CAR_Public/140210.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 28

                             Headlines


AARON BROWN: Has 3 Weeks to Provide Details on Defense Fund
AB&I FOUNDRY: Fixed Prices of Soil Pipe & Fittings, Suit Claims
ANZ BANK: Court Set to Rule on Class Action Over "Exception Fees"
APPLE REIT: REITs Litigation in New York Court Now Dismissed
BANK OF AMERICA: "Triaxx" Suit Transferred to C.D. California

BURGER KING: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
CIMAREX ENERGY: Administration of $16.4MM Accord Continues
COMMERCIAL METALS: East Tulsa Neighborhood Mulls Class Action
CONNECTICUT: Meriden Resident Mulls Suit v. Labor Department
CVS PHARMACY: "Woods" Suit Removed to Calif. Central District

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Removed "Bergum" Suit to Montana Dist. Court
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Order in Suit Over Propane Service on Appeal
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Files for Bankruptcy Amid Class Actions
GARIBALDI'S INC: Class Seeks Payment for Unpaid Minimum Wages
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Admiral" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

GOLDMAN SACHS: "Ampal" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Big River" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Central Aluminum" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Extruded Aluminum" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
GOLDMAN SACHS: "F&F Customs" Suit Moved to S.D. New York

GOLDMAN SACHS: "Hall" Suit Transferred to Southern New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Seating Constructors" Suit Transferred to SDNY
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Sunporch" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Talan Products" Antitrust Suit Transferred to SDNY
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Welk-Ko" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

HALLIBURTON CO: High Court Ruling May Slash Securities Class Suits
HARRIS RANCH: "Gonzalez" FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 5th Cir. Remands MDL Over Security Breach
HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in N.D. Ill.
KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Settles Price Fixing Lawsuit for $35 Million

KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Suit by "Los Gatos" Proceeds in Trial Court
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES: Removed "Huntington" Suit to S.D. Cal.
LOCKWOOD INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Taylor" Suit Says
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over Merger Plan With Mindspeed
MCAFEE INC: Charges More for Auto-Renewal Program, Customer Says

NOVARTIS AG: Sued for Selling Excedrin Drug at Higher Price
OKLAHOMA: License Revocation Cases Stack Up at Public Safety Dept
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Cheerleaders Sue Over Wage Violations
OREGON SCIENTIFIC: Removed "Ceballos" Suit to C.D. California
PALLETS UNLIMITED: Did Not Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Laborer Says

PIONEER NATURAL: Beverly, Shelton Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims
PIONEER NATURAL: Still Faces Delaware Litigation Over Merger
PLY GEM: Discovery in "Callahan" Suit Over V-Wood Windows Closed
PLY GEM: "Hartshorn" Suit Over Freedom Windows in Late Discovery
PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Suit Over Oasis Deck & Railing in Discovery

PLY GEM: "Memari" Suit Over MW's Vinyl Clad Windows in Discovery
SAFECO INSURANCE: Removed "Raffaelli" Suit to W.D. Arkansas
SMALL PLANET: Faces Product Liability Class Suit in Florida
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Seeks Court OK of Accord in "Payne" Suit
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Allos Shareholder Suit Now Dismissed

STAR SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Action Over Anatabloc False Claims
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "AFSCME" Class Suit Over Aggrenox
ULTA SALON: Lawsuit by Hourly Employees Continues in California
VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation in Deutsch, Katriel Suits Ongoing
WORLD WIDE BUSINESS: Class Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime


                             *********


AARON BROWN: Has 3 Weeks to Provide Details on Defense Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to VeloNation.com, further to the news that Hein
Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid have reactivated their court case
against the journalist Paul Kimmage, VeloNation has received
confirmation that Aaron Brown, who took possession of Mr.
Kimmage's legal defense fund, has three weeks to provide full
details of the current status of that fund to an American court.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Brown, who was
previously involved in one of the websites which set up the fund
to help Mr. Kimmage in his defense against the Verbruggen/McQuaid
defamation suit.  In April 2013, it emerged that Mr. Brown had
transferred the fund out of the PayPal account that originally
housed it, and that he was refusing to turn it over to Mr. Kimmage
or to a neutral third party.

Bill Hue, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, cyclist and donor to
the fund, took a class action lawsuit against Mr. Brown on behalf
of the donors.  Things are now moving forward and Mr. Brown now
must provide proof that the fund is intact.  The action against
Mr. Kimmage began in January 2012 when Messrs. McQuaid and
Verbruggen initiated legal proceedings against him, claiming they
were defamed by articles in the Sunday Times and L'Equipe.  He was
issued with a summons on September 19th of that year, compelling
him to attend a trial in Switzerland on December 12th 2012.

Out of work and therefore lacking the financial means to defend
himself, a fund for Mr. Kimmage was set up by the NYVelocity and
Cyclismas websites to try to raise legal backing for him.  That
campaign was a big success, with a total of over $90,000 being
donated by cycling fans and supporters.

On October 26, 2012, days after it received and accepted USADA's
reasoned decision on Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Service
team, the UCI announced that it was putting the case on hold.

That action was however only suspended, not definitively ended.
Despite that, Mr. Brown refused to turn the funds over to a
neutral third party, and instead claimed that he believed
Mr. Kimmage would not need it.  He justified his position by
saying that he needed to retain the funds because he was involved
in a legal dispute with Lesli Cohen, who co-founded Cyclismas with
him.  He also claimed that he was facing a potential tax liability
for the money which had been donated due to an error in the way
the fund was set up.

Mr. Kimmage was furious, saying that he had no right to take the
fund. He was clear that he felt betrayed by Mr. Brown, who had
built up a prominent profile via his @UCI_Overlord Twitter account
plus interactions with people in the industry, and who had stayed
in Mr. Kimmage's home when he visited Ireland shortly before.

Refunds now blocked by court:

Although Messrs. McQuaid and Verbruggen never officially ended
their case -- and have now restarted it -- Mr. Brown said several
months ago that he was inviting those who donated to the fund to
apply to him for a refund.  He said that he would give back 70% of
the donated amount.

Ms. Cohen and Mr. Hue cautioned people against this, saying that
the class action route was the only guaranteed way to ensure that
money was indeed returned.

On January 30 the trial court in Worcester, Massachusetts issued
an order making clear that Mr. Brown could not continue to seek
applications for a refund.  "It is hereby ordered that defendants
Aaron Brown and Siroque Holdings Inc. are hereby enjoined and
prohibited from disbursing any funds whatsoever from the Paul
Kimmage Defence Fund for any purpose until further order of this
court, and this paragraph of the order shall be deemed effective
from January 16th 2014, when it was issued from the bench," it
stated in the legal document.

It also said that the defendants [i.e., Brown and his Siroque
Holdings company] needed to provide Ms. Cohen and Mr. Hue with
full bank details of where the fund is held by February 25.  He
also needs to provide a full accounting of the fund, including all
withdrawals.

In turn, Ms. Cohen needs to provide the defendants with a list
"containing what she understands to be the date and amount of each
contribution to the Paul Kimmage Defence fund."  The defendants
then have fourteen days to either agree that list is accurate, or
outline and prove any disagreements to that.


AB&I FOUNDRY: Fixed Prices of Soil Pipe & Fittings, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastway Supplies, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe Company, McWane,
Inc., Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, and Randolph Holding
Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00155-NC (N.D. Cal., January 10, 2014)
arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to unlawfully fix
the prices of cast iron soil pipe and fittings from at least as
early as January 1, 2006, in violation of the Sherman Act.

AB&I Foundry is a division of McWane, Inc., with its principal
place of business in Oakland, California.  McWane, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of in Birmingham,
Alabama.  Tyler Pipe Company is a division of McWane, Inc.,
headquartered in Tyler, Texas.  Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company
is a North Carolina corporation based in Charlotte, North
Carolina.

Randolph Holding Company, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Charlotte Pipe and is a Delaware limited liability company based
in Charlotte.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  clebsock@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com


ANZ BANK: Court Set to Rule on Class Action Over "Exception Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to JURIST.org guest columnist Andrew Watson of Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers, a judgment is shortly due from the Federal
Court of Australia in a class action suit that saw thousands of
customers challenge the validity of these so-called 'exception
fees' which have earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue
for the ANZ Bank, one of Australia's largest banks.

Why do banks charge late fees? Over limit fees? Honor and dishonor
fees? Are they punishment for misbehaving customers or fees for
services?

The answer -- the reason the fees are charged -- is important
because the class representatives rely upon the equitable doctrine
of penalties, which for centuries has held that a liability to pay
a sum of money is void if it is intended to punish a party for (or
to put it another way, to dissuade a party from) breaking its
word, rather than to compensate any consequential losses.

The case will have ramifications for banks, other businesses
across Australia and potentially across the globe.

In September 2010, Australian law firm Maurice Blackburn launched
the first in a series of class action lawsuits against the largest
banks in that country, on behalf of what grew to around 185,000
class members, claiming repayment of an estimated $220 million
(USD) in late payment and overlimit fees charged to credit card
accounts and honor and dishonor fees charged to transaction
accounts.

The central argument was that the fees were repayable because they
were "penalties."  In common law countries and in the US, the
doctrine of penalties was traditionally summarized thus: money
payable upon a breach of a term of a contract is void as a penalty
if it is imposed as security for performance of the term, in that
it is in excess of a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss suffered
as a result of the breach.

Thus, the case alleged that these $20 or $35 fees (AUD)
represented windfall profits greatly disproportionate to the real
costs to ANZ of a customer missing a credit card payment or
overdrawing an account.

Two critical issues were identified early in the course of this
class action litigation: one of law and one of fact.

The legal controversy arose in respect of the scope of operation
of the penalties doctrine.  ANZ argued that its fees were not
charged in breach of contract at all but that, on a true reading
of its contracts, its customers were permitted to overdraw their
accounts or pay late and that the fees were charged for these
events, which it said were in fact services supplied to its
customers.  Class counsel argued that, on an accurate analysis of
900 years of English and Australian legal history, the doctrine
was applicable irrespective of whether the fees were payable upon
a breach of contract.

The factual controversy concerned the quantum of the loss that
could be suffered by ANZ as a consequence of the events triggering
the fees: how much would it cost the bank when a customer was late
in paying a credit card, or overdrew an account?

Justice Michelle Gordon, sitting on the Federal Court, ordered the
first legal controversy to be determined separately and in
December 2011 found, in favor of the bank, that the doctrine only
applied where a sum was payable upon a breach of a contract, and
that credit card overlimit fees, and honor and dishonor fees
charged on transaction accounts, were not payable upon such a
breach.  In favor of the class however, Justice Gordon also found
that credit card late payment fees were payable upon breach.

The applicants appealed Justice Gordon's decision to the country's
highest court, the High Court of Australia, which in finding for
the applicants in Andrews v. ANZ Banking Group Ltd in September
2012, held that the doctrine of penalties was not applicable only
to sums payable upon breach of contract.  In expressing the
doctrine in a manner which significantly varied from its
formulation over the course of English and Australian 20th century
jurisprudence, the High Court embraced the broader concept of a
"stipulation" as derived from Roman law's stipulatio:

In general terms, a stipulation prima facie imposes a penalty on a
party ("the first party") if, as a matter of substance, it is
collateral (or accessory) to a primary stipulation in favor of a
second party and this collateral stipulation, upon the failure of
the primary stipulation, imposes upon the first party an
additional detriment, the penalty, to the benefit of the second
party.  In that sense, the collateral or accessory stipulation is
described as being in the nature of a security for and in terrorem
of the satisfaction of the primary stipulation.  If compensation
can be made to the second party for the prejudice suffered by
failure of the primary stipulation, the collateral stipulation and
the penalty are enforced only to the extent of that compensation.
The first party is relieved to that degree from liability to
satisfy the collateral stipulation.

Thus, the High Court preferred substance over form and analyzed
the nexus between the triggering event and the payment of the sum
in all the circumstances of the arrangements between the parties,
irrespective of whether the "stipulation" is in the form of a
contractual prohibition.  Further, a truly consensual arrangement
where a fee is charged upon the provision of a service or some
other form of what the court in Andrews, termed 'accommodation' --
that is, if you get something in return for paying the fee -- will
not be a penalty.

This represents a departure from UK Authority which still limits
the doctrine to circumstances of breach of contract.  US law has
created its own mechanism, via Restatement 2nd Sec. 356(c), for
granting primacy to substance over form by recognizing a dichotomy
between penalty provisions and arrangements which offer genuinely
alternative modes of performance.

In a nutshell, whether ANZ's fees fall within the scope of the
Andrews penalties doctrine depends upon whether the exception fees
are a detriment imposed on failure of a primary stipulation (e.g.,
"you must not overdraw your account") or simply a fee for a
service.

This controversy, and those that necessarily followed, including
the quantification of the loss suffered by ANZ as a result of the
events giving rise to fees, were the subject of a December 2013
trial before Justice Gordon.  Class counsel retained a forensic
accountant who gave independent expert testimony that ANZ's
underlying costs were dramatically less than the fees in question.
ANZ obtained its own expert testimony that those costs were
dramatically in excess of those fees.

The parties now await a decision.  Given Justice Gordon's December
2011 judgment in which credit card late payment fees were held to
be payable upon breach of contract, whether those fees are
penalties depends upon whether they are in excess of their
underlying costs.  Credit card overdraft fees and honor and
dishonor fees on transaction accounts will be penalties only if
they are found to fall within the Andrews doctrine and are also
excessive in light of underlying costs.  Other statutory causes of
action -- including allegations of unfair contract terms, unjust
transactions and unconscionable conduct -- will also be
determined.

Banking industry analysts and consumer advocates both in Australia
and overseas will be awaiting this important judgment which will
shed light not only upon the claims of class members involved, but
also upon claims of those who have signed up to similar actions
launched by Maurice Blackburn against seven other Australian
banks.

More broadly, this judgment and the already influential Andrews
decision will resonate through the legal departments of any
companies which impose fees -- late fees, excess fees or others --
as a disincentive charged in order to shape customer behavior.

The judgment is expected to be delivered in the coming months and
will be available here and cited as Paciocco v Australia and New
Zealand Banking Group Ltd.


APPLE REIT: REITs Litigation in New York Court Now Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated matter In re Apple REITs Litigation was dismissed
in April 2013, according to Apple REIT Seven, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation. The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012. The Company
was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David
Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. putative class action lawsuit,
which was filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple
REIT Six, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT Six,
Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David
Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David Lerner
Associates, Inc.  The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT Six, Inc.,
or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written
or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates, Inc.
defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws.  On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Eight,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.

The consolidated complaint, which was dismissed in April 2013, was
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the
Company and the other Apple REIT Entities, or those who otherwise
acquired these Units that were offered and sold to them by David
Lerner Associates, Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of
subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut
and Florida, and alleges that the Apple REIT Entities
"misrepresented the investment objectives of the Apple REITs, the
dividend payment policy of the Apple REITs, and the value of their
Apple REIT investments".

The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the
securities laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks,
among other things, certification of a putative nationwide class
and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases
and other costs and expenses.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Triaxx" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 Ltd., et al. v. Bank
of America Securities LLC, et al., Case No. LC101132, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
00252-MRP-MAN to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the offering documents filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Countrywide mortgage-backed securities they purchased from the
Defendants contained misstatements and omissions in violation of
the Securities Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dean N. Kawamoto, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP PC
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          53 State Street Exchange Place
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Teodora Manolova, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 426-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 623-1673
          E-mail: tmanolova@goodwinprocter.com


BURGER KING: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Reid, individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Employees v. Burger King Corporation, a Florida
Corporation; and First Coast Foods, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00042-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla.,
January 10, 2014) seeks to redress the Defendants' alleged
unlawful employment practices, including sexual harassment and
retaliation.

Burger King Corporation is a Florida corporation.  First Coast
Foods, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company and was Ms.
Reid's employer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin L. Williams, Esq.
          FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA
          Building 200, Suite 250
          10151 Deerwood Park Blvd.
          Jacksonville, FL 32256
          Telephone: (904) 240-4300
          Facsimile: (904) 800-1188
          E-mail: ben.williams@williamslawpa.com


CIMAREX ENERGY: Administration of $16.4MM Accord Continues
----------------------------------------------------------
The administration of the $16.4 million settlement in Hitch
Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Cimarex Energy Co. et al. is ongoing,
according to Cinemarex's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 11, 2012, Cimarex entered into a preliminary
resolution of the Hitch Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Cimarex
Energy Co., et al. (Hitch) litigation matter for $16.4 million.
Hitch is a statewide royalty class action pending in the Federal
District Court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  The settlement was
reached at a mediation, which occurred after the parties began to
exchange information, including damage analyses, on November 16,
2012.  On July 2, 2013, the Court entered a judgment approving the
parties' settlement.  The judgment became final and unappealable
on August 2, 2013. Cimarex distributed the settlement proceeds
pursuant to the Court's order in September 2013 and the
administration of the settlement is ongoing.

In the fourth quarter of 2012, the company accrued $16.4 million
for this matter.


COMMERCIAL METALS: East Tulsa Neighborhood Mulls Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Vicent, writing for Tulsa World, reports that members of
an east Tulsa neighborhood announced their intent to pursue a
class action lawsuit against a local scrap metal company on Feb. 1
on accusations the company forced them to suffer significant
damages to their homes and businesses because of unsafe practices.

"All of our homes in the neighborhood have been affected," said
homeowner Eileen Rowley to more than 10 of her neighbors during a
community meeting at her home that afternoon.  "We're trying to
find people and bring them together."

Residents of the neighborhood, which extends from East Latimer
Street to East Pine and 155th East Avenue to 173rd East Avenue,
allege Commercial Metals Co., known as CMC Recycling and located
at 1804 N. 166th East Ave., has made the ground supporting their
homes unstable because of constant seismic activity occurring when
employees use certain equipment.

Multiple residents at the meeting said efforts to reach the
Environmental Protection Agency have been unsuccessful. That
combined with Rowley's claim that CMC is "not taking them
seriously" spurred the group to seek legal action, she said.

The neighborhood is represented by Tulsa-based firm Pinkerton &
Finn, P.C., and the group planned to meet with attorneys on Feb. 3
to begin the litigation process, she said.

In a statement released to media on Feb. 1, CMC admitted its
equipment has "frequent energy releases" resulting in loud blasts
and that some of those occur because employees inadvertently
process items with residual combustible materials through the
shredder.

However, CMC denied the shredder's use caused the homeowners'
structural damages, claiming it owns structures in the immediate
area that have not been damaged.

"The shredder is designed to withstand and absorb most of the
energy created from these events," the release says.
"Unfortunately, we are unable to completely mitigate the noise
created when this occurs.  We constantly review our procedures for
screening inbound material with the ultimate goal of reducing
these events."

Residents said they simply want their homes repaired and CMC held
accountable, and they commended Ms. Rowley's spearheading efforts.


CONNECTICUT: Meriden Resident Mulls Suit v. Labor Department
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Buchanan, writing for MyRecordJournal.com, reports that city
residents who had their Social Security numbers mailed to
unemployment income recipients by the state Department of Labor
are considering a lawsuit over the mistake.

Donna Tillbrook, a Meriden resident, said she's working to file a
class-action lawsuit against the labor department "to make them
more accountable."

About 27,000 state residents received other people's names,
addresses, Social Security numbers and tax information on forms
mailed by the state Department of Labor.  The department has
blamed a data entry error for the mistakes and plans to offer
credit protection to those affected.

Affected ZIP codes include three in Meriden and three in Cheshire:
06408, 06410, 06411, 06450, 06451, 06454.

Ms. Tillbrook said she's been contacting other Meriden residents
through Facebook and has found people receptive to the idea of a
suit.  She's looking for a lawyer experienced in class-action
lawsuits.

William Bloss, a trial attorney with Koskoff, Koskoff and Beider,
said a class action suit might be more difficult if there are no
financial or emotional damages.  Class action suits are meant to
bring together cases where the facts are substantially similar,
Mr. Bloss said, to ease the burden on courts.  A judge could rule
that someone with damages and someone without damages aren't in
the same class.

A class action lawsuit of people who can't show any damage is also
a weaker case, he said.  Another hurdle to a suit would be the
sovereign immunity of the state.  The government can only be sued
with its consent, Mr. Bloss said, given either by the state Claims
Commissioner or the legislature.

"The first thing I'd do is see whether under state or federal law,
the state has immunity," Mr. Bloss said.

Ms. Tillbrook is a former Aetna employee and worked in the IT
department.  She hopes a lawsuit will prompt changes at the labor
department and perhaps remove Social Security numbers from
mailings.


CVS PHARMACY: "Woods" Suit Removed to Calif. Central District
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Elizabeth Woods, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy
Inc., et al., Case No. BC526977, was removed from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00259-PA-RZ to the
proceeding.  The lawsuit alleges labor law violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
          Michael D. Seplow, Esq.
          Vincent James DeSimone, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HARRISON LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: amcglaze.sdshhh@gmail.com
                  mseplow@gmail.com
                  vjdesimone@gmail.com

               - and -

          Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq.
          Azadeh C. Dadgostar, Esq.
          Hirad D. Dadgostar, Esq.
          DADGOSTAR LAW LLP
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Fourth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-1022
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1088
          E-mail: aalivandi@gmail.com
                  azadeh@dadgostarlaw.com
                  hirad@dadgostarlaw.com

               - and -

          Jon D. Henderson, Esq.
          Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
          Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS FALVEY
          301 North Lake Avenue Suite 800
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-0205
          Facsimile: (626) 795-3096
          E-mail: hendersonj2004@gmail.com
                  mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
                  thomaswfalvey@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas Roger Hart, Esq.
          Heidi Catherine Larson Howell, Esq.
          Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: dhart@sidley.com
                  hlarsonhowell@sidley.com
                  jzargarof@sidley.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Removed "Bergum" Suit to Montana Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Bergum v. DePuy Orthopaedics, et al., Case
No. ADV-2013-65, was removed from the Montana First Judicial
District Court, L&C County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana (Helena).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 6:14-cv-00003-CCL to the proceeding.

Mr. Bergum alleges that the DePuy ASR Hip System was, by design,
manufacture or lack of warning, in a defective condition
unreasonably dangerous to him, as evidenced by its failure and
national recall.  As a result, he contends, DePuy is strictly
liable for all injuries and damages caused by the failure.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Incorporated, a division of the Johnson and
Johnson Company, is an Indiana corporation and does business in
the state of Montana.  DePuy sells orthopedic supplies, including
artificial joints to residents of Montana.  DePuy designed,
manufactured, distributed and sold the ASR Hip System in 2006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John E. Bohyer, Esq.
          Nathan Fluter, Esq.
          Paul N. Tranel, Esq.
          BOHYER, ERICKSON, BEAUDETTE & TRANEL, P.C.
          283 West Front Street, Suite 201
          PO Box 7729
          Missoula, MT 59807
          Telephone: (406) 532-7800
          Facsimile: (406) 549-2253
          E-mail: mail@bebtlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffry M. Foster, Esq.
          Maxon R. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS HATLEY HAFFEMAN & TIGHE
          PO Box 2103
          101 River Drive North The Milwaukee Station, 3rd Floor
          Great Falls, MT 59401-2103
          Telephone: (406) 761-5243
          Facsimile: (406) 761-4126
          E-mail: jeff.foster@dhhtlaw.com
                  max.davis@dhhtlaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Order in Suit Over Propane Service on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case filed against Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. in the United
States District Court in Kansas over the existence of an oral
contract for continuous propane service is currently on appeal
before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the
company's Dec. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

The company has also been named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in
Kansas. The complaint was the subject of a motion to dismiss which
was granted, in part, in August, 2011. The surviving claims allege
breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing, both of which allegedly arise from the existence
of an oral contract for continuous propane service. The company
believes that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
them vigorously. The case, which has not been certified for class
treatment, is currently on appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals following the denial of a motion to arbitrate the
individual plaintiff's claim. The company does not believe loss is
probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to this
putative class action lawsuit.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Files for Bankruptcy Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Industries on Jan. 29 filed a suggestion of bankruptcy in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
at Charleston.  "The United States Bankruptcy Code, Section 362(a)
(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) provide that the filing of a petition
operates as a stay of the continuation of any action or proceeding
against the debtor, any action or proceeding to recover a claim
against the debtor to enforce a judgment obtained that arose
before the commencement of the case, to create, perfect or enforce
any lien, or to collect or recover a claim that arose before the
commencement of the case," the document states.

Freedom Industries, which is connected to the chemical spill that
tainted the water supply in West Virginia, filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection on Jan. 17.  Its president, Gary Southern,
signed the bankruptcy petition, which estimated Freedom's debts at
$10 million or less.

Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the cost of
the water contamination disaster is likely to run much higher.

The report notes that on Jan. 9 thousands of gallons of a chemical
called crude MCHM contaminated the water supply for hundreds of
thousands of West Virginia's residents.  Bankruptcy offers Freedom
a break from having to answer the suits, some of which demand
punitive damages.  It also opens the door to court-supervised
probes into what led to the disaster and what resources are
available to pay any damages.

The plaintiffs in lawsuits against Freedom are seeking an
injunction ordered the defendants to remove all sources of
contamination from the Freedom facility; an injunction ordering
WVAW to complete a risk assessment of the pollution risks upstream
from its water intake on the Elk River and take the appropriate
steps to ameliorate and reduce those risks to an acceptable level
to ensure public safety in the future; an injunction ordering
Eastman to complete a competent and thorough toxicological
analysis of the risks to human health from 4-MCHM and to make
changes to its published MSDS sheets accordingly; an order
certifying this action to proceed as a class action; compensatory
and punitive damages; and an order establishing a medical
monitoring program.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Kevin W. Thompson and
David R. Barney Jr. of Thompson Barney; Van Bunch --
vbunch@bffb.com -- of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC in
Phoenix; and P. Rodney Jackson of the Law Offices of Rod Jackson.

Freedom is being represented by Stephen L. Thompson --
sthompson@barth-thompson.com -- and J. Nicholas Barth --
nbarth@barth-thompson.com -- of Barth & Thompson.

The case has been assigned to District Judge John T. Copenhaver
Jr.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is also
investigating the chemical spill, along with U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of West Virginia Booth Goodwin.

At least 20 class action lawsuits have also been filed in Kanawha
Circuit Court because of the water contamination.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at
Charleston case number: 2:14-cv-01374


GARIBALDI'S INC: Class Seeks Payment for Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Miller, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. Garibaldi's, Inc., a Georgia for-profit
corporation, and The Olde Pink House, Inc., a Georgia for-profit
corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00007-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga., January 10,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
current and former non-exempt tipped employees of the Defendants
are entitled to unpaid minimum wages from the Defendants for work
for which they did not receive proper minimum wages and liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Garibaldi's Inc. and The Olde Pink House, Inc., are Georgia for-
profit corporations.  Garibaldi's operates a restaurant in
Savannah, Georgia, known as Garibaldi Cafe.  TOPH operates a
restaurant in Savannah, Georgia, known as The Olde Pink House.
The Defendants are both operated by a restaurant group that
operates restaurants in Savannah, Georgia; Columbia, South
Carolina; and Charleston, South Carolina, known as the Dining
Group South.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jay D. Brownstein, Esq.
          BROWNSTEIN & NGUYEN, LLC
          2010 Montreal Road
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (678) 921-0143
          Facsimile: (770) 458-9060
          E-mail: jdb@bnlawga.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Admiral" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Admiral Beverage Corporation v.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14785, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-00213-KBF to the proceeding.

The action arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to limit and restrain the
availability of aluminum and artificially inflate the price of
aluminum, including the Midwest Transaction Premium, during the
period of at least January 1, 2009, through the present.

New York-based Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base.  Through December 2012, Goldman Sachs was
the largest London Metal Exchange principal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          101 N. Main Street, Suite 565
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 769-2144
          Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          Four Tower Bridge
          200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2977
          Telephone: (610) 941-2760
          Facsimile: (610) 862-9777
          E-mail: glawrence@lowey.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
          Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
          Raymond Girnys, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          One North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com
                  pstphillip@lowey.com
                  rgirnys@lowey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Ampal" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Ampal, Inc. v. Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14067, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-00185-KBF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that in violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, the Defendants have combined, conspired or agreed with one
another and other persons to restrain aluminum supplies in LME
Detroit Warehousing and inflate aluminum prices, including the
Platts MW Midwest Premium or Midwest Premium or Midwest
Transaction premium price.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
                  pbarile@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq.
          Amanda N. Miller, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677 (fax)
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
                  bjaccarino@lshllp.com
                  amiller@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Craig Essenmacher, Esq.
          Keith Essenmacher, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN
          JACOBSON LLP
          162 E. Main Street
          Northville, MI 48167
          Telephone: (248) 615-1752
          Facsimile: (248) 928-0909
          E-mail: cessenmacher@lshllp.com
                  kessenmacher@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com

               - and -

          Harold Z. Gurewitz, Esq.
          GUREWITZ & RABEN, PLC
          333 West Fort Street, Suite 1100
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 628-4733
          Facsimile: (313) 628-4701
          E-mail: hgurewitz@grplc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Big River" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned Big River Outfitters,
LLC v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14036,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00178-KBF to the proceeding.

The antitrust case arises from the Defendants' alleged
combination, conspiracy or agreement with one another and other
persons to restrain aluminum supplies in Goldman's London Metal
Exchange Detroit warehouses to inflate aluminum prices, including
the Midwest Price Premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Doyle, Esq.
          James R. Hail, Esq.
          Christopher W. Cantrell, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 935-9960
          E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com
                  jim@doylelowther.com
                  ccantrell@doylelowther.com

               - and -

          Alan Mcquarrie Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Abraham Singer, Esq.
          KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK
          One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 965-7445
          E-mail: Abraham.Singer@kitch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Central Aluminum" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Central Aluminum Company v.
Goldman Sachs Group, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14811,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00215-KBF to the proceeding.

The antitrust class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers, who paid artificially inflated
prices for aluminum due to the Defendants' alleged collusion and
manipulation of the Platts Midwest Premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Howlett, Esq.
          Dean M. Googasian, Esq.
          GOOGASIAN LAW FIRM
          6895 Telegraph Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138
          Telephone: (248) 540-3333
          Facsimile: (248) 540-7213
          E-mail: thowlett@googasian.com
                  dgoogasian@googasian.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Extruded Aluminum" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Extruded Aluminum Corporation v.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14787, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-00214-KBF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that from February 1, 2010, forward, the
Defendants combined, conspired or agreed with one another and
other persons to restrain aluminum supplies in LME Detroit
Warehousing and inflate aluminum prices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. (NY)
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "F&F Customs" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled F&F Custom Boats, LLC v.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14194, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00199-KBF to the proceeding.  The
lawsuit alleges antitrust law violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Doyle, Esq.
          James R. Hail, Esq.
          Christopher W. Cantrell, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 935-9960
          E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com
                  jim@doylelowther.com
                  ccantrell@doylelowther.com

               - and -

          Alan Mcquarrie Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Abraham Singer, Esq.
          KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK
          One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 965-7445
          E-mail: Abraham.Singer@kitch.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          William T. Crowder, Esq.
          Corey D. McGaha, Esq.
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  cjennings@emersonpoynter.com
                  wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com
                  cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          David G. Scott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID G. SCOTT, PLLC
          652 Cash Road SW
          Camden, AR 71701
          Telephone: (870) 836-8900
          Facsimile: (870) 836-5900
          E-mail: David@davidgscott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Hall" Suit Transferred to Southern New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Hall Enterprises Metals,
Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14839,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00216-KBF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of antitrust laws.  The Plaintiff
contends that since at least as early as February 19, 2010, and
continuing into the present, the Defendants have been engaged in a
contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain
trade in the market for aluminum and aluminum storage services in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER, LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94015
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Seating Constructors" Suit Transferred to SDNY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Seating Constructors USA, Inc. v. The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14087, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-00191-KBF to the proceeding.

The antitrust class action brought to recover for injuries
sustained by the Plaintiff and Class Members resulting from the
Defendants' per se violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have, since no later than
January 1, 2011, violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to
manipulate and restrain the market for aluminum.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is an international financial
company headquartered in New York.  Goldman trades physical
aluminum and other base metals for itself as a principal and for
its clients by means of trading in a variety of derivative
products that derive their value from the underlying asset prices
of aluminum.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Wienner, Esq.
          WIENNER & GOULD, PC
          950 W. University Dr.
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-9400
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2729
          E-mail: twienner@wiennergould.com


          David Guin, Esq.
          Tammy Stokes, Esq.
          GUIN STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 226-2282
          Facsimile: (205) 226-2357
          E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com
                  tstokes@gseattorneys.com

          Charles R. Watkins, Esq.
          GUIN STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          321 S. Plymouth Ct., Suite 1250
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 878-8391
          E-mail: charlesw@dglawfirm.com

          Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
          MCCALLUM METHVIN TERRELL, PC
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Ave. South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-3006
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, PC
          1100 Park Place Tower
          2001 Park Place North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com


          Jeffrey L. Bowling, Esq.
          BEDFORD, ROGERS & BOWLING, PC
          303 North Jackson St.
          P.O. Box 669
          Russellville, AL 35653-0669
          Telephone: (256) 332-2880
          E-mail: jeffbrbpc@bellsouth.net


          Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
          MEITES MULDER
          321 South Plymouth Court, Suite 1250
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 263-0272
          Facsimile: (312) 263-2942
          E-mail: mmmulder@meitesmulder.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Sunporch" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Sunporch Structures,
Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14517,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00205-KBF to the proceeding.

The case is a federal antitrust class action brought on behalf of
all persons and entities, who purchased primary aluminum on the
spot market at prices linked to or explicitly incorporating London
Metal Exchange prices, including the Platts MW US Transaction
Premium price and the Platts MW US net-cash premium.

New York-based Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          100 West Long Lake Road, Suite 111
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  msilverman@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jjagher@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com
                  cadio@saveri.com

               - and -

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Talan Products" Antitrust Suit Transferred to SDNY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Talan Products, Inc. v.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-13925, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00176-KBF to the proceeding.

Talan Products, Inc. accuses the Defendants of monopolizing and
attempting to monopolize domestic aluminum supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alyson Oliver, Esq.
          Lisa Gray, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW GROUP, PC
          950 W. University, Suite 200
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 327-6556
          E-mail: aoliver@oliverlg.com
                  lgray@oliverlg.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Mayle, Esq.
          MAYLE, RAY & MAYLE LLC
          210 South Front Street
          Fremont, OH 43420
          Telephone: (419) 334-8377
          E-mail: amayle@malyeraymayle.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Gary Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (855) 926-2889
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Yvonne Flaherty, Esq.
          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Heidi Silton, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com
                  wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Welk-Ko" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Welk-Ko Fabricators, Inc., et al. v. Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-13878, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-00159-KBF to the proceeding.  The case asserts
antitrust claims.

The Plaintiffs allege that from February 1, 2010, forward, the
Defendants exercised their market power, and combined, conspired,
and agreed to artificially limit and restrain the availability of
aluminum supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brendan H. Frey, Esq.
          David F. Hansma, Esq.
          David M. Honigman, Esq.
          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN & WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          Facsimile: (248) 457-9201
          E-mail: bfrey@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  dhonigman@manteselaw.com
                  gmantese@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          KILE GOEKJIAN REED & MCMANUS PLLC
          1200 New Hampshire Ave, Suite 570
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 263-0806
          Facsimile: (202) 659-8822
          E-mail: joel@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          620 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jkelly@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Yifei Li, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington D.C., DC 20002
          Telephone: (571) 319-6195
          E-mail: evelyn.li@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Dewitt M. ("Sparky") Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie L. Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850)837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  valerie@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GORDON BALL
          7001 Old Kent Drive
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Telephone: (865)525-7028
          E-mail: gball@gordonball.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
          P.O. Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Lawrence J. Friscia, Esq.
          FRISCIA & ASSOCIATES LLC
          45 Academy Street, Suite 401
          Newark, NJ 07102
          E-mail: lawrence.friscia@friscialaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


HALLIBURTON CO: High Court Ruling May Slash Securities Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Katz, writing for CFO.com, reports that just months after
the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments in Halliburton Co. v.
Erica P. John Fund on March 5, CFOs could suddenly find that their
companies have much smaller legal risks, fees and insurance costs,
attorneys say.

The reason? If the nation's highest court rules in favor of
Halliburton, it could deal a coup de grace to a prime theory that
plaintiffs' lawyers rely on to amass federal securities class-
action suits against companies whose representatives have
allegedly made materially false, market-moving statements to
shareholders.

In the case, Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, the Supreme
Court will decide whether it should overrule or make big changes
in the longstanding "fraud-on-the-market presumption."

A relative of the "efficient markets hypothesis," the theory
enables plaintiffs to form a class without having to prove that
each investor suffered financial loss resulting from a company's
misleading statements.  Instead, the Supreme Court previously
ruled, courts can presume that the share price set by the stock
market as a whole takes into account the effects of such
information.

The stakes for corporations of the court's decision on its own 25-
year-old ruling in Basic Inc. v. Levinson are high.  "If
Halliburton prevails, then the entire ecology of the market for
class-action securities-fraud litigation is likely to undergo a
dramatic change," Joseph Grundfest, director of The Stanford Law
School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, is quoted as saying
in the just-released annual review of securities class-action
filings (done in cooperation with Cornerstone Research).

If the court goes along with what Halliburton is requesting, "it
will really be fairly devastating for the plaintiffs' bar in
securities class actions," says C. William Phillips, an attorney
with Covington & Burling who represents companies in such cases.

In the case the Supreme Court will hear, the lead plaintiff, the
Erica P. John Fund, which supports the Catholic Archdiocese of
Milwaukee, contends that Halliburton, the oil-services company,
misrepresented itself in three ways: its potential liability in
asbestos litigation; its accounting for revenue on fixed-price
construction contracts; and its potential benefits from a merger.
The fund maintains that shareholders lost money when Halliburton's
stock price dropped following the release of negative news
concerning the misrepresentations.

Noting that securities class actions "have been the subject of
tightening and limiting by the courts and Congress" since the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act became law in 1995,
Phillips said that if the Supreme Court rules with Halliburton,
"you won't have anywhere near as many" securities class actions
based on misrepresentation as occur now. (In 2013, about one in 29
companies in the S&P 500 was a defendant in a class-action filed
during the year, according to the Cornerstone report.)

The effects of a pro-Halliburton ruling "will be reflected not
only in fewer payments to settle litigation, to lawyers to
litigate, but also in the insurance premiums needed to insure
against the risk," he says.

                           *     *     *

Emily V. Myers, Esq. -- emyers@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker &
Hostetler LLP reports that NERA Economic Consulting released its
annual report, "Recent Trends in Securities Class Action
Litigation: 2013 Full-Year Review."  The report showed that in
2013, there were increases in both the number of federal
securities class actions filed and the average settlement amount.
However, these trends might not be on the rise for long.  Despite
the blow dealt to class action defendants last year in Amgen, Inc.
v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, the Supreme
Court's second granting of certiorari in Halliburton Erica P. John
Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. might just move next year's numbers
in defendants' favor.

To recover damages in a private securities-fraud action under
Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5, a plaintiff must prove: 1) a material misrepresentation or
omission by the defendant; 2) scienter; 3) a connection between
the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security; 4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; 5)
economic loss; and 6) causation.  Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v.
Halliburton Co., 131 S.Ct. 2179 (2011).  "Reliance" is satisfied
by "fraud-on-the-market," a theory endorsed by the Supreme Court
in Basic v. Levinson.  The fraud-on-the-market theory says that if
a market is shown to be efficient, courts may presume that
investors who traded securities in that market relied on public,
material misrepresentations regarding those securities.  This
theory "facilitates class certification by recognizing a
rebuttable presumption of classwide reliance on public, material
misrepresentations when shares are traded in an efficient market."
Amgen at 1193.

The Amgen Court held that a 10b-5 class action plaintiff is not
required to prove materiality as a prerequisite to certification.
First, materiality is judged according to an objective standard,
so it can be proved through evidence common to the class.  Thus,
it is a common question for Rule 23(b)(3) purposes.  Second, a
failure of proof on the common question of materiality would not
result in individual questions predominating: because materiality
is an essential element of a securities fraud claim a failure of
proof would simply end the case.  SCOTUSblog called this decision
"unsurprising."   NERA noted an increase in monthly filings post-
Amgen, but was unable to judge how much, if any, the uptick in
filing activity was attributable to Amgen.

However, NERA noted (and the Wall Street Journal recently
reported, that the Court's second granting of certiorari in
Halliburton has the potential to reverse the upward trend in class
action filings.  In Halliburton II, the Court will decide: 1)
whether the Court should overrule or substantially modify the
holding of Basic Inc. v. Levinson, to the extent that it
recognizes a presumption of classwide reliance derived from the
fraud-on-the-market theory; and 2) whether, in a case where the
plaintiff invokes the presumption of reliance to seek class
certification, the defendant may rebut the presumption and prevent
class certification by introducing evidence that the alleged
misrepresentations did not distort the market price of its stock.
NERA reported a slight downward trend in monthly 10b-5 class
action filings since the Halliburton II petition was filed in
September 2013, although it is unclear whether this decrease in
filings is attributable to Halliburton II.  But, if the Court
decides in Halliburton's favor, then the hurdle for class
certification could dramatically increase.  Class action
plaintiffs could be forced to prove actual reliance, or at the
very least that the alleged misrepresentations actually distorted
the market price.  The Supreme Court is expected to decide this
case in June 2014.


HARRIS RANCH: "Gonzalez" FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Gonzalez v. Harris Ranch Beef
Company, et al., Case No. 13CECG03747, was removed from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Fresno, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Fresno).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
00038-LJO-SAB to the proceeding.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Paul Katofsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEX P. KATOFSKY
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 340-3600
          Facsimile: (818) 484-2929
          E-mail: alex@apkatlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Franklin Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES AND GAINES, APLC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Meagan Daurese Christiansen, Esq.
          Alden John Parker, Esq.
          WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK LAW CORPORATION
          400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 558-6038
          Facsimile: (916) 446-1611
          E-mail: mchristiansen@weintraub.com
                  aparker@weintraub.com


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 5th Cir. Remands MDL Over Security Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
remanded the suit In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046 to the
District Court for further proceedings, 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 June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046. On August 24, 2009, the court
appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial
institutions.

On September 23, 2009, the financial institution plaintiffs filed
a Master Complaint in the MDL proceedings, which the company moved
to dismiss on October 23, 2009. On December 1, 2011, the Court
entered an order granting in part our motion to dismiss the
financial institution plaintiffs' master complaint against the
company, but allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend to re-plead
certain claims. Plaintiffs elected not to file an amended
complaint. The parties then jointly moved for the entry of final
judgment on those claims in the master complaint that the Court
had dismissed. On August 16, 2012, the Court entered final
judgment on the dismissed claims and, on September 17, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that final judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On
September 12, 2012, Plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal with
prejudice of the remaining claims pending before the District
Court. Briefing on Plaintiffs' appeal was complete on February 8,
2013. On September 3, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the
economic loss doctrine under New Jersey law does not preclude the
financial institution plaintiffs' negligence claim at the motion
to dismiss stage, but declined to address in the first instance
the Company's other arguments for affirming the District Court.
The Fifth Circuit remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings.


HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
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.

Hospira and certain of its corporate officers and former corporate
officers are defendants in a lawsuit alleging violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: City of Sterling Heights
General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. Michael
Ball, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy, Jr., and Christopher B.
Begley, second amended complaint filed March 15, 2013 and pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. James Hardy has been dismissed as a defendant in the
lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges, generally, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Hospira's financials and business prospects and failed to disclose
material facts affecting Hospira's financial condition. The
lawsuit alleges a class period from February 4, 2010 (announcement
of Q4, 2009 financial results) through October 17, 2011 (Hospira
announced preliminary financial results for Q3, 2011 on October
18, 2011). The lawsuit seeks class action status and damages
including interest, attorneys' fees and costs.


KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Settles Price Fixing Lawsuit for $35 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kronos Worldwide, Inc., entered into an agreement to settle for
$35 million a suit over alleged price fixing of titanium dioxide,
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 March 2010, the company was served with two complaints which
were subsequently consolidated as Haley Paint et al. v. E.I. Du
Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court,
for the District of Maryland, Case No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB).  A
third plaintiff intervened into the case in July 2011.  The
defendants included the company, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Company, Huntsman International LLC, Millennium Inorganic
Chemicals, Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited
(d/b/a Cristal).

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all persons
and entities that purchased titanium dioxide in the United States
directly from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1,
2002.  The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which
titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in
other anticompetitive conduct.  In May 2010, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs opposed.  In March 2011, the
court denied the motion to dismiss.  In February 2012, the
plaintiffs submitted their motion for class certification, which
defendants opposed.  In August 2012, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and trial was set for
September 2013.  On September 10, 2013, and following the
agreement by the three other defendants in the third quarter of
2013 to enter into settlement agreements with the class
plaintiffs, the company also entered into a settlement agreement
with the class plaintiffs, without admitting any fault or
wrongdoing, and agreed to pay an aggregate of $35 million (payable
in two installments at specified times, expected to occur by mid-
2014).

Following the service of the Class Action Fairness Notice and the
Order of Final Approval from the court, the company, and the other
defendants, will be dismissed with prejudice from this matter.
Other operating expense in the third quarter of 2013 includes a
$35 million charge related to this settlement.


KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Suit by "Los Gatos" Proceeds in Trial Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Los Gatos Ace Hardware,
et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., which names
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. is now proceeding in the trial court,
according to Kronos' Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In March 2013, the company was served with the complaint, Los
Gatos Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Los Gatos Ace Hardware, et al v. E.I.
Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District
Court, for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:13-cv-
01180-SI).  The defendants include the company, E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC and Millennium
Inorganic Chemicals, Inc.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class
consisting of indirect purchasers of titanium dioxide in the
states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin that indirectly purchased
titanium dioxide from one or more of the defendants on or after
March 1, 2002.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the
price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and
engaged in other anticompetitive conduct.  This matter had been
stayed by the court pending a resolution in the Haley Paint
Matter.  The case is now proceeding in the trial court.  The
company believes the action is without merit, will deny all
allegations of wrongdoing and liability and intend to defend
against the action vigorously.


LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES: Removed "Huntington" Suit to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Huntington Park, City of, et al. v.
Landscape Structures, et al., Case No. 13-2013-00074198-CU-NP-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-00073-CAB-BLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Frederick Quinn, Esq.
          THORSNES BARTOLOTTA AND MCGUIRE
          2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92103-6625
          Telephone: (619) 236-9363
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
          E-mail: quinn@tbmlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Manuel Saldana, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
          E-mail: msaldana@gordonrees.com


LOCKWOOD INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Taylor" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Taylor, 954 East 26th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211, On Behalf
of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated v. Lockwood
Investment Group, LLC d/b/a Hangover Easy, Hangover Easy, John J.
Pedro, Nickolas M. Pedro, Anthony J. Pedro and Michael D. Keyes,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00029-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, January 10, 2014) is
brought as a collective action as a result of the Defendants'
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by virtue of
their practice, policy and procedure of failing to pay non-exempt
employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek.

The Defendants maintained their principle place of business in
Franklin County, Ohio.  They operate a full service restaurant
known as Hangover Easy in Columbus, Ohio.  The Individual
Defendants are directly involved in the day to day operations of
Hangover Easy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          815 Superior Ave. E, Suite 1325
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 498-9100
          E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com


M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over Merger Plan With Mindspeed
--------------------------------------------------------------
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. faces shareholder
lawsuits over its plan to Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., according
to M/A-COM's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept.
27, 2013.

Between November 7, 2013 and November 20, 2013, eleven purported
class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of Mindspeed
Technologies, Inc. stockholders against various defendants
including Mindspeed, its directors, the company, our wholly-owned
subsidiary, Micro Merger Sub, Inc., and unnamed "John Doe"
defendants in connection with the proposed Merger. Those cases are
captioned Marchese v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 30-2013-00686181-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty.,
Nov. 7, 2013); Iacobellis V. Decker, et al., Case No. 30-2013-
00686796-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 7 2013);
Pogal v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9076-VCN
(Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 12, 2013); Hoffman v. Mindspeed Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00687029-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super.
Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 12, 2013); Swain v. Mindspeed
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00687498-CU-SL-CXC
(Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 12, 2013); Miller v.
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00687951-
CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 13, 2013); Durand
v. Decker, et al., Case No. 9080 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 14, 2013);
Tassa v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9096 (Del.
Ch. Ct. Nov. 15, 2013); Feuerstein v. Mindspeed Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 9101 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 18, 2013); Hoffman
v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9105 (Del. Ch.
Ct. Nov. 19, 2013); and Vinciguerra v. Mindspeed Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 9107 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 20, 2013). The
complaints allege, generally, that the Mindspeed director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Mindspeed
stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such
breaches, by seeking to sell Mindspeed through an allegedly
defective process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms. The
lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief that would
enjoin the consummation of the proposed merger, rescission of the
proposed merger (to the extent the proposed merger has already
been consummated), damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.


MCAFEE INC: Charges More for Auto-Renewal Program, Customer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Williamson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00158-HRL (N.D. Cal.,
January 10, 2014) alleges that McAfee, Inc. has systematically
charged customers enrolled in its software "auto-renewal" program
higher prices than it charges other customers for identical
products, in violation of its contractual obligations and contrary
to its express representations concerning its Auto-Renewal
program.

McAfee, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and is headquartered in
Santa Clara, California.  McAfee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Intel Corporation.  McAfee is one of the largest computer security
software companies in the United States and the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
                  rheller@lchb.com
                  nsugnet@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          HATTIS LAW
          1134 Crane Street, Suite 216
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 980-1990
          E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com


NOVARTIS AG: Sued for Selling Excedrin Drug at Higher Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Winkelmann and Michelle Cruz, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals v. Novartis AG, Novartis
Corporation, and Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00160-NJV (N.D. Cal., January 10, 2014) is an action for equitable
and injunctive relief arising out of Novartis' sale of Excedrin
Migraine at a higher price than the pharmacologically identical
product Excedrin Extra Strength.

Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength are over-the-counter
combination pain relievers.

Novartis AG, the parent company of the Novartis group of entities,
is a multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Basel,
Switzerland.  Novartis Corporation is a New York corporation
headquartered in East Hanover, New Jersey.  Novartis Corporation
is the U.S. arm of Novartis AG and oversees research and
development, manufacturing, sales, and marketing of pharmaceutical
products, including Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength.
Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.  Novartis Consumer
Health, Inc. engages in research and development, manufacturing,
sales, and marketing of over-the-counter pharmaceutical products,
including Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  amz@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
          BAKER SANDERS LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-4799
          Facsimile: (516) 741-3777
          E-mail: TMuhlstock@BakerSanders.com


OKLAHOMA: License Revocation Cases Stack Up at Public Safety Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ziva Branstetter, writing for Tulsa World, reports that thousands
of driver's license revocation cases have stacked up at the
Department of Public Safety as the agency tries to avoid class-
action lawsuits and possibly millions of dollars in refunds over
faulty DUI affidavits.

Attorney John Hunsucker, among attorneys pursuing class-action
cases against the Department of Public Safety, said the agency
stopped setting and holding license-revocation hearings months ago
for drivers with pending DUI cases.  The hearings, called "implied
consent hearings," are administrative cases separate from any
criminal charges a driver may face after being arrested in a DUI
case.  Drivers can be acquitted on criminal charges and still lose
their licenses.

"We've not done any of them in months, and neither have any of the
other attorneys.  There's thousands of cases," Mr. Hunsucker said.

Records show that on average, more than 700 people per month
request hearings from DPS in such cases.  Until a resolution
occurs, drivers arrested on suspicion of alcohol-related offenses
"are just sitting there in limbo," Mr. Hunsucker said.

"Some of those people have CDLs (commercial driver's licenses) and
have been fired from their jobs.  Some of them may want to take a
job and drive a company car," he said.

In October, the Court of Civil Appeals ruled that the affidavit
the Department of Public Safety used to take jurisdiction in DUI
revocation cases was "fatally flawed" and did not comply with
state law.  The affidavit failed to contain a required sworn
report that the officer "had reasonable grounds to believe the
arrested person had been operating . . . a motor vehicle while
under the influence of alcohol," the ruling states.

Without such a statement, revocation cases lack the required
evidence to proceed, it states.


OAKLAND RAIDERS: Cheerleaders Sue Over Wage Violations
------------------------------------------------------
The partners of Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP on January 22, 2014,
filed a lawsuit against the management of the Oakland Raiders on
behalf of current and former members of the Raiderettes, the NFL
club's popular cheerleaders. A toll free hotline has been set up
for calls about this lawsuit. If you are a current or former
Raiderette or if you have any information about NFL cheerleader
pay practices, please call toll free, 1-844-318-7700 or click
here.

The complaint [Lacy T. v. The Oakland Raiders], filed in Alameda
County Superior Court, alleges that the club withholds all pay
from the Raiderettes until after the end of the season, does not
pay for all hours worked, and forces the cheerleaders to pay many
of their own business expenses. Under their take-it-or-leave-it
contract, Raiders' cheerleaders are to be paid only $1250 for
working an entire season, which amounts to less than $5.00 per
hour for the time that they spend rehearsing, performing and
appearing at events where they are not paid. The club also
withholds the Raiderettes' wages until after the season ends. The
lawsuit claims that team management did not pay Raiderette Lacy
for all of the hours which she worked, while at the same time
requiring her to pay out of pocket expenses. The lawsuit also
claims that the Raiders illegally impose monetary fines on
Raiderettes for such things as forgetting to bring the correct
pom-poms to practice, wearing the wrong workout clothing to
rehearsals, failing to bring a yoga mat to practice, or not
turning in written biographies on time.

It is believed that other NFL teams don't pay their cheerleaders
for all of the hours that they work, and that there is a
widespread practice in the NFL of refusing to pay cheerleaders for
all of the hours that they have worked, forcing them to work for
months before they get paid, and demanding that they sign
contracts that are filled with illegal provisions.

For further information, please call, toll free, 1-844-318-7700.

                           *     *     *

Attorneys for the Raiderettes class action have filed an Amended
Complaint, adding a second plaintiff as a class representative.
The new plaintiff, Sarah G., has been a Raiderette for four years
and last season was co-captain of her line.  The Amended
Complaint, like the original complaint, alleges that the Oakland
Raiders engaged in wage theft and other unfair employment
practices.  Sarah G. alleges that she was not paid wages in a
timely manner, and was not paid minimum wage.  Sarah G. also
alleges that she fined for trivial infractions of the rules, such
as turning in her biography half-an-hour late.

Sarah G. explained her decision to join the lawsuit:  "Being a
Raiderette was an amazing experience, which I will treasure
forever.  However, after learning that the contract was filled
with illegal provisions, as a matter of principle, I felt that I
had to join the lawsuit to make sure that all of the Raiderettes
are treated in a fair and legal manner, which recognizes our hard
work, dedication and passion for dance."

Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP is an Oakland-based firm
specializing in representing employees.  Anyone who is interested
in further information regarding the lawsuit should visit
http://www.levyvinick.com/or call the toll-free number 1-844-318-
7700.


OREGON SCIENTIFIC: Removed "Ceballos" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit entitled Jennifer Ceballos v.
Oregon Scientific Inc., et al., Case No. BC529558, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
00229-SVW-AS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Donovan, Esq.
          Susan D. Condon, Esq.
          GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP
          2570 W El Camino Real, Suite 510
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 428-3900
          Facsimile: (650) 428-3901
          E-mail: kdonovan@gcalaw.com
                  scondon@gcalaw.com


PALLETS UNLIMITED: Did Not Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Laborer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Ochoa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Pallets Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00223-SJF-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., January 10, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff, who was
employed by Pallets as a laborer, should have been paid overtime
pay at the statutory rate of one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay after he had worked 40 hours in a workweek.

Pallets Unlimited, Inc., is a New York domestic corporation based
in New Hyde Park, New York.  The Company is engaged in the sale,
construction and reconditioning of shipping, containment and
warehouse pallets throughout the Tri-State Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
          Ilan Weiser, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com
                  mm@shulmankessler.com
                  iweiser@shulmankessler.com


PIONEER NATURAL: Beverly, Shelton Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the Beverly Lawsuit and the Shelton Lawsuit
filed against Pioneer Natural Resources Company over a merger
voluntarily dismissed all claims in the lawsuit in accordance with
a memorandum of understanding, 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 15, 2013, David Flecker, a purported unitholder of Pioneer
Southwest Energy Partners L.P., filed a class action petition on
behalf of Pioneer Southwest's unitholders and a derivative suit on
behalf of Pioneer Southwest against the Company, 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 the Company 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 Pioneer Southwest's
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
Pioneer Southwest, and breached their duties owed to Pioneer
Southwest; (ii) failed to properly value Pioneer Southwest 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 the
Company, 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 Pioneer Southwest, the
Company, 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 Pioneer Southwest
to its public unitholders and took steps to avoid competitive
bidding; (ii) failed to properly value Pioneer Southwest; 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 the Company, 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 Pioneer Southwest's
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 the
Company, 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 Pioneer Southwest; (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 Pioneer Southwest's 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.
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 NATURAL: Still Faces Delaware Litigation Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Natural Resources Company continues to face a lawsuit
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to a Merger with
Pioneer Southwest, according to Pioneer Natural'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 Natural Resources USA, Inc., PNR
Acquisition Company, LLC, Pioneer Southwest, Pioneer Natural
Resources GP LLC (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
Pioneer Southwest 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 this Report, the plaintiffs in the Wilson Lawsuit have not
joined the memorandum of understanding.


PLY GEM: Discovery in "Callahan" Suit Over V-Wood Windows Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery regarding class certification in John Gulbankian and
Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. is currently closed,
although the hearing regarding class certification has not yet
been scheduled, according to PLY GEM 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.

In John Gulbankian and Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers,
Inc., a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and
manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows. The plaintiffs seek a variety
of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii)
treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees
and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have
not yet been quantified. Discovery regarding class certification
is currently closed, although the hearing regarding class
certification has not yet been scheduled. The Company believes it
has valid defenses to this claim, and it will vigorously defend
this claim.


PLY GEM: "Hartshorn" Suit Over Freedom Windows in Late Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc.
is currently in the late stages of discovery regarding class
certification, according to PLY GEM 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.

In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc., a
purported class action filed in July 2012 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege
damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of
MW's Freedom and Freedom 800 windows. The plaintiffs seek a
variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory
damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified. This action is currently
in the late stages of discovery regarding class certification, and
a hearing regarding class certification has been scheduled for
January 15, 2014. The Company believes it has valid defenses to
this claim, and it will vigorously defend this claim.


PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Suit Over Oasis Deck & Railing in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck
North America, LLC is currently in discovery regarding class
certification, and a hearing regarding class certification has not
yet been scheduled, according to PLY GEM 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.

In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which
was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck")
and sold by MHE. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble
damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation. This action is currently in discovery
regarding class certification, and a hearing regarding class
certification has not yet been scheduled. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified. The Company believes it
has valid defenses to this claim, and it will vigorously defend
this claim. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and
railing, has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain
liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales and
distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and MHE.
The Company's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is,
however, limited by the terms of the indemnity as well as the
strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change
in the future.


PLY GEM: "Memari" Suit Over MW's Vinyl Clad Windows in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al. is
currently in discovery regarding class certification, and a
hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled,
according to PLY GEM 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.

In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported
class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division,
plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of
MW's vinyl clad windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive
damages, and (iii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. This
action is currently in discovery regarding class certification,
and a hearing regarding class certification has not yet been
scheduled. The Company believes it has valid defenses to this
claim and will vigorously defend this claim.


SAFECO INSURANCE: Removed "Raffaelli" Suit to W.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Raffaelli v. Safeco
Insurance Company of America, Case No. 46CV-13-00275-2, was
removed from the Miller County Circuit Court to the U. S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Texarkana).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-04016-SOH to the
proceeding.  The case asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Matt Keil, Esq.
          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON
          P.O. Box 618
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 75504-0618
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
                  jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          George L. McWilliams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          406 Walnut
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-2055
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: glmlawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Esq.
          Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          P. O. Box 2595
          1141 East Main Street, Suite 300
          Batesville, AR 72503
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821
          Facsimile: (870) 793-3815
          E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
                  caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq.
          WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER
          200 South Commerce, Suite 600
          P.O. Box 71
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 375-6453
          E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Folsom, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
          6002 Summerfield Drive, Suite B
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 255-3251
          Facsimile: (903) 255-3266
          E-mail: dfolsom@jw.com

               - and -

          David T. Moran, Esq.
          Christopher A. Thompson, Esq.
          Edwin Buffmire, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 6000
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 953-6051
          Facsimile: (214) 661-6677
          E-mail: dmoran@jw.com
                  cthompson@jw.com
                  ebuffmire@jw.com


SMALL PLANET: Faces Product Liability Class Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel A. Decastro, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Small Planet Foods, Inc., a Washington
corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80033-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 10,
2014) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Seeks Court OK of Accord in "Payne" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Smithfield Foods, Inc. is seeking approval by the United States
District Court Eastern District of Virginia for a settlement it
entered in Payne v. Smithfield Foods, et al., 1:13-cv-00761-LMB-
IDD), according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Oct. 27, 2013.

Smithfield Foods disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended July 28, 2013, that a putative
class action was filed in the United States District Court Eastern
District of Virginia (Payne v. Smithfield Foods, et al., 1:13-cv-
00761-LMB-IDD) against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleged that the Company
officers and directors named in the suit breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the Merger
with with Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, that the
Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted in that breach, and that
all defendants violated Rule 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended. The parties to the litigation have submitted
a settlement agreement to the court for approval.

Should the court approve the settlement agreement, the action
would be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement agreement notes
that the Company made supplemental disclosures in its definitive
proxy statement to its shareholders on the Merger and obligates
Smithfield to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiff's
counsel upon award, if any, by the court. A settlement hearing was
set for January 31, 2014.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Allos Shareholder Suit Now Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Re Allos Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 6714-VCN is now settled and dismissed,
according to Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Dec. 6, 2013, Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2012.

On July 19, 2011, Allos entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger and Reorganization, or AMAG Merger Agreement, with AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or AMAG, and Alamo Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
as amended on August 8, 2011. On October 21, 2011, the AMAG Merger
Agreement was terminated. In July 2011, two lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the proposed merger
between Allos and AMAG, which two cases were later consolidated as
In Re Allos Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 6714-VCN. Following announcement of the
proposed merger between Allos and Spectrum, the consolidated case
became one of the Allos Transaction Class Action Lawsuits and part
of the settlement memorialized in the memorandum of understanding
dated May 7, 2012. On February 11, 2013, as part of the
consolidated settlement of the cases, the AMAG litigation was
settled and dismissed.


STAR SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Action Over Anatabloc False Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reason 24/7 reports that a federal class action claims the makers
and hawker of a "wonder drug" called Anatabloc push it with false
claims that it can treat Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis -- and
bribed the former governor of Virginia to endorse it.

Lead plaintiff Howard T. Baldwin sued Star Scientific, Rock Creek
Pharmaceuticals, and GNC Holdings.  The complaint states: "Star
Scientific bribed the now-indicted former Virginia governor and
his wife to promote Anatabloc from the governor's mansion."

Former Gov. Robert McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, are not
parties to this lawsuit.  Their alleged role in pushing the drug
will be described later in this article.

Star Scientific, of Glen Allen, Va., "claims to be a specialty
pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture,
and marketing of bioequivalent pharmaceutical products in addition
to the development of branded products," Mr. Baldwin says in the
lawsuit.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "AFSCME" Class Suit Over Aggrenox
-------------------------------------------------------------
AFSCME District Council 47 Health & Welfare Fund on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00151-
MSG (E.D. Pa., January 10, 2014) is a class action, alleging
violation of civil antitrust laws on behalf of a Class of indirect
purchasers of the drug Aggrenox since August 14, 2009.

Defendant 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 Limited, is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  The
Company manufactures and distributes generic drugs for sale
throughout the United States at the direction, under the control,
and for the direct benefit of its parent company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Edward Connolly, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY LLP
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
          King Of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          E-mail: sconnolly@cwg-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph E. Wolfson, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE
          620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 200
          King Of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 205-6019
          Facsimile: (610) 988-0808
          E-mail: jwo@stevenslee.com

               - and -

          Edward D. Rogers, Esq.
          Paul J. Koob, Esq.
          BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 864-8144
          Facsimile: (215) 864-9782
          E-mail: rogers@ballardspahr.com
                  koobp@ballardspahr.com


ULTA SALON: Lawsuit by Hourly Employees Continues in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. continues to face a labor
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013.

On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and certain unnamed defendants in state
court in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, the
Company removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. On August 8, 2013, the
plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class and the
Company is opposing plaintiff's request. The plaintiff and members
of the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-
exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated
various provisions of the California labor laws and failed to
provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties
as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies
plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation in Deutsch, Katriel Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mediation process began and remains ongoing in the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action of which Verint
Systems Inc. is taking liability after the completion of its
merger with Comverse Technology, Inc., according to Verint's
Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 4, 2013.

On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit
Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint Systems
Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court
(Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and against
Comverse Technology, Inc. in the Tel Aviv Regional District Court
(Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action"). In the
Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a
class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to represent
a class of our employees and former employees who were granted
Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a
result of the suspension on option exercises during our previous
extended filing delay period. In the Deutsch District Action, in
addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is
seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly
damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock
options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial
reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an
amount of damages. On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action
was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was
transferred to the Tel Aviv Regional District Court and
consolidated with the Deutsch District Action. On March 16, 2009
and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions were commenced by
Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's former subsidiary,
Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in the Tel Aviv
Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the "Katriel Labor
Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv Regional District Court
(Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In the
Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were allegedly
damaged as a result of the suspension on option exercises during
CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In the Katriel
District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual
damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs
who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise CTI
stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its
financial reporting. The class certification motions do not
specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Labor Court
ordered the transfer of the case to the District Court in Tel Aviv
- Jaffa, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting
such transfer.

On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested
motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012,
the court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the
consolidated class certification motion and an amended
consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.

Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set
aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future
judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this
motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion
was heard. On August 16, 2012, in light of the announcement of the
signing of the CTI Merger Agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to appeal this District Court ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court. The company filed our response to this motion on
September 6, 2012.

Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
inthe company and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third
parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share
distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a
result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an
independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned
subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets
other than its equity interest in the company.

The company and the other defendants filed our responses to the
complaint on November 11, 2012 and plaintiffs filed their replies
on December 20, 2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on
December 25, 2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to
settle the dispute through mediation.

On February 4, 2013, the company completed the CTI Merger. As a
result of the CTI Merger, the company assumed certain rights and
liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of
the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action.
However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI
and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, the
company as successor to CTI, is entitled to indemnification from
Comverse for any losses the company suffers in our capacity as
successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action.

On February 28, 2013, the mediation process began and, as of the
date of the Company's report, remains ongoing.


WORLD WIDE BUSINESS: Class Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rickey Cornell, II, 718 Grandview Ave., Zanesville, Ohio 43701, et
al., Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
members of the general public v. World Wide Business Services
Corporation, 5690 Clyde Moore Drive, Groveport, Ohio 43125, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00027-ALM-MRA (S.D. Ohio, January 10, 2014)
is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.  The case seeks to collect unpaid
overtime and other unpaid compensation under the FLSA.

World Wide Business Services Corporation is an "employer" as that
term is defined by the FLSA.  WWBSC is an Ohio for-profit
corporation with its principal place of business in the Southern
District of Ohio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Beggs, Esq.
          BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
          1675 Old Henderson Road
          Columbus, OH 43220
          E-mail: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com
          Telephone: (614) 678-5640
          Facsimile: (614) 448-9408

               - and -

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


                             *********

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  * * *