CAR_Public/140220.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, February 20, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 36

                             Headlines


AB&I FOUNDRY: Sued by Buyers of Cast Iron Soil Pipe & Fittings
ABSOLUTE COLLECTIONS: Sued for Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
AFFINION GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
ANNY B. VERA: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages & Damages
AT&T INC: Court Awards $5.5MM in Atty. Fees in "Nwabueze" Suit

AVANT BUSINESS: "Dolinski" Suit Certified as Collective Action
AVATAR TECHNOLOGIES: "Clark" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
BEBE STORES: Illegally & Negligently Contacted Class, Suit Claims
CHARLESTON COLLISION: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Suit Says
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA
EL RANCHO: Judge Recommends Denial of Class De-Certification Bid
EQUAL ENERGY: Being Sold to Petroflow for Too Little, Suit Claims
FIRST HORIZON: Faces "Hoilien" Class Action Suit in California
FRUITLAND PARK, FL: Feb. 28 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

FXR FACTORY: Recalls Children's Outerwear With Neck Drawstrings
GN&RC INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Nail Technician Says
GNC CORP: "Calvert" Suit Transferred From N.D. Ohio to Maryland
GNC CORP: "Lerma" Suit Transferred From California to Maryland
GOGO INC: "Stewart" Antitrust Suit Survives Dismissal Bid

GOOGLE INC: Bid for Review of Ruling in Gmail Litigation Tossed
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Directed to Produce Docs for "Webb" TCPA Suit
IBERIA LINEAS: Judge Junks Breach-of-Contract Class Action
INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in California
INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act in Cal.

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in California Over Risperdal Drug
JCORP INC: Recalls Children's Clothing With Neck Drawstring
KAWASAKI USA: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Fuel Leak
KENTUCKY: Flemingsburg to Join Class Action Over Loan
LCD PANEL COS: Siskinds, Fanshawe College Settle Price-Fixing Suit

LIME ENERGY: May 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MADISON SQUARE: Service Employees' Class Action Can Proceed
MARIN COUNTY, CA: April 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
MONTICELLO, MN: Schiff Hardin & Oppenheimer File Class Action

NEW WORLD: Recalls Master Kong Noodles Due to Undeclared Egg
NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: "Conrad" Suit Transferred to Maryland
NUTRIOM LLC: Recalls 226,710 Lbs. of Processed Egg Products
ON ASSIGNMENT INC: Accused of FLSA Violations in Pennsylvania
PFIZER INC: Sued for Damages Resulting From Use of Lipitor

RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8MM Lbs. of Unwholesome Meat Products
RONA INC: Recalls UBERHAUS Wall-Mounted Convection Heater
RR2 INC: Sued for Violating FLSA by Failing to Pay Overtime Wage
SADER POWER: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Trade Practices
SAMIRA ENTERPRISE: Never Paid Extra Halftime OT Rate, Suit Says

SANDALWOOD BAR: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages
SANTA FE NATURAL: Removed "Coles" Class Suit to C.D. California
SEWERAGE & WATER: "Crutchfield" Suit to Proceed to Discovery
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: "Dick" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
STARPAC MEAT: Recalls Various Meat Products Due to Undeclared Soy

TARGET CORP: Faces "McLarry" Suit in California Over Breach
TARGET CORP: Faces "Pietanza" Suit in New York Over Data Breach
TARGET CORP: Faces "Sutton" Suit in Washington Over Data Breach
TOKYO ELECTRIC: American Veterans File Class Action Over Radiation
TROPHY FOODS: Recalls Archer Farms Hickory Smoked Almonds

UNILEVER PLC: Settles Class Action Over Suave Product for $10.2MM
UNITED STATES: Senator Rand Paul Files Class Action v. NSA
WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Cannon" Class Action
VECTOR MARKETING: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds $9.2MM Attorneys Fee Award

* Line of Baby Walkers, Children's Coats Among Recalled Products


                             *********


AB&I FOUNDRY: Sued by Buyers of Cast Iron Soil Pipe & Fittings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Line Supply Company Ltd., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe Company, McWane,
Inc., Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, and Randolph Holding
Company LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00265-EMC (N.D. Cal., January 16,
2014) is an antitrust class action brought on behalf of all
persons and entities, who purchased cast iron soil pipe and
fittings directly from the Defendants within the United States,
from January 1, 2006, to the present.

The Defendants are the primary sellers and manufacturers of CISP
in the United States throughout the Class Period, controlling over
90% of the CISP market.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
held and continue to hold monopoly power over the CISP market in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  asheanin@pswlaw.com
                  mpearson@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          James B. Sloan, Esq.
          JAMES B. SLOAN LTD.
          One Westminster Place
          Lake Forest, IL 60045
          Telephone: (312) 315-5315
          Facsimile: (312) 234-6315
          E-mail: jsloan@sloanlegal.com

               - and -

          Sean F. Sloan, Esq.
          David A. Baugh, Esq.
          BAUGH, DALTON, CARLSON, & RYAN, LLC
          135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 863-3685
          Facsimile: (312) 759-0402
          E-mail: ssloan@baughdaltonlaw.com
                  dbaugh@baughdaltonlaw.com

               - and -

          M. Michael Waters, Esq.
          VONACHEN, LAWLESS, TRAGER & SLEVIN
          456 Fulton Street, Suite 425
          Peoria, IL 61602
          Telephone: (309) 676-8986
          Facsimile: (309) 676-4130
          E-mail: mwaters@vltslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kirsten Marie Ferguson, Esq.
          Daniel Murray Wall, Esq.
          Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 646-7823
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: kirsten.ferguson@lw.com
                  dan.wall@lw.com
                  tim.omara@lw.com


ABSOLUTE COLLECTIONS: Sued for Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel Abrahamovitz, individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Absolute Collections Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00372-SJ-RER (E.D.N.Y., January 16, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


AFFINION GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Affinion
Group is facing another class action for unfair and deceptive
trade practices toward consumers in a case filed by the Diviacchi
Law Office.

Affinion has already paid millions of dollars in civil claims and
state attorney general claims in 47 states for unfair and
deceptive trade practice toward consumers previously.

The class action complaint alleges that Affinion was aided by its
banking clients, such as Century Bank of Massachusetts, and deals
with on-paper fraudulent practices by Affinion which could have
been a rehearsal for its eventual deceptive internet practices
that have caused much of its litigation problems, according to a
Diviacchi Law Office press release.

Marcella Diviacchi, the plaintiff in the case, claims Affinion and
Century Bank allege that Century Bank gave its customers what
appeared 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, according to
the suit.

The plaintiff claims 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.

Ms. Diviacchi is seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages.  She is being represented by Valeriano Diviacchi
-- val@diviacchi.com -- of Diviacchi Law Office.

The complaint was filed Feb. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. Century Bank and Trust Company, which
is doing business as Century Bank, was also named as a defendant
in the suit.

Affinion Group is doing business as Affinion Benefits Group LLC,
Affinion Group and Affinion Group Holdings Inc.

The case was assigned to District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case number:
1:14-cv-10283


ANNY B. VERA: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Marie Stone, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Anny B. Vera, D.D.S., M.S.C. P.A., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00076-CEH-KRS (M.D. Fla.,
January 16, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover unpaid back wages and liquidated damages, and to
obtain declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs.

Vera is a Florida profit corporation with its principal place of
business in Volusia County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 243-4295
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


AT&T INC: Court Awards $5.5MM in Atty. Fees in "Nwabueze" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOY NWABUEZE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC., et al., Defendants,
NO. C 09-01529 SI, (N.D. Cal.) was initiated in 2009 against AT&T,
on behalf of a class of current and former customers who had
allegedly been billed for unauthorized charges placed by billing
aggregators on behalf of third-party providers, a process known as
"cramming."  Following lengthy negotiations, the parties agreed
upon a proposed settlement.  On November 27, 2013, the Court
approved the proposed settlement, but deferred ruling upon the
requested attorneys' fees.  The Court ordered Class Counsel to
submit supplemental materials detailing the projects and tasks
each attorney completed and when the work was done, as well as
detailed expense records.

Having considered the parties' submissions, including their
supplemental filings, District Judge Susan Illston granted the
motion for fees in the amount of $5,500,000 saying the percentage-
of-recovery cross-check confirms that a fee award of $5,500,000 is
reasonable and appropriate in this case.

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/vFChxffrom Leagle.com.


AVANT BUSINESS: "Dolinski" Suit Certified as Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge P. Kevin Castel granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary certification as a collective action of the case
captioned ALLAN DOLINSKI, LIBRADO VASCONCELOS, RAYMOND JOHNSON and
ERIK CRESPO, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. AVANT BUSINESS SERVICE
CORPORATION, CHARLES CHIUSANO and RICHARD RIVERA, Defendants, NO.
13 CIV. 4753 (PKC), (S.D. N.Y.).

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs bring wage-and-hour claims under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and
the New York Labor Law on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated. The Plaintiffs worked as couriers employed by
defendant Avant Business Service Corporation. They claim that
Avant and the two individual defendants violated federal and state
and wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay overtime wages, refusing
to reimburse mandatory work-related expenses and requiring
employees to work through meal breaks without compensation.
Plaintiffs assert that these pay practices were applied to
couriers company-wide, and moved for approval of notice as a
collective action under the FLSA.  The Plaintiffs do not move for
certification as a class action under Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ, P.,
for their New York Labor Law claim.

The Court directed the Plaintiffs to submit a revised proposed
notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/bu6p45from Leagle.com.


AVATAR TECHNOLOGIES: "Clark" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVATAR TECHNOLOGIES PHL, INC.,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-2777, (S.D. Tex.) is
before the Court on a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
for dismissal pending primary jurisdiction referral filed by
Defendant Flowroute LLC.

In this Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Avatar
and Flowroute violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which prohibits
making a call using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS)
or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number
assigned to a cellular telephone service, unless made for
emergency purposes or with express consent. The Plaintiff alleged
that, in July 2013, Avatar made a call to his cellular telephone
using an "artificial or prerecorded voice."  The Plaintiff alleged
that Avatar made the call using "Flowroute's VoIP services, and
employing Flowroute's Calling Name Management Service (CNAM-MS) to
alter the caller's identification as it appeared on Plaintiff's
cellular phone."

In a January 28, 2014 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/64yPnvfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Nancy F. Atlas
found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim for
relief against Flowroute.  Accordingly, Judge Atlas granted
Flowroute's Motion to Dismiss, but the Plaintiff was granted leave
to file an amended complaint by February 14, 2014, to attempt to
assert a viable unjust enrichment and/or Section 227(e) claim. If
the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, subject to the
requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
by the February 14, 2014 deadline, the dismissal would be
converted to one with prejudice.


BEBE STORES: Illegally & Negligently Contacted Class, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melita Meyer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bebe Stores, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00267-DMR (N.D.
Cal., January 16, 2014) is brought for damages, injunctive relief,
and other remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of
Bebe in negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff through
"text" messages, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Bebe Stores, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal
place of business located in Brisbane, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          Alison E. Wilson, Esq.
          Karen E. Nakon, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-1040
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com
                  awilson@slpattorney.com
                  knakon@slpattorney.com


CHARLESTON COLLISION: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Woodley v. Charleston Collision Holdings Corp.,
Charleston Collision, LLC, Charleston Collision II, LLC,
Charleston Collision III, LLC, and Andrew J. Leone, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00135-PMD (D.S.C., January 16, 2014) is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek for the Defendants, but the Defendants failed to pay
these employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Charleston Collision Holdings Corp., LLC, Charleston Collision,
LLC, Charleston Collision II, LLC, and Charleston Collision III,
LLC are South Carolina for-profit corporations, which collectively
conduct business under the trade name "Charleston Collision."
Andrew J. Leone is a resident of South Carolina and an owner of
Charleston Collision.  The Defendants owned and operated auto body
repair facilities that restore damaged vehicles under the business
name "Charleston Collision."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW, LLC
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (800) 385-8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

               - and -

          William C. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER LAW FIRM, PLC
          223 West Main Street, Suite A
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 979-0049
          Facsimile: (434) 979-0037
          E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lac T. Hoilien, Trustee of the Lac T. Hoilien Revocable Living
Trust Agreement Dated individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., as
Original Lender; Bank of America, NA, as Mortgage Servicer and all
persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title,
estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the
complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on
Plaintiffs' title thereto; and Does, 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00133-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Z. Voss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS
          100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14,
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (888) 999-4313
          Facsimile: (818) 813-4489
          E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., as
Original Lender; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Trustee of CWHEQ
Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-D; Bank of America,
N.A., as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming
any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in
the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff'
title, or any cloud on Plaintiff' title thereto; and Does, 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-00125-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal.,
January 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Z. Voss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS
          100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14,
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (888) 999-4313
          Facsimile: (818) 813-4489
          E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net


EL RANCHO: Judge Recommends Denial of Class De-Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston disregarded a motion to
modify the scheduling order in MARGARITA ROSALES and ANGELICA
ROSALES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. EL RANCHO FARMS and DOES 1-20,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00707-AWI-JLT, (E.D. Cal.).

Defendant El Rancho Farms had sought modification of the Court's
Scheduling Order to permit the filing of an additional dispositive
motion to request decertification of the class.

Magistrate Thurston recommended that the motion for
decertification be denied because the Defendant failed to meet its
burden to demonstrate decertification is proper in the face of
Plaintiffs demonstration that their damages stem from the
defendant's actions. The individual damages calculations do not
mandate decertification of the class, she said.

"These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. [Section] 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the
Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,
Eastern District of California," Magistrate Judge Thruston said.

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/dEMhyUfrom Leagle.com.


EQUAL ENERGY: Being Sold to Petroflow for Too Little, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Montemarano, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated v. Equal Energy Ltd., Michael Doyle,
Lee Canaan, Michael Coffman, Victor Dusik, Don Klapko, Kyle
Travis, Robert Wilkinson, Petroflow Energy Corporation, and
Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp., Case No. 5:14-cv-00058-C (W.D.
Okla., January 16, 2014) is brought in connection with Petroflow's
proposed acquisition of the outstanding shares of Equal.

The Proposed Buyout is the product of a flawed process that is
designed to ensure the sale of Equal to Petroflow on terms
preferential to Petroflow and other Equal insiders and to subvert
the interests of the Plaintiff and the other public stockholders
of the Company, according to the complaint.

Equal Energy Ltd. is an exploration and production oil and gas
company with its head office in Calgary, Canada, and its principal
executive offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Petroflow Energy Corporation is an independent exploration and
production company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma and incorporated in
Delaware.  Petroflow's focus is to apply new exploration,
completion, development techniques to old fields to unlock
previously untapped reserves that were either passed over or never
fully exploited.  Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp. is an
Alberta, Canada corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Petroflow.  Merger Sub was created solely for the purposes of
effectuating the Proposed Buyout.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Hartman, Esq.
          Jack C. Moore, Esq.
          HARTMAN, BLACKSTOCK & MOORE
          6520 S. Lewis Avenue, Suite 15
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: (918) 712-3246
          Facsimile: (918) 712-5042
          E-mail: jack.moore@andrewshartman.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


FIRST HORIZON: Faces "Hoilien" Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. First Horizon Home Loan Corporation,
as the Original Lender; The Bank of New York, Trustee of First
Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust 2007- Fa-3;
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons
unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate,
lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint
adverse to Plaintiff' title, or any cloud on Plaintiff' title
thereto and, does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00110-H-NLS (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants, and each of them, cannot show proper receipt,
possession, transfer, negotiations, assignment and ownership of
the borrower's original Promissory Note and Deed of Trust,
resulting in imperfect security interests and claims in the
Plaintiff's property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Z. Voss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS
          100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14,
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (888) 999-4313
          Facsimile: (818) 813-4489
          E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net


FRUITLAND PARK, FL: Feb. 28 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 2013 CA 400

JAMES RICHARDSON, individually, and
MICHAEL HOWARD and NANCY HOWARD
his wife, individually and as a Representative
of a Class of all similarly situated others,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRUITLAND PARK, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

To All Potential Members of the Following Class: Water utility
customers of the City of Fruitland Park who have paid police
service fees, fire service fees, or both, to the City of Fruitland
Park since the enactment of Ordinance 2009-014.

THIS NOTICE AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY

Pursuant to the Court's October 14, 2013 Notice of Pendency of
Class Action, unless you already opted-out or opt-out of the
lawsuit on or before February 28, 2014, you are covered by and
will be bound by the settlement of a class action lawsuit
involving the City's charging of police fees and fire service
fees.

Summary Of Lawsuit: Plaintiffs, James Richardson and Michael and
Nancy Howard, sued the City of Fruitland Park on February 1, 2013.
The Plaintiffs allege the City of Fruitland Park's enactment of
Ordinance 2009-014, which imposed police and fire service fees, is
an attempt to levy non-ad valorem taxes in violation of the
Florida Constitution.  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare the
Ordinance unconstitutional and order the City of Fruitland Park to
refund all of the police and fire service fees it has collected.

The Court certified this lawsuit as a class action by Court Order
on September 12, 2013.  Michael Howard and Nancy Howard serve as
class representatives and their attorney is Derek A. Schroth of
Bowen Radson Schroth, P.A. who also serves as class counsel.

Summary Of Proposed Settlement: The named Plaintiffs and the City
have reached a settlement.  The City will stop charging the police
and fire service fees and set up a common fund of $530,000.  The
fund will be used to pay a refund of fees paid by the class
members and to pay for attorney's fees and costs, Class
Representative fees, fees to class members who provided
extraordinary services, and the City's costs to administer the
fund and pay class members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
The amount of attorney's fees and costs, Class Representatives'
fees, and fees to class members who provided extraordinary
services shall be determined by the Court.  The amounts sought for
such fees and costs are as follows: attorney's fees and costs
($255,000), Class Representative fees ($24,000), fees to class
members who provided extraordinary services ($10,000) and the
City's costs to administer the fund and pay class members pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement, (estimated at $1000).  The amount of
refund made to class members shall be reduced by the pro rata
share of that class member's contribution toward the fees and
costs awarded by the Court.  Any remaining money in the common
fund after payment of the fees, costs and refunds will be used by
the City for the Fire Department.

Court Hearing Concerning the Settlement: The Court will conduct a
hearing on March 5, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. at the Lake County Judicial
Center, East Wing, Fifth Floor, 550 West Main Street, Tavares,
Florida 32778 to determine whether the proposed settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable.  You may attend the hearing, but
can only be heard at the hearing if you file written objection(s)
pursuant to the below terms.

Objections to the Settlement: If you believe the Court should not
approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your
objection(s).  In order to be considered, your objections must be
in writing, signed, contain the style of the case (as shown on the
top of page one of this notice), and sent via first-class mail to:
Clerk of the Lake County Circuit Court, 550 West Main Street,
Tavares, Florida 32778. A copy should also be mailed to class
counsel (Derek Schroth, 600 Jennings Ave., Eustis, Fl. 32726) who
will forward a copy to the City's attorneys.  Your objection(s)
will not be considered by the Court unless received on or before
February 28, 2014.

Your written objection(s) should specify in detail the factual
basis and/or legal grounds on which you base your objection(s).
If you provide written objection(s), you may appear in person at
the hearing and be heard before the Court on March 5, 2014 at
1:30 p.m., as described above, to express your objection(s)
concerning the settlement.  An attorney may also appear at the
hearing on your behalf.  If you and/or your attorney intend to
appear at the hearing and be heard on your objection(s), you must
timely provide written objection(s).

Any class member who fails to file a timely written objection(s)
may appear at the hearing, but may not be heard before the Court
at the hearing to voice objection(s) relating to the proposed
settlement.

Entry of Judgment: If the settlement is approved by the Court, the
Court will enter a judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing this action with prejudice.  All class members will be
bound by the judgment which will bar class members from asserting
any claims against the City for police and fire service fees.  All
class members are deemed to have waived the protection provided by
any state law with respect to unknown claims at the time of a
general release, and the general release forever discharges any
claims relating to the City's police and fire service fees by a
class member whether known or unknown to the class member at the
time of the Court's order approving the Settlement Agreement.

Further Information: The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed
settlement are summarized in this Notice. More detailed
information, including a copy of the settlement agreement, may be
obtained from class counsel (Derek Schroth, 600 Jennings Ave.
Eustis, Fl. 32726 352-589-1414).

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY
QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.

IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED, THE CITY WILL SEND YOU OR MAKE
AVAILABLE TO YOU (1) A CLAIM FORM TO PROPERLY COMPLETE AND SUBMIT
TO THE CITY AND (2) AFTER VERIFICATION OF PAYMENT OF THE FEES, A
CHECK.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

LAK1269366 01/29/14


FXR FACTORY: Recalls Children's Outerwear With Neck Drawstrings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 14, 2014
Posting date:             February 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37991

Affected products: FXR Factory Racing Inc. brand children's upper
outerwear with hood and/or neck drawstrings

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught
on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, the child being
dragged.

Neither Health Canada nor FXR Factory Racing Inc. has received
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product.

Approximately 34,357 recalled items were distributed in Canada.

The recalled items were sold from August 2008 to January 2014 at
FXR Factory Racing stores and authorized dealers across Canada.

The recalled items were manufactured in China and Vietnam.

Companies:

  Distributor     FXR Factory Racing Inc.
                  Oak Bluff
                  Manitoba
                  Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
garment to eliminate the hazard.


GN&RC INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Nail Technician Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pelegrina Escalante and other similarly-situated individuals v. GN
& RC, Inc., d/b/a J & N Nail Salon, and Richard Chin Quee,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20184-JEM (S.D. Fla., January 16,
2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under the laws of the United States.

GN & RC, Inc., doing business as J & N Nail Salon, is a Florida
corporation, having its place of business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.  J & N Nail Salon is a retail business offering beauty
and nail care services in the Westland Mall in Hialeah, Florida.
Richard Chin Quee is the owner or director of J & N Nail Salon.
The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee and she worked as a nail
technician at J & N Nail Salon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GNC CORP: "Calvert" Suit Transferred From N.D. Ohio to Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Calvert v. GNC Corporation, Case No. 4:13-
cv-01697, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Baltimore).  The Maryland District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00123-JFM to the proceeding.


GNC CORP: "Lerma" Suit Transferred From California to Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lerma v. GNC Corporation, Case No.
3:13-cv-00933, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland.  The Maryland District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00120-JFM to the proceeding.


GOGO INC: "Stewart" Antitrust Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen denied a motion to dismiss a second
amended complaint in the case captioned JAMES STEWART, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GOGO, INC., Defendant, NO. C-12-5164 EMC, (N.D.
Cal.).

Gogo, Inc. is a company that provides broadband internet access to
passengers on commercial aircraft. Plaintiffs James Stewart, Joel
Milne, and Joseph Strazullo have filed a class action against
Gogo, asserting that it has violated, inter alia, federal
antitrust law because it has an unlawful monopoly in the "market
for inflight internet access services on domestic commercial
airline flights within the continental United States."  Gogo filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs have alleged plausible
antitrust claims.  Judge Chen directed Gogo to respond to the
operative complaint within 30 days from the date of the order.

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/MhdU6C from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE INC: Bid for Review of Ruling in Gmail Litigation Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 26, 2013, granted in part and denied in part Google
Inc.'s motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint in the
multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: GOOGLE INC. GMAIL
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 5.13-MD-2430-LHK, (N.D. Cal.)

Google then filed a motion for Section 1292(b) Certification for
Interlocutory Review of the September 26, 2013 Order.

In a January 27, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/tnlqEFfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Lucy H. Koh denied the request saying,
"Due to the considerable expenses that have already accrued and
the fact that the current case schedule contemplates trial in
October 2014, the Court finds that termination of the litigation
is more likely to be materially advanced by proceeding to final
judgment."


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Directed to Produce Docs for "Webb" TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned JASMINDA WEBB, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE
REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP LLC, Defendant, NO. C. 13-00737 RS, (N.D.
Cal.), plaintiff Jasminda Webb alleges defendant Healthcare
Revenue Recovery Group LLC (HRRG) made calls to her cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Following a dispute regarding the scope of pre-certification
discovery, the magistrate judge assigned to this action on
December 3, 2013, ordered HRRG to produce certain documents and
materials.  HRRG seeks review of the magistrate's non-dispositive
ruling.

District Judge Richard Seeborg overruled the objection and
affirmed the magistrate judge's December 3, 2013 order.
In addition, counsel for Webb is prohibited from using HRRG's call
list to contact putative class members without court approval.

"HRRG is ordered to comply with the order forthwith," concluded
Judge Seeborg.

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/BvN0b9from Leagle.com.


IBERIA LINEAS: Judge Junks Breach-of-Contract Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge on Feb. 12 junked a proposed breach-of-contract class action
in which Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA passengers sought
damages for flight delays, finding that a European Union
regulation providing for such compensation didn't apply in the
United States.

Granting summary judgment to Iberia, U.S. District Judge Thomas
M. Durkin said the four lead plaintiffs -- whose trips between the
U.S. and Europe were delayed by Iberia-operated planes -- didn't
have a cause of action in U.S. courts and that their claim was
preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act anyway.

Iberia argued that the E.U. regulation contains language stating
that each member state must designate a body responsible for its
enforcement and that passengers have to complain to those
entities.  Plaintiffs claimed that the regulation allows
passengers to seek legal redress from courts under procedures of
national law and to take the proceedings before the competent
courts or bodies.

Siding with Iberia, Judge Durkin said on Feb. 12 that the word
"national" in the phrase "national law" actually referred to E.U.
member states, not courts in other countries.

Under an E.U. regulation enacted by the European Commission,
airlines must compensate passengers for some delays and
cancellations departing from or arriving at airports in member
states, according to court documents.

But while the plaintiffs want to apply the regulation to flight
itineraries that began or ended in the U.S., the ADA applies to
foreign air carriers and flights that travel between the U.S. and
a foreign country, Judge Durkin ruled.

Moreover, the E.U. regulation applies to flights departing from
the U.S. only when the flight is operated by an E.U. air carrier,
whereas the plaintiffs bought tickets from a U.S.-based carrier
for travel in which part of their itinerary was handled by
European airlines.

Two of those plaintiffs, James and Lauren Mitchell Varsamis,
claimed that the American Airlines Inc. conditions to which they
agreed when buying their tickets showed that it acted as Iberia's
agent through the sale, and that that agency relationship created
a contract between Iberia and the Varsamises that applied to their
travel.

Iberia countered that the section in American's conditions cited
by the plaintiffs only applies to carriers with which American has
"interline" agreements, whereas Iberia and American have a "code
share" agreement in which American sells seats on Iberia flights
using American flight designator codes such as the ones the
Varsamises bought.

The judge said on Feb. 12 that, regardless of Iberia's rebuttal,
the portion of American's conditions that directs ticket holders
to the tariff preempts the rest of American's conditions with
respect to the Varsamises' foreign travel.

As for the plaintiffs' contention that a provision in American's
code share agreement providing that the operating carrier would
indemnify the marketing carriers over passenger claims caused by
delays, the judge said the Varsamises hadn't explained how that
meant Iberia had a contractual relationship with them.

Judge Durkin also said the plaintiffs hadn't cited any authority
supporting their argument that they formed a contract with Iberia
by checking in and boarding one of the airline's planes, nor had
they explained why Iberia's conditions should govern such an
informal transaction.

The judge thus, in the second memorandum opinion and order,
granted Iberia's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
Varsamises' breach-of-contract claim in the putative class action.

The plaintiffs and proposed class are represented by Hank Bates of
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC and Jennifer W. Sprengel of Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

The defendants are represented by Christopher R. Christensen --
cchristensen@condonlaw.com -- and Anthony U. Battista --
abattista@condonlaw.com -- of Condon & Forsyth LLP and Brent
Austin of Eimer Stahl LLP.

The case is Theodoros Giannopoulos et al. v. Iberia Lineas Aereas
de Espana SA et al., case number 1:11-cv-00775, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.


INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Indymac Bank FSB, as Original Lender;
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Mortgage Servicer and all persons
unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate,
lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint
adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title
thereto; and Does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00111-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Z. Voss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS
          100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14,
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (888) 999-4313
          Facsimile: (818) 813-4489
          E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net


INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Indymac Bank FSB; as Original Lender;
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Mortgage Servicer and all persons
unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate,
lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint
adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title
thereto and, does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00123-H-JMA (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) accuses the Defendants
of violating the California Business and Professions Code, the
California Civil Code, the Truth in Lending Act and other laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Z. Voss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS
          100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14,
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (888) 999-4313
          Facsimile: (818) 813-4489
          E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in California Over Risperdal Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin A. Verkest and Lori L. Mckee-Callanan v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also known as Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Janssen LP;
Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research
and Development, LLC, and "John Doe" 1-5 (said names being
fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), in their
individual and official capacities, Case No. 3:14-cv-00106-JM-JMA
(S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is based upon the Defendants'
alleged violations of the laws of the Unites States and of the
state of California in the manufacture, marketing and distribution
of a defective and unreasonably dangerous medication -- Risperdal
(also known by the generic name risperidone.

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory, equitable, injunctive, punitive,
and declaratory relief for the debilitating physical,
psychological, pecuniary and related injuries for which the
Defendants are allegedly liable.

Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., also known as Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc., and Janssen, LP, is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey.
Johnson & Johnson, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.  J&J manufactures,
markets, and sells a wide range of pharmaceutical, medical and
related products.

Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC is
a New Jersey limited liability company, whose sole member is
Centocor Research & Development, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.  Medtronic
Puerto Rico Operations Co. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Medtronic, Inc., existing by virtue of the laws of the Cayman
Islands, with its principal place of business in Villalba, Puerto
Rico.  The Defendants "John Doe" 1-5 are unknown directors,
officers, managers, employees, agents, contractors, subsidiaries
or closely related entities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cristopher G. Sabol, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CRISTOPHER G. SABOL
          7985 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 109-80
          West Hollywood, CA 90046
          Telephone: (323) 383-1155
          E-mail: sabolesq@gmail.com


JCORP INC: Recalls Children's Clothing With Neck Drawstring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 14, 2014
Posting date:             February 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38005

Affected products: Children's clothing with neck drawstrings sold
exclusively at Triple Flip stores under the Triple Flip brandname.

The recall involves these products:

  Brand                  Product description   Model number
  -----                  -------------------   ------------
  Triple Flip            Hooded dress           9XT260-203
  Girl's hooded jacket                          9XT264-203
  Girl's high collar jacket                     9XT289-203

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's outerwear can become caught on
playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, the child being
dragged.

Neither Health Canada nor JCorp Inc. Triple Flip have received
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 1,115 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
September to November 2011 at Triple Flip stores.

Companies:

  Importer     JCorp Inc., Division Frenchies
               Montreal
               Quebec
               Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garments to eliminate the hazard.


KAWASAKI USA: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Fuel Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A., of Irvine, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 10,000 Off-road motorcycles.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Fuel can leak from between the fuel tank and fuel tap, posing a
fire hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves model year 2010, 2011 and 2012 KLX110 and
KLX110L off-road motorcycles.  The motorcycles have a 110 cubic
centimeter engine, a green fuel tank, shroud cover and fenders, a
black seat and white side covers.  "Kawasaki" is on both sides of
the shroud cover.  Model names and numbers are on both side covers
directly beneath the seat.  KLX110 models have an automatic
clutch, a shift pedal and no clutch lever on the handlebars.  The
seat height for these models is about 27 inches. KLX110L models
have a manual clutch, a shift pedal and a clutch lever on the
handlebars.  The seat height for these models is about 29 inches.

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold at
Kawasaki dealers nationwide from November 2009 to January 2014 for
about $2,100 to $2,350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled off-road
motorcycles and contact a Kawasaki dealer to schedule a free
repair.  Kawasaki is contacting its customers directly.


KENTUCKY: Flemingsburg to Join Class Action Over Loan
-----------------------------------------------------
Christy Hoots, writing for The Ledger Independent, reports that
the city of Flemingsburg will be taking part in a class action
lawsuit against the Kentucky Department of Insurance to recover
borrowed money.

On Jan. 6, 2010, the Kentucky League of Cities Insurance Services
Association loaned $5.5 million for workers' compensation and $2.5
million for property and liability insurance to the Kentucky
School Boards Insurance Trust.  This was a loan approved and
directed by the KDOI.

KSBIT was an organization that began in 1978 as a way to allow
schools boards to pool their money and share in the risk,
according to the KSBIT website.  It allowed school boards to cut
down the cost of having to find a private insurance provider.

However, due to a large number of claims, and KSBIT paying out
more than it was taking in, it accrued a large amount of debt.
When KSBIT began to become unstable, the KDOI requested the loan
be made to KSBIT.

"That did not work, and the (DOI) has taken (KSBIT) over,"
Flemingsburg Mayor Marty Voiers said.

Fleming County School District Superintendent Tom Price said
during several meetings last year that the district would be one
that had to pay back money on the debt left by KSBIT.

Mr. Voiers said, during a recent meeting, that many districts have
not been paying back the money for the debt, which led to the
KLCIS asking to be repaid the money loaned in 2010.

According to Mr. Voiers, the KDOI officials have said they do not
consider the money to be a loan and will not repay the $8 million.


LCD PANEL COS: Siskinds, Fanshawe College Settle Price-Fixing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Sims, writing for The London Free Press, reports that
London, Ontario law firm Siskinds and Fanshawe College are leading
the charge to correct long suspected price fixing in a class-
action lawsuit against international manufacturers -- and so far
have settlements totaling $37.6 million from five companies.

It's the first Canadian lawsuit of its kind and could provide
compensation to millions of consumers who bought LCD panels and
products like flat screen TVs and computer monitors between 1998
and 2006.

London tech expert Carmi Levy said not to expect a windfall from
the settlements.

"To the average consumer it seems like a lot of money.  But in the
overall scheme of things and relative to the size of the
flatscreen market and the broader technology market, it's a
relatively small sum."

The Canadian lawsuit was launched almost seven years ago in
London, after Siskinds' class-action team approached Fanshawe
about being a representative participant in the action.

Lawyer Linda Visser said there had already been actions in the
United States, Europe and Asia involving allegations that
companies conspired on a global scale to raise and fix the prices
of LCD panels and LCD products of 25.4 centimeters (10 inches) and
bigger.

Fanshawe was game, having bought millions of dollars worth of
screens for classrooms and to sell to students in their retail
store.

What's unclear is how much prices were jacked up.  Ms. Visser said
the overcharges were likely less than 20%, but how much lower is
still under debate.

Class actions were launched in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec.  The
settlements have been approved in Ontario and B.C., and were up
for approval in Quebec last week.  It will be up to the courts to
set the protocol for claims.

Siskinds asks people who bought products to register on their
website.  A proof of purchase isn't necessary, but would be
helpful.


LIME ENERGY: May 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the law firm of Pomerantz LLP
in Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co., No. 1:12-cv-05704 (N.D. Ill).

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Lime Energy Co. securities during the period from May 14, 2008
through December 27, 2012, both dates inclusive.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former
directors and officers of Lime during the Class Period, members of
their families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors
or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that a settlement of
the above-captioned class action has been proposed.  A hearing
will be held on May 13, 2014, at 12:30 p.m., before the Honorable
Sara L. Ellis, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for
the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1719,
219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, for the
purpose of determining, among other things: (1) whether a
Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the
Settlement and whether Class Plaintiffs and their counsel have
adequately represented the Class Members; (2) whether the proposed
Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants for
$2,500,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the Court should permanently
enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to
the subject matter of the Action; (5) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (6) whether
the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses should be approved; and (7) whether the Lead
Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses
should be granted.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lime Securities between
May 14, 2008, and December 27, 2012, both dates inclusive, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.
If you have not received the detailed Notice Of Proposed
Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And
Expenses, And Final Approval Hearing and Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the
Claims Administrator, by mail at: Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co.,
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P. O. Box 8095, Faribault, MN 55021-
9495; by telephone at: 1-877-872-3809; or by visiting the
Settlement website www.LimeEnergySettlement.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
June 12, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  As
further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of
Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Notice by no later than April
29, 2014.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or
attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and served in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice no later
than April 29, 2014.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Class:

          Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq.
          Pomerantz LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: lsmollar@pomlaw.com

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED:  January 28, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


MADISON SQUARE: Service Employees' Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
class action lawsuit accusing Madison Square Garden of illegally
withholding gratuities from service employees can go forward, a
unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel ruled on
Feb. 11.

Justice Dianne Renwick wrote the opinion, joined by Justices David
Friedman, Rolando Acosta, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels and Judith
Gische.  It affirmed an August 2011 order by Manhattan Supreme
Court Justice Milton Tingling denying MSG's motion to dismiss.

The employees, who worked at MSG during the last decade, allege
that the sports and entertainment center charged customers a
20 percent gratuity for food and beverage service, but did not
distribute all of that gratuity to the service employees, as
required by New York's Labor Law Sec. 196-d.

MSG moved to dismiss on several grounds, but Justice Tingling and
the First Department rejected them all.

The panel ruled that the suit was not precluded by MSG's
collective bargaining agreement with the employees' union, Unite
Here Local 100, because it contained "no clear, unmistakable
waiver."  It said that the suit was not preempted by the federal
Labor Management Relations Act, which governs disputes between
unions and management, because the employees' complaint arises
under state law, not the bargaining agreement.  Similarly, the
panel ruled that an arbitration clause in the agreement does not
apply because the dispute does not arise from it either.

The plaintiffs are represented by Arthur Schwartz and Tracey
Kiernan of Advocates for Justice Chartered Attorneys.

Madison Square Garden is represented by Kenneth Margolis --
margolis@kmm.com -- of Kauff McGuire & Margolis.

The case is Tamburino v. Madison Square Garden, 111432/10.


MARIN COUNTY, CA: April 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
This Notice contains important information that may pertain to
you.  Under the Settlement Agreement in Shemaria v. County of
Marin, No. CV 082718, County of Marin has agreed to spend $15
million, with a minimum allocation of one million dollars
annually, to improve programmatic access for persons with mobility
disabilities, at all County facilities.  In exchange, class
members who are all members with mobility disabilities will
release the County of Marin from all claims for injunctive or
declaratory relief that they may have against the County for its
alleged failure to make County owned or maintained facilities
accessible to persons with mobility disabilities.  On June 3,
2008, Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit for declaratory
and injunctive relief against the County of Marin claiming its
facilities were not accessible to persons with mobility
disabilities.  The Superior Court has now granted preliminary
approval of the proposed class settlement in this case.

The general terms of the proposed settlement are laid out in the
Notice which can be accessed at http://is.gd/ATCUgTor via request
at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, 180 Montgomery Street,
Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94104, tel. (415) 421-7100, fax.
(415) 421-7105, attention Sam Marks, or the Office of the County
Counsel, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 275, San Rafael, CA 94903,
tel. (415) 473-6117, fax. (415) 473-3796.

The Court has ordered a Fairness Hearing for April 9, 2014 at
8:30 a.m.  All class members who wish to object to the settlement
must do so by April 3, 2014.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Rossy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Merge Healthcare, Incorporated, Michael W. Ferro, Jr.,
Jeffery A. Surges, Justin Dearborn and Steven M. Oreskovich, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00318 (N.D. Ill., January 16, 2014) is a securities
class action brought on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Merge Healthcare between August 1, 2012, and January 7,
2014, inclusive.

Merge Healthcare is a Chicago, Illinois-based company that offers
health stations, clinical trial software and other health data and
analytics services designed to engage consumers in their personal
health.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


MONTICELLO, MN: Schiff Hardin & Oppenheimer File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schiff Hardin LLP and Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP on Feb. 12
filed the class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of William Dean, and all
similarly-situated persons and entities who purchased
Telecommunications Revenue Bonds Series 2008 issued by the
Defendant City of Monticello between June 19, 2008 and May 31,
2012, inclusive (Civ. Act. No. 14-cv-00376, filed on Feb. 12,
2014).  The action alleges that the City committed violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Minnesota Securities
Act of 2002.

The City is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
The Bonds were issued by the City to provide funds to finance the
development, acquisition, construction and installation of a
"fiber to the premises" broadband communications network (the
"FTTP Project"), which provides cable television services,
internet access and telephone services.  The FTTP Project is
owned, developed and constructed by the City.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the City made
fraudulent material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the
economic feasibility of the FTTP Project.  The sole source of
revenue to pay debt service on the Bonds is net operating revenues
from the FTTP Project.  The net revenues generated by the FTTP
Project for the first several years of operations were highly
dependent upon the time frame in which the network was completed,
as the underlying technology and direct competition in the retail
telecommunications market is constantly evolving.  Among other
things, the complaint alleges that the City failed to disclose the
following material facts: (i) on May 21, 2008, less than one month
before the issuance of the Bonds, a Summons and Complaint was
served upon the City by Bridgewater Telephone Company, Inc.; (ii)
the City was aware that, as a result of this ongoing Litigation,
construction for the FTTP Project would be significantly delayed;
(iii) the delay in construction for the FTTP Project would
negatively impact projected net revenues, the sole source of cash
flow to pay debt service on the Bonds; (iv) the projected net
revenues set forth in the offering documents were no longer
accurate; (v) bondholders could not rely on the forecasted
financial statement set forth in the offering documents to
determine when the FTTP Project would begin to generate net
revenues.

Due to delays in construction as a result of the Litigation, as
well as competition in the market, the FTTP Project has struggled
to gain subscribers.  In fact, the City has lost money providing
the services contemplated by the FTTP Project.  Furthermore, until
July of 2011, debt service on the Bonds was paid solely from Bond
proceeds and not from net revenues of the FTTP Project.  The City
also used a loan from another department to pay debt service on
the Bonds from June 2011 until June 2012.  On May 31, 2012, the
City publicly announced that it would no longer pay debt service
due on the Bonds.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
the Bonds during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is represented
by Schiff Hardin LLP and Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, which
have expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

A proposed settlement has been reached with the City in relation
to this matter.  The proposed Settlement agreement provides for a
total recovery of $7,750,000.  The Settlement fund includes two
parts: (1) a cash payment of $5,750,000 from the City, and (2) a
distribution of $2,000,000 in trust funds currently held under an
indenture.  The Settlement will resolve all claims related to the
offering and sale of the Bonds issued by the City.  If approved,
the Settlement will conclude the class action.

If you purchased or acquired the Bonds during the Class Period,
and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you may move the Court no
later than 60 days from today (no later than April 13, 2014).  Any
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

If you desire to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire
one at your own expense and you may enter an appearance with the
Court.


NEW WORLD: Recalls Master Kong Noodles Due to Undeclared Egg
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           New World Imports Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8619

New World Imports Ltd. is recalling Master Kong brand noodle
products from the marketplace because they contain egg which is
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to egg should
not consume the recalled products described below.

These products have been sold in BC.

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

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

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

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

Affected products: Master Kong Roasted Beef Noodle - Instant
Noodles and Hot Beef Noodle - Instant Noodles


NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: "Conrad" Suit Transferred to Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Conrad v. Nutramax
Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-03780, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern of District of Illinois
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
(Baltimore).  The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-00126-JFM to the proceeding.


NUTRIOM LLC: Recalls 226,710 Lbs. of Processed Egg Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nutriom LLC, a Lacey, Wash., establishment, is recalling
approximately 226,710 pounds of processed egg products that may be
contaminated with Salmonella, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

These products were shipped to co-packers for incorporation into
consumer-size packages:

   -- 1,383-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag Egg Mix, Butter
      Flavor" with the lot code "C0513-A";

   -- 2,540-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
      lot code "B1913-A";

   -- 2,409-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
      lot code "B1913-B";

   -- 4,712-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
      lot code "E0713-A,B";

   -- 1,265-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag, Heat and
      Serve" with the lot code "F1813-A";

   -- 4,155-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
      lot code "I1113-A";

   -- 6,132-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg, Cage Free"
      with the lot code "J2913-A";

   -- 9,345-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg, Cage Free"
      with the lot code "A1414-A"

These products were packaged in consumer-sized packages:

   -- 3.06-lb. bags of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag Egg Mix, Butter
      Flavor" with the Julian dates "3074" and "3075";

   -- 2.34-lb. bags of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag, Reduced Cholesterol"
      with the Julian dates "3122," "3123," "3124," "3127," "3128"
      and "3129";

   -- 4.5-oz. cans of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
      date "2903," "1343" and "2893";

   -- 4-oz. bags of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
      dates "0853" and "0863";

   -- 4.5-oz. bags of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
      dates "0853, " "0863" and "0873";

   -- 1.75-lb. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
      dates "0813," "1083,"  "1093," "1433," "1443," "1573,"
      "1723," "2063," "2163," "2173," "2183" "2243," "2253,"
      "2183," "2533," "2543," "2553," "2563," "2673," "2683,"
      "2693" and "2703";

   -- 3.2-oz. bags of "Wise Company, Wise Blend" with the Julian
      dates "0953" and "0993";

   -- 2-oz. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
      dates "2073," "2063," "2163," "2603," "2613" "2903," "2913,"
      "2953," "2963," "3173" and "3183";

   -- 3.2-oz. packs of "Wise Company, Wise Blend" with the Julian
      dates "1133," "1143," "1153," "1163" and "1353";

   -- 1.17-lb. bags of "OvaEasy UGRA Boil-in-Bag, Reduced
      "Cholesterol" with the Julian dates "3129," "3130" and
      "3137";

   -- 1.75-lb. packs of "OvaEasy" with the Julian dates "2163,"
      "2173," "2183" and "2243";

   -- 4.5-oz. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
      dates "2563," "2623" and "2633";

   -- 1.1-lb. packs of "OvaEasy UGR H&S" with the Julian dates
      "3173," "3174," "3175," "3177," "3178," "3179," "3180,"
      "3181," "3182," "3183," "3194," "3195," "3196," "3197,"
      "3198" and "3199";

   -- 1.1-lb. packs of "G0213-A UGR H&S" with the Julian dates
      "3186," "3187," "3189," "3190" and "3191";

   -- 128-gram packs of "Egg Crystal, Sea Salt and Pepper" with
      the Julian date "3033";

   -- 128-gram packs of "Egg Crystal, Sausage and Herb" with the
      Julian date "3043";

   -- 1.17-lb. packs of "OvaEasy UGR-A Reduced Cholesterol" with
      the Julian dates "3141," "3142," "3148," "3149" and "3150"

   -- 3-oz. packs of "eFoods Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
      dates of "3173" and "3183"

The dried egg products were produced between Feb. 28, 2013, and
Feb. 8, 2014, and bear the establishment number "INSPECTED EGG
PRODUCTS PLANT 21493G" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.  These
products were shipped nationwide and to U.S. military
installations in the United States and abroad, as well as to
Canada.

The problem was discovered by Washington State Laboratories in
response to a billing inquiry by Nutriom LLC.  The laboratory then
notified FSIS personnel of the discrepancies in laboratory
results.  FSIS and the company have received no reports of
illnesses due to consumption of these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses.  The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are
diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after
eating the contaminated product.  The illness usually lasts 4 to 7
days.  Most people recover without treatment.  In some persons,
however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to
be hospitalized.  Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

FSIS inspects egg products under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
FDA typically takes jurisdiction of egg products after they leave
the egg facility if they are incorporated into FDA-regulated
products.  In this case, USDA is leading the recall rather than
FDA because the products are in consumer packages with an
identifiable USDA Mark of Inspection, and FSIS had jurisdiction
over the product when the contamination occurred. FSIS and FDA are
continuing to work together to ensure food safety, and the
management of this recall is such an example.

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

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare and consume egg
products that have been cooked to a temperature of 160 Fahrenheit.
The only way to confirm that egg products are cooked to a
temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food
thermometer that measures internal temperature,
http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Leonardo
Etcheto, Chief Operating Officer, at (360) 413-7269, ext. 106.
Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Julie
Cuffee, Customer Service Representative, at (360) 413-7269, ext.
101.

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


ON ASSIGNMENT INC: Accused of FLSA Violations in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Abbott, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. On Assignment, Inc., and PPG Industries,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00068-DSC (W.D. Pa., January 16, 2014)

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD.
          36 N. Jefferson Street
          P.O. Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (724) 656-1555
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


PFIZER INC: Sued for Damages Resulting From Use of Lipitor
----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia DiCenzi and Wayne DiCenzi, 9101 Kephart Drive, Mentor,
Ohio 44060 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New
York 10017, Case No. 1:14-cv-00102-JG (N.D. Ohio, January 16,
2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Knabe, Esq.
          BROWN & SZALLER
          14222 Madison Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 228-7200
          E-mail: knabe@lawandhelp.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  LCraig@myadvocates.com


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

These Rancho Feeding Corporation products are subject to recall:

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

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

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

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

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

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


RONA INC: Recalls UBERHAUS Wall-Mounted Convection Heater
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 14, 2014
Posting date:             February 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38009

Affected products: UBERHAUS wall-mounted convection heater, model
ECH104-2000 with product number 681205103

RONA Inc. is issuing a voluntary recall on UBERHAUS 2000 W wall-
mounted convection heaters with model number ECH104-2000 or
product number 681205103.

The product may be affected by a manufacturing defect causing
overheating, which could result in injury or property damage.

Health Canada and RONA have received two reports of overheating of
the product.  No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 19,000 recalled convection heaters were sold at
Reno-Depot stores in Quebec and at RONA stores in Quebec and
Ontario.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold between
February 2011 and January 2014.

Companies:

  Distributor     Rona Inc.
                  Boucherville
                  Quebec
                  Canada

Customers who have this product in their possession should
immediately stop using it and return it to a RONA or Reno-Depot
store.  It is important to follow the manufacturer's instructions
when disconnecting and removing the product.  For more
information, customers may also contact customer service toll-free
at 1-866-283-2239.


RR2 INC: Sued for Violating FLSA by Failing to Pay Overtime Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Argueta v. RR2, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00044-LO-TRJ (E.D.
Va., January 16, 2014) accuses the Company of failing to pay
overtime compensation to the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

RR2, INC., doing business as RedRocks Pizza Napoletana, operates
an enterprise with four locations (two in Washington DC and two in
Virginia).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas F. Hennessy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA FAMILY AND EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
          405 Chain Bridge Road, Suite G
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 865-5839
          Facsimile: (703) 734-5849
          E-mail: th@virginiafamilylawcenter.com


SADER POWER: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
New Orleans brother and sister are the lead plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit against a group of solar panel installation
companies.

Twyla Torregano, Clement Torregano Jr., and all others similarly
situated, filed suit against Sader Power LLC, Sader Power
Enterprises LLC and Griswold Power LLC in the U.S. District COurt
of the Eastern District of Louisiana on Feb. 7.

Siblings Twyla Torregano and Clement Torregano Jr., who both had
solar panels installed on their homes, are the lead plaintiffs in
a class action lawsuit filed against Sader Power, Sader Power
Enterprises and Griswold Power who are alleged to have oversold
the potential for power savings customers would experience by
having solar panels installed on their property.  The estimated
size of the class action is 2,500.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices by advertising in print and television media that their
customers would see a savings in their power from the time the
solar panels were installed and may eventually no longer get an
electric bill.  The class asserts that the defendants had a scheme
in which they would show a customer's electric bill before the
solar panel equipment was installed and a bill after installation
that was one quarter of the cost while the actual cost savings was
really much less than advertised.

The defendants are also alleged to have receive a tax credit of up
to 80 percent of the purchase price of the solar panels and then
entered into lease agreements with customers for $45 to $50 per
month for six years before requiring them to buy the equipment
without the benefit of the tax credit at the end of the lease term
for $10,000.  The plaintiffs claim if they did not purchase the
equipment it was removed at the end of the lease period.

The defendant is accused of breaching the Consumer Leasing Act,
Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment.

Damages in the estimate of $5 million are sought for compensation,
statutory damages, restitution, disgorgment of profits, cost of
suit, treble damages and attorney's fees.

The class is represented by Lawrence J. Centola II of New Orleans-
based Martzell & Bickford and co-counsel Joshua Rubenstein of New
Orleans-based Scheuermann & Jones.

The case has been assigned to U.S. Federal Judge Mary Ann Vial
Lemmon.

Case no. 2:14-cv-00293.


SAMIRA ENTERPRISE: Never Paid Extra Halftime OT Rate, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transito Oswaldo Tun-Gonzalez and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Samira Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Avanti
Restaurant at Fountain Place d/b/a Avanti Ristorante Amin
Malekafzali, Case No. 3:14-cv-00161-L (N.D. Tex., January 16,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiff worked an average of 55 hours per
week, but was never paid the extra halftime overtime rate for
hours worked above 40.

Samira Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Avanti Restaurant at Fountain Place
d/b/a Avanti Ristorante, is a company that regularly transacts
business within Dallas County.  Amin Malekafzali, is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
          Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL PC
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


SANDALWOOD BAR: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atvinder Pal, Ratna Regmi, Indra Thapaliya, Surendra Pathak,
Rakesh Shrestha, Kamal Koirala, Som Narayan Chowdhury, Jaya
Sharma, Arina Romenskaya, Kristina Romenskaya, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated v. Sandalwood Bar N Grill
Inc. d/b/a The Mint Restaurant & Lounge and Bhupinder Singh Sikka,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00301-TPG (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of willfully failing and refusing to pay the
Plaintiffs at the legally required minimum wage for all hours
worked and one and one half times this rate for work in excess of
40 hours per workweek.

Sandalwood Bar N Grill Inc. is a New York Corporation whose
principal place of business is located in Manhattan.  Sandalwood
Bar N Grill Inc. operates Mint Restaurant & Lounge located in New
York.  Bhupinder Singh Sikka is the owner and Chief Executive
Officer of Sandalwood Bar N Grill Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
                  jnussbaum@jhllp.com


SANTA FE NATURAL: Removed "Coles" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled John Coles v. Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-02013-00692391,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, Orange County,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Santa Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 8:14-cv-00076-AG-AN to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aarin A. Zeif, Esq.
          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          GOULD AND ASSOCIATES
          17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 669-2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544-0800
          E-mail: aarin@wageandhourlaw.com
                  michael@wageandhourlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cindi Lynn Ritchey, Esq.
          Liat Yamini, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
          Telephone: (213) 489-3939
          Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
          E-mail: critchey@jonesday.com
                  lyamini@jonesday.com


SEWERAGE & WATER: "Crutchfield" Suit to Proceed to Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
In RONDA CRUTCHFIELD, ET AL. v. SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD OF NEW
ORLEANS, ET AL., SECTION "C" (5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4801, (E.D.
La.), the plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the submission
date for their motion to certify class. In addition to continuing
the submission date, the plaintiffs also asked that the Court
grant discovery and allow an evidentiary hearing to occur in this
matter before certification is submitted for resolution.

District Judge Helen G. Berrigan granted the plaintiffs' motion in
all respects, including as to discovery and the evidentiary
hearing.  Judge Berrigan said the Court is not inclined to make a
determination "on the pleadings" where better evidence is
seemingly readily available. Accordingly, the Court ordered the
parties to contact Magistrate Judge Alma Chasez by February 14,
2014 to setup a scheduling conference for pre-certification
discovery.

A copy of the District Court's January 30, 2014 Order and Reasons
is available at http://is.gd/mOj7AJfrom Leagle.com.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: "Dick" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Thomas B. Russell granted final approval of
a class-action settlement in MARY PATRICIA DICK and GARY L. EKERS,
for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. and QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00443-TBR,
(W.D. Ky.).

The Settlement Agreement commits the Defendants to pay up to
$1,457,000 in cash compensation, $565,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses, and approximately $337,000 toward an allocated share of
administrative costs.

The Settlement Agreement also provides that a qualified claimant
who has owned the property adjoining the rights of way throughout
the entire compensation period will receive the entire amount of
benefits attributable to the right of way. If prior owners are
also entitled to benefits, such benefits will be allocated pro
rata based on the prior and current owners' respective periods of
ownership.

The Settling Defendants have also agreed to pay $1,300.00 in
incentive compensation each to Mary Patricia Dick and Gary L.
Ekers, the Class Representatives.

Judge Russell said the nature of the Settlement Agreement,
including the monetary compensation, provides a reasonable
tradeoff in exchange for the elimination of the legal risk
associated with several of Plaintiffs' asserted claims.

A copy of the District Court's January 30, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/oFwGTofrom Leagle.com.


STARPAC MEAT: Recalls Various Meat Products Due to Undeclared Soy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Starpac Meat Processors
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8614

Starpac Meat Processors Inc. is recalling various meat products
from the marketplace because they contain mustard and/or soy which
are not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to mustard
or soy should not consume the recalled products described below.

These products have been sold in Alberta.

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

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

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

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

Affected products:

  Brand Name                 Common Name                   Size
  ----------                 -----------                   ----
  Aunt Edna's            Boneless Dry Garlic Ribs          5 lb
  V.I.P. Food Services   Boneless Dry Garlic Ribs          5 lb
  V.I.P. Food Services   Honey Garlic Chicken Wings        6 lb
  V.I.P. Food Services   Salt & Pepper Wings               6 lb
  V.I.P. Food Services   Chicken Cordon Bleu          12 pieces
  V.I.P. Food Services   Chicken Kiev                 12 pieces
  V.I.P. Food Services   Hot & Spicy Chicken Wings         6 lb
  V.I.P. Food Services   Chicken Marco Polo           12 pieces


TARGET CORP: Faces "McLarry" Suit in California Over Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark McLarry and Abraham Gale, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00121-JLS-RBB (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is brought in
connection with the data security breach at Target.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  ali@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bruce Steckler, Esq.
          Mazin Sbaiti, Esq.
          THE STECKLER LAW FIRM
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: Bruce@stecklerlaw.com
                  Mazin@stecklerlaw.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Pietanza" Suit in New York Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martino Pietanza, Bobbi Hodge, and Steven Hodge, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation
and John Does 1-100, Case No. 1:14-cv-00338-BMC (E.D.N.Y.,
January 16, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to
secure and to monitor Target's computer systems to protect its
customers and the information its customers provided, which
failure resulted to the data security breach in late 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Esq.
          Brian Howard Brick, Esq.
          NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK, LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 267-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 587-0031
          E-mail: hunter@napolibern.com
                  bbrick@napolibern.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Sutton" Suit in Washington Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Sutton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00079-RAJ (W.D.
Wash., January 16, 2014) arises from the November 27-December 15,
2013 breach of Target's computer system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
                  kswope@kellerrohrback.com


TOKYO ELECTRIC: American Veterans File Class Action Over Radiation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Wasserman, writing for Huffington Post, reports that,
citing a wide range of ailments from leukemia to blindness to
birth defects, 79 American veterans of the 2011 earthquake/tsunami
relief Operation Tomadachi ("Friendship") have filed a new
$1 billion class action lawsuit against Tokyo Electric Power.

The victims include an infant born with a genetic condition, a
sailor who served on the USS Ronald Reagan as radiation poured
over it during the Fukushima melt-downs, and an American teenager
living near the stricken site.  The suit said it may include "up
to 70,000 U.S. citizens [who were] potentially affected by the
radiation and will be able to join the class action suit."

Now docked in San Diego, the USS Reagan's on-going safety has
become a political hot potato.  The $4.3 billion carrier is at the
core of the U.S. Naval presence in the Pacific.  Critics say it's
too radioactive to operate or to scrap, and that it should be
sunk, as were a number of U.S. ships contaminated by atmospheric
Bomb tests in the South Pacific.

The re-filing comes as Tepco admits that it has underestimated
certain radiation readings by a factor of five.  And as eight more
thyroid cancers have surfaced among children in the downwind
region.  Two new earthquakes have also struck near the Fukushima
site.

The amended action was filed in federal court in San Diego on
Feb. 6, which would have been Reagan's 103rd birthday.  It says
Tepco failed to disclose that the $4.3 billion nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier was being heavily dosed from three melt-downs and
four explosions at the Fukushima site.  The Reagan was as close as
a mile offshore as the stricken reactors poured deadly clouds of
radiation into the air and ocean beginning the day after the
earthquake and tsunami.  It also sailed through nuclear plumes for
more than five hours while about 100 miles offshore.  The USS
Reagan (CVN-76) is 1,092 feet long and was commissioned on
July 12, 2003.  The flight deck covers 4.5 acres, carries 5,500
sailors and more than 80 aircraft.

Reagan crew members reported that in the middle of a snowstorm, a
cloud of warm air enveloped them with a "metallic taste."  The
reports parallel those from airmen who dropped the Bomb on
Hiroshima, and from central Pennsylvanians downwind from Three
Mile Island.  Crew members drank and bathed in desalinated sea
water that was heavily irradiated from Fukushima's fallout.

As a group, the sailors comprise an especially young, healthy
cross-section of people.  Some also served on the amphibious
assault ship Essex, missile cruiser Cowpens and several others.

The plaintiffs' ailments parallel those of downwinders irradiated
at Hiroshima/Nagasaki (1945), during atmospheric Bomb tests (1946-
1963), and from the radiation releases at Three Mile Island (1979)
and Chernobyl (1986).  Among them are reproductive problems and
"illnesses such as Leukemia, ulcers, gall bladder removals, brain
cancer, testicular cancer, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, thyroid
illnesses, stomach ailments and a host of other complaints unusual
in such young adults."

The suit asks for at least $1 billion to "advance and pay all
costs and expenses for each of the Plaintiffs for medical
examination, medical monitoring and treatment by physicians," as
well as for more general damages.

Both Tepco and the Navy say not enough radiation was released from
Fukushima to harm the sailors or their offspring.  But neither can
say exactly how much radiation that might have been or where it
went.  The Navy has discontinued a program that might have tracked
the sailors' health in the wake of their irradiation.

After its four days offshore from Fukushima the governments of
Japan, South Korea and Guam refused the Reagan port entry because
of its high radiation levels.  The Navy has since exposed numerous
sailors in a major decontamination effort whose results are
unclear.

Filed on Dec. 12, 2012, the initial suit involved just eight
plaintiffs. It was amended to bring the total to 51.

That action was thrown out at the end of 2013 by federal Judge
Janis S. Sammartino on jurisdictional grounds.

A January deadline for re-filing this second amended complaint was
delayed as additional plaintiffs kept coming forward.  Attorneys
Paul Garner and Charles Bonner say still more are being processed.

The suit charges that Tepco lied to the public -- including
Japan's then Prime Minister Naoto Kan -- about the accident's
radioactive impacts. Kan says Unit One melted within five hours of
the earthquake, before U.S. fleet arrived.  Such news is unwelcome
to an industry with scores more reactors in earthquake zones
worldwide.

The Plaintiffs say Tepco negligently leveled a natural seawall to
cut water pumping expenses.  The ensuing tsunami then poured over
the site's unprotected power supply, forcing desperate workers to
scavenge car batteries from a nearby parking lot to fire up
critical gauges.  Tepco belatedly dispatched 11 power supply
trucks that were immediately stuck in traffic.

Similar reports of fatal cost-cutting, mismanagement and the use
and abuse of untrained personnel run throughout the 65-page
complaint.


TROPHY FOODS: Recalls Archer Farms Hickory Smoked Almonds
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Trophy Foods Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8611

Affected products: 300 g. Archer Farms Hickory Smoked Almonds with
6 28919 00754 7 UPC


UNILEVER PLC: Settles Class Action Over Suave Product for $10.2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Unilever
PLC will pay $10.2 million to settle a class action accusing it of
misleading consumers about a Suave brand hair treatment that
allegedly causes unwanted, significant hair loss, according to a
proposal filed on Feb. 7 in Illinois federal court.

The plaintiffs brought the suit in August 2012, seeking redress
for consumers who purchased or used the Suave Professionals
Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which was marketed in the
U.S. for approximately five months, until its recall in early
May 2012, according to a joint memorandum in support of the
proposed settlement.

Unilever will actually escape three proposed class actions with
the settlement, according to the proposed agreement; the action in
Illinois, one in Kentucky and one in California.

All the lawsuits allege Unilever made false representations about
the smoothing kit, that it included a dangerous ingredient or
ingredients that caused the plaintiffs bodily injury, and that the
company failed properly to warn and instruct consumers about how
to use and not to use the product, creating undisclosed risks and
hazards.  The complaints assert claims for breach of warranty,
violation of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices
statutes, negligence and/or gross negligence, strict liability and
unjust enrichment.

Under the agreement, Unilever will provide more than $10 million
for the establishment of two separate settlement funds, consisting
of a reimbursement fund of $250,000 and an injury fund of $10
million.  Payments from those funds will provide four kinds of
relief to members of the settlement class, the memorandum said.

The reimbursement fund will be available to any member of the
settlement class who purchased a smoothing kit, allowing a one-
time refund of up to $10 for the past purchase of a kit.

The injury fund will provide relief to class members who suffered
scalp injuries as a result of using the product.  People who
incurred expenses for hair treatment but no longer have receipts
for their expenditures are eligible to receive up to $40, and
people who incurred such expenses but do have receipts, such as
hairdresser or medical bills, are eligible to receive up to $800
per claimant for their expenses.  Those who suffered significant
bodily injury to their hair or scalp will be eligible for awards
of up to $25,000.

The memorandum said between 225,000 and 260,000 smoothing kits
were sold, and that there are thousands of geographically
dispersed class members.

The plaintiffs are represented by Marvin A. Miller --
mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Lori A. Fanning --
lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- and Andrew Szot --
aszot@millerlawllc.com -- of Miller Law LLC, Peter Safirstein --
psafirstein@forthepeople.com -- Christopher S. Polaszek --
cpolaszek@forthepeople.com -- and Elizabeth S. Metcalf --
emetcalf@forthepeople.com -- of Morgan & Morgan PC and Jana
Eisinger of Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC.

Unilever is represented by Paula J. Morency and Sondra A. Hemeryck
of Schiff Hardin LLP.

The case is Sidney Reid et al. v. Unilever United States Inc. et
al., number 1:12-cv-06058 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.


UNITED STATES: Senator Rand Paul Files Class Action v. NSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that as expected,
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., launched the latest broadside at the
National Security Agency's warrantless hoarding of phone call
metadata, filing a proposed class action in federal court on
Feb. 12 claiming the program violates the Fourth Amendment.

By limiting the suit to a lone constitutional challenge,
Mr. Paul hopes to advance the debate over the NSA's bulk
collection of domestic phone call records to the U.S. Supreme
Court as quickly as possible, the outspoken NSA critic and his
attorney Ken Cuccinelli said at a press conference on the
Washington, D.C., federal courthouse steps.

The suit is the latest legal action stemming from a series of
leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that cast a critical
light on previously undisclosed intelligence-gathering procedures,
including the metadata collection program that is carried out
under the auspices of an opaque surveillance tribunal.

Despite recent moves by the Obama administration to end the
collection methods under Section 215 of the Patriot Act as they
currently exist, Mr. Paul and his allied conservative group and
co-plaintiff FreedomWorks Inc. maintain that the collection
program constitutes a continuing violation of the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches.

A group of experts appointed by President Barack Obama recommended
a set of sweeping changes in December, but has since made clear
that the program should not be eliminated.

In his remarks, Mr. Paul noted that he found no evidence that any
terrorist has been "caught or detained or prevented uniquely on
this information" and that he did not object on principle to
secretive phone record collection, only to doing so without
individualized warrants backed by probable cause.  He also implied
that the suit could become a vehicle for obtaining broader
guidance from the Supreme Court on how constitutional protections
apply to new technology and when warrants are required, an issue
the justices have largely tackled piecemeal through fact-specific
cases thus far.

"Because of the advance of technology, because so much of our
personal lives are now digitalized and online, we need to have a
discussion in the open at the Supreme Court about whether or not
the Fourth Amendment does protect any of our records," Mr. Paul
said.

Mr. Cuccinelli, a former Virginia attorney general and onetime
gubernatorial candidate, clarified that the suit sought purely
injunctive relief compelling the government to shut down the
program and purge any phone logs it has collected over the past
five years.

Asked how the suit differed from parallel efforts mounted by a
former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor Larry Klayman in the
same court and by the American Civil Liberties Union in New York,
Mr. Cuccinelli responded that it would be the first to reach the
class certification stage.  He also stressed that the suit does
not address any Internet content surveillance activities by the
government, nor does it attack Sections 215 or 702 of the Patriot
Act.  The plaintiffs have not asked for a preliminary injunction
halting the program, in order to "get to the merits as soon as
possible," he said.

The government will have more than two months to answer, and it
was not immediately clear if the case would land before U.S.
District Judge Richard J. Leon, who is also overseeing
Mr. Klayman's case and ruled in December that the metadata program
was likely unconstitutional.

Judge Leon's injunction, which forbid the NSA from collecting
metadata associated with the accounts of Mr. Klayman and a
co-plaintiff, was stayed pending the D.C. Circuit's decision on
appeal.  In a procedural maneuver, Mr. Klayman in late January
dropped his class certification bid and filed a new, related
complaint that will house any eventual class action claims in the
hopes of streamlining the litigation and moving more quickly into
pretrial discovery.

And recently he filed a writ petition that, if granted, would
allow the appeal of Judge Leon's injunction to bypass the D.C.
Circuit and land directly before the Supreme Court.  The
government, meanwhile, has a motion to dismiss pending against the
plaintiffs' statutory claims and in a related suit challenging the
constitutionality of surveillance programs targeting email and
other Internet communications.

The plaintiffs are represented by Earl "Trey" Mayfield --
tmayfield@lewis-firm.com -- and Michael P. Lewis of The Lewis Firm
PLLC and by Kenneth T. Cuccinelli of Cuccinelli & Associates LLC.

The case is Rand Paul et al. v. Barack H. Obama et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case number
was not immediately available.

                           *     *     *

Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reported that Mr. Paul
appeared on Feb. 12 at the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia to announce the class action.  "We will ask the question
in court, whether a single warrant can apply to the records of
every American phone user, all of the time, without limits,
without individualization," said Mr. Paul, who will serve as a
lead plaintiff.

Mr. Paul was joined on Feb. 12 by his attorney, former Virginia
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, and co-plaintiff Matt Kibbe,
president and chief executive officer of conservative advocacy
group FreedomWorks.

Mr. Paul said more than 300,000 people had already expressed
interest in being part of the class.  The senator had been
soliciting potential class members through the website of his
political action committee RAND PAC.

The proposed class includes Americans who used a cell or landline
phone in the United States since 2006, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs want a judge to declare the mass collection of
phone data unconstitutional and to order the government to stop
collecting phone records and purge data that's already been
stored.

Mr. Paul's lawsuit follows two similar cases in Washington and
New York already moving through the federal appeals courts.
Mr. Cuccinelli said he expected Paul's case to be the first one
certified as a class action.

Late last year, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of the Washington
federal trial court found the federal government's bulk collection
of phone data "almost certainly" violated privacy rights.  Judge
Leon was the first judge to tackle the issue since former National
Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden last year leaked
documents to reporters detailing the extent of the government's
surveillance efforts.

"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion'
than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of
personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of
querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,"
Judge Leon said in his Dec. 16 decision.

The U.S. Department of Justice appealed Leon's decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In New York, U.S. District Judge William Pauley III in late
December upheld the constitutionality of the bulk collection of
phone records.


WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Cannon" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order granting in part and
denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss a third amended
complaint in STANLEY D. CANNON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO
BANK. N.A., et al., Defendants, NO. C-12-1376 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Stanley D. Cannon, Patricia R. Cannon, and Cheryl
Bullock filed a third amended class-action complaint against Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. (WFI),
and American Security Insurance Company (ASIC).  The Plaintiffs
allege that kickbacks from ASIC to Wells Fargo and WFI, and
"tracking charges" were improperly included in "force-placed"
insurance premiums that Plaintiffs paid.

Wells Fargo and WFI filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  ASIC also filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) for lack of
standing.

Judge Chen dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, with
respect to all Defendants, to the extent the claims pertain to
force-placed insurance premiums that were charged outside the
statute of limitations. The Court denied Defendants' motions to
dismiss on all other grounds.

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/AYE1Isfrom Leagle.com.


VECTOR MARKETING: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Woods (CA), Dominic Seale (FL), Wesley Varughese (IL),
Eric Essler (MI), Kristina Wills (MN), Casey McCaleb (MO), Samuel
Barone-Crowell (NY), Lowell Harvard Jr. (NY), Altwell Winfield
(NY), Tiffany Reinhart (OH), individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals v. Vector Marketing
Corporation and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00264-JCS (N.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is brought as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wages
and related damages on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated individuals nationwide, who also attended the
Company's initial 3-5 day training session.

Vector Marketing Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation based
in New York.  Vector employs individuals as Sales Representatives
to sell its CUTCO(TM) cutlery.  The Plaintiffs do not know the
true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Christina Humphrey, Esq.
          Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Daniel H. Chang, Esq.
          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dchang@diversitylaw.com
                  lwlee@diversitylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Karen Joyce Kubin, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 765-9521
          Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
          E-mail: kkubin@mofo.com


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds $9.2MM Attorneys Fee Award
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, Nathan Hale and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report
that the Third Circuit on Feb. 12 upheld a $9.2 million attorneys'
fee award included in a settlement in a consolidated class action
against Volkswagen of America Inc. over leaky sunroofs, saying the
federal judge who calculated the award using the percentage-of-
recovery method instead of lodestar had a right to do so.
John J. Pentz, an attorney for class members David and Jennifer
Murray, argued in December to the appeals court that a New Jersey
judge had improperly relied on federal law to sign off on the fee
award -- which, according to court records, was calculated by
doubling the $4.6 million lodestar in the case -- despite the fact
that state law generally limits the amount that lodestar amounts
can be multiplied.

The three-judge panel, however, disagreed, saying that courts are
allowed under both federal law and New Jersey law to apply the
percentage-of-recovery method in class actions when attorneys'
fees are derived from a common fund shared by plaintiffs.

"Because the magistrate judge was justified in performing a
percentage-of-recovery analysis in calculating attorneys' fees
under both federal and New Jersey law, she did not abuse her
discretion in doing so," the appeals court said.

The fee award came as part of a $69.2 million settlement approved
in the case in December 2012.  As part of the settlement, Mazie
Slater Katz & Freeman LLC and Schoengold & Sporn PC were named
co-lead class counsel.  But the Murrays argued in court filings
that the fees awarded to class counsel in the case were
unreasonably large considering the settlement did not represent
what they described as a "rare or extraordinary result."

The two suits were launched in 2007 against Volkswagen and several
of its divisions over alleged design flaws in the pollen filter
gaskets and sunroof drains on a variety of the company's cars
between 1997 and 2007.  The Murrays are class members in the
John M. Dewey et al. v. Volkswagen of America Inc. et al. case,
which was consolidated with Delguercio v. Volkswagen of America
Inc. et al., filed a week later.

A settlement was first reached in the case in 2010, but nonparty
class members and Volkswagen appealed a magistrate judge's
preliminary approval of the deal to the Third Circuit, which then
remanded the case over problems with the class structure.

A revised settlement resolved qualms over the class structure, but
certain factions of attorneys for plaintiffs in the case remained
dissatisfied with a ruling on how fees in the case were
calculated.

According to a brief filed on behalf of the Murrays, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz said she would allow a 2.0 lodestar
multiplier in determining fees in the case because it was within
the limit approved by the Third Circuit.  But the couple argued
that New Jersey state law limits the lodestar multiplier to 1.35
"in all but the the most rare and exceptional circumstances."

The appeals court also rejected the class members' argument
that -- even if the common fund fee analysis under state law were
permitted -- the district court erred by using the 2010 valuation
of the settlement, which was based on an expert's projections,
instead of actual claims data available in 2012, saying the
magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in her decision not
to reduce the fee award.

"The decision is important in the sense that it really explains in
very clear and very simple terms how attorneys' fees are
calculated in a common fund case, both in the Third Circuit and in
New Jersey, and it's important for attorneys handling class
actions to be able to have this kind of clear guidance to rely on
going forward," Adam Slater, who argued for co-class counsel
Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC, told Law360 on Feb. 12.

Another class member -- of the Delguercio case -- Peter Braverman,
had appealed the magistrate judge's refusal to allow him to
intervene in the proceedings on remand and also challenged the
attorneys' fee award, but the appeals court rejected his arguments
as well, saying he was unable to show that the magistrate judge
had erred in any way.

The case was argued for the Murrays by John J. Pentz.

Adam Slater -- aslater@mskf.net -- argued for class co-counsel
Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman.

The Dewey class action plaintiffs are represented by Schoengold &
Sporn PC and Angelo Genova -- agenova@genovaburns.com -- and Dina
Mastellone -- dmastellone@genovaburns.com -- of Genova Burns
Giantomasi Webster.  The Delguercio class action plaintiffs are
represented by Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC.

The cases are John M. Dewey et al. v. Volkswagen of America Inc.
et al., case number 13-1123, and Delguercio v. Volkswagen of
America Inc. et al., case number 13-1124, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

                           *     *     *

David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a long-stalled $69 million settlement in a class-action suit over
leaky sunroofs in Volkswagen and Audi vehicles was approved by a
federal appeals panel on Feb. 12.

The deal, affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, includes $9.2 million in fees and $677,000 in costs for
the plaintiff firms: Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland,
N.J., and Schoengold & Sporn in New York.

The settlement in Dewey v. Volkswagen, originally struck in 2010,
was remanded because it divided class members and gave owners of
certain models priority access to an $8 million settlement fund.

After that, only a handful of objectors remained, and the appeals
court waved off their claims that the legal fee award is too
generous.

The plaintiffs claimed certain Volkswagens and Audis of model
years 1997 to 2009 had defective sunroof drainage systems that
clogged and allowed water seepage, damaging electrical components
and interiors.

Two suits, filed in May 2007 and consolidated later that year,
alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and other
causes of action.

The settlement split owners and lessees into two groups: the
reimbursement group, who would get first crack at repair
reimbursements, and the residual group, who would be entitled to
any remaining funds through "goodwill" claims.

Attorneys set the dividing line based on claim rates connected to
each model year.

In August 2010, U.S. Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz certified the
class and gave final approval, despite objectors' claims of
intraclass conflict.

The $69 million settlement includes the $8 million fund, $46.7
million for service work already performed, $1.4 million in direct
reimbursements by Volkswagen and $13.1 million in future damage
prevented by new maintenance materials.


* Line of Baby Walkers, Children's Coats Among Recalled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a line of baby walkers and
children's coats and jackets that fail to meet federal safety
standards are among recently recalled consumer products.

Here's a more detailed look:

BABY WALKERS

DETAILS: BebeLove walkers that were sold for babies age 6 months
or older.  The walkers contain a plastic- covered foam padded seat
with a plastic base and toy tray.  Model 358 walkers have a green,
pink or orange musical tray with a white toy bar and solid color
seats.  Model 368 walkers have green, pink or white musical tray
with a yellow toy bar and printed patterned seats.  Both models
have white stoppers on the bottom of the base of the walker and
model numbers printed on a label on the rear bottom inside of the
base.  "BEBELOVE" is printed on a label on the seat back and on
the base of the walkers.  They were sold in small retail stores in
Arizona, California and Utah and online at Amazon.com and
Overstock.com from November 2011 through July 2013.

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

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 3,600.

FOR MORE: Call BebeLove at 888-464-1218 or visit
www.bebeloveusa.com and click on "Recall Contact" for more
information.

HOODED JACKETS

DETAILS: Three styles of Sugarfly-branded hooded, woven cotton and
woven polyester jackets for girls with a drawstring through the
hood.  Style number KMCBJ255 is olive and has a zipper closure and
four front pockets with buttons, plus two zipper pockets.  Style
number KMCBJ410 is a belted, double-breasted, French coat style
white garment with faux fur around the neck.  Style KMCBJ421 is
fuchsia or purple and has a button closure, plus snap button
pockets on each side.  The style number can be found on the back
of the sewn-in neck label.  They were sold at Burlington Coat
Factory stores nationwide and online at Burlingtoncoatfactory.com
from September 2011 through September 2013.

WHY: The jackets have drawstrings in the hood around the neck area
that pose a strangulation risk for young children.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 820.

FOR MORE: Contact Runway Global online at www.sugarfly.us and
click on "Sugarfly Girls" on the top bar and then click on "Recall
Info" at the bottom of the page, or send email to
willa@runwayglobal.com for more information.

COATS

DETAILS: Lion Force boys' black hooded puffer coats with dark gray
drawstrings around the hood.  "Lion Force" is printed on the upper
left side of the front of the coat and on the sewn on tag at the
back of the neck.  This recall involves boys' coat sizes 4
through 12.  They were sold at Burlington Coat Factory stores
nationwide November 2010 through September 2013.

WHY: The jackets have a drawstring through the hood which can pose
a strangulation risk for a child.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 2,400.

FOR MORE: More information can be found through the Consumer
Product Safety Commission at
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2014/Lion-Force-Recalls-Boys-
Puffer-Coats/ or by calling their consumer hotline at 800-638-
2772.

BICYCLES

DETAILS: The recall includes 2012 and 2013 Cervelo P5 bicycles
equipped with 3T Aduro aero handlebars.  "P5" is on the seat tube,
"Cervelo" is on the top tube and a large "e'' is on the down tube
in white lettering.  The handlebars consist of four major
components: a base bar, which attaches to the bike; a forward
extension mount, which attaches to the base bar; forearm rests and
forward extension bars, which attach to the forward extension
mount.  The base bar is black with red and white stripes and has
"3T" on the top and rear.  The handlebars come with both a high
and a low forward extension mount, one of which will be installed
based on customer fit.  Consumers can purchase an ultra-low
forward extension mount separately.  The words "Ultimate
Performance" are on the forward extensions.  The handlebars were
made between January 2012 and July 2012.  Serial numbers for the
handlebars are on a label inside the base bar under the stem cap
on the rear wall.  The serial number is the seven-digit number
following "FM78-Basebar-."  The manufacture date code is the first
four digits of the serial number in the MMYY format.  Date codes
for the defective handlebars range from 1201 to 1207.  P5 bicycles
which have already been inspected and passed at retailers are
distinguished by a green sticker with an "e'' on the underside of
the Aduro base bar.  They were sold at Cervelo retailers
nationwide from May 2012 to August 2013.

WHY: The forward extension mounts can detach from the base bar
while riding causing the rider to lose control, posing a risk of
injury.

INCIDENTS: 28 reports of incidents, including one report of a
broken collar bone and four reports of abrasions.

HOW MANY: About 1,300 in the U.S. and about 225 in Canada.

FOR MORE: Call Aduro Recall Hotline at 855-225-7226 or visit
www.3tcycling.com and click on Aduro Recall for more information.

LIGHTS

DETAILS: 100-bulb musical Christmas multi-colored lights.  The
light sets twinkle as eight Christmas carols play.  Model number
31411 is printed on the back of the package on the bottom right
side of the UPC label.  "100 Musical Lights" is printed on the
front of the white cardboard packaging.  The model number, voltage
and "Made in China" are printed on a label affixed to the light
string.  They were sold in Pepe Ganga and Compra De To stores in
Puerto Rico from December 2011 to October 2012.

WHY: The light string can overheat and catch fire.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 500.

FOR MORE: Call Pepe Ganga Corp. at 855-751-4532 or send email to
mail@pepegangapr.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  * * *