CAR_Public/140218.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 34

                             Headlines


A.M. JENSEN: Recalls Cheddar Cheese Due to Listeria
AFFINION GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
ALLODERM: Product Liability Suits Continue to Move Forward in N.J.
AMERICAN EUROPEAN: Took More Than 100 People's Money, Class Says
ANGIE'S LIST: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Indiana

BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Late Fee Suit
BERNARD L. MADOFF: Investors Can't Intervene in Picower Forfeiture
CHEVRON CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Rig Explosion in Nigeria
CME GROUP: Faces Suit Over Loss of Access to Open Outcry Pits
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Patient Sue Over Faulty Knee Replacements

DISCOUNT TIRE: Faces Class Suit Over Refusal to Honor Warranty
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Class Action Settlement Challenged
FORD MOTOR: Attorneys Dispute Plaintiffs' Acceleration Claims
GATE GOURMET: Court Set to Rule on Case Over Religious Rights

GEORGIA: Labor Dept Accused of Giving Away People's Identities
GOOGLE INC: March 20 Hearing in High-Tech Employee Antitrust Suit
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls Nearly 3.8 Million Car Safety Seats
HALLWOOD GROUP: Settles Class Action Over Merger Consideration
HERTZ GLOBAL: Class Accuses Insiders of Dumping $4-Bil. of Stock

HOUSTON, TX: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit by Fined Drivers
JONES GROUP: Being Sold for Too Little to Jasper, Suit Claims
LINKEDIN CORP: Told by Users Not to Blame Them for Spam Tactics
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls PC Organics Soy Infant Formula
MEDISCA INC: FDA Issues Warning on L-Citrulline Supplement

MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Feb. 20 Hearing in College Athletes' Suit
NEW JERSEY: Counsel in Bridgegate Suit Seeks to Use Campaign Funds
NEW JERSEY: Committee Issues Subpoenas in Bridgegate Suit
NEW JERSEY: Must Give Status Report, Appeals Court Says

NEW YORK: Protesters From 2004 RNC Settle for $18 Million
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR: Non-Sexual Misconduct May Be Heard
NUTRIOM LLC: Recalls Dried Egg Products Over Salmonella Concerns
OKLAHOMA: Court Struck Down Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
REALCOMP II: To Settle Subscribers' Class Action for $3.25 Million

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissal of Okla. Securities Litigation Sought
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Orders Dismissal of "Kallick" Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Wants Dismissal, Venue Transfer for "Hart" Suit
SIEMENS RAIL: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action in California
STATE FARM: Discovery Order Entered in Racketeering Class Action

TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Prius Hybrid Over Software Glitch
TYSON PREPARED FOODS: Supreme Court to Hear Sex Offense Cases
UNITED STATES: Immigrant Detainees Obtain Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Army Files Cross-Appeal in CIA Drug Testing Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Decision of Appeal in "Braun/Hummel"

WAL-MART STORES: December Update on Gender Discrimination Suits
WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Odle"
WAL-MART STORES: 6th Cir. Okays Appeal on "Phipps" Suit Dismissal
WAL-MART STORES: Wins Dismissal of "Love" Labor Suit
WAL-MART STORES: 7th Cir. Tosses Appeal on "Ladik" Case Dismissal

WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Suit Over Alleged FCPA Violation
WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Pontiac Retirement System's Suit
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Elk River Spill
WESTERN HEALTH: Judge Expected to Decide on Class Action in March
WILDWOOD, FL: Faces Class Action Over Police User Fees

ZEOBIT LLC: "MacKeeper" Software Is Junkware, Class Claims


                             *********


A.M. JENSEN: Recalls Cheddar Cheese Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 10, 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:             Consumer

A.M. Jensen Ltd. is recalling Jensen Cheese brand Old Cheddar
Cheese (white) from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The affected product, Jensen Cheese brand Old Cheddar Cheese
(white), was sold in variable weight packages at the following
retail locations in Ontario during these periods:

  Retail Location        Address                    Dates sold
  ---------------        -------                    ----------
  Cousin's Market     1215 Hurontario Street       Jan 30 - Feb. 7
                       Mississauga
  Marilu's Market     4025 New Street              Jan 16 - Feb. 7
                       Burlington
  Pusateri's Fine     2901 Bayview Avenue          Jan 28 - Feb. 7
   Foods               Toronto
  Pusateri's Fine     57 Yorkville Avenue          Feb 4 - 7
   Foods               Toronto
  Valeriote's Market   204 Yorkshire Road N        Jan 24 - Feb. 7
                        Guelph
  Fiesta Farms        200 Christie Street          Jan 29 - Feb. 7
                        Toronto
  Harvest Wagon       1103 Yonge Street            Jan 21 - Feb. 7
                        Toronto
  Locke Street Meats   205 Locke Street S          Jan 16 - Feb. 7
   &Deli                Hamilton, inclusive
  Market Fresh        10 Paisley Street            Jan 31 - Feb. 7
                        Guelph, inclusive
  Picone Fine Food    34 King Street W             Jan 16 - Feb. 7
                        Dundas
  The Mustard Seed    460 York Blvd                Jan 23 - Feb. 7
                        Hamilton
  Whole Foods Market   87 Avenue Road              Jan 21 - Feb. 7
   - Yorkville          Yorkville

Some product packages may not bear a code or indicate the Jensen
Cheese brand name.  This product may also have been sold clerk-
served from deli counters with or without a label or coding.
Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected
product are advised to contact their retailer.

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.

This 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.

Affected product: Jensen Cheese Old Cheddar Cheese (white) with
2313.197, 2313.297 code


AFFINION GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., having already paid millions of dollars in
civil claims and state attorney general claims in 47 states for
unfair and deceptive trade practices toward consumers, is facing
yet another class action for such practices in a case filed by the
Diviacchi Law Office.  In this court action, it is alleged that
Affinion was aided by its banking clients such as Century Bank of
Massachusetts.  This recently filed court action that is District
of Massachusetts case #14-cv-10283 deals with alleged on-paper
fraudulent practices by Affinion alleged to have been a rehearsal
for its eventual deceptive internet practices that have caused so
much of its litigation problems.  The facts of this case against
Affinion and Century Bank allege that Century Bank gave its
customers what appear to be a standard signature cards for signing
as part of their opening a bank account that in fact simply by
signing allowed Century Bank and Affinion's tradename FSA to
unilaterally without further notice or assent to bind the customer
to a "PLAN 1" "membership program" in perpetuity and at
undisclosed monthly electronic debit from the account. The
subsequent debit of at least $4/monthly was hidden as an apparent
service charge and went unnoticed for years.  The court action by
the Diviacchi Law Office further alleges that the membership
program is a farce that provides no benefits to the consumer --
especially given that consumers do not even know that they were
members of the program. Century Bank issued individually and as a
class representative of other financial institution clients of
Affinion.

The Diviacchi Law Office warns that all clients of Century Bank
should check their monthly statement for a small-print debit of
approximately $4 that they may not have knowingly authorized and
assumed to be a service charge.  Because Affinion was apparently
using this tactic with the aid of many other banks in
Massachusetts and beyond, they further warn that anyone using a
Massachusetts bank should check their monthly statement for a
small-print debit of approximately $4 that they may not have
knowingly authorized.  If found, they should immediately
investigate.


ALLODERM: Product Liability Suits Continue to Move Forward in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Rieders, Esq., at Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris Waters &
Waffenschmidt, reports that as several hundred product liability
lawsuits continue to move forward in New Jersey state court
involving individuals who experienced problems from an AlloDerm
hernia patch, the parties are expected to select a small group of
cases this week to be prepared for potential bellwether trials
that will begin in September 2015.

There are currently more that 330 AlloDerm lawsuits filed in
New Jersey state court, which have been consolidated in a multi-
county litigation, or mCL before Superior Court Judge Jessica R.
Mayer in Middlesex County.  All of the complaints involve
complications from patients who received the AlloDerm Regenerative
Tissue Matrix for hernia surgery or abdominal repair.  AlloDerm is
manufactured by LifeCell Corporation, a New Jersey company.

The complaints all involve similar reports that individuals
experienced complications after AlloDerm hernia repair, where the
patch began to stretch, sag or loosen once implanted.  This has
been linked to reports of severe abdominal pain, infection,
inflammation, injury to nearby organs, adhesion failure, hernia
recurrence and other problems.

Last month, Judge Mayer issued a case management order that
outlines the bellwether trial selection process.  Following the
selection of 20 cases for an initial pool by December of last
year, the parties are expected to further narrow the pool by
February 18, with each side choosing four cases for a total of
8 cases.


AMERICAN EUROPEAN: Took More Than 100 People's Money, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a New York City travel
agency took more than 100 people's money then canceled their
European trip on short notice after its deceptive scheme failed to
turn a profit, a couple claims in a class action lawsuit.

Lead plaintiffs Thomas and Margaret Hoffman sued American European
Travel, in Cook County Chancery Court.  The Hoffmans say they had
their bags packed and were "eagerly awaiting a nine day cultural
tour of Italy," when the defendant sent them "a casual email"
falsely informing them that the trip had been canceled due to
"overbooking."

"This cancellation was not the result of an innocent mistake
calculating the available spots on the trip but rather was the
result of an undisclosed and unfair business practice," the
Hoffmans say in the complaint.  They claim the travel agent sold
the same trip at two prices: one "at a price too low to make the
trip profitable (or sufficiently profitable) in order to generate
interest in the trip" and the other "at a much higher price which
made the trip profitable to the defendant."

But it never disclosed this, nor did it disclose "that it did not
intend to provide the trip unless it could sell enough vacation
packages at the higher price to make the trip profitable," the
Hoffmans say in the complaint.

They call this "fundamentally unfair," and claim the defendant
"canceled the trips of over 100 consumers who had purchased their
vacation packages."

The prices this time around were $1,398 per person, $1,598 for
single rooms, and the higher rater was $2,598, the Hoffmans say.
They say the agency canceled the trip on four days notice.
They seek class certification, damages and punitive damages for
consumer fraud and deceptive trade.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN
          17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0003
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com


ANGIE'S LIST: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Angie's List, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of Indiana, and docketed under 14-cv 0023LJM-MJD, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Angie's List securities between
February 14, 2013 and October 23, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

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

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

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

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

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

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


BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Late Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
With a note of sympathy, the 9th Circuit affirmed dismissal on
January 21, 2014, of a class action challenging the
constitutionality of fees imposed by major credit card issuers
like Bank of America, according to Courthouse News Service.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Seana Shiffrin, Esq.
          UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW
          385 Charles E. Young Drive East
          1242 Law Building
          Los Angeles, CA 90095
          Telephone: (310) 825-4841
          E-mail: shiffrin@law.ucla.edu

               - and -

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          Frank J. Janecek, Jr., Esq.
          Elisabeth A. Bowman, Esq.
          Mary Lynne Calkins, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  frankj@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Tyler R. Meade, Esq.
          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          MEADE & SCHRAG LLP
          1816 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 843-3670
          Facsimile: (510) 843-3679
          E-mail: tyler@meadeschrag.com
                  michael@meadeschrag.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Rebecca J.K. Gelfond, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363

               - and -

          Christopher R. Lipsett, Esq.
          Noah Adam Levine, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
          E-mail: chris.lipsett@wilmerhale.com
                  noah.levine@wilmerhale.com

The appellate case is In Re: Late Fee and Over-Limit Fee
Litigation, Case No. 08-15218, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Andrew T.
Pinon, et al. v. Bank of America, NA, Case No. CV-07-00634-SBA, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Investors Can't Intervene in Picower Forfeiture
------------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on Jan. 14, 2014, affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York enjoining state law
tort actions brought by two of Bernard L. Madoff's defrauded
"investors" against the estate of Jeffry M. Picower, one of
Madoff's alleged co-conspirators.

The Circuit Court considered two questions: (1) whether the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which
oversees the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities Inc. had the authority under the Bankruptcy Code to
enjoin the appellants' actions as "derivative" of adversary
proceedings brought by Irving Picard, as trustee for the BLMIS
estate, against the Picower defendants; and, if indeed authorized
by the Bankruptcy Code, (2) whether the exercise of that authority
transgressed the limitations imposed by Article III of the United
States Constitution.

The Circuit Court concluded that the Appellants' complaints
impermissibly attempt to "plead around" the Bankruptcy Court's
injunction barring all claims "derivative" of those asserted by
the Trustee.  Although the Appellants seek damages that are not
recoverable in an avoidance action, their complaints allege
nothing more than steps necessary to effect the Picower
defendants' fraudulent withdrawals of money from BLMIS, instead of
"particularized" conduct directed at BLMIS customers, the Circuit
Court ruled.

The Circuit Court also concluded that the Bankruptcy Court
operated within the confines of Article III of the United States
Constitution, as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in
Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011).  Accordingly, the
Circuit Court held that the Bankruptcy Court did not exceed the
bounds of its authority under the Bankruptcy Code or run afoul of
Article III.

The Circuit Court noted that it affirms the District Court's
decision without prejudice to the Appellants seeking leave to
amend their complaints as "there is conceivably some
particularized conspiracy claim the Appellants could assert that
would not be derivative of those asserted by the Trustee."  The
Circuit Court, however, said that question is not properly before
it, and is a question in the first instance for the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reported that largest single recovery by Mr. Picard was a $7.2
billion settlement with the Picower estate.  In settlement,
Picower's estate gave $5 billion to Picard and $2.2 billion as a
forfeiture to the U.S government.  The settlement was contingent
on an injunction barring Madoff victims from suing Picower's
estate.

Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reported that months
after Madoff's trustee, Irving Picard, brought the fight to
recover money from the massive Ponzi scheme to Picower's door, the
67-year-old was found dead in a swimming pool in Palm Beach, Fla.,
in October 2009.

Susanne Stone Marshall and Adele Fox, two allegedly defrauded
Madoff's investors, filed parallel class actions against Picower's
estate in Florida.

Although Picard allowed Marshall's claim for $30,000, he denied
Fox's two claims on the grounds that she was a so-called "net
winner" who withdrew more than she deposited.

Fox, an 86-year-old retired school secretary who claims she
invested her life savings with Madoff, alleges that Picower gained
the $7.2 billion as one of Madoff's co-conspirators.

The bankruptcy court enjoined the "derivative" Florida actions on
May 3, 2010, holding that they undermined the court's jurisdiction
and violated the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision and
the district court's December 2008 order liquidating Madoff's
assets.

In December 2010, federal prosecutors announced that Picower's
estate returned "every penny" that he made on Madoff's
"deplorable" fraud.

Fox nevertheless moved to intervene in Picower's forfeiture the
next month, claiming that Picard has denied most of the victims'
claims.

Prosecutors replied months later, however, that "the government is
highly skeptical of Fox's claim that, as a 'net winner,' she is a
victim."

A federal judge ultimately refused to let Fox intervene in May
2011, and in 2012 upheld both the settlement and permanent
injunction.

Marshall and Fox appealed, but the 2nd Circuit affirmed the lower
court's ruling.

The appellate case is SUSANNE STONE MARSHALL, individually and to
the extent she purports to represent a class of those similarly
situated, ADELE FOX, individually and to the extent she purports
to represent a class of those similarly situated, Claimants-
Appellants, v. IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the Liquidation of
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Appellee, SECURITIES
INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Intervenor, Nos. 12-1645-bk(L),
12-1646-bk(CON), 12-1651-bk(CON), 12-1669-bk(CON), 12-1703-
bk(CON)(2d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision penned by
Judge Jose A. Cabranes is available at:

         http://bankrupt.com/misc/MADOFF2dCir0114.pdf

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq.
          Peter W. Smith, Esq.
          BECKER & POLIAKOFF, LLP
          45 Broadway, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 599-3322
          Facsimile: (212) 557-0295
          E-mail: hchaitman@bplegal.com
                  psmith@becker-poliakoff.com

               - and -

          Lisa S. Blatt, Esq.
          Michael L. Bernstein, Esq.
          Charles A. Malloy, Esq.
          Isaac B. Rosenberg, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          555 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1206
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com
                  Michael.Bernstein@aporter.com
                  Charles.Malloy@aporter.com

               - and -

          James W. Beasley, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph G. Galardi, Esq.
          BEASLEY HAUSER KRAMER & GALARDI, P.A.
          505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1500
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 835-0900
          Facsimile: (561) 835-0939
          E-mail: beasley@beasleylaw.net
                  galardi@beasleylaw.net

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          David J. Sheehan, Esq.
          Deborah H. Renner, Esq.
          Tracy L. Cole, Esq.
          Keith R. Murphy, Esq.
          Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111-0100
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
          E-mail: dsheehan@bakerlaw.com
                  drenner@bakerlaw.com
                  tcole@bakerlaw.com
                  kmurphy@bakerlaw.com
                  twarren@bakerlaw.com

Intervenor Securities Investor Protection Corporation is
represented by:

          Josephine Wang, Esq.
          Kevin H. Bell, Esq.
          Lauren Attard, Esq.
          SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION
          805 15th Street, N.W. Suite 800
          Washington, D.C. 20005-2215
          Telephone: (202) 371-8300
          Facsimile: (202) 371-6728
          E-mail: asksipc@sipc.org

The original case is Stone Marshall and Adele Fox v. Irving H.
Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC, Case No. 10 Civ. 7101 (JGK), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


CHEVRON CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Rig Explosion in Nigeria
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron Corp. faces a federal class action from people who claim
they were injured by a January 16, 2012 oil rig explosion off the
coast of Nigeria that burned for 46 days, according to Courthouse
News Service and Law360.

Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, said residents struck Chevron
with a $5 billion suit in California federal court on Jan. 13 over
a deadly 2012 offshore natural gas rig explosion that allegedly
poisoned their air and water.  The suit says Chevron's negligence
is to blame for an explosion that destroyed the K.S. Endeavour
rig, a drilling platform six miles off the coast of southern
Nigeria owned in part by its subsidiary Chevron Nigeria Ltd. Two
contract rig workers were killed and the resulting offshore fire
burned for 46 days, according to company accounts.

The plaintiffs are leaders of Niger Delta communities who say
they've been appointed to represent the interests of 65,000 locals
who have allegedly seen their agricultural land, forests, swamps
and drinking waters contaminated as a result of the disaster.

According to the complaint, Chevron failed to heed reports of
equipment failures, smoke and gas build-up at the rig, when it
should have permitted the facility to be shut down or evacuated,
leading to a series of pump failures that caused an explosion and
sent vast quantities of hydro-carbon gases into the ocean.

"Chevron willfully refused or failed to desist from drilling," the
suit said. "Chevron [was] primarily concerned with profit while
disregarding public and environmental health and safety when
undertaking their ultra-hazardous activities on the KS Endeavour
by continuing drilling on the gas borehole in the teeth of
physical and verbal warnings of impending and imminent danger."

The rig in question was allegedly operated by a subsidiary of
Field Offshore Design Engineering Ltd. under a contract with
Chevron and its joint-venture partner, the state-owned Nigerian
National Petroleum Co., and was in the process of drilling a gas
exploration well in the Funiwa field off the Niger Delta.

The cause of the January 2012 explosion, which killed two of the
rig's 154 workers, is still under investigation, according to
Chevron. Though the fire was restricted to the rig itself, it
continued to burn for over a month after the entire structure
collapsed underneath the water.

According to the suit, expert reports have determined that the
incident caused "significant environmental impacts" that killed
fish and livestock and contaminated water, soil and air.  The
plaintiffs say they sued in California because any litigation in
Nigeria's "wholly unreliable functioning judiciary" would have
been futile. In a passing reference, the suit claims on
information and belief that Chevron bribed Nigerian officials to
head off any "legal process" that might be brought there.

"Defendants had a duty to conform their conduct in such a manner
as to ensure that a blowout would not occur, that the rig would
not explode and that an uncontrolled gas escape and fire would not
result," the suit said. "Defendants' substandard conduct in
failing to prevent the blowout, the ensuing destruction, and the
uncontrolled discharge of gas and the fire was the cause-in-fact
of the harm and damages suffered by the plaintiffs."

The suit brings common-law claims for negligence, gross
negligence, negligence per se, nuisance and willful misconduct
over purported violations of several Nigerian energy exploration
and land-use statutes.

A representative for Chevron on Jan. 13 declined to comment on the
suit, saying the company had not yet been served.

Chevron is the third-largest oil producer in Nigeria and has grown
its portfolio in West Africa aggressively, having launched a $5.6
billion oil venture off the coast of Angola, deepwater blocks near
Sierra Leone, and a $2 billion deepwater oil field in an offshore
zone jointly held by Angola and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jacqueline Perry, Esq.
     Neil J. Fraser, Esq.
     RUFUS-ISAACS ACLAND & GRANTHAM LLP
     232 N. Canon Drive
     Beverly Hills CA 90210
     Tel: 310-274-3803
     Fax: 310-860-2430
     Email: jperry@rufuslaw.com

The case is Ogala v. Chevron Corp., case number 3:14-cv-00173, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


CME GROUP: Faces Suit Over Loss of Access to Open Outcry Pits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that lead plaintiff Sheldon Langer filed a class action in January
against CME Group, and the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago,
in Cook County Chancery Court.  CME Group members claim in a class
action that the switch to electronic trading has eliminated CME
futures traders' once privileged access to the open outcry pits,
and devalued their Class B shares by hundreds of millions of
dollars.

The class seeks "hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief based on CME's decision to
fundamentally change the trading rights and privileges afforded to
the Class B plaintiffs."

CME -- the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, also known as the Merc --
is the world's largest futures and options exchange company.

Langer has been a member of CME since 1974.

Plaintiffs are largely "old-line" traders and members of CME who
own Class B shares in it, "designed to preserve the value of their
membership by protecting their trading rights and privileges into
the future."

But in the past 15 years, CME has radically changed its business
model, the class claims.  In 2000, most trading was still done in
open outcry pits; today the vast majority of trading is done
electronically.

In January 2012, CME opened the Aurora Data Center (ADC) to house
its Globex electronic trading engine, which matches bids to offers
to sell.

"Upon opening the ADC, CME discontinued its longstanding practice
of providing the Class B Plaintiffs with the best access to the
Globex for free, told the Class B Plaintiffs that they would need
to pay substantial monthly rental fees to access the Globex at the
ADC, and began bypassing the lease market for the trading and
access rights associated with Class B shares by directly marketing
the right to access Globex in the ADC.  By doing so, CME breached
its contractual obligations, under which one of the 'Core Rights'
afforded to the Class B plaintiffs is that any change to their
floor access rights and privileges or to the eligibility
requirements for exercising the trading rights and privileges of
CME requires the approval of the Class B plaintiffs, which CME
never obtained," the class claims.

The plaintiffs claim that Class B memberships have lost hundreds
of millions of dollars in value since losing these fundamental
privileges, even while CME's Class A shares have seen tremendous
growth.

"Historically, Class B Plaintiffs had been able to generate
significant revenues by leasing their 'seats,' i.e., the trading
rights and privileges that are, as a matter of contract,
associated with Class B memberships.  The languishing value of the
Class B plaintiffs' seats since the beginning of 2012 stems from
the fact that the previously liquid and lucrative market for
leasing the trading rights and privileges associated with Class B
memberships has been substantially destroyed," the complaint
states.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction restoring
their privileged access to the electronic trading platform, and
damages for breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Suyash Agrawal, Esq.
          AGRAWAL EVANS LLP
          308 West Erie Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 488-1767
          E-mail: suyash@agrawalevans.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
          E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Patient Sue Over Faulty Knee Replacements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Galia Binder, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
New Orleans woman is suing an orthopedics company and its
distributor for an allegedly non-functional prosthetic device that
necessitated knee surgery.

Carolyn Audrict, and husband Erroll Audrict Sr., filed suit
against Depuy Orthopaedics Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Services
Inc. in the Orleans Parish Civil Court.

Carolyn Audrict claim she was implanted with the Depuy PFC Sigma
Knee System in her right knee on March 22, 2010 and received the
same system in her left knee on June 21, 2011.  After Ms. Audrict
experienced increasing pain in her left knee, she claims she
underwent a painful and dangerous revision surgery involving her
left knee on Sept. 16, 2013. and expects to face future surgery
due to pain in her right knee.

Depuy and Johnson & Johnson are accused of designing, marketing
and manufacturing a defective product, failing to make the
product's risk public information and negligence.

Ms. Audrict are seeking unspecified damages for medical expenses,
lost earning capacity and wages and punitive damages in the form
of restitution of defendants' revenue as gained from the PFC Sigma
Knee System.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen M. Huber of New Orleans-
based Huber, Slack, Houghtaling, Pandit & Thomas LLP.

The case has been assigned to Division H Judge Michael Bagneris.

Case no. 2013-10850.


DISCOUNT TIRE: Faces Class Suit Over Refusal to Honor Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Discount Tire won't honor its
warranty, but offers cheaper replacement tires, a class action
claims in Superior Court.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamics Research Corp. is facing a merger-related class action
lawsuit in Suffolk County Court.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company is being sold too cheaply to Engility Holdings, Inc.


FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Class Action Settlement Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that a Facebook
privacy class action that a judge once said might be too big to
settle is being attacked on appeal for providing "only" $20
million in relief.


FORD MOTOR: Attorneys Dispute Plaintiffs' Acceleration Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a hearing on
Ford's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges its
vehicles are subject to unintended acceleration was held on Feb. 6
in the Sidney L. Christie Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in
Huntington.

District Judge Robert C. Chambers presided over the hearing.

The suit, which was filed last year and includes plaintiffs from
more than 30 states, alleges Ford vehicles equipped with an
electronic throttle control system are vulnerable to sudden
unintended acceleration.

The plaintiffs claim Ford should have prevented such incidents by
including the brake-over-accelerator system or other fail-safe
systems in its vehicles.

J. Tracy Walker IV, an attorney for Ford with McGuire Woods, said
the plaintiffs did not allege any reason for the sudden
acceleration event to happen.

"In their complaint, the plaintiffs never say if the alleged event
caused them to stop using their vehicles and there is no
allegation of what needs to be fixed," Mr. Walker said.

The plaintiffs are not seeking repair costs, personal injury or
property damages.  They allege they would not have purchased the
vehicles, or paid as much to do so, if they had known about the
unintended acceleration problem.

"They are seeking for a diminution of value of their vehicles, not
for injuries," Mr. Walker said.

Mr. Walker said car companies have added alerts and assisted
driving things to vehicles, but vehicles made before these were
added were not defective.

"Essentially, the plaintiffs are saying all vehicles made before
these were added were not rendered defective once the newer
vehicles were made," Mr. Walker said.  "Their only allegation is
that Ford should've made these vehicles more safe by adding this
feature."

A number of the plaintiffs in the case have not actually suffered
a sudden acceleration event, but fear that they might because of
the type of car they have.

"These plaintiffs shouldn't have a case," Mr. Walker said.  "They
are saying that they might have a problem in the future, but don't
have one now.  You have to allege injury, not just the
manifestation of the event."

Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- an attorney for the
plaintiffs with Spilman, Thomas & Battle, said the plaintiffs are
not enjoying their vehicles and are panicked when they have to
drive them.  Some plaintiffs have not been able to sell their
vehicles or cannot afford to do so and are as risk every time they
get behind the wheel.

Mr. Paul said the Electronic Throttle Control System is defective
in the vehicles, which was present from the moment the cars were
driven off the lot when they were purchased.

"The brake override accelerator is only part of the way to fix
this problem," Mr. Paul said.  "The ETCS can only detect single-
point failure -- not multi-point failures."

Mr. Paul said it is supposed to trigger a reaction, but it is not
always the right one.

"This problem is real," Mr. Paul said.  "It exists.  And, through
discovery, I think we will be able to prove that Ford knows it
exists."

Adam J. Levitt, an attorney for the plaintiffs with Grant &
Eisenhoffer, said his team has adequately pleaded its claims that
the plaintiffs suffered a diminution of the value of their
vehicles.

"These vehicles had the defect at the time of sale," Mr. Levitt
said. "If you had 100 airplanes and one fell out of the sky, that
doesn't mean the other 99 don't have the same defect."

Mr. Levitt said if consumers were made aware of the defect in the
Ford vehicles, they would not have bought their vehicles or would
have paid significantly less for them.

"The basis of consumer class actions is holding a manufacturer
responsible," Mr. Levitt said.  "Ford has installed fail-safes in
newer cars in Europe, but not here in America.  Would you pay for
a car with the propensity to go out of control?"

The lawsuit, which alleges that purchasers of Ford, Lincoln and
Mercury vehicles made from 2002 until 2010 were defective, was
filed March 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia at Huntington.  The defendant's motion
to dismiss was filed June 27.

The vehicles equipped with an electronic throttle control, but no
adequate fail-safe systems to prevent incidents of sudden
unintended acceleration, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs are also being represented by Nathan B. Atkinson --
natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman, Thomas & Battle PLLC;
John E. Tangren -- jtangren@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhoffer
PA; Mark DiCello -- madicello@dicellolaw.com -- and Robert F.
DiCello -- rfdicello@dicellolaw.com -- of the DiCello Law Firm;
Guy R. Bucci, Timothy C. Bailey and Lee Javins of Bucci Bailey &
Javins LC; James R. Bartimus and Stephen M. Gorny of Bartimus,
Frickleton, Robertson & Gorney PC; John T. Murray of Murray &
Murray Co. LPA; John Scarola -- JSX@searcylaw.com -- and C. Calvin
Warriner III -- ccw@searcylaw.com -- of Searcy, Denney, Scarola,
Barnhart & Shipley PA; Joseph J. Siprut and Aleksandra M.S. Vold
of Siprut PC; Keith G. Bremer, Alison K. Hurley and Benjamin L.
Price -- bprice@bremerwhyte.com -- of Bremer, Whyte, Brown &
O'Meara LLP; E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- and
Richard L. Merpi II -- rlm@millerlawpc.com -- of the Miller Law
Firm PC; Grant L. Davis -- gdavis@dbjlaw.net -- and Timothy C.
Gaarder of Davis, Bethune & Jones LLC; and Edgar F. Heiskell III.

Ford is also being represented by Michael Bonasso --
mbonasso@fsblaw.com -- William J. Hanna -- whanna@fsblaw.com --
Susan W. Romaine -- sromaine@fsblaw.com -- Bradley J. Schmalzer --
bschmalzer@fsblaw.com -- and Jeffrey A. Holmstrand --
jholmstrand@fsblaw.com -- of Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso PLLC;
Andrew J. Trask of McGuire Woods LLP; and Peter J. Fazio --
pjfazio@arfdlaw.com -- of Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch
LLP.

On Dec. 4, Ford filed its memorandum in opposition to a requested
preliminary injunction that, if granted, would make the company
issue a safety advisory that would inform drivers of certain Ford
vehicles how to handle unintended sudden acceleration issues.

The motion was filed Nov. 18 by plaintiffs attorneys who claim
Ford owners are in danger of significant injury or death.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at
Huntington case number: 3:13-cv-06529


GATE GOURMET: Court Set to Rule on Case Over Religious Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Ham, writing for kirotv.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed by employees at airline food manufacturer Gate
Gourmet could obligate employers in the state to accommodate
employees with religious requirements.

Attorney Seth Rosenberg says he's expecting a ruling any day now
on the case.

"In a sense, this is a very big deal because it's going to extend
an employer's obligation to accommodate the reasonable sincerely
held beliefs of the employees," said Mr. Rosenberg.

In 2012, his clients, James Kumar, Ranveer Singh, Asegedew Gefe
and Abbas Kosymov filed a lawsuit against their employer, Gate
Gourmet.  The four men said their employer fed them pork, when
they thought they were eating turkey.  Because of they are Hindu,
Muslim and Orthodox Christian, they do not eat pork.

Because of security restrictions at SeaTac Airport, Gate Gourmet
employees cannot bring their own lunches.

Now class petitioners in the case want to follow their own
respective religious rituals to cleanse themselves.

A King County judge dismissed the class action lawsuit, but
Rosenberg took it to the State Supreme Court.

A judge accepted the arguments and will decide on the case
sometime this month.

A spokesperson for Gate Gourmet would not comment on the lawsuit
but said, "Gate Gourmet takes its legal obligations very
seriously, including those that are designed to protect the rights
of its employees."


GEORGIA: Labor Dept Accused of Giving Away People's Identities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Georgia Department of
Labor created a list of 4,757 people's identities, including
Social Security numbers, and emailed it to 1,000 people for no
reason other than incompetence, a class action claimed in Fulton
County Superior Court.


GOOGLE INC: March 20 Hearing in High-Tech Employee Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims that Silicon Valley tech giants conspired to suppress
workers' wages are bogus, Apple and others say, claiming that
there is "nothing more" to the allegations than do-not-cold call
agreements, Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reported.

In a consolidated class action in 2012, five software engineers
claimed they were harmed by a years-long poaching ban that
maintained stable internal salary structures at Adobe, Apple,
Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Disney Pixar.  The companies
allegedly reached the agreements via "gentleman's agreements" in
CEO-to-CEO emails.  Discovery in the case proved to be a veritable
who's who of the tech world, including depositions by Google CEO
Larry Page, Lucasfilm CEO George Lucas and Apple CEO Tim Cook.

In April 2013, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh partly certified the
class and ordered the plaintiffs to further prove the impact of
the agreements, classwide.

"Due to concerns that questions of impact in this case may call
for individualized inquiries that predominate over common ones,
the court finds that plaintiffs must demonstrate a method for
proving impact on a class-wide basis," Koh wrote.

The plaintiffs "have not, at this time, satisfied their burden
with regard to the all-employee class or the technical class," she
added.

The 9th Circuit reportedly refused January 14, 2014, to let the
companies appeal Koh's certification of the class.

Workers claim that their employers "conspired to suppress, and
actually did suppress, employee compensation to artificially low
levels" from 2005 to 2009, and "prohibited the companies'
solicitation of any of their employees, regardless of geography,
job description, or time period."

Responding to the allegations, four companies -- Adobe, Apple,
Intel and Google -- individually moved for summary judgment last
week based on alleged lack of evidence of impact or damages.

Apple, in a 14-page motion, said there was no single "overarching
conspiracy," as the plaintiffs claimed, but "only three separate,
bilateral do-not-cold-call agreements" between the company and
Adobe, Pixar and Google.

"Apple entered into each of the three DNCC [do-not-cold-call]
agreements at different times, for different reasons, and to serve
its own self-interests -- not as part of an overarching conspiracy
among the seven defendants," the motion states.  "Apple's
agreement with Adobe had its roots in the early 1980s during both
companies' formative years, arising out of deep collaborations
essential to Apple's success.  Apple's arrangement with Pixar had
its beginnings in the late 1990s, arising from Steve Jobs's unique
dual roles as Pixar's founder, chairman, CEO and majority
shareholder and as Apple's founder, CEO and board member. . . .
Apple's DNCC agreement and no cold calling practices with respect
to Google began in 2005, arising from extensive technical
collaborations between the two companies.  The agreement continued
during Google CEO Eric Schmidt's service on Apple's board,
reflecting Apple's policy not to cold call employees of companies
whose senior executives served on its board, thereby avoiding a
real or apparent conflict of interest for those board members."

Intel separately said evidence suggested it "at most" entered into
a single bilateral do-not-cold-call agreement with Google, and
that the plaintiffs "have no direct or circumstantial evidence
showing that Intel entered into the broader 'overarching
conspiracy' alleged in the amended complaint."

The 15-page motion adds: "because the Intel/Google DNCC agreement
was indisputably in Intel's self-interest irrespective of the
conduct of the other defendants, no inference that Intel joined
any broader conspiracy may be drawn from that agreement."

Google similarly did not dispute entering into three do-not-cold-
call agreements and called the plaintiffs' claims "extravagant."

"Even after extensive discovery, plaintiffs have been forced to
concede that there is no direct evidence to support this
extravagant claim," Google's 18-page motion states.  "As a result,
plaintiffs' case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence of
supposedly parallel conduct and opportunities to conspire.  The
undisputed evidence makes clear that such a record falls far short
of entitling plaintiffs to a trial against Google."

Citing a single bilateral agreement with Apple, Adobe said there
was no inference that it joined a broader conspiracy.

"Adobe did not know of any broader agreement or conspiracy.  Adobe
did not know or care whether other defendants had bilateral
agreements.  Adobe's bilateral agreement with Apple was in Adobe's
self-interest without regard to what any other company did or
didn't do," the 16-page motion states.

The companies also jointly moved for summary judgment based on
their motion to exclude the expert testimony of economist and
statistician Dr. Edward Leamer, who found that the alleged
agreements had a widespread, adverse effect on pay.

Workers claim the Justice Department corroborated Leamers analysis
in concluding that the agreements "disrupted the normal price-
setting mechanisms" and thereby suppressed compensation.

Koh is scheduled to hear the case on March 20.

Google Inc. is represented by:

          Lee H. Rubin, Esq.
          Edward D. Johnson, Esq.
          Donald M. Falk, Esq.
          Anne M. Selin, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2000
          Facsimile: (650) 331-2061
          E-mail: lrubin@mayerbrown.com
                  wjohnson@mayerbrown.com
                  dfalk@mayerbrown.com
                  aselin@mayerbrown.com

The case is In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 11-CV-2509 LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls Nearly 3.8 Million Car Safety Seats
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Graco is recalling nearly 3.8
million car safety seats because children can get trapped by
buckles that may not unlatch.  But the company has drawn the ire
of federal safety regulators who say the recall should include
another 1.8 million rear-facing car seats designed for infants.

The recall covers 11 models sold from 2009 through 2013 by Graco
Children's Products Inc. of Atlanta.  The National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration warned that the problem could
make it "difficult to remove the child from the restraint,
increasing the risk of injury in the event of a vehicle crash,
fire or other emergency."

But NHTSA also criticized Graco in a letter dated Feb. 11, saying
the recall improperly excludes infant car seats with the same
buckles.  Both the company and NHTSA have received complaints
about stuck buckles on the infant seats, the agency said.

"Some of these consumers have had no choice but to resort to the
extreme measure of cutting the harness straps to remove their
child from the car seat," the NHTSA letter said.

The agency wants Graco to identify the total number of seats that
potentially have the defect and explain why it is pushing for the
smaller recall.

Graco, a division of Atlanta-based Newell Rubbermaid, told The
Associated Press that its tests found that food or beverages can
make the harness buckles in the children's seats sticky and harder
to use over time.  The company will send replacement buckles for
free to owners who registered their seats.  Owners who didn't
register their seats but want free replacement buckles can call
the company's consumer hotline at 800-345-4109 or visit its
website.

Rear-facing infant seats aren't being recalled because infants
don't get food or drinks on their seats, Graco spokeswoman
Ashley Mowrey said.  But Ms. Mowrey said Graco will send
replacement buckles to owners of rear-facing infant seats upon
request.

Ms. Mowrey said the company has issued cleaning tips for the
buckles, and began sending replacement buckles to owners last
summer.  Graco is also sending instructions for how to replace the
buckles and posting a video on its website to show parents how to
replace them.

In documents sent to NHTSA, Graco estimated that less than 1
percent of the seats involved in the recall have had buckles that
were stuck or difficult to unlatch.

Ms. Mowrey said there have been no reported injuries due to the
defect.

NHTSA, in documents filed last year, said it received 80
complaints about the seats.

In one complaint from October of 2011, a parent wrote that they
tried to get a 20-month-old boy out of a My Ride seat, but the
center release button on the buckle couldn't be depressed.  The
parent was able to loosen the straps from the rear of the seat
enough to free the child.  "My biggest concern is that if this
happens during an emergency, where we need to get him out quickly,
we won't be able to without cutting the belt material," the parent
wrote.

Two months before that, a family with a Graco MyRide 65 car seat
told NHTSA that Graco wouldn't replace a sticking buckle on their
car seat, but offered them $40 toward a replacement seat.

NHTSA does not identify people who file complaints to the agency,
but it posts complaints on its website.


HALLWOOD GROUP: Settles Class Action Over Merger Consideration
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hallwood Group Incorporated on Feb. 7 disclosed that it has
reached a settlement in a purported class and derivative action
which, subject to court approval, will increase the Merger
Consideration by $3.00 per share, from $10.00 to $13.00 per Share,
less any incentive fee and attorneys' fees that may be awarded by
the Court.

On June 4, 2013, the Company, Hallwood Financial Limited, a
corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin
Islands, and HFL Merger Corporation, a Delaware corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent, entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, as amended on July 11, 2013. The Merger
Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as
the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.
Parent is controlled by Anthony J. Gumbiner, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Parent currently owns
1,001,575, or 65.7%, of the issued and outstanding shares of
common stock, par value $0.10 per share, of the Company.
Section 2.1(a) of the Merger Agreement provides, among other
things, that at the Effective Time, each Share (other than
Excluded Shares and any Dissenting Shares) will be converted
automatically into and will thereafter represent the right to
receive $10.00 in cash, without interest.

On August 23, 2013, Gary L. Sample filed a purported class and
derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the parties to the Merger Agreement and certain
directors and officers of the Company, asserting, among other
things, that the Original Merger Consideration was unfair and did
not reflect the true value of the Company and all of its assets.

On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement, by and through their respective
attorneys, whereby the Parties agreed that, in order to resolve
the Litigation, the parties to the Merger Agreement would, among
other actions, amend the Merger Agreement to increase the Merger
Consideration by $3.00 per share, from $10.00 per Share to $13.00
per Share, less any incentive fee and attorneys' fees that may be
awarded by the Court to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel in
accordance with the Stipulation.  The Defendants specifically deny
that they have engaged in any wrongdoing, deny that they committed
any violation of law, deny that they breached any fiduciary
duties, and deny liability of any kind to Plaintiff, the Company,
or its stockholders.  The Increased Merger Consideration will be
paid if the settlement set forth in the Stipulation is approved by
the Court and the Merger is consummated pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement as amended by the Second Amendment to the
Merger Agreement, which was entered into by the Company, Parent,
and Merger Sub as of February 7, 2014.

The Board of Directors of the Company, by affirmative vote of all
of the members of the Board of Directors of the Company other than
Mr. Gumbiner, acting upon the unanimous recommendation of the
Special Committee, has (i) reaffirmed its original determination
that the Merger is substantively and procedurally fair to the
Company's minority and unaffiliated stockholders; (ii) declared
that it is advisable and in the best interests of the Company and
its minority stockholders that the Increased Merger Consideration
be accepted in connection with the Settlement in order to resolve
the Litigation and as an additional benefit to the Company's
minority stockholders if the Settlement is approved by the Court
and the Merger is consummated pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement as amended by the Second Amendment; (iii) approved the
execution, delivery and performance of the Second Amendment; and
(iv) resolved to recommend adoption by the stockholders of the
Company of the Merger Agreement as amended by the Second
Amendment.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court, all known and unknown
claims against the Defendants relating to the Litigation, the
Merger, the Settlement, and investments in securities issued by
the Company between November 6, 2012 and the date of the Merger
will be released, including derivative claims.  If the Court does
not approve the Settlement, the Settlement and any actions to be
taken with respect to the Settlement will be of no further force
or effect and will be null and void, provided, however, that any
amendment to the Merger Agreement entered into by the parties
thereto shall remain in effect.  In the event that the Court does
not approve the Settlement, the parties to the Merger Agreement
have agreed to proceed with the consummation of the Merger based
on the Original Merger Consideration of $10.00 per Share, without
the $3.00 per Share increase to the Merger Consideration
contemplated by the Second Amendment, which would involve the
resolicitation of stockholder approval at such price.

The Company has filed a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC
relating to the holding of a special meeting of its stockholders
for the adoption of Merger Agreement.  In the near future, the
Company expects to file with the SEC, and subsequently mail to its
stockholders, a definitive proxy statement, and currently expects
that the special meeting of stockholders will be held in March or
April 2014.

The foregoing information only describes certain terms of the
Merger Agreement, as amended by the Second Amendment, and is not a
complete description of all of the parties' rights and obligations
under the Merger Agreement, as amended by the Second Amendment.
For the complete terms, please read: (a) the Merger Agreement
filed as Exhibit 2.1 to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on June 5, 2013, (b) the Amendment filed as
Exhibit 2.1 to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on July 12, 2013, and (c) the Second Amendment filed as
Exhibit 2.1 to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on February 7, 2014.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Class Accuses Insiders of Dumping $4-Bil. of Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Hertz insiders dumped more
than $4 billion of stock at inflated prices before the share price
dropped, a class action claims in Federal Court in January.

Jane C. Purnell, Individually and on Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., Mark P.
Frissora and Elyse Douglas, Case No. 2:14-cv-00285-SRC-CLW
(D.N.J., January 14, 2014) is a federal securities class action
brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Hertz
between February 25, 2013, and November 4, 2013, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2014).

Headquartered in Park Ridge, New Jersey, Hertz is one of the
nation's largest automobile and equipment rental companies.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Purnell is represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
          E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com


HOUSTON, TX: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit by Fined Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Motorists convicted of failure to display a valid driver's license
can pursue claims that they were subjected to an illegal
surcharge, Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reported,
citing a federal court ruling.

Bertha Fontenot brought the class action against Houston, Texas,
just over a year ago, on behalf of the similarly situated
penalized drivers.  She said the city incorrectly labeled
thousands of convictions in its reports to the Texas Department of
Public Safety and led the state to believe that the individuals
were found guilty of more serious traffic violations than failure
to display a license.  Relying on that information, the state
demanded that Fontenot and others pay up to $300 for surcharges
that did not apply to their offense, according to the complaint.
Maximus Inc., the company that provided the integrated case
management system, or ICMS, employed by Houston's municipal courts
at the time, was also named as a defendant to Fontenot's suit.
Houston claimed that the system automatically transmitted the
faulty information to the Department of Public Safety.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt refused January 9, 2014, to
dismiss the claims against the city.  Contrary to the city's
argument, Hoyt found that Fontenot has standing to seek injunctive
relief against Houston.

"Not only do the plaintiffs' pleadings establish a personal stake
in the case, they establish unconstitutional conduct on the part
of the city, due to the application of its 'official policy' -- a
policy that subjected the plaintiffs to penalties beyond those
called for by the applicable statutes," Hoyt wrote.  "Moreover,
the fact that the plaintiffs' conviction records remain in an
erroneous state, subjects the plaintiffs to more severe penalties,
including jail confinement, for any future convictions."

He added: "Hence, some affirmative action(s) beyond merely
redesigning its ICMS is required on the part of the city."

David Miller and Santa Zamarron are also named as plaintiffs in
the second amended complaint.  Additional defendants include
Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw; Deputy Director
for the City of Houston Municipal Courts Charlotte Booker; Gila
LLC dba Municipal Services Bureau; and Gila Manager Bruce
Cummings.

The false reporting allegedly took place for over six years.


JONES GROUP: Being Sold for Too Little to Jasper, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Group Inc. is facing a merger-related class action
lawsuit in the New York County Supreme Court.  The case arises
from the Company's December 2013 announcement.

According to a regulatory filing with Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Jasper Parent LLC ("Parent"), a Delaware limited
liability company, and Jasper Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a
newly formed Pennsylvania corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent, providing for the merger of Merger Sub with
and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving
the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Surviving
Corporation").

Parent and Merger Sub are beneficially owned by affiliates of
Sycamore Partners, L.P. and Sycamore Partners A, L.P.  The Merger
Agreement was unanimously approved by the board of directors of
the Company.


LINKEDIN CORP: Told by Users Not to Blame Them for Spam Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reported that
disgruntled LinkedIn users fired back at the company, saying the
business-networking site "blames its users" for harvesting their
email contacts without permission.

LinkedIn faces a federal class action in San Francisco claiming it
siphons email contacts from users' external email accounts and
then spams them with "endorsement emails."  Users want LinkedIn to
pay them for using their identities to sell premium memberships,
grow its member base and save money on acquiring new members.

LinkedIn urged U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose to dismiss
the complaint in December, saying users consented to the
challenged actions by clicking through a series of "permission
screens" when they first joined.  The company suggested users
merely "misunderstood" these screens or "were embarrassed by a
connection invitation."

The plaintiffs -- including several well-educated professionals --
say this was not the case.  In their brief opposing LinkedIn's
motion to dismiss, they say "a few cryptic disclosures on a
website" do not give LinkedIn the right "to harvest users' email
addresses and broadcast users' persona to hundreds of people."

"Without consent or notice, LinkedIn checks to see if the user has
an open email account on his or her computer," the brief states.
"For example, LinkedIn attempts to access a user's Gmail account
if the user has Gmail open in another browser window or has not
logged out of Gmail.  If an email account is open, LinkedIn
accesses the account by using the open email session.  LinkedIn
does not prompt members for a password.  Instead, LinkedIn sweeps
the external email account for every email address a user has been
emailed by, CCed, or emailed.  For many users this is thousands of
addresses."

The plaintiffs say the site's own co-founder, Reid Hoffman, has
described this tactic as the single most important decision the
site ever made.

"[W]hen we launched, we had hoped . . . that the growth would pick
up by itself," Hoffman said, according to the plaintiffs' brief.
"I sat down with the team.  And I said, look if we don't solve
this we're dead . . . I have one good idea . . . we'll allow
people to essentially upload their address books."

Users say LinkedIn is trying to blame them for clicking on
deceptive sign-up screens -- "rebranded in LinkedIn's motion as
'permission screens'" -- that contain no disclosures of LinkedIn's
email harvesting methods.

"The cryptic phrases on LinkedIn's site fall far short of
establishing actual or implied consent," users say.

And in rebuttal to LinkedIn's claim that they lack standing
because its endorsement emails do not injure or enrich anyone,
users say the company charges members $10 to email another member
they're not directly linked to.  In other words, LinkedIn places a
$10 value on each of those endorsement emails, the brief states.

The plaintiffs asked Judge Koh to deny LinkedIn's motions to
dismiss and to strike class allegations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry C. Russ, Esq.
          Dorian S. Berger, Esq.
          Daniel P. Hipskind, Esq.
          RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
          12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 826-7474
          Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
          E-mail: lruss@raklaw.com
                  dberger@raklaw.com
                  dhipskind@raklaw.com

The case is Paul Perkins, et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No.
13-CV-04303-HRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls PC Organics Soy Infant Formula
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8567

Affected products: 730 g. PC Organics Soy Infant Formula with Iron
with 0 60383 80572 2 code


MEDISCA INC: FDA Issues Warning on L-Citrulline Supplement
----------------------------------------------------------
Will Dunham, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration said on Feb. 15 certain lots of the supplement
L-citrulline, used to treat genetic disorders found mostly in
children, sold by compounding firm Medisca Inc. were found to
contain none of the drug, and warned doctors and patients not to
use it.

The FDA said the company is voluntarily recalling eight lots of
the supplement.  The agency said it has received "several adverse
event reports associated with Medisca's L-citrulline product."

"Health care professionals should discontinue dispensing from
these lots, contact patients, and return all unused product to
Medisca Inc.  Patients and caregivers should stop using any
product with these lot numbers," the FDA said.

The FDA said testing by Medisca indicated that those lots at issue
did not contain L-citrulline.  The agency said L-citrulline is
used to treat certain urea cycle disorders, rare genetic
conditions primarily diagnosed in children.

The company said in a statement that its investigation of the lots
found that they did not contain L-citrulline "and therefore
represent a potential health hazard.  These lots should not be
used for any purpose."


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Montage Technology
Group Limited securities between September 25, 2013 and
February 6, 2014, inclusive, seeking to recover damages for
violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the Montage Technology class action, visit the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, Montage Technology issued materially
false and misleading statements about its true financial condition
by overstating revenue and earnings.  On February 6, 2014, Gravity
Research Group issued a report asserting, among others things,
that: Montage Technology's largest distributor is a shell company
used to fabricate the Company's financial results, and that the
Company's largest customer is an undisclosed related party.  The
lawsuit claims that this adverse information caused the price of
Montage Technology securities to drop, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 8, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan of The Rosen Law Firm,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or kchan@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Feb. 20 Hearing in College Athletes' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is scheduled to hear arguments
Feb. 20 in the class action lawsuit filed by former college
athletes against the U.S. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported.

Since 2009, a group of former college athletes have been embroiled
in a legal battle over the use of their images in videogames,
merchandise and other promotional materials.  In the first
complaint, former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon said the NCAA
violated his and other athletes' right to make money off their
likenesses.

Judge Wilken refused to dismiss the former athletes' third amended
class action in October 2013.  The next month, she certified a
class of athletes seeking an injunction against the NCAA that
would end the prohibition on athletes entering their own licensing
deals.

The NCAA moved for summary judgment in December, saying it does
not exploit college athletes.

Glenn Pomerantz, an attorney for the NCAA, said student-athletes
cannot prove that live broadcasts of football and basketball games
are commercial in nature, which means the broadcasts are entitled
to full First Amendment protections.  The association also argued
that because it did not renew its contract with videogame maker
Electronic Arts, the court should not grant the athletes an
injunction based on "wholly hypothetical" transactions.

On January 13, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to let the
NCAA intervene in a similar case brought by former college
football quarterback Sam Keller.  Electronic Arts had petitioned
the high court on Sept. 23, 2013, three days before it settled
with the athletes.

The NCAA has argued throughout litigation that the athletes'
claims are barred by its principle of "amateurism," which it says
does not violate antitrust laws.

On January 13, 2014, attorneys for the antitrust plaintiffs filed
a partially sealed motion opposing the NCAA's bid for summary
judgment.  Attorney Michael Lehmann of Hausfeld LLP said the NCAA
broadcasts should be considered "commercial speech," thus the
First Amendment does not bar the antitrust claims.  He noted that
"every participant in preparing and presenting the games for
presentation is paid, except the student-athletes."

Lehmann also balked at the NCAA's "amateurism" argument, saying
the concept "became harder to justify at the level of Division I
men's basketball and football," which are increasingly
commercialized.

"By the decade of the 2000s, [former NCAA President Myles] Brand
began replacing the notion of the 'amateur model' with the
'collegiate model,' which was supposedly distinguishable from the
model of professional sports," Lehmann wrote.

The athletes' attorney cited the findings of a 2009 NCAA task
force on commercialism, which stated that "while participation is
to be an avocation for students, college sports as an enterprise
is a professional undertaking for everyone else."

"Furthermore, the generating of revenue must be guided by the same
business principles as any commercial entity," the task force
found.

Lehmann also rejected the NCAA's claim that fewer people would be
inclined to watch college sports if its athletes were paid.

"If such fans were disgusted by the commercialism of 'amateur'
sports, they would logically have ceased watching them long ago in
the face of coaches being paid millions of dollars, the rampant
commercialization of game telecasts, the repeated scandals of
student athletes being paid under the table by colleges and
universities, and the television contracts that match what is done
with professional sports leagues," he argued.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633 -1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Renae Steiner, Esq.
          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
                  vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          1521 Locust Street, 7th Floor
          Philadelphia, P A 19102
          Telephone: (973) 877-3819
          E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Katherine C. Lubin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  klubin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
          One California Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-3400
          Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
          E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
                  smacrae@bamlawca.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Ave., 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          E-mail: Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com

The case is In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing
Litigation, Case No. 4:09-cv-1967 CW, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland
Division.


NEW JERSEY: Counsel in Bridgegate Suit Seeks to Use Campaign Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that the Patton Boggs lawyer retained by Gov. Chris Christie's
campaign committee to respond to subpoenas in the unfolding
scandal over George Washington Bridge lane closures last fall is
asking permission to access unused campaign funds to pay the
firm's fees.

The Chris Christie for Governor Committee has almost $127,000 in
cash still on hand after expenditures of $12,187,095 in last
fall's reelection campaign, and it wants to raise more.

In a letter to New Jersey's campaign finance watchdog, the
Election Law Enforcement Commission, Patton Boggs partner
Mark Sheridan -- msheridan@pattonboggs.com -- says approval of the
request is warranted because the subpoenas suggest no wrongdoing
by the committee and the money would not be spent in a way that
impacts any election.

Mr. Sheridan also says that enabling the committee to respond to
the subpoenas is in the interest of justice and that without
access to the funds, it "will find itself without the means
necessary" to do so and "will arguably face contempt charges" from
the subpoena issuers: U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman and the Joint
Legislative Select Committee on Investigations.

The material encompassed by the documents-only subpoenas includes
emails, text messages, instant messages and other electronically
stored data or information.

Mr. Sheridan tells ELEC that in addition to legal fees, he
anticipates "a significant cost" for hiring a company "to image
and preserve the data on computers, tablets and smart phones of
the candidate committee and its employees."

Mr. Sheridan wants ELEC to provide a go-ahead that would cover
follow-up subpoenas as well.  His letter asks for an advisory
opinion that would allow the committee to continue to raise funds
and to spend them in responding to the subpoenas and "any
ancillary requests for information."

There is precedent for allowing a campaign to keep fund-raising
after an election.  In December 1993, ELEC allowed People for
Whitman, the campaign committee for Christie Todd Whitman when she
won her first term as governor that year, to continue raising and
spending money for the purpose of paying legal fees and other
expenses incurred in dealing with claims that campaign manager
Ed Rollins had laid out campaign money to try to suppress the
black vote.  It also said those expenditures would not count
toward the ceiling for publicly financed campaigns, then $5.9
million.

Approval of Mr. Sheridan's request depends on whether the subpoena
compliance costs qualify as "reasonable fees and expenses of legal
representation, the need for which arises directly from and is
related to the campaign for public office or the ordinary and
necessary duties of holding public office."  Mr. Sheridan contends
they do, as administrative expenses of the committee.


NEW JERSEY: Committee Issues Subpoenas in Bridgegate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that at least a dozen new subpoenas
were authorized on Feb. 10 by a New Jersey legislative committee
investigating a plot by aides to Gov. Chris Christie to create
traffic gridlock on the George Washington Bridge, apparently for
political retribution.

The panel also agreed to take additional steps to enforce
subpoenas to two key figures in the bridge scandal that is
engulfing the administration of the Republican governor and
possible 2016 presidential candidate.

Former Christie campaign manager Bill Stepien and fired deputy
chief of staff Bridget Kelly have asserted their right against
self-incrimination and refused to comply with the subpoenas.  The
panel on Feb. 10 voted to reject those objections and continue to
seek most of the documents.  Four Republicans on the panel
abstained, saying they were not given ample time to review the
complex Fifth Amendment arguments.

Committee chairman John Wisniewski would not name the new subpoena
recipients until they are served, which was expected by Feb. 11.

However, The Star-Ledger reported that the recipients include
Gov. Christie's office, his reelection campaign, several Port
Authority officials and the State Police aviation unit, which
oversees the governor's travel by helicopter.

The committee's actions follow last week's deadline for 20 people
and organizations close to Gov. Christie to return subpoenaed
documents.  All but a few have sought more time.  Lawyers for
Stepien and Kelly asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn.

"Ultimately, (that is) what the inquiry of the committee is -- who
knew what when, and who authorized this, and why," Mr. Wisniewski
said on Feb. 10.

None of the subpoenaed documents has been released publicly.

The U.S. Attorney's office is conducting a parallel criminal
investigation.

The traffic jams happened on four mornings in September, when the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the
George Washington Bridge, blocked two of the three approach lanes
from the town of Fort Lee, apparently to punish the town's
Democratic mayor.  The resulting backups delayed emergency
vehicles, school buses and commuters, sometimes for hours.

Five people close to Gov. Christie have lost their jobs, including
the governor's top two Port Authority appointees, Bill Baroni and
David Wildstein.  Mr. Wildstein, who appears to have overseen the
lane closings and is seeking immunity from prosecution, said in a
letter last week "evidence exists" that Christie was aware of the
lane closings while they were occurring.  That's earlier than the
governor has said he knew.

The administration has denied Mr. Wildstein's claim, made through
his lawyer, and has since circulated a memo discrediting
Christie's former No. 2 man at the agency.

As the troubles for Christie's administration deepened, other
allegations have attracted the attention of federal authorities.

Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer said two Christie cabinet members told
her the city's federal storm recovery aid would be tied to whether
she supported a redevelopment project the governor favored.  The
city on the Hudson River sustained heavy damage from Superstorm
Sandy. Christie's office denies the accusations.

Officials in Hoboken said they will not grant interviews to a
lawyer for Christie or turn over documents regarding the mayor's
claim.

Christie attorney Randy Mastro requested all the documents that
Hoboken officials have provided to the U.S. attorney's office in
the case.  But Ms. Zimmer's lawyer questioned whether it's
appropriate for the governor's office "to be investigating
itself."

The Record newspaper first reported the request and the response.


NEW JERSEY: Must Give Status Report, Appeals Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
New Jersey state officials must provide a status report after half
of the medical marijuana dispensaries approved in New Jersey
remain unopened, a state appeals court ruled.

New Jersey legalized such dispensaries for patients diagnosed with
certain chronic medical conditions four years ago under the
Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.

In a lawsuit against the New Jersey Department of Health and
Senior Services, a class claimed that the department was delaying
implementation of the law.  They also called the process for
registering medical marijuana confusing and time consuming.

Three patients named as plaintiffs -- Richard Caporusso, Jill
Caporusso and Caroline Glock -- claimed that the Health
Department's deliberate inaction denied them access to legalized
outlets for the drug.

Jeffery Pollack, a physician named plaintiff in the lawsuit,
called the process to register patients a "nuisance."

The trio alleged violations of due process and the Open Public
Records Act, but a Mercer County judge transferred the case to the
Appellate Division for lack of jurisdiction.

A three-judge panel of that court noted January 13, 2014, that
three state-approved dispensaries are open for business, but the
status of three other dispensaries licensed to grow and sell
marijuana is unclear.

Calling Pollack's version of events "anecdotal," the court said
that the complaint failed "to establish plaintiffs' assertions of
unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements."

The 35-page opinion also addresses a study conducted by Vanessa
Waltz with the Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey that
found doctors are reluctant to recommend medical marijuana to
patients because of a perceived ambiguity about the law at the
department's website.

Waltz had no "factual information," however, to back up her
claims, according to the ruling.

"She merely imparts her opinion gathered from unidentified hearsay
statements," Judge Marie Lihotz wrote for the appellate panel.
"This is not evidential, and is insufficient to support
plaintiffs' claim."

While dismissing the majority of the plaintiffs' claims, the judge
agreed that department had not done enough to comply with the
law's requirements to report on the three state-approved
dispensaries.

The New Jersey Health Department must send a progress report to
the New Jersey Legislature and Gov. Chris Christie on the three
offices within 45 days.

Lithotz found no merit, however, as to claims that the department
enacted regulations to delay the Medicinal Medical Marijuana
program or that those regulations are unconstitutional.  There is
also no need for the court to appoint a neutral third party to
oversee implementation of the program and ensure the Health
Department's compliance, according to the ruling.

"As discussed in our opinion, other than its omission of required
progress reports, we do not agree DOH [Department of Health] has
ignored its responsibilities or refused to comply with the
legislative mandate to implement the MMP [Medicinal Medical
Marijuana program]," Lithotz wrote.  "The need for a third-party
monitor is unfounded."

The appellate case is Caporusso, et al. v. New Jersey Department
of Health and Senior Services, et al., Case No. A-2266-12T3, in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.  The
original case is Caporusso, et al. v. New Jersey Department of
Health and Senior Services, et al., Case No. L-822-12, in the
Superior Court of New Jersey for Mercer County.


NEW YORK: Protesters From 2004 RNC Settle for $18 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Protesters arrested during the 2004 Republican National Convention
agreed last month to settle their decade-old civil rights claims
against New York City for $18 million, Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse
News Service reported.

On November 22, 2004, 24 protesters sued New York City, Mayor
Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and dozens of
other NYPD cops and officials for false arrest, punitive
detention, abuse of process and other constitutional violations.
They said the city had an indiscriminate mass arrest policy that
called for the use of mesh netting and lines of police officers to
barricade and corral large groups of protesters, reporters, legal
observers, and bystanders, without giving audible dispersal
orders.

In their original complaint, the plaintiffs said they received
"cruel and inhumane" treatment in cold, loud, chemical-strewn,
makeshift cells in Pier 57, along the Hudson River.

"Guantanamo-on-the-Hudson" was a nickname given to the pier by
more than one attorney speaking January 15, 2014, at a press
conference outside New York City Hall.

"On information and belief, the floors of the cages in Pier 57
were covered with numerous highly toxic chemicals and substances,
including, on information and belief, those known to be
carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, hepatogenic, and immunotoxic
. . .  The floors of the cages in Pier 57 were also covered in
other dirt and grime," the original complaint stated.

The protesters said in their complaint that city police taunted
them and said they would be held "until George Bush left town."

In 2011, the protestors won class certification, covering 1,800
individuals, and U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan rejected the
city's defenses a year later when American Civil Liberties Union
attorney Christopher Dunn revealed in an interview settlement was
in the works.

The settlement provides $10.4 million for the plaintiff class and
$7.6 million for their lawyers.

Seven protesters did not sign onto the settlement and still have
active cases.  They include two transgender women who say that
police groped their genitals "to determine their gender for
purposes of arrest processing."  Another two objectors claim they
have permanent injuries after flexicuffs cut off their
circulation, and the final protester not included in the
settlement says she suffered a burst ovarian cyst in custody and
that she was handcuffed to a gurney with a male police officer in
the examination room.

City lawyer Celeste Koeleveld nevertheless spoke about "major
victories" in a statement.  She said that "key police policies
used during the RNC" were upheld, and an "effort to restrict the
NYPD's ability to police large-scale events was rejected."

Dunn, the ACLU lawyer, brushed off the city's statement, calling
the settlement the largest for a protest case in the United
States.  The message that sends "is more powerful than any ruling
for injunctive relief," he said.

Lisa Martin, who attended the conference as a spectator, wore a
name tag stating that she was arrested five blocks away from her
Union Square home, and that she was not a registered voter at the
time.  She said she was not participating in the protest when she
was arrested, and that the experience prompted her to complete her
registration within a day of her release.

"Bloomberg made me a voter," she quipped.

Sarah Coburn, who was a speaker at the conference, said her arrest
inspired her to go to law school and "practice law in the public
interest," as spectators applauded the announcement.

Some activists appeared disappointed, however, by legal battles
that were lost and cynical that the settlement boded change.

The New York Times reported in 2010 that the 2nd Circuit allowed
the NYPD to withhold 1,900 pages of records detailing police
surveillance in advance of the 2004 RNC.

Civil libertarian activist Bill Dobbs asked at the press
conference about the fate of those files and what happened to
police accused of civil rights violations.

"They were promoted," shouted back Jeffrey Rothman, a lawyer for
the plaintiff class.  "All of them have higher ranks now."

Some interpreted the timing of the settlement as evidence that the
administration of Bill de Blasio will put civil liberties more on
his agenda than his predecessor, but the settlement was actually
signed in November 2013, at the tail end of the Bloomberg
administration.

Jessica Rechtschaffer, who was arrested in connection to the
burning of a papier-mache dragon float, expressed cynicism at
prospects for the change under a de Blasio administration with the
governor's recent appointment of Bill Bratton as police
commissioner.

Bratton also served the administration of Rudy Giuliani.

The National Lawyers Guild's Martin Stolar and Beldock Levine &
Hoffman attorney Jonathan Moore spoke at the conference.

                   7 Protesters Refuse to Settle

In a separate report, Courthouse News Service's Mr. Klasfeld
reported that seven protesters who refused to sign on to the $18
million settlement related to the 2004 Republican National
Convention represent some of the most "egregious" cases of civil
rights violations, their lawyers say.

Roughly 1,800 of their peers will split the bounty, minus
attorneys' fees, to end nearly a decade of litigation involving
the mass arrests New York City police performed after the 2004
renomination of then-President George Bush sparked enormous
protests at Madison Square Garden.

Months after the event, dozens of lawsuits poured in alleging that
the NYPD indiscriminately roped in protesters, reporters, legal
observers and bystanders, using mesh netting and barricades, and
tossed them in cold, loud, chemical-strewn, makeshift cells in
Pier 57, along the Hudson River.  The now-shuttered pier came to
be nicknamed "Guantanamo-on-the-Hudson."

Their experiences may pale in comparison to the seven who are not
splitting the potentially record-breaking award.

Yusuke Joshua Banno, a then college student in Arizona accused of
lighting a papier-mache dragon on fire, was held on $250,000 bail
for charges of arson and inciting a riot.

"Josh became the poster child for what they claimed to be the
anarchist attempt to take apart the city and justify what the
police were doing thereafter," his attorney Jeff Fogel said in a
phone interview.

The charges against Banno were dropped, however, when he produced
a photograph placing him away from where the dragon first ignited.
Banno currently claims that an undercover officer helped ignite
the dragon near Herald Square to burnish his credibility within an
anarchist group -- and then, fingered him in a cover-up.

In a column predicting the settlement, New York Times columnist
Jim Dwyer called Banno's case a "lingering mystery" of the 2004
convention.  That article cited an anonymous deposition for an
officer assigned to "ghost and provide cover" for the undercover
officer in question.

Fogel noted that the officer who gave the deposition was allowed
to testify in disguise, and wore "a wig, a hat and some stupid-
looking glasses" for the occasion.

The officer claimed to have been able to identify Banno, who had
been wearing a hat and bandana, from 30 feet away because of his
"non-Caucasian eyes," Fogel said.

"How he could see a pair of non-Caucasian eyes through that raises
a very serious question," Fogel said.  He called for an
investigation within the police department to answer some larger
issues.

"Who and how many people in the police department knew about
this?" Fogel asked.  "Did they really let that happen? Did they
really let a cop endanger that many people in order to protect
their credibility?"

Fogel's other client among the 2004 settlement holdouts,
videographer Brian Conley, claims that he received better
treatment from the Chinese government after taping Free Tibet
demonstrations during the Olympics than he got from the NYPD.

A New York City police officer arrested Conley on a cobblestone
street of Lower Manhattan, purportedly for obstructing traffic
that seldom travelled through there.

Fogel alleges that they were actually interested in stopping him
from rolling tape, and inexperienced officers slapped flexicuffs
on Conley so tightly that the protester's doctor in Massachusetts
diagnosed him with nerve damage.

Valarie Kaur, who may have suffered even worse injuries from being
cuffed, got diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy after an
officer twisted her arms behind her back, her attorney, Rose
Weber, said.

"The injury itself can heal up, but your nervous system meanwhile
has been put into an endless pain loop," Weber said.

Another of Weber's clients, Joshua Russell, had a particularly
severe reaction to the unsanitary conditions on Pier 57.  Weber
said that the chemicals on the pier agitated a once "mild form of
eczema" that her client Russell thought he had outgrown to flare
up and make him look like a "bloody alligator."

"I don't know how else to describe it," she added.

Two transgender women, Kaitlyn Tikkun and Kate Freitag, say that
police groped them to determine whether place them in men or
women's lockups, under a systemic policy that took the NYPD eight
more years to reform.

A Jane Doe corrections officer told Tikkun that she would be
searched to determine if she was "a boy or a girl," according to
the complaint.

"As Ms. Tikkun begged the officers not to forcibly search her
because she had experienced rape in the past, she was shoved up
against a wall and her arms were restrained" by three female
corrections officers, the complaint states.

Ignoring Tikkun's protests, the officers allegedly said that they
were "just following orders," and touched her breasts and her
genitals.

After Tikkun had been placed in a cell, a male officer who was not
in the room at the time of the search old her, "oh, you're the
one," according to the complaint.

Another male officer later chimed in, "oh, you're the one trying
to find out if you're a boy or a girl."

Weber, who also represents Frietag, said in a phone interview that
this client's experiences were similar to those of Tikkun, with a
few important distinctions.  Frietag had been searched at the pier
rather than Central Booking, and male officers conducted the
search, Weber said.

The male officers' confusion about what to do was like a Marx
Brother's routine, except that it "wasn't funny," Weber added.

Tikkun's lawyer Andrea Ritchie said that she was involved in the
negotiations that the led the NYPD to reform their policies toward
transgender prisoners in an October 2012 memo titled "Department
Policy Regarding Gender Identity."

It instructed corrections officers to address transgender
prisoners by their preferred names and sexual identities.

Speaking of these changes, Ritchie said: "In our case, the policy
objective has now been achieved and now it's really a question
about compensating our client for her injuries, which were not
insignificant."

City lawyers had declared a "major victory" in their press release
on the settlement because "key policies used during the RNC" were
upheld, but Ritchie said this statement overlooked the court's
findings regarding mass arrests and fingerprinting.

"The court declared unequivocally that you can't arrest a group of
people on the theory of group probable cause," she said.

Indeed, several of the people arrested asserted that they were not
even protesting, but were bystanders caught within mesh netting or
behind police barricades.

Kathleen O'Reilly, whose case also has not been settled, said she
had planned to meet up with friends near held square at the time
of her arrest.  Her lawyer Mike Spiegel said that she knew at the
time that she had an ovarian cyst about to burst, and that when it
did police waited approximately 24 hours to take her to a
hospital.  Her lawsuit alleges that she was handcuffed to a gurney
during a pelvic examination, and a male officer was in the room.

While it took nearly 10 years for the Bloomberg administration to
settle the class action cases, all of the attorneys interviewed
expressed hope that the administration of Bill de Blasio would
make quicker work of the remaining cases.

De Blasio, who ran on a civil liberties platform, reportedly
distanced himself from his predecessor in his comments on the
settlement.

"We're going to take a very different view going forward on how we
respect people's rights to express themselves," he said at the
time, as reported by the New York Observer.

Days before he took office, de Blasio announced that he would
appoint former U.S. Attorney Zachary Carter to head the New York
Corporation Counsel handling such settlement.

Carter had prosecuted the police involved in the beating of Abner
Louima, the Haitian immigrant sodomized in the bathroom a Brooklyn
police precinct.

The former prosecutor was to replace Michael Cardozo, who was to
become a partner at the Proskauer law firm, on Feb. 1.

The New York City Law Department declined comment on the prospects
for settlement talks regarding the remaining cases.


NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR: Non-Sexual Misconduct May Be Heard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador has ruled that claims of non-sexual misconduct at
residential schools in Labrador are not necessarily statute barred
-- meaning claims alleging such misconduct before Nov. 23, 1977
may be heard in an ongoing class-action lawsuit.

The decision was made at the end of January by Justice Gillian D.
Butler.

A 30-year limitation period applies to allegations of sexual
misconduct, but the question concerning non-sexual misconduct was
brought before the court in a pre-trial hearing of a class-action
lawsuit involving a number of parties and claims of misconduct --
sexual and otherwise -- in Labrador residential schools.

Justice Butler ruled in her pre-trial decision that the judge's
discretion should be used in deciding whether specific claims of
non-sexual misconduct be held to the 30-year limitation.

Justice Butler then handed the authority of making those decisions
over to the trial judge, Justice Robert Stack.


NUTRIOM LLC: Recalls Dried Egg Products Over Salmonella Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Washington state company is
recalling more than 100 tons of dried egg products over concerns
about salmonella contamination.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the products from Nutriom
LLC of Lacey, Wash., were shipped nationwide and to American
military bases abroad as well as to Canada, mostly under the
"OvaEasy" brand.

There have been no reports of illness.  The recall was issued on
Feb. 15 as a Class 1 recall, meaning it carries a high health
risk.

Symptoms of salmonella-related illness include diarrhea, abdominal
cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the
contaminated product.  The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and
most people recover without treatment.


OKLAHOMA: Court Struck Down Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
----------------------------------------------------------
Commending the challengers for their "foresight, courage, and
perseverance," a federal judge in January struck down a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Oklahoma,
according to David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern concluded the ban violated equal
protection rights under the 14th Amendment.  The ban is "so
attenuated" from the state's moral and child-bearing
justifications that it "cannot survive rational-basis review," he
added.

The 68-page ruling goes on to call the ban an "arbitrary,
irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens."

"Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and
central to our consent to be governed," Kern wrote.  "It is not a
scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short
portions.  Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way
to individual constitutional rights."

Two lesbian couples -- including Tulsa World journalists Mary
Bishop and Sharon Baldwin -- sued federal and state officials in
2004 after the constitutional amendments were approved by voters
and enacted.

After the Oklahoma governor and attorney general failed to have te
case dismissed in 2006, the 10th Circuit later ruled that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to sue them.  The plaintiffs then filed
an amended complaint leaving both elected officials out, replacing
them with Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Smith who refused to
issue the the plaintiffs marriage licenses.

"The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships
for many years," Kern wrote.  "They own property together, wish to
retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another,
and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its
attendant rights and responsibilities."

In rejecting the defendants' moral and child-bearing reasons for
the ban, Kern concluded the "carrot" of marriage is still shown to
most nonprocreative couples, but not to gay, nonprocreative
couple.

"Same-sex couples are being subjected to a 'naturally procreative'
requirement to which no other Oklahoma citizens are subjected,
including the infertile, the elderly, and those who simply do not
wish to ever procreate," the decision states.  "Rationality review
has a limit, and this well exceeds it."

Kern also swiped aside the defendants' argument that it was
rational for voters to believe gay marriage could negatively
impact the institution of marriage.

"Exclusion of just one class of citizens from receiving a marriage
license based upon the perceived 'threat' they pose to the marital
institution is, at bottom, an arbitrary exclusion based upon the
majority's disapproval of the defined class," Kern wrote.  "It is
also insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable
of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships."

Oklahoma Attorney Scott Pruitt rebuked Kern's ruling as
"troubling."

"As the Supreme Court recently noted in the Windsor case, it is up
to the states to decide how to define marriage, not the federal
government," Pruitt said in a statement shortly after the ruling.

In this past summer's United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme
Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.

Kern relied heavily on the Windsor ruling, concluding that courts
reviewing marriage laws -- by either state or federal governments
-- "must be wary of whether 'defending' traditional marriage is a
guise for impermissible discrimination against same-sex couples."

Kern's ruling is the latest by federal judge that invalidates a
conservative state's attempt at banning gay marriage.  Utah's ban
was tossed by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby in Salt Lake City
federal court in December.

The Utah suit will most likely be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court
and will determine the legality of Oklahoma's ban, Pruitt added.
That suit is currently pending before the 10th Circuit.

Kern's ruling will not immediately result in gay marriages taking
place in Oklahoma.  The ruling is stayed pending appeal by the
defendants.  Despite the ongoing ban in Utah, U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder announced last week that the federal
government would recognize the marriages of same-sex couples
there.

The case is Mary Bishop, et al. v United States of America, et al.
Case No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma.


REALCOMP II: To Settle Subscribers' Class Action for $3.25 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea V. Brambila, writing for Inman News, reports that
Michigan's largest multiple listing service, Realcomp II Ltd., has
reached a preliminary agreement to settle a class-action lawsuit
against the MLS for $3.25 million.

The bulk of the settlement will be paid by the MLS' 11,000 or so
Detroit-area subscribers, who will fork over more than $200 each.

The lawsuit was prompted by Realcomp's refusal to transmit
"exclusive agency" property listings -- a type of listing
agreement sometimes employed by discount brokers -- to realtor.com
and other public-facing websites.

Realcomp had previously lost a fight with federal antitrust
regulators over the policy, racking up more than $2.4 million in
legal costs that were partially offset by $725,000 in assistance
from the National Association of Realtors.

Realcomp's battle with the Federal Trade Commission began in
October 2006, when the FTC announced that it was taking action
against seven MLSs, including Realcomp, over their refusal to
transmit exclusive agency property listings to public websites
such as realtor.com.

While the six other MLSs entered into consent agreements with the
FTC, Realcomp chose to go head to head with the federal regulator,
committing to a legal battle that ultimately lasted five years.

That case went all the way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which in a 2011 ruling found that the Farmington Hills-based MLS
had "unreasonably restrained competition" among real estate
brokers, and upheld the FTC's order that Realcomp rescind the
disputed policy.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant
Realcomp's petition for review.

At their peak in October 2004, exclusive agency listings
represented just 1.7 percent of Realcomp's listings, according to
an FTC expert witness.

But in an October 2010 class-action lawsuit, lawyers for three
couples who sold homes in 2005 sought standing to represent
thousands of home sellers who allegedly paid inflated commissions
because Realcomp's policies had protected full-service brokers
from competition.

In March 2013, lawyers for the plaintiffs were granted class-
action standing to represent all similarly situated homeowners who
purchased real estate brokerage services in Realcomp's service
area from May 1, 2004, through April 27, 2007.

In their complaint, attorneys for the plaintiffs estimated that
the number of affected homeowners could be in the "tens of
thousands," citing FTC estimates that at least 71,801 homes listed
by Realcomp brokers were sold between November 2004 through
October 2006.

Settlement talks began soon after the case was granted class-
action standing.

"Opting for trial exposes us to a potential $46 million liability,
if we are not successful," MLS officials told members in  a Feb. 5
FAQ.  "It is in our best interests to settle the case and look
toward the future of Realcomp and our subscribers."

Under the terms of the agreement, which is subject to court
approval, each Realcomp subscriber will be assessed a total of
$255, to be paid over five quarters starting in second-quarter
2014, the FAQ said.  That works out to $17 per month for 15
months.

Realcomp's members will pay the vast majority of the settlement --
roughly $2.81 million of the $3.25 million.  The MLS and several
shareholders also named in the suit -- the Dearborn Board of
Realtors, the Eastern Thumb Association of Realtors, the Greater
Metropolitan Association of Realtors, Livingston Association of
Realtors, and North Oakland County Board of Realtors -- will also
pay.

Realcomp members can't avoid paying the charge by dropping their
membership and rejoining in 2015.

"If subscribers quit and later rejoin just to avoid the fee, then
Realcomp reserves the right to charge a re-entry fee," Realcomp
said.

"As a current Realcomp subscriber, you are receiving the benefits
of a vibrant MLS.  In order for Realcomp to continue to provide
all of its services to all of its constituents, this case had to
be settled on these terms," Realcomp officials told members.

In the settlement FAQ, MLS officials said Realcomp had paid the
bulk of the defense costs in the civil case, which amounted to
"hundreds of thousands of dollars."  NAR and the Michigan
Association of Realtors also contributed to defense costs.

"Realcomp will continue to cut operating costs wherever possible
in order to contribute to the cost of the settlement.  We will
keep our subscribers updated on our progress as we go forward,"
the MLS said.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissal of Okla. Securities Litigation Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
filed their respective motions to dismiss a consolidated amended
complaint, according to the company's
Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders,
filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in
the same court and against the same defendants.

On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under
the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. By order dated April 10, 2013, the court granted the
lead plaintiff until July 23, 2013 to file a consolidated amended
complaint in the action.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts a variety of federal
securities claims against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on
behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common
stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8,
2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian
Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the
"Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on
allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other
defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the
Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered
into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former
CEO Tom Ward.

On October 7, 2013, the defendants filed their respective motions
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Orders Dismissal of "Kallick" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered a
stipulation and order regarding a dismissal of a lawsuit
against SandRidge Energy, Inc. as moot, according to the company's
Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On January 7, 2013, Gerald Kallick, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against SandRidge Energy, Inc., and certain current and former
directors of the Company. On January 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed
an amended class action complaint. In his amended complaint, the
plaintiff sought: (i) declaratory relief that certain change-in-
control provisions in the Company's indentures and senior credit
facility agreement are invalid and unenforceable, (ii) declaratory
relief that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to approve the slate of directors proposed by TPG-Axon in
its consent solicitation in order to disable the change-in-control
provisions, (iii) a mandatory injunction requiring the directors
to approve nominees for the Board of Directors (the "Board")
submitted by TPG-Axon, (iv) a mandatory injunction prohibiting the
Company from paying the then current Chairman and CEO his change-
in-control benefits under his employment agreement if the CEO were
removed as a director, but remained employed as the Company's CEO,
(v) a mandatory injunction enjoining the defendants from impeding
or interfering with TPG-Axon's consent solicitation, (vi) a
mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to disclose all
material information related to the change-in-control provisions
in the Company's indentures and senior credit facility agreement;
and (vii) an order requiring the Company's current directors to
account to the plaintiff and the putative class for alleged
damages.

On March 8, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction, enjoining the Board, unless and until it
approved the TPG-Axon nominees for purposes of the change-in-
control provisions of the Company's outstanding debt agreements,
from (i) soliciting any further consent revocations in opposition
to TPG-Axon's consent solicitation, (ii) relying upon or otherwise
giving effect to any consent revocations received by the Company
as of March 11, 2013, and (iii) impeding TPG-Axon's consent
solicitation in any way. On March 9, 2013, the Board approved TPG-
Axon's nominees for purposes of the change-in-control provisions
in the Company's debt instruments. On March 13, 2013, TPG-Axon and
the Board entered into a settlement agreement under which TPG-
Axon's consent solicitation was withdrawn. As a result of these
actions, the Company believes that many of the original claims
asserted by the plaintiff in the Kallick action have been rendered
moot.

On August 28, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order
dismissing the action as moot and requesting an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $5.0 million. On
October 30, 2013, the Court entered a stipulation and order
regarding dismissal of the action as moot (the "Order").

As required by the Order, the Company notified stockholders that
the action is moot and the Company has agreed to pay plaintiff's
counsel $2.5 million in full satisfaction of plaintiff's pending
request for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Action; the
Company expects to be reimbursed by its insurance carrier for the
full amounts of such payment. The Order provided that the action
would be dismissed as moot without further action of the Court
unless another stockholder of the Company submits a written
objection to the Court within 30 days of the notice.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Wants Dismissal, Venue Transfer for "Hart" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a labor suit against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and
a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma were pending before the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, according to the
company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC, SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services,
Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the
plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former
employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and
former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay.
The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i)
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the
Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud,
and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to Class
and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11,
2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma. All of these motions are pending before the
Court.


SIEMENS RAIL: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Siemens failed to give
accurate wage statements to 300 to 600 employees and made them
work through meal breaks, they claim in a $10 million class action
filed in January in California Federal Court.


STATE FARM: Discovery Order Entered in Racketeering Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
a newly entered discovery order sets the wheels in motion for a
class action that accuses State Farm of violating racketeering
laws through its involvement in the election of Illinois Supreme
Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier in 2004.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams docketed the order Jan. 31
establishing a number of deadlines in the case playing out in the
Southern District of Illinois.  A class certification motion is
due by April 22, 2015; depositions for expert witnesses for
plaintiffs by July 10, 2015 and defense by Aug. 6, 2015.
Discovery is to be completed by Sept. 4, 2015; dispositive motions
filed by Sept. 30, 2015 and trial is presumed to be in January
2016.

U.S. District Judge David Herndon adopted the scheduling and
discovery order on Feb. 3 and found moot an earlier motion to
certify the class.

Plaintiffs also filed a motion on Feb. 3 seeking to appoint
interim lead counsel W. Gordon Ball of Knoxville, Tenn. and Robert
A. Clifford of Chicago as co-lead counsel.

The motion also seeks to appoint Steven P. Blonder of Chicago as
liaison counsel.

Plaintiffs Mark Hale, Todd Shadle and Carly Morse claim that the
Illinois Supreme Court improperly overturned a $1.05 billion
judgment in a consumer class action, Avery v. State Farm, in 2005.
In the new case -- Hale v. State Farm -- plaintiffs claim
racketeering occurred when State Farm and Justice Karmeier's
campaign committee worked together to recruit, finance and elect
Justice Karmeier to the Supreme Court so he would vote to overturn
the Avery judgment against State Farm once elected.

The plaintiffs propose to represent a class that is identical to
the one Williamson County Associate Judge John Speroni certified
for Avery in 1998.  Their claim in Mr. Hale would triple the
damages under racketeering law to $3.15 billion, with 14 years of
interest.

Co-defendants in the case are William Sheperd, an attorney at
State Farm, and Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil
Justice League.

Justice Karmeier's 10-year term will expire in December.  He has
until May to file retention paperwork with the State Board of
Elections for the upcoming November election.

Plaintiff lawyers have indicated they may depose Justice Karmeier.

State Farm lawyers have argued that "the destructive effects of
this lawsuit will likely extend to the judicial election process
as well."

A status conference is set for March 28 at 9:30 a.m. via telephone
before Judge Williams.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Prius Hybrid Over Software Glitch
-------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hirsch, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
Toyota Motor Corp. on Feb. 12 announced a massive global recall of
its popular Prius hybrid to fix a software glitch that could cause
the car to stall.

The Japanese automaker also launched a recall of about 260,000
RAV4 sport-utility vehicles, Tacoma trucks and Lexus RX350 SUVs
sold in the United States to address a separate issue.

The Prius recall includes 1.9 million vehicles sold from 2010
through 2014 model years.

It involves about 1 million cars in Japan, some 700,000 in North
America and the rest from Europe and other regions.

Toyota said it will update software in the electronic controls of
the car.

The software's current settings could create heat in some of the
transistors in the circuits of the car, damaging the parts.  When
this happens, warning lights on the dashboard activate.  In rare
circumstances, the hybrid system might shut down while the vehicle
is being driven, creating a sudden stall.

The automaker said it knows of no accidents or injuries resulting
from the problem.

Toyota sold more than 234,000 Priuses in the U.S. last year,
making it one of the top-selling passenger cars.  It is the most
sold vehicle of any type in California, even the nation's top-
seller, the Ford F-150 pickup.

In the other recalls, Toyota will update software on certain 2012
RAV4s, 2012-2013 Tacomas, and 2012-2013 Lexus RX350 models in
order to address an electronic circuit condition that can cause
the vehicle stability control, antilock brake, and traction
control functions to intermittently turn off.

"Toyota is trying to be more transparent, and is more aggressive
than other automakers with recalls.  But it doesn't seem to be
that big of deterrent for consumers," said Jessica Caldwell, an
analyst with auto information company Edmunds.com.

"I don't think there is that big of an impact from something like
a software update," Ms. Caldwell said.  "It is not a recall where
there are crashes or people are dying."

Toyota recalled nearly 5.3 million vehicles in the U.S. last year,
more than any other automaker, according to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.  The Japanese automaker topped
Chrysler Group, which came in second by calling back almost 4.7
million vehicles.

Overall, automakers recalled almost 22 million cars last year,
NHTSA said.  That was 34% higher than the previous year and the
most since 30.8 million vehicles were recalled in 2004, according
to agency.

This latest recall comes as the automaker is negotiating a
settlement of a four-year federal criminal investigation into
whether it properly reported safety complaints about incidents of
sudden acceleration in its vehicles to safety regulators.

Toyota confirmed the talks, issuing a statement that it "continues
to cooperate with the U.S. attorney's office in this matter.  In
the nearly four years since this inquiry began, we have made
fundamental changes to become a more responsive and
customer-focused organization, and we are committed to continued
improvements."

The settlement could include a fine of as much as $1 billion.

The automaker did earn some kudos for its automotive prowess.
Lexus was named the most reliable car brand in the 2014 J.D. Power
& Associates Vehicle Dependability Study, which examines the
reliability of cars three years into their life. It was ranked the
most dependable brand for the third consecutive year.

Vehicles produced by Toyota's luxury brand had just 68 problems
per 100 vehicles.  That was almost half the average of 133
problems per 100 vehicles.

Toyota-branded cars also did well, logging 114 problems per 100
vehicles.  It ranked sixth, along with two others, out of 31
brands.


TYSON PREPARED FOODS: Supreme Court to Hear Sex Offense Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Murphy, writing for The Daily Jefferson County Union,
reports that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has announced it will
hear 10 cases, including a Fort Atkinson man's child sex offense
and a wage dispute involving Tyson Prepared Foods employees and
others around the state.

Six Tyson employees filed a class-action lawsuit in 2012 alleging
that the Jefferson meat-processing plant violated the state
administrative code by not paying them to change their work
clothes at the beginning and ending of each shift.

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Hue dismissed the suit, ruling that
"donning and doffing" clothing and protective gear is not
compensable because it is not "integral" and "indispensable" to
employees' principal work duties.

Judge Hue's decision was reversed last summer by the District 4
Court of Appeals, which concluded that the donning-and-doffing
provisions of state code did not include the distinctions Hue
found.  Instead, it found that the time should be compensated
because it was done in the company's interest.

Tyson further appealed, because the state's high court never has
decided whether donning and doffing work clothing not unique to
the job is compensable.

Tyson policy requires employees to don and doff hair and beard
nets (if applicable), coats, vinyl gloves and sleeves, hardhats,
safety glasses, earplugs, "captive" boots worn only in the plant
and, in some cases, steel-toed shoes.

Some of the items are worn to prevent food contamination and
employees are not paid for the time spent putting them on and off.
They also are not paid for time spent traveling on company
property to their work sites, where they may "punch" the time
clock.

Tyson's attorneys argued in a brief filed in court that not all
time spent by an employee at the job is compensable.  He wrote
that the time spent changing clothes and waiting in line to
"clock" in and out should not be compensated.

The exception includes duties that are integral to their
"principal (work) activity," but state administrative code does
not define "integral," according to the brief.

The appeals decision must be reversed, Tyson attorneys argued in
the brief, because it contradicts state code.

Attorney Douglas J. Phebus' brief on behalf of the employees has
yet to be scheduled.

The case will be argued before the high court on April 8.  A
decision is expected by the end of the court's term in late June.


UNITED STATES: Immigrant Detainees Obtain Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a Massachusetts federal judge has certified a class of immigrant
detainees suing the federal government because they were held in
custody for more than six months without bond hearings.

U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor in Springfield, Mass., rejected
the government's argument that the detainees couldn't comprise a
class because they have varying criminal histories.

"Here, it is undisputed that Defendants refuse to provide any of
the class members with an individualized bond hearing," Judge
Ponsor wrote on Feb. 10.  "Despite alleged differences, members of
the class have all been treated identically with respect to the
opportunity to argue for release on bail. Defendants have thus
consistently and, in the court's view, incorrectly applied [the
statute] to the entire class.

The class certification presents "a great opportunity to provide
broad-ranging relief for people who have been unlawfully detained
for over six months in Massachusetts," Yale Law School student
intern Elizabeth Song said.  Judge Ponsor recognized the interns
and their supervising attorneys as class counsel.

The clinics working on the case are among 13 at the school that
allow students to work on legal matters for people who cannot
afford private lawyers.

The central question in Reid v. Donelan was whether federal law
requires a bond hearing for noncitizens detained for an
unreasonable period.  The plaintiffs seek an injunction or a
declaratory judgment that the statute requires an individualized
bond hearing after six months.

The plaintiffs cited U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data
indicating that between 39 and 42 noncitizens were under detention
beyond that threshold in Massachusetts at any given time between
January 2011 and January 2012.

Despite numerous decisions against government agencies in cases
involving individual plaintiffs, Judge Ponsor wrote, "the
government has remained steadfast to its dubious interpretation"
of the statute at issue.  "This has coincided with the
government's expanded focus on detaining criminal-aliens and
prolonged delays in immigration litigation."

He also held that named plaintiff Mark Reid met the 40-person
class threshold suggested by U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit precedent.  Mr. Reid, a U.S. Army Reserve veteran who
served time in a Connecticut prison following drug and burglarly
convictions, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement immediately following his November 2012 parole.

The Justice Department would have no comment on the outcome,
according to spokeswoman Allison Price.


UNITED STATES: Army Files Cross-Appeal in CIA Drug Testing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit battle over U.S. veterans subjected to Cold War-
era drug experiments just got uglier as the Army filed a cross-
appeal on January 21, 2014, Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News
Service reported.

The notice of appeal comes five years after Vietnam Veterans of
America led a class action against various government entities,
claiming that at least 7,800 soldiers had been used as guinea pigs
in Project Paperclip.  Soldiers were allegedly administered at
least 250 and perhaps as many as 400 types of drugs, among them
Sarin, one of the most deadly drugs known, amphetamines,
barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and LSD.

Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, the U.S.
government sought drugs to control human behavior, cause
confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and
vision, induce hypnosis, and enhance a person's ability to
withstand torture, according to the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken certified the plaintiffs as a
class in 2012, a status that could make thousands of veterans
eligible for relief.  Though court tossed claims against Attorney
General Eric Holder and the CIA, the Department of Defense and
Department of the Army remained on the hook.

The crux of the veterans' argument is that Administrative
Procedure Act obligates the defendants to provide notice to test
subjects and to provide them medical care.  They also cite a 1962
Army regulation involving the use of volunteers as research
subjects. Updated in 1990, that regulation allegedly requires the
Army to notify test subjects about possible side effects "even
after the individual volunteer has completed his or her
participation in research."

Judge Wilken gave both sides some relief this past November,
granting the DoD, Army and CIA summary judgment on certain claims,
and giving the plaintiffs summary judgment only as to one claim
against the Army.

Based on interpretation of the disputed Army regulation, Wilken
agreed "that the duty to warn is properly interpreted as applying
on an on-going basis, not just as part of the pre-experiment
consent process, and is owed to service members who became test
subjects before 1988."

"The court concludes that defendants' duty to warn test subjects
of possible health effects is not limited to the time that these
individuals provide consent to participate in the experiments,"
Wilken wrote.

"Instead, defendants have an ongoing duty to warn about newly
acquired information that may affect the well-being of test
subjects after they completed their participation in research."

The plaintiffs did not convince the court that the Department of
Veterans' Affairs "systematically fails to offer them care."

"Although there may be general dissatisfaction and individual
erroneous results, plaintiffs and the class members can seek
medical care through the DVA and challenge denial of care through
the statutory scheme prescribed by Congress," Wilken wrote.

The judge also found for the defendants on the plaintiffs'
constitutional claims, finding the plaintiffs could not prove that
it was a violation of due process when the Army did not follow its
own regulations.

Vietnam Veterans of America quickly filed a notice of appeal,
leading the U.S. Army and its secretary to a notice of cross-
appeal on January 21, 2014.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stuart F. Delery, Esq.
          Kathleen Hartnett, Esq.
          Melinda L. Haag, Esq.
          Anthony J. Coppolino, Esq.
          Joshua E. Gardner, Esq.
          Brigham John Bowen, Esq.
          Kimberly L. Herb, Esq.
          Lily Sara Farel, Esq.
          Ryan B. Parker, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
          P.O. Box 883
          Washington, D.C. 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305-7583
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8202
          E-mail: Joshua.E.Gardner@usdoj.gov

The case is Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. Central
Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. CV 09-0037-CW, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Division.


WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Decision of Appeal in "Braun/Hummel"
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is awaiting a decision by the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court on its appeal of an order upholding a trial court's
certification of a class and awards of damages in Braun/Hummel v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., a class-action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court
of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs
allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours
worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and
rest breaks.

On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of
the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On November 14,
2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate
amount of $188 million, which included the jury's back-pay award
plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys'
fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest accrues on the
judgment amount at the rate of six percent per annum from the date
of entry of the judgment, which was November 14, 2007, until the
judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set aside on appeal.

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. The
Company filed its opening appellate brief on February 17, 2009,
plaintiffs filed their response brief on April 20, 2009, and the
Company filed its reply brief on June 5, 2009. Oral argument was
held before the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals on August
19, 2009. On June 10, 2011, the court issued an opinion upholding
the trial court's certification of the class, the jury's back pay
award, and the awards of statutory penalties and prejudgment
interest, but reversing the award of attorneys' fees.

On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 2, 2012,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition. The
Company served its opening brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
on October 22, 2012, plaintiffs served their response brief on
January 22, 2013, and the Company served its reply on February 28,
2013. Oral argument was held in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on
May 8, 2013. No decision has been issued. The Company believes it
has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue,
and plans to continue pursuing appellate review.


WAL-MART STORES: December Update on Gender Discrimination Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face several gender
discrimination class actions, according to the company's Dec. 6,
2013 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

The Gender Discrimination Class Actions are: Dukes v. Wal-Mart,
USDC, Northern Dist. of CA, San Francisco Div., 6/19/01; 9th
Circuit Ct. of Appeals, San Francisco, CA, 8/26/04; US Supreme
Court, Washington DC, 8/25/10; Odle v. Wal-Mart, USDC, Northern
Dist. of TX, Dallas Div., 10/27/11; Phipps v. Wal-Mart, USDC,
Middle Dist. of TN., Nashville Div., 10/2/12; 6th Circuit Ct. of
Appeals, Cincinnati, OH, 9/11/13; Love v. Wal-Mart, USDC, Southern
Dist. of FL, Ft. Lauderdale Div., 10/4/12; Ladik v. Wal-Mart,
USDC, Western Dist. of WI, 2/20/13.

The Company is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
which was commenced as a class-action lawsuit in June 2001 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, asserting that the Company had engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments, and seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees. On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

As defined by the district court, the class included "[a]ll women
employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since
December 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to Wal-Mart's
challenged pay and management track promotions policies and
practices."

The Company appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and subsequently to the United States Supreme Court. On
June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion decertifying
the class and remanding the case to the district court.

On October 27, 2011, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed an amended
complaint proposing a class of current and former female
associates at the Company's California retail facilities, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2012. On
September 21, 2012, the court denied the motion. The plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification on April 15, 2013. On
August 2, 2013, the court denied the motion.

On August 16, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission
to appeal that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On November 18, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied that
petition.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Odle"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the
plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal an order dismissing
with prejudice the plaintiffs' class-action allegations in Odle v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On October 28, 2011, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Dukes
case filed a similar complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas entitled Odle v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., proposing a class of current and former female
associates employed in any Walmart region that includes stores
located in the state of Texas. On October 15, 2012, the court in
the Odle case granted the Company's motion to dismiss, dismissing
with prejudice the plaintiffs' class-action allegations and the
individual claims of the lead plaintiff, Stephanie Odle. On March
19, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied
the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal.


WAL-MART STORES: 6th Cir. Okays Appeal on "Phipps" Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted the
plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal a ruling granting a
motion to dismiss the suit Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct.
31, 2013.

On October 2, 2012, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed another
similar complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entitled Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., proposing a class of current and former female associates
employed in "Region 43, centered in Middle and Western Tennessee."
On February 20, 2013, the court in the Phipps case granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice the
plaintiffs' class-action allegations. On September 11, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted the
plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal that ruling.


WAL-MART STORES: Wins Dismissal of "Love" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted the motion of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to dismiss the
suit Love v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., according to the company's
Dec. 6, 2013 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On October 4, 2012, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed another
similar complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, entitled Love v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., proposing a class of current and former female associates
employed in certain designated stores and clubs in regions
centered in the state of Florida. On September 23, 2013, the court
in the Love case granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' class-action
allegations.


WAL-MART STORES: 7th Cir. Tosses Appeal on "Ladik" Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the
plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal a ruling dismissing
the suit Ladik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., according to the
company's Dec. 6, 2013 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, entitled Ladik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., proposing a
class of current and former female associates employed in "Region
14, which includes Wal-Mart retail stores located in parts of
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan." On May 24, 2013, the
court in the Ladik case granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' class-action
allegations. On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for permission to
appeal.


WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Suit Over Alleged FCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit pending in the
United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas,
alleging various violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act (the "FCPA"), according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in several lawsuits in which the
complaints closely track the allegations set forth in a news story
that appeared in The New York Times (the "Times") on April 21,
2012. One of these is a securities lawsuit that was filed on May
7, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, and subsequently transferred to the Western
District of Arkansas, in which the plaintiff alleges various
violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA")
beginning in 2005, and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating
to certain prior disclosures of the Company.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or acquired stock of the Company between December 8,
2011, and April 20, 2012, and seeks damages and other relief based
on allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the value of
such stock. In addition, a number of derivative complaints have
been filed in Delaware and Arkansas, also tracking the allegations
of the Times story, and naming various current and former officers
and directors as additional defendants. The plaintiffs in the
derivative suits (in which the Company is a nominal defendant)
allege, among other things, that the defendants who are or were
directors or officers of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with oversight of FCPA compliance. Most, but
not all, of the derivative suits have been combined into two
consolidated proceedings, one of which is currently pending in the
Western District of Arkansas and the other in the Delaware Court
of Chancery. Management does not believe any possible loss or the
range of any possible loss that may be incurred in connection with
these proceedings will be material to the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.


WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Pontiac Retirement System's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face the Securities Class
Action: City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., USDC, Western Dist. of AR, Fayetteville
Div., 5/7/12, according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.


WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Elk River Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington News reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of West Virginia individuals and businesses affected by
the recent Elk River chemical spill, which dumped what is believed
to be 7,500 gallons of 4-Methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM) into
the water supply of nine counties, court documents allege.

Michael Callaghan, former head of the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection and current partner in the prominent
Charleston law firm of Neely & Callaghan, is announcing a class
action lawsuit* has been filed in the wake of the recent Elk River
Chemical Spill.  Filed together with the Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group and the Law Office of Jana Eisinger, PLLC, the
class action suit was brought on behalf of businesses and
individuals suffering the effects of one of the most wide-ranging
man-made environmental disasters in recent memory, court documents
say.

According to court records, the disaster stems from what
officials believe was a 7,500-gallon leak of the chemical
4-Methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM), used in processing coal, from
a containment tank maintained by Freedom Industries, Inc. at a
site along the Elk River.  The leak site, according to court
documents, was just upriver from a water treatment plant owned and
operated by West Virginia-American Water Co. (WVAW), one of the
largest water treatment facilities in the country.  Because the
leak was not immediately reported to government officials, the
suit alleges, MCHM made its way into the water supply of nine
counties, including Kanawha, Boone, Putnam, Lincoln, Logan, Clay,
Roane, Jackson, and Cabell, potentially affecting 300,000
individuals and businesses.

According to court documents, inhaling or ingesting MCHM can cause
potentially serious health problems, including nausea, vomiting,
and adverse respiratory effects.  Officials did not take
preventive action, court records continue, until they received
widespread reports from residents of a foul, licorice-like smell
emanating from the water.  According to court documents, more than
700 residents have now reported illnesses related to MCHM
exposure, and several individuals have been hospitalized.

Court records show that the leak and its aftermath have already
proved to be financially devastating for residents affected by the
spill.  According to court documents, shuttered West Virginia
businesses have lost "considerable profits" and residents have
been unable to cook, bathe, or use their water in any manner.  In
addition to those who have already fallen ill, the lawsuit
continues, residents are forced to wonder whether this recent
exposure will make them sick in the future.  Mr. Callaghan, a West
Virginia native, veteran Charleston lawyer, and former
environmental regulator, called the situation "intolerable" and
vowed to fight aggressively for fair compensation for local
residents and businesses.

Filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, the class action
lawsuit asserts that Freedom Industries, Inc. was negligent for
maintaining a dangerous chemical storage facility close to a river
and just upstream from a major public water supply, failing to
maintain the facility in a safe condition, and failing to notify
the public of the leak in a timely fashion.  According to court
documents, WVAW is also named as a defendant for failing to detect
the leak in a timely manner and prevent MCHM from entering the
public water supply where it could reach residents and businesses.

                           *     *     *

Yawana Wolfe reported for Courthouse News Service in January that
beginning January 9, 2014, poison control centers received more
than 800 calls from people suffering nausea, headaches and eye
problems.

Environmental activist Erin Brockovich hosted a town hall meeting
January 13, 2014, night in Charleston, where a water treatment
professional said recommendations from the Centers for Disease
Control were too lax.  "If it were me," Bob Bowcock said, "I would
not bathe in, drink, or consume that water until it (MCHM) is
completely removed from the water."

Bowcock and Brockovich said MCHM is most dangerous if inhaled, and
that it is chemically allied to benzene, a carcinogen.  Bowcock
and Brockovich said throughout the meeting that there is no
scientific or medical evidence to prove that even 1 ppm of MCHM is
safe to drink.

"I highly recommend that you drink bottled water," Brockovich
said.  "You have the skills to get through this.  If the water
looks, smells, or tastes funny, don't drink it."

One part per million is the equivalent of a golf ball in a
football stadium.  In comparison, fluoride is monitored to be
controlled at 0.9 ppm.  Charleston's water processing facility
measures most chemicals in parts per trillion.

All schools in Kanawha County have been closed since January 10,
2014, and remain closed January 14, 2014.  Some parents,
therefore, have missed work.  Many businesses have been shut due
to orders of the Health Department.  All local businesses with
food licenses have been shut, leaving all food-service workers out
of work.  Public libraries were closed, as were many hair salons,
dental offices, car washes, and other nonessential businesses.

More than 17 civil lawsuits had been filed against Freedom
Enterprises as of January 13, 2014, night.

Plaintiffs in one class action include businesses and private
people.  They sued Eastman Chemical Co., Freedom Industries, West
Virginia American Water Corp. and Gary Southern, operations
director at Freedom Industries.  Poor people have been hit
hardest, due to lost wages, extra food costs, and, in the ultimate
irony, an expected jump in water bills due to the flushing
necessary to make the water usable.

In Washington, D.C. January 9, 2014, the day before Charleston's
water catastrophe began, the House of Representatives voted to
make the Environmental Protection Agency relax its standards on
environmental cleanups, to give states more leeway.


WESTERN HEALTH: Judge Expected to Decide on Class Action in March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Hurley, writing for The Western Star, reports that a judge is
expected to determine next month whether Western Health will be
tried for privacy breaches as part of a class-action lawsuit.

On Feb. 7 -- after two days of arguments from lawyers Andrew May
and Bob Buckingham, on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Dan Boone and
Janet Carpenter, representing Western Health -- Justice William
Goodridge said he was unsure just how much time he would need to
come to a decision.  He addressed Barbara Hynes, a Western Health
patient who had her medical files inappropriately accessed by a
clerk with Western Memorial Regional Hospital.  Justice Goodridge
said he has a lot of information to go through and doesn't want to
make a quick decision on something so significant.

Ms. Hynes, who would be the representative plaintiff if a class-
action lawsuit proceeds, sat through this week's hearing in
Supreme Court in Corner Brook.

Part of Mr. Boone's argument is that the class-action lawsuit
should not be certified by the court because, under provincial
legislation, action would have to be taken against the employee
who inappropriately accessed the files.

The lawsuit was launched in light of a breach of privacy involving
the files of 1,043 people.  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.

The final submissions on Feb. 7 continued to focus on the
liability factor.  Mr. Buckingham argued policy and legislation
does not blind an authority to its obligation to protect people's
privacy.  He said when there is a failure to do so, and when an
individual is able to access thousands of files within months,
something is wrong.

Meanwhile, Mr. Boone reiterated it is not a case where Western
Health was deliberately irresponsible or at fault.  He had
previously argued there is no basis for awarding any damages as
sought by the plaintiffs.

Earlier in the hearing, Buckingham said damages could range from
$500 to $30,000, depending on the circumstances of the plaintiff.

Justice Goodridge told the lawyers he was unsure if he would come
to a decision by next month and would notify them when he has
reached a decision.


WILDWOOD, FL: Faces Class Action Over Police User Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Millard K. Ives, writing for Daily Commercial, reports that a
lawsuit has been filed against the city of Wildwood to recover
nearly $1 million in police user fees an attorney claims were
illegally collected.

And it's the same attorney, Derek Schroth of Eustis, who
successfully sued the city of Fruitland Park for the same thing.
To settle its class-action lawsuit over police and fire service
fees it has been collecting since 2009, Fruitland Park has agreed
to pay out $530,000.  A hearing on that case is scheduled for
March 5 in Tavares.

In the Wildwood case, a court hearing is scheduled for May 29 to
certify the suit as a class action as part of the process to
recover six years' worth of $5 police user fees that were added to
water bills for about 2,800 residences to help boost police
services.

The lawsuit states almost $1 million was collected between March
2005 and October 2011, even though the city had more than $1.3
million in contingency reserves in its general fund as late as the
2013-2014 fiscal year.

"They were charging customers an illegal tax," said Mr. Schroth,
who filed the lawsuit on behalf of residents.

The lawsuit mostly argues the fees are illegal taxes under Article
7 of Florida's State Statues.  And while the fees were intended to
create additional police service citywide, only residents with
water bills had to pay the fees.

"Any person owning, occupying or using property that lacks any
connection to . . . utility service, or any person who has
discontinued their utility service . . . does not pay the illegal
tax," according to the lawsuit.

The suit also points out that only non-governmental users of
utilities had to pay the fee while public entities were exempt.

Wildwood resident Rosalind Weaver and former city resident
Lori West are listed as the class representatives in the lawsuit.
Mr. Schroth said the lawsuit started after a dispute between
Weaver and the city over the fee.

Residents' only choices were to pay the fee or have their water
shut off, he said.

A hearing had been slated for January to certify the case as a
class-action suit, Mr. Schroth said, but was postponed to May 29
after Wildwood officials said the city recently hired a new
attorney and they needed more time.

Mr. Schroth, who said he is board certified in government law,
said such implementation of police user fees on utilities bills is
rare.  He recently represented a successful class-action lawsuit
settlement of $530,000 against the city of Fruitland Park to
overturn the city's utility services fees, a supposedly voluntary
$8-per-month charge on city utility bills commissioners enacted in
2009 to help bolster police and fire department budgets.

Fruitland Park commissioners enacted the utility services fees
five years ago to offset budgetary shortfalls brought on by the
recession, the housing market collapse and reduced property
values.

Refunds to Fruitland Park residents will be made on an individual
pro-rated basis and the city will set up a method for applying for
refunds after the court approves the settlement.


ZEOBIT LLC: "MacKeeper" Software Is Junkware, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action claims ZeoBIT defrauds customers by saying its
MacKeeper software can spot performance problems on Mac computers,
but labels every computer as "at risk" and in need of repair, Jack
Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reported.

Lead plaintiff Gregory Ward sued ZeoBIT, a California LLC, in Cook
County Chancery Court.

"ZeoBIT develops software that it claims will increase the speed,
performance, and stability of a consumer's Macintosh personal
computer by removing harmful errors, and eliminating privacy and
security threats," the complaint states.

"Unfortunately, . . . ZeoBIT uses a common deceptive scheme to
trick consumers into purchasing its MacKeeper software, which
ultimately fails to deliver the utility ZeoBIT promises."

ZeoBIT, based in Sunnyvale, in Silicon Valley, "aggressively
markets MacKeeper in online advertisements," the complaint states.
It offers a free 15-day trial along and a free "diagnostic scan,"
which then detects performance and security issues.  It warns
users that "more than 30 percent of drive space on an average Mac
is taken up by junk files," and to "be aware that over time, more
and more memory resources will be consumed, decelerating your
MacBook," according to the complaint.

ZeoBIT guarantees that the full version of MacKeeper software,
which costs $39.95, will clean up the Mac's hard drive, remove
junk files, boost login time, and generally speed up the
computer's performance, Ward says.

"Contrary to ZeoBIT's marketing and in-software representations,
however, neither the free trial nor the full registered versions
of MacKeeper perform any credible diagnostic testing of a user's
Mac," the complaint states.  "Instead, ZeoBIT intentionally
designed MacKeeper to invariably and ominously report that the
consumer's Mac needs repair and is at-risk due to harmful errors,
privacy threats, and other problems, regardless of the computer's
actual condition.

"ZeoBIT controls a large market share of the Mac utility software
industry, and holds itself out a reputable market leader.  Given
that and because average consumers lack the requisite technical
expertise to understand the underlying functionality of MacKeeper,
they trust ZeoBIT to honestly and accurately describe the
software's functional capabilities and to identify and remove
harmful errors from their Macs as promised.  ZeoBIT betrayed that
trust and as a result, thousands of consumers have been (and
continue to be) duped into buying and continuing to use
MacKeeper."

Ward seeks class certification and damages for fraud, fraudulent
inducement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle, 13th floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6377
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: Partnerbrichman@edelson.com


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *