CAR_Public/140217.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 33

                             Headlines


A.M. JENSEN: Recalls Wilton Old Cheddar Cheese Over Listeria
A.M. JENSEN: Updates Recall to Add Distribution Information
AARON'S INC: Rental Customers Lose Class Action Certification Bid
ADVANCED MICRO: Sued by Class of Shareholders in California
ALLIED PIONEER: Recalls Xufuji Crispy Candy Over Allergens

BEBE LOVE: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Fall and Entrapment Risk
BUENO FOODS: Voluntarily Recalls Frozen Green Chile Products
CATHAY PACIFIC: Agrees to Settle Price-Fixing Suit for $65MM
CELGENE CORP: Faces Suit Over Thalomid Cancer Drug Risks
CHICO'S FAS: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act

COMVERSE INC.: Mediation Ongoing for Four Israeli Litigations
CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls 54,673 Lbs. of Chicken Noodle Soup Products
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Class Action Suit in S.D. California
DGC RESTAURANT: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages
DIAGEO: Sup. Ct. Okays $89MM Thalidomide Class Action Settlement

EBIX INC: Securities Class Action Settlement Get Preliminary OK
GENTIUM SPA: Faces Merger-Related Shareholder Suit in New York
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Solar Panels
HOUSE OF SMOKE: Recalls 144,000 Lbs. of Meat and Poultry Products
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Court Approved Fuller Class Action Settlement

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: To Seek Dismissal of Wage & Hour Claims
JTH HOLDING: Facing Class Suit Over Refund Anticipation Loan
KITCHEN BY BRAD: Recalls Smoliak Bacon Spread Over Botulism Scare
KUO HUA: Recalls Coconut Drink Due to Undeclared Milk
L & L ENERGY: Wash. Securities Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid

L & L ENERGY: Facing Securities Class Action in New York
LENOX ROOM: T-Bar Restaurants' Worker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
LION FORCE: Recalls Boys' Puffer Coats Due to Strangulation Hazard
MEAT PIES: Recalls Fresh and Frozen Meat Pie and Poutine Products
MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, CS Rep Claims

MERCK & CO: To Settle NuvaRing Suits for $100 Million
MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware Actions
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Permits Fox to File Amicus Brief
NEIMAN MARCUS: Trial Set for April 1 on Civil Penalty Claims
NEW SOUTH WALES: Community Group Mulls Class Action

NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls X-TRAIL Model Due to Fuel Filler Pipe Defect
PEPE GANGA: Recalls Christmas Lights Due to Fire and Shock Hazard
PFP ENTERPRISES: Recalls 15,865 Lbs. of Beef Products
PHILLIP J. CROYLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
PILOT RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

PORTERVILLE HOTEL: Fire Raises Asbestos Concerns
RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8-Mil. Lbs. of Processed Diseased Animals
RUNWAY FASHIONS: Recalls Girls' Hooded Jackets
SANDERSON FARMS: Appeal in Illegal Aliens Suit Pending
SOLARCITY CORP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action

SPHERION STAFFING: Insurance Underwriter Sues Over Unpaid OT Wage
SWISHER HYGIENE: Settles Class Actions for $5.5 Million
TARGET CORP: Faces "Farol" Suit in North Dakota Over Data Breach
TEREX: Recalls AL4 Light Tower & RL4 Light Tower Equipment
TAISHAN GYPSUM: 5th Cir. Upholds $2.7MM Judgment in Drywall Case

TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 22,849 Lbs. of Broccoli Salad Kit Products
UNITED STATES: NSA Faces Class Action Over Surveillance Program
UNITED STATES: Rand Paul Set to File Class Action v. NSA
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: "Golan" Class Suit Removed to Missouri
WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls 2,446 Lbs. of Chicken Salad Products

WESTERN HEALTH: Class Action Certification Proceedings Ongoing
WYOMING AUTHENTIC: Recalls 365 Pounds of Beef Jerky Products
YAO JI: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Undeclared Milk
ZOLTEK COMPANIES: Named as Defendant in 13 Suits Over Merger Deal


                             *********


A.M. JENSEN: Recalls Wilton Old Cheddar Cheese Over Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           A.M. Jensen Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8598

A.M. Jensen Ltd is recalling Wilton Cheese Factory brand Old
Cheddar Cheese from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product.

The following product has been sold from Wilton Cheese Factory,
287 Simmons Rd, (Wilton), RR#2 Odessa, Ontario.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

Affected products: Wilton Cheese Factory Old Cheddar Cheese
(White) which was packed on 14.01.27 thru 14.02.06


A.M. JENSEN: Updates Recall to Add Distribution Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 7, 2014
Starting date:            February 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           A.M. Jensen Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued earlier has been updated to include
additional distribution information.  This additional information
was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

A.M. Jensen Ltd. is recalling Wilton Cheese Factory brand Old
Cheddar Cheese from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described below.

This product has been sold at multiple locations in Ontario.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

Affected products: Wilton Cheese Factory Old Cheddar Cheese
(White) with packing date of 14.01.27 until 14.02.06


AARON'S INC: Rental Customers Lose Class Action Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Thompson, writing for Erie Times-News, reports that U.S.
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on Feb. 7 issued a decision
in which she recommended that the long-pending lawsuit against
Aaron's Inc. and a Wyoming Aaron's franchisee not be certified as
a class-action lawsuit.

In a companion ruling, she recommended the dismissal of some of
the counts filed by the plaintiffs, Crystal and Brian Byrd, of
Wyoming, including claims against dozens of Aaron's Inc.
franchisees.

Judge Baxter recommended leaving intact only claims that the
defendants conspired to violate the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants conspired to use tracking
spyware developed by a North East company, DesignerWare Inc., to
secretly snap webcam photos and capture the screen shots and
keystrokes of Brian Byrd in the mistaken belief that the couple
had not finished paying for the computer.

The plaintiffs and their team of lawyers want to pursue claims not
only on behalf of the Byrds, but also as a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of more than 800 Aaron's rental customers they say were
similarly spied on between June 2009 and January 2012.

In her ruling, however, Judge Baxter found that the plaintiffs
failed to clearly identify a class on behalf of which to pursue a
class-action complaint. Simply including in the class all
households on whose equipment the secret tracking software was
installed was not sufficient, she said.

Laptops are portable and often shared, she said, making it
difficult to determine exactly who might have been affected by the
conduct alleged in the lawsuit.

"Plaintiffs do not provide an administratively feasible way to
determine whose information was surreptitiously gathered,"
Judge Baxter said in the ruling.

Broader definitions of the class fail as well because "not every
computer upon which (the software) was activated will state a
claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act," she said.

Judge Baxter's ruling, called a report and recommendation, is not
final and must be reviewed and adopted by U.S. District Judge
Cathy Bissoon before it becomes official.  Both sides will have
the opportunity to file objections to Judge Baxter's ruling before
Mr. Bissoon makes her decision.

If the ruling stands, the plaintiffs' lawyers could be left to
pursue claims only on behalf of the Byrds.

Frederick S. Longer, of Philadelphia, one of the Byrds' lawyers,
said they intend to appeal.

The long-running case was first filed in Erie in 2011 and
initially included DesignerWare of North East as a defendant.  The
claims against Designer Ware were suspended in March 2012,
however, when the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection, according to court records.

The DesignerWare software, PC Rental Agent, had been marketed to
help rental stores track down stolen computer equipment.  In
September 2012, DesignerWare entered a consent decree with the
Federal Trade Commission in which it agreed to scale back the
technology.

Aaron's settled a complaint with the FTC in October.  The FTC
charged that Aaron's Inc. enabled its franchisees to violate
consumer protection laws by secretly installing the monitoring
software.  Aaron's neither admitted nor denied the allegations in
the FTC complaint, but the company agreed to modify its use of the
monitoring technology.


ADVANCED MICRO: Sued by Class of Shareholders in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Babak Hatamian and Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc., Rory P. Read, Thomas J. Seifert and Lisa T. Su, Case No.
4:14-cv-00226-PJH (N.D. Cal., January 15, 2014) is a securities
class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of AMD between October 27, 2011, and October 18, 2012, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

AMD is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.  AMD is a multinational semiconductor company that
develops computer processors and related technologies for
commercial and consumer markets.  The Company's main products
include microprocessors, motherboard chipsets, embedded
processors, and graphics processors for servers, workstations and
personal computers, and embedded systems applications.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: gholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com


ALLIED PIONEER: Recalls Xufuji Crispy Candy Over Allergens
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Sesame
                          Seeds, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Allied Pioneer Enterprises Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8590

Affected products: Xufuji "Crispy Candy" with UPC 6 914782 106147


BEBE LOVE: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Fall and Entrapment Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bebe Love USA, of Pico Rivera, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,600 BebeLove Baby Walkers.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The walkers failed to meet federal safety standards.
Specifically, style number 358 can fit through a standard doorway
and is not designed to stop at the edge of a step as required by
the federal safety standard.  In addition, style number 368
contains leg openings that allow the child to slip down until the
child's head can become entrapped at the neck.  Babies using these
walkers can be seriously injured or killed.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recalled includes all BebeLove walkers that were sold for
babies age 6 months or older.  The walkers contain a plastic-
covered foam padded seat with a plastic base and toy tray.  Model
358 walkers have a green, pink or orange musical tray with a white
toy bar and solid colored seats.  Model 368 walkers have green,
pink or white musical tray with a yellow toy bar and printed
patterned seats.  Both models have white stoppers on the bottom of
the base of the walker and model numbers printed on a label on the
rear bottom inside of the base.  "BEBELOVE" is printed on a label
on the seat back and on the base of the walkers.

The walkers were sold in these color combinations:

  Product Name            Model Number       Color
  BebeLove Baby Walker      358         (white toy bar)
                                        Pink Base with White Tray
                                        Blue Base with White Tray
                                       Green Base with White Tray
  BebeLove Baby Walker      368         (yellow toy bar)
                                       Blue Base with Yellow Tray
                                        Pink Base With White Tray
                                       Purple Base with Pink Tray

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/9yUeLm

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and China and
sold at small retail stores in Arizona, California and Utah and
online at Amazon.com and Overstock.com from November 2011 through
July 2013 for about $25.

Consumers should stop using the recalled baby walkers immediately
and contact BebeLove for a free repair kit.


BUENO FOODS: Voluntarily Recalls Frozen Green Chile Products
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Bueno Foods, a family-owned food
company in Albuquerque, has announced a voluntarily recall of its
frozen non-ready-to-eat green chile products.

Bueno Foods say the products have the potential to contain low
levels of the common bacteria Listeria monocytogenes in its
uncooked state.

Company officials say tests performed on samples of the product
cooked per the cooking instructions on the product's label showed
no Listeria present.

Bueno Foods is calling it a voluntary recall since the green chile
products are unlikely to pose a health risk and there are no
immediate reports of any illnesses.

Company officials say they expect to have their green chile
products back in stores in two weeks.

Bueno Foods has been located in Albuquerque since 1951.


CATHAY PACIFIC: Agrees to Settle Price-Fixing Suit for $65MM
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific
Airways Ltd. has agreed to a $65 million settlement in a long-
running cargo price-fixing case that involves more than a dozen
airlines.

A spokeswoman for Cathay Pacific said on Feb. 12 that the airline
did not acknowledge wrongdoing or liability in the settlement.
The settlement requires approval of a federal district court in
New York.

Shippers say in a class-action lawsuit that the several airlines
fixed prices for international air cargo shipments, and they are
seeking compensation for inflated charges.

One of the shippers' law firms, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, said
that their side has reached settlements with 20 groups of
defendants totaling $758 million, of which $485.5 million has won
court approval.


CELGENE CORP: Faces Suit Over Thalomid Cancer Drug Risks
--------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Celgene was accused of promoting its
cancer drug Thalomid and related compound Revlimid for uses not
approved by U.S. regulators in a newly unsealed lawsuit filed by a
former saleswoman.

Thalomid, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved
to treat multiple myeloma, is a new generation of thalidomide, a
morning-sickness drug linked to birth defects in the 1960s and
revived decades later to fight cancer, according to a complaint.

Celgene marketed the "highly toxic" Thalomid for a wide range of
cancers while downplaying its risks for blood clots, according to
the complaint.

"Celgene's initial marketing efforts for Thalomid were tantamount
to ongoing human experimentation," ex-saleswoman Beverly Brown
said in the complaint unsealed on Feb. 5 in federal court in Los
Angeles.  "Because Celgene marketed the drug off-label, patients
and their medical advisors were denied the appropriate warnings
provided in a package insert when a product is used on-label."

Ms. Brown said she worked as a Los Angeles-based pharmaceutical
saleswoman from 2001 to 2011.  She previously filed her lawsuit
under seal citing the False Claims Act, which allows private
citizens to sue on behalf of the government and share in the
recovery.

The U.S. Justice Department chose not to intervene in the case,
Reuben Guttman, Ms. Brown's attorney, said in a phone interview.

Brian Gill, a spokesman for Celgene, didn't immediately return a
call seeking comment on the lawsuit.


CHICO'S FAS: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chico's FAS, Inc. d/b/a Chico's, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00059-LPL (W.D. Pa., January 15, 2014) alleges violations of The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


COMVERSE INC.: Mediation Ongoing for Four Israeli Litigations
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q filed on December 13, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2013, Comverse, Inc., disclosed that a mediation
process is currently ongoing for the dispute in four potential
class action litigations in the State of Israel claiming damages
incurred as a result of negligence in reporting and filing its
financial statements.

CTI and certain of its former subsidiaries, including Comverse
Ltd. (a subsidiary of the Company), were named as defendants in
four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract due to previously-
settled allegations regarding illegal backdating of CTI options
that allegedly prevented certain current or former employees from
exercising certain stock options. The Company intends to
vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The
Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees. By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.

On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs have
filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The defendants
responded to this amended complaint on November 11, 2012, and the
plaintiffs filed a further reply 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. The mediation process is currently ongoing.

Separately, on July 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an
order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to
satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded in this
case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution. The
Company does not believe that the motion has merit. On July 25,
2012, the court indicated that it will not rule on the motion
until after it rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs. On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to appeal the court's order to the Israeli Supreme Court and
on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to plaintiff's motion. The
parties are awaiting a decision.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel
litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009,
against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number
4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and
both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.
These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District
Court cases.  The Company did not accrue for these matters as the
potential loss is currently not probable or estimable.

Additionally, two cases have been filed by individual plaintiffs
similarly seeking to recover damages up to an aggregate of $3.6
million allegedly incurred as a result of the inability to
exercise certain stock options. The cases generally allege the
same causes of actions alleged in the potential class action
discussed. As of October 31, 2013, the Company accrued $0.2
million for one of these cases (the "Accrued Case") but did not
accrue for the other matter as the potential loss is currently not
probable or estimable. In December 2013, the Accrued Case was
settled in accordance with the accrual.

Comverse, Inc. (CNS) is a provider of software and systems
enabling services for converged billing and active customer
management, mobile Internet, and value-added services. The
Company's product portfolios includes value added services,
billing and active customer management, and mobile Internet. The
Company's offerings include Comverse ONE, Comverse VAS, Comverse
mobile Internet and Comverse global services. The Company's ONE
deployment modes include Comverse ONE converged billing and active
customer management, Comverse ONE real-time billing, Comverse ONE
postpaid billing & active customer management, Comverse ONE online
and converged charging, and create ONE of your own solutions. CNS
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc.


CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls 54,673 Lbs. of Chicken Noodle Soup Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, a Milton, Pa. establishment, is recalling
approximately 54,673 pounds of chicken noodle soup products due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product is formulated with wheat and egg, known allergens,
which are not declared on the label.  However, the product was
released with a "Healthy Choice Chicken with Rice" soup label,
which does not declare the allergens.

The products subject to recall bear the label:

   -- 14-oz. microwave bowls of "Healthy Choice Chicken with Rice"
      soup bearing the establishment number "P-770" inside the
      USDA Mark of Inspection and the Best By date of "JUN092015"
      stamped on the bottom of the bowl.

The products were produced Dec. 16, 2013 and shipped to retail
outlets nationwide.  The products were also distributed to the
Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Puerto Rico.

The problem was reported to the firm by consumers who discovered
chicken noodle soup in mislabeled bowls.  FSIS and the company
have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption
of these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction should
contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
ConAgra Foods hotline number at: (800) 289-6014.  Media with
questions about the recall should contact Monique Farmer at:
(402) 240-5781.

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

             http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Class Action Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Lac T. Hoilien, individual, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae); Bank of America, N.A.,
and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right,
title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the
complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on
Plaintiffs' title thereto and, Does, 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00101-L-WVG (S.D. Cal., January 15, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of unlawful conduct and illegal practices involving
a real property located in Hawaii.

The action is brought for declaratory judgment, injunctive and
equitable relief relating to the Defendants' alleged violation of
the California Commercial Code, the Amended Truth in Lending Act,
and other laws.  The Plaintiff, a homeowner, disputes the title
and ownership of the real property in question, in that the
originating mortgage lender, and others alleged to have ownership.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Z. Voss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS
          100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14,
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (650) 576-2545
          Facsimile: (888) 755-1416
          E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net


DGC RESTAURANT: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xing-Fang Huang, Zhi-Fang Han and Guang-He Liu, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DGC
Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Feng Shui Asian Cuisine, Stephen Z.X. Dong,
and Xiaomei Guan, Case No. 1:14-cv-10096-JGD (D. Mass.,
January 15, 2014) is a collective action by employees of DGC, in
which they seek compensation for unpaid wages, minimum wage, and
overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours per week under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

DGC Restaurant Inc. is a Massachusetts domestic, for-profit
corporation based in Chelmsford, Massachusetts.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of DGC.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Myong J. Joun, Esq.
          JOUN LAW OFFICES
          491 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 208
          Arlington, MA 02476
          Telephone: (617) 304-6186
          Facsimile: (866) 551-4983
          E-mail: mjoun@massrights.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Wiesner, Esq.
          STERN, SHAPIRO, WEISSBERG & GARIN, LLP
          90 Canal Street, Suite 500
          Boston, MA 02114-2022
          Telephone: 617) 742-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 742-5858
          E-mail: jwiesner@sswg.com


DIAGEO: Sup. Ct. Okays $89MM Thalidomide Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Farnsworth, writing for ABC News, reports that the Victorian
Supreme Court has formally signed off on a AU$89 million class
action settlement for Thalidomide victims in Australia and
New Zealand.

UK company Diageo has agreed to pay compensation to about 100
Thalidomide victims, providing them with care for the rest of
their lives.

Diageo owns The Distillers Group which marketed the controversial
morning sickness drug in Australia in the late 1950s.

Lawyer Peter Gordon told the court it was a fair and reasonable
settlement.

Justice David Beach was told there had been unanimous support for
the settlement from the claimants.

The initial class action accused Diageo and Grunenthal of
negligence for allowing the drug to be sold without proper testing
and for failing to withdraw the drug from the market when the
risks were revealed.  Legal proceedings against Grunenthal have
been dismissed.  At no time did Grunenthal accept any wrongdoing
on its part.  Victims on hand to witness court approval

There were a number of victims in the court to witness the
formality, including Melbourne woman Lynette Rowe.  She was the
public face of the lawsuit.  She was born with no arms or legs
after her mother took the drug to treat morning sickness and
anxiety during her pregnancy.

It took 50 years for the Rowe family to win recognition of the
role the drug played in Ms. Rowe's disabilities and to win
compensation.  The drug was originally prescribed in the late
1950s as a sedative for pregnant women.  Later it was sold over
the counter without a prescription.  The babies of these women
were born with severe physical deformities.  Some have no limbs,
they have damage to the nervous system, kidney and heart problems
and have a reduced life expectancy.  It is estimated there were
about 10,000 Thalidomide victims around the world.


EBIX INC: Securities Class Action Settlement Get Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc., an international supplier of On-Demand software and
E-commerce services to the insurance industry, on Feb. 6 disclosed
that on February 4, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entered an Order granting preliminary
approval of the agreement among the parties to settle all claims
in the shareholder securities class action styled In re Ebix, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:11-CV-02400-RWS (N.D.
Ga.), which was filed in 2011 on behalf of a class consisting of
those persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between May 6, 2009, and June 30, 2011.  The
agreement calls for a one-time cash payment of $6.5 million to be
funded by the Company and its insurance carrier.  The Court
scheduled a final fairness hearing on the settlement for June 5,
2014.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Company and certain current
officers and directors deny any and all of the allegations made
against them by the class in the litigation and have agreed to
settle this matter solely to eliminate the uncertainties, risk,
and expense of further protracted proceedings.  The agreement to
settle this litigation constitutes neither an admission nor
acceptance of fault by any named Defendant with respect to the
allegations made in the litigation.

Ebix Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Robin Raina,
commented, "We are pleased to settle this litigation matter and
move forward with the development of our business."

As disclosed in its Q3 2013 Form 10-Q, the Company recorded a
contingent liability and recognized a charge against earnings in
the amount of $4.23 million ($2.63 million net of the associated
tax benefit) in connection with this settlement.  That contingent
liability was reported in the current section of the Consolidated
Balance Sheet, and the charge against earnings was reported below
operating income in the Consolidated Statement of Income for the
quarter ended September 30, 2013 and for the nine months ended
September 30, 2013.  This amount represents the portion of the
settlement absorbed by the Company, and Management does not expect
there to be further exposure to the Company with regard to this
litigation beyond the legal expenses to finalize the settlement.


GENTIUM SPA: Faces Merger-Related Shareholder Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xavion Jyles, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Gentium S.P.A., Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited
Company, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Italy S.R.L., Khalid Islam, Gigliola
Bertoglio, Laura Ferro, Bobby W. Sandage, Jr., Marco Brughera,
Elmar Schnee and Joyce Victoria Bigio, Case No. 1:14-cv-00287-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2014) arises out of the Defendants'
dissemination of a materially false and misleading
solicitation/recommendation statement in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Italian Civil Code, and the
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, arising out of the
proposed acquisition of Gentium by Jazz through an unfair process
and at an unfair price.

On December 19, 2013, Gentium and Jazz jointly announced that they
had entered into the Tender Offer Agreement by which Jazz will
acquire the Company.  Under the terms of the Tender Offer
Agreement, Jazz will acquire Gentium for $57 per share.

Gentium, located in Como, Italy, is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and manufacturing of drugs to treat and
prevent a variety of diseases and conditions, including vascular
diseases related to cancer and cancer treatments.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company is an Irish public
limited company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.  Jazz
Pharmaceuticals Italy S.R.L. is an Italian societa a
responsabilita limitata and a wholly owned subsidiary of Jazz
Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          William John Geddish, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Esq.
          David Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ratwood@rgrdlaw.com
                  dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOELAW FIRM, PLLC
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4568
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR LLP
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900
          Facsimile: (214) 239-8901
          E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Solar Panels
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that Home Depot USA
Inc. and defunct BP Solar International Inc. have removed to
California federal court a putative class action accusing them of
selling defective solar panels to the state's residents, according
to court documents filed on Feb. 6.

Home Depot and BP removed the case to the Northern District of
California from state court in Contra Costa County, according to
the notice of removal.  The suit, originally filed on Jan. 9,
accuses the defendants of breach of express and implied warranties
and violations of California's consumer protection and unfair
business practice statutes.

According to the complaint, BP's solar panels suffer from a defect
in a component known as the junction box that causes the panels to
fail, resulting in a loss of electric current and the risk of
electrical shock and fire.  Despite being aware of the alleged
defects, BP continued to sell the panels until it ceased producing
them in 2010, the complaint said.  Home Depot had an agreement
with BP to sell the solar panels in its California stores.

The plaintiffs claim BP, whose solar unit shut down in 2011,
misrepresented in the written warranty for the solar panels that
the panels would be free from defect.  The warranty provided that
BP would repair or replace the panels or refund the purchase price
in the event of a defect, according to the complaint.

However, because BP is no longer in the solar business, it can
neither replace nor repair the panels, the complaint said.  The
three named plaintiffs say they all reported solar panel failures
to BP in 2013, after its solar arm had shut down.  In response,
the company offered to reimburse each of the plaintiffs for a
little more than a third of the total cost of removing and
replacing the defective solar panels, the complaint said.

BP also made false representations in its mass marketing campaign
for the solar panels, including that installing the panels on a
residence would "drastically reduce or eliminate your electric
bills . . . forever," and "increase the value of your home,"
according to the complaint.  Home Depot, which entered into an
agreement with BP Solar in 2004 to sell the panels under the "BP
Solar Home Solutions" banner, advertised the panels using those
same representations, the plaintiffs said.

The representations were false, the plaintiffs claim, because the
junction box defect significantly limited or eliminated the solar
panels' ability to produce electricity while presenting risks of
property damage and personal injury.  As a result, the defective
panels didn't save property owners money or increase the value of
their homes, the complaint said.

The plaintiffs allege BP has been aware of the junction box
defects in its solar panels since at least 2005, but didn't
disclose the defects and associated risks to its customers aside
from a 2012 product advisory that "greatly understates" the risks.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent six subclasses of
California residents who purchased the allegedly defective solar
panels or properties on which the solar panels were installed.  Of
those, two subclasses are comprised of individuals who purchased
the panels from Home Depot.

The suit asks for undisclosed damages, although it estimates class
members' claims average $20,000 to $25,000 apiece.

The plaintiffs are represented by David M. Birka-White --
dbw@birka-white.com -- and Mindy M. Wong
-- mwong@birka-white.com -- of Birka-White Law Offices.

The defendants are represented by Matthew T. Heartney --
Matthew.Heartney@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is Michael Allagas et al. v. BP Solar International Inc.
et al., case number 4:14-cv-00560, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


HOUSE OF SMOKE: Recalls 144,000 Lbs. of Meat and Poultry Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
House of Smoke, Inc., a Fort Lupton, Colo. establishment, is
recalling approximately 144,000 pounds of meat and poultry
products (including bratwurst / brotwurst, fully cooked sausage-
type products, and raw fresh products) because of an undeclared
allergen and misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products
were processed with a releasing agent containing soy lecithin, a
known allergen that is not declared on the label.

These products are subject to recall:

Brotwurst and bratwurst, produced between January 24, 2012 and
January 24, 2014, packaged in 1-pound packages, 12 per case.
These products are included:

   -- Code 9050   Hickory Smoked Bison Brotwurst little smokies;
   -- Code 9051   Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst little smokies;
   -- Code 9100   Hickory Smoked Buffalo Brotwurst;
   -- Code 9101   Hickory Smoked Buffalo Brotwurst Cheddar &
      Jalapeno;
   -- Code 9116   Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst Pork Added;
   -- Code 9117   Hickory Smoked Elk Brotworst Cheddar & Jalapeno;
   -- Code 9118   Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst With Jalapeno;
   -- Code 9139   Hickory Smoked Brotwurst;
   -- Code 9141   Hickory Smoked Coopersmith Brat Wild Boar;
   -- Code 9144   Hickory Smoked Coopersmith Brat Elk w/ Cheddar;
   -- Code 9156   Hickory Smoked Boulder Sausage Brotwurst;
   -- Code 9171   Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Brotwurst; and
   -- Code 9246   Bison Breakfast Brats 4/1

Fully cooked sausage-type products, produced between Jan. 24, 2012
and Jan. 24, 2014.  The products may be packaged in one the
following manners: 1-ounce packages, 40 per case; 6-ounce
packages, 24 per case; or 1-pound packages, 20 per case.  These
products are included:

   -- Code 9052   Hickory Smoked Wild Boar Sausage Little Smokies;
   -- Code 9053   Smoked Rabbit Sausage Rattlesnake & Jalapeno;
   -- Chardonnay Wine "little smokies";
   -- Code 9054   Hickory Smoked Andouille Smokies (Pork, Potato,
      and Onion Product);
   -- Code 9102   Hickory Smoked Bison Frankfurter;
   -- Code 9103   Hickory Smoked Andouille Sausage (Pork, Potato,
      and Onion Product);
   -- Code 9115   Hickory Smoked Duck Sausage w/ Cilantro;
   -- Code 9130   Hickory Smoked Venison Sausage (Pork Added);
   -- Code 9140   Wild Boar Sausage Hickory Smoked;
   -- Code 9142   Smoked Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine
      Blueberries, Merlot Wine;
   -- Code 9145   Hickory Smoked German Style Sausage;
   -- Code 9184   Hickory Smoked Chorizo;
   -- Code 9345   Hickory Smoked Norwegian Sausage;
   -- Hickory Smoked Elk Salami Beef Added;
   -- Hickory Smoked Elk Sticks Beef Added;
   -- Hickory Smoked Norwegian Brand Summer Sausage;
   -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sausage;
   -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sausage (contains monosodium glutamate);
   -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sticks;
   -- Hickory Smoked Buffalo Sausage Beef Added;
   -- Hickory Smoked Buffalo Sticks Beef Added;
   -- Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Salami (Made With Buffalo, ;
   -- Venison, Elk, Wild Boar, Antelope, and Caribou Added);
   -- Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Salami (Made With Buffalo;
   -- Venison, Elk, Wild Boar, Antelope, and Bear Added);
   -- Hickory Smoked Venison Sausage Beef Added; and
   -- Hickory Smoked Wild Boar* Sausage *Meat from Feral Swine

Raw fresh products, produced between July 24, 2013 and Jan. 24,
2014.  The products may be packaged in one the following manners:
patties/three per pound, in 12 pound cases; 6-pound bags, 12-pound
cases; or 12 pound boxes.  These products are included:

   -- Code 4860   Wild Boar* Meat from Feral Swine Ground Bulk;
   -- Code 6752   Cold Smoked Ground Turkey Thigh Meat;
   -- Code 9016   Elk Breakfast Sausage with Apple Slices;
   -- Code 6366   Ground Duck;
   -- Code 9202   Swedish Potato Sausage;
   -- Code 9203   Bison Maple Breakfast Brats 4/1;
   -- Code 9215   Duck Sausage w/ Cilantro;
   -- Code 9223   Rabbit Sausage Rattlesnake & Jalapeno Chardonnay
      Wine;
   -- Code 9240   Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine;
   -- Code 9241   Wild Boar Italian Sausage Made from Feral Swine;
   -- Code 9242   Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine
      Blueberries, Merlot Wine;
   -- Code 9245   Wild Boar Maple Breakfast Sausage;
   -- Code 9248   Norwegian Breakfast Sausage;
   -- Code 6751   Ground Turkey Bratwurst;
   -- Code 13820   Mountain Man Sausage Ground 2/6;
   -- Code 13721   Buffalo Patties Beef Added 2/1; and
   -- Code 13831   Mountain Man Patties 3/1

These products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"EST 6273" or "P-6273" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.  These
products were sold nationwide to distributors, restaurants, and
over the Internet.

The problem was discovered during a Food Safety Assessment.  The
firm mistakenly believed the releasing agent was a processing aid
that did not need to be declared on the label.  FSIS and the
company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media outlets and consumers with questions regarding the recall
can contact James Barsness, President of House of Smoke, at
303-857-2750.

Consumers with food safety questions can "e Ask Karen, & quote
the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online
Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24
hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Court Approved Fuller Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on December 16, 2013, entered a final order approving the
class action settlement designated as Fuller v. Imperial Holdings,
Inc., according to the Company's Form 8-K dated December 16, 2013,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December
17, 2013.

On July 29, 2013, the Company and the other parties to the class
actions consolidated and designated as Fuller v. Imperial
Holdings, et al. and the shareholder derivative action entitled
Robert Andrzejczyk v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al., executed
definitive settlement agreements in respect of the class action
litigation and derivative action, respectively.

On December 16, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida entered a final order approving the
class action settlement and on December 17, 2013, the Circuit
Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida entered a final order approving the derivative action
settlement. The approved settlements are each subject to customary
appeal deadlines.

Imperial Holdings, Inc. (Imperial) is a specialty finance company
with a focus on providing premium financing for individual life
insurance policies issued by insurance companies and purchasing
structured settlements backed by annuities issued by insurance
companies or their affiliates. In the Company's premium finance
business it earns revenue from interest charged on loans, loan
origination fees and agency fees from referring agents. In its
structured settlement business, it purchases structured
settlements at a discounted rate and sells such assets to, or
finances such assets with, third parties. In October 2013, the
Company announced that it has sold its Structured Settlements
business operations. In October 2013, Majestic Opco LLC acquired
Imperial Holdings Inc.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: To Seek Dismissal of Wage & Hour Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc., is a defendant in three
wage-and-hour suits seeking class action certification that were
filed between August 29, 2012 and June 24, 2013, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Each of these
cases is among several others filed by Plaintiffs' attorney
against contractors working in the Port Arthur, Texas Motiva plant
on various projects over the last few years. The claims are based
on alleged failure to compensate for time spent bussing to and
from the plant, donning safety wear and other activities. It does
not appear the Company will face significant exposure for any
unpaid wages.

In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a
federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the
busses is not compensable.

On January 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit upheld the district court's ruling finding no liability
for wages for time spent bussing into the facility. On October 8,
2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review plaintiffs' appeal
of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of their claims for compensation
for time spent bussing to the facility, effectively reducing the
Company's risk of liability on this issue in its cases.

"Our investigation indicates that all claims for time spent on
other activities either were inapplicable to the Company's
employees or took place during times for which the Company's
employees were compensated.  We have filed responsive pleadings
and, following initial discovery are positioning the cases to
obtain a dismissal of all claims," the Company said in its Form
10-K filed on December 13, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company has not recorded a reserve
for this matter, as it believes the likelihood of its
responsibility for damages is not probable and a potential range
of exposure is not estimable.

Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. (IES) is a provider of
infrastructure services to the residential, commercial and
industrial industries as well as for data centers and other
mission critical environments. The Company operates primarily in
the electrical infrastructure markets, with a corporate focus on
expanding into other markets through strategic acquisitions or
investments. The Company's operations are organized into three
business segments: Communications, Resident and Commercial and
Industrial. In September 2013, Integrated Electrical Services,
Inc. completed its acquisition of MISCOR Group, Ltd.


JTH HOLDING: Facing Class Suit Over Refund Anticipation Loan
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed a purported class action lawsuit against JTH
Holding, Inc., alleging violations of state-specific refund
anticipation loan (RAL) and other consumer statutes; and potential
damages in excess of $5 million, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on December 13, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2013.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York and Minnesota, since the initial filings. In April
2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending cases before
a single judge in federal court in the Northern District of
Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a new
complaint in the consolidated action.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that an electronic refund check (ERC) represents a form of
refund anticipation loan (RAL) because the taxpayer is "loaned"
the tax preparation fee, and that an ERC is therefore subject to
federal truth-in-lending disclosure and state law requirements
regulating RALs. The plaintiffs therefore allege violations of
state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes. The lawsuit
purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege potential
damages in excess of $5 million, but the Company may be able to
recover any damages from the providers of the financial products
that designed the programs and related disclosures.

The Company is aware that virtually identical lawsuits have been
filed against several of its competitors. The Company has not
concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has
the Company accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this
case, and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be
no assurances as to the outcome or the impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows. The case is at an early procedural stage.

JTH Holding, Inc. (JTH Holding) is a holding company engaged
through its subsidiaries as a franchisor and operator of a system
of income tax preparation offices located in the United States and
Canada. The Company is a retail preparer of individual tax
returns. JTH Holding's principal operations are conducted through
its subsidiary, JTH Tax, Inc. (JTH Tax). Through this system of
income tax preparation offices, JTH Holding also facilitates to
its customer refund-based tax settlement financial products, such
as refund anticipation loans, electronic refund checks, and
personal income tax refund discounting. On September 30, 2010, JTH
Tax entered into an Agreement of Merger and Plan of Reorganization
with JTH Holding. At the closing of the merger on September 30,
2010, JTH Tax merged with and became a wholly owned subsidiary of
JTH Holding.


KITCHEN BY BRAD: Recalls Smoliak Bacon Spread Over Botulism Scare
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kitchen by Brad Smoliak
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8591

Kitchen by Brad Smoliak is recalling Bacon spread from the
marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium
botulinum.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described below.

The products have been sold in Alberta.

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

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

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

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

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

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


KUO HUA: Recalls Coconut Drink Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kuo Hua Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
CFIA reference number:    8599

Kuo Hua Trading Co Ltd is recalling Coconut Drink from the
marketplace because it may contain milk which is not declared on
the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not consume the
recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold in British Columbia.

If you have an allergy to milk do not consume the recalled product
as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

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

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

Affected products: 250 ml. Coconut Drink (Product of Taiwan) with
UPC 2015.04.17


L & L ENERGY: Wash. Securities Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Western District of Washington
at Seattle, on December 3, 2013, denied defendants' second motion
to dismiss the so-called Washington Securities Class Action, and
the court has not yet issued a case scheduling order in the Action
and there is no trial date, according to L & L Energy, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filed on December 13, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2013.

On August 26, 2011, a federal securities law class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain officers and
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a former
officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang) in the United States
District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on
behalf of a proposed class of all persons who purchased the common
stock of the Company during the period August 13, 2009 through
August 2, 2011, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the
"Washington Securities Class Action"), alleging that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934  by filing materially  false and misleading
public statements August 2009 to July  2011. On December 15, 2011,
the court appointed Gregg Irvin as lead plaintiff, and plaintiff
filed an amended complaint and a second amended complaint on
February 8 and March 2, 2012, respectively, naming four other
current and former directors as defendants (i.e., Shirley Kiang,
Robert Lee, Dennis Bracy and Robert Okun).

On November 4, 2011, a complaint was filed by Larew P. Stouffer,
in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Company, which
is a  nominal defendant, against certain of its then existing
officers and/or directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta,
Ian G. Robinson, Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd
S. Peng) and certain former officers and/or directors (i.e.,
Edward L. Dowd, Andrew M. Leitch, Robert Okun, Joseph J. Borich,
Jung Mei Wang and David Lin) in the First Judicial District Court
of the State of Nevada for Carson City (the "Nevada Derivative
Suit"),  alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to
the Company and its shareholders, wasted corporate assets, were
unjustly enriched , and committed other wrongful acts.

On November 15, 2011, a complaint was filed by Russell L. Bush,
in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Company, which
is a  nominal defendant, against its then existing directors
(i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson, Robert W.
Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) in the United
States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
(collectively the "Washington Derivative Suits"), and along with
the Stouffer Derivative Suit, the "Derivative Suits"), alleging
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties and were unjustly
enriched.

The Company has notified its insurance carrier of the Washington
Securities Class Action and the Washington Derivative Suits. The
Company has also retained outside legal counsel.

On April 23, 2012, the Company and Dickson V. Lee and Ian G.
Robinson filed a motion to dismiss the Washington Securities Class
Action. Proceedings in the Washington Derivative Suits were stayed
pending the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.

On December 3, 2012, the United States District Court, Western
District of Washington at Seattle granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Securities Class Action lawsuit without prejudice, and
gave plaintiff thirty days in which to seek the court's permission
to file another amended complaint.

On January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the
court granted such leave, and on February 4, 2013, plaintiff filed
a third amended complaint in the Washington Securities Class
Action on behalf of a proposed class of all persons who purchased
the common stock of the Company during the period August 13, 2009
through August 2, 2011, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby,
against the Company, certain officers and/or directors (i.e.,
Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a former officer (i.e.,
Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang), alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 by filing materially false and misleading reports and
financial statements with the SEC from August 2009 to July 2011.

Proceedings in the Washington and Nevada Derivative Suits
continued to be stayed pending the court's ruling on the second
motion to dismiss.

On December 3, 2013, the United States District Court, Western
District of Washington at Seattle denied the defendants' second
motion to dismiss.  The court has not yet issued a case scheduling
order in the Washington Securities Class Action and there is no
trial date.

The Company believes that the Washington and Nevada Securities
Class Action and the Washington Derivative Suits are without merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.

L & L Energy, Inc. is engaged in coal operations in Yunnan and
Guizhou provinces in southern part of the People's Republic of
China. As of April 30, 2012, the Company had four coal mines, two
coal washing plants, one coking facility, and three coal wholesale
and distribution networks. On February 3, 2012, the Company
acquired a 51% controlling interest in Weishe coal mine in Guizhou
Province, China. In September 2012, it acquired the existing
operations of GuangYeh Coal Sales Co. In November 2011, the
Company established a coal wholesale and distributor corporation
in China (DaXing L & L Coal Co., Ltd. (DaXing)) and owned a 100%
equity interest in DaXing. In August 2011, the Company established
another subsidiary Guizhou LiWei Coal Co. Ltd., (Guizhou LiWei).


L & L ENERGY: Facing Securities Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
to L & L Energy, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q report filed on
December 13, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2013, that a
federal securities law class action complaint was filed on
September 23, 2013, against the Company, and certain officers and
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Ian G. Robinson and Clayton Fong)
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
on behalf of a proposed class of all persons who purchased common
stock of the Company during the period September 11, 2012 through
September 18, 2013, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the
"New York Securities Class Action"), alleging that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by filing materially false and misleading public
statements from September 2012 to September 2013. On November 22,
2013, the plaintiff and several other proposed plaintiffs filed
motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and counsel. The court
set a status conference for December 20, 2013 to consider the
motions.

On October 18, 2013, a complaint was filed by Joseph D, Bessent,
in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Company, which
is a nominal defendant, against certain of its then existing
officers and/or directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Syd S. Peng,
Mohan Datwani, Jingcai Yang, James Schaeffer, and Joseph Borich)
in the Superior Court for the State of Washington in King County,
Washington (the "Bessent Derivative Suit"), alleging that the
defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Company and its
shareholders and committed other wrongful acts.

On December 9, 2013, a complaint was filed by Jay Finkelstein, in
a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Company, which is a
nominal defendant, against certain of its current and former
officers and/or directors (i.e. Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta,
Shirley Kiang, Ian Robinson, Dennis Bracy, Edward L. Dowd, Jr.,
Robert W. Lee, Robert A. Okun, Andrew M. Leitch, Edmund Moy, Dr.
Syd S. Peng, Clayton Fong, Jungcai Yang, Mohan Datwani, Joseph
Borich, and James Schaeffer) in the United States District Court,
Western District of Washington at Seattle (the "Finkelstein
Derivative Suit"), alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties to the Company and its shareholders and committed other
wrongful acts.

The Company has notified its insurance carriers of the New York
Securities Class Action, the Bessent Derivative Suit, and
Finkelstein Derivative Suit.  The Company has retained outside
legal counsel.

The Company believes that the New York Securities Class Action,
the Bessent Derivative Suit, and the Finkelstein Derivative Suit
are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of any
potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of
the legal proceedings. As such, as of October 31, 2013, the
Company has not accrued any liability in connection with potential
losses from legal proceedings.

L & L Energy, Inc. is engaged in coal operations in Yunnan and
Guizhou provinces in southern part of the People's Republic of
China. As of April 30, 2012, the Company had four coal mines, two
coal washing plants, one coking facility, and three coal wholesale
and distribution networks. On February 3, 2012, the Company
acquired a 51% controlling interest in Weishe coal mine in Guizhou
Province, China. In September 2012, it acquired the existing
operations of GuangYeh Coal Sales Co. In November 2011, the
Company established a coal wholesale and distributor corporation
in China (DaXing L & L Coal Co., Ltd. (DaXing)) and owned a 100%
equity interest in DaXing. In August 2011, the Company established
another subsidiary Guizhou LiWei Coal Co. Ltd., (Guizhou LiWei).


LENOX ROOM: T-Bar Restaurants' Worker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juadimir Jerez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lenox Room Corp., Angolo Food Concepts, LLC, Rocco
Restaurant Group, LLC, T Bar Management East, LLC, and Angelo Tony
Fortuna, Case No. 1:14-cv-00276-GBD (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2014)
seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread of hours pay, and
other wages for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-
workers -- food preparers, kitchen workers, dishwashers, and other
"back of the house employees" -- who work or have worked at any of
the three T-Bar restaurants currently or formerly operating in New
York.

The Defendants owned, operated and controlled the T-Bar
Restaurants.  The T-Bar Restaurants are a series of trendy steak
houses that cater to the hip young clientele of Manhattan and the
East Hamptons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
          E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com


LION FORCE: Recalls Boys' Puffer Coats Due to Strangulation Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lion Force Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,400 Lion Force Boys' Puffer Coats.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The jackets have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a
strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.  In
1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves boys' black hooded coats with dark gray
drawstrings around the hood.  The coats are 100% nylon on the
outer shell with a zip-off hood.  The wrist cuffs and waist band
are elasticized.  There are two front Velcro-flap pockets and an
inner stow pocket on the coats.  "Lion Force" is printed on the
upper left side of the front of the coat and on the sewn on tag at
the back of the neck.  This recall involves boys' coat sizes 4
through 12.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Yr8wjB

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide November
2010 through September 2013 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garment to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to Lion
Force Inc. for a full refund.


MEAT PIES: Recalls Fresh and Frozen Meat Pie and Poutine Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Meat Pies Plus
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8588

Meat Pies Plus is recalling various The Pie Guy brand fresh and
frozen meat pie and poutine products from the marketplace because
they contain milk, wheat, and gluten which are not declared on the
label.  People with an allergy to milk, wheat, or gluten should
not consume the recalled products described.

The products have been sold in Ontario.

If you have an allergy to milk, wheat, or gluten, do not consume
the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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


MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, CS Rep Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Phillips, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Media Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-01019-MMM-JAG (C.D. Ill., January 15, 2014) arises under the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated persons all their earned
overtime wages.

Media Communications, Inc., operates a customer service call
center in Chillicothe, Illinois.  The Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant's call center as a customer service representative
between June 2011 and May 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  dstevens@flsalaw.com


MERCK & CO: To Settle NuvaRing Suits for $100 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that Merck & Co. may pay $100 million to settle thousands of
lawsuits over the safety of its NuvaRing contraceptive, a New
Jersey judge held, as long as enough women agree to participate in
the accord.

The settlement may resolve as many as 3,800 cases in federal and
state courts in New Jersey and Missouri, Judge Brian Martinotti in
Hackensack said on Feb. 7 at a hearing.  More than 200 women sued
Merck in New Jersey accusing the drugmaker of selling NuvaRing
while knowing it posed a higher risk of heart attack-inducing
blood clots than competing products.

Judge Martinotti gave preliminary approval to the settlement,
subject to 95 percent of the plaintiffs participating in the
agreement, according to Steven Blau, a lawyer for women suing over
the device.  If more than 5 percent of plaintiffs refuse the
offer, Merck can walk away from the deal, Judge Martinotti said.

"The settlement is a fair resolution of this litigation," the
judge said.  "This is a lump-sum settlement of $100 million that
covers the entire litigation nationwide."

The settlement, which includes cases filed in St. Louis federal
court, means Merck, the second-biggest U.S. drugmaker by sales, is
paying a fraction of what rivals such as Bayer AG did to resolve
lawsuits over their contraceptives.  Bayer said last year it has
paid more than $1.6 billion to settle claims over its Yasmin and
Yaz lines of birth-control pills.  Women said Yaz also caused
blood clots that led to strokes and heart attacks.

Vehicles enter the campus of Merck & Co. headquarters in
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.

                          'Much More'

"Merck may be getting out much more cheaply than its competitors
because proving the liability case against the NuvaRing device
appears to be more difficult," Carl Tobias, who teaches product-
liability law at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said in a
Feb. 6 phone interview.

NuvaRing is a hormonal-vaginal contraceptive that combines both
estrogen and progestin in a ring to prevent pregnancy.  The
product, which was linked in a 2011 U.S. Food and Drug
Administration report to a higher risk for blood clots, has been
sold in the U.S. since 2001.

Lainie Keller, a spokeswoman for Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-
based Merck, said the company isn't admitting wrongdoing under the
settlement and continues to believe NuvaRing is a safe
contraceptive.  She said Merck continues to "monitor the safety of
the medicine."

                              Earnings

Merck reported fourth-quarter earnings this week that fell short
of estimates.  Earnings excluding certain items were 88 cents a
share, 1 cent below the average of 15 analysts' estimates compiled
by Bloomberg.  The company also forecast 2014 profit of $3.35 to
$3.53 a share, compared with $3.48 projected by analysts.

Lawyers for women suing over the NuvaRing product contend there
are almost a dozen studies showing the type of progestin used in
the device is twice as likely to cause blood clots.  Such clots
can block veins and cause heart attacks or travel to the lungs and
cause other health issues.

The family of a Nebraska mother who used a NuvaRing device sued
Merck in 2010 after the woman was found dead with a blood clot in
her lung.  Ann Tompkins' family alleged in their suit that Merck
misled users about the device's health risks.

Women argued in court filings that Merck failed to provide proper
warnings about NuvaRing's higher clot risks on the device's label
to protect sales.  Suits have been filed against Merck and Organon
USA Inc., a unit that sold the device.

                             Lawsuits

More than 1,500 NuvaRing suits were consolidated before U.S.
District Judge Rodney Sippel in St. Louis in 2008 for pre-trial
information exchanges.  Judge Sippel had set the first trial over
the blood-clot claims for April.

More than 200 suits also have been consolidated in New Jersey
before Judge Martinotti.  Other cases were filed in state courts
in California and Illinois, according to court dockets.

Last year, Judge Martinotti threw out seven NuvaRing cases that
were set to be the first trials in New Jersey after he found the
plaintiff women couldn't show the device caused their injuries.

The judge said plaintiffs were unable to show that doctors would
have prescribed a different contraceptive if Merck had informed
them of higher clot risks on its warning label.

Mr. Blau said women suing over NuvaRing had to overcome the legal
hurdle of showing that a device approved by the FDA as safe had
flaws and that Merck officials didn't properly warn about its
risks.

"That's a very hard burden to overcome," Mr. Blau said.

The settlement compensates women for three classes of injuries
arising from blood clots, he said.  They are deep-vein thrombosis,
pulmonary embolisms and death, he added.  The settlement is set up
so that women with more severe injuries will qualify for larger
payments, Shelly Leonard, a New York lawyer for NuvaRing
plaintiffs, said yesterday in a phone interview.

The consolidated cases are In Re NuvaRing Products Litigation, 08-
md-01964, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis).  The consolidated New Jersey cases are In RE: NuvaRing
Litigation, BER-L-3081-09, Superior Court of New Jersey (Bergen
County).


MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., on December 9, 2013, entered into a
memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs to settle actions
pending in Delaware court and to resolve all allegations in the
Delaware Actions alleging among others, breach of fiduciary duties
to the Company's shareholders, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on December 13, 2016, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2013.

Between November 7 and November 20, 2013, 11 purported class
action lawsuits were filed on behalf of the Company's shareholders
against various defendants including Mindspeed, its directors,
MACOM, Acquisition Sub, 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) ("Marchese Action"); 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) ("Hoffman Action"); and Vinciguerra v.
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9107 (Del. Ch. Ct.
Nov. 20, 2013).

The complaints allege, generally, that the Company's director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such
breaches, by seeking to sell the Company 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.

On November 22, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the
Hoffman Action in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The amended
complaint includes similar allegations to the original complaint,
along with claims that the Company's solicitation/recommendation
statement included misstatements or omissions of material facts.
On November 25, 2013, a motion for preliminary injunction was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery for the Hoffman Action. On
December 3, 2013, all of the complaints filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery were consolidated (Delaware Actions). On
December 4, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery set a schedule
for the briefing of the preliminary injunction motion in the
Delaware Actions and a hearing was scheduled for December 11,
2013.

On December 6, 2013, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions filed
their brief in support of a motion to enjoin the proposed merger.
The defendants, including the Company, believe that all of the
lawsuits are without merit and specifically deny the allegations
made in the lawsuits and maintain that they have committed no
wrongdoing whatsoever, to permit the timely consummation of the
merger.

Without admitting the validity of any allegations made in the
lawsuits, the defendants have concluded that it is desirable that
the Delaware Actions be resolved.

On December 9, 2013, the parties in the Delaware Actions entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Delaware Actions
and to resolve all allegations which were brought or could have
been brought by the purported class of Mindspeed shareholder
plaintiffs. The proposed settlement, which is subject to
confirmatory discovery and court approval, provides for the
release of all claims against the defendants relating to the
proposed merger. There can be no assurance that the settlement
will be finalized or that the Delaware Court of Chancery will
approve the settlement. In exchange for the releases, the Company
agreed to provide additional supplemental disclosures to the
solicitation/recommendation statement. The motion for a
preliminary injunction was withdrawn and the hearing vacated in
the Delaware Actions.

On November 27, 2013, the defendants and the plaintiffs in each of
five actions filed in the California Superior Court for Orange
County signed a stipulation to consolidate the actions into the
Marchese Action. On December 5, 2013, an amended complaint was
filed in the Marchese Action. The amended complaint includes
similar allegations to the original complaint along with claims
that the statement included misstatements or omissions of material
facts. On December 5, 2013, plaintiffs filed an ex parte
application for an order shortening time in which to bring a
motion for expedited discovery, which was denied on December 6,
2013. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.  The outcome of this litigation cannot be predicted at
this time and any outcome in favor of the plaintiffs could have a
significant adverse effect on the tender offer and merger, the
Company's financial condition and its results of operations.

In January 2013, Clark Leips, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its board of
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware alleging, among other things, that the compensation and
management development committee of the board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties in each of calendar years 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012 by approving equity incentive grants for the
Company's chief executive officer that exceeded the respective
sub-limitations under Section 5 of the Company's 2003 long-term
incentives plan for grants to a single participant in any calendar
year. Plaintiff also alleged that the disclosures in the proxy
statement for the Company's 2013 annual meeting of stockholders
were inadequate. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages,
rescission of the excess grants, disgorgement and attorney's fees.
Plaintiff filed a motion to enjoin the Company's 2013 annual
meeting of stockholders until the Company issued additional
disclosures to supplement the proxy statement. On January 22,
2013, the Company filed a supplement to the proxy statement. The
motion for an injunction was then withdrawn by the plaintiff. The
Company and its board of directors have moved to dismiss the
complaint. Pursuant to Delaware law, upon the closing of the
merger, plaintiff's standing to bring this derivative lawsuit, if
the plaintiff had standing in the first instance, which is
contested, will be extinguished. Management does not believe the
resolution of this matter will result in a material adverse impact
on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.

Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. designs, develops and sells
semiconductor solutions for communications applications in the
wireline and wireless network infrastructure, which includes
enterprise networks, broadband access networks (fixed and mobile),
and metropolitan and wide area networks (WAN). Mindspeed has
organized its solutions for these networks into three product
families: communications convergence processing (formerly known as
multiservice access), high-performance analog and WAN
communications. Its products are sold to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) for use in a variety of network
infrastructure equipment. The Company's customers include Alcatel-
Lucent, Cisco Systems, Inc., Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and
Zhongxing Telecom Equipment Corp. Effective December 18, 2013,
M/A-Com Technology Solutions Holdings Inc acquired the entire
interest of Mindspeed Technologies Inc.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Permits Fox to File Amicus Brief
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that the judge
overseeing the sprawling antitrust class action over the NCAA's
use of student names and likenesses on Feb. 5 granted Fox
Broadcasting Co. the right to file an amicus brief, which they
used to argue that players have no right to preapprove the use of
their images in live broadcasts.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted Fox and the regional
broadcaster Big Ten Network leave to file the brief, which argues
that big college sporting events are matters "of great public
interest," meaning the First Amendment bars participants from
asserting their publicity rights over live telecasts.

The Feb. 5 order came in a long-running class action that accuses
the NCAA of using no-compensation amateurism rules to cut
student-athletes out of the billions of dollars the league makes
by using their names and likenesses in the license and sale of
game footage, video games, trading cards and other products.

Fox's desire to join the case is understandable: The networks
already pay universities and regional conferences hundreds of
millions of dollars per year for the rights to football and
basketball games, and a ruling allowing players to control and
collectively license their images would add another layer of
rights to be purchased.

Fighting against that outcome, the brief entered with the court
on Feb. 5 said publicity rights can only be asserted over truly
"commercial" speech and that broadcasts of popular sporting
events -- even if they generate revenue -- don't make that
"commercial" cut.

"Live broadcasts and rebroadcasts of game footage are, by
definition, communicative news reporting, not commercial speech,"
Fox said.  "Plaintiffs' suggestion that sports broadcasts are
commercial speech because they are for-profit is entirely without
merit, and the Supreme Court has flatly rejected that argument for
well over 70 years."

The student-athletes' class actions, which have since been
consolidated into the current case, initially dealt more with the
use of player names and likenesses in video games and other
licensing activity.  Amended complaints later added live broadcast
rights, which generate the lion's share of college sports revenue.

In November, Judge Wilken refused to certify the class of players
in their quest for billions in past damages, but granted
certification for prospective relief, allowing the players to
collectively challenge to the NCAA's ban on compensation itself.

The case has moved forward since as a class action, and is
currently on the NCAA's motion for summary judgment.

Electronic Arts Inc. and the Collegiate Licensing Co. were
originally named as co-defendants, but the players settled with
the two companies in September for $40 million.

The players are represented by Michael P. Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- Arthur N. Bailey Jr. --
abailey@hausfeldllp.com -- Michael D. Hausfeld --
mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com -- Hilary K. Scherrer --
hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com -- and Sathya S. Gosselin --
sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP.

The NCAA is represented by Glenn D. Pomerantz --
Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com -- Kelly M. Klaus -- Kelly.Klaus@mto.com
-- Rohit K. Singla -- Rohit.Singla@mto.com -- and Carolyn Hoecker
Luedtke -- Carolyn.Luedtke@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
and Gregory K. Curtner, Robert J. Wierenga and Kimberly K. Kefalas
of Schiff Hardin LLP.

The case is In re: NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing
Litigation, case number 4:09-cv-01967, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Trial Set for April 1 on Civil Penalty Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial is set for April 1, 2014, to address certain civil penalty
claims alleging that Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., has engaged in
various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
December 17, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2013.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG
Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC. On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was dismissed by Ms.
Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County. This complaint, along with a similar class
action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007,
alleges that the Company has engaged in various violations of the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including
without limitation (1) asking employees to work "off the clock,"
(2) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3)
improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its
employees and (4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to
sit during shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions have
been deemed "related" cases and are pending before the same trial
court judge.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. The court's order
compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms. Tanguilig, who is not
bound by the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. The court determined
that Ms. Tanguilig could not be a class representative of
employees who are subject to the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement,
thereby limiting the putative class action to those associates who
were employed between December 2004 and July 15, 2007 (the
effective date of our Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).

Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed
demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association
(AAA), seeking to arbitrate, not only their individual claims, but
also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class
action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to
further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the
arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own
motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration. The trial
court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling
arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision.
Following this ruling, the Company timely filed appeals with the
Court of Appeal, asserting that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to change its earlier determination of the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement. While the appeal
process has stayed most of claims in both cases, the trial court
asked the parties to address issues regarding certain civil
penalty claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig, based on Labor Code
violations alleged in the complaint.

At the December 10, 2013 case management conference, the trial
court set these penalty claims for trial on April 1, 2014, despite
the pending appeals. Ms. Tanguilig's penalty claims allege that
employees were not provided with meal periods and rest breaks in
compliance with California law. We have asserted defenses to these
claims, and have filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's
claims, including the penalty claims, based on her failure to
bring her claims to trial within five years as required by
California law. The hearing on our motion is set for January 30,
2014. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has
issued a complaint alleging that the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement's class action prohibition violates employees' rights to
engage in concerted activity, which has been submitted to an
administrative law judge for determination on a stipulated record.

"We have filed a motion with the NLRB in Washington, D.C., to
dismiss the matter entirely based upon our previous settlement of
the issues surrounding the 2007 Arbitration Agreement with the
NLRB. We will continue to vigorously defend our interests in these
matters. Currently, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
loss, if any, arising from these matters. We will continue to
evaluate these matters based on subsequent events, new information
and future circumstances," the retailer said.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., department stores offer high-
fashion, high-quality women's and men's apparel (from such labels
as Chanel and Prada), shoes and accessories, fine jewelry, china,
crystal, and silver. The company operates about 40 Neiman Marcus
stores in some 20 states, two Bergdorf Goodman stores in New York
City, and more than 35 Last Call clearance center outlets that
sell marked down goods. Its mail-order and online business, Neiman
Marcus Direct, distributes catalogs (which offer apparel, home
furnishings, and gourmet foods) under the Neiman Marcus By Mail
and Horchow names. Neiman Marcus was taken private in 2013 by Ares
Management and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.


NEW SOUTH WALES: Community Group Mulls Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Gavin Coote, writing for ABC News, reports that the Sunset Strip
Progress Association says it wants to launch a class action
against the State Government.

The community group claims authorities have mismanaged flows out
of Menindee Lakes, and is wasting money in its proposed water-
saving project.  It comes as a red alert for blue-green algae
levels has been issued for Lake Menindee and other parts of the
system.

Progress Association Barry Stone says the group will consider a
class action against the Government at their members meeting.

NSW Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson says flows have
been managed under a Murray-Darling Basin agreement to meet
competing social, economic and environmental demands during
extremely dry conditions.


NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls X-TRAIL Model Due to Fuel Filler Pipe Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           22245
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014030
TC ID number:             2014030
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R1401

On certain vehicles, the fuel filler pipe could corrode and become
perforated.  This could allow fuel to leak onto the ground while
refuelling the vehicle or shortly thereafter.  Fuel leakage, in
the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire causing
property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the fuel filler pipe.

Affected products: 2005, 2006 Nissan X-Trail models


PEPE GANGA: Recalls Christmas Lights Due to Fire and Shock Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pepe Ganga Corp., of San Juan, PR, announced a voluntary recall of
about 500 100-Musical Lights.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The light string can overheat and catch fire, posing fire and
shock hazards to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves 100-bulb musical Christmas multi-colored
lights.  The light sets twinkle as eight Christmas carols play.
Model number 31411 is printed on the back of the package on the
bottom right side of the UPC label.  "100 Musical Lights" is
printed on the front of the white cardboard packaging.  The model
number, voltage and "Made in China" are printed on a label affixed
to the light string.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Pepe
Ganga and Compra De To stores in Puerto Rico from December 2011 to
October 2012 for about $8.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Christmas
lights and return them to any Pepe Ganga store for a full refund.


PFP ENTERPRISES: Recalls 15,865 Lbs. of Beef Products
-----------------------------------------------------
PFP Enterprises, a Fort Worth, Texas, establishment, is recalling
approximately 15,865 pounds of beef products because they may be
contaminated with E. coli O103, E. coli O111, E. coli O121, E.
coli O145, E. coli O26 and E. coli O45, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

These products are subject to FSIS recall:

   -- 10.5-lb. boxes of Beef Outside Skirt Steak, with a pack date
      of "12/13/13";

   -- 20-lb. boxes of Studio Movie Grill Beef Tenderloin Sliced,
      with a pack date of "12/05/13";

   -- 15-lb. boxes of Preseasoned Beef for Fajita, with a use by
      date of "1/13/14";

   -- 40-lb. boxes of Southwest Style Beef Skirts, with a pack
      date of "12/5/13";

   -- 20-lb. boxes of Patterson Food Processors Beef Skirt
      Seasoned, with a pack date of "12/9/13";

   -- 10-lb. boxes of Preseasoned Beef for Fajitas, with a pack
      date of "12/9/2013";

   -- 40-lb. boxes of Preseasoned Beef for Fajitas w/Binder, with
      a pack date of "12/9/2013";

   -- 12-lb. boxes of Seasoned Beef for Fajitas, containing 6
      2-lb. packs, with a use by date of "1/15/14";

   -- 12-lb. boxes of Mexican Style Beef for Fajita, containing 6
      2-lb. packs, with a use by date of "1/11/14"

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "Est.
34715" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.  The products were
produced on Dec. 5, 2013, and distributed to retail stores and
restaurants in Arizona, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico and Texas.

FSIS personnel became aware of the problem during a Food Safety
Assessment when they discovered that beef trim tested presumptive
positive for multiple non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli
(STEC) strains through the company's testing program.  The company
inadvertently did not carry the test out to confirmation, and not
all affected product was held.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Many clinical laboratories do not test for non-O157 STEC, such as
STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145, because it is harder to
identify than STEC O157.  People can become ill from STECs 2-8
days (average of 3-4 days) after consuming the organism.  Most
people infected with STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145
develop diarrhea (often bloody) and vomiting.  Some illnesses last
longer and can be more severe.  Infection is usually diagnosed by
testing of a stool sample. Vigorous rehydration and other
supportive care is the usual treatment; antibiotic treatment is
generally not recommended.

Most people recover within a week, but, rarely, some develop a
more severe infection.  Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is
uncommon with STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145 infection.
HUS can occur in people of any age, but is most common in children
under 5 years old, older adults and persons with weakened immune
systems.  It is marked by easy bruising, pallor and decreased
urine output.  Persons who experience these symptoms should seek
emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume beef that
has been cooked to a temperature of 145 F with a 3-minute rest
time.  The only way to confirm that beef is cooked to a
temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food
thermometer that measures internal temperature,
http://is.gd/EhNECi

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should
contact the company's President, John Pieper, at (817) 546-3561.

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

              http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


PHILLIP J. CROYLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Elkaslasy, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Phillip J. Croyle, an individual, and
Philip J. Croyle, P.A., a Florida professional association, Case
No. 9:14-cv-80052-KAM (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2014) accused the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert William Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          1212 SE 2nd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


PILOT RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tichelle King Weekes, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Pilot Receivables Management, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, Case No. 8:14-cv-00096-EAK-AEP
(M.D. Fla., January 15, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Salvatore Giardina, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3104 W Waters Ave., Suite 200
          Tampa, FL 33614-2877
          Telephone: (813) 413-5610
          Facsimile: (866) 535-7199
          E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.
          664 E Hallandale Beach Blvd.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


PORTERVILLE HOTEL: Fire Raises Asbestos Concerns
------------------------------------------------
Kelli Ballard, writing for The Porterville Recorder, reports that
concerns surrounding the amount of asbestos in the Porterville
Hotel were prominent before the fire that destroyed the historical
building on Dec. 26, 2013; however, the fire and demolition have
actually made the situation worse.

"There is a pretty significant amount [of asbestos] according to
the Hazmat report we had done before the demolition [was
scheduled]," said City Manager John Lollis.

Asbestos, known to cause cancers such as mesothelioma, was known
to be in the hotel in areas such as floor tiles, the kitchen area
and plaster.

"Asbestos is not a problem as long as it is confined," said
Mr. Lollis.

When the hotel caught on fire, the city had to scramble to find a
way to demolish it to protect residents, but also had to find a
company that could do so with the asbestos problem.

"Bowen [Engineering and Environmental] was there for a purpose --
remove the threat from the people.  We've eliminated the immediate
risk from the public," Mr. Lollis explained.  "The most
significant piece was having to deal with the unenforced masonry
that had plaster in them."

With the urgent demolition, the asbestos that was contained or in
solid form, became broken and scattered.  This form, called
"friable form" happens when the materials containing asbestos is
crumbled and the particles can be inhaled.  This is when it is
dangerous.

"By the time the building burned, it was spread out," said
Community Development Director Brad Dunlap.  "That's why it was
wetted down and encrusted."

Bowen, as part of the demolition process, wet down the scattered
debris to keep it in a solid form so the asbestos would be
contained.

If need be, the owners of the property, Porterville Hotel
Investors, will wet down the material to keep it from becoming
friable.

"We don't believe it's a health risk at this time, and we've taken
preventative steps," said Mr. Dunlap.

As to when the property will be cleaned up, the city is still in
the process of working with all parties involved.  So far, the
city has not yet reached a purchasing agreement with the property
owners; however, a draft working on the language with all the
parties given the new issues -- the fire -- is being worked on.

Once the new language is agreed upon and accepted, the city
will be able to continue negotiations to purchase the property
and begin clean up.

As for the asbestos concern, Mr. Lollis said, "Until we get a
contractor in there that deals with asbestos, the assumption is
that it is all asbestos contaminated."  In other words, better
safe than sorry.


RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8-Mil. Lbs. of Processed Diseased Animals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Petaluma, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 8,742,700 pounds, because it processed
diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities
without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection.  Thus,
the products are adulterated, because they are unsound,
unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be
removed from commerce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

These Rancho Feeding Corporation products are subject to recall:

   -- "Beef Carcasses" (wholesale and custom sales only);
   -- 2 per box "Beef (Market) Heads" (retail only);
   -- 4-gallons per box "Beef Blood" (wholesale only);
   -- 20-lb. boxes of "Beef Oxtail";
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Cheeks";
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Lips";
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Omasum";
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripas";
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Mountain Oysters";
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Sweet Breads";
   -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Liver";
   -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripe";
   -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tongue";
   -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Cuts";
   -- 40-lb. boxes of "Veal Bones";
   -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Feet";
   -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Hearts"; and
   -- 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Trim"

Beef carcasses and boxes bear the establishment number "EST. 527"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Each box bears the case code
number ending in "3" or "4."  The products were produced Jan. 1,
2013 through Jan. 7, 2014 and shipped to distribution centers and
retail establishments in California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact
a health care provider.

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

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the
recall can contact the plant's Quality Control manager, Scott
Parks, at (707) 762-6651.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at askkaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:

             http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem

                           *     *     *

Greg Botelho and Janet DiGiacomo, writing for CNN, report that the
recall affecting Rancho Feeding Corporation products -- as
detailed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service -- marks a significant expansion of one
announced January 13, when just over 40,000 pounds of the
company's products were recalled.

According to the U.S. agency, Rancho Feeding "processed diseased
and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the
benefit or full benefit of federal inspection."

"Thus, the products are adulterated, because they are unsound,
unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be
removed from commerce," the FSIS reported.  The Petaluma company
made the recall.

It was not immediately clear which companies got them, or whether
they ended up being sold in some form at any markets or
restaurants.

In the January announcement, the FSIS reported only that the
products were being recalled only from January 8, 2014, and that
they didn't have a "full federal inspection."


RUNWAY FASHIONS: Recalls Girls' Hooded Jackets
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Runway Fashions Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 820 Girls' hooded jackets.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The jackets have drawstrings in the hood around the neck area that
pose a strangulation hazard to young children.  In February 1996,
CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper
outerwear.  In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a
voluntary standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines
and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no injuries that were reported.

The recall involves three styles of Sugarfly-branded hooded, woven
cotton and woven polyester jackets for girls with a drawstring
through the hood.  Style number KMCBJ255 is olive and has a zipper
closure and four front pockets with buttons, plus two zipper
pockets.  Style number KMCBJ410 is a belted, double-breasted,
French coat style white garment with faux fur around the neck.
Style KMCBJ421 is fuchsia or purple and has a button closure, plus
snap button pockets on each side.  They were sold in girl's sizes
7 through 16.  The style number can be found on the back of the
sewn-in neck label.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide and
online at Burlingtoncoatfactory.com from September 2011 through
September 2013 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately take the garments away from children.
Consumers can remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or
return the garments to Burlington Coat Factory for a full refund.


SANDERSON FARMS: Appeal in Illegal Aliens Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-K filed on December 17, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2013, Sanderson Farms, Inc., reported that the appeal
regarding plaintiffs' dismissed amended complaint alleging that
the Company conspired to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants at
the Moultrie plant, is pending.

The Company states: "As reported in the Company's Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2012, two of our former
employees filed a complaint on February 16, 2012, alleging
violations of the federal and State of Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Acts against us and
seven of our current and former employees in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiffs
contend in their complaint that the Company conspired to knowingly
hire undocumented immigrants at the Moultrie plant to "save
Sanderson millions of dollars in labor costs because illegal
aliens will work for extremely low wages". The action is brought
as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all legally authorized
hourly employees that worked at the Moultrie plant in the four
years before the filing of the case. The plaintiffs are suing for
money damages, injunctive relief and revocation of our license to
conduct business in the State of Georgia.

On September 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting a
motion to dismiss the Complaint, but provided the plaintiffs an
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint on one of the alleged
violations. After an Amended Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs
on October 5, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on October 29, 2012. On February 5, 2013, the
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered an Order
dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit on February 8, 2013. The Brief for
Plaintiffs-Appellants was filed on March 19, 2013, and the Brief
for Defendants-Appellees was filed on April 22, 2013. The
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief was filed May 6, 2013. Oral
argument was held on November 20, 2013. This matter is pending.

Sanderson Farms, Inc. is a poultry processing company engaged in
the production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh
and frozen chicken products. In addition, the Company is engaged
in the processing, marketing and distribution of prepared chicken
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods
Division). It sells ice pack, chill pack, bulk pack and frozen
chicken, in whole, cut-up and boneless form, under the Sanderson
Farms brand name to retailers, distributors, and casual dining
operators in the south-eastern, south-western, north-eastern and
western United States and to customers who resell frozen chicken
into export markets. During the fiscal year ended October 31, 2011
(fiscal 2011), it processed 434 million chickens, or over 2.8
billion dressed pounds.


SOLARCITY CORP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Feb. 6 disclosed that on
December 24, 2013 the San Francisco employment attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit
against Solarcity Corporation for allegedly failing to pay their
hourly employees the proper overtime wages and also purportedly
failed to provide adequate meal breaks.  Irving vs. Solarcity
Corporation, Case No. CIV 525975 is currently pending in the San
Mateo County Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the class action complaint, the solar energy system
company allegedly failed to pay their non-exempt employees who
were paid on an hourly basis the proper overtime rate for overtime
hours worked.  The California Labor Code requires employers to pay
overtime at 1.5 times the employee's regular rate of pay when an
employee works more than eight hours in a workday and/or in excess
of forty hours in a workweek.

The class action lawsuit also alleges that the employees were not
provided with thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their
fifth hour of work as a result of Solarcity allegedly failing to
have a proper meal break policy.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Solarcity Corproation call (866) 771-7099 to speak to an
experienced San Francisco labor law lawyer today.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Francisco employment law
firm that represents employees in California who have been
wrongfully terminated, denied proper overtime pay, denied payment
of earned commission wages, and also employees who have been
improperly denied their meal and rest breaks.


SPHERION STAFFING: Insurance Underwriter Sues Over Unpaid OT Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Simpson, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated
v. Spherion Staffing, LLC, and American Family Mutual Insurance
Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-06007-ODS (W.D. Mo., January 15, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
Insurance Underwriter employees of the Defendants are entitled to
(i) unpaid overtime premiums for all hours worked exceeding 40 in
a workweek, and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Spherion Staffing, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.  Spherion provides on-
site staffing services for AmFam by hiring employees, including
the Plaintiff, to perform AmFam's commercial underwriting
services.  American Family Mutual Insurance Company is
headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.  AmFam provides commercial
underwriting services out of five regional offices located
throughout the United States, including the regional office in St.
Joseph, Missouri, where the Plaintiff performed his work for the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          Tracey F. George, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          10601 Mission Rd, Suite 100
          Leawood, KS 66206
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
                  Tracey.George@rmlegalgroup.com


SWISHER HYGIENE: Settles Class Actions for $5.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc., a provider of essential hygiene and
sanitizing products and services, on Feb. 6 disclosed that it has
entered into a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement with the
Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits filed in
the U.S. against the Company.

Pursuant to the Settlement, which remains subject to Court
approval, the Company has agreed to pay $5.5 million to a
Settlement Fund.  The Settlement Payment is reimbursable by
Swisher's insurer.  Plaintiffs acting on their behalf and on
behalf of all Class Members, have agreed to dismiss all claims in
the class action against Swisher and the individual defendants
with prejudice.  The Lead Plaintiff and its Claims Administrator
will manage the administration and distribution of the Settlement
Fund among the Class Members and the payment of expenses
therefrom, subject to Court approval.

"While we have been well represented by our counsel and confident
of our litigation position, we believe putting this matter behind
us is in the best interest of our customers, employees and
shareholders so that we can remain focused on our business," said
Richard L. Handley, Chairman of the Board of Swisher.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Farol" Suit in North Dakota Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alissa Farol and Frances Lundblad, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Target Corporation, Case No.
3:14-cv-00011-RRE-KKK (D.N.D., January 15, 2014) is based on
Target's data breach during November 27, 2013, to December 15,
2013, where millions of Target shoppers' personal and financial
information was obtained by hackers, as a result of Target's
alleged inadequate or unreasonable security measures.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mike Miller, Esq.
          Todd Miller, Esq.
          SOLBERG STEWART MILLER
          1123 Fifth Avenue South
          P.O. Box 1897
          Fargo, ND 58107-1897
          Telephone: (701) 237-3166
          Facsimile: (701) 237-4627
          E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com
                  tmiller@solberglaw.com


TEREX: Recalls AL4 Light Tower & RL4 Light Tower Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Equipment
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           500
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014029
TC ID number:             2014029

On certain trailer-mounted aerial lighting towers, water could
enter an electrical connection for the lighting controls, which
could cause an electrical short.  This could potentially result in
a fire, increasing the risk of injury and/or damage to property.

Owners will be provided with a repair kit as well as repair
instructions.

Affected products:

  Maker     Model                 Model year(s) affected
  -----     -----                 ----------------------
  TEREX    AL4 LIGHT TOWER        2013, 2014
  TEREX    RL4 LIGHT TOWER        2013, 2014


TAISHAN GYPSUM: 5th Cir. Upholds $2.7MM Judgment in Drywall Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans upheld a district judge's ruling
that Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd must pay $2.7 million for damage to
seven Virginia houses. The owners were chosen to represent about
300 Virginia families.

All federal cases involving Chinese drywall have been consolidated
in New Orleans.

The 5th Circuit ruled Jan. 28 that Taishan lost its chance for
defense by failing to deal with plaintiffs' attorneys or the court
until it was ordered to pay.

Taishan was one of two major manufacturers of drywall that caused
problems from stenches to corrosion.  It was installed in an
estimated 12,000 to 20,000 U.S. homes.


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 22,849 Lbs. of Broccoli Salad Kit Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms Maryland, Inc. in Jessup, Md. and Taylor Farms Texas
Inc. in Dallas are recalling approximately 22,849 pounds of
broccoli salad kit products due to concerns about possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination in the salad dressing, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  The salad dressing in the packets is
the subject of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall.

The salad kits were shipped to distributors and retail locations
(delis) for consumer purchase in Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.  The company
is recalling these products in addition to the 5,084 pounds of
similar products that were recalled on Oct. 25, 2013.

These products are being recalled as part of this expansion:

   -- 6.06-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH
      BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310151, produced on
      Oct. 14 through Oct. 24, 2013;

   -- 12.13-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH
      BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310153, produced
      Oct. 14 through Oct. 24, 2013.

   -- 6.33-lb boxes labeled "Kit, Broc PPC" with case code
      5900067, produced Oct. 15 through Oct. 20, 2013.

These products listed were announced as part of the recall on
Oct. 25, 2013:

   -- 6.06-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH
      BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310151, produced on
      Oct. 21 and Oct. 22, 2013.

   -- 12.13-lb. boxes labeled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH WITH
      BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310153, produced
      Oct. 21 through Oct. 23, 2013.

Case labels bear the establishment number "EST. 34522" or
"EST. 34733" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Retail consumers
and the general public will not typically see the boxes and
labels, because the product is typically unboxed by retailers
(such as deli counters and restaurants) and the kit used to make
salads for retail sale.  The boxes and labels would be more likely
to be seen by distributors and retailers.

Taylor Farms informed FSIS that salad dressing subject to an FDA
recall was contained in the salad kits produced on the dates
listed above.  FSIS, FDA and the company have received no reports
of illnesses associated with consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare
provider.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns.  Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms.  An invasive
infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract.  In pregnant
women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths,
premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn.
In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older
adults and persons with weakened immune systems.  Listeriosis is
treated with antibiotics.  Persons in the higher-risk categories
who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating
contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health
care provider about eating the contaminated food.

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

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall should
contact Taylor Farms Customer Services at 866-508-7048 between the
hours of 9-5 Pacific Time.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:

            http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


UNITED STATES: NSA Faces Class Action Over Surveillance Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the National Security Agency
for allegedly conducting surveillance and intelligence-gathering
programs that collected data from American citizens.

President Barack Obama; U.S. Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder
Jr.; Keith B. Alexander, the director of the National Security
Agency; Roger Vinson, a judge for the U.S. Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court; James Clapper, the director of National
Intelligence; John O. Brennan, the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency; James Comey, the director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Department of Justice; the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Central Intelligence
Agency were also named as defendants in the suit.

Larry Klayman; Charles and Mary Ann Strange; Michael Ferrari; and
Matt Garrison claim the NSA began a classified surveillance
program to intercept the telephone communications of American
citizens and on June 5, The Guardian reported the first of several
"leaks" of classified material from Edward Snowden, a former NSA
contract employee, according to a complaint filed Jan. 23 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The leaks revealed, and continue to reveal, multiple U.S.
government intelligence collection and surveillance programs,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim Mr. Vinson, acting in his official and
personal capacities and under the authority of Obama, Mr. Holder,
the FBI, the NSA and the DOJ, ordered that the Custodian of
Records "shall produce the production of tangible things from
Verizon Business Network Services Inc. on behalf of MCI
Communication Services . . . to the NSA and continue production on
an ongoing daily basis thereafter."

The U.S. Government -- on the orders of the president, the
attorney general, the DOJ and the NSA -- obtained a top secret
court order that directs Verizon to turn over the telephone
records of more than 100 million Americans to the NSA on an
ongoing daily basis, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim Mr. Vinson ordered access to electronic
copies of all call detail records or "telephony metadata" created
by Verizon for communications between the United States and
abroad.

The plaintiffs claim to date, the defendants have not issued
substantive and meaningful explanations to the American people
describing what has occurred.  The NSA surveillance program
collects not only the identities of people's communications with
the targets of surveillance, but also the contents of those
communications.  Such intrusive and illegal surveillance have
directly impacted each and every plaintiff, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs claim the risk and knowledge that the plaintiff's
telephonic and internet conversations may be overheard,
undoubtedly chills speech, in violation of the plaintiff's First
Amendment rights.  The defendants violated the plaintiffs' First,
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and caused them damages,
according to the suit.

"PRISM" was an internal government computer system, authorized by
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It
c0llected records from all communications companies, including
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Skype, YouTube,
AOL, Apple and PalTalk.

"PRISM" began after the passing of the Protect America Act in
2007.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with
pre- and post-judgment interest in an amount in excess of $20
billion.  Mr. Klayman is representing himself and the rest of the
class.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Richard J. Leon.

In the 1990s, Mr. Klayman was known for filing dozens of lawsuits
against President Bill Clinton.  He founded Judicial Watch and a
government watchdog group called Freedom Watch.  He has also
brought legal action against former Vice President Dick Cheney,
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Supreme Court Justice Elena
Kagan and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case number:
1:14-cv-00092


UNITED STATES: Rand Paul Set to File Class Action v. NSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Rand Paul on February 12, 2014, was set to join Matt Kibbe,
President of FreedomWorks, and lead counsel Ken Cuccinelli in
announcing a class action lawsuit against President Barack Obama,
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of
National Security Agency Keith Alexander and FBI Director, James
Comey.

Immediately after the lawsuit filing, Rand Paul was set to host a
press conference outside the courthouse with Matt Kibbe and Ken
Cuccinelli.

Rand Paul stated: "I am filing a lawsuit against President Barack
Obama because he has publicly refused to stop a clear and
continuing violation of the 4th Amendment.  The Bill of Rights
protects all citizens from general warrants.  I expect this case
to go all the way to the Supreme Court and I predict the American
people will win."

Matt Kibbe added "This class action suit isn't about Republican
versus Democrat, or progressive versus conservative.  This is
about defending the basic civil liberties of every American from a
government that has crossed the line.  FreedomWorks is
participating in this suit on behalf of our community of 6 million
citizens nationwide, along with any American who has a phone.  If
you use a phone, you should care about this case.  Never in
American history has there been such a warrantless gathering of
citizens information.  We believe it is time to put this before
the courts. "

Ken Cuccinelli added: "I am excited to be lead counsel for
Rand Paul and FreedomWorks to get the Courts to affirm the rights
protected by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.  We have
assembled a legal team and we expect to be opposed by the vast
resources of the federal government, yet I am optimistic that we
will prevail, because we are seeking to protect a cornerstone of
the Constitution."


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: "Golan" Class Suit Removed to Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Golan, et al. v. Veritas
Entertainment, LLC, et al., Case No. 12SL-CC03771, from the St.
Louis County Circuit Court, state of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00069-ERW to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are Ron Golan and Dorit Golan.  The Defendants are
Veritas Entertainment, LLC; Veritas Marketing Group, LLC;
FreeEats.com, Inc., d/b/a CC Advertising; AIC Communications, LLC,
d/b/a CC Advertising; Gabriel S. Joseph III; Stephen Wayne
Griffin; Mission City Management, Inc.; Courage 2012, LLC; James
R. Leininger; SixDi, Inc., d/b/a SixDi; Bob Brewer; and Michael
Dale Huckabee, also known as: Mike Huckabee, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00069-ERW (E.D. Mo., January 15, 2014) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Schultz, Esq.
          Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq.
          SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: rschultz@sl-lawyers.com
                  reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ari Nicholas Rothman, Esq.
          Molly Theresa Cusson, Esq.
          Ronald M. Jacobs, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 Seventh Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 344-4220
          Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
          E-mail: anrothman@venable.com
                  mtcusson@venable.com
                  rmjacobs@venable.com

               - and -

          Cicely I. Lubben, Esq.
          Kimberly Means Steuterman, Esq.
          STINSON AND LEONARD LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-0800
          Facsimile: (314) 863-9388
          E-mail: cicely.lubben@stinsonleonard.com
                  kimberly.steuterman@stinsonleonard.com

               - and -

          Steven H. Schwartz, Esq.
          BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 421-3400
          Facsimile: (314) 421-3128
          E-mail: sschwartz@bjpc.com


WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls 2,446 Lbs. of Chicken Salad Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walker's Food Products Co., a North Kansas City, Mo.,
establishment, is recalling approximately 2,446 pounds of chicken
salad products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  The products are formulated with a soy
protein concentrate, a known allergen, which was not properly
declared on the labels.

The products subject to recall includes:

   -- 5-lb. plastic tubs of "Walker's All White Chunky Chicken
      Salad" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and
      Jan. 23, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 26, 2013
      and March 14, 2014 and sold to wholesale locations in
      Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

   -- 1-lb. plastic tubs of "Walker's All White Chunky Chicken
      Salad" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and
      Jan. 23, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 26, 2013
      and March 14, 2014 and sold to retail locations in Illinois,
      Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma.

   -- 5-lb. tubs of "Walker's White Chicken Salad Florentine" with
      packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and Jan. 27, 2014 and
      use by/sell by dates between July 14, 2013 and March 6, 2014
      and sold to wholesale locations for distribution in Kansas
      and Missouri.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-13335" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS in-plant inspector during a
routine label review.  The problem occurred after a change in
product suppliers without a corresponding change in label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  For individuals allergic to
soy, consumption of soy protein concentrate presents a reasonable
probability of serious health consequences or death.  Anyone
concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

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

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact James
Daskaleas at (816) 472-8121, ext. 15.  Media with questions about
the recall should contact Mike Stinson at (816) 472-8121, ext. 12.

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


WESTERN HEALTH: Class Action Certification Proceedings Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kean, writing for The Western Star, reports that Western
Health's lawyers was set to continue to try and convince
Justice William Goodridge that its client should not be held
responsible for one of its employees breaching the privacy of more
than 1,000 patients on Feb. 6.

The certification hearing to determine if a class-action lawsuit
filed against Western Health can proceed began before
Justice Goodridge in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Corner Brook on Jan. 30.

The lawyers representing the plaintiffs have made their
submissions as to why the class-action should go ahead.
Dan Boone, Western Health's lead counsel, began his argument on
Jan. 30 and was set to pick up where he left off on Feb. 6.

Mr. Boone submitted the class action should not be certified by
the court because, under provincial privacy legislation, action
would have to be taken against the employee who inappropriately
accessed the files.  That's because the law stipulates that the
breach has to be shown as intentional, which the health authority
argued it should not be responsible for.

The class-action lawsuit was launched in light of a breach of
privacy involving the files of 1,043 people.  Donna Colbourne, a
clerk at Western Memorial Regional Hospital was fired from her
position in 2012 after she allegedly inappropriately accessed
patient files while on the job.

Affected patients were notified by Western Health of the breach in
the summer of 2012, following an internal investigation that
reviewed accessed files from June 2011 to May 2012.

Both Ms. Colbourne and Western Health were originally listed as
defendants.  However, Ms. Colbourne was later removed as
defendant.

Justice Goodridge has been tasked with deciding if the matter
should proceed as a class-action lawsuit.

The allegation is that Western Health didn't do enough to protect
its patients.  In addition, Mr. Boone argued there is no basis for
any awarding of damages in this case as argued by the plaintiffs.

Bob Buckingham, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, does not
agree.  He has not put an exact dollar figure on the damages they
are seeking, but said it could range from $500 to $30,000,
depending on the respective circumstances of each plaintiff.

Besides that, his chief argument is that Western Health should be
held accountable for Ms. Colbourne's actions.


WYOMING AUTHENTIC: Recalls 365 Pounds of Beef Jerky Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming Authentic Products, LLC, a Cody, Wyo. establishment, is
recalling approximately 365 pounds of beef jerky products due to a
processing deviation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Wyoming Gourmet Beef products were produced on various dates
between November 4 and November 25, 2013, 2013.  These products
are subject to recall:

   -- 3.5-oz. (CRYOVACED) packages of "ALL NATURAL ANGUS ORIGINAL
      FLAVOR JERKY" with case code "05AE30811"

   -- 3.5-oz. (CRYOVACED) packages of "ALL NATURAL ANGUS PEPPERED
      FLAVOR JERKY" with case codes "06AE30821", "05AE31021",
      "05AE31711" or "05EIJ32511"

   -- 3.5-oz. (CRYOVACED) packages of "ALL NATURAL ANGUS HONEY
      FLAVOR JERKY" with case code "04AE30921"

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
44972" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These products were
sold at retail in Colorado, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, as well
as Internet sales to individuals.

The problem was discovered by the company, who then brought it to
the attention of FSIS.  FSIS and the company have received no
reports of illness due to consumption of these products.  Anyone
concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

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

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact David Fales, president, at (307) 587-9841.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


YAO JI: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Uncle T Food Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Uncle T Food Ltd. is recalling Yao Ji brand frozen fish products
from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled products described.

These products have been sold by T & T Supermarkets in BC and
Alberta.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There has been one reported allergic reaction associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

Affected products:

  Common Name           Size   Code(s) on product     UPC
  -----------           ----   ------------------     ---
  Frozen Fish Medley    300 g   EXP 20140403 and   4 713174 090314
    Combo                       EXP 20140315
  Frozen Fish          300 g                       4 713174 030297
   Dumplings Fish Ball
   Combo


ZOLTEK COMPANIES: Named as Defendant in 13 Suits Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 13 purported class actions arising out of the execution
of a Merger Agreement were filed against Zoltek Companies, Inc.,
alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties to
shareholders, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
December 17, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013.

In September and October 2013, a total of 13 purported class
actions arising out of the execution of the Merger Agreement were
filed against Zoltek and Zoltek's directors in the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri by purported shareholders of Zoltek.
All but one of the lawsuits also named Toray and/or Merger Sub as
defendants. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that (1) each
of Zoltek's directors breached his fiduciary duties to Zoltek's
shareholders in connection with approval of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and (2) that Zoltek, Parent
and Merger Sub aided and abetted Zoltek's directors in such
breaches of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, among other
things, injunctive relief preventing the parties from completing
the merger and directing the Zoltek directors to account to Zoltek
and the purported class for all damages suffered as a result of
the breaches of fiduciary duties and awards of attorneys' fees and
expenses for the plaintiffs.

Zoltek has filed various motions to dismiss the actions against
Zoltek and the individual directors of Zoltek, which motions are
pending. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri
consolidated each of the actions under the caption In Re: Zoltek
Companies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation on November 26, 2013.

On November 27, 2013, the Court entered an order denying a motion
filed by certain of the plaintiffs for expedited discovery. Cross
Motions filed by the plaintiffs to designate lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel are pending before the Court. On December 4, 2013,
the Court entered an order appointing co-lead plaintiffs in the
action, and in the same order, the Court appointed Goldenberg
Heller Antognoli & Rowland, P.C. and Holloran White Schwartz &
Gaertner LLP as interim co-lead counsel and appointed Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP to the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously. There can be no assurance,
however, with regard to the outcome of this litigation.

Zoltek Companies, Inc. is a holding company, which operates
through wholly owned subsidiaries, Zoltek Corporation, Zoltek
Zrt., Zoltek de Mexico SA de CV, Zoltek de Occidente SA de CV,
Engineering Technology Corporation (Entec Composite Machines),
Zoltek Properties, Inc., and Zoltek Automotive, LLC. Zoltek
Corporation (Zoltek) develops, manufactures and markets carbon
fibers and technical fibers in the United States. The Company is
an applied technology and advanced materials company. Its
commercialization of carbon fiber through composites used in a
range of commercial products, which it sells under the Panex trade
name. In addition to manufacturing carbon fiber, it produces an
intermediate product, a stabilized and oxidized acrylic fiber used
in flame- and heat-resistant applications, which it sells under
the Pyron trade name. During fiscal year ended September 30, 2011,
its net sales to Vestas Wind Systems, a wind turbine manufacturer
represented % of its net sales.


                             *********

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  * * *