraudulent actions relating to the Plaintiffs' home loan.

The Plaintiffs also assert that the Defendants' actions are
against the stated public policy of preserving homeownership,
personal savings and retirement.

Aurora Loan Services, LLC has its principal place of business in
Colorado and regularly conducts business in California.  Aurora
was one of the largest servicers of subprime loans.  Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC has its principal place of business in Texas and
regularly conducts business in California.  Nationstar acts as a
sub-servicer of the loans previously being serviced by Aurora.
The Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lenore L. Albert, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LENORE ALBERT
          7755 Center Avenue Suite 1100
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (714) 372-2264
          Facsimile: (419) 831-3376
          E-mail: lenalbert@interactivecounsel.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Antitrust Suit Related to Aggrenox
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Sales Company, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG;
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.; Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales
Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-00003-CSH (D. Conn., January 2, 2014) is a
civil antitrust action seeking treble damages arising out of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful exclusion of generic competition from
the market for capsules that combine 200 mg extended release
dipyridamole and 25 mg acetylsalicylic acid -- a product sold by
Boehringer under the brand-name Aggrenox.

Aggrenox is prescribed to reduce the risk of stroke in patients,
who have had transient ischemia of the brain (mini-strokes) or
completed ischemic stroke due to thrombosis (blood clot).

American Sales Company, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company based in Lancaster, Erie County, New York.  American Sales
brings this action on its own behalf and as an assignee of
McKesson Corp.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG is a German limited
partnership headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH is a German private limited liability
company based in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., is an Israeli corporation headquartered in
Petach Tikva, Israel.  Teva is a leading manufacturer of generic
drugs, and it is one of the largest sellers of generic drugs in
the United States.  Teva purchased Barr in 2008, and Barr is now a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva.

Barr is a Delaware corporation based in Woodcliff Lake, New
Jersey.  Prior to 2004, Barr was known as Barr Laboratories, Inc.
In 2008, Barr became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva.

Duramed is a Delaware corporation based in Woodcliff Lake, New
Jersey.  Until 2008, Duramed was a subsidiary of Barr.  In
December 2008, when Teva purchased Barr, Duramed became a
subsidiary of Teva.  Duramed is now known as Teva Women's Health
Inc.  Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp. is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Until
2008, DPSC was a subsidiary of Barr.  In 2008, when Teva purchased
Barr, DPSC became a subsidiary of Teva.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald C. Pia, Jr., Esq.
          Brian C. Roche, Esq.
          ROCHE PIA LLC
          Two Corporate Drive, Suite 248
          Shelton, CT 06484
          Telephone: (203) 944-0235
          E-mail: gpia@rochepia.com
                  broche@rochepia.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          David S. Nalven, Esq.
          Edward Notargiacomo, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  davidn@hbsslaw.com
                  ed@hbsslaw.com


DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY: Removes "Thomas" Suit to C.D. Cal. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Kanique Thomas, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Daughters of
Charity Health System, a California Corporation; St. Vincent
Medical Center, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. BC528457, was removed from the Superior Court
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00046-SJO-JEM to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry Leonard Kramer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER
          9550 S Eastern Avenue Suite 253
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 778-6090
          E-mail: kramerlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
          STRANGE AND CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          Facsimile: (310) 826-3210
          E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net
                  gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com

Defendant St. Vincent Medical Center is represented by:

          Brian Paul Park, Esq.
          James Robert Evans, Jr., Esq.
          Sayaka Karitani, Esq.
          ALSTON AND BIRK LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
          E-mail: brian.park@alston.com
                  james.evans@alston.com
                  sayaka.karitani@alston.com


DR HORTON: NRLB Ruling May Spell End of Employment Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
4-Traders recounts that on Jan. 3, 2012, the National Labor
Relations Act agreed and ruled that homebuilder D.R. Horton could
not prevent employees from filing class action claims in court or
in arbitration.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed on Dec. 3, noting
that the Supreme Court has long held that there is no "substantive
right" to be able to file class actions.  If an employee signs
that right away, he or she signs it away.

Former NLRB member Craig Becker, now a top attorney with the AFL-
CIO, has said the ruling "could spell the end of employment class
actions."  In a commentary for Politico, he wrote: "The decision
permits employers to require workers, as a condition of keeping
their jobs, to agree to arbitrate all workplace disputes and to do
so as individuals, standing alone against their employer."

That court's decision doesn't appear to bear that interpretation
though.  While it found that the NLRA did not always trump
arbitration, it also found that an employer cannot force a worker
to give up the right to petition the NLRB.  The legal news site
Corporate Compliance Insights noted: "The court explained that an
arbitration agreement violates the NLRA if it prohibits employees
from filing charges because, unlike the use of class action
procedures, the filing of a charge with the board is a substantive
right."  So while they may not be able to file a complaint
collectively, they can do it individually.

Notably, the court also considered whether the NLRB had also
lacked a valid quorum at the time of its decision, but ultimately
said that was a matter for the Supreme Court.  That's notable
because Mr. Becker was one of the board members at the time of its
action on D.R. Horton.  He had been installed on it through a
recess appointment by President Obama -- despite the fact that the
Senate was not in recess at the time.  If the Supreme Court holds
that Mr. Becker's appointment was unconstitutional -- it was
scheduled to hear the case on Jan. 13 -- that may retroactively
negate much of what the NLRB did while Mr. Becker was part of it.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Removes "Shipp" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Insurance Exchange removed the purported class action
lawsuit styled Shipp, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Case
No. 46CV-13-277-2, from the Miller County Circuit Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
(Texarkana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-
04003-SOH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant did not fully compensate
the Plaintiff for labor costs in repairing and replacing damaged
property, which was covered by the Plaintiff's insurance policy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Matt Keil, Esq.
          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
                  jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason Earnest Roselius, Esq.
          THE ROSELIUS LAW FIRM
          13190 N. MacArthur Blvd.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603-2222
          Facsimile: (405) 603-2250
          E-mail: jroselius@nrtlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Dennis Chambers, Esq.
          ATCHLEY, RUSSELL, WALDROP & HLAVINKA
          P.O. Box 5517
          Texarkana, TX 75505-5517
          Telephone: (903) 792-8246
          Facsimile: (903) 792-5801
          E-mail: dchambers@arwhlaw.com


FCOA LLC: Removes "Keller" Suit to Western District of Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Keller, et al. v.
FCOA, LLC, Case No. 46CV-13-276-1, was removed from the Miller
County Circuit Court to the U. S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas (Texarkana).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-04002-SOH to the proceeding.

FCOA LLC, doing business as Foremost Insurance Company, issued
insurance policies to the Plaintiffs that provide coverage for
both total loss of and partial loss to covered dwellings and other
structures.  In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant's failure to pay the full cost of the labor necessary to
repair or replace their damaged property left them under-
indemnified and underpaid for their losses.  Hence, they argue,
the Defendant materially breached its duty to indemnify them by
depreciating labor costs associated with repairs to their
property.

Foremost is a foreign corporation conducting business in the state
of Arkansas with its principal place of business in Caledonia,
Michigan.  Foremost issued insurance policies to the Plaintiffs
and the proposed members of the class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Matt Keil, Esq.
          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
                  jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason Earnest Roselius, Esq.
          THE ROSELIUS LAW FIRM
          13190 N. MacArthur Blvd.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603-2222
          Facsimile: (405) 603-2250
          E-mail: roselius@roseliuslaw.com

FCOA, LLC is represented by:

          J. Dennis Chambers, Esq.
          ATCHLEY, RUSSELL, WALDROP & HLAVINKA
          P.O. Box 5517
          Texarkana, TX 75505-5517
          Telephone: (903) 792-8246
          Facsimile: (903) 792-5801
          E-mail: dchambers@arwhlaw.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Elk River Chemical Spill
------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, The Bell Law Firm, PLLC and Neblett, Beard &
Arsenault are representing Kanawha Gourmet Sandwiches, LLC, a West
Virginia sandwich shop, and all others similarly situated over a
chemical spill that occurred in Elk River on January 9, 2014.  The
suit was filed on January 10, 2014 in the Circuit Court of Kanawha
County, West Virginia (Civil Action No. 14C55).  Freedom
Industries, Inc. and West Virginia-American Water Company have
been named as Defendants.

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff class was subjected to
toxic water contaminated when a hazardous substance known as
4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol leaked onto the Defendants' premises
along Elk River in Kanawha County, West Virginia on January 9,
2014.  The Material Safety Data Sheet for this substance indicates
that it is harmful if swallowed and can cause irritation in the
skin and eyes.  The suit alleges that the contaminated water was
delivered to numerous businesses, including the Plaintiff, that
depend on the Defendants' water supply.

The Class consists of all commercial entities doing business in
the area affected by the chemical spill that suffered as a result
of the infiltration by the substance into the water distribution
system which includes:

    * Damage to the property
    * Loss of income
    * Other pecuniary loses, or fear, anxiety, annoyance or
      inconvenience

Allegedly, the Defendants were aware of the spill shortly after it
was reported, but did not warn the public or close its intake from
the Elk River until hours later.  The lawsuit emphasizes the
severity of the situation, pointing out the fact that the office
of the Governor of West Virginia declared a state of emergency
because of this spill.  Residents of Kanawha, Putnam, Clay, Boone,
Lincoln, Logan, Roane and Jackson counties were advised not to
consume or use water distributed by the West Virginia-American
Water Company.  The suit further alleges that the spill led to
widespread fear across the affected counties because of both the
health hazards and the Defendants' clear unpreparedness to respond
to the crisis.

The firms continue to investigate claims against Freedom
Industries, Inc. and West Virginia-American Water Company over the
chemical spill in Elk River.  As noted in the complaint, the
Plaintiff class is numerous; news accounts from the time of the
spill estimate that approximately 100,000 customer were affected
by the spill.

If you are a West Virginia business owner who has been affected by
the chemical spill, we urge you to take legal action as soon as
possible.  For more information, please visit our West Virginia
Chemical Spill Class Action Lawsuitpage at yourlawyer.com or call
1-800-BIG-SPILL (1-800-244-7745).

Contact:

Parker Waichman LLP
Gary Falkowitz, Managing Attorney
1+(800) BIG-SPILL
1+(800) 244-7745
Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com

                           *     *     *

Linda Harris, writing for WOWK 13, reports that the aftershocks
from the chemical spill that tainted water supplies in a nine-
county region are just beginning for Charleston-based Freedom
Industries, now the subject of a federal investigation into the
cause of the leak.

The chemical, 4-methylcycolohexane methanol, leaked from a 48,000-
gallon storage tank, overran a containment area and spilled into
the Elk River Jan. 9, contaminating the water supply to West
Virginia American Water Company customers in Boone, Cabell, Clay,
Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Putnam and Roane counties.
State officials say as many as 100,000 WVAWC customers -- roughly
300,000 to 400,000 people -- were affected by the spill.

4-Methylcycolohexane methanol is used in the froth flotation
process of coal washing and preparation.

On Jan. 10, U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin said federal law
enforcement agencies are already looking into the cause of the
chemical spill, while at least one class-action lawsuit had
already been filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court at the start of
business on behalf of restaurants and other food service providers
damaged by the mandatory closure order.

The director of West Virginia University's Bureau of Business &
Economic Research, meanwhile, said it's too soon to try to
calculate the economic impact from the spill, though he did say
that, given the strains on government budgets in general, "the
last thing we need is additional expenses incurred in an emergency
cleanup."

"I couldn't begin to speculate on a dollar figure without knowing
more," Dr. John Deskins said. "We don't even know how long (the
water shutdown) is going to last.  Without knowing that and other
facts, it would be impossible to put a dollar figure to it."
Mr. Goodwin, though, said the release of "a potentially dangerous
chemical into our water supply has put hundreds of thousands of
West Virginians at risk, severely disrupted our region's economy,
and upended people's daily lives."

"My office and other federal law enforcement authorities have
opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the
release," Nr. Goodwin said.  "We will determine what caused it and
take whatever action is appropriate based on the evidence we
uncover."

By 7:59 a.m. Charleston-based Mani Ellis & Layne had already filed
a class action lawsuit in Kanawha County Circuit Court to recover
revenues EJ&K Enterprises, South Hills Market & Cafe and others in
the food service industry lost because of the mandatory shutdown
order issued after the spill.  The Sutter Law Firm PLLC is
co-counsel in the class action.

EJ&K Enterprises, owners of the Bear's Den at 405 Capitol St., and
South Hills Market & Cafe, 1010 Bridge Road, are seeking
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages attorney fees and
court costs on behalf of the food service industry, which Attorney
Jonathan Mani said includes convenience store operators with food
bars.

Based on early reports, he figures there could be more than 500
businesses in the Kanawha area affected by the water loss.

Likewise, he said at this point it's difficult to gauge the
economic impact to the food service community.

Dr. Deskins, meanwhile, said the longer the water supply is deemed
unusable, the bigger the hit to the state and local economy.  He
said it's also too soon to gauge the short- and long-term impacts
to the chemical industry itself.  Down the road, he said there's
always the potential for new, more stringent regulations which
also could prove costly to the industry.


HOLIDAY ISLAND: Jan. 21 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC NOTICE

Re: DAVID BISCHOFF v. HOLIDAY ISLAND SUBURBAN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1
Carroll County Circuit Court Case No.: CV2012-69WD

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?

On August 8, 2012, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Bischoff
and all individuals similarly situated against the Holiday Island
Suburban Improvement District (HISID) alleging that HISID
improperly levied and collected assessment of benefits against
owners of property within HISID.  The lawsuit further alleged that
HISID has improperly spent moneys collected from said levies.
HISID disputes these allegations, and contends that the
assessments in dispute are valid and legal, and is defending
itself against the lawsuit.

WHAT KIND OF LAWSUIT IS THIS?

The pending lawsuit is an illegal exaction lawsuit.  An illegal
exaction lawsuit is a type of lawsuit established by the Arkansas
Constitution.  An illegal exaction lawsuit is a class action as a
matter of law.

The Plaintiff class is established by the Arkansas Constitution
and automatically includes all persons or entities that have paid
the Assessment of Benefits alleged to be have been improperly
levied.

Class members may not opt out of the class and will be bound by
any judgment or settlement.
Class members may wish to become named parties to have greater
input in the remedy sought including becoming named parties to
assure there is no collusion or friendly lawsuits.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED?

The parties voluntarily mediated this case in August, 2013.  The
mediation resulted in a tentative settlement between the parties
subject to approval of the HISID commissioners and the Court.  The
settlement was approved by the HISID commissioners on September
24, 2013 after having given public notice of the meeting and an
opportunity for public comment.  The Settlement has also been
preliminarily approved by the Court.  You may review the complete
file located at the Carroll County Courthouse located in Eureka
Springs.

WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT?

The parties agree that the Remaining Assessed Benefits for each
zoning/classification of properties in HISID will be reset
pursuant to the 2011 reassessment of benefits, after subtracting a
$2,300.00 credit for R-1 and R-2 improved lots:

Zoning Remaining Assessed Benefits Zoning Remaining Assessed
Benefits

R1 Vacant/Paved $8,000 R2 Improved $10,700
R1 Vacant/Gravel $7,000 R3 Vacant $12,000
R1 Improved/Paved $10,700 R3 Improved $17,000
R1 Improved/Gravel $9,700 C1/C2 Vacant $9,000
R2 Vacant $8,000 C1/C2 Improved $14,000

The $2,300.00 credit is in place as recognition that the improved
lots are owned by property owners connected to the HISID
water/sewer system and thus have paid and will continue to pay the
special sewer debt assessment charge, water tower charge and
security fee that are all included in their monthly sewer bill.
The annual tax levied by HISID cannot exceed ten percent (10%) of
the assessed benefits of any lot, as set forth in state law.
Beginning in 2014, HISID will be allowed to charge annual
compounding interest on the remaining Assessment of Benefit in an
amount up to but never to exceed 6% unless HISID is carrying bonds
that charge a greater interest than 6%. In such a situation, HISID
may charge an interest equal to the interest being applied to the
outstanding bonds.

The percentage of levy against the Assessment of Benefit will be
the same for every lot within HISID.

Beginning in 2014, HISID will include on all tax bills an itemized
listing of the 1) total amount due, 2) the amount being applied to
interest; 3) the amount being applied to the principal on the
Assessment of Benefit; and 4) the remaining Assessment of Benefit
after applying all payments made on principal since the entry of
this settlement agreement.

HISID agrees to limit its annual spending on advertising to 2% of
the collected assessment of benefits for the previous year.  The
parties agree that HISID is permitted to continue to spend moneys
collected from the Assessment of Benefits on police and ambulance
services and is further allowed to maintain its cash reserve.
In order to increase the ability to sell returned/foreclosed
properties, the parties agree that HISID has the authority to
waive outstanding, unpaid assessments of benefits for property
that has been returned and/or foreclosed and are thus titled in
the name of HISID and/or the Arkansas Commissioner of Lands.
HISID agrees to cover the costs of sending legal notice of this
lawsuit and proposed settlement to property owners.

HISID will pay Reece Moore Pendergraft, LLP, Counsel for the class
one hundred twenty five thousand dollars ($125,000.00) in
attorney's fees within 30 days of the court's final approval of
this settlement.

Upon final approval of the settlement, David Bischoff, on behalf
of the Plaintiff class, will dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice
and forego all rights of appeal.  These dismissals will be binding
on the entire Class and will serve to preclude any class member
from again raising the issues contained in the Plaintiff's
complaint.

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO IF I WANT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT?

If you agree to the terms of the settlement, you do not have to do
anything.  However, if you so choose, you may file with the
Circuit Clerk of Carroll County a Notice of Support of Settlement
with the Circuit Clerk of Carroll County, Arkansas located in
Eureka Springs, Arkansas.

You may object to the Settlement if you are a member of the class
(a person that has paid the Assessment of Benefits).  If you want
to object to the settlement, you, or a lawyer on your behalf,
should file a Notice of Objection in this case with the Circuit
Clerk of Carroll County, Arkansas describing the factual and legal
basis of your objection.  This objection must also be served on
the Honorable David Clinger, c/o Nadine Holland at P.O. Drawer
231, Berryville, AR 72616; lead attorney for the Plaintiff Class,
Timothy Hutchinson, Reece Moore Pendergraft, LLP, P.O. Box 1788,
Fayetteville, AR 72702; and lead attorney for the Defendant,
Thomas Kieklak, 113 E. Emma Avenue, Springdale, AR 72764.  If you
are an entity such as a corporation or LLC, you must be
represented by an attorney and your attorney must sign your Notice
in accordance with the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.  Your
Notice must be filed within 30 days of the date on this notice,
but in any event no later than December 30, 2013.
The Court will establish and set procedures for adjudication of
any such objections filed including procedures for summary
disposition and/or evidentiary hearings.

WHEN WILL THE SETTLEMENT BE COMPLETE?

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on January 21, 2014
at 9:00 a.m.  The hearing will take place at the Carroll County
Courthouse located in Eureka Springs, Arkansas.  Without further
notice, the Court may adjourn and reconvene the final approval
hearing and set it for a different time.

The settlement will be complete when, and if, the Court has
entered an order finally approving the settlement and any appeals
of the final order are resolved.  If the Court does not enter an
Order finally approving the settlement, or if an appellate court
reverses the Court's Order finally approving the settlement, then,
depending on the circumstances then existing, the settlement may
be delayed, modified, or rendered null and void.  If the
settlement is rendered null and void, the litigation will continue
as if this settlement had never been reached.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

You are automatically represented by Counsel for the Plaintiff
Class, Reece Moore Pendergraft, LLP. You are not responsible for
their attorneys' fees.  If you hire another lawyer to represent
you in filing an objection you will be responsible for that
lawyer's attorneys fee.  If you believe you are affected by this
lawsuit or have any questions regarding this lawsuit, you may call
479-443-2705.


INTEGRATED TECHNIQUE: "Garcia" Suit Removed to W.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Garcia v. Integrated Tech
Group, LLC, Case No. 13-34868 CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-20017-UU to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory Robert Hawran, Esq.
          Christopher Patrick Hammon, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-0506
          E-mail: gregory.hawran@ogletreedeakins.com
                  chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com


INTEL CORP: Seeks Dismissal of No-Poaching Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
David Manners, writing for Electronics Weekly, reports that Intel
is seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit which alleges a no-
poaching agreement existed between Intel and other tech companies
like Google, Pixar, Intuit, Apple, Adobe and Lucasfilm.

The engineers bringing the class action said that the companies
had agreed to provide one another notice whenever one made an
offer to another company's employee and had also agreed to cap pay
packages for prospective hires in order to prevent bidding wars,
and to abstain from recruiting one another's personnel.

Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm have settled with Intuit paying $11
million, and Lucasfilm and Pixar paying a combined $9 million.

Intel's request for dismissal of the case states: "The only action
by Intel that plaintiffs now contend was in furtherance of the
purported overarching conspiracy was Intel's decision to enter
into a bilateral DNCC (do not cold call) agreement with Google.
Neither the existence of that agreement nor the circumstances
surrounding it do anything to establish that Intel joined an
overarching conspiracy to suppress the compensation of all class
members."

In 2010, the US department of Justice stated that the companies
had brokered agreements not to compete for one another's engineers
and ordered the companies to put an end to those agreements.

That was the trigger for the engineers' class action law-suit.


JD HOMES: Central Valley Tenants File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Mike Rhodes, writing for Indybay, reports that tenants in
California's Central Valley filed a class action lawsuit on
Jan. 9 against one of the region's largest and most notorious
landlords -- JD Homes Rentals -- alleging operation of a huge
portfolio of slum housing.  The lawsuit seeks immediate court
intervention to ensure that substandard conditions in the
thousands of units managed by JD Homes Rentals are repaired and
the properties made habitable.

Among the allegations, the complaint details JD Homes' business
practices of failing to maintain properties, leaving tenants with
roaches, leaking plumbing, defective wiring, and a plethora of
other unsafe conditions.  Requests for repairs are often ignored
for months, and sometimes years.  When repairs are made, the
complaint alleges, they are merely cosmetic and fail to address
the health and safety issues, and JD Homes often retaliates
against tenants who complain to authorities.

According to Leah Simon-Weisberg, Legal Director of Tenants
Together, the lawsuit is the largest known housing conditions
lawsuit against a California landlord.  She characterized the
substandard conditions as "shocking and pervasive" and part of an
"ongoing business plan to profit at the expense of vulnerable
tenants by collecting rent while refusing to invest in keeping the
properties safe and habitable."

The Complaint alleges that JD Homes Rentals, a real estate
property management company that is owned, operated and managed by
John, David, and Bryce Hovannisian, has added hundreds of
foreclosed properties to its inventory since the housing crisis in
2008.  Patricia A. Van Dyke, a staff attorney at Bet Tzedek Legal
Services, co-lead counsel on the case, offered that "residents and
tenants need immediate relief from slum conditions and
neighborhood blight."

Plaintiffs representing the class are Neng Vu, Willie Thompson,
Elvia Reyes, Catalina Mendoza, Antonio Martinez, and Malaquias
Estevez.  The tenants are represented by Greenstein & McDonald,
Milstein Adelman, Kaye McLane Bednarski & Litt, Bet Tzedek Legal
Services and Tenants Together.


MASIMO CORP: Class Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Facsimiles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians Healthsource Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. Masimo Corporation, which will do business in California as
Delaware Masimo Corporation, Masimo Americas, Inc. and John Does
1-10, 8:14-cv-00001-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., January 2, 2014) challenges
the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiff contends that a junk fax recipient loses the use of
its fax machine, paper, and ink toner.  The Plaintiff adds that an
unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would
have been spent on something else.

Masimo Corporation and Masimo Americas, Inc., are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Irvine, California.  The true names
of the Doe Defendants will be identified through discovery, but
are not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 625-1600
          E-mail: mark@geragos.com
                  meiselas@geragos.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368- 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


MATAMOROS MEAT: Do Not Pay Hourly Employees Overtime, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Rivera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Matamoros Meat Market #9, #12, Inc. and Rafael Jimenez, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00007 (S.D. Tex., January 2, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants do not pay their hourly employees overtime as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Instead, the Defendants pay
these workers "straight-time" for all hours worked, including
those in excess of 40 in any workweek, the complaint adds.

Matamoros is a Texas limited company with its principal office in
Houston, Texas.  Rafael Jimenez owns Matamoros.  The Defendants
operate a meat market store with various locations in the Houston
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


MONRO MUFFLER: Sued by Technicians Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Hohlt, Aaron Robinson, Anthony Giaconozzi, and Robert Heaney,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the
Rule 23 Putative Classes v. Monro Muffler Brake, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-00003-SSB-SKB (S.D. Ohio, January 2, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging the Defendant
owed to the Plaintiffs unpaid overtime compensation.  The case is
brought on behalf of the Defendant's technicians, assistant
managers or other similar job titles.

Monro Muffler Brake, Inc., is a New York corporation doing
business in 19 states and maintaining over 800 company-operated
stores throughout the United States of America, including stores
in Ohio, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah R. Grayson, Esq.
          MEIZLISH & GRAYSON, INC.
          Second National Building
          830 Main Street, Suite 999
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-4700
          Facsimile: (513) 345-4703
          E-mail: drgrayson@fuse.net

               - and -

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  lukas@nka.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Zorn, Esq.
          Kathryn K. Lee, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Pontzer, Esq.
          FARACI LANGE, LLP
          28 East Main Street, Suite 1100
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Telephone: (585) 325-5150
          Toll-free: (888) 325-5150
          Facsimile: (585) 325-3285
          E-mail: bzorn@faraci.com
                  klee@faraci.com
                  npontzer@faraci.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Settlement Fails to Get Prelim. Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that the National Football League's $914
million settlement of claims tied to player concussions was denied
preliminary approval by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody in
Philadelphia on Jan. 14 who said that a $675 million compensation
fund included in the settlement may be insufficient to cover a
class of about 20,000 retired players for a 65-year term.

The judge asked for additional documentation including economic
analyses conducted by plaintiff lawyers.

More than 5,000 former football players had sued the league
seeking damages for head injuries.  The complaints, which were
consolidated before Judge Brody, accused the NFL of negligence and
failing to inform players of the link between repeated traumatic
head impacts and long-term brain injuries, including early onset
Alzheimer's and dementia.

The settlement includes $675 million to compensate players for a
specified list of injuries, $75 million for medical tests, $10
million for educational programs promoting player safety and
injury prevention specifically in youth football and $4 million
for administrative expenses related to class notices.

The NFL also agreed to pay an additional $37.5 million if needed
for players plus attorney's fees of $112.5 million, according to
papers filed Jan. 6 in federal court in Philadelphia.

Under the agreement, compensation will be based on a list of
qualified injuries including neurocognitive impairment resulting
in memory loss, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Lou
Gehrig's disease and death from a progressive disease known as
chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, according to court
filings.

Chris Seeger is the co-lead attorney for the retired players.


NET1: Faces Securities Class Action in US Over SASSA Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITWeb, citing the City Press, reports that a class action lawsuit
has been filed by a US lawyer against dual-listed Net1.

"The class action is on behalf of investors who bought Net1 shares
between 27 August 2009 and November 2013," says the paper.  It
adds the suit is seeking damages for alleged violations of US
federal securities laws, it says.

City Press reports the core issue is the R10 billion contract Net1
has to handle payments for some 15 million social security
beneficiaries.  The complaint alleges Net1 made misleading claims
and/or failed to disclose its "practices to secure contracts in
South Africa were in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act," says the paper.

The paper also alleges Net1's financial statements were materially
false and misleading.  Net1 has been challenged several times, in
the US and South Africa, over the validity of the contract.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of
Justice's Criminal Division is involved in an ongoing
investigating whether there was bribery involved in the R10
billion contract with the South African Social Security Agency
(SASSA).

Last year, the Constitutional Court ruled the contract was
invalid, although it "suspended its declaration of invalidity
pending determination of a just and equitable remedy", said Net 1
in a statement.


NEW JERSEY: Six Bergen Residents Sue Governor Over GWB Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kibret Markos, writing for NorthJersey.com, Six Bergen County
residents filed a class-action lawsuit on Jan. 9 against
Governor Christie, his sacked aide and his two former appointees
to the Port Authority, claiming they got stuck in traffic, arrived
late for work and lost their pay when a politically motivated lane
closure at the George Washington Bridge clogged the borough with
traffic in September.

Emails and text messages between the governor's deputy chief of
staff, Bridget Kelly, and two top officials at the Port Authority
appear to show that the lanes were shut down deliberately to cause
traffic problems in Fort Lee to punish the borough's mayor because
he refused to endorse Christie's re-election bid in November.

Calling the scheme a "conspiracy" and a "willful, wanton,
arbitrary, and egregious official misconduct," the lawsuit filed
in federal court in Newark seeks damages on behalf of six
residents of Fort Lee, Edgewater and Leonia.

The lane closures, which went into effect on the first day of
school in September and lasted for four days, led to massive
traffic backups especially in Fort Lee.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Rosemarie Arnold of Fort Lee,
claims that some of the plaintiffs were hourly workers who lost
wages when they got stuck in traffic and showed up late for work.

In addition to the governor and Ms. Kelly, the lawsuit also names
state Sen. Bill Baroni and David Wildstein as defendants.  Both
were Mr. Christie's appointees to the Port Authority before they
resigned in December amid inquiries into the lane closures.


NMI RETIREMENT: Parties in Johnson's Suit Urged to Work With Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that
U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Frances Tydingco-
Gatewood has ordered the parties in the Betty Johnson class action
to keep working with Hawaii chief bankruptcy judge Robert Faris in
hopes of resolving the petitions for attorneys' fees and costs.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood also vacated the status hearing in
Ms. Johnson's case set for Jan. 13.

The Guam-based Civille & Tang law firm, through its principal
representative, attorney Joyce C. H. Tang, was supposed to present
on Jan. 13 an update on the status of the settlement fund that was
created under the settlement agreement in Ms. Johnson's class
action. The CNMI government was also supposed to report on its
compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The other agenda at the status hearing pertains to the petitions
for attorneys' fees and costs filed by different lawyers who
served as counsels for Johnson.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood cancelled the Jan. 13 scheduled status
hearing after holding a chamber telephone conference on Jan. 9
with the parties.  According to the minutes of the chamber
conference, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood discussed with the parties the
possibility of submitting a unified attorneys' fees petition.  The
parties agreed to work on a unified submission, if possible.  The
judge then vacated the status conference and instead set a
telephone conference for Jan. 15, 2014, at 8:15 Guam date and
time.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood did not rule on the petition for
attorneys' fees and costs by Johnson counsels at the final
fairness hearing last September.  Instead, she directed the
lawyers and the CNMI government to talk about the issue before
Judge Faris, who presided over the settlement discussions in
Johnson's class action.


NTN DRIVESHAFT: Faces "Hartford" Suit Over Overtime Calculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Hartford, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. NTN Driveshaft, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00001-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 2, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiff received a shift premium for work completed during
certain hours, but the Defendant never included his shift premium
in his regular rate of pay for the purposes of overtime
compensation.

During the applicable statutory period, Mr. Hartford asserts that
he and all other similarly situated hourly employees were required
by the Defendant and did frequently work off the clock, including
time worked through lunch and before and after the end of
scheduled shifts, without lawful compensation as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

NTN Driveshaft, Inc., is an Indiana domestic business corporation
headquartered in Columbus, Indiana.  The Company is a privately
owned establishment operating and conducting business in the
foodservice industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Gian M. Fanelli, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  gianmfanelli@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Lance R. Worland, Esq.
          CARESS LAW GROUP
          5420 N. College Ave., Suite 100
          Indianapolis, IN 46220
          Telephone: (317) 255-5400
          Facsimile: (317) 255-5410
          E-mail: lance@caresslaw.com


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Filed Motion to Dismiss Calif. Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a Consolidated
Amended Complaint lodged against it in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against certain major hotel chains, and the leading
Online Travel Companies, including Orbitz. The complaint alleged
that the hotel chains and OTCs, including Orbitz, violated
antitrust and consumer protection laws by entering into agreements
in which OTCs agree not to facilitate the reservation of hotel
rooms at prices that are less than those found on the hotel chain
websites. Following the filing of the initial complaint on August
20, 2012, several dozen additional putative consumer class action
complaints were filed in federal courts across the country. These
cases were then consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation and transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May
1, 2013, counsel for the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. On July 1, 2013, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The company cannot
currently estimate a range of the company's potential loss if it
does not prevail in this litigation.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Removed Suit to N.D. Illinois Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Online travel companies, including Orbitz LLC, filed a notice of
removal of an action filed in Cook County Circuit Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
according to Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 8, 2013, several municipalities in Illinois filed a
putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook
County against various online travel companies including Orbitz
LLC, Trip Network, Inc., and Internetwork Publishing Corp. On
August 7, 2013, the online travel companies filed their notice of
removal of the action from Cook County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Orbitz LLC Faces Lawsuit in Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 2013, the Cities of Columbia and North Charleston, and
Aiken County filed a putative class action complaint in the Court
of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit against various online
travel companies including Orbitz LLC, Trip Network, Inc., and
Internetwork Publishing Corp., according to Orbitz Worldwide,
Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Arkansas Court Denied Appeal v. Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 9, 2013, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied the online
travel companies' appeal of the circuit court's February 18, 2013
order granting class certification, according to Orbitz Worldwide,
Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.


PASSMORE TOWING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joslin Ingram, Jodi Beckman, Jeff Smith, and Nathan Oliver, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals
v. Wesley ("Wes") G. Passmore and Passmore Towing & Recovery, a
non-registered entity, Case No. 2:14-cv-00004-AKK (N.D. Ala.,
January 2, 2014) is a collective action brought in connection with
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them
proper overtime wages for all hours worked.

Passmore Towing & Recovery is a non-registered company or sole
proprietorship headquartered in Hueytown, Alabama.  Wesley ("Wes")
G. Passmore is a resident of Bessemer, Alabama.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory L. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO LLC
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

               - and -

          David H. Grounds
          Jacob R. Rusch
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Lance C. Young
          Jesse L. Young
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: lyoung@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com


PHILIPS ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls 5,500 Stage Light Barndoors
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Philips Entertainment/Philips Selecon, of Dallas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,500 Stage Light Barndoors.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The heat of the stage lights can make the barndoors detach from
the light and fall, posing an impact injury hazard to individuals
below it.

Philips Selecon has received three reports of barndoors used
outside the United States detaching. No injuries were reported.
No incidents or injuries have been reported in the U.S.

The recall involves 6-inch barndoors with four and eight leaves.
The recalled barndoors are used on Rama Fresnel and Rama PC stage
lights.  The barndoors are made of hinged, rectangular, black
metal flaps/leaves attached to a moveable, round, plastic collar.
The collar is six inches in diameter.  Four-leaf barndoors are
part number 20BDSF12 and eight-leaf barndoors are part number
20BDSF128.  The part numbers are only on the invoice for the
product.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Strand Selecon
Lighting, a division of Philips Lighting New Zealand, of Auckland,
New Zealand and sold at theatrical, electrical and lighting supply
dealers nationwide from January 2003 to January 2013 for between
$75 and $105.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled barndoors and
contact Philips Selecon for a free safety cable and installation
instructions.


PINNACLE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Troy K. Scheffler, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, and Stephens and
Michaels Associates, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-00001-DSD-SER (D.
Minn., January 2, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


PIONEER ENERGY: Sued by Oil Field Workers Over Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Villafuerte, Jose Martinez, and Rene Gonzalez, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pioneer Energy
Services Corp. and Pioneer Coiled Tubing Services Section f/k/a Go
Coil, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00001 (S.D. Tex., January 2, 2014) is
a collective action to recover overtime wages brought on behalf of
persons, who are current and former non-exempt employees of the
Defendants, who worked as oil field workers.

Pioneer Energy Services Corp. is a Texas corporation based in San
Antonio, Bexar County, Texas.  Pioneer Coiled Tubing Services,
LLC, formerly known as Go Coil, LLC, is a Louisiana limited
liability company headquartered in Maurice, Louisiana.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig M. Sico, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH L.L.P.
          802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 653-3300
          Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
          E-mail: csico@swhhb.com
                  calexander@swhhb.com


PREMIER FLEET: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derik Hartsfield, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Premier Fleet Services, LLC, Case No. 5:14-
cv-00003 (W.D. Tex., January 2, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Premier Fleet failed to pay him for the hours he worked over 40 in
a workweek at one and one-half times his regular rate, Mr.
Hartsfield contends.

Premier Fleet Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company.
The Company provides automobile mechanic services in the Eagle
Ford Shale area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


RAYMOND'S TACOS: Failed to Pay Overtime Premium, Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mynor Pineda and Jose Guadalupe Martinez, on behalf of themselves,
and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v.
Raymond's Tacos, a/k/a Raymond's Hamburgers and Tacos, and Elva
Lopez, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00011 (N.D. Ill., January 2,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per
week throughout their employment with the Defendants, and were
denied time and one half their regular rate of pay for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs also allege that they and the proposed class
members were at times denied the federal and state minimum wage
rate required by federal and state statutes.

Raymond's Tacos, a/k/a Raymond's Hamburgers and Tacos, is a small
chain of restaurants in the city of Chicago, Illinois.  Elva Lopez
is an owner/operator of Raymond's Tacos.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
                  mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com


RSI HOME: Recalls Bathroom Medicine Cabinets Due to Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
RSI Home Products, of Anaheim, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 14,000 Bathroom medicine cabinets.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The mirror or its back panel can separate and fall out, posing an
injury hazard to consumers.

RSI has received two reports of the cabinet's mirror or back panel
detaching and falling out.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves four models of Glacier Bay-branded bathroom
medicine cabinets, manufactured between July 15, 2013 and October
10, 2013.  They have a mirrored door, two adjustable and two fixed
interior shelves.  Some models have exterior display side shelves.
They were sold in 21, 23 and 30-inch widths and in three finishes:
cognac, java and white.  "VOC" and the manufacture date are
stamped on the exterior of the cabinet's back panel.  The models
below are included in this recall.  The model and SKU number
appear on the product's box.

    Model        SKU Number          Product Description
    -----        ----------          -------------------
  S2327OS-ACO   1000004766     23" Swing Med Cab Open Side Cognac
  S3027OS-ACO   1000004797    30" Swing Med Cab Open Sides Cognac
  S2127C-JAV    1000004819          21" Curved Swing Med Cab Java
  S2127C-WHT    1000004822         21" Curved Swing Med Cab White

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
exclusively at The Home Depot stores nationwide from August 2013
through October 2013 for between $70 and $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using and uninstall the recalled
bathroom medicine cabinet; and return it to The Home Depot for a
full refund.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Recalls 42,500 Kenmore Oscillating Fan Heaters
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sears Holdings, of Hoffman Estates, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 42,500 Kenmore oscillating fan heaters.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Broken motor mounts can cause the units to overheat, catch fire
and ignite nearby items, posing a fire and burn hazard to
consumers.

Sears and Kmart have received seven reports of the fan heaters
smoking or catching fire, including two reports of injuries.
Injuries include one report of smoke inhalation and one report of
a blister to a consumer's finger.

The recall involves Kenmore oscillating fan heaters with model
number 127.90914310.  The model number and Kenmore are printed on
a silver sticker on the bottom of the unit.  The fan heaters are
gray and white, measure about 12 inches tall by 9 inches wide,
have two dials at the top for temperature and fan speed and a red
on-off button on the front base.  Kenmore is printed on the front
bottom of the fan heaters.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Sears
and Kmart stores nationwide from September 2013 through November
2013 for between $35 and $40.

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the recalled fan
heaters and return them to any Sears or Kmart store for a full
refund.


SOUTHEAST COMMERCIAL: Accused of Violating FLSA in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lewis, Martha Miller, Michael Lartique, Paul Waldon and
Kim Simon v. Southeast Commercial Cleaning, LLC, d/b/a National
Hotel & Casino Services LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00003-JTT-KK (W.D.
La., January 2, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON & JACKSON (NO)
          201 St Charles Ave., Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


SITEL WORLDWIDE: Settled Debt Collection Practices Suit for $180K
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sitel Worldwide Corporation settled a suit filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan over
its debt collection practices for $180,000, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In April 2011, the company's wholly owned subsidiary, National
Action Financial Services, Inc. now known as NA Liquidating
Company, Inc. ("NA"), was served with a purported class action
filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. The complaint alleged violations of the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") for calls to plaintiff's cell phone in an
attempt to collect a debt not owed by the plaintiff.
The complaint also alleged pre-recorded message calls to debtors
on their cell phones by means of an automated dialing device,
without having received permission from the recipients of the
calls in violation of the TCPA. A reserve of $160,000 was recorded
related to this matter as of December 31, 2012. On January 31,
2013, the case was settled for $180,000 of which $27,000 was paid
by the company's insurer.


ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY: Feb. 26 Hearing Set for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie K. Baer, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
class-action suit seeking damages in the controversial
reorganization of Richmond and Davis schools in St. Charles will
go to a hearing next month, according to court documents.

In early October, two parents filed the lawsuit against
St. Charles Community Unit School District 303, seeking money for
parents who moved their kids out of the district into private
schools, moved out of the Davis school boundary to get around the
merger, or did neither and were forced to have their kids attend
Richmond instead of Davis, according to the 11-page complaint.

Late last month, a Kane County Circuit Court judge set a Feb. 26
hearing on the district's motion to dismiss the complaint, which
came on the heels of a ruling on a lawsuit questioning the
legality of the district's actions in changing Davis into a
kindergarten through second-grade school and Richmond into a
school for third- through fifth-graders.

In 2011, 17 parents sued the district and demanded it undo the
reorganization of the two schools, one of which had failed for
three consecutive years to meet federal progress standards
mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind law.

A Kane County judge ultimately ruled in favor of parents in
September but did not order the district to change the schools
back to their original grade divisions.

That ruling is being appealed.  The class-action suit, which lists
"all others similarly situated" as plaintiffs, argues that because
the district was found at fault in the original suit, parents
could be entitled to damages resulting from that error.


STATE FARM: Removes "Dennington" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and State Farm General
Insurance Company removed the purported class action lawsuit
titled Dennington v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al.,
Case No. 46CV-13-274-1, from the Miller County Circuit Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
(Texarkana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-
04001-SOH to the proceeding.

In his complaint, Jeff Dennington contends that State Farm
breached its contract with him and alleged members of a putative
class by depreciating labor costs associated with repairs when
paying the Actual Cash Value of claims under dwelling and other
structural insurance policies.  He also asserted claims for breach
of contract and unjust enrichment.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and State Farm General
Insurance Company are foreign corporations conducting business in
the state of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Earnest Roselius, Esq.
          THE ROSELIUS LAW FIRM
          13190 N. MacArthur Blvd.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603-2222
          Facsimile: (405) 603-2250
          E-mail: roselius@roseliuslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John E. Moore, Esq.
          MUNSON, ROWLETT, MOORE & BOONE, P.A.
          1900 Regions Center
          400 W. Capitol, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-6535
          Facsimile: (501) 374-5906
          E-mail: john.moore@mrmblaw.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Gaizo" Class Suit Over Customer Data Theft
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Del Gaizo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00009-CAB-BLM
(S.D. Cal., January 2, 2014) is brought on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, who made a credit or debit card purchase at
Target stores and whose personal information was compromised as a
result of a breach of Target's network that occurred from
November 27, 2013, to December 15, 2013.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Target is one of the largest discount
retailers in the United States and has been selling to consumers
and businesses for over fifty years.  Target currently ranked 36th
on the "Fortune 500" list of top U.S. companies.  Target
advertises and sells discounted merchandise directly to millions
of consumers through its 1,797 retail stores in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


TARGET CORP: To Swiftly Address Data Breach Problem, CEO Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Walsh and Jennifer Bjorhus, writing for Star Tribune, report
that the top executive for Target Corp. started the week trying to
assure consumers that his company will figure out who stole
personal information of tens of millions of its customers, and he
apologized for the massive data breach, which he said has been
mended.

"As time goes on, we're going to get to the bottom of this," said
Target President and CEO Gregg Steinhafel in a television
interview on Jan. 13 on CNBC.  "We're not going to rest until we
understand what happened and how that happened."

Mr. Steinhafel said the breach occurred when hackers installed
malware on the Minneapolis-based company's point of sale
registers.

Mr. Steinhafel declined to outline the changes being made in an
effort to protect customers' personal information, citing the
ongoing criminal investigation.

Target said hackers stole the personal information of up to 110
million customers, including names, mailing addresses, telephone
numbers and e-mail addresses through their credit and debit cards.

Mr. Steinhafel said he learned about the data breach in a phone
call on the morning of Dec. 15.  He added that "my heart sunk" and
he has had many "sleepless nights" since his company's troubles
began.

The company announced the breach on Dec. 19 and Mr. Steinhafel
explained it took several days to for the company to reveal it
because they first had to make sure its data system was safe, then
prepare employees and set up call centers to handle inquiries from
the public.

"We've tried to be very transparent and very clear," he said.

He said he's also aware of how Target customers are feeling: "No
one screens my e-mail," mr. Steinhafel said.  "So I have read
every single e-mail that has come to me."

"It has run the gamut of emotions from 'I'm with you Target . .  .
and I've had the other side of that equation to where there's been
some very poorly chosen words to describe Target and myself,"
Mr. Steinhafel said.

People have been upset and frustrated, he said: "They have every
right to be."

In a full-page ad in Monday's Star Tribune, Mr. Steinhafel said
his company's "top priority is take care of you and helping you
feel confident about shopping at Target, and it is our
responsibility to protect your information when you shop with us.

"We didn't live up to that responsibility, and I am truly sorry."

He said the company "moved as swiftly as we could to address the
problem," having closed the "access point that the criminal used"
and hired security experts to determine how "criminals forced
their way into our systems."

The ad, bearing Mr. Steinhafel's signature, closed with the
pledged that "we are determined to make things right, and we
will."


TIER REIT: Still Faces Securities Litigation in Texas Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tier REIT, Inc. continues to face a consolidated securities
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas Division), according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On each of September 17 and November 28, 2012, lawsuits seeking
class action status were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).  On January
4, 2013, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the Court. The
plaintiffs purport to file the suit individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, referred to herein as "Plaintiffs."

Plaintiffs named us, Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC, the
company's previous sponsor, as well as the directors at the time
of the allegations: Robert M. Behringer, Robert S. Aisner, Ronald
Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W. Partridge (individually a
"Director" and collectively the "Directors") and Scott W. Fordham,
the Company's President and Chief Financial Officer, and James E.
Sharp, the Company's Chief Accounting Officer (collectively, the
"Officers"), as defendants. In the amended complaint filed on
February 1, 2013, the Officers were dismissed from the
consolidated suit.

Plaintiffs allege that the Directors each individually breached
various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that the Directors violated Sections 14(a) and
(e) and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) of and under federal securities
law in connection with (1) the recommendations made to the
shareholders in response to certain tender offers made by CMG
Partners, LLC and its affiliates and (2) the solicitation of
proxies for the company's annual meeting of shareholders held on
June 24, 2011. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants were
unjustly enriched by the purported failures to provide complete
and accurate disclosure regarding, among other things, the value
of the company's common stock and the source of funds used to pay
distributions.

Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) that the court declare
the proxy to be materially false and misleading; (2) that the
filings on Schedule 14D-9 were false and misleading; (3) that the
defendants' conduct be declared to be in violation of law; (4)
that the authorization secured pursuant to the proxy be found null
and void and that the company be required to re-solicit a
shareholder vote pursuant to court supervision and court approved
proxy materials; (5) that the defendants have violated their
fiduciary duties to the shareholders who purchased the company's
shares from February 19, 2003, to the present; (6) that the
defendants be required to account to Plaintiffs for damages
suffered by Plaintiffs; and (7) that Plaintiffs be awarded costs
of the action including reasonable allowance for attorneys and
experts fees. Neither the company nor any of the other defendants
believe the consolidated suit has merit and each intend to defend
it vigorously.


TITEFLEX CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Gastite Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360.com reports that corrugated stainless steel tubing maker
Titeflex Corporation defeated a putative class action alleging its
Gastite system puts homes at risk of fire when a Massachusetts
federal judge said the plaintiff faced only a speculative danger
of property damage or bodily harm.

US District Judge Michael A Ponsor axed the negligence and strict
liability lawsuit from plaintiff Tim Kerin, finding that he lacked
standing to assert that Gastite can fail catastrophically and
cause natural-gas-fueled fires in the event of a lightning strike
because the Gastite.


UNDER ARMOUR: Recalls 62 Infant Sports Jersey Kits
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Under Armour, Inc., of Baltimore, Md., announced a voluntary
recall of about 62 Tottenham Hotspur Infant Home Kits.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The shoulder snaps on the jersey can detach, posing laceration and
choking hazards.

There were no injuries reported.

The infant home kit consists of a white jersey and navy blue
shorts and socks in sizes 0, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months.
The jersey has style #1238534 printed on a side seam label.  The
jerseys are white with navy blue trim and navy blue UA and
Tottenham Hotspur logos.  The navy blue shorts have white trim and
white UA and Tottenham Hotspur logos.  The socks are navy blue.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Philippines and sold at
Pegasus Sporting Goods and Upper 90 Soccer + Sport between August
and December 2013 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled home kits away from
children and return the kits to the retailer where purchased or
contact Under Armour for a full refund.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Argument to Certify Suit v. Intellicorp Heard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
heard oral argument on a motion to certify a suit filed against a
subsidiary of Verisk Analytics, Inc. over alleged violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On April 20, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California
naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.
("Intellicorp") titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. The
complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and claimed that Intellicorp failed to implement
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
adverse information contained in the background reports, failed to
maintain strict procedures to ensure that criminal record
information provided to employers is complete and up to date, and
failed to notify class members contemporaneously of the fact that
criminal record information was being provided to their employers
and prospective employers.

Intellicorp removed the case to the United States District Court
of the Northern District of California. The California Court later
granted Intellicorp's motion to transfer the case, which is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. On October 24, 2012 plaintiffs served their
First Amended Complaint (the "Roe Complaint") alleging a
nationwide putative class action on behalf of all persons who were
the subject of a Criminal SuperSearch or other "instant" consumer
background report furnished to a third party by Intellicorp for
employment purposes, and whose report contained any negative
public record of criminal arrest, charge, or conviction without
also disclosing the final disposition of the charges during the 5
years preceding the filing of this action through the date class
certification is granted.

The Roe Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an
amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one
thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees. On February 4, 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion to amend the Roe Complaint to eliminate the
named plaintiff's individual claim for compensatory damages. This
amendment did not change the breadth or scope of the request for
relief sought on behalf of the proposed class.

Plaintiffs later amended their class definition in their motion
for class certification to include only those consumers whose (1)
Criminal SuperSearch returned results, but Single County search
returned no result; (2) Criminal SuperSearch returned one or more
criminal charges without a disposition, but the Single County
search returned a disposition other than "conviction" or "guilty"
and (3) Criminal SuperSearch returned a higher level of offense
(felony or misdemeanor) for one or more criminal charges than the
Single County search (misdemeanor or infraction.) This amendment
reduces the size of the potential class, but does not alter the
time period for which the plaintiffs seek to certify a class or
the scope of the request for relief sought on behalf of the
proposed class. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
fully submitted on March 18, 2013 and oral argument was heard by
Judge Gwin on June 27, 2013.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Faces Suit Over FCRA "Violations"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. was served with a complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
titled Michael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp Records, Inc., according
to Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On January 7, 2013 plaintiff served its First Amended Complaint
(the "Thomas Complaint") to add Mark A. Johnson (the plaintiff in
the Johnson v. iiX matter described) as a named plaintiff. The
Thomas Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action for
violations of FCRA on behalf of "[a]ll natural persons residing in
the United States (a) who were the subject of a report sold by
Intellicorp to a third party, (b) that was furnished for an
employment purpose, (c) that contained at least one public record
of a criminal conviction or arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or
civil judgment, (d) within five years next preceding the filing of
this action and during its pendency, and (e) to whom Intellicorp
did not place in the United States mail postage-prepaid, on the
day it furnished any part of the report, a written notice that it
was furnishing the subject report and containing the name of the
person that was to receive the report."

The Thomas Complaint proposes an alternative subclass as follows:
"[a]ll natural persons residing in Ohio or Tennessee (a) who were
the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b)
that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that contained
at least one public record of a criminal conviction or arrest,
civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five years
next preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency,
(e) when a mutual review of the record would reveal that the
identity associated with the public record does not match the
identity of the class member about whom the report was furnished,
and (f) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States
mail postage pre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of the
report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report
and containing the name of the person that was to receive the
report."

Similar to the Roe action, the Thomas Complaint alleges that
Intellicorp violated the FCRA, asserting that Intellicorp violated
section 1681k(a)(1) of the FCRA because it failed to provide
notice to the plaintiffs "at the time" the adverse public record
information was reported. The named plaintiffs also allege
individual claims under section 1681e(b) claiming that Intellicorp
failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy in the preparation of the consumer report it furnished
pertaining to plaintiffs. The Thomas Complaint seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the named
plaintiffs.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Court Approves Settlement of Lawsuits v. iiX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approval was granted to an agreement entered to settle lawsuits
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
against Insurance Information Exchange ("iiX"), a subsidiary of
Verisk Analytics, Inc., according to Verisk's Nov. 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On January 3, 2013 the Company received service of a complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Insurance
Information Exchange ("iiX") titled Mark A. Johnson v. Insurance
Information Exchange, LLC (the "Johnson Complaint").

The Johnson Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action
on behalf of "[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States
who were the subject of a consumer report prepared by iiX for
employment purposes within five (5) years prior to the filing of
this Complaint and to whom iiX did not provide notice of the fact
that public record information which is likely to have an adverse
effect upon the consumer's ability to obtain employment, is being
reported by iiX, together with the name and address of the person
to whom such information is being reported at the time such public
record information is reported to the user of such consumer
report."

Similar to the Thomas matter, the Johnson Complaint alleges
violations of section 1681k(a) of the FCRA claiming that iiX
failed to notify customers contemporaneously that criminal record
information was provided to a prospective employer and failed to
maintain strict procedures to ensure that the information reported
is complete and up to date. The Johnson Complaint seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 18, 2013 the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
resolving the Roe, Thomas and Johnson matters which Judge Gwin
approved on October 29, 2013 subject to a hearing on Final
Approval. The Stipulation of Settlement provides for a payment of
$18,600 all of which is to be provided by insurance. Accordingly,
if the Stipulation of Settlement is approved at the hearing on
Final Approval, the settlement of these matters is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on the Company.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Colo. Suit by Fraud Detection Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. faces a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado that was filed on
behalf of fraud detection employees, according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On May 13, 2013 the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics,
Inc. and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of the
Company's subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado, who filed
the class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection employees
who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years nationwide
and who were classified as exempt employees.

The class complaint claims that the fraud detection employees were
misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied
certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they
were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three
causes of action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under
the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid
commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive
relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Lawsuit by Former Mortgage Auditor
----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. faces a putative class action filed by a
former mortgage auditor in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 2, 2013 the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and
Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia
Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's subsidiary
Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action on behalf
of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as auditors,
mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors nationwide
at anytime (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of this action
until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and (ii)
within 4 years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until
trial for the California collective action.

The class complaint claims that the defendants failed to pay
overtime compensation, to provide rest and meal periods, waiting
time penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to the
plaintiffs as required by federal and California law. It pleads
seven causes of action against defendants: (1) Failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC
Wage Order No. 4; (3) Failure to pay waiting time penalties in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-203; (4) Failure to
provide itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
section 226 and IWC Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide and or
authorize meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
section 226.7 and IWC Order No. 4; (6) Violation of California
Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement
claim, Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 (California class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, equitable and injunctive
relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.


VERMINTS: Settles Vermont's Suit Over Mislabeled Products
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Vermont reached a settlement
with VerMints, a company that mislabeled its tins of mints as
Vermont products.

The state attorney general's office sued the Braintree, Mass.-
based mints-maker in 2012, saying that from 2006 to 2011 its metal
tins were labeled as "Vermont's All Natural Mints."  The attorney
general's office said they actually were manufactured in Canada
from mostly non-Vermont ingredients, thus violating consumer
protection rules.

As part of the settlement announced on Jan. 13, VerMints agreed to
donate $35,000 to the Vermont Foodbank, pay the state $30,000 and
add corrective labeling to its products.

"Use of the term 'Vermont' has great economic value," said Vermont
Attorney General William Sorrell, "and many businesses go to the
expense of sourcing their ingredients and processing within the
state in order to market their products as Vermont products.  We
need to maintain a level playing field when it comes to claims of
geographic origin, and to ensure that consumers who care about
where their food comes from get accurate information in the
marketplace."

The Associated Press left a message seeking comment from
Gary Rinkus, president of VerMints.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Consumers May Suffer If Class Action Ruling Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiger Joyce, writing for National Review Online, reports that
every year, millions of American consumers benefit from warranty
protections and service systems that both the makers and the
sellers of countless products and services maintain.  Warranties
have become particularly pervasive in American manufacturing, for
good reason.  Even the most finely engineered mass-production
processes invariably entail some small incidence of error.  From
the first design drawing to the last unit off the assembly line,
unexpected issues crop up.

So manufacturers and large-scale retailers establish call centers,
build service organizations, and compete on their responsiveness
to customers.  Even after warranties expire, service technicians
and call-center experts work hard to educate consumers on product
use and care and on how most efficiently to resolve problems.

But the future of warranty programs and call centers is now
threatened by the obstinate disregard that two federal courts of
appeal have shown toward recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents
regarding the certification of class-action lawsuits.

Though the high court in both Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011) and Comcast
v. Behrend (2013) raised the bar for the certification of class
actions, particularly with respect to the "commonality" of the
claims of prospective class members, both the Sixth and the
Seventh Circuits -- in Whirlpool v. Glazer and Sears v. Butler,
respectively -- have ignored those precedents by certifying
classes with virtually no commonality.

Both cases involve Whirlpool-manufactured front-load washing
machines and are now on appeal, once again, to the Supreme Court.
When introduced in 2001, the washers were actually high-tech
innovations designed to meet consumer demands and new government
efficiency mandates for electricity and water use.  Compared with
their predecessors, they were 67 percent more energy-efficient and
68 percent more water-efficient.  The savings on water and power
bills alone amounted to $120 per year for a typical family.

But it turned out that some units eventually emitted what Consumer
Reports in 2005 called a "musty" scent.  This happened with less
than 1 percent of machines, according to a 2010 Consumer Reports
survey, or with 2 to 3 percent, based on call-center data from
Sears and Whirlpool in 2001-12. In any case, that 2005 report
named the machines "the best all around," an enthusiasm that
consumers heartily seconded with millions of purchases, even as
the musty odor was regularly noted in print and online reviews.

Nonetheless, to class-action lawyers, that statistically rare
scent smelled just like cold, hard cash. They ultimately crafted
the largest class actions ever to reach the Supreme Court after
both circuit courts unfathomably upheld trial-judge certifications
of respective classes that included buyers who had not experienced
any problem with their washers -- which is to say, at least 97
percent of all buyers.  And of the tiny percentage who alleged
problems, the lower courts ruled that they did not need to
demonstrate a common cause for them.

If the certifications for these widely diverse classes are allowed
to stand, not only will class-action lawyers stand to make out
like bandits, but consumers would pay the price as huge new
litigation costs are passed on to them.  Manufacturing companies,
many with error rates higher than Whirlpool's, would be left no
choice but to shut down helpful call centers and extended-service
programs, out of fear that those records would be targeted by
discovery-happy lawyers looking to gin up their next jackpot.

The Supreme Court can and should put a stop to this madness before
it has a chance to start in earnest.  Justices were set to meet on
Friday, January 10, to consider additional cases the Court will
hear this term.  It should decide to hear both Whirlpool and Sears
and then make it abundantly clear to activist lower courts that
"no" means "no."

No more widely divergent claims within a single class.  No more
classes composed overwhelmingly of happily satisfied consumers.
And no more litigation when warranty programs, consumer call
centers, and extended-service programs are perfectly capable of
handling individual and varying buyers' issues far more
efficiently and far less expensively.

The high court has been fairly gentle thus far in steering lower
courts toward a better understanding of its Wal-Mart and Comcast
decisions.  But disrespectful lower courts have now forced it to
apply a firmer hand.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Challenge Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee
has not yet ruled on a motion by plaintiffs in a securities suit
against Wright Medical Group, Inc. to seek reconsideration of a
Court decision dismissing the suit, according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In January 2013, the United States District Court, Middle District
of Tennessee, granted BioMimetic's, and the other named
defendants', motion to dismiss a federal securities purported
class action lawsuit without leave to amend the complaint. The
plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter Judgment or Amend Order and
Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, seeking reconsideration of
the Court's decision and BioMimetic filed a response opposing that
motion. The Court has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' motion.


XPO LOGISTICS: 3PD Sued Over "Misclassification" of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Company's subsidiary, 3PD, Holdings, Inc. is a defendant in a
number of class action and individual lawsuits alleging improper
classification of contract carriers as independent contractors
rather than employees, among other claims, and seeking damages
primarily under varying state laws for alleged improper deductions
from wages, according to XPO Logistics, Inc. 's Nov. 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Pursuant to the purchase agreement by which the Company acquired
3PD, the former owners of 3PD have agreed to indemnify the Company
for costs and liabilities related to such class action and
individual lawsuits, subject to certain limits.


* Class Action Threat May Slow M&A Transactions in India
--------------------------------------------------------
Dolphy D'Souza, writing for Hindu Business Line, reports that a
class action suit (CAS) allows a group of people with common
interest in a matter to sue a company or auditors or advisors for
compensation against illegal or inappropriate or incorrect
actions.  Pursuing a legal suit as a group lowers the cost of
litigation, and makes it worthwhile as against going solo.

CAS is prevalent in more than 20 countries including Australia,
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, South
Africa, Taiwan, and US.  US class action litigation can broadly be
categorized into two different groups: securities class action and
consumer class action or employee class action.  Securities CAS
could relate to many matters, such as falsification of financial
statements, IPO laddering, insider trading, acquisitions, etc. For
example, a CAS was filed against Mark Zukerberg by investors as
they suffered heavy losses due to drastic fall in the script price
after initial listing.  They argued that Zukerberg had overvalued
the shares.

Chasing the money

CAS causes fund diversion from productive investment to
litigation.  For example, between 1999 and 2004, a US drug pharma
company spent about $25 billion to fight CAS as against $19
billion spent on R&D.  One of the studies has indicated that mere
filing of a CAS against the company causes its stock value to drop
by an average of 3.5 per cent.  In many cases, the potential size
of damages force defendants for out-of-court settlements even if
they have strong defenses or the claims made by litigants are
meritless.

Unfortunately, insurance coverage will be restricted by policy
terms and conditions, and limited within a certain maximum limit
of coverage.  This varies greatly and is one of the prime factors
in underwriting such a policy.

Many smaller companies with annual revenues of Euro 10 million
purchase a limit of up to Euro 2 million. Fortune 500 companies
with US listings have over $500 million of cover.  This is not a
good enough cover in a major CAS and could cause companies to go
belly-up (example, Enron or Worldcom).  Such is the debilitating
effect.

More litigations

In India, section 245 was introduced in the new Companies Act to
allow members/depositors to file CAS.  In accordance with the Act,
only 100 members/depositors are required to file a CAS.  Even one
member can file a CAS provided he/she holds at least 10 per cent
of the issued share capital of the company.

If the tribunal decides that the case is frivolous, the applicants
are required to pay Rs 1 lakh to the company. This is hardly a
hurdle against filing CAS.  India is a highly litigious country.
There are currently 30 million cases outstanding in various
courts.  More than 300 PILs are filed each year in the Supreme
Court alone.  About 100 PILs are filed in Delhi HC.  Clearly, CAS
is likely to significantly scale up the level of litigations in
India.

CAS was introduced in the new Act as the government felt that in
the case of Satyam Computer, while the US shareholders got
compensation, Indian shareholders did not receive any relief.  The
intent of providing the levers in the hands of the minority, who
have otherwise very little say in company administration, is good.
However, this may not always be the case.  In the absence of
strict anti-abuse measures, this could be misused by professional
bodies and institutional investors, and companies or auditors
could be exposed to unnecessary litigation and blackmailing.  The
threat of CAS can deter management to go slow on big decisions
and, hence, could slow M&A transactions, deter significant foreign
investment and slow medical and other R&D.

India scene

A significant difference between US and Indian legal framework is
that in the US, law firms pursue litigants as they have a
contingency/success fee arrangement.  Lawyers in the US are
referred to as ambulance chasers as they specialize in bringing
cases seeking damages by using an event or large scale disasters
to find legal clients.

In India, the Bar council rules prohibit contingent fee
arrangements.  Hence the situation may not be as bad as the US,
but it is always susceptible to change.

Indian companies should take appropriate measures to reduce the
risk of becoming a target of CAS.  Firstly, they should have a
clear policy for timely and accurate disclosures of material
information.  They should conduct regular reviews of business
practices to identify potential areas of vulnerability.

They should protect themselves through insurance policies, and
should keep their ears to the ground and should promptly address
any issues that are brewing and have the potential of blowing up.

Given the potential size of CAS, most companies prefer to settle
the case.  However, doing this frequently may identify the company
as a soft target and a potential target for similar suits.
Therefore, each company should evaluate this and have an
appropriate policy on how to deal with CAS.

More importantly, they should anticipate and be prepared for
litigations.


* Study Finds Lack of Class Action Settlement Payment Data
----------------------------------------------------------
Dimitra Kessenides, writing for Businessweek, reports that for
years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have
tried to slow the proliferation of class actions.  The reason
seems obvious enough: Corporations don't relish the prospect of
being ordered to pay huge settlements to thousands of customers
who band together and sue over faulty products or bad behavior.
Yet the chamber argues the real reason class actions should be
curbed is that they're ineffective: Many of the cases are dropped
or get thrown out by the judge.  And even when the plaintiffs win
money 00 like in 2011, when Bank of America (BAC) agreed to pay
$410 million to settle complaints about its overdraft fees -- a
lot of the money goes into the pockets of plaintiffs' lawyers, not
regular Joes.  In the BofA case, attorneys came away with $123
million.

It's hard to say whether this is true in most cases, in part
because the courts don't keep records on how class actions are
resolved.  So last year, the chamber hired attorneys at Mayer
Brown to conduct a detailed study tallying up the winners and
losers.  A major firm that represents the chamber and big
companies including Medtronic and Nestle, Mayer Brown isn't
exactly an impartial arbiter.  Still, the report's conclusions,
released in December, are illuminating -- for reasons its authors
might not have anticipated.

The study looked at 148 consumer and employment class actions
filed in federal court in 2009, far enough back in time that most
of them, 127, have made it through the legal system.  According to
the report, none of the cases went to trial or resulted in a court
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  Forty-five of the cases were
voluntarily dropped by the plaintiff who filed the suit.  Another
41 were deemed without merit and dismissed by a federal court.
All told, 40 cases reached settlements.  It's not known how much
plaintiffs got in any of them, because the details weren't made
public.

The study's authors did find some settlement data for six of the
cases.

The chamber has trumpeted the report as evidence that class
actions don't help plaintiffs.  That's murky at best, given the
study's short time frame.  What it shows most clearly is how
secrecy surrounding these cases makes it impossible for the
chamber or anyone else to draw solid conclusions about their
effectiveness.  "The benefit to actual class members is almost
never revealed," the report concludes.  That came as a surprise to
Andrew Pincus, the study's lead author and a seasoned attorney
who's represented AT&T (T) and other major corporations.  "You
hear these anecdotes in these settlements where people don't
really get anything, and then you hear further anecdotes of a
settlement of $20 million, but it's behind this veil of secrecy,"
Mr. Pincus says.  "I was sad to see how little data there is."

The way the system is set up, there's little incentive to share
details.  Corporations don't want to reveal what they've had to
pay out, and plaintiffs' lawyers don't want their fees to make
headlines.  Until that information is made public, "we don't have
the data that would enable a policymaker who really cares about
the facts to make a wise decision," says Deborah Hensler, a class-
action scholar at Stanford Law School.  She argues that, for all
their flaws, class actions are an effective deterrent to corporate
misbehavior.


                             *********

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 G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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  * * *