CAR_Public/140127.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 18

                             Headlines


AD ASTRA: Calif. Court Grants Motions to Compel Arbitration
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Certification Trial in "Krueger" Suit Set
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over REIT for Review
AMEDISYS INC: Court Enters Protective Order in "Tomkins" Suit
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Scanning Personal Information

AU OPTRONICS: Ruling Impacts CAFA Mass Acquisition Requirements
BLUE DIAMOND: Tchayelian Suit Plaintiff to File Admin. Motion
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 17,000+ Lawsuits Over Surgical Mesh
CARTER'S INC: First Amended Complaint in "Corral" Suit Dismissed
CIBA VISION: Consumers Report Clear Care-Related Eye Injuries

CLOVERDALE FOODS: Recalls 2,664 Pounds of Beef Franks
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Approved
CONSECO LIFE: Atty. Fee, Expenses and Service Awards Granted
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Says Chemical Spill Class Action No Merit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: $27MM Fund in Antitrust Suit to be Distributed

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Continues to Defend Suits by Football Players
EQT PRODUCTION: Bill May Halt Natural Gas Royalties Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over "Private" Messages
FEDERAL INSURANCE: 6th Cir. Keeps Ruling in Beaumont Suit
FIRST BANK: Bid to Seal Information in "Marsh" Suit Denied

FIRST BAPTIST: Faces Class Action Over Bedbug Infestations
FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Certifies Missouri Consumer Class
HALLIBURTON CO: Shareholders Suit Appeal Hinges on SCOTUS Ruling
HECLA MINING: Expects Dismissal of Idaho Shareholder Lawsuit
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

INVENTURE FOODS: Certification Bid Filing in Suit v. Jamba Set
IOVATE HEALTH: Court Strikes Reference to Nationwide Class
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Faces Suit Over Discontinued Drilling Business
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: To Present Deal in Rights-of-Way Suit
MANPOWER INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Ramirez" Class Action

MERCK & CO: Sanford Heisler Adds Four New Class Representatives
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action
NORDSTROM INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Tseng" Suit Denied
OFFICE DEPOT: Settles "Venkata" Shareholder Suit Over Merger
OLDFORD GROUP: Dismissed From "Sonnenberg" Case

ORLEANS PARISH: 4th Cir. Remands "Oliver" Suit to Trial Court
OSAKA JAPANESE: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in "Kwong" Suit
PAPA JOHN'S: Settlement in "Agne" Suit Has Final Court Approval
PAPA JOHN'S: Motion to Certify FLSA Violations Suit Pending
REGIS CORP: Facing Suit Over Consumer, Wage & Hour Violations

RINO INTERNATIONAL: Protective Order Entered in "Sicav" Suit
SAVIENT PHARMA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: NJ Customers Suit Transferred to Fla. MDL
TARGET CORP: Hagens Berman Files Action Over Data Breach
TARGET CORP: U.S. Senators Seek Answers on Recent Data Breach

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Faces Canadian Horsepower Label Suits
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Awaits Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
THOMPSON BUILDING: Faces Fines Over Asbestos Removal Violations
TRADER JOE'S: July 9 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
TRUITT BROTHERS: Recalls Cheeseburger Mac Products Over Allergens

TURQUOISE HILL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
UNIT PETROLEUM: Faces Renewed Bid to Certify Royalty Owners Class
VIVENDI CANADA: Retired Worker Can Launch Class Action

* Boilers, Weight-Lifting Benches Among Recently Recalled Products
* FDA Seeks Consumer Reports Related to Defective Tobacco Products
* Securities Class Actions Up 10% in 2013, NERA Report Shows
* Senator Calls for Safer Packaging for Kids' Medicine Bottles


                             *********


AD ASTRA: Calif. Court Grants Motions to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard M. Haggarty, Esq. -- Richard.Haggerty@dbr.com -- at
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP reports that two federal district
courts in California recently hit the brakes on putative TCPA
class actions, granting the defendants' motions to compel
arbitration and informing the plaintiffs that, by signing
contracts containing arbitration clauses, they relinquished any
right to pursue TCPA claims through a class action.

In Mendoza v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-06922-
CAS(JCGx), 2014 WL 47777 (Jan. 6, 2014 C.D. Cal.), plaintiff
Miguel Mendoza sued an agent of a payday lending firm that
contacted him regarding repayment of a loan.  Mr. Mendoza, who had
obtained a $255 payday loan from non-party Speedy Cash, alleged
that he began receiving calls from defendant Ad Astra on his cell
phone after he failed to repay the debt.  When Mr. Mendoza did not
answer these calls, Ad Astra allegedly left "voicemail messages
using a pre-recorded or artificial voice."  He contended that such
messages violated the TCPA. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A).

At the time he received the loan, however, Mr. Mendoza signed a
contract in which he waived the right to pursue a class action and
agreed to arbitrate any potential claims.  The arbitration clause
was extremely broad, covering "any claim, dispute or controversy
between you and us (or related parties) that arises from or
relates in any way to this Agreement . . . ; any of our marketing,
advertising, solicitations and conduct relating to your request
for Services; our collection of any amounts you owe; or our
disclosure of or failure to protect any information about you."

Mr. Mendoza did not dispute that he agreed to a contract
containing an arbitration clause, but he raised three arguments
for why the court should deny Ad Astra' motion to compel
arbitration.  First, he argued that Ad Astra lacked standing to
enforce an agreement he signed with Speedy Cash. The court
rejected this argument, finding that Ad Astra had standing as an
agent of Speedy Cash.

Second, Mr. Mendoza argued that his claim fell outside the scope
of the arbitration clause. The court pointed out that the
arbitration clause states that "'Claim' is to be given the
broadest possible meaning and includes . . . claims based on any
. . . statute[.]"  It also noted that the clause expressly
included claims arising out of debt-collection activities.

Finally, he argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable.
The court found that the clause was not procedurally
unconscionable under California law because it "gave plaintiff the
unilateral right to reject arbitration at any time within 30 days
of signing the contract" through the following provision:

    1. RIGHT TO REJECT ARBITRATION. If you do not want this
Arbitration Provision to apply, you may reject it within 30 days
after the date of this Agreement by delivering to us . . . a
written rejection notice. . . . Your rejection of arbitration will
not affect your right to Services or the terms of this Agreement
(other than this Arbitration Provision.).

Because Mr. Mendoza elected not to exercise the right to reject
arbitration, the court found that "the negotiation of the
arbitration provision was not oppressive under California law of
unconscionability."

After concluding that the arbitration clause was not procedurally
unconscionable, the court also found that it was not substantively
unconscionable or the result of unfair surprise.  The court
highlighted the following warning in the contract:

    VERY IMPORTANT. READ THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION CAREFULLY. IT
SETS FORTH WHEN AND HOW CLAIMS . . . WILL BE ARBITRATED INSTEAD OF
LITIGATED IN COURT. IF YOU DON'T REJECT THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1 BELOW, UNLESS PROHIBITED BY
APPLICABLE LAW, IT WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON THE WAY IN
WHICH YOU OR WE RESOLVE ANY CLAIM.

This warning, combined with the way the arbitration clause "was
set out conspicuously on a separate page of the contract," led the
court to conclude that the clause was not substantively
unconscionable.

Like its counterpart in the Central District, the Southern
District of California also recently sent a putative TCPA class
action to arbitration.

Plaintiff Rafael David Sherman had purchased a used car from
defendant Rancho Chrysler Jeep Dodge in 2010.  In his complaint,
he alleged that the defendants violated the TCPA in June 2013 by
leaving a prerecorded voice message on the voicemail of his phone
reminding him that it was the anniversary of his auto purchase and
that it was time for "another status review of your ownership
experience."

At the time of his purchase, Mr. Sherman had signed a "Retail
Installment Sales Contract."  The contract was a single sheet of
paper with terms on both sides, including an arbitration clause on
the back.  Mr. Sherman signed the front of the contract, which
included the following warning above the signature line: "YOU
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTRACT,
INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE ON THE REVERSE SIDE, BEFORE
SIGNING BELOW."

The arbitration clause, like the clause at issue in Mendoza, was
sufficiently broad enough to encompass Sherman's TCPA claim: "Any
claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise
. . ., between you and us or our employees, agents, successors or
assigns, which arise out of or relate to your credit application,
purchase or condition of this vehicle, this contract or any
resulting transaction or relationship . . . shall, at your or our
election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a
court action."

Mr. Sherman argued that the court should not enforce the
arbitration clause, because (1) there is no evidence that Sherman
read the arbitration clause; (2) the clause is unconscionable; and
(3) the clause does not cover the dispute at issue.  The court
rejected each of these arguments.

These recent decisions stress the importance of ensuring that
arbitration clauses contain class action waivers, are broad enough
to encompass potential TCPA claims, and sufficiently explain the
consumer's legal rights.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Certification Trial in "Krueger" Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification trial in Roger Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise
Financial, et al. pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota is currently scheduled for January 1,
2015, according to Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to the
present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA, by selecting and retaining primarily
proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor performance
histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options
and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial or its
subsidiaries. The action also alleges that the Company breached
fiduciary duties under ERISA because it used its affiliate
Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan trustee and record-keeper and
improperly reaped profits from the sale of the record-keeping
business to Wachovia Bank, N.A.

Plaintiffs allege over $20 million in damages. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on February 7, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the
Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which
was denied on November 20, 2012. The parties are engaged in
discovery. On July 3, 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment
on statute of limitations grounds. The hearing on the motion was
heard on August 14, 2013, and the parties are awaiting a decision
by the Court. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for
December 9, 2013, and the trial is currently scheduled for January
1, 2015.


AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over REIT for Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss Jeffers vs. Ameriprise Financial Services,
et al. pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois has been fully briefed and submitted
to the Court for review and decision, according to Ameriprise
Financial, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jeffers
vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois relating to its sales of the Inland Western
(now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc. ("RPAI")) REIT.
The action also names as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI's
executives, and several members of RPAI's board. The action
alleges that the Company failed to perform required due diligence
and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including fees
charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and
valuation of the shares on client account statements. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages. The Company was served in December 2012,
and, on April 19, 2013, moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion
has been fully briefed and submitted to the Court for review and
decision.


AMEDISYS INC: Court Enters Protective Order in "Tomkins" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Warren W. Eginton granted an emergency
motion for protective order in the case captioned SCOTT TOMKINS,
JOSEPH G. HUSK and ELIZABETH LEUNG, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMEDISYS, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 3:12-CV-01082-WWE, (D. Conn.).

Plaintiffs brought this putative class action on July 25, 2012,
against their employer, Amedisys, Inc., individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated employees, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The members
of the putative collective action include all persons employed
full-time by Amedisys as registered nurses, physical therapists,
occupational therapists, and speech language pathologists in the
home health division during the preceding three years who were
paid on a per visit and hourly basis. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
on July 10, 2013.

The Court reviewed the proposed notice of protective order
submitted by plaintiffs and found it to be appropriate and
necessary in light of Amedisys's actions.

"After the Court's final approval of the class certification
notice, plaintiffs are authorized to distribute to named
plaintiffs, opt-in plaintiffs, and all putative class members for
this action a notice in the form as proposed and submitted by
plaintiffs to the Court on September 3, 2013. Within 15 days of
this order's filing date, Amedisys shall provide plaintiffs'
counsel with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all
putative class members who were sent the purported Agreement, and
it shall provide plaintiffs' counsel with copies of all materials
and communications sent to or received from opt-in plaintiffs and
putative class members relating to the putative Agreement," added
Judge Eginton.

A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Memorandum of
Decision is available at http://is.gd/U0Ifqffrom Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Scanning Personal Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
PatentlyApple.com reports that a new Class Action lawsuit has been
filed against Apple in Boston, Massachusetts by Plaintiffs Adam
Christensen, Jeffrey Scolnick, and William Farrell individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated.  The lawsuit
revolves around Apple demanding the collection of Personal
Identification Information (PII) in order to conclude a sale which
is against Massachusetts law.  In addition, the lawsuit alleges
that Apple illegally sells consumer's PII without compensating
them for it.

This action arises from Apple's violation of the noted law through
its practice of requiring, as a condition of using a credit card
to make a purchase, Plaintiffs' and the Class members' personal
identification information, specifically their ZIP codes.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Class and seek
statutory damages pursuant to Massachusetts Gen Laws chapter 93A
Sec. 9, double or treble damages pursuant to Massachusetts Gen
Laws chapter 93A Sec. 9, injunctive relief; and costs and
attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff Adam Christensen shopped for and purchased items at an
Apple retail store location in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts on
July 10, 2012, and Peabody, Massachusetts on February 18, 2013,
again on February 18, 2013, and March 11, 2013.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Scolnick shopped for and purchased items at an
Apple retail store location in Natick, Massachusetts on September
20, 2012, September 21, 2012, and November 2, 2012.

Plaintiff William Farrell shopped for and purchased items at an
Apple retail store location in Dedham, Massachusetts on November
25, 2012.

To consummate each purchase, Plaintiffs elected to use their
credit card as their chosen form of payment.  As a condition of
using their credit cards, Plaintiffs were required by Apple to
enter personal identification information associated with the
credit card, including their full and complete zip codes.  Apple
would not allow Plaintiff to complete their purchases without
supplying such information.

Apple is not required by credit card issuers to require this
information from consumers.  Apple recorded Plaintiffs' zip code
into an electronic credit card transaction form.  Apple continues
to store Plaintiffs' personal identification information,
including Plaintiffs' names, zip codes, and credit card numbers,
in its databases.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has determined that a
zip code constitutes personal identification information ("PII")
within the meaning of Mass. Gen Laws chapter 93 Sec. 105(a).

According to the formal complaint before the court, "Apple's
website states that Apple sells consumers' PII -- including
Plaintiffs and the Class' PII -- to third-parties for profit:

At times Apple may make certain personal information available to
strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and
services, or that help Apple market to customers.

The Class Action filed with the court noted that "Apple has
violated, and continues to violate, Mass. Gen Laws chapter. 93
Sec. 105.  Accordingly, Apple's violations of Mass. Gen Laws
chapter 93 Sec. 105 constitute unfair and deceptive trade
practices within the meaning of Mass. Gen Laws chapter 93A Sec. 2.

First, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured because they
have received unwanted marketing materials from Apple as a result
of having provided their zip codes when using credit cards at
Apple.  Second, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured by
Apple's sale of Plaintiffs' and the Class' PII to third-parties,
which was collected by Apple in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws
chapter. 93 Sec. 105(c).  And third, Plaintiffs and the Class have
been injured because Apple misappropriated their economically
valuable PII without consideration.

More than 30 days prior to filing suit, Plaintiffs made a pre-suit
demand pursuant to Mass. Gen Laws chapter 93A Sec. 9(3), in which
Plaintiffs sought: class-wide relief limited to statutory damages
of $25 pursuant to Mass. Gen Laws chapter 93A Sec. 9, for each
violation of Mass. Gen Laws chapter 93 Sec. 105; injunctive
relief; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  Apple did not
accept the terms of this demand.

Apple's failure to accept the terms of this demand was made in bad
faith, because Apple has knowledge or reason to know that the
practice complained of does, in fact, violate Mass. Gen Laws
chapter 93 Sec. 105 and Mass. Gen Laws chapter 93A Sec. 9, and
that Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to the relief demanded
as a matter of law.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to double or
treble damages as a result of Apple's bad faith violations of
Mass. Gen Laws chapter 93A Sec. 9.

The class action lawsuit presented in the Jan. 16 report was filed
in the Massachusetts District Court, Boston Office, under case
number 1:2014cv10100.  At present, no Judge has been assigned to
the case.


AU OPTRONICS: Ruling Impacts CAFA Mass Acquisition Requirements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin A. Achen, Esq. at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
reports that in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.,
No. 12-1036, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 645 (Jan. 14, 2014) the Supreme Court
of the United States addressed the circuit split that arose after
the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal's holding in Louisiana ex rel.
Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008) that a
suit brought by the Louisiana Attorney General qualified as a
"mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(11)(B)(i).  The Fourth Circuit, Seventh
Circuit, and Ninth Circuit all reached the opposite conclusion.
The Supreme Court, resolving the split in favor of the Fourth,
Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, held that the mass action provision
can only be invoked to remove a case where the case is brought by
100 or more named plaintiffs.  Lawsuits brought by state attorneys
general in which the state is the only named plaintiff do not
qualify as "mass actions."

In 2011, the State of Mississippi sued AU Optronics on behalf of
itself and its citizens, alleging violations of the Mississippi
Antitrust and Consumer Protection Acts.  AU Optronics filed a
notice to remove the case to federal court, arguing that the case
was removable under either the "class action" or "mass action"
provision of CAFA.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
remanded.  The court held the following: (1) the case was not a
"class action" as it had not been brought pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23; (2) the case was a "mass action"
because 100 or more Mississippi consumers had purchased the LCD
screens at issue and were therefore real parties in interest to
the State's claim; and (3) the case must nevertheless be remanded
because it fell within CAFA's "general public" exception, which
excludes from the definition of "mass actions" civil actions
"asserted on behalf of the public."  The Fifth Circuit agreed with
the first two holdings, but reversed on the ground that the case
did not fall within the "general public exception."

The Supreme Court reversed.  The Court held the mass action's
requirement that "100 or more persons are proposed to be tried
jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common
questions" requires that the case be brought by 100 or more named
plaintiffs.  Unnamed real parties are not "persons" for the
purposes of CAFA's mass action provision.  The Court noted that
the "persons" are also referred to as "plaintiffs," and stated
that a definition of "plaintiff" that included both named and
unnamed parties in interest would "stretch[] the meaning of
'plaintiff' beyond recognition."  The Court also noted that the
language of the mass action provision intentionally differs from
that of the class action provision, which explicitly defines
"class members" to include "persons (named or unnamed)."

The Supreme Court's decision in AU Optronics makes it more
difficult for cases to qualify for removal under CAFA's mass
action provision.  In particular, the holding ensures actions
brought by state attorneys general on behalf of their citizens
will remain in state court.  Companies facing class action
litigation should be aware that this decision increases their risk
of being forced to defend against suits in multiple forums.


BLUE DIAMOND: Tchayelian Suit Plaintiff to File Admin. Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVON TCHAYELIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. C14-00091 HRL, (N.D. Cal.) is a
putative class action against Blue Diamond Growers for their
alleged mislabeling of products as "All Natural" and/or containing
"Evaporated Cane Juice."

In its Certification of Interested Entities or Persons, Tchayelian
notes that another action pending in this District, Werdebaugh v.
Blue Diamond Growers, C12-02724-LHK, concerns class allegations
that overlap with the class allegations in this action.

Civil Local Rule 3-12(b) states that "[w]henever a party knows or
learns that an action, filed in or removed to this district is (or
the party believes that the action may be) related to an action
which is or was pending in this District . . . the party must
promptly file in the earliest-filed case an Administrative Motion
to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related."

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd ordered Tchayelian
to file such a motion in Werdebaugh.

A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/xr0e0Xfrom Leagle.com.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 17,000+ Lawsuits Over Surgical Mesh
------------------------------------------------------------
As of November 4, 2013, there were over 17,000 product liability
cases or claims asserted against Boston Scientific Corporation in
various federal and state courts in the United States, inclusive
of seven putative class actions, 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.

There were also over ten cases in Canada, inclusive of three
putative class actions. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal
injury associated with use of the company's transvaginal surgical
mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and
pelvic organ prolapse, design and manufacturing claims, failure to
warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer
protection laws and loss of consortium claims.

Many of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in
state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases
to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In addition, the
company was contacted by the Attorney General for the State of
California in October 2012 informing the company that their office
and certain other state attorneys general offices intend to
initiate a civil investigation into the company's sale of
transvaginal surgical mesh products.


CARTER'S INC: First Amended Complaint in "Corral" Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony W. Ishii granted a motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint (FAC) in the case captioned AIDA CORRAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CARTER'S INC., a Delaware Corporation; and THE
WILLIAM CARTER COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation, Defendants,
NO. 1:13-CV-0262 AWI SKO, (E.D. Cal.).

This is a putative class action in diversity for damages and
injunctive relief by plaintiff Aida Corral, individually and as
putative class representative against defendants Carter's Inc.,
and The William Carter Company. The Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint alleges two claims for relief: the first for false or
misleading advertising in violation of California's Unfair
Business Practices statute, Business and Professions Code Section
17200, et seq.; and the second for false advertising in violation
of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California
Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint.

"Because Plaintiff has failed to allege evidence sufficient to
establish the existence of the Fact that Defendant is accused of
concealing, Plaintiff's claim for violation of CLRA fails. The
court is not inclined at this time to extend this analysis further
to determine whether Defendant would have been liable for
concealment under CLRA if Plaintiff had alleged additional
evidence to support the asserted Fact or if Plaintiff had asserted
a different fact that is supported by the evidence that was
alleged. Rather, the court will avoid any speculation by granting
leave for further amendment of the FAC. Because Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim under the CLRA, the claim for violation of
California Business Code [Section] 17200 also fails. Because
Plaintiff's FAC will be dismissed in its entirety, Defendant's
motion to strike the class claims alleged in the FAC are moot,"
ruled Judge Ishii.

The Court concluded that:

1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC is granted. The
   FAC is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety.

2. Leave to further amend the complaint is granted. Any further
   amended complaint will be filed and served not later that
   21 days from the date of service of the order.

3. Defendant's motion to strike portions of the FAC are denied as
   moot.

A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/vP87kefrom Leagle.com.


CIBA VISION: Consumers Report Clear Care-Related Eye Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cohen, writing for Philly.com's Check Up, reports that in
December 2010 and again in May 2012, Check-Up warned consumers who
wear contact lenses about Clear Care, a lens cleaning product from
Ciba Vision (a Novartis company) that contains hydrogen peroxide.
The product must only be used to soak contact lenses within a
special lens case that deactivates the hydrogen peroxide prior to
placing the lenses back in the eyes.  Unfortunately, the product
has repeatedly been used by mistake without the special lens case,
causing severe pain and, all too often, an eye injury.  Many
patients wind up in the hospital emergency room.  There are also
less expensive generic versions available.

One of the most recent cases was reported by a woman whose
college-age daughter was spending the night at a friend's home.
The student realized she'd forgotten her contact lens solution so
her friend located a roommate's solution and the contact lenses
were soaked in it for the night.  It was Clear Care.  The next
morning, her daughter put her right contact lens in her eye and
immediately started to scream out in pain.  She removed the
contact and, after no relief with flushing the eye with water, she
went to a hospital ER.  Her eye was flushed with no abatement of
symptoms.  Staining the eye with a special dye showed corneal
damage had occurred.  The hospital gave her some antibiotic eye
drops and referred her to an eye doctor whom she visited the next
day.  The eye doctor prescribed an even stronger medication and
advised her to return for a follow-up.

This young woman joins hundreds of others who've sent reports
after they experienced severe pain and/or eye injuries when using
Clear Care.  There are many more who've complained about the
product on the Internet.   Unknown is how many actual cases there
are that have not been reported.

Mr. Cohen said "Based on my research on this topic I believe that
there are likely hundreds of thousands of people who have
experienced burning by getting this product or the generic
directly in their eyes.  Ask any group of 100 or so people and 3
or 4 will be contact lens wearers who will tell you they've done
this.  I have conducted this experiment multiple times in pharmacy
school classrooms or during talks to health professionals. Several
people in my office have done this (including pharmacists and
nurses), as has my own daughter.  Given the number of lens
wearers, it could even be millions who've had this happen over the
years. It's beyond being careless."

The product is poorly designed and sets people up for making
errors.  It is not supposed to be used to wet or soak lenses in
the usual manner that other lens cleaning products are used.
Clear Care has a special lens case with a built-in neutralizer --
a ring of platinum that reacts with hydrogen peroxide -- that
causes the hydrogen peroxide to turn into water.  The entire
process takes about 6 hours.  After this, the lenses can be placed
in the eyes. The product label includes several statements to use
only the lens case provided, and to not rinse lenses with Clear
Care prior to insertion.  But for many, the statements have not
been noticed given their impaired vision without their lenses in
place.  For others, the statement may not be a clear warning.
Some may think, "Why use the special lens case when I have my own
case."  Also, those who do not routinely rinse their lenses with
saline prior to insertion may simply ignore this statement,
thinking it doesn't apply to them.


CLOVERDALE FOODS: Recalls 2,664 Pounds of Beef Franks
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a North Dakota company has
recalled more than a ton of beef franks due to misbranding.

The United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service says Cloverdale Foods Co. in Mandan recalled
2,664 pounds of beef franks.  The agency says the hot dogs were
made with milk, which was not declared on the product label. Milk
is a known allergen.  There have no reports of illness from the
recalled products.

The items identified in the recall were "Seattle Mariners Beef
Franks."  The products were produced on Nov. 23 and Dec. 13, 2013.
The franks can be identified by the establishment number "Est.
7603" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The products were sold to retailers in Montana, North Dakota and
Washington.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila signed a joint stipulation of
dismissal entered into by the parties in CHRISTOPHER VALVERDE,
JR., an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COGENT COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-00876-EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

The Parties stipulated and agreed that:

1. Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice
   pursuant to FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii);

2. Plaintiff's class action and representative action claims are
   dismissed without prejudice to other aggrieved and/or putative
   class members, pursuant to FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii);

3. Plaintiff will not reassert or refile any class, collective, or
   representative action claims that were, or could have been,
   alleged in this action, including any claims under the Private
   Attorney General Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act; and

4. The Parties will each bear their own costs and fees with
   respect to the prosecution and defense of the claims asserted
   in the action. The Clerk will close this file.

A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/xhJCyafrom Leagle.com.

Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq., Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq., Aparajit
Bhowmik, Esq., and Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Esq., at BLUMENTHAL,
NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK in La Jolla, California, represent Plaintiff
CHRISTOPHER VALVERDE, JR.

Rebecca Eisen, Esq., Theresa Mak, Esq., and Andrew Frederick,
Esq., at MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP in San Francisco, California,
represent Defendant COGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


CONSECO LIFE: Atty. Fee, Expenses and Service Awards Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston granted a motion for attorneys' fees,
expenses incurred in litigation, and service awards to plaintiffs
in the case captioned IN RE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CO. LIFE TREND
INSURANCE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICE LITIGATION, NO. C 10-02124
SI, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court determined that attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and
service awards should be awarded and allocated. Specifically, the
Court approved as reasonable Plaintiffs' counsel's request that
Conseco pay, in addition to the benefits received by the Class,
the agreed-upon sum of $8 million, to plaintiffs' counsel as
follows:

1) $6,890,702.53 for attorneys' fees;

2) $1,079,297.47 for reimbursement of litigation expenses; and

3) a $5,000 service award to each of the six named plaintiffs.

A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/5X4N7ffrom Leagle.com.


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Says Chemical Spill Class Action No Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hank Hayes, writing for Kingsport Times-News, reports that
Eastman Chemical Co. responded to a federal class-action lawsuit
involving water supply contamination in Charleston, W.Va.

"Regarding the lawsuit, the suit has no merit as it pertains to
Eastman," Eastman spokeswoman Maranda Demuth responded in an
email.

The lawsuit was filed as a result of the Jan. 9 discovery of a
spilled coal processing chemical coming from a facility owned and
operated by Freedom Industries.  The 4-methylcyclohexane methanol
chemical -- referred to as 4-MCHM -- spilled into the Elk River
upstream from the WV-AWC water treatment plant and caused an
estimated 300,000 people to lose their safe water supply.

In an information document posted on Eastman's Web site
http://www.eastman.com-- Eastman says it has sold crude MCHM to
Freedom Industries since at least 2000.

A restaurant owner, single mother, car wash operator, beauty shop
owner and West Virginia lawmaker are among the plaintiffs seeking
damages from the Kingsport-based company and other defendants in
the lawsuit.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: $27MM Fund in Antitrust Suit to be Distributed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The $27 million paid into a settlement fund in an antitrust class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Electronic Arts Inc. is in the
process of being distributed to claimants, 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 June 2008, Geoffrey Pecover filed an antitrust class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that EA obtained an illegal monopoly in a
discreet antitrust market that consists of "league-branded
football simulation video games" by bidding for, and winning,
exclusive licenses with the NFL, Collegiate Licensing Company and
Arena Football League.

In December 2010, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
request to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
consumers who purchased EA's Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena
Football video games after 2005. In May 2012, the parties reached
a settlement in principle to resolve all claims related to this
action. As a result, the company recognized a $27 million accrual
for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 associated with the
potential settlement. In May 2013, the district court granted its
final approval of the settlement, following which the company paid
$27 million into a settlement fund. A subsequent appeal of the
district court's decision made by a class member was recently
withdrawn. The $27 million paid into the settlement fund is in the
process of being distributed to claimants.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Continues to Defend Suits by Football Players
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013,
Electronic Arts Inc. provided updates on several actions that
allege it misappropriated the likenesses of various college
athletes in certain of its college-themed sports games.

The company is defending a putative class action lawsuit brought
by Ryan Hart, a former college football player, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey in June 2009,
which alleges that the company misappropriated his likeness in the
company's college-themed football game. The complaint seeks actual
damages and other unspecified damages, which have not been
quantified. In September 2011, the district court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 21, 2013, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court's
decision and remanded the case back to the district court.

The In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing
litigation pending in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California involves two groups of common
claims brought by several different former collegiate student-
athletes in 2009. These various actions were consolidated into one
action in February 2010. The first group of claims is a class
action against the company, the NCAA and the Collegiate Licensing
Company (CLC) alleging that the company's college-themed video
games misappropriated the likenesses of collegiate student-
athletes without their authorization. This group of claims seeks
actual damages, statutory damages and other unspecified damages,
which have not been quantified. On July 31, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the
company's motion to strike the complaint. The second group of
claims is a federal antitrust class action against the company,
the NCAA and the CLC that challenges NCAA/CLC licensing practices
and the NCAA By-Laws and regulations. This group of claims seeks
unspecified damages, which have not been quantified. In June 2013,
the plaintiffs in this second group of claims have asked the
district court to certify the case as a class action. The district
court has not ruled on their request.


EQT PRODUCTION: Bill May Halt Natural Gas Royalties Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Owens, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
Virginia Delegate Terry Kilgore is bent on passing a law that
would release $30 million in natural gas royalties so a federal
judge won't have to decide a series of class-action lawsuits
focused on the very state-controlled escrow accounts holding the
money.  His renewed push for the legislation comes days after he
said lawyers representing the Southwest Virginia landowners
pushing the case asked him to put the proposed legislation on
hold.  The legislation, which includes suggestions by an energy
company defending against the class-action lawsuits, could stop
the cases in their tracks, legal experts say.

U.S. District Court Judge James P. Jones is currently mulling
whether to outright declare a group of Southwest Virginia
landowners the rightful recipients of the gas royalties -- all
without a trial.  His ruling should come at least by mid-March,
after lawyers representing the landowners have contacted thousands
more people from the coalfields region for a chance to join the
case.

The lawsuits, filed in 2010, are against energy companies EQT
Production and CNX Gas, which drop the royalties into the accounts
each time they siphon natural gas from underground without the
landowners' permission.

Lawyers for the landowners also want the energy companies to
account for all gas taken, profits collected and production fees
charged and an explanation of the formulas used to determine
royalties owed.

The only audit available so far became public in mid-2012 at the
behest of the Virginia Gas and Oil Board, which oversees the
nearly 1,000 escrow accounts.

Auditors reviewed a random sampling of six accounts and found that
five were so filled with errors that it was pointless to continue
the review, even if no more discrepancies were found.

Months later, representatives of four energy companies that have
dropped royalties into escrow swore under oath to the Gas and Oil
Board that all accounts had been reconciled.

To bring the lawsuits to an end -- provided the legislation is
approved -- energy company lawyers would have to point out the new
law to Jones.  The judge would then have to decide there is no
need to continue on with an issue that appears to have been
settled.

Mr. Kilgore's proposed legislation seeks to reconcile a 20-year-
old state law intended to spur Southwest Virginia's energy sector
without getting bogged down in legal battles over gas ownership.

To touch the royalties under current law, landowners must split it
with the coal owners, win a costly court battle, or win an out-of-
court arbitration.

Virginia legislators imposed these hurdles rather than decide
whether the gas royalties belong to the person holding the deed
for the coal or the person holding the deed for the gas estate.
And so energy companies look to the escrow account each time they
drill a seam where the deeds to the coal and to the gas are linked
to multiple owners.

The Virginia Supreme Court seemed to have settled the conflict in
2004, when it declared that natural gas is the property of whoever
owns the gas rights.  State officials and energy companies,
however, say this ruling applies only to the deeds argued in that
particular case.

Mr. Puckett's bill focused on the arbitration method, which hasn't
been used since it was created by Kilgore three years ago.  The
original law required both the landowner and the coal owner to
agree to arbitration, but Puckett wanted to rewrite the code so
that just one party could call for it.

The proposed change came at the suggestion of a Richlands lawyer
who has previously sought access to the escrow account for several
clients.

Mr. Kilgore's bill would declare the owners of the gas title to be
the rightful recipients of the royalties and would force energy
companies to get the money to them in 2015.  His Richmond staff
wrote the proposal with suggestions from EQT Production.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over "Private" Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California after the plaintiffs claim
Facebook violated its users' privacy by using data from private
messages to generate targeted advertisements.

In their class action complaint, Matthew Campbell and
Michael Hurley claim contrary to its representation, "private"
Facebook messages are systematically intercepted by the company in
an effort to learn the contents of the users' communications,
according to a complaint filed Dec. 30 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Messrs. Campbell and Hurley claim in the course of the last year,
independent security researchers discovered that Facebook reviews
the contents of its users' private Facebook messages for purposes
unrelated to the facilitation of message transmission.

"When a user composes a Facebook message and includes a link to a
third part website . . . the company scans the content of the
Facebook message, follows the enclosed link and searches for
information to profile the message-sender's web activity," the
complaint states.

This practice is not done to facilitate the transmission of users'
communications via Facebook, but, because it enables Facebook to
mine user data and profit from those data by sharing them with
third parties-namely advertisers, marketers and other data
aggregators, according to the suit.

Messrs. Campbell and Hurley claim almost the entirely of
Facebook's revenues derive from the sale of third party
advertisements, which the company is able to target toward its
users based upon personal data it mines and stores.

In 2011, Facebook earned $2.7 billion from targeted advertising
sales, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim Facebook has violated the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, California's Invasion of Privacy Act
and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Messrs. Campbell and Hurley are seeking an order determining that
this action may be maintained as a class action; judgment against
Facebook for the asserted causes; appropriate declaratory relief
against Facebook; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
against Facebook; and statutory damages.  They are being
represented by Michael W. Sobol, Melissa Gardner, Rachel Geman and
Nicholas Diamand of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and
Hank Bates -- hbates@cbplaw.com --Allen Carney --
acarney@cbplaw.com -- and David Slade -- dslade@cbplaw.com -- of
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 4:13-cv-05996


FEDERAL INSURANCE: 6th Cir. Keeps Ruling in Beaumont Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed a
district court order and opinion in WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
Plaintiff's Appellee, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellant, NO. 13-1468.

The appeal arose from an insurance coverage dispute. The district
court held that defendant/appellant Federal Insurance Company had
to provide indemnification coverage to plaintiff/appellee William
Beaumont Hospital for the settlement of an antitrust class action
by nurses against Beaumont and other Detroit-area hospitals.
Federal argued on appeal that it owes no duty to indemnify
Beaumont under the terms of its insurance policy. Alternatively,
Federal argued that Michigan's public policy bars any
indemnification obligation that might arise under the Policy.

The Sixth Circuit found that Federal is required to provide
coverage under the explicit terms of its Policy and that
Michigan's public policy does not bar coverage. Accordingly,
the district court properly denied Federal's motion to compel
discovery.

A copy of the Sixth Circuit's January 16, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/E7EMhEfrom Leagle.com.


FIRST BANK: Bid to Seal Information in "Marsh" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in AMBER KRISTI MARSH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST
BANK OF DELAWARE, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-05226-WHO,
(N.D. Cal.) filed an Administrative Motion on December 27, 2013,
seeking to seal two categories of information: (1) documents
designated as confidential by defendants Jack Henry & Associates,
Inc., and First National Bank of Central Texas, and (2) documents
containing personal information about plaintiffs and third
parties.

District Judge William H. Orrick denied without prejudice the
motion to seal saying the Plaintiffs fail to substantively and
procedurally comply with the Court's rules and Ninth Circuit law
concerning motions to seal.

The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification and for
Appointment of Class Counsel currently scheduled for February 5,
2014, as well as the hearing on the Motion to Strike Class
Allegations scheduled for the same day, is vacated, added Judge
Orrick.

The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to re-file a motion to seal that
fully complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5 promptly. The Court will
then set a new hearing date for the Motion for Class Certification
and for Appointment of Class Counsel and the Motion to Strike
Class Allegations, added Judge Orrick.

A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/8DU57qfrom Leagle.com.


FIRST BAPTIST: Faces Class Action Over Bedbug Infestations
----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Rood, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that a
civil class-action lawsuit over bedbug infestations at two
downtown Des Moines apartment complexes is having wide
implications for landlords and tenants -- before the legal issue
is resolved.

Officials within the Iowa attorney general's office told The
Register's Mr. Rood that the tenants' case pending against the
former property managers of Ligutti Tower and Elsie Mason Manor is
the largest of its kind since Iowa became the last state in the
country to enact a bill giving citizens a private right of action
in 2009.  The Consumer Rights Act opened the door for more groups
of consumers to recoup attorneys fees and damages if landlords or
others were found in violation of the fraud statute.

The change is worth noting because the Reader's Watchdog receives
letters almost every week from apartment-dwellers concerned about
bedbugs.  Under Iowa's landlord-tenant law, there was little help
that could be recommended.  The cost of suing was prohibitive for
most tenants and many feared retribution from apartment managers.

But under the Consumer Rights Act, Iowans can sue individually or
as part of a class if they suffer a loss of money or property due
to deception, misrepresentation or other unfair practices.  There
are exceptions, but the act provides greater protection against
all types of common deception, from shady car sales to home
improvements.

By law, the attorney general's office must be notified of all such
cases.  To date, there have been 100 filed, about 15 of which are
class-action lawsuits.  Bill Brauch, who heads the office's
Consumer Protection Division, said a number of the cases relate to
bedbugs, but his office does not count or categorize them.

Roughly 300 residents of Ligutti and Elsie Mason signed on to the
lawsuit naming former building managers First Baptist Housing
Foundation of Johnston and American Baptist Homes of the Midwest.
Tenants have said they were led to believe their apartments were
habitable when they signed leases.  Some said bites from the bugs
scarred their bodies, forced them to throw away furniture and
caused them to be shunned by other potential landlords and others.

Polk County District Judge Joel Novak certified the tenants'
class-action status in 2011, a move that was ultimately upheld by
the Iowa Supreme Court in a split 3-3 decision.

Attorney Kevin Driscoll, who argued before the Iowa Supreme Court
for building manager American Baptist Homes of the Midwest, said
at the time that allowing the case to move forward would open "the
proverbial floodgates" for such lawsuits.

Jeffrey Lipman, the tenants' attorney, said he is preparing
similar lawsuits in Iowa.  He said he has one case pending against
Jefferson Apartments in downtown Des Moines, as well as others in
Illinois and California.  The new law is a powerful tool, he said.

"Under the new law, not only do you get damages for ascertainable
loss but if you show willful, wanton conduct, you can get up to
four times that amount," he said.

Last year, Elsie Mason Manor, 430 Grand Ave., was bought by
Newbury and Phoenix Family Ventures Inc., a Kansas City Mo.-based
nonprofit housing services provider. American Baptist Homes of the
Midwest managed the property prior to its sale.  A similar sale to
Levy's group is pending on the 139-unit Ligutti Tower, 555 Fifth
Ave. Newbury is managing both buildings, which are both being
renovated.

Not all landlords face liability, however, Mr. Lipman said.  That
hinges on whether landlords do a good job of inspecting, warning
tenants and repairing the problem.

"The mere fact you have bedbugs doesn't give rise to liability,"
he said.  "There is a difference between introduction and
infestation.  . . . If apartment and hotel owners are doing
appropriate inspections, warnings and prompt and appropriate
immediate action, they are going to be fairly well protected and
not found liable."

Polk County officials have reported increased bedbug infestations
in apartments as well as hotels, following a worldwide trend.
Hotel bedbug complaints increased at least threefold in Polk
County in five years, according to a 2012 Des Moines Register
review of state hotel inspection records.

SuAnn Donovan, who oversees Des Moines' zoning and inspections,
said the city does not track the numbers but she believes
complaints are rising.  The city inspects all multifamily
apartments every two years, but will also send out an inspector
upon receiving a bedbug complaint.  Under city code, pest control
is the landlord's responsibility within the tenant's first six
months, and the tenant's any time after that.

Treating infestations typically requires regular inspections and
treatment by experienced professionals.  Mr. Lipman said it's
important for business owners to find quality pest control
companies when problems arise.

In 2012, the Iowa Legislature rejected a bill that would have
shifted more financial responsibility for dealing with the pests
on renters.  Mr. Brauch said his office strongly opposed that
legislation because it "went against the interests of tenants."

That bill, House Study Bill 520, required tenants to inform
landlords about the presence of bedbugs within seven days of
moving in.  Failure to do that "shall be an acknowledgment by the
tenant that the dwelling unit is free of bedbugs," the bill said.
Tenants also would have had to report bugs within 48 hours of
noticing them.  Not doing that could mean being held responsible
for the costs of everything from extermination to replacing carpet
and cabinets to repainting.

No bedbug legislation is pending so far this year in Iowa,
according to the Legislative Services Agency.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Certifies Missouri Consumer Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In re: CELEXA AND LEXAPRO MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION, MDL NO. 09-02067-NMG, (D. Mass.), is a collection of
lawsuits arising out of the marketing and sales of two related
anti-depressant drugs, Celexa and Lexapro, by defendants Forest
Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Motions currently under consideration concern a lawsuit filed by
five consumers who paid for Celexa or Lexapro for use by their
minor children. Plaintiffs Angela Jaeckel, Martha and Peter
Palumbo, Ruth Dunham and Tanya Shippy allege that Forest violated
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
the New York Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, respectively, by
misrepresenting and concealing material information about the
drugs' efficacy in treating major depressive disorder in pediatric
patients.

In a memorandum and order addressing three pending motions:
plaintiffs' motion to certify three consumer classes, a motion to
take judicial notice of a pending class action in Missouri state
court filed by "interested party" Natalie Luster and Luster's
motion to stay certification of a Missouri consumer class under
federal abstention doctrines, District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton
ruled that Luster's motions will be denied and plaintiffs' motion
for class certification will be allowed with respect to the
proposed Missouri consumer class and denied with respect to the
proposed Illinois and New York consumer classes.

A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Memorandum & Order
is available at http://is.gd/aW9btqfrom Leagle.com.


HALLIBURTON CO: Shareholders Suit Appeal Hinges on SCOTUS Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
appeal of filing derivative shareholder lawsuits in the future
could hinge on the U.S. Supreme Court's eventual ruling in
Halliburton Co. and David Lesar v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., FKA
Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund Inc., observers say.

The AMSF class action deals with the issue of how easily
plaintiffs can obtain class action certification in cases in which
they allege firms have misrepresented information to their
detriment as investors.  Arguments in the case are scheduled for
March 5.

The focus of the case is the Supreme Court's 1988 ruling in Basic
Inc. v. Max Levinson, in which the court endorsed the "fraud on
the market presumption theory."  The theory says plaintiffs in
class actions do not have to demonstrate that each of the
individual class members relied on the company's alleged
misrepresentation of information.  It is based on the presumption
that in an efficient marketplace, a company's share price reacts
to all publicly available information about the company.

Experts say the Basic ruling has made it much easier for
plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits.


HECLA MINING: Expects Dismissal of Idaho Shareholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company anticipates the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho to issue in the near future a final judgment
dismissing a consolidated shareholder lawsuit against it after an
amended complaint was not filed by a set deadline, 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 February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of the company's
officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common
stock from October 26, 2010 through and including January 11,
2012, asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and sought, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that Hecla, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain
false and misleading statements and allegedly omitted certain
material information related to operational issues at the Lucky
Friday mine. The complaint alleged that these actions artificially
inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class
period, thus purportedly harming investors who purchased shares
during that time.

A second suit was filed on February 14, 2012, alleging virtually
identical claims. These complaints were consolidated into a single
case, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by the
Court (Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v.
Hecla Mining Company et al., Case No. 12-0042 (D. Idaho)), and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on October 16, 2012. In
January 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 26, 2013, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint
on or before October 18, 2013. An amended complaint was not filed
by the deadline. Therefore, the company anticipates the Court will
issue in the near future a final judgment dismissing the lawsuit.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 17 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Insys Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Arizona, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Insys between May 1, 2013 and December 12, 2013 both
dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a
result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Insys securities during the
Class Period, you have until February 14, 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.

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products,
primarily intended to assist cancer patients cope with the
symptoms of their disease and treatment or therapy.  The Company's
principal source of revenues is through sales of Subsys, a
sublingual spray for managing cancer pain.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements concerning, and/or failed to
disclose, among other things that: (i) the Company engaged in
illegal and/or unethical marketing of Subsys; (ii) the Company was
exposed to potential fines and other disciplinary actions as a
result of its Subsys marketing practices; and, (iii) as a result,
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 12, 2013, after the market close, the company
announced that, "it has received a subpoena from the Office of
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services
("HHS") in connection with an investigation of potential
violations involving HHS programs.  The subpoena requests
documents regarding Subsys, including Insys' sales and marketing
practices relating to this product."  On this news, the company's
shares fell $7.73 per share, to close at $37.55 per share, a one
day drop of over 17%, on high 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.


INVENTURE FOODS: Certification Bid Filing in Suit v. Jamba Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit filed against Jamba Juice Company over
its alleged misleading "all natural" description of its Smoothie
Kits will file their motion for class certification within sixty
days after Jamba Juice and Inventure have filed an answer in the
case, or by February 3, 2014, whichever is later, according to
Inventure Foods, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2013.

In March 2012, the company learned that the Jamba Juice was named
as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the Federal
Court for the North District of California and captioned Anderson
v. Jamba Juice Company (the "Anderson matter").  The plaintiff
claims that the use of the words "all natural" to describe the
Smoothie Kits is misleading and deceptive to consumers and
violates various California consumer protection statutes and
unfair competition statutes.  The Anderson matter is one of
several "all natural" lawsuits recently brought against various
food manufacturers and distributors in California.  In an amended
complaint, the plaintiff also alleged violations of the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but the court dismissed those claims
in August 2012.  In a second amended complaint filed in September
2012, the company was added as a defendant.  Pursuant to the
parties' stipulation, on September 3, 2013 the court dismissed the
Anderson matter.

On June 28, 2013 a class action complaint against Jamba Juice
Company and Inventure, captioned Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et
al (the "Lilly matter"), was filed in the Federal Court for the
Northern District of California that makes nearly identical
allegations as those made in the Anderson matter, except that the
new complaint also includes two additional allegedly non-natural
ingredients.

The plaintiffs in this new action are represented by the same
counsel that represented the plaintiff in the Anderson matter.
While the company currently believes the "all natural" claims on
the Smoothie Kits are not misleading and in full compliance with
FDA guidelines, the company is investigating the claims asserted
in the Lilly matter, and intend to vigorously defend against them.
On September 17, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss
seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as to gelatin and the Orange
Dream Machine smoothie kit.  The motion to dismiss has been fully
briefed, and oral argument is set for November 21, 2013.  The
plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of all persons in
California who bought certain of the Jamba Juice Smoothie Kits.
The plaintiffs will file their motion for class certification
within 60 days after Jamba Juice and Inventure have filed an
answer in the case, or by February 3, 2014, whichever is later.


IOVATE HEALTH: Court Strikes Reference to Nationwide Class
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes granted, in part, and denied, in
part, a motion to dismiss complaint and motion to strike class
allegations in PATRICK HESANO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES,
INC.; IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A., INC.; and IOVATE HEALTH
SCIENCES GROUP, INC., n/k/a KERR INVESTMENT HOLDING CORP,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13CV1960-WQH-JMA, (S.D. Cal.).

"The references to a nationwide class in paragraphs 2, 18 and 74
of the Complaint are stricken; in all other respects, the Motion
to Dismiss Complaint and Motion to Strike Class Allegations is
denied," ruled Judge Hayes.

Mr. Hesano initiated this action on August 22, 2013, alleging that
Defendants used false, fraudulent and misleading advertising in
marketing and labeling Defendants' dietary supplement product, Six
Star Pro Nutrition N.O. Fury, which Plaintiff purchased on May 29,
2013.

The Court found that class suitability issues are best resolved
during a motion for class certification. As a result, so long as
class action allegations address each of the elements of
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23, relate to the subject matter of the
litigation, and are not redundant, immaterial, or impertinent, the
court should find that the allegations are sufficient to survive a
motion to strike, Judge Hayes concluded.  To the extent Defendants
contend that Plaintiff is an inadequate class representative, the
motion to strike is denied, he added.

A copy of the District Court's January 15, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/b2BT0Xfrom Leagle.com.


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Faces Suit Over Discontinued Drilling Business
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company continues to face a purported class
action suit in relation to its discontinued oil and gas
exploration and production business, according to Exhibit 99.1
of the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

The company has been and from time to time may be named as a
defendant in legal actions claiming damages in connection with
drilling or other construction projects and other matters. These
are typically actions that arise in the normal course of business,
including employment-related claims and contractual disputes or
claims for personal injury or property damage that occur in
connection with drilling or construction site services. In
addition, on April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a
purported class action suit against the company and two other
companies and three of the company's subsidiaries in the company's
discontinued oil and gas exploration and production business.

The lawsuit was supposedly filed on behalf of all lessors and
royalty owners from 2004 to the present. Plaintiff essentially
alleges that the company and the two other companies allocated the
market for mineral leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral
leasing within the state of Kansas. The plaintiff seeks
certification as a class and unquantified damages. Since this
litigation is at a very early stage, the company is currently
unable to predict its outcome or estimate the company's exposure.
To the extent that the cost of defending litigation or successful
claims against the company is not covered by insurance, the
company's profit could decline, the company's liquidity could be
significantly reduced and the company's operations could be
impaired.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: To Present Deal in Rights-of-Way Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. is currently pursuing presentment of
the settlement it reached affecting all persons who own or owned
land next to or near railroad rights of way in which the Company
has installed its fiber optic cable networks, 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.

The Company is party to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network
in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In
general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its networks
from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed its
networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities, and others who granted the Company the right
to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal
authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as
well as punitive damages.

The Company has also received, and may in the future receive,
claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the
issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different
legal theories. The Company has defeated motions for class
certification in a number of these actions but expects that,
absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in the pending
lawsuits will continue to seek certification of statewide or
multi-state classes. The only lawsuit in which a class was
certified against the Company, absent an agreed upon settlement,
occurred in Koyle, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.,
a purported two state class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has
been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and
former landowners, have received final federal court approval in
multiple states and the parties are engaged in the claims process
for those states. The settlement has also been presented to
federal courts in additional states and approval is pending.


MANPOWER INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Ramirez" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In PATRICIA RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER, Inc.; MANPOWERGROUP
PUBLIC SECTOR INC.; MANPOWERGROUP US INC.; AND DOES 3 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-2880-EJD, (N.D. Cal.),
Defendants Manpower, Inc., Manpowergroup Public Sector, Inc., and
Manpowergroup US, Inc. have filed a Motion to Join Required
Parties, a Motion to Dismiss, and a Motion to Strike.

In a January 10, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/HuaoP7from
Leagle.com, District Judge Edward J. Davila:

     -- granted the Defendants' Motion to Join Manpower,
        Inc./California Peninsula;

     -- granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
        First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth causes of action with
        leave to amend;

     -- granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Defendants'
        Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third, Sixth and Seventh
        causes of action with leave to amend;

     -- granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
        claim for injunctive relief with leave to amend; and

     -- denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike as moot.

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that cures the
deficiencies identified within 21 days of the date the order is
filed. Failure to file a timely amended complaint will result in
dismissal of this case with prejudice, Judge Davila ruled.


MERCK & CO: Sanford Heisler Adds Four New Class Representatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler LLP on Jan. 17 disclosed that it added four
additional class representatives to the class action gender
discrimination employment suit the firm filed in U.S. District
Court for New Jersey against pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.,
Inc. in May 2013.  The firm also increased the value of the case
to $250 million.

The suit's original class representative Kelli Smith has been
joined by female sales representatives from Merck locations coast
to coast who also experienced discrimination based on their gender
and pregnancy.  Merck fosters a "boys' club" culture that affords
men greater advancement opportunities and greater pay.  Merck
management discourages women from raising complaints of
discrimination, instead telling them to "lie" to Human Resources.
When women do complain within the company's internal channels,
their complaints go ignored.

"The addition of four female Merck sales representatives as class
representatives is further evidence of the pervasive nature of
gender-based hostility throughout Merck's U.S. sales force," said
Kate Mueting, attorney with the plaintiffs' legal team.  "All of
these women have experienced disastrous and painful career
consequences as a result of Merck's policies that discourage
female employees from having children and punish those who do.
This class action brings light to this discrimination and aims to
prevent the company from future discrimination."

Other members of the legal team at Sanford Heisler include David
Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- Chairman of the firm;
and Deborah Marcuse -- dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com -- and
Jennifer Siegel -- jsiegel@sanfordheisler.com -- attorneys in
Sanford Heisler's New York office.

Sanford Heisler LLP has a long record of victories in employment
discrimination matters brought by female employees of global
pharmaceutical companies, including a recent gender discrimination
case against Novartis that resulted in the largest-ever monetary
award in a U.S. employment discrimination dispute.

The complaint details nearly identical patterns of treatment for
Smith and the additional plaintiffs.  All class representatives
were well-regarded members of the company's sales force who earned
accolades for their sales performance before becoming pregnant.
During their pregnancies and after returning from maternity leave
they were subjected to hostility, discrimination, workplace
reassignments and other practices that reduced their compensation
and caused them stress and anxiety.

"The discrimination and hostility women face at Merck is not
limited to one office or region," said Deborah Marcuse.  "The
disparate and illegal treatment to which they are routinely and
regularly subjected is rampant within this corporation from coast
to coast, and it emanates from and is supported by Merck's highest
levels of management.  The conduct is intentional, deliberate,
willful, malicious, reckless and callous."

Merck, headquartered in Whitehouse Station, NJ, employs some
83,000 individuals worldwide.  Its 2012 global revenue was $47.3
billion, including $20.4 billion in the U.S.  The company
manufactures pharmaceuticals for many conditions, including
women's health.

                       About Sanford Heisler

Sanford Heisler is a public interest law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam and other civil
rights matters.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 16 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of
Merge Healthcare Incorporated common stock during the period
between August 1, 2012 and January 7, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/mergehealthcare/

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

The complaint charges Merge Healthcare and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Merge Healthcare is a Chicago, Illinois-based company that
offers health stations, clinical trial software and other health
data and analytics services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Merge
Healthcare issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and future business
prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose that both the existence and
value of millions of dollars of the Company's eClinical customer
contracts had been falsified, and as a result the Company's
reported subscription backlog was overstated during the six
quarters ended September 30, 2013, and that the Company was
experiencing a continued reluctance amongst large health systems
to move forward with enterprise imaging purchases.

After a series of Company disclosures starting in May 2013
regarding the sudden resignation of the Company's General Counsel
and later its Chairman and CEO, and the release of "very
disappointing" second quarter 2013 earnings results, including a
9% decline year-over-year in revenue to $57.2 million despite
reporting an 82% increase in its subscription backlog from the
second quarter of 2012, and earnings per share and revenue that
fell well short of what the market had been led to expect, the
price of Merge Healthcare stock plummeted more than $2 per share,
or more than 45%.  Then, on January 8, 2014, before the open of
trading, Merge Healthcare announced that the existence and/or
value of millions of dollars of customer contracts had been
falsified for six quarters ending September 30, 2013, in what it
characterized as a rogue employee's attempt to reach sales quotas
and garner additional commissions.  On this news, the price of
Merge Healthcare stock, which had traded as high as $4.71 per
share during the Class Period, fell to a closing price of $2.31
per share on January 8, 2014.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Merge Healthcare common stock during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


NORDSTROM INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Tseng" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder denied, without prejudice,
motions for class certification and for appointment as class
counsel filed by the plaintiff in JESSIKA TSENG, v. NORDSTROM,
INC., CASE NO. 2:11-CV-08471-CAS(MRWX), (C.D. Cal.).

According to Judge Snyder, the Plaintiff has not met her burden of
showing that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23.   Judge Snyder said the Court need not reach
Nordstrom's other arguments regarding predominance, such as its
contention that variations in stature between employee would
affect whether that employees work "reasonably permits the use of
a seat."

Jessika Tseng, employed by Nordstrom as a cosmetics counter
salesperson from August 2008 until May 31, 2011, filed this
complaint on September 9, 2011, in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court alleging that Nordstrom violated California Labor Code
Section 1198 and Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 7-2001,
Section 14(A), by failing to provide suitable seats to cosmetics
counter salespeople throughout California. On October 13, 2011,
defendant removed the case to the District Court on the basis of
diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) and
the Class Action Fairness Act. On August 23, 2013, the plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification and for appointment as
class counsel.

A copy of the District Court's January 15, 2014 Ruling is
available at http://is.gd/IyLmSlfrom Leagle.com.


OFFICE DEPOT: Settles "Venkata" Shareholder Suit Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the shareholder suit Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax
Incorporated et. al has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
to settle the case, according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Nov. 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, Office Depot and OfficeMax announced a
definitive agreement under which the companies would combine in an
all-stock merger-of-equals transaction. Between February 25, 2013
and March 29, 2013, six putative class action lawsuits were filed
by purported OfficeMax shareholders in the Circuit Court of the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in DuPage County, Illinois challenging
the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies and
individual members of OfficeMax's Board of Directors violated
applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding
and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs sought, among other
things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and
costs.

The lawsuits were consolidated as Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax
Incorporated et al. Subsequently, two similar lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Like the state court lawsuits, the federal actions
alleged that the disclosure in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus was inadequate. On June 25, 2013, the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding
settlement of the litigation. In consideration for the settlement
and release, Office Depot and OfficeMax made certain supplemental
disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The MOU
contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree
to a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the court for
approval. Office Depot does not believe that the amount paid in
this settlement will be material to its financial statements.


OLDFORD GROUP: Dismissed From "Sonnenberg" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Davidm R. Herndon dismissed Oldford Group,
Ltd. from the class action complaint captioned KELLY SONNENBERG,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. OLDFORD GROUP, LTD., et al., Defendants, NO. 13-CV-
344-DRH, (S.D. Ill.).

A First Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in St. Clair
County Circuit Court on January 25, 2013, and an Amended Notice of
Removal was filed in the Court on May 16, 2013.  However, as of
January 13, 2014, the docket sheet does not indicate that service
has been made on defendant, Oldford Group, LTD, within the 120
days authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Rule 4(m) provides: "If a defendant is not served within 120 days
after the complaint is filed, the Court must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be
made within a specified time."

Electing to follow the first option, the Court dismissed this
action without prejudice as to defendant Oldford Group, LTD.

A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/fJjyhsfrom Leagle.com.


ORLEANS PARISH: 4th Cir. Remands "Oliver" Suit to Trial Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDDY OLIVER, OSCARLENE NIXON, AND MILDRED GOODWIN, v. ORLEANS
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, NO. 2012-CA-1520 arose out of the mass
reduction in force of the Orleans Parish School Board following
Hurricane Katrina. After a bench trial on the merits, the trial
court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
Orleans Parish School Board and the Louisiana Department of
Education, jointly and solidarily, for compensatory damages. The
judgment: 1) denied all peremptory exceptions filed by the
defendants; 2) found that there was a due process violation which
resulted in wrongful termination; 3) found that there was
intentional and tortious interference of contract by the Louisiana
Department of Education; and 4) found that the Orleans Parish
School Board and the Louisiana Department of Education were
partners, which created joint and solidary liability.

Subsequently, the State Defendants and the Orleans Parish School
Board sought appellate review.

In a January 15, 2014 Opinion available at http://is.gd/5DAZWT
from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit
held that the Appellees were deprived of their constitutionally
protected property right to be recalled to employment without due
process of law. This violation of due process was committed by the
Orleans Parish School Board in failing to adhere to its policies
in implementing the reduction in force and by the State through
the Louisiana Department of Education by failing to follow the
mandates of Act 35, says the Fourth Circuit.

Against this backdrop, the Fourth Circuit:

1) affirms the trial court's ruling that the Appellees' right to
   due process was violated;

2) reverses the trial court's findings of tortious interference of
   contract, partnership, and solidary liability;

3) affirms the trial court's denial of all peremptory exceptions;
   and

4) amends the award of damages in three respects:

   a) The Orleans Parish School Board is liable to the Appellees,
      as a class, for two years of back pay and fringe benefits;

   b) The State is liable to teachers meeting the criteria of La.
      R.S. 17:1990(D)(1) for an additional one year of back pay
      and fringe benefits; and

   c) Annual calculations must be adjusted to reflect the
      applicable deductions discussed in the opinion.

The matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with
this opinion.

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees:

     Willie Matthew Zanders, Sr., Esq.
     909 Poydras Street, Suite 1625
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     E-mail: wzanderssr@yahoo.com

          - and -

     Charles Mayer Samuel, III, Esq.
     RITTENBERG SAMUEL & PHILLIPS, L.L.C.
     715 Girod Street, Suite 100
     New Orleans, LA 70130-3505
     E-mail: samuel@rittenbergsamuel.com

          - and -

     Juana Marine-Lombard, Esq.
     3701 Canal Street, Suite U
     New Orleans, LA 70119

          - and -

     Anthony David Irpino, Esq.
     IRPINO LAW FIRM
     2216 Magazine Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130

          - and -

     Suzette Peychaud Bagneris, Esq.
     THE BAGNERIS FIRM, L.L.C.
     P.O. Box 6129
     New Orleans, LA 70174
     E-mail: sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com

          - and -

     Clarence Roby, Jr., Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CLARENCE ROBY, JR., APLC
     3701 Canal Street, Suite U
     New Orleans, LA 70119

          - and -

     Walter Ignatius Willard, Esq.
     THE WILLARD FIRM, PLC
     One Shell Square, Suite 4100
     701 Poydras Street
     New Orleans, LA 70139

          - and -

     Mark P. Glago, Esq.
     GLAGO LAW FIRM, LLC
     One Canal Place, 17th Floor
     365 Canal Street, Suite 1700
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     E-mail: MGlago@GlagoLawFirm.com

          - and -

     Roderick Rico Alvendia, Esq.
     Jeremy Pichon, Esq.
     Jeanne Demarest, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ALVENDIA, KELLY & DEMAREST
     909 Poydras Street, Suite 1625
     New Orleans, LA 70112

Counsel for Defendants/Appellants:

     Brent B. Barriere, Esq.
     D. Skylar Rosenbloom, Esq.
     FISHAMN HAYGOOD PHELPS WALMSLEY WILLIS & SWANSON, LLP
     201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor
     New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
     E-mail: bbarriere@fishmanhaygood.com
             srosenbloom@fishmanhaygood.com

          - and-

     Terrill Wayne Boykin, Esq.
     Kriste Talton Utley, Esq.
     Shaundra M. Westerhoff, Esq.
     BOYKIN EHRET & UTLEY
     400 Poydras Street, Suite 1540
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     E-mail: twb@beulaw.com
             ktu@beulaw.com

          - and -

     Michael H. Rubin, Esq.
     M. Brent Hicks, Esq.
     Jon Ann Giblin, Esq.
     Juston M. O'Brien, Esq.
     Zelma M. Frederick, Esq.
     McGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
     One American Place, 14th Floor
     Baton Rouge, LA 70825
     E-mail: mrubin@mcglinchey.com
             bhicks@mcglinchey.com
             jgiblin@mcglinchey.com
             jobrien@mcglinchey.com
             zfrederick@mcglinchey.com


OSAKA JAPANESE: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in "Kwong" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Melinda Harmon granted a motion for conditional
class certification in the case captioned MEGAN KWONG, et al,
Plaintiffs, v. OSAKA JAPANESE RESTAURANT INC., et al., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-3423, (S.D. Tex.).

Ms. Kwong filed this suit on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated against Defendants Osaka Japanese Restaurant, Inc. and
Osaka's owner, Xue Yi Lin for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secton 201 et seq.  Defendants operate a
Japanese restaurant with two locations: one on Westheimer Road and
the other on Bellaire Boulevard in Houston, Texas. Ms. Kwong was
employed as a waitress in both locations from 2007 until
approximately September 2012.

Judge Harmon held that Ms. Kwong met her burden for conditional
certification, and she is entitled to limited discovery to aid in
the distribution of notice to the class.

The following class is conditionally certified:

"All waiters and waitresses who worked at Defendants' Osaka
Japanese Restaurants at Westheimer Road or Bellaire Boulevard and
who were not paid minimum wage and/or overtime at a rate of one
and one half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess
of forty hours per week during the three years prior to the date
that notice is approved by this Court."

The Court directed counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants to submit
a jointly prepared proposed Notice to Potential Class Members
revised in accordance with the Order.

A copy of the District Court's January 15, 2014 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/53kRu9from Leagle.com.


PAPA JOHN'S: Settlement in "Agne" Suit Has Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington granted final approval of the settlement in Agne v.
Papa John's International, Inc. et al., 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. 29, 2013.

Agne v. Papa John's International, Inc. et al. is a class action
filed on May 28, 2010 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington seeking damages for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Washington State
telemarketing laws alleging, among other things that several Papa
John's franchisees retained a vendor to send unsolicited
commercial text message offers primarily in Washington and Oregon.
The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification in
November 2012; the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the court's ruling on class certification to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In February 2013, the parties tentatively agreed to the financial
terms of a settlement of the litigation. The court preliminarily
approved the terms in June 2013 and granted final approval of the
settlement and fee award in October 2013, following the close of
the claims period. Due to a lower claimant participation rate, the
actual settlement cost of $2.9 million was less than the company's
original estimate at December 30, 2012 of $3.3 million, a decrease
of approximately $400,000. The company expects all settlement and
fee payments to be made in 2013.


PAPA JOHN'S: Motion to Certify FLSA Violations Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to certify five additional state classes in a suit
alleging that delivery drivers of Papa John's International, Inc.
were reimbursed for mileage and expenses in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act is pending, 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.

Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA,
Inc. is a conditionally certified collective action filed in
August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of Missouri, alleging that delivery drivers were reimbursed for
mileage and expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Approximately 3,900 drivers out of a potential class size of
28,800 have opted into the action. A motion to certify five
additional state classes is pending and could result in another
14,000 plaintiffs if granted.


REGIS CORP: Facing Suit Over Consumer, Wage & Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regis Corporation has been faced with allegations of purported
class-wide consumer and wage and hour violations, 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 addition, the Company is a nominal defendant, and nine current
and former directors and officers of the Company are named
defendants, in a shareholder derivative action in Minnesota state
court. The derivative shareholder action alleges that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company in connection with their approval of certain executive
compensation arrangements and certain related party transactions.

The Board of Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee to
investigate the claims and allegations made in the derivative
action, and to decide on behalf of the Company whether the claims
and allegations should be pursued. The derivative action has been
stayed by the court pending the decision of the Special Litigation
Committee. The company does not know when the Special Litigation
Committee will complete its work, or what it will decide.


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Protective Order Entered in "Sicav" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton entered a class action
protective order in the case captioned STREAM SICAV, AND TODD
MARX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. RINO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, DEJUN ZOU, JIANPING
QIU, YI JENNY LIU, BEN WANG, KENNITH C. JOHNSON, XIE QUAN, WEIGUO
ZHANG, LI YU, AND FRAZER FROST, LLP f/k/a MOORE STEPHENS WURTH
FRAZER AND TORBET, LLP, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 10-8695-DDP
(VBKX), (C.D. Cal.).

The Order applies to and governs all depositions, documents,
information or things disclosed or produced in response to
requests for production of documents, answers to interrogatories,
responses to requests for admissions and all other discovery taken
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and other information
which the disclosing party designates as "CONFIDENTIAL" furnished,
directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of any party or any non-
party in connection with the litigation.

A copy of the January 16, 2014 Protective Order is available at
http://is.gd/bL6FaZfrom Leagle.com.


SAVIENT PHARMA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Jan. 21 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the securities of Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between
April 1, 2013 and October 14, 2013, inclusive, alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain of the
Company's officers and directors.  The case is entitled Johansson
v. Ferrari, Case No. 14-cv-0042 (D. Del.).

If you purchased shares of Savient during the Class Period and
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825
East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242,
by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com or at http://is.gd/4cx2cW

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business operations, financial condition and prospects.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed
from the investing public that: (a) Savient lacked the sufficient
cash and cash equivalents to fund anticipated levels of
operations, which ultimately lead to the Company filing voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the
United States Code; and (b) the Company mislead investors by
actively exploring the sale of the Company despite insisting its
intention to proceed with efforts to commercialize its chief drug,
KRYSTEXXA, in the United States and to explore partnership
opportunities in the EU and other jurisdictions.  As a result of
the foregoing, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on October 15, 2013, only two months
after falsely assuring the market that it had an adequate cash
position to fund operations for an additional 12 months, and after
misrepresenting the Board's efforts to engage in strategic
alternatives, Savient announced that it had elected to file
voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title
11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware.  In that same announcement, Savient
reported that it was seeking authorization to pursue a sale
process under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Upon the news of the bankruptcy filing, the price of Savient
common stock fell approximately 88%, from a close of $0.5737 per
share on October 14, 2013 to a close of $0.0716 on October 15,
2013 on extremely high trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 24, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. regularly litigates securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and
corporate governance litigation , including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
States.

                  About Savient Pharmaceuticals

Headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey, Savient Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. -- http://www.savient.com/-- is a specialty
biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing KRYSTEXXA(R) (pegloticase) for the treatment of
chronic gout in adult patients refractory to conventional therapy.
Savient has exclusively licensed worldwide rights to the
technology related to KRYSTEXXA and its uses from Duke University
and Mountain View Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Company and its affiliate, Savient Pharma Holdings, Inc.,
sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
D. Del. Case No. 13-12680) on Oct. 14, 2013.

The Debtors are represented by Kenneth S. Ziman, Esq., and David
M. Turetsky, Esq., at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in
New York; and Anthony W. Clark, Esq., at Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware.  Cole, Schotz,
Meisel, Forman & Leonard P.A., also serves as the Company's
conflicts counsel, and Lazard Freres & Co. LLC serves as its
financial advisor.  GCG Inc. serves as the Debtors' claims agent.

U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee and
Collateral Agent, is represented by Clark T. Whitmore, Esq., at
Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Unofficial Committee of Senior Secured Noteholders is
represented by Andrew N. Rosenberg, Esq., Elizabeth McColm, Esq.,
and Jacob A. Adlerstein, Esq., at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, in New York; and Pauline K. Morgan, Esq., at Young,
Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: NJ Customers Suit Transferred to Fla. MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares still faces suit filed by two New Jersey
customers challenging the manner in which it charges checking
account overdraft fees.  It was named as defendant in the
purported class action lawsuit on July 29, 2011.  The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court in Maryland.  The suit
challenges the manner in which checking account overdraft fees
were charged and the policies related to the posting order of
debit card and other checking account transactions.  The suit
makes claims under New Jersey's consumer fraud act and under the
common law for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust
enrichment.  The case was transferred for pretrial proceedings to
pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.


TARGET CORP: Hagens Berman Files Action Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Connie Thompson, writing for KOMO News, reports that responding to
an massive data breach now affecting as many as 70 million people,
Seattle law firm Hagens Berman is taking on Target with a class-
action challenge.  The suit accuses Target of ignoring warnings
about the holes in the security of its data collection systems.

"We have a long period of a breach," said Tom Leoser, partner at
Hagens Berman.  "The penetration was ongoing for that entire
period. (Nov. 17, 2013 - Dec. 15, 2013) Why didn't they know about
it on Nov. 29th? Why didn't they know about it on Nov. 30th? What
monitoring were they doing to see what information was flowing
away from their system to unknown sources?"

Mr. Loeser says according to his firm's research, Target and other
major retailers were given detailed warnings about security weak
points as early as 2007, but failed to take appropriate action to
protect consumer information.

"The goal of our lawsuit is two-fold: One, it's to genuinely get
some form of compensation for people who have clearly been damaged
by Target's failure to keep this information secure.  And
secondly, it's to force Target to make changes to what they do.
They could have spent more money and had better security,"
Mr. Loeser explained.

The Hagens Berman lawsuit is among an estimated 50 or more legal
petitions proposing class-action against the retailer.  Mr. Loeser
says it's routine for all related class-action petitions to be
reviewed by a Multi-District Litigation panel, which determines if
class action requests should be certified.  Mr. Loeser says an MDL
panel is expected to meet in San Diego in March to review the
Target petitions.


TARGET CORP: U.S. Senators Seek Answers on Recent Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Spencer, writing for Star Tribune, reports that two U.S.
senators want answers from Target Corp. CEO Gregg Steinhafel about
the recent data breach that put at risk 70 million of the
Minneapolis-based retailers' customers.

In a Jan. 10 letter, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and
Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., asked Mr. Steinhafel to brief the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to explain how
information from so many customer accounts was stolen.

"It has been three weeks since the data breach was discovered and
new information continues to come out," they wrote.  "We expect
your security experts have had time to fully examine the cause and
impact of the breach and will be able to provide the committee
with detailed information."

On Jan. 15, a Target spokeswoman said the company had received the
senators' letter and was "continuing to work with them and other
elected officials to keep them informed and updated as our
investigation continues."

She did not say when Target officials might meet with Commerce
Committee members.

Rockefeller of West Virginia, who chairs the committee, and
Minnesota's McCaskill, who chairs its Consumer Protection, Product
Safety and Insurance subcommittee, have backed legislation for
better security of consumer data and prompter corporate
disclosures of security breaches.

Target waited four days after learning that its database had been
hacked to announce the theft of customer information.

"Target's recent incident demonstrates the need for such federal
legislation," Rockefeller and Ms. McCaskill wrote to
Mr. Steinhafel.

The company initially reported that 40 million customer accounts
were compromised by data thefts between Nov. 27 and Dec. 13.  But
earlier this month Target said names, addresses and other
information from as many as 70 million customers were compromised.

Rockefeller and Ms. McCaskill called it "one of the nation's
biggest data breaches in recent memory."

Mr. Steinhafel and Target have undertaken a national campaign of
apologies and offers to monitor the credit ratings and ensure no
injury to customers affected by the crime.

             Target Offers Free Credit Card Monitoring

John Ewoldt, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Target's
efforts to regain customers' trust after a massive data breach
include an offer of daily credit card monitoring, identity theft
insurance and access to a fraud resolution agent.

Any Target customer who shopped in one of its U.S. stores is
eligible for a year of free credit monitoring and identity theft
protection, Target announced this week.  The service is called
ProtectMyID from Experian, a credit monitoring company.  Those who
sign up before April 23 and enroll with a code by April 30 will
receive a free copy of their credit report along with the other
services.

Target's free offer is typical of those offered by most retailers
after a security breach, said Dianne Cutter, CEO of Asurency
Protection in Chaska, an identity theft and fraud protection
company.

"It's a good idea to take them up on it," she said.  "But
consumers should still look at their credit report to look for any
changes."

Dan Hendrickson, spokesman for the Better Business Bureau of
Minnesota and North Dakota, also recommends getting the free
coverage, even if a person hasn't noticed unauthorized charges.

"It makes sense to sign up regardless.  Often there's a period of
two to three months without any fraudulent activity and something
pops up."

Target revealed last week that the data theft was even bigger than
originally thought, with up to 110 million people at risk by the
exposure of credit and debit card numbers, as well as mailing
addresses and other personal information.

Consumers who want the credit monitoring can start the process at
https://creditmonitoring.target.com

An e-mail address and name is required to sign up.  Target will
e-mail an activation code within one to five days to enroll.  Then
consumers will complete the process with the code at
www.protectmyid.com/target

Name, address, date of birth and Social Security number are
required.

Jacqui DuBois of Plymouth has already taken Target up on its free
offer.  "I signed up for it because I don't have time to monitor
my accounts as closely as I would like to," she said.

Consumers without computer access can call 1-866-852-8680 to start
the process.

ProtectMyID does not include a credit score or reports from other
credit reporting agencies such as Equifax or TransUnion, although
enrollees are given the opportunity to purchase extra services at
their own expense.

The free monitoring and identity theft protection will end one
year after the consumer registers with Experian.  At that point,
customers can pay for the protection but there will be no
automatic enrollment, according to the credit monitoring FAQs on
Target's website.

The cost of credit monitoring services varies from $120 to $300
per year for consumers, according to Consumer Reports, but Target
is probably paying much less.  "They get it for a really cheap
price," Ms. Cutter said.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Faces Canadian Horsepower Label Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company faces lawsuits in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice and in the Superior Court of the Province of
Quebec alleging it conspired to fix prices of lawn mowers and lawn
mower engines in Canada, 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 March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn
mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in
lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the
horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who
purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower
containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less
provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within
the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or
their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of
judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive
damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition,
Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the
purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and
Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified the company that they
claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under the
company's Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

At this time, the company does not have a reasonable estimate of
the amount of the company's ultimate liability, if any, or the
amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be
material to the company's financial position, consolidated results
of operations and cash flows.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against the company and several other defendants advancing
allegations similar to those outlined. Plaintiffs seek
undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs,
and equitable relief.  Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and
Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and
its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified
the company that they claim indemnification with respect to this
lawsuit under the company's Stock Purchase Agreement with them.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Awaits Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company is awaiting court approval of a $7.0
million settlement it reached with direct purchasers of
compressors, 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 February 17, 2009, the company received a subpoena from the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") and
a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic
Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related to
investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive
pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor
industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the
industry on the same day.

The company entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the
DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy.
Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any
criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to
the investigation against the company as long as the company,
among other things, continue the company's full cooperation in the
investigation. The company received similar conditional immunity
from the European Commission and the SDE, and have received or
requested immunity or leniency from competition authorities in
other jurisdictions.

On December 7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had
reached a cartel settlement under which certain of the company's
competitors received fines for the conduct investigated. As a
result of the company's conditional immunity, the company was not
assessed any fine.

While the company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and
other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups.

All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") procedures.
As previously reported, Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh
Compressor Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do
Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the
direct-purchaser plaintiffs on June 24, 2010 to resolve claims in
the action in order to avoid the costs and distraction of this
ongoing class action litigation.

On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of the company's
proposed settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because
the time frame and products covered by the proposed settlement
class were inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same date
granting, in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss
claims by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second
Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court's rulings on the
motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional
compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for
refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air
conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005 to December 31,
2008 (the "Covered Products").

On October 15, 2012 the company entered into a new settlement
agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement
Agreement"), which must be approved by the court. The Settlement
Agreement was made by and between the company and the company's
subsidiaries and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Covered Products
in the United States, its territories and possessions, directly
from a defendant.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for
plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser claims
against the company relating to refrigeration compressors, the
company agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in
addition, agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice and
administrative costs associated with administering the settlement.
These costs were recorded as an expense in the second quarter
ended June 30, 2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010) in the
line item captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, and other
items".

Under the original agreement, administrative costs were recorded
as $250,000; however upon signing the new settlement, the
difference was refunded to Tecumseh Products Company. The
Settlement Agreement was submitted to the court on May 8, 2013 for
preliminary approval. The court has not yet issued a ruling on the
Settlement Agreement.

For the remaining indirect purchaser class actions in the United
States, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 30,
2010, and the company filed a motion to dismiss the indirect
purchaser class action on August 30, 2010. On June 7, 2012, the
court partially granted a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint with regard to claims for purchasers in several
states in which the complaint identified no named plaintiff. On
April 9, 2013, the court partially granted the motion to dismiss
with regard to claims for purchasers in the majority of the
remaining states. As a result of these rulings, the indirect
purchaser class action currently includes claims for plaintiffs in
only six states. The indirect purchasers now are seeking to appeal
these rulings before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. In Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary
stage.


THOMPSON BUILDING: Faces Fines Over Asbestos Removal Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan McCord, writing for The August Chronicle, reports that the
U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration is proposing fines of more than $63,000 against an
Augusta demolition company for alleged violations related to
asbestos removal during demolition of a Grovetown school.

According to documents obtained on Jan. 15 by The Augusta
Chronicle, OSHA cited Thompson Building and Wrecking Co. for
allegedly exposing employees to asbestos-containing materials,
failing to demarcate areas from which asbestos was being removed
and not performing airborne monitoring.

For the first, three-part violation, OSHA fined Thompson $14,700.

A second alleged violation netted Thompson a proposed $49,000 fine
for "willfully" failing to ensure the asbestos-containing
materials were properly handled to minimize employee exposure,
according to the citation.

Company owner Hiram Thompson attributed the citations to an
inspector's lack of knowledge of asbestos removal.  He said the
company refused OSHA's recent offer to reduce the fines and
expects to have them dismissed.

"We're a 52-year-old company and we've never had an OSHA violation
in our 52 years," Mr. Thompson said.  "All our people were trained
and worked within the specifications of asbestos abatement."

The work was performed in July on the 75-year-old, vacated
Grovetown School, which Columbia County Board of Education tore
down to make way for a new school.


TRADER JOE'S: July 9 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES
CASE NO.: BC487089
JUDGE Elihu M. Berle
DEPT.: 323

JOSE PEREZ, MAYRA ESPINOZA, AND
ROBERTO ALVARADO, JR. on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated
Plaintiffs,

vs.

TRADER JOE'S COMPANY
Defendant.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Legal Notice

IF YOU ARE HEARING IMPAIRED, VISUALLY IMPAIRED, OR MOBILITY
IMPAIRED, AND HAVE BEEN TO OR BEEN DETERRED FROM PATRONIZING A
CALIFORNIA TRADER JOE'S STORE, YOU COULD GET A PAYMENT FROM A
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Who? A person is a member of this settlement if he or she is
hearing impaired, vision impaired and/or mobility impaired or uses
a wheelchair or other devices for mobility and has been to a
Trader Joe's store in the state of California, will patronize
Trader Joe's, or would have patronized Trader Joe's but for access
problems from June 22, 2009 through the end of the proposed
settlement (approximately July 9, 2018) ("Class Members").  If you
have been to, or been deterred from patronizing, a Trader Joe's in
California between June 22, 2009 and December 13, 2013, you may be
eligible for monetary recovery.

What? The lawsuit seeks to make Trader Joe's alter its stores with
respect to access for people who are vision impaired, hearing
impaired and/or mobility impaired, and seeks damages in an amount
specified by Statute(s) for people who shopped at Trader Joe's in
California ("Damages Class Members").  Trader Joe's denies
liability.  The Court did not decide which side is correct. Under
the settlement, Trader Joe's will make alterations to its
California stores to become fully accessible to the hearing,
vision and mobility impaired, and will pay $460,000.00 to a Fund
to be distributed to Class Members minus the cost of
administration of the Fund, which is estimated at approximately
$149,000.00.  In addition, Trader Joe's has also agreed to pay
attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed $235,000.00.  Qualifying
Class Members can obtain monetary recovery.  Trader Joe's has also
agreed to pay an incentive award to the three class
representatives not to exceed $10,000.00 each, subject to court
approval, out of the Fund.

How? The detailed notice package contains everything you need to
make a claim.  Call the number below or visit the website below to
get one.  To qualify for a payment, you must submit a claim by
May 31, 2014.

Effect? If you are a Class Member and do not want to be bound by
the settlement's monetary provisions, you must exclude yourself by
May 31, 2014.  If you exclude yourself by May 31, 2014, you cannot
get money from this settlement.  If you do not exclude yourself,
you will release all claims for damages (excepting personal injury
damages resulting from physical injury) relating to accessibility
of Trader Joe's stores in the State of California for people who
are vision impaired, hearing impaired and/or mobility impaired,
for the period from June 22, 2009 through the end of the
settlement term.  Class Members cannot exclude themselves from the
non-monetary parts of the settlement and will release non-monetary
claims against Trader Joe's relating to store access through the
end of the settlement term.  If you wish to object to the
settlement, you must do so by May 31, 2014.  The detailed notice
found at the below website explains how to exclude yourself or how
to object.  You MUST follow these detailed instructions in order
to properly exclude yourself or object to the settlement.  The
Superior Court for the State of California in the County of
Los Angeles, will hold a hearing before Judge Elihu M. Berle on
July 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue,
Department 323, Los Angeles, CA to consider whether to approve the
settlement, the incentive award for the class representatives, and
the request for attorneys' fees and costs by lawyers representing
the class.

The detailed notice explains how you or your attorney can
participate in that hearing. THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE SUMMARY OF THE
SETTLEMENT.  PLEASE CALL THE NUMBER BELOW OR VISIT THE WEBSITE
BELOW FOR THE FULL SUMMARY.

Perez, et al. v. Trader Joe's Company
c/o Simpluris, Inc.
P.O. Box 26170
Santa Ana, CA 92799
(888) 836-1697
http://www.CATJAccessSettlement.com

BY ORDER OF THIS COURT


TRUITT BROTHERS: Recalls Cheeseburger Mac Products Over Allergens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Truitt Brothers Inc., an East Bernstadt, Ky. establishment is
recalling approximately 1.77 million pounds of shelf-stable pasta
and ground beef products because of misbranding and an undeclared
allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced on Jan. 19.  The products are
formulated with hydrolyzed soy protein and dried soy sauce, known
allergens, which are not declared on some labels.

The products subject to recall include:  [Labels]

    3.3-pound cases containing six, 9-ounce microwaveable
containers of "Kraft Velveeta Cheesy Skillets SINGLES - ULTIMATE
CHEESEBURGER MAC" [a macaroni & cheese product] with a Used
By/Sell By date code of "02 MARCH 2014 - 23 OCT 2014."
Identifying case codes are: 00210000432900, 00210000432910,
00210000432925, 00210000464000 and 00210000465100.

The products were produced between May 6, 2013 and Jan. 16, 2014
and shipped to Kraft Foods distribution centers and retail
locations nationwide.

No other Velveeta or Kraft products are impacted by this recall.

The problem was discovered during a recent routine quality check
conducted by the company, which then contacted FSIS.  The company
believes the problem occurred when a label supplier inadvertently
mixed labels with incorrect ingredient lines with labels
containing correct ingredient information.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the Kraft
Foods Consumer Relations Center at 1-800-396-5512.  Media with
questions about the recall should contact Joyce Hodel, the
company's corporate affairs director, at 847-646-4538.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
ET.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


TURQUOISE HILL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 17 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Turquoise Hill Resources, Ltd. and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
13-cv-8992, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Turquoise Hill
securities between May 14, 2010 and November 8, 2013 both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  If you are a shareholder
who purchased Turquoise Hill securities during the Class Period,
you have until February 11, 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.

Turquoise Hill is an international mineral exploration and
development company.  The Company's principal mineral resource
property is the Oyu Tolgoi Project located in Mongolia.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, during the Class
Period, Defendants overstated its revenues for the fiscal years
2010, 2011, 2012 and certain quarters of 2013; the Company
prematurely reported revenues; and the Company lacked internal
accounting controls.

On November 8, 2013, Turquoise Hill issued a press release
disclosing that the Company would be restating its consolidated
financial results for the years ending December 31, 2010, 2011,
2012 and the affected quarters, including 2013, due to errors
related to the timing of revenue recognition from sales to certain
distributors as a result of its SouthGobi subsidiary's decision to
change the way it recognizes revenue.  The Company further
disclosed that some sales were booked after delivery to the
customers' stockpiles at the Ovoot Tolgoi mine instead of upon
customer collection.  In addition, the Company stated that the
financial statements should no longer be relied upon.  On this
news, the Company's stock price dropped from $4.87 per share on
November 7, 2013 to close at $4.09 per share by November 14, 2013.

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.


UNIT PETROLEUM: Faces Renewed Bid to Certify Royalty Owners Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al.
v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of
Latimer County, Oklahoma recently filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners, according to Unit Corporation's
Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees.

Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf
of persons who receive royalty from the company for the company's
Oklahoma production. The company asserted several defenses
including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law.
The company also asserted that the case should not be tried as a
class action due to the materially different circumstances that
determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On
December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. On May 11, 2012, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed
the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs
petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court for certiorari and on
October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. The
Plaintiffs recently filed a second request to certify a class of
royalty owners that is slightly smaller than their first attempt.
The company will continue to resist certification using the
defenses described, as well as new defenses based on the Court of
Civil Appeals' decertification of the Plaintiffs' original class
action. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while
class certification issues are pending.


VIVENDI CANADA: Retired Worker Can Launch Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
David Dias, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that on Jan. 16,
the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the ruling in Vivendi Canada
Inc. v. Dell'Aniello, granting pensioners the right to form a
class against their former employer.

The case involves a September 2008 amendment to Vivendi Canada's
health-care plan, which would have reduced benefits to former
employees.  Montreal-based Rivest Schmidt, a labor and employment
boutique, filed a motion to authorize a class action on behalf of
pensioners.

That motion was initially denied by Quebec's Superior Court, which
found the pensioners could not form a class because their issues
weren't similar enough.  The court cited, for instance, the
individual nature of health-care benefits, which were specific to
each pensioner's condition.

That decision was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which
found the motions judge failed to interpret the province's Civil
Code broadly enough -- particularly art. 1003(a), which states
that class members must have "identical, similar or related
questions of law or fact."

In a unanimous ruling, the SCC upheld that decision, underscoring
the flexibility afforded by Quebec's Civil Code: "Since the claims
of all the group's members are based on the Plan, the question of
the validity or the legality of the 2009 amendments arises for all
the members.  The answer to this question can serve to advance the
resolution of all the claims.  Hence, there is a common question."

Claude Tardif -- claudetardif@rivestschmidt.qc.ca -- a litigator
at Rivest Schmidt, represented class members before the court.

In Mr. Tardif's opinion, the motions judge failed to appreciate
certain key differences between Quebec and common law
jurisdictions in terms of how common classes are identified.

Mr. Tardif says it's too soon to tell whether the ruling will
extend to securities class actions, but he thinks the decision
will generally make it easier to file collective litigation in the
province.

Asked whether that will push Quebec further out of step with North
American class action law, Mr. Tarfdif says the province has no
need to emulate common-law jurisdictions.


* Boilers, Weight-Lifting Benches Among Recently Recalled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two lines of boilers that can
emit excessive amounts of carbon monoxide were among recently
recalled consumer products, along with a free-weight bench that
can collapse.

Here's a more detailed look:

BOILERS

DETAILS: U.S. Boiler models ESC, PVG and SCG models.  They are
cast iron hot water boilers that use natural gas or liquid
petroleum to heat water for residential space heating.  The
boilers are light blue in color with black trim, about 40 inches
tall, about 26 inches deep and range from 12 to 31 inches wide.
The model name and U.S. Boiler logo are on the front cover of the
boiler.  The front cover of the boiler is vented.  Recalled
boilers were made between December 2005 and February 2013.  The
model number, serial number and manufacturing date are located on
a silver label on the top panel of ESC models and on the inside of
PVG and SCG models on the right side panel.  The manufacturing
date appears in the upper right corner of the silver label in the
MM/YYYY format.  They were sold at Plumbing and heating wholesale
distributors nationwide from December 2005 through February 2013.
The following model numbers and serial number ranges are included
in the recall: model numbers ESC3 through ESC9 with serial numbers
65249110 through 65382278, model numbers PVG3_P, PVG4_P and PVG5
through PVG9 with serial numbers 64870666 through 65385748;
97939433, and model numbers SCG3 through SCG9 with serial
numbers35200197 and 65283322 through 65858729.

WHY: The air pressure switch can fail to shut down the burners
when there is a blockage in the vent system, allowing the boiler
to emit excessive amounts of carbon monoxide and posing a CO
poisoning hazard to the consumer.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 26,000 in the U.S. and about 310 in Canada.

FOR MORE: Call U.S. Boiler at 888-432-8887 or visit
www.usboiler.net and click on CPSC Product Recall Announcement for
more information.

BOILERS

DETAILS: New Yorker Boiler model PVCGA.  They are cast iron hot
water boilers that use natural gas or liquid petroleum to heat
water for residential space heating.  The boilers are green in
color, about 38 inches tall and about 26 inches deep and range
from 11 to 30 inches wide. The front cover of the boiler is vented
and has the New Yorker Boiler logo.  Recalled boilers were made
between May 2012 and February 2013.  The model number, serial
number and manufacturing date are located on a silver label on the
inside panel.  The manufacturing date appears in the upper right
corner of the silver label in the MM/YYYY format.  They were sold
at plumbing and heating wholesale distributors nationwide from
July 2012 through Feb. 2013.  The following model numbers and
serial number ranges are included in this recall: model numbers
PVCG50ANI, PVCG60ANI, PVCG70ANI, PVCG80ANI, PVCG90ANI, PVCG30API,
PVCG40API, and PVCG50API.

WHY: The air pressure switch can fail to shut down the burners
when there is a blockage in the vent system, allowing the boiler
to emit excessive amounts of carbon monoxide and posing a CO
poisoning hazard to the consumer.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 191.

FOR MORE: Call New Yorker Boiler at 800-535-4679 or visit
www.newyorkerboiler.com and click on CPSC Product Recall
Announcement for more information.

FREE WEIGHT BENCHES

DETAILS: Olympic Decline free weight bench with model numbers
16060, 16061, and 16062.  The model numbers can be found on the
bottom of the tube near where the feet are placed with serial
numbers C1208 through H0913 which stand for the manufacture dates,
December 2008 through September 2013.  They were sold by Cybex or
its distributors directly to gyms from December 2008 through
September 2013.

WHY: The frame of the bench can collapse forward onto the user,
posing fall and injury hazards.

INCIDENTS: Nine reports of frames fatiguing near the weld point.
No injuries were reported.

HOW MANY: About 234.

FOR MORE: Call Cybex at 888-678-3846 or visit www.cybexintl.com
and click on Support for more information.


* FDA Seeks Consumer Reports Related to Defective Tobacco Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
United Press International reports that officials at the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration say they want to hear from people if they
think a tobacco product is defective or causes a health issue.

The Department of Health and Human Services' Safety Reporting
Portal was revised to add a new category for tobacco products.  It
provides a standardized way for consumers and healthcare
professionals to let the FDA know when they suspect that there is
an unexpected health or safety issue with a specific tobacco
product, officials said.

Dr. Ii-Lun Chen, medical branch chief in the Office of Science at
FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, said a new online tool can help
report a problem.

Until now, consumers reported problems with tobacco products to
FDA via MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event
Reporting Program, a system that does not ask questions specific
to tobacco products.

"There is no known safe tobacco product, but FDA can play a role
in helping prevent certain unexpected health consequences from
tobacco products, such as those that occur from defective tobacco
products, or health or safety problems beyond those normally
associated with tobacco product use," Dr. Chen said in a
statement.

The FDA is interested in reports from consumers about tobacco
products that are damaged, defective or contaminated, such as
cigarettes containing mold.  It could also be that a tobacco
product just smells or tastes wrong Dr. Chen said.

FDA also wants to know if tobacco product users have experienced
an unexpected health or other safety problem that they believe has
been caused by use of a particular tobacco product.  These could
include reports of fire caused by tobacco product use, burns or
other injuries, accidental or unintended exposure of children,
allergic reactions, poisonings and other toxicities, or an unusual
reaction in a longtime user.


* Securities Class Actions Up 10% in 2013, NERA Report Shows
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
chances are higher that companies will face securities class
action lawsuits, according to a new litigation analysis by NERA
Economic Consulting.

The report released on Jan. 21 found that the number of securities
class action lawsuits filed in federal courts against publicly
listed companies grew by 10% in 2013 compared to 2012.  The 234
total for 2013 was the highest annual figure since 2008.  But
taking into account the shrinking pool of companies listed on
major U.S. exchanges, the trend is starker, the report says.

"Over the 1996-2013 period, the number of publicly listed
companies in the US decreased substantially," the report says.
Combined with the number of lawsuits filed, "the implication of
this decline is that an average company listed in the US was 83%
more likely to be the target of a securities class action in 2013
than in the first five years after the passage of the [Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995].

But while plaintiffs are filing more lawsuits, the claims are more
likely to get dismissed.  Dismissal rates increased from 32%- 36%
for cases filed between 2000 and 2002 to 44%- 51% for cases filed
between 2007 and 2009, according to the report.  It said it's too
early to draw conclusions for cases filed since 2010.

The average settlement amount in 2013 hit a record $55 million, an
increase of 53% over 2012 and 31% more than the previous high in
2009, the report found.


* Senator Calls for Safer Packaging for Kids' Medicine Bottles
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Sen. Charles Schumer on Jan. 19
called for safer packaging for children's medicine bottles in
order to help prevent an estimated 10,000 emergency room visits a
year.

The New York Democrat says the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
and the Consumer Product Safety Commission should require so-
called flow restrictors on bottles of children's medicines such as
cough syrups and painkillers.

The flow restrictor is a type of safety valve that fits into the
neck of a bottle and slows the release of fluid.

"Flow restrictors will save lives, save money from reduced
emergency room visits and cost almost nothing to implement, so the
question is, why on earth wouldn't we require they be used?"
Sen. Schumer said.  "We believe the FDA and CPSC have the
authority to get this done, and they need to get started right
away."

An investigation published last month by Consumer Reports and
ProPublica found that making the devices mandatory could prevent
roughly 10,000 emergency room visits each year by young children
who drink too much medicine.

The ProPublica report says that drug makers have added restrictors
to infants' and children's acetaminophen but have not installed
the devices on bottles of other medicines such as antihistamines,
ibuprofen and cough and cold preparations.

Sen. Schumer said the restrictors cost less than 10 cents a
bottle.


                             *********

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  * * *