CAR_Public/140129.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 20

                              Headlines


AT&T INC: Court Enters Judgment in "Nwabueze" Class Action
BP PLC: Asks US Appeals Court to Review Ruling on Oil Spill Accord
COCA-COLA AMATIL: Class Action Over Sugary Drinks May Face Hurdles
DIRECTV: Denial of Arbitration Bid on Appeal
FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Using Users' "Likenesses" to Endorse Pages

FACEBOOK INC: In-House Legal Team Faces Variety of Legal Issues
FLUSHMATE: Expands Recall of Pressure Assist Flushing Systems
FRUITLAND PARK, FL: To Discuss Class Action Over Utility Fees
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Transfers One of Paxil Cases to Texas Court
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Refuses to Dismiss OT Counterclaims

ILLINOIS: Trial Court Ruling in Suit vs. Governor Overturned
KITCHEN BY BRAD: Recalls Bacon Spread Over Undeclared Mustard
LOUISIANA: To Decide on School Boards' MFP Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Third Class Action Over Wood Products
MAKO SURGICAL: Fla. Securities Suit Now Closed; No Appeal Filed

MAKO SURGICAL: Del. & Fla. Suits Over Stryker Merger Still Open
MERCK: Recalls Cholesterol Drug Liptruzet Over Packaging Issues
MIDWEST WHOLESALE: Recalls Male Sexual Enhancement Products
NESTLE PURINA: To Relaunch Waggin' Train Following Recall
NEW JERSEY: Christie Campaign Hires Patton Boggs in Class Action

NEW JERSEY: Fort Lee Attorney Heads GWB Closure Class Action
NORTH CAROLINA: Physicians Sue Over NCTracks Glitch
NORTHERN TRUST: Class Action Settlements Hit 4th Qtr. Profits
NRA GROUP: "Atlas" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violations in New York
NU SKIN: Barrack Rodos & Bacine Files Securities Class Action

OMNI DIRECT: Misclassified Installers as Contractors, Suit Says
ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Child Care Failures
OZ MOVING: Fails to Pay "Spread of Hours" Premium, Class Claims
PALAMA HOLDINGS: Expands Recall of Frozen Raw Chicken Products
PERSEL & ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Can Question Financial Claims

PIONEER SOUTHWEST: Settling Suits Over Merger With PNRC
PIONEER SOUTHWEST: Unitholder's Del. Suit Over Merger Continues
PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Accused of Debt Collection Act Violations
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Accused of Debiting Accounts Without Consent

SAMSON HEAVY: "Monday" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pays
SAVIENT PHARMA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
SHELL OIL: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. Ruling in "Parko" Suit
SOLACE FINANCIAL: Faces "Tabick" FDCPA Violation Suit in New York
SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

SRAM: Recalls Hydraulic Bicycle Brakes Due to Crash Hazards
PLAYTEX: Recalls More Than 1 Million Pacifier Holder Clips
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Recalls 232,000 Rayovac Flashlights
SS&C FINANCIAL: GlobeOp Settles Fairfield Greenwich-Related Suits
SS&C FINANCIAL: UK Hearing in Millennium Funds Case Adjourned

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: "De Figueiredo" Suit Now Part of ACTOS MDL
TARGET CORP: Faces "Savedow" Class Suit Over Data Security Breach
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Painters' Suit Over Aggrenox Product
TIME WARNER: Accused of Violating Family and Medical Leave Act
TOPS VACUUM: Sued by Customer Sales & Services Workers in Florida

TRANSOCEAN LTD: MDL Trial in Macondo Well Incident in 2nd Phase
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Moves to Dismiss New York Securities Lawsuit
U.S. BANK: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Trahan" Suit
UNITED STATES: Privacy Board Expresses Concern on NSA Reform Plan
UTAH: Fathers File Class Action v. AG Over Fraudulent Adoption

VERMONT TEDDY: "Murphy" Suit Remanded to Ventura Superior Court
VIKING CLIENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
VIRGINIA: Won't Defend Same-Sex Marriage Ban as Constitutional
VITACOST.COM INC: No Writ Filed v. Dismissal of Securities Suit
WAL-MART STORE: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Pain Pills

WEBBERS FOOD: Recalls "Hausmacher" Liver Pate Due to Bacteria
WINN-DIXIE: Recalls Instant Chocolate Drink Mix in Florida Stores
ZIPREALTY INC: Settles Ex-Agents' Class Action for $1.7 Million


                              *********


AT&T INC: Court Enters Judgment in "Nwabueze" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
JOY NWABUEZE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC., a Delaware
corporation; PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a AT&T CALIFORNIA,
a California corporation; AT&T SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; AT&T OPERATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 21, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 09-01529 SI, (N.D.
Cal.) came before the Court on November 15, 2013, at which time
the Court held a fairness hearing regarding final approval of the
parties' class action settlement agreement.

District Judge Susan Illston entered judgment on January 13, 2014,
pursuant to the terms of the Final Approval Order.

"All claims in this Action are dismissed with prejudice and,
except as provided in the Settlement Agreement, without costs,"
ruled Judge Ilston.  "The Court finds that there is no just reason
for delay and expressly directs Judgment and immediate entry by
the Clerk."

A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Judgment is
available at http://is.gd/T1uVbwfrom Leagle.com.


BP PLC: Asks US Appeals Court to Review Ruling on Oil Spill Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yang Lina, writing for Xinhua, reports that British oil giant BP
on Jan. 21 asked a U.S. appeals court to review a ruling upholding
a multibillion-dollar settlement to compensate victims of the 2010
oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, local media reported.

BP argued on Jan. 21 in a filing with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals that the court erred earlier this month when it upheld
a U.S. district judge's approval of the company's settlement with
individuals and businesses who suffered economically in the oil
spill, the Times-Picayune reported.

Earlier BP has contended a U.S. District Judge and another court-
appointed claims administrator have misinterpreted settlement
terms in ways that would force BP to pay billions of dollars in
inflated or fraudulent claims by businesses and individuals.

BP alleged some businesses and individuals who didn't suffer from
the oil spill took advantage of the settlement program and tried
to claim money from the company.

In its ruling on Jan. 10, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed BP's contentions, saying the
District Judge correctly found that the plaintiffs who filed a
class-action lawsuit against BP were indeed injured from the
spill.

The 5th Circuit found then in challenging the settlement agreement
itself, BP's allegations were not enough to overturn the approval.

On April 20, 2010, BP's Deepwater Horizon drill platform caught
fire and exploded, killing 11 workers and triggering one of the
worst environmental disasters in the country's history.

BP said it has paid more than 300,000 claims totaling over US$11
billion to help restore the Gulf economy.  The company initially
estimated the settlement deal would cost at about US$7.8 billion.


COCA-COLA AMATIL: Class Action Over Sugary Drinks May Face Hurdles
------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Martin and Michael Foreman, writing for Stuff.co.nz, report
that a planned class action against cola companies targeting
New Zealand children with addictive sugary drinks will be an
"uphill battle", a prominent class-action lawyer says.

Andrew Hooker is heading a representative class action against two
New Zealand banks, but said he expected the case against leading
cola brands would need to "jump through more than a few hoops" to
succeed.

Unidentified Australian lawyers are calling for Kiwis suffering
from poor health related to cola addiction to come forward to
assist with legal action.  A newspaper notice sought "people whose
families have suffered in terms of Type 2 diabetes, heart
condition and/or premature death from becoming addicted to cola,
from an early age".

Just Water International director Tony Falkenstein is the New
Zealand contact for the representative action and was tasked with
collecting information from health sufferers for the Australian
legal firm set to file papers in court.  The notice said any
proceeds from the court action would be divided among those
affected.

But Australia-based Hooker said it would be a complex and lengthy
process.  "If they're saying, 'your coke was addictive and made my
kids sick', then it falls alongside drug and pharmaceutical class
actions like formaldehyde," he said.  "You have to convince the
judge that there are commonality between the case, that they all
suffered the same result because of cola," he said.

In New Zealand class actions were called representative actions,
on the basis that one representative is the plaintiff again a
defendant company's actions that had consequences for all.

New Zealand's largest cola brands were owned and produced by
Frucor and Coca-Cola Amatil.  Neither company would comment on the
proposed case.

Mr. Falkenstein said the lawyers contacted him early this month,
but are not speaking to media until court papers were filed.

Controversy over the health risks associated with drinking too
much Coke were raised last year when a coroner ruled an
Invercargill mother who drank 10 liters a day died as a result.

Lawyers would have to prove the commonality between all the cases,
but in general "if there were 100 people and one was found not to
have been affected, that would not knock over the case for the
other 99," she said.

New Zealand Juice and Beverage Association head Kerry Tyack said
the ACC system largely prevented class action cases.


DIRECTV: Denial of Arbitration Bid on Appeal
--------------------------------------------
The denial of the motion of DIRECTV to compel arbitration of
federal cases seeking injunctive relief under California statutes
in relation to its early cancellation fees is currently on appeal,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments. Several of these
lawsuits are pending, some in California state court purporting to
represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts purporting
to represent nationwide classes. The lawsuits seek both monetary
and injunctive relief. While the theories of liability vary, the
lawsuits generally challenge these fees under state consumer
protection laws as both unfair and inadequately disclosed to
customers. The company's motions to compel arbitration have been
granted in all of the federal cases, except as to claims seeking
injunctive relief under California statutes. The denial of the
company's motion as to those claims is currently on appeal. The
company believes that its early cancellation fees are adequately
disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the costs the
company incurs when customers cancel service before fulfilling
their programming commitments.


FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Using Users' "Likenesses" to Endorse Pages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Facebook after the
plaintiffs claim it falsely used their likenesses to endorse
certain pages.

Anthony DiTirro, Katya Bresler and Michelle Shumate claim Facebook
falsely said that they had "liked" certain pages, which they had
not done, according to a complaint originally filed Jan. 9 and
amended on Jan. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California at San Jose.

Mr. DiTirro claims in November, he received notification from one
of his Facebook friends that he was featured on Facebook "liking"
USA Today in a Facebook-sponsored advertisement.  Mr. DiTirro
claims while he has nothing negative to say about USA Today, he is
not an avid reader of it, has never been to its website and never
clicked the "Like" button for it.

Facebook knowingly used Mr. DiTirro's likeness and Facebook
profile to advertise to the general public that he endorsed USA
Today without his permission, according to the suit.

Ms. Bresler and Ms. Shumate claim similar incidents happened to
them with Duracell and Kohl's, respectively.

The plaintiffs and the members of the class have all suffered
irreparable harm and damages as a result of Facebook's unlawful
and wrongful conduct, according to the suit.

Facebook knowingly used and is continuing to use the plaintiffs'
names and Facebook photos for its advantage, all without their
prior consent, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim Facebook acted with negligence, oppression,
fraud and malice; engaged in despicable conduct with a willful and
conscious disregard of the plaintiffs' rights; and deprived them
of their property and legal rights.  Facebook's actions were an
invasion of privacy and placed the plaintiffs in a false light in
the public eye, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking for damages in the amount of $750 or
greater or the actual damages suffered and punitive damages with
pre- and post-judgment interest.  They are being represented by
Abbas Kazerounian and Jason A. Ibey of the Kazerouni Law Firm and
Todd Michael Friedman.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at San
Jose case number: 5:14-cv-00132


FACEBOOK INC: In-House Legal Team Faces Variety of Legal Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
Facebook's law department has grown over the company's first
decade to approximately 90 in-house professionals in the United
States and around 10 abroad, still lean for a company with a user
base bigger than the population of all but two countries on earth.
Its lawyers have to deal with the huge variety of legal issues
that come from operating in the digital sphere, which is often
short on law and precedent, and long on gray areas.

The company has been in constant motion since its birth.  And the
pace has only accelerated since the company went public two years
ago.  For Mike Johnson, head of the mergers and acquisitions team,
that meant preparing -- with help from outside counsel at Fenwick
& West and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett -- for the largest tech and
third-largest overall IPO in U.S. history.

Following the IPO, a spate of suits were filed against the company
by investors who believe Facebook and major banks didn't properly
disclose to investors the challenges the company was facing at the
time with its transition to a "mobile-first" business model.

From the infamous "Winklevii" lawsuit over who came up with the
original idea for Facebook to privacy class actions, the young
company has seen more than its share of high-profile litigation.

Just this past summer, Facebook settled the Fraley v. Facebook
class action, also known as the "Sponsored Stories" suit,
originally filed in 2011.  In the case, plaintiffs objected to the
idea that when they hit the "like" button on Facebook below a
product, their photos and names could be used in commercial
endorsements called "sponsored stories" on their friends' pages.
They claimed that Facebook violated California's civil code and
unfair competition laws by putting their names and images in these
sponsored stories without asking permission or giving them a
chance to opt out.

The case settled for $20 million this past August, and Facebook
agreed to provide users with more control over how their names and
photos will be used and to give minors special controls as part of
the deal.  Robert Arns -- rsa@arnslaw.com -- of the Arns Law Firm,
who argued for the plaintiffs in the suit, said that the case
involved 100,000 documents, including more than 20 depositions and
six expert depositions, and in his view was "as hard a fight as
anyone could ever imagine."

Michael Rhodes of Cooley, who has worked closely with the company
on many cases, including Fraley, as well as Facebook's in-house
attorneys note that the department faces many issues of first
impression, of which Fraley was a typical example.

"How should courts think about users' engagement with social
media? What is this? Is it speech, is it content? How do we think
about users' actions on a site where the explicit purpose of being
there is to share and affiliate yourself with different people and
causes and ideas?" asks Ashlie Beringer, Facebook's recently
minted deputy general counsel.

To help judges grasp the issues, Ms. Beringer, who served as
outside counsel for Facebook in her last job at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, comes with up analogies.  But Facebook's operations
don't always lend themselves to analogies.

Another essential element of the "Sponsored Stories" case was one
of Facebook's most vexing problems -- user privacy, or the lack of
it, according to the digerati.  Colin Stretch, Facebook's general
counsel, points out that much of the current legal regime around
privacy grew up in the 1990s, when personal data collected from
individuals was still mostly information incidental to
transactions, such as banking and medical data.

In 2009 the Federal Trade Commission began an investigation of the
company, responding to complaints that Facebook engaged in bad
privacy practices such as making users' friends lists public
without asking approval or providing warning, and giving third
party apps on Facebook access to nearly all of users' personal
data unnecessarily.  Facebook and the FTC settled in 2011, setting
out biannual privacy audits for Facebook for the next 20 years and
requiring the company to get user approval before making more user
information public.

Reconciling the legal language and the limited space available on
computer screens and mobile device can be a challenge.  In 2013,
for instance, Facebook made some clarifications to the language of
its privacy policies, largely in response to the Fraley
settlement, that Stretch says were widely misinterpreted as actual
changes to the way user information was being shared

Individual privacy settings aren't the only controversy the
company has faced in terms of the data it collects.  Last year,
reports on The Guardian and other publications surfaced saying
that the company allowed the National Security Agency's PRISM
program direct access to its servers.  Mark Zuckerberg has denied
those claims.

Since then, the company has joined with other prominent tech
companies to request permission from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court to release more data about the number and type
of national security related orders they receive from the
government.


FLUSHMATE: Expands Recall of Pressure Assist Flushing Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Flushmate, the maker of a
high-pressure flushing system sold at Home Depot and Lowe's, is
expanding its recall of the parts, because they can burst near a
seam with force enough to shatter the toilet tank.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission said on Jan. 23 that the
company is recalling 351,000 units in the U.S. and about 9,400
units in Canada of the Series 503 Flushmate 111 Pressure Assist
flushing systems installed inside toilet tanks that were made from
March 2008 through June 2009.

There were no reports of injuries, but Flushmate has received
three reports of the units included in the recall bursting,
resulting in property damage.

The move expands upon a June 2012 recall of the same systems made
from October 1997 through February 2008.  At that time, 2.3
million units in the U.S. and 9,400 in Canada were recalled.

The consumer agency says consumers should immediately stop using
the recalled system, turn off the water supply to the unit, flush
the toilet to release the internal pressure and contact the firm
to request a free repair kit.

Flushmate of New Hudson, Mich., is a division of Sloan Valve Co.


FRUITLAND PARK, FL: To Discuss Class Action Over Utility Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Fussell, writing for Daily Commercial, reports that the city
commissioners of Fruitland Park were set to meet behind closed
doors on Jan. 21 to discuss the class action lawsuit filed by
former commissioner Jim Richardson and former commission candidate
Michael Howard to overturn city utility services fees.

In 2009, the commission added a utilities service fee to monthly
utility bills sent to city residents but not to customers outside
the city limits.  The two fees, totaling $8, generate about
$100,000 annually for the police and fire budgets.

The police department budget is about $1.1 million.

The fees, which commissioners and lawyers maintain were always
voluntary, were intended to offset a shortfall in tax revenue
blamed on reduced real estate values and a blossoming recession.

At the last commission meeting on January 9, commissioners voted
to rescind the fees pending court approval, a big first step in
reaching a settlement.  The Jan. 21 closed-door meeting was set to
take up the details of a proposed settlement.

Commissioners aren't permitted to discuss what goes on in such
meetings or issue minutes until after the litigation is resolved.
But as soon as the meeting adjourns, Mayor Chris Bell will convene
the public meeting, during which commissioners may hold an
official vote on any agreement they reach in private.

Reportedly, any settlement will cost city taxpayers $500,000 or
more.

In February, 2013, Mr. Richardson filed suit alleging city
commissioners and staff directors stepped over the line opposing
him in his reelection campaign.  The city settled that suit for
$150,000 last summer.

If the city settles the class action suit, only one Richardson-
inspired hurdle remains: the FDLE investigation of many of the
same allegations contained in the civil suit.

Mayor Chris Bell has repeatedly said he welcomes that
investigation as a way to put the issue to rest.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Transfers One of Paxil Cases to Texas Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that as district judges in Pennsylvania are splitting over whether
or not GlaxoSmithKline can remove cases brought over its drug
Paxil to federal court, a judge in the Eastern District has
transferred one of those cases to the Southern District of Texas.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Refuses to Dismiss OT Counterclaims
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Jan. 21 refused to dismiss Hewlett-Packard Co.'s
counterclaims in a putative overtime class action, ruling the
computer giant had properly claimed it suffered damages after the
lead plaintiff copied proprietary information before quitting.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh denied the plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss breach-of-contract and other counterclaims the company
brought after it allegedly discovered that lead plaintiff Eric
Benedict had made copies of his work laptop, which HP says
contained files he should not have had access to.


ILLINOIS: Trial Court Ruling in Suit vs. Governor Overturned
------------------------------------------------------------
George Wilson, sheriff of Franklin County, Illinois, and Michael
Huff, sheriff of Rock Island, Illinois, filed an action in the
circuit court of Franklin County against Patrick Quinn, Governor
of the State of Illinois, seeking a judgment declaring that the
failure of the Governor to authorize full payment of a statutorily
mandated annual stipend in 2010 was contrary to the law and the
constitution of Illinois. The trial court dismissed the action,
finding that it was barred under the State Lawsuit Immunity Act
(745 ILCS 5/1 (West 2010)).

On appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in
finding that the action was barred by sovereign immunity because
their claim was brought against the Governor, not the State of
Illinois, and because the suit was brought to obtain declaratory
relief, and not to enforce a present claim to remedy a past wrong
committed by the State.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, reversed the
judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

According to the Appellate Court, record shows that the plaintiffs
filed motions to add a party-plaintiff, to substitute a party
plaintiff, to certify a class, and to seek leave to file an
amended complaint for a class action.  The trial court summarily
denied these motions without argument, after it had dismissed the
plaintiffs' action for lack of subject jurisdiction. "In our view,
this was error and those orders are hereby vacated.  On remand,
the trial court is instructed to allow the plaintiffs the
opportunity to present and argue those motions," said the ruling.

The case is GEORGE WILSON, Sheriff of Franklin County, Illinois,
and MICHAEL HUFF, Sheriff of Rock Island County, Illinois, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PATRICK QUINN, Governor of the State of
Illinois, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 5-12-0337. 2013 IL App (5th)
120337.

A copy of the Appellate Court's January 13, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/alJwSifrom Leagle.com.

For appellants:

    Thomas F. McGuire, Esq.
    Jolanta A. Zinevich, Esq.
    Thomas F. McGuire & Associates, LTD.
    4180 RFD, Route 83, Suite 206
    Long Grove, Illinois 60047
    Telephone: (847) 634-1727
    Facsimile: (847) 634-4785

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro,
Solicitor General, and John P. Schmidt, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel), for appellee.


KITCHEN BY BRAD: Recalls Bacon Spread Over Undeclared Mustard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kitchen by Brad Smoliak
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8550

Affected products: 125 g. Kitchen by Brad Smoliak Bacon Spread
with UPC 6 27843 01328 0


LOUISIANA: To Decide on School Boards' MFP Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hasten, writing for Shreveportimes.com, reports that District
Judge Michael Caldwell was set to decide Jan. 27, whether all 69
school boards should be included, whether they want to or not, as
plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the St. John Parish School Board
seeking funds from the state.

So far, 44 school systems voted to participate, said Scott
Richard, executive director of the Louisiana School Boards
Association, and action is pending at several other school board
meetings.

The lawsuit says that when the Louisiana Supreme Court threw out
the 2012-13 public school funding formula known as the Minimum
Foundation Program (MFP) because it unconstitutionally funded the
statewide voucher program with money dedicated to public schools,
the state had to revert to a prior year's MFP.  The latest one
that was approved was for the 2011-12 school year and included
language that if a new formula was not adopted the following year,
the state had to add 2.75 percent to cover growth and inflation.

The problem, says attorneys for St. John Parish, the Louisiana
School Boards Association and the Louisiana Association of
Educators, is that the state never funded the increase despite the
requirement.

If the judge rules Jan. 27 that it is class action and the lawsuit
is subsequently successful, all 69 school boards stand to benefit
from a 2.75 percent increase in the amount of money they receive
from the $3.4 billion public school funding formula.

If no class action is approved, only St. John would benefit if it
wins. The other 68 school boards would have to file their own
suits, said Scott Richard, executive director of the LSBA.

Jimmy Faircloth, attorney representing the defendants -- the State
of Louisiana, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and
the state Department of Education -- argued that it should not be
declared class action lawsuit.  He said it doesn't meet the
requirements of a class and the fact that not all boards have
signed on to participate rules it out.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Third Class Action Over Wood Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Vaughan, writing for Virginia Gazette, reports that
Lumber Liquidators, nationally known floor covering manufacturer
based in Toano, is facing a third federal class action lawsuit
over claims some of its wood products had excessive levels of
formaldehyde and may have been harvested in violation of the Lacey
Act.

The newest suit, filed Jan. 14 in the U.S. District Court for
Eastern Virginia in Newport News, seeks in excess of $5 million in
damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of
Lumber Liquidators Chinese-made flooring in Alabama, New York and
Virginia, the home states of the four named plaintiffs.

That makes it narrower than an earlier class action suit filed on
behalf of Lumber Liquidators customers, which covered customers
throughout the United States.  The first suit was filed on behalf
of Lumber Liquidators shareholders.

All three suits result from allegations that Lumber Liquidators
sold Chinese-made flooring that was allegedly made from timber cut
from a restricted environment and contained illegal levels of
formaldehyde.  Used as a resin to bind the flooring together,
formaldehyde gives off fumes and is a known carcinogen.

None of the plaintiffs in the newest suit are claiming
formaldehyde affected their health.  Instead, they claim they
suffered economic harm in buying what they say is substandard
flooring.

Lumber Liquidators' Morningstar Bamboo line of flooring is cited
in the most recent lawsuit, although its Mayflower brand was named
in the first customer suit.

In addition to citing the reports, the suit also claims Lumber
Liquidators improperly warranted that its flooring met federal
standards.

The shareholders' suit alleges that adverse publicity as a result
of the federal raid and the formaldehyde tests caused the
company's stock price to drop and the shareholders to suffer
losses.  The stock did recover from a drop after initial
publicity.


MAKO SURGICAL: Fla. Securities Suit Now Closed; No Appeal Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
closed In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No.
12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer and the deadline for filing an appeal
has expired without an appeal on the decision being filed,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

In May 2012, two shareholder complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as purported
class actions on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock between January 9, 2012 and May 7, 2012. The cases were
filed under the captions James H. Harrison, Jr. v. MAKO Surgical
Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60875 and Brian Parker v. MAKO Surgical
Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60954.

The court consolidated the Harrison and Parker complaints under
the caption In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No.
12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer, and appointed Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System and Baltimore County Employees'
Retirement System to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. In September
2012, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
expanded the proposed class period through July 9, 2012. The
amended complaint alleged the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, President and Chairman, Maurice R. Ferre, M.D., and its
Chief Financial Officer, Fritz L. LaPorte, violated federal
securities laws by making misrepresentations and omissions during
the proposed class period about the Company's financial guidance
for 2012 that artificially inflated the Company's stock price.

The amended complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs. In
October 2012, the Company, Dr. Ferre, and Mr. LaPorte filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On May
15, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss and found that
the challenged statements in the amended complaint were not
material misrepresentations or omissions but rather were forward-
looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language
and thus not actionable. In its order, the court gave co-lead
plaintiffs an opportunity to request leave to file a second
amended complaint, which they declined. Accordingly, on June 14,
2013 the court closed the case and entered final judgment for the
Company, Dr. Ferre and Mr. LaPorte. No appeal was filed and the
time for filing an appeal has expired.


MAKO SURGICAL: Del. & Fla. Suits Over Stryker Merger Still Open
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, MAKO
Surgical Corp. provided updates on consolidated lawsuits filed in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, and the Circuit
Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, in connection with the proposed Merger between
the Company and Stryker Corporation, Lauderdale Merger
Corporation.

In connection with the proposed Merger between the Company and
Stryker, the Company and the members of its Board have been named
as defendants in nine putative stockholder class actions
complaints challenging the transaction, three filed in the Court
of Chancery in the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions"), and
six filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Florida Actions"). The
lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to obtain
sufficient value for the Company's stockholders in the transaction
and agreeing to certain terms in the Merger Agreement that
allegedly restrict the individual defendants' ability to obtain a
more favorable offer. The complaints also allege that the Company,
Stryker, and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported
breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes, among
other things, injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and/or
rescissory damages, attorney's fees, other expenses, and costs.

On October 9, 2013, two of the three Delaware Actions were
consolidated and, on October 18, 2013, the third Delaware Action
was consolidated with the previous two. The six Florida Actions
were consolidated on October 21, 2013. Prior to the consolidation,
on October 16, 2013, defendants filed a motion to proceed in one
jurisdiction in both the Florida and Delaware courts, in which the
motion defendants sought to have all actions related to the
proposed transaction litigated in only one of the two fora.

Following consolidation, on October 21, 2013, plaintiffs in the
Delaware Actions filed a consolidated amended complaint in which
they allege, in addition to the claims set out in the original
complaints, that the Company's directors also breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material
information to the Company's stockholders in the preliminary proxy
filed by the Company with the SEC on October 16, 2013. On October
22, 2013, plaintiffs in the Florida Actions likewise filed a
consolidated amended complaint that added allegations regarding
purported omissions in the preliminary proxy.

On October 22, 2013 and October 23, 2013, respectively, plaintiffs
in both the Florida and Delaware Actions moved for expedited
proceedings, and plaintiffs in the Delaware action also moved for
a preliminary injunction to prevent the closing of the proposed
transaction. On October 24, 2013, defendants filed an opposition
to the expedited proceedings in the Florida Actions. On October
25, 2013, the Florida court heard argument on defendants' motion
to proceed in one forum and determined that Florida litigation
would proceed. Shortly thereafter, the Florida court scheduled a
preliminary injunction hearing for November 27, 2013.

On October 29, 2013, the Delaware court held a hearing on the
defendant's motion to proceed in one forum, and while reserving
judgment, noted that it was inclined to let the Delaware Actions
proceed. On October 31, 2013, the Florida court issued a Sua
Sponte Order of Reconsideration and Staying Consolidated Actions,
staying all proceedings in the Florida Actions (including the
preliminary injunction hearing previously set for November 27,
2013). On November 4, 2013, the Delaware court heard the argument
on plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings and on November 5,
2013, that court granted expedited proceedings in connection with
certain of plaintiffs' claims.

The Company continues to believe these lawsuits are meritless.

The Company has recorded $1.3 million to expense, $500,000 of
which was incurred in prior periods, in selling, general and
administrative expenses to cover the insurance deductible for the
Company's directors' and officers' insurance policies related to
the actions.


MERCK: Recalls Cholesterol Drug Liptruzet Over Packaging Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brie Zeltner, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that the
pharmaceutical company Merck is recalling all of its cholesterol
drug Liptruzet in the U.S. due to packaging defects, the company
announced in a news release, temporarily eliminating supply of the
drug.

Liptruzet, a combination of ezetimibe and atorvastatin, was
introduced in May 2013.  The company is recalling all packages of
the drug, including the 10/10 mg, 10/20 mg, 10/40 mg and 10/80 mg
tablets.  The recall is from wholesalers, but not patients or
pharmacies, and patients with a supply of the drug may continue to
use it.

Some of the outer laminate foil pouches may allow in air and
moisture, according to the release, which "could potentially
decrease the effectiveness or change the characteristics of the
product."  The likelihood of either of these outcomes is "remote,"
the company said, and the recall is not due to any patient
complaints or reports of adverse events.

The recall will cause shortages, but the two active ingredients
are available: Ezetimibe, sold as Merck's Zetia, and generic
atorvastatin.

"Merck is committed to resupplying Liptruzet as soon as possible,"
the company said in the release.

To report a medication side effect to the FDA's MedWatch program,
submit a report online or call 1-800-332-1088.  You can also
contact Merck with adverse reactions or quality concerns by
calling 1-800-672-6372, Monday to Friday during business hours.


MIDWEST WHOLESALE: Recalls Male Sexual Enhancement Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fisher, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports Midwest
Wholesale, a Missouri-based company that distributes over-the-
counter male sexual enhancement pills, has issued a voluntary
recall of several brands because they contain the same effective
ingredients found in prescription-only drugs Viagra and Cialis.

The recalled products were sold under brand names such as Boost
Ultra, Extenze, and Magic for Men.

The recall affects at least 20 retailers in a dozen states; none
of those retail stores are in Ohio, Midwest Wholesale spokesman
John Schindele said on Jan. 20.  Affected states include
Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Texas, Iowa, Georgia,
Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada and Wisconsin,
Mr. Schindele said.

The prescription-only erectile dysfunction drugs Viagara and
Cialis pose a health risk for those who take certain medications
for blood pressure or heart problems.  "These undeclared
ingredients may interact with nitrates found in some prescription
drugs, such as nitroglycerin, and may lower blood pressure to
dangerous levels," the recall notice distributed by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration said.  "Men with diabetes, high blood
pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates."

Here's a list of the retail products included in the recall:

    * Boost Ultra: 12 pill bottle, Lot#B70130, Expiration 03/15; 3
      pill bottle, Lot#B70130, Exp 3/2015; 1 pill pack,
      Lot#06012011, Exp 6/2014

    * XZone Gol: 1 pill pack, Lot#130710GL, Exp 7/31/18;

    * Sexy Monkey: 1 pill pack, Exp 12/31/14

    * Triple MiracleZen Platinum: 1 pill pack, Lot# OAWF1027, Exp
      1/31/15 and Lot# OAWF1003, Exp 1/31/15

    * Magic for Men: 12 pill bottle, Lot# GP808, Exp 10/16 and 1
      pill pack, Lot#BN030613, Exp 2/6/15

    * "New" Extenze: 30 pill box, Lot# 0512058, Exp 05/16

    * New XZen Platinum: 1 pill pack, Lot#130520PL, Exp 5/31/17

An FDA analysis found these products contained undeclared
sildenafil (the generic name for Viagra) and/or tadalafil
(Cialis).

Consumers were advised to stop using these products immediately
and throw the pills away or return them to the place of purchase.
Those who have experienced any negative side effects should
consult a health-care professional as soon as possible, the recall
notice says.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Missouri-based Midwest Wholesale by phone (888-514-7110) from
10:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday.


NESTLE PURINA: To Relaunch Waggin' Train Following Recall
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Brown, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that when
Nestle Purina PetCare bought Waggin' Train, in 2010, the maker of
dog jerky treats was seeing explosive growth, generating $200
million a year in sales, up 30 percent from a year earlier.

Then things suddenly came screeching to a halt for the company and
other dog jerky producers.  Growing concern about pet deaths.
Negative publicity.  A government investigation.  Lawsuits.

The maelstrom was too great for the pet food giant.  While
defending its product as safe, Nestle Purina pulled the treat from
the market last year.

One year later, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still has no
conclusive finding on the link between the chicken jerky treats
made in China and pet illnesses.

Now the pet food giant plans to reintroduce Waggin' Train and a
sister brand next month, saying that consumers want the products
back on store shelves.  But rebuilding consumer confidence --
especially when furry members of the family are involved -- could
prove a difficult and sensitive challenge.

Communicating with customers will be critical, said Haim Mano,
associate professor of marketing and department chair at the
University of Missouri-St. Louis.

"People treat their pets like members of the family, and nobody
knows this better than Purina," Mr. Mano said.  "They have to make
it very clear that the product is safe to use, and they have to
rebuild that trust."

UNKNOWN CAUSE

In recent years, St. Louis-based Nestle Purina PetCare, a unit of
Swiss-based Nestle, and other makers of dog jerky found themselves
facing a growing backlash from consumers blaming the treats for
their dogs' illnesses and deaths.

As early as 2007, the FDA had issued a warning about a possible
relationship between dog illnesses and chicken jerky products made
in China.

Over the past seven years, the FDA received 4,500 reports of pets,
mostly dogs, that became ill after consuming jerky treats, and 580
pet deaths, but no cause has been found.

No brands were ever recalled by the FDA, which asked consumers to
report pets' illnesses and deaths on its website,
www.safetyreporting.hhs.gov.

Many pet owners reported to the FDA that their pets ate jerky
treats and developed Fanconi syndrome, a kidney disease in dogs
that can lead to renal failure.


NEW JERSEY: Christie Campaign Hires Patton Boggs in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Isherwood, writing for NJ.com, reports that The Christie
for Governor reelection campaign has hired powerhouse law firm
Patton Boggs to represent it in the ongoing investigation into
lane diversions at the George Washington Bridge.

The campaign was among the groups subpoenaed by the Assembly
committee investigating the controversy, which began in September
when a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official ordered
two local lanes in Fort Lee diverted for use by highway traffic,
snarling traffic in the small borough.

Emails received through a subpoena hint that political retribution
was at the heart of the lane closures and not a traffic study as
Port Authority officials had first indicated.

The Patton Boggs attorneys representing the campaign are Bob
Luskin and Mark Sheridan.

The international firm also will represent Nicole Davidman
Drewniak, a fundraiser for the campaign who received a subpoena in
the investigation.  A source connected to the inquiry told NJ.com
on Jan. 22 that Davidman Drewniak was out of the country when she
was alleged to be involved in the bridge scandal and received a
subpoena in error.

In response, committee chairman John Wisniewski said the committee
had its reasons for issuing the subpoenas and would continue the
investigation wherever it leads.

In addition to the probe by the New Jersey legislature, U.S.
Attorney Paul Fishman has said his office is conducting an inquiry
to determine if the incident warrants an investigation.

Earlier this month, the administration, which also received a
subpoena, hired Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP to represent it.


NEW JERSEY: Fort Lee Attorney Heads GWB Closure Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Nolan, writing for NortherJersey.com, reports that a local
attorney is heading up a class action suit in response to the four
days of major traffic jams at the George Washington Bridge in
September 2013 that were allegedly created by top aides to
Gov. Chris Christie for political retribution.

According to the Fort Lee attorney, Rosemarie Arnold, a Saddle
River resident, the class affected by the harrowing traffic is
enormous -- in the hundreds of thousands.

In pursuit of justice, six of those people affected got the ball
rolling when they filed a lawsuit on Jan. 10 against the Port
Authority, the state of New Jersey, Governor Christie and key
players involved in the scandal, including the governor's former
Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly, who sent the "smoking
gun" email that read "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."

Other defendants include former Port Authority officials
David Wildstein and Bill Baroni, who both resigned when subpoenaed
emails made it apparent that they helped create the incident
intentionally and it was not simply a traffic study, as officials
previously stated.

Ms. Arnold represents the plaintiffs in the proposed class action
lawsuit and said there are more than the initial six now,
including businesses such as a newspaper delivery service and a
truck driver that couldn't deliver his load, school kids that were
late for school and individuals late for work, suffering monetary
and other damages.

Ms. Arnold said that while she was approached by individuals
seeking damages back in September, there was no reason to file a
lawsuit until now because "traffic on the George Washington Bridge
is not an uncommon occurrence."

Ms. Arnold said that while there could potentially be other
defendants in the case, right now evidence is pointing toward
Ms. Kelly, Messrs. Baroni and Wildstein as the "facilitators" of
the jam that is thought to be retribution against Fort Lee mayor
Mark Sokolich, a Democrat who didn't endorse Christie for
governor.

Whether or not Gov. Christie was in on the scandal -- the governor
has said that he was lied to by chief staff members and had no
knowledge of the lane closures -- is irrelevant to Arnold's case,
she said.

Ms. Arnold also said she believes the governor's actions have been
"bullying" in the past and "revenge tactics" have been used in his
administration.  She's confident the case will be certified as
class action as it's designed to enable "exactly this situation"
where individuals have what some might consider nominal claims
that aren't worthy of hiring an attorney and suing the state of
New Jersey, etc.  But combined, the class makes it possible.


NORTH CAROLINA: Physicians Sue Over NCTracks Glitch
---------------------------------------------------
Anthony Brino, writing for Government Health IT, reports that a
group of providers in North Carolina are suing the state health
department and its Medicaid information system's contractors for a
faulty rollout that, they argue, has translated into millions of
dollars in lost payments and time.

The state's new Medicaid IT system, NCTracks, has drawn provider
complaints and a critical state audit since its July 2013 launch,
and even before then it drew scrutiny from the state auditor for
delays (it was intended to go-live in 2011) and management
shortcomings.

Now, a group of physicians and clinics have filed a class action
lawsuit seeking financial damages from the state and three
contractors, in amounts that would be determined in a trial, after
months of struggling with what they characterize as a
dysfunctional system.

Filed by attorneys with the law firm Williams Mullen on behalf of
seven medical practices and clinics, the suit alleges that the
state Department of Health and Human Services, contractor Computer
Sciences Corporation and two secondary support contractors
launched NCTracks before it was actually ready.  The result, the
attorneys and providers argue, has been "catastrophic losses,"
with some $500 million in reimbursements that were delayed,
shortened or not paid in the three months following the July
rollout, in addition to other impacts.

"In some instances, providers have decided not to accept Medicaid
patients or have even closed their practices," attorney Knicole
Emanuel said in a media release.

NCTracks, developed by CSC on a $287 million contract awarded in
2008 (and since raised to $484 million), is the state's second
attempt to replace a three decades-old Medicaid IT system.  A
previous Medicaid IT modernization contract awarded in 2004 was
terminated in 2006 after $30 million was spent on a system that
ultimately failed to work.

Envisioned as a comprehensive web-based system for enrollments and
payments, NCTracks is tasked with managing about $12 billion in
annual reimbursements to more than 77,000 providers serving 1.5
million residents on Medicaid.

Two months prior to last July's launch, North Carolina's State
Auditor released a report warning of "uncertainty about project
readiness."  As of March 2013, the auditor found that NC DHHS and
CSC had not reported the pass or fail status of 285 of 834
priority tests for some of the system's most important processes,
including pharmacy claims, provider claims and managed care
organization claims.

In December, five months after NCTracks went live, another audit
found the system struggling, with more than 3,200 software
defects, including problems with the provider portal for checking
beneficiary eligibility and making referrals, the operations
portal for Medicaid and vendor staff to oversee claims and prior
approval, and batch processing and reimbursement.

Among other issues identified by the audit, 12 of the 14 federal-
and state-mandated capabilities had not been implemented by their
target dates, including rehabilitation care pricing rules and the
Medicaid pharmacy program.

The state DHHS and NCTracks contractors are not commenting on the
lawsuit.  But in December, in response to the audit, DHHS
officials said the agency had formed a new committee to examine
priorities for the system, and that issues affecting providers are
regularly communicated to them and troubleshot.


NORTHERN TRUST: Class Action Settlements Hit 4th Qtr. Profits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Northern
Trust Corp. reported earnings per share of 70 cents a share in the
fourth quarter, up a penny from the year-ago period.  If it
weren't for settlements over class-action lawsuits filed at the
height of the financial crisis, the company would have earned 75
cents a share.

Analysts had expected a profit of 75 cents a share, according to
the average of 13 estimates collected by Bloomberg News.

Northern Trust said it has reached tentative agreements to settle
alleged class-action claims in two cases arising out of client
investments in certain Northern Trust funds that experienced
losses from securities lending during the height of the 2008
financial crisis.  The settlements are awaiting court approval.

The Chicago-based financial services firm, the largest locally
headquartered bank in Chicago, saw a 1 percent rise in fourth-
quarter profits to $169.7 million.  Revenues increased 8 percent
in the quarter to $1.05 billion.

Analysts have been expecting Northern Trust to cut costs.
Compensation expense, the biggest single cost not related to
interest it pays out, equaled $334.8 million, up 6 percent from
the prior-year quarter.


NRA GROUP: "Atlas" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violations in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Raizel Atlas, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00080-SJ-
RER (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
           ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
           483 Chestnut Street
           Cedarhurst, NY 11516
           Telephone: (516) 791-4400
           Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
           E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NU SKIN: Barrack Rodos & Bacine Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on Jan. 21 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, Freedman v. Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00033-PMW, on behalf of purchasers of
common stock of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. NUS -5.73% during the
period from July 10, 2013 through and including January 14, 2014.

Nu Skin is a global direct selling company with operations in 53
markets worldwide.  The Company purports to develop and distribute
premium quality anti-aging personal care products and nutritional
supplements under its Nu Skin and Pharmanex brands.  The Company's
global operations generated more than $2.17 billion in revenue
during 2012.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business practices and growth prospects, particularly
with respect to its Mainland China operations, upon which the
Company has become very dependent for a very significant amount of
its revenue and growth.  Sales in Mainland China accounted for
nearly one third of the Company's total revenue in the first nine
months of 2013.  Further, the complaint alleges that while the
Company issued public statements discussing its positive results
and increased guidance, it failed to disclose what are alleged to
be fraudulent sales practices and non-compliance with laws and
regulations in China, or their potential impact on the Company.
Then, in January 2014, two Chinese agencies announced that they
are probing the Company's marketing and business practices in
China and that it was suspected the Company was operating as an
illegal pyramid scheme.  These revelations had an immediate impact
on the Company's stock price, causing shares of Nu Skin's stock,
which had risen from less than $70 per share to a high of $140.50
per share during the Class Period, to tumble over 44% in the two
days of trading after these announcements.  Nu Skin stock closed
the trading day on January 17, 2014 at less than $80 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of Nu Skin during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by the Philadelphia-based firm of Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine and by the Salt Lake City-based firm of Karrenberg &
Anderson, both of which have significant experience in prosecuting
class actions on behalf of investors in cases involving financial
and corporate fraud.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 22, 2014.  To discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and for additional information about
your interest in this class action, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, at the following toll-free
number: 877-386-3304, or via e-mail to Jeffrey W. Golan --
jgolan@barrack.com -- or Julie B. Palley -- jpalley@barrack.com

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine -- http://www.barrack.com


OMNI DIRECT: Misclassified Installers as Contractors, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Omni Direct Communications of Texas, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-00028-N (N.D. Tex., January 6, 2014) is a collective
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf
of the Defendant's current and former installers, who were paid on
a per install basis.

Mr. Carter, who worked for the Company as a cable installer whose
primary responsibility was the installation of broadband
telecommunications and cable systems, alleges that he routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime
for doing so because the Defendant misclassified its installers as
independent contractors and only paid them on a per install basis.

Omni Direct Communications, a Texas corporation, installs
broadband telecommunications and telephone systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
           Meredith Mathews, Esq.
           LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
           1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
           Dallas, TX 75202
           Telephone: (214) 749-1400
           Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
           E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Child Care Failures
----------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that lawyer Sandy Zaitzeff --
szaitzeff@watkinslawforthepeople.com -- of the law firm Watkins
Law estimates 50,000 to 150,000 claimants could join a class
action lawsuit against Ontario, Canada, claiming the province
failed to live up to its responsibilities to the children in its
care.  Mr. Zaitzeff, of the Thunder Bay firm Watkins Law, is co-
lead counsel on the case.  Former Crown ward Holly Papassay of
Thunder Bay is the representative claimant.

"The lawsuit is about documented cases of abuse, sexual assault,
criminal acts -- documented, investigated often by the police,
charges being laid against the perpetrator," said Mr. Zaitzeff.

"And then, the children not -- and the key word is 'not' -- being
informed of their legal right to make a claim to the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board," a provincial tribunal responsible
for assessing claims by victims of violent crime.

Mr. Zaitzeff says his firm has already been contacted by 25 to 30
potential claimants.  He expects anywhere from 50,000 to 150,000
former or current Crown wards could sign up.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.


OZ MOVING: Fails to Pay "Spread of Hours" Premium, Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Rodriguez, Nelson Noriega, Jesus Cortes, and Jaime Paz, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Oz Moving &
Storage, Inc., Avi Oz, and Eran Sobol, Case No. 1:14-cv-00047-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged
(i) failure to pay employees straight time wages for all hours
worked; (ii) failure to pay a "spread of hours" premium for each
day in which their work shift exceeded 10 hours, and (iii) taking
illegal deductions or "kickbacks" from employee wages.

The Defendants own and operate a moving and storage company, which
provides full service coast-to-coast moving and storage services
to commercial and residential customers.  The Company is a New
York domestic business corporation headquartered in Bronx, New
York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Justin Cilenti, Esq.
           Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
           CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
           708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
           New York, NY 10017
           Telephone: (212) 209-3933
           Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
           E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


PALAMA HOLDINGS: Expands Recall of Frozen Raw Chicken Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palama Holdings, LLC, a Kapolei, HI establishment, is expanding
its recall of raw, frozen marinated chicken products to
approximately 24,784 pounds because they may have experienced
temperature abuse in the distribution chain, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.  The expanded recall covers all teriyaki chicken
products produced at the company's Kapolei, HI plant with "Best
by" dates ranging Sept. 24, 2014 to Nov. 6, 2014.

The products subject to recall include:

    -- 10-lb. cardboard boxes, containing four individual cryovac
       sealed packages of May's Hawaii "Hawaiian Style, Boneless
       and Skinless Teriyaki Chicken Thighs."

    -- 5-lb. cardboard boxes, containing two individual cryovac
       sealed packages of May's Hawaii "Hawaiian Style, Boneless
       and Skinless Teriyaki Chicken Thighs."

    -- 2-lb. cardboard boxes, containing one cryovac sealed package
       of May's Hawaii "Hawaiian Style, Boneless and Skinless
       Teriyaki Chicken Thighs."

The products were produced on various dates between Sept. 24, 2013
and Nov. 6, 2013 then were distributed for retail sale on the
islands of Oahu, Maui, Kauai and Hawaii, and to a nearby military
commissary.  The packages bear the establishment number "P-11077"
in the USDA mark of inspection on the package.

FSIS personnel discovered bloated boxes of the products at a
retail location in recent days.  The problem was initially
discovered during shipment when the company's distributor observed
boxes of product swollen with gases from the bagged chicken, an
indication that there may have been temperature abuse during
storage prior to distribution.

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/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-
public-health-alerts/current-recalls-and-alerts

Consumers and media with questions about the recall may contact
Gary Hanagami, May's Hawaii vice president of retail sales, at
(808) 682-8300.

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 a.m. to 4 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 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


PERSEL & ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Can Question Financial Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Lee, writing for TriplePundit, reports that a class action
these days isn't supposed to enrich the plaintiffs.  It isn't even
supposed to compensate the class members for pain and suffering.
The purpose, says Michael Kirkpatrick, who serves as an attorney
for the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen
Litigation Group, is to stop the illegal action and make sure the
accused can't benefit from the monies he or she has acquired in
the process.

"[You] are stopping the bad behavior," Mr. Kirkpatrick explains.

Think of it as sort of a large community advocacy meeting rather
than a personal lawsuit.  The citizens decide to band together and
pool their resources because they want something stopped.  The
victims -- or plaintiffs in this case -- may not get all of the
money back that they lost, but the problem, whether it is
misleading advertising or an unfulfilled contract for services,
gets halted.

But does that mean that the class-action litigation system always
works the way it is supposed to?

The answer to that question, as class action members in two
similar suits recently found out, often depends upon where the
court case is heard.

In 2012, a trial court in Florida made history.  Its ruling may
not have seemed out of line when it came to the defendant's
financial claims, but the resulting outcome of the judge's
decision made nationwide news.

Persels and Associates, a debt-settlement firm that included its
own cadre of attorneys, was slapped with a class action for
onerous, misleading fees for its promised debt relief.  The suit
started out representing 12,000 Florida residents. Kirkpatrick
says Persels then requested that the court wrap in the rest of the
125,000 nationwide members.  The court agreed and extended the
class action to include all plaintiffs from 49 states.  Washington
state was left out because it had already initiated a class action
against Persels under its own weighty consumer protection laws.

When it came time for the case to be settled, Persels claimed that
it did not have enough money to do so.  The judge accepted Persels
financial claims and ruled that the 125,000 class members would
receive nothing, and the representing attorneys would be
compensated $300,000 for their time and expenses.  The court also
ordered Persels to make a charity contribution (what is called a
cy pres), which is common in cases of negative value.

"But the Persels case isn't a negative-value case," Mr.
Kirkpatrick says.  Class members each lost $1,000 or more.  The
plaintiffs have since won an appeal, and the case has been sent
back to the trial courts.

But Washington state saw things differently.  According to
Kirkpatrick, one reason had to do with an exception that Persels
and its affiliated debt reconciliation company, CareFirst, were
trying to claim.  Debt-settlement laws allow companies like
CareFirst that utilize legal services for debt negotiations to
exempt legal firms from litigation rulings.  The exemption was
recognized in Florida, but was rejected in Washington, which said
Persels wasn't providing contracted services; this was its full-
time business.

The loss of that exemption weakened Persels' hand and forced it to
negotiate settlements with the class members, who on average saw
payments of about $500 each.

Mr. Kirkpatrick admits that good class-action settlements often
rely upon careful oversight from the bench.  And that's also why
state attorneys' offices and organizations like Public Citizen
play such a vital role as the Big Brother that is willing to lodge
an objection to poor settlements.  He says Washington's settlement
will now allow the plaintiffs in the Florida case to call Persels'
financial claims into question.


PIONEER SOUTHWEST: Settling Suits Over Merger With PNRC
-------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. is continuing the process
of settling lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in Texas
relating to its Merger with Pioneer Natural Resources Company,
according to Pioneer Southwest's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On May 15, 2013, David Flecker, a purported unitholder of the
Partnership, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Partnership's unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the
Partnership against, Pioneer, Pioneer USA, the General Partner and
the directors of the General Partner, in the 134th Judicial
District of Dallas County, Texas (the "Flecker Lawsuit"). A
similar class action petition and derivative suit was filed
against the same defendants on May 20, 2013, in the 160th Judicial
District of Dallas County, Texas, by purported unitholder Vipul
Patel (the "Patel Lawsuit"). On August 27, 2013, the plaintiff in
the Flecker Lawsuit filed an amended petition.

On September 3, 2013, the court consolidated the Patel Lawsuit
into the Flecker Lawsuit (as consolidated, the "Texas State Court
Lawsuit"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative and
class action petition on September 5, 2013.

The Texas State Court Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
the consideration offered by Pioneer in the Merger is unfair and
inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result
of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process, the defendants have
breached their duties under the Partnership Agreement as well as
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are
engaging in self-dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
the director defendants: (i) engaged in self-dealing, failed to
act in good faith toward the Partnership, and breached their
duties owed to the Partnership; (ii) failed to properly value the
Partnership and its various assets and operations and ignored or
failed to protect against the numerous conflicts of interest
arising out of the proposed transaction; and (iii) breached the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a
flawed merger process. The Texas State Court Lawsuit also alleges
that Pioneer, Pioneer USA and the General Partner aided and
abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of
fiduciary duties.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs in the Texas State
Court Lawsuit seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with
or consummating the proposed transaction. To the extent that the
Merger is implemented before relief is granted, the plaintiffs
seek to have the Merger rescinded. The plaintiffs also seek money
damages and attorneys' fees. The defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the Texas State Court Lawsuit based on improper forum.

On August 21, 2013, Allan H. Beverly, a purported unitholder,
filed a class action complaint against the Partnership, Pioneer,
Pioneer USA, MergerCo and the directors of the General Partner in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (the "Beverly Lawsuit"). The Beverly Lawsuit alleges that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the
Merger by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants:
(i) failed to maximize the value of the Partnership to its public
unitholders and took steps to avoid competitive bidding; (ii)
failed to properly value the Partnership; and (iii) ignored or
failed to protect against the numerous conflicts of interest
arising out of the proposed transaction. The Beverly Lawsuit also
alleges that Pioneer, Pioneer USA and MergerCo aided and abetted
the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary
duties.

On September 13, 2013, Douglas Shelton, another purported
unitholder, filed a class action complaint against the same
defendants in the Beverly Lawsuit (as well as the General Partner)
in the same court as the Beverly Lawsuit (the "Shelton Lawsuit").
The Shelton Lawsuit makes similar allegations to the Beverly
Lawsuit, and also alleges that Section 7.9 of the Partnership
Agreement fails to alter or eliminate the defendants' common law
fiduciary duties owed to unitholders in the context of the Merger.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges: (i) that Pioneer, as
controlling unitholder, failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger because it purportedly cannot establish
that the proposed Merger is the result of a fair process that will
return a fair price to the unaffiliated unitholders of the
Partnership; (ii) that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to exercise due care and diligence in
connection with the proposed Merger because the proposed Merger is
purportedly not the result of a fair process that will return a
fair price to the unaffiliated unitholders; and (iii) that the
non-director defendants aided and abetted the director defendants
in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in
the Beverly Lawsuit and the Shelton Lawsuit (together, the
"Federal Lawsuits") seek the same remedies as the plaintiffs in
the Texas State Court Lawsuit.

On September 26, 2013, representatives of the plaintiffs in the
Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal Lawsuits and
representatives of the defendants in such lawsuits entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "memorandum of understanding") to
settle the claims and allegations made in such lawsuits. The
memorandum of understanding provides the plaintiffs with a period
of confirmatory discovery during which the plaintiffs can confirm
the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding. The parties agreed to use their
reasonable best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the
Dallas County, Texas District Court a stipulation of settlement,
which will provide for, among other things, a certification, for
settlement purposes only, of the applicable class of unitholders
to which the settlement will apply. Furthermore, the stipulation
of settlement will provide for a full and complete discharge,
dismissal with prejudice, settlement and release of all claims,
suits and causes of action by the plaintiffs (other than appraisal
rights under the Merger Agreement) against the defendants and
their representatives arising out of or relating to the
allegations made in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal
Lawsuits, the Merger or any deliberations, negotiations,
disclosures, omissions, press releases, statements or
misstatements in connection therewith, any fiduciary or other
obligations in respect of the Merger or any alternative
transaction or under the Partnership Agreement, or any costs and
expenses associated with settlement other than as provided in the
stipulation. All proceedings relating to the allegations made in
the Texas State Court Lawsuit other than with respect to the
settlement have been stayed. As part of the consideration for the
settlement, the Merger Agreement was amended to provide for
contractual appraisal rights for the unitholders of the
Partnership. The parties to the memorandum of understanding have
agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to obtain the
agreement of any plaintiffs filing similar lawsuits to the Texas
State Court Lawsuit or the Federal Lawsuits (whether filed in any
state or federal court) to become party to the memorandum of
understanding and the related settlement, and it is a condition to
the consummation of the final settlement that any such plaintiffs
join the settlement or such similar lawsuits otherwise be
dismissed with prejudice prior to the final approval of the
settlement. On October 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Beverly
Lawsuit voluntarily dismissed all claims in the lawsuit in
accordance with the memorandum of understanding. On October 16,
2013, the plaintiffs in the Shelton Lawsuit likewise voluntarily
dismissed all claims in the lawsuit in accordance with the
memorandum of understanding. There can be no assurance that a
final settlement will be consummated.


PIONEER SOUTHWEST: Unitholder's Del. Suit Over Merger Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Wilson, a purported unitholder of Pioneer Southwest Energy
Partners L.P., is continuing with his suit filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware over the company's merger with
Pioneer Natural Resources Company, according to Pioneer
Southwest's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On September 23, 2013, Patrick Wilson, another purported
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
unitholders against Pioneer USA, MergerCo, the Partnership, the
General Partner and the directors of the General Partner in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Wilson Lawsuit").

The Wilson Lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached
their purported fiduciary obligations to the unitholders by
engaging in a process that undervalued the Partnership and which
allegedly constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, willful
misconduct, bad faith or knowing violations of law. Additionally,
the Wilson Lawsuit alleges that the non-director defendants aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties of the
director defendants. The Wilson Lawsuit seeks the same remedies as
the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the Federal
Lawsuits.  As of the date of Company's SEC Report, the plaintiffs
in the Wilson Lawsuit have not joined the memorandum of
understanding.


PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ozer Babad, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Premium Receivables LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00074-ARR-
MDG (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
           ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
           483 Chestnut Street
           Cedarhurst, NY 11516
           Telephone: (516) 791-4400
           Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
           E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Accused of Debt Collection Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel Lowenbein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-00068-ADS-GRB (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
           ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
           483 Chestnut Street
           Cedarhurst, NY 11516
           Telephone: (516) 791-4400
           Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
           E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Accused of Debiting Accounts Without Consent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nadene Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:14-cv-00015-JLS-AN (C.D.
Cal., January 6, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the action arises from the alleged
illegal actions of the Defendant debiting her and also the
putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without
obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from
their accounts.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a collection agency
headquartered in Dauphin, Pennsylvania.  The principal purpose of
the Company's business is health screening and diagnostic testing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Todd M. Friedman
           Nicholas J. Bontrager
           Suren N. Weerasuriya
           LA W OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
           369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
           Beverly Hills, CA 90211
           Telephone: (877) 206-4741
           Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
           E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                   nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com
                   sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


SAMSON HEAVY: "Monday" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pays
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Monday, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Samson Heavy Hauling Company, Inc., and Charles
Fowler, Case No. 4:14-cv-00007-SWW (E.D. Ark., January 6, 2014) is
brought to recover overtime payments.

Ms. Monday alleges that she was paid a salary by the Defendants
but they did not pay her overtime even though she did not perform
exempt job duties.  She adds that later in her employment, Samson
began paying her a salary; however, anytime she worked more than
40 hours, Charles Fowler changed her timecard to reflect fewer
hours than she actually performed.

Samson Heavy Hauling Company, Inc., is an Arkansas Corporation
with its principal place of business in Arkansas.  Charles Fowler
is a citizen of Arkansas, and he owns and operates Samson.  Samson
provides business and industrial transportation services,
specializing in over-dimensional loads, including steel used for
the building of bridges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           John T. Holleman, Esq.
           Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
           Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
           HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
           1008 West Second Street
           Little Rock, AR 72201
           Telephone: (501) 975-5040
           Facsimile: (501) 975-5041
           E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                   maryna@johnholleman.net
                   tim@johnholleman.net


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.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, 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.


SHELL OIL: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. Ruling in "Parko" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The district court certified a class of property owners in Roxana
(a tiny village in southwestern Illinois, across the Mississippi
River from St. Louis) in a suit against Shell Oil Company, which
(together with Shell subsidiaries also joined as defendants) until
2000 owned and operated an oil refinery (the Wood River Refinery,
built in 1918) that is adjacent to the village. The suit is also
against ConocoPhillips (and some of its subsidiaries), which
bought the refinery from Shell that year and is its current owner
and operator. The plaintiffs claim that the refinery has leaked
benzene and other contaminants into the groundwater under the
class members' homes. The suit, a diversity suit, charges nuisance
and related torts in violation of Illinois common law, and seeks
by way of remedy damages measured primarily by the effect of the
groundwater contamination on the value of the class members'
properties.

The defendants have petitioned for leave to appeal the
certification of the class.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held
that the plaintiffs have presented no theory, let alone credible
evidence, of a connection between the leaks and property values,
or between specific defendants and the leaks and property values,
that would justify a class action on behalf of all the property
owners whose properties sit above groundwater that contains an
amount of benzene considered dangerous to human health by
regulatory authorities (more than 5 micrograms per liter) -- if
drunk. But there is, as yet anyway, no evidence that any of it is
ever drunk.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the class certification
ruling.

The case is JEANA PARKO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL CO., et
al., Defendants, NOS. 13-8023 & 13-8024.

A copy of the Appeals Court's January 17, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/vzTvCKfrom Leagle.com.


SOLACE FINANCIAL: Faces "Tabick" FDCPA Violation Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Tabick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Solace Financial LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00070-DLI-VVP (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
           ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
           483 Chestnut Street
           Cedarhurst, NY 11516
           Telephone: (516) 791-4400
           Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
           E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Aguila, Ricardo Aguila Almeida and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. South Florida Courier Systems,
Inc. and Gonzalo Ochoa, Case No. 9:14-cv-80015-KLR (S.D. Fla.,
January 6, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs have not been paid
overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours in a week.

South Florida Courier Systems, Inc. is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Palm Beach County.  Gonzalo
Ochoa is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
           300 71st Street, Suite 605
           Miami Beach, FL 33141
           Telephone: (305) 865-6766
           Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
           E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SRAM: Recalls Hydraulic Bicycle Brakes Due to Crash Hazards
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SRAM, LLC, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about
25,350 SRAM Hydraulic Road Rim Brakes and Hydraulic Road Disc
Brakes for bicycles.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The brake systems can fail, posing a crash and injury hazard.

The firm received 95 reports of brakes failing in the U.S.  One
minor injury was reported in the U.S. and another in Australia

The recalled bicycle brake models include SB Red Hydraulic Road
Disc, SB Red Hydraulic Road Rim, SB 700 Hydraulic Road Disc and SB
700 Hydraulic Road Rim, used as either front or rear brakes.  The
SB RED brake lever is labeled "RED" on the body of the lever
assembly.  The SB 700 brake lever is labeled "S-Series" on the
body of the lever assembly.  The serial numbers for the recalled
brakes have the digit "3" as the fourth digit of the serial
number.  The serial number can be found on the bottom of the
caliper body.  The brakes were sold as aftermarket products and as
original equipment on the following bicycle brands and models:

    Brand Name             Model Name
    ----------             ----------
    ASI                    Fuji Altamira CX 1.1
    Cannondale             Super X Hi-Mod Black Inc.
    Diamondback            Steilacoom RCX Carbon Pro Disc
    Felt Bicycles          F2x
                           Z2 Red
                           Z3 Red
    Jamis                  Supernova Team
    Kona                   Super Jake
    Norco                  Threshold C1
                           Threshold SL
    Orbea                  Avan M-LTD
    Specialized Bicycles   Crux Elite Carbon Disc Rival
                           Crux Elite Evo Carbon Disc
                           Crux Expert Carbon Disc Red
                           Crux Pro Race Carbon Disc Red
                           Crux Sport E5 Disc Apex
                           Roubaix SL4 Elite Rival HRR C2
                           Roubaix SL4 Sport Disc SRAM C2
                           Ruby Elite Rival HRR
                           S-works Crux Carbon Disc Red
                           S-works Roubaix SL4 Disc Red
                           S-works Tarmac SL4 Red HRR X2
                           S-works Venge Red HRR X2
                           Tarmac SL4 Elite Rival HRR M2
                           Venge Elite Rival HRR M2
    Volagi                 Liscio 2

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/aHIZ0y

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
specialty bicycle retailers nationwide from May 2013 to December
2013 for between $285 and $581 for the disc or rim brakes.
Bicycles sold with the SRAM disc or rim range from $2,500 to
$7,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the
recalled SRAM brake systems and contact any SRAM dealer to arrange
for a free replacement product to be installed and to receive a
$200 product voucher or cash per customer.


PLAYTEX: Recalls More Than 1 Million Pacifier Holder Clips
----------------------------------------------------------
Marina Lopes, writing for Reuters, reports that baby products
manufacturer Playtex, a unit of Energizer Holdings is recalling
more than one million pacifier holder clips after it received
reports that they develop cracks, consumer safety officials said
on Jan. 23.

The cracks can cause small parts of the clip to break off, posing
a potential choking threat to infants, according to the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.

"Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifier holders
away from infants," Playtex posted on its website.

While there have been no known injuries, the product safety
commission said there had been 99 reports of cracked clips.

The clips are designed to attach pacifiers to clothing, diaper
bags and strollers and retail for $3.

"We are taking this action out of an abundance of caution, because
our top priority is the health and safety of the people who use
our products," said Catherine McCormack, a spokeswoman for
Playtex.

The company is offering a full refund to customers.  Some 1.25
million clips were sold in the United States and Canada from mid-
2010 through late 2013.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Recalls 232,000 Rayovac Flashlights
----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Spectrum Brands Inc. is
recalling 232,000 Rayovac flashlights because the batteries can
overheat, melt the plastic casing and potentially burn users.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on Jan. 23 that
consumers should stop using the product, remove the batteries and
contact Spectrum for a refund.

Spectrum has received reports of 12 flashlights overheating and
melting during use. No injuries or property damage has been
reported.

The company is recalling about 225,000 flashlights in the United
States and 7,000 in Canada.  They were sold at retailers
nationwide and online from through most of 2012 and 2013 for about
$2.30.

The recall involves Rayovac LED Industrial flashlights with run
times of 25 or 50 hours, Rayovac Value Bright LED plastic
flashlights and Rayovac Value Bright flashlights.  The flashlights
measure about 6 1/2 inches long in red, blue, green or black with
yellow.  They use two AA batteries.


SS&C FINANCIAL: GlobeOp Settles Fairfield Greenwich-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GlobeOp Financial Services S.A., a subsidiary of SS&C Technologies
Holdings, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement for the
Fairfield Greenwich-Related Actions, according to SS&C's Nov. 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In April 2009, GlobeOp was named as defendant in a putative class
action (the "Anwar Action"), filed by Pasha S. Anwar in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against multiple defendants relating to Greenwich Sentry L.P. and
Greenwich Sentry Partners L.P., (the "FG Funds"), and the alleged
losses sustained by the FG Funds' investors as a result of Bernard
Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary
duties by GlobeOp and negligence in the performance of its duties
and seeks to recover as damages the net losses sustained by
investors in the putative class, together with applicable
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. GlobeOp served as
administrator for the Greenwich Sentry fund from October 2003
through August 2006 and for the Greenwich Sentry Partners fund
from May 2006 through August 2006, during which time the
approximate net asset value of the Greenwich Sentry Fund was
$135.0 million and the Greenwich Sentry Partners Fund was $6.0
million.

In February 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of a class consisting of all net loss investors in
the litigated funds (excluding investors from a number of
enumerated foreign countries). GlobeOp petitioned the Court of
Appeals to permit an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification order, but subsequently requested that the Court of
Appeals hold its petition in abeyance pending the consummation of
a settlement.

GlobeOp was also named as one of five defendants in two derivative
actions (the "Derivative Actions") that were initially filed in
New York State Supreme Court in February 2009. Following initial
motion practice, the court ordered the plaintiffs to arbitrate the
claims asserted against GlobeOp. A litigation trustee on behalf of
the bankrupt FG Funds subsequently substituted in as the plaintiff
in these actions, which relate to the same losses alleged in the
Anwar Action. The litigation trustee is seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, together with applicable
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as contribution and
indemnification from GlobeOp for the FG Funds' settlement with
Irving Picard, trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities, LLC. GlobeOp maintains that the prior
orders compelling arbitration apply to the litigation trustee. The
litigation trustee has not yet commenced arbitration proceedings.

In August 2013, GlobeOp and the plaintiffs in the Anwar Action and
the Derivative Actions, as well as certain insurers who have
agreed to provide GlobeOp with coverage for these claims, entered
into a settlement agreement resolving all disputes and claims
between and among the parties. The prospective settlements are
subject to approval by the court in which the Anwar Action is
pending and various other conditions. GlobeOp's insurers have
funded the entirety of the contemplated settlement payments into
escrow where funds are being held subject to final consummation of
the settlement agreement.


SS&C FINANCIAL: UK Hearing in Millennium Funds Case Adjourned
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the merits of claims related to Millennium Funds
(with which GlobeOp, Financial Services S.A. performed valuation
services), that were asserted in a United Kingdom arbitration has
been adjourned and is not expected to be reconvened until 2014,
according to SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Several actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in
various jurisdictions against GlobeOp, Financial Services S.A., a
subsidiary of SS&C, alleging claims and damages with respect to
services performed by GlobeOp under a valuation agent services
agreement for the Millennium Funds. These actions include (i) a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors in the Millennium Funds filed
in May 2012 asserting claims of $844.0 million (the alleged
aggregate value of assets under management by the Millennium Funds
at the funds' peak valuation); (ii) an arbitration proceeding in
the United Kingdom on behalf of the Millennium Funds' investment
manager, which commenced with a request for arbitration in July
2011, seeking an indemnity of $26.5 million for sums paid by way
of settlement to the Millennium Funds in a separate arbitration to
which GlobeOp was not a party, as well as an indemnity for any
losses that may be incurred by the investment manager in the U.S.
class action; and (iii) a claim in the same arbitration proceeding
by the Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd against
GlobeOp for damages alleged to be in excess of $160.0 million.

These actions allege that GlobeOp breached its contractual
obligations and/or negligently breached a duty of care in the
performance of services for the funds and that, inter alia,
GlobeOp should have discovered and reported a fraudulent scheme
perpetrated by the portfolio manager employed by the investment
manager. The putative class action pending in the Southern
District of New York also asserts claims against SS&C identical to
the claims against GlobeOp in that action. In the arbitration,
GlobeOp has asserted counterclaims against both the investment
managers and the Millennium Emerging Credit Mast Fund Ltd. for
indemnity, including in respect of the U.S. class action.

A hearing on the merits of the claims asserted in the United
Kingdom arbitration was conducted in London in July and August
2013. The hearing has been adjourned and is not expected to be
reconvened until 2014.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: "De Figueiredo" Suit Now Part of ACTOS MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled De Figueiredo, et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00454, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
(Lafayette).  The Louisiana District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:13-cv-03310-RFD-PJH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit will now be part of the multidistrict litigation known
as In Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, Lead
Case No. 6:11-md-02299-RFD-PJH.

In his complaint, Mr. de Figueiredo alleges that he sustained
severe, permanent and life threatening personal injuries, pain,
suffering, emotional distress, lifelong fear of premature death
and the need for continued lifelong treatment and medications
resulting from his ingestion of ACTOS.

The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
distributed, promoted and sold ACTOS for the treatment of type II
diabetes mellitus.  ACTOS was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration in July of 1999 to treat type II diabetes.  As a
result of the defective nature of ACTOS, the complaint asserts,
persons who were prescribed and ingested ACTOS for more than 12
months have suffered and may continue to suffer from bladder
cancer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Joseph R. Donohue, Esq.
           Marilyn T. McGoldrick, Esq.
           THORNTON & NAUMES
           100 Summer St., 30th Floor
           Boston, MA 02110
           Telephone: (617) 720-1333
           Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
           E-mail: jdonohue@tenlaw.com
                   mmcgoldrick@tenlaw.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Savedow" Class Suit Over Data Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott G. Savedow, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-00054-
RHK-FLN (D. Minn., January 6, 2014) arises from the recent data
security breach in Target.

In November and December 2013, Target sustained one or more
massive security breaches to its computer systems, servers, and
databases.  These security breaches, the Plaintiff contends,
placed sensitive personal and financial information in the hands
of cyber criminals, including customer names, mailing addresses,
as well as credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates, CVV
codes, security codes, other personal information.

Target is a Minnesota Corporation with its principle place of
business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Target, the second largest
general merchandise retailer in America, is self-described as an
upscale discount retailer that provides high-quality, on-trend
merchandise at attractive prices in clean, spacious and guest-
friendly stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
           Brant D. Penney, Esq.
           REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
           E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
           332 Minnesota St.
           St. Paul, MN 55101
           Telephone: (651) 287-2100
           Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
           E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

                - and -

           Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
           Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
           Christopher C. Martins, Esq.
           ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
           120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
           Boca Raton, FL 33432
           Telephone: (561) 750-3000
           Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
           E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                   mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                   cmartins@rgrdlaw.com

                - and -

           Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
           Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
           Mark S. Reich, Esq.
           William J. Geddish, Esq.
           ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
           58 South Service Road, Suite 200
           Melville, NY 11747
           Telephone: (631) 367-7100
           Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
           E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                   rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
                   mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                   wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Painters' Suit Over Aggrenox Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District
Council 21 Health and Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., an
Israeli corporation, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Barr Laboratories Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. (n/k/a Teva Women's Health Inc.), a
Delaware corporation, Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., a
Delaware corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, a
German limited partnership, Boehringer Ingelheim International
GmbH, a German limited liability company, and Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-
00050-JRT-TNL (D. Minn., January 6, 2014) alleges violation of
civil antitrust laws on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers
of the drug Aggrenox since August 14, 2009.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates
developed Aggrenox, combining extended-release dipyridamole with
acetylsalicylic acid, aspirin, to lower the risk of stroke in
patients whose blood clots have caused a transient ischemic attack
or stroke.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva manufactures and
distributes generic drugs for sale throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           David Woodward, Esq.
           Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
           HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
           310 Clifton Avenue
           Minneapolis, MN 55403
           Telephone: (612) 338-4605
           Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
           E-mail: dwoodward@heinmills.com
                   rsteiner@heinsmills.com

                - and -

           Brian D. Penny, Esq.
           Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
           GOLDMAN SCARLATO KARON & PENNY, P.C.
           101 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204
           Wayne, PA 19087
           Telephone: (484) 342-0700
           E-mail: penny@gskplaw.com
                   goldman@gskplaw.com

                - and -

           Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
           Michael Coren, Esq.
           Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
           COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
           Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
           2001 Market Street
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Telephone: (215) 567-3500
           E-mail: scohen@cprlaw.com
                   mcoren@cprlaw.com
                   jgoldberg@cprlaw.com

                - and -

           John D. Zaremba, Esq.
           ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN PLLC
           40 Wall Street
           New York, NY 10005
           Telephone: (212) 380-6700
           E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com


TIME WARNER: Accused of Violating Family and Medical Leave Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dena M. Cannon, Suzanne Bolden, Sergio Alcala, Teri Nelson and
Juliana Van Tuil, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Time Warner NY Cable LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00037-PAB-
BNB (D. Colo., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq.
           THE HARMAN FIRM, P.C.
           1776 Broadway, Suite 2030
           New York, NY 10019
           Telephone: (212) 426-2600
           Facsimile: (212) 202-3926
           E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com


TOPS VACUUM: Sued by Customer Sales & Services Workers in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Boom and Tabitha Boom, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Tops Vacuum & Sewing, Inc., a Florida
Profit Corporation, and Gregory Bank, Individually, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00006-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., January 6, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of failing to pay minimum wages and overtime to
customer sales and services employees.

Tops Vacuum & Sewing, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation
headquartered in Sarasota, Florida.  Tops sells vacuums, sewing
machines and other related supplies and services.  Gregory Bank is
a resident of Sarasota County, who owned and operated Tops.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Bill B. Berke, Esq.
           BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
           1003 Del Prado Blvd., Suite 300
           Cape Coral, FL 33990
           Telephone: (239) 549-6689
           Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
           E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


TRANSOCEAN LTD: MDL Trial in Macondo Well Incident in 2nd Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
The second phase of the trial in the Multidistrict Litigation of
the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Louisiana began in September 2013,
according to Transocean Ltd.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court").
In March 2012, BP America Production Co. and the Plaintiff's
Steering Committee (the "PSC") announced that they had agreed to a
partial settlement related primarily to private party
environmental and economic loss claims as well as response effort
related claims (the "BP/PSC Settlement").  The BP/PSC Settlement
agreement provides that (a) to the extent permitted by law, BP
will assign to the settlement class certain of BP's claims, rights
and recoveries against the company for damages with protections
such that the settlement class is barred from collecting any
amounts from the company unless it is finally determined that the
company cannot recover such amounts from BP, and (b) the
settlement class releases all claims for compensatory damages
against the company but purports to retain claims for punitive
damages against the company.

On December 21, 2012, the MDL Court granted final approval of the
economic and property damage class settlement between BP and the
PSC.  Various parties who objected to the BP/PSC Settlement have
filed appeals in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging
the MDL Court's final approval of the BP/PSC Settlement.  Oral
argument for such appeals had been scheduled for November 4, 2013.
BP has filed appeals in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
challenging the manner in which the BP/PSC Settlement has been
interpreted by the MDL Court with respect to business economic
loss claims ("BEL Claims").  In these appeals, BP argues that, if
the MDL Court's interpretation of the settlement with respect to
BEL Claims is not overturned, the entire BP/PSC Settlement is
invalid and should not have been approved.  On October 2, 2013,
the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion questioning the manner in
which the settlement had been interpreted with respect to BEL
Claims.

In December 2012, in response to the BP/PSC Settlement, the
company filed three motions seeking partial summary judgment on
various claims, including punitive damages claims.  If successful,
these motions would eliminate or reduce the company's  exposure to
punitive damages.  The MDL Court has not ruled on these motions.

In May 2013, the company filed a motion seeking partial summary
judgment on claims asserted by BP against the company seeking
damages from loss of the well and for source-control and cleanup
costs (the "Direct Damages" claims).  The Direct Damages claims
are included in the claims BP assigned to the economic and
property damages settlement class.  The motion argues that BP
released the Direct Damages claims in its contract with the
company and that the release is enforceable even if the company is
found grossly negligent.  Some courts have held that such
agreements will not be enforced if the defendant is found grossly
negligent.  The MDL Court has not ruled on this motion.

The first phase of the trial began on February 25, 2013 and
testimony concluded on April 17, 2013.  This phase addressed fault
issues, including negligence, gross negligence, or other bases of
liability of the various defendants with respect to the cause of
the blowout and the initiation of the oil spill, as well as
limitation of liability issues.  In June and July 2013, the
parties filed post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.  The MDL Court has not yet ruled on the issues
tried in the first phase of the trial.

If the MDL Court finds in this phase of the trial that the company
was grossly negligent, it will be exposed to at least three
litigation risks: (1) the MDL Court could award punitive damages
under general maritime law to plaintiffs who own property damaged
by oil and to plaintiffs who are commercial fishermen; (2) the MDL
Court could find that the company's gross negligence voids the
release BP gave the company in the drilling contract for direct
claims by BP, which BP has assigned to the plaintiffs in the
BP/PSC settlement; and (3) the company could be liable for all
other oil pollution damages claims, including claims resulting
from NRDA, if the MDL Court were to go beyond gross negligence for
which the company is to be indemnified and find a "core breach" of
the drilling contract, or if the court of appeals were to reverse
a prior ruling that BP owes the company indemnity for these claims
even in the event of gross negligence.  The company's four pending
motions for partial judgment on the pleadings or partial summary
judgment, if successful, could reduce or eliminate the company's
exposure to these claims.  A finding of gross negligence against
the company or against BP or a finding that either the company or
BP violated certain safety regulations would also result in the
removal of the statutory liability caps under OPA.  Under the MDL
Court's present ruling, however, the company's liability for
damages under OPA is limited to damages caused by discharge on or
above the surface of the water.

The second phase of the trial began on September 30, 2013.  This
phase addressed conduct related to stopping the release of
hydrocarbons after April 22, 2010 and quantification of the amount
of oil discharged.  In light of BP's criminal plea agreement with
the DOJ acknowledging that it provided the government with false
or misleading information throughout the spill response, the
company amended the company's pleadings to allege as an
affirmative defense that BP's fraud delayed the final capping of
the well and that the company should not be liable for damages
resulting from this delay.

The company can provide no assurances as to the outcome of the
trial, as to the timing of any phase of trial or any rulings, that
the company will not enter into additional settlements as to some
or all of the matters related to the Macondo well incident,
including those to be determined at a trial, or the timing or
terms of any such settlements.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Moves to Dismiss New York Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss a securities lawsuit
filed against it in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A federal securities proposed class action is currently pending in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the
company and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and
one of the company's acquired companies as defendants.  In the
action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleges that
the joint proxy statement related to the company's shareholder
meeting in connection with the company's merger with the acquired
company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff claims that the
acquired company's shareholders received inadequate consideration
for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and seeks
compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf
of itself and the proposed class members.  In addition, the
company is obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the
individual defendants, which may be covered by the company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to a
deductible.  On October 4, 2012, the court denied the company's
motion to dismiss the action.

On October 5, 2012, the company asked the court to stay the action
pending a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in an
unrelated action involving the time period within which Section 14
claims can be filed that could be relevant to the disposition of
this case.  On June 27, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled on the issue in the unrelated action in a manner that the
company believes supports its position that the plaintiff's
existing claims alleged in the action are time-barred.

On August 30, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the claims are time-barred under the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals' ruling.


U.S. BANK: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Trahan" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White denied a motion to remand filed by
the plaintiff in the case captioned JERRY TRAHAN, Plaintiff, v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, NO. C 09-03111 JSW,
(N.D. Cal.).

Jerry Trahan filed this complaint on May 28, 2009, in Alameda
County Superior Court, in which he sought relief on behalf of
himself and a putative class, defined as "[a]ll current and former
California based employees of U.S. Bank, N.A. with the title
'Business Banking Officer,' including trainees for the Business
Banking Offer [sic] position, however titled, who worked at any
time from September 27, 2005 up to the time the class is
certified."

Mr. Trahan's allegations against U.S. Bank arise following a
judgment in Duran v. U.S. National Bank Association [sic], Alameda
Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. 2001-035537, in which that court determined
that Defendant, U.S. National Bank Association, illegally mis-
classified employees with the title Business Banking Officer or
Small Business Banking Officer as exempt employees.
On July 9, 2009, U.S. Bank removed the action to the District
Court and argued that subject matter jurisdiction existed based on
the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1331(d)(2)(A),
and based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1332(a).

Judge White ordered the parties to appear for a case management
conference on February 21, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., and to submit a
joint case management conference statement by no later than
February 14, 2014.

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


UNITED STATES: Privacy Board Expresses Concern on NSA Reform Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Ruger, writing for Legal Times, reports that members of an
independent White House board voiced concern on Jan. 23 about
President Barack Obama's suggestion to have private companies or a
third party hold a vast database of phone records generated
through government surveillance programs.

The bipartisan Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board members
offered their comments at a meeting in Washington just after the
panel released a report critical of the National Security Agency's
bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215 of the USA
Patriot Act.

Pres. Obama, during a Jan. 17 speech, citing concerns about the
potential for government abuse, gave Attorney General Eric Holder
Jr. and the NSA two months to find another place to store that
database -- millions of records that document phone numbers dialed
and duration of the call.

On Jan. 23, board member Rachel Brand, also the chief counsel for
regulatory litigation for the Chamber of Commerce's National
Chamber Litigation Center, said she has not yet heard a proposal
that is better than keeping the phone records with the NSA.

"A third-party alternative, something other than the service
providers, I don't see any possible way that could work,"
Ms. Brand said.  "And in terms of the providers themselves, I
think that just provides a whole host of legal questions about the
nature of the data, responsibility for the data, liability of the
companies and additional privacy concerns."

Another board member, Elisebeth Collins Cook, a Wilmer Culter
Pickering Hale and Dorr litigation and government affairs counsel,
said other alternatives pose difficulties.  She cited an example
in which telephone companies run queries of the database at the
request of the NSA.

"However, even assuming the companies currently keep the relevant
records, there is no guarantee that those records will continue to
be retained in the future," Ms. Cook wrote.  "By the same token,
if another terrorist attack happens, the pressure will be immense
to impose data retention requirements on those companies, which
would pose separate and perhaps greater privacy concerns."

The most vocal board member critic was James Dempsey, vice
president for Public Policy at the Center for Democracy &
Technology, a non-profit public policy organization focused on
privacy.

"I think the third party idea is a terrible idea.  It just
replicates all the problems that are unanswered," Mr. Dempsey
said.  "Who is it, how long do they keep it, who else gets it, how
do they secure it, what security requirements are their employees
subject to, who oversees it, is it subject to the constitution."

"To me you just take all the same questions and you have to answer
them all over again from scratch," Mr. Dempsey said.


UTAH: Fathers File Class Action v. AG Over Fraudulent Adoption
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Rascon, writing for KUTV, reports that a group of 12 fathers
are part of a class action lawsuit claiming that their children
were fraudulently taken away from them through adoption.

The dads say their pregnant ex-girlfriends all came to Utah
without their knowledge, had their babies and gave them up for
adoption before they could file the paper work needed to stop it.

"This is the ultimate form of child abuse.  It's the equivalent of
a death sentence for a birth father," said Attorney Wesley
Hutchins who filed the federal lawsuit.

The lawsuit names the Utah office of the Attorney General and
former attorney general's Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow.

Mr. Hutchins legal argument is all contained in a 73 page
document.  "The Attorney General's office has done nothing to
persecute the adoption agencies that are guilty of conspiring to
commit fraud," said Hutchins.  "They are just being essentially
kidnapped and fraudulently placed in other homes without any
consent or knowledge from the birth fathers."

The attorney general's office told 2News that they are reviewing
the case.  Mr. Shurtleff did respond to 2News by saying, "it's
misguided to sue the AG's office because they are tasked with
enforcing state laws and the rulings of courts.  As the father of
three adopted children I certainly empathize with birth parents,
and urge plaintiffs to work with Utah legislatures and follow Utah
law and judicial precedence in protecting their rights."

Many of the fathers named in the lawsuit have lost their case in
court.


VERMONT TEDDY: "Murphy" Suit Remanded to Ventura Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, issued an order remanding the
case captioned CHERYL MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VERMONT TEDDY BEAR
COMPANY, a Vermont Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-09387-ODW(CWX), (C.D. Cal.)
to the Superior Court of California, Ventura County.

Vermont Teddy Bear Company (VTBC) removed the case to the
California District Court on December 20, 2013, ostensibly
invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332,
1441, and 1453.  But after considering VTBC's Notice of Removal,
the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the
action.  The Court, therefore, remands this case to Ventura County
Superior Court, case number 50-2013-00444706.

A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/vj6jj5from Leagle.com.


VIKING CLIENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Dick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Viking Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00084-
CBA-VMS (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
           ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
           483 Chestnut Street
           Cedarhurst, NY 11516
           Telephone: (516) 791-4400
           Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
           E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


VIRGINIA: Won't Defend Same-Sex Marriage Ban as Constitutional
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Robertson, Susan Heavey, Doina Chiacu, Ian Simpson and
Joseph Ax, writing for Reuters, report that Virginia will no
longer defend its ban on same-sex marriage, the state's new
attorney general said on Jan. 23, making it the latest U.S. state
to challenge a prohibition on gay marriage.

Attorney General Mark Herring said the southern state's
constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a
man and a woman was part of a long history of opposing landmark
Supreme Court rulings on civil rights.  Mr. Herring told a news
conference the same-sex marriage ban violated the 14th Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, which provides for equal protection of
the laws, and infringed on the rights of families.  Mr. Herring
filed a brief on Jan. 23 in federal court in Norfolk, noting the
state's change of stance in Bostic v. Rainey, a case that
challenged Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage.  Mr. Herring said
the constitutional ban would remain in place and the Norfolk case
would go forward, but neither he nor State Registrar of Vital
Records Janet Rainey would defend it as constitutional.

The attorney general said his decision was aimed at changing
Virginia's history of opposing landmark civil rights rulings by
the Supreme Court.  They included those on school desegregation in
1954, interracial marriage in 1967 and allowing women to enter
Virginia Military Institute in 1996, he said.

In another Virginia case in federal court, two lesbian couples are
suing the state in an attempt to overturn the ban on same-sex
marriage.  They asked a federal judge in October to certify it as
a class-action lawsuit.


VITACOST.COM INC: No Writ Filed v. Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari in relation
to the dismissal of a second amended securities complaint against
Vitacost.com, Inc. passed without the lead plaintiff filing a
petition, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On May 24, 2010, a punitive class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR. After being
appointed to represent the purported class of shareholders, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Vitacost, its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering ("IPO"). On December
12, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On January 11, 2012, lead plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Vitacost, its current and
former officers and directors, and its underwriters. Lead
plaintiff purported to bring its action on behalf of investors who
purchased stock in connection with or traceable to the Company's
IPO between September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010. The complaint
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
during the period by, among other things, disseminating false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning
the Company's current and prospective business and financial
results. The complaint also alleged that as a result of these
actions the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during
the class period. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses.

On June 25, 2012, the Southern District of Florida entered its
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in full and
dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice. On July
23, 2012, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit of the order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. On
May 5, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion affirming the
dismissal. The deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court passed on August 5, 2013, and lead
plaintiff did not file a petition.


WAL-MART STORE: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Pain Pills
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simeon Nelson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00004-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., January 6, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of making false and misleading statements, which
directly influenced the Plaintiff's decision to pay more than
double the price for Equate Migraine Relief instead of Equate
Extra Strength Headache Relief.

Wal-Mart, a Delaware corporation, sells a variety of products
under its "Equate" brand, including two pain relievers -- Equate
Headache and Equate Migraine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Tim Howard, J.D., Ph.D., Esq.
           Lucas Lanasa, Esq.
           HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
           8511 Bull Headley Rd., Suite 405
           Tallahassee, FL 32312
           Telephone: (850) 298-4455
           E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com
                   luke@lanasalawfirm.com

                - and -

           Richard A. Daynard, Ph.D., Esq.
           HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
           400 Huntington Avenue
           Boston, MA 02115
           E-mail: r.daynard@neu.edu


WEBBERS FOOD: Recalls "Hausmacher" Liver Pate Due to Bacteria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Webbers Food
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Webbers Food is recalling "Hausmacher" liver pate from the
marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium
botulinum.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product.

The following product has been sold in glass jars with no label
only from November 13, 2013 to December 5, 2013, inclusively, at
the following locations in Nova Scotia:

Hammonds Plains Farmers' Market, Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia
Lunenburg Farmers' Market, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out.

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis.  In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: "Hausmacher" liver pate


WINN-DIXIE: Recalls Instant Chocolate Drink Mix in Florida Stores
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WCTV.tv reports that Winn-Dixie on Jan. 20 announced an immediate
recall of the 30 oz. canister of Winn-Dixie Instant Chocolate
Drink Mix, with expiration date code of JUL 14 15B, from shelves
in all stores throughout Florida.  The recall does not affect
stores in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana or Mississippi.  The reason
for the recall is the potential that the product may contain an
incorrect formula mixture, which could result in an undeclared
milk allergen.

"We advise customers who have a milk allergy to throw it out
immediately to ensure they do not experience any health issues,"
said Brian Wright, Winn-Dixie's vice president of communications
and community.

Winn-Dixie has received no reports of any issues associated with
consumption at this time.  The recall only pertains to canisters
with the expiration date code of JUL 14 15B.  The product UPC code
is 2114022031.

Consumers who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
products are urged not to consume and return products to the store
for a full refund. To receive the refund, customers may present
proof of purchase through a receipt or the product-packaging
label.

Symptoms of a milk allergy reaction can range from mild, such as
hives, to severe, such as anaphylaxis.

Customers with questions about the recalled products may contact
the Winn-Dixie Customer Call Center toll free at 866-946-6349,
Mon. -- Fri., 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. EDT, and Sat., 8 a.m. -- 4 p.m. EDT.


ZIPREALTY INC: Settles Ex-Agents' Class Action for $1.7 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inman News reports that real estate brokerage and referral site
operator ZipRealty Inc. will pay $1.7 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit filed by two real estate agents formerly employed
by the company in Arizona.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, resolves the
last class-action claim pending against the company related to its
former compensation practices of employee real estate agents.

ZipRealty began converting its California agents to independent
contractor status in the latter half of 2010, and transitioned all
of the firm's agents to independent contractors in January 2011.
Former employee agents soon began filing class-action lawsuits
against ZipRealty, alleging the company had failed to pay minimum
and overtime wages as required by law.

ZipRealty denied the allegations, saying its agents were
classified as "outside salespersons" exempt from overtime wage
requirements.

By the end of 2012, ZipRealty had paid at least five settlements
in cases making similar claims, including $5 million to settle a
suit brought by the California Labor Commissioner.

The $1.7 million settlement, announced in a public filing on
Jan. 17, resolves a February 2012 suit filed by two former
ZipRealty agents in Arizona, Patricia Anderson and James
Kwasiborski, on behalf of themselves and "all other similarly
situated individuals" seeking damages in addition to wages and
overtime.

A former ZipRealty agent in California, Tracy Adewunmi, also
sought class-action standing in a February 2012 lawsuit over the
company's compensation practices, but dropped the class claims in
May 2013, according to a public filing.  Ms. Adewunmi's individual
claims remain, as do ZipRealty's cross claims against her alleging
fraud and breach of contract.  The case is set to go to trial in
February, according to the filing.


                              *********

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  * * *