CAR_Public/140226.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 26, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 40

                             Headlines


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: "Pacchia" & "Hayes" Cases Consolidated
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Suit Goes Back to Dist. Court
B-Z SHOP FOOD: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
BNY MELLON: Judge Refuses to Suspend Approval of MBS Settlement
CAPITAL ONE: Provided Updates on Interchange Suit Settlement

CAPITAL ONE: Canadian Court Yet to Rule in "Watson" Litigation
CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs in Late Fees Suit Appeal Denial of Claims
CAPITAL ONE: Summary Judgment Bid in Credit Card Fees MDL Opposed
CAPITAL ONE: Expects Remand of Checking Account Overdraft Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Master Complaint in Illinois TCPA Suit

CBS CORP: Simon & Schuster Unit Settles E-Book Buyers' Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Fund Investors Appeal Dismissal of Claims
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Ruling in Suit Over 2008 Offering Appealed
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of 2012 Securities Suit on Appeal
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Wins Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Oklahoma

CITIZENS INC: "Andrade" Plaintiffs Haven't Filed Individual Suits
CROWN CRAFTS: Suit Over CCIP Crib Bumper Products Dismissed
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wins Preliminary Approval of Labor Suit Accord
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
DELTA APPAREL: Suit by Former Activewear Employee in Discovery

EQUIFAX INC: Lead Counsel Appointment in Calif. Suit Pending
FAIRWAY GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Trial in Firefighters' Suit Stayed Pending Review
FIFTH THIRD: Provides Update on Antitrust Suit Accord
FIFTH THIRD: Seeks Approval of $16MM Securities Suit Accord

FIFTH THIRD: Keeps ERISA Suit Stayed Pending High Court Review
FIRST NATIONAL: Debt Collection Letter Violated FDCPA, Suit Says
FMS INC: Faces Class Suit in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
GANNET CO: Delaware Suit Over Belo Corp. Acquisition Dismissed
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Ga. Supreme Court Hears Class Action Appeal

GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Faces Suit for Illegally Contacting Class
HARRIS TEETER: Has MoU to Settle Suit Over Kroger Merger
HONEYWELL INT'L: Accused of Selling Wholly Defective Humidifiers
INDYMAC BANK: Faces "Hoilien" Suit Alleging Wrongful Foreclosure
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Funds Settlement of Suit v. Temple-Inland

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Containerboard
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Suits Over Gypsum Board in Discovery Stage
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dismissal of Firefighters Lawsuit Appealed
JG WENTWORTH: Faces Consumer Fraud Law Class Action in Illinois
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit

MIAMI'S BEST: Willfully Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
NEW JERSEY: Bridgegate Panel Seeks Compliance With Subpoenas
NIKON CORP: Lieff Cabraser Mulls Suit Over Camera Dust/Oil Issues
NU SKIN: Faces "Freedman" Suit in Utah Over Securities Violations
OZ MINERALS: Faces Third Shareholder Class Action Over Zinifex

PELHAM, AL: Settles Firefighters' Overtime Class Action
PEPE'S RETAIL: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
PLAINS ALL: Faces Lawsuits Over Proposed Merger With PNG
PNEUMO ABEX: Jury Awards $11MM to Mesothelioma Victim's Family
REMINGTON FINANCIAL: Co-Owner Faces Fraud Charges

SCORES HOLDING: Provided Updates on Status of Labor Suit Accord
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Sued in Wash. Over Riata Defibrillation Leads
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Dismissal of Silzone Case in Ontario on Appeal
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Securities Suit Trial to Begin July 2014
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Ruling on Bid to Junk Minn. Suit Seen This Year

TARGET CORP: Banks, Credit Unions Rack Up $200MM in Expenses
THINK RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Hourly Workers Overtime, Suit Says
TIME WARNER: Shareholder Launches Class Action to Stop Merger
UDREN LAW: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Florida
UNCLE BEN'S: Rice Mix Recalled Following School Complaints

UNILEVER US: July 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Accused of Not Properly Paying Canvassers' OT
WARNER MUSIC: Settles Royalties Class Action for $11.5 Million
WESTJET AIRLINES: Quebec Court Authorized Air Fare Class Action

* New Oregon Bill Tackles Unclaimed Class Action Judgments


                             *********


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: "Pacchia" & "Hayes" Cases Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Activision Blizzard, Inc. is facing a consolidated shareholder
lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

                            Pacchia Suit

On August 14, 2013, the company received a letter dated August 9,
2013 from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records
of the Company to ascertain whether the Stock Purchase Transaction
and Private Sale were in the best interests of the Company.  In
response to that request, the company provided the stockholder
with certain materials under a confidentiality agreement.

On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under seal by the
same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No. 8884-
VCL. A public version of that complaint was filed on September 16,
2013.  The allegations in the complaint were substantially similar
to the allegations in the suit filed on August 1, 2013.

On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended complaint under
seal.  The amended complaint added claims on behalf of an alleged
class of Activision stockholders other than the Company's Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi, ASAC, investors in ASAC
and other stockholders affiliated with the investors of ASAC.  The
added class claims are for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi
affiliated directors, the members of the special committee of the
Board formed in connection with the Company's consideration of the
transactions with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi, as well as aiding
and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against ASAC.  The amended
complaint removed the derivative claims for waste of corporate
assets and disgorgement but continued to allege derivative claims
for breach of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among
other things, certification of a class, damages, reformation of
the Private Sale, and disgorgement of any alleged profits received
by the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and ASAC.

                            Hayes Suit

On September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint
names the company's Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, ASAC, the
General Partner of ASAC, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. ("Davis")
and Fidelity Management & Research Co. ("FMR") as defendants, and
the Company as a nominal defendant.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain
provisions of the company's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation by failing to submit the matters contemplated by the
Stock Purchase Agreement for approval by a majority of the
company's stockholders (other than Vivendi and its controlled
affiliates); that the company's Board of Directors committed
breaches of their fiduciary duties in approving the Stock Purchase
Agreement; that Vivendi violated fiduciary duties owed to other
stockholders of the Company in entering into the Stock Purchase
Agreement; that the company's Chief Executive Officer and the
company's Chairman usurped a corporate opportunity from the
Company; that the company's Board of Directors and Vivendi have
engaged in actions to entrench the company's Board of Directors
and officers in their offices; that the ASAC Entities, Davis and
FMR aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of
Directors and Vivendi; and that the company's Chief Executive
Officer and the company's Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and
FMR will be unjustly enriched through the Private Sale.

The complaint seeks, among other things, the rescission of the
Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to the Company of
all or part of the shares that are the subject of the Private
Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the
alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order
requiring the company's Chief Executive Officer and the company's
Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the
Company the amounts by which they have allegedly been unjustly
enriched; and alleged damages sustained by the class and the
Company. In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary
restraining order preventing the defendants from consummating the
transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without
stockholder approval.

Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining
order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued a
preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement pending
(a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the merits;
(b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard stockholder vote on
the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement
under Section 9.1(b) of the company's Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation or (c) modification of such
preliminary injunction order by the Court of Chancery or the
Delaware Supreme Court. On September 20, 2013, the Court of
Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary injunction
for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The
defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear the
appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the Delaware
Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of Chancery's
decision and granted the defendant's motion to hear the appeal on
an expedited basis.

Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme
Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order issuing a preliminary
injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was
not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that
would require a vote of Activision's unaffiliated stockholders
under the charter.

On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added
factual allegations but no new claims or relief.

On October 29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the
Pacchia case with the Hayes case.  Hayes also filed a similar
motion to consolidate its case with the Pacchia case.

On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the
Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file
supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead
counsel no later than November 8, 2013.

Further, on September 18, 2013, the Company received a letter from
another purported stockholder of the Company seeking, pursuant to
Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect
the books and records of the Company to investigate potential
wrongdoing or mismanagement in connection with the approval of the
Stock Purchase Agreement.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Suit Goes Back to Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition of AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to review a court decision dismissing an
amended securities complaint, resulting in the case's return to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for
further proceedings, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on March
18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG
Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was
amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010. The second
amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010 alleged that
the company and the company's former President and Chief Executive
Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then-members of the
company's Board, and certain underwriters in the company's January
2010 offering of common stock violated certain federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and that the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer
violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain
alleged omissions in a registration statement filed in January
2010. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
pursuant to the company's common stock offering on or about
January 21, 2010. On August 11 and 15, 2011, respectively, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.

On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11, 2012.
On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part the District Court's Opinion and Order and
remanded the case to the District Court.

On February 19, 2013, the company filed a Petition for Panel
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on March 15,
2013. On March 22, 2013, the company filed a Motion to Stay the
Mandate remanding the case to the District Court pending review by
the U.S. Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals' February 4, 2013
decision. The Court of Appeals granted the Motion to Stay the
Mandate on April 8, 2013.

On June 13, 2013, the company filed a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Court
of Appeal's decision and to have that decision overturned. On
October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's
Petition, resulting in the case's return to the District Court for
further proceedings relative to the SAC's surviving claims. The
company's response to the SAC was due November 6, 2013. The
plaintiffs were to submit an opposition to the company's response
by December 6, 2013.


B-Z SHOP FOOD: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aurea Guzman and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Mohammad Siddiqi and B-Z Shop Food Store, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00212-L (N.D. Tex., January 21, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll
practices were in accordance with the FLSA.

B-Z Shop Food Store is a company that regularly transacts business
within Dallas County.  Mohammad Sidiqqi is a corporate officer,
owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
          URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 145E
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (214) 420-3366
          Facsimile: (214) 206-9802
          E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com


BNY MELLON: Judge Refuses to Suspend Approval of MBS Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee, writing for Commercial Litigation Insider, reports
that the Manhattan Supreme Court judge who inherited the American
International Group-led challenge to an $8.5 billion deal struck
between Bank of America and investors of mortgage-backed
securities refused to suspend her predecessor's ruling approving
the settlement, stating on Feb. 19 she saw no need to do so.

In a lively court hearing focused entirely on one procedural
request by AIG's counsel, Commercial Division Justice Saliann
Scarpulla said it was clear Justice Barbara Kapnick did not intend
to further delay entry of judgment beyond a five-day stay issued
merely out of "convenience" for out-of-state parties.

"I'm not her Appellate Division.  All I can do is effectuate what
she did," Justice Scarpulla told the parties during a 45-minute
hearing in the case, In Re: Bank of New York Mellon, 651786/2011.

Justice Kapnick, who was recently elevated to the Appellate
Division, First Department, signed off on the majority of the
settlement between 22 institutional investors and Bank of America,
which acquired Countrywide Financial, the lender that issued the
home mortgages which unraveled during the housing crisis.

AIG, an investor, opposed the settlement, arguing that the deal
low-balled the actual value of losses suffered by certificate-
holders and was the result of back-door negotiations that failed
to account for the full spectrum of investors' losses.

Justice Kapnick held in her Jan. 31 decision, based off a nine-
week Article 77 hearing last year, that the trustee representing
the institutional investors, Bank of New York Mellon, did not
abuse its discretion in entering into the 2011 deal, save for
releasing up to $31 billion in loan modification claims without
further investigating their potential worth.

AIG sought an indefinite stay of Justice Kapnick's judgment,
arguing that the loan modification exception left open certain
issues that would be easier managed "under one tent" rather than
go all the way up to appeal and back down again.

AIG is represented by Mark Zauderer -- mzauderer@fzwz.com -- of
Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer; Daniel Reilly --
dreilly@rplaw.com -- of Reilly Pozner; and Michael Rollin --
mrollin@joneskeller.com -- of Jones & Keller.

Mayer Brown and Dechert, counsel to Bank of New York of Mellon, in
addition to Gibbs & Brunn and Warner Partners, counsel to the
institutional investors, argued that AIG's request was an attempt
to hold the settlement "hostage" and extend the statutory period
in which it must file notice of appeal.

"Of all the unusual procedural moves, we've never heard of this
before.  To stay entry of a judgment? That's something we've never
heard of before," Matthew Ingber -- mingber@mayerbrown.com --
partner at Mayer Brown, told the court on Feb. 19.

Reilly, AIG's counsel, argued that the since Justice Kapnick's
ruling did not "conform in all material respects" to the
underlying settlement agreement by including the exception on loan
modification claims, the settlement was unenforceable.

Justice Scarpulla said in court that she would not enter judgment
on the portion of the settlement that took exception to releasing
those claims, but later indicated that she "disagreed" with AIG's
stance that the claims formed "a significant part" of the
decision.

Although she allowed each side to be heard at length, Justice
Scarpulla made it clear from the start she believed this was a
"straightforward" ruling.

Justice Scarpulla informed the parties that she had personally
spoken with Justice Kapnick about the insertion of a five-day stay
of judgment in the 54-page ruling and confirmed it was merely a
ministerial courtesy to all parties involved.

"The settlement agreement says what it says," Justice Scarpulla
told counsel.  "If you're unhappy with it and you're unhappy with
Justice Kapnick's ruling, your remedy is to go to the Appellate
Division and seek a stay, not to come to me and seek a stay of the
supplemental proceedings."

At one point during the proceeding, the judge asked Mr. Ingber
whether "chaos" would break out if she entered judgment --
something which merely triggers the 30-day window in which AIG has
to file a notice of appeal to the First Department and has no
practical consequence other than to formally set into motion the
appeals process.

The $8.5 billion settlement cannot be enforced until all appeals
have been exhausted.  AIG has nine months in which to submit its
appellate brief.

Feb. 19 hearing was far from the last opportunity Justice
Scarpulla will have to weigh in on the merits of the dispute.
Late on Feb. 18, AIG filed a motion for leave to reargue
Justice Kapnick's decision, calling it inadequate in its analysis
to grant BNY Mellon summary judgment.

In court papers, AIG said the $8.5 billion settlement figure is
"but a fraction of the $32-52 billion repurchase liability
estimated by the institutional investors."

The brief also states that Justice Kapnick's abuse of discretion
standard was "unduly narrow" and that it overlooked disputed
issues of fact material to whether there was an abuse of
discretion, such as the trustee's decision to hire Mayer Brown as
counsel, when it counted both Bank of America and Bank of New York
Mellon as clients.

The brief further argues that had a more stringent reasonableness
standard been applied, the court "could not have resolved this
proceeding on summary judgment because there are disputed issues
of fact" concerning whether there was an adequate investigation
into the trusts' losses, whether trustee sought to maximize
recovery for beneficiaries and whether settlement was sufficient.

"The Order's lack of analysis also makes it impossible to
implement the settlement in any coherent way -- a concern that is
especially problematic since the Court refused to endorse many of
Petitioners' proposed findings," the motion states.

Justice Scarpulla told the parties on Feb. 19 that the motion for
re-argument would not be heard until after April 24.

"We thought it would be administratively easier if the judge would
not enter the judgment," Mr. Zauderer told CLI after the hearing.
"We thought it would be administratively better for these various
issues to be litigated now.  We wanted to keep everything under
one tent."

Mr. Zauderer added that the appellate brief would largely focus on
many of the same arguments presented in the motion for re-argument
now before Justice Scarpulla.


CAPITAL ONE: Provided Updates on Interchange Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In its Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, Capital
One Financial Corporation provided updates on the settlement of
the Interchange Litigation of which its subsidiary banks, as
members of Visa, have indemnification obligations to Visa with
respect to final judgments and settlements.

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several
member banks, including the company's subsidiaries and the
company, alleging among other things, that the defendants
conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints
seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be
trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted
similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only.

In October 2005, the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were
consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery.

On July 13, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the court a
Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to resolve the litigation on
certain terms set forth in a settlement agreement attached to the
Memorandum. The class settlement provides for, among other things,
(i) payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs
totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) a distribution to the
class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of certain
interchange transactions for a period of eight months; and (iii)
modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding point
of sale practices. This agreement is contingent on final court
approval of the class settlement. In November 2012, the court
granted preliminary approval of the class settlement. In September
2013, the court held oral argument to consider final approval of
the class settlement.

Several merchant plaintiffs have also opted out of the class
settlement, some of which have sued MasterCard, Visa and various
member banks, including Capital One (collectively "the Opt-Out
Plaintiffs"). These cases are in their preliminary stages.

As members of Visa, the company's subsidiary banks have
indemnification obligations to Visa with respect to final
judgments and settlements, including the Interchange Lawsuits. In
the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock.
With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the
benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and
claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits. As a result, in the
first quarter of 2008, the company reduced the company's Visa-
related indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in
other liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-
interest expense. The company made an election in accordance with
the accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets
and liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the
fair value of the guarantee at December 31, 2012 and September 30,
2013 was zero.

Separately, in January 2011, the company entered into a MasterCard
Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with other
defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and its
member banks the costs and liabilities of any judgment or
settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.


CAPITAL ONE: Canadian Court Yet to Rule in "Watson" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a proposed class action filed by a furniture store
against Capital One Financial Corporation in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia are awaiting a ruling after the court heard oral
argument on plaintiffs' motion for class certification, according
to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a
proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One
(the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount
fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation
of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as
a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other
jurisdictions in Canada. The Court heard oral argument on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Watson
Litigation in April 2013, and the parties await a ruling.


CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs in Late Fees Suit Appeal Denial of Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal made by plaintiffs in the late fees litigation against
Capital One Financial Corporation, according to the company's Nov.
6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including the company. These
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired
to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to
cardholders, and that these fees are excessive. In May 2007, the
cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed alleging violations of federal
statutes and state law. The amended complaint requests civil
monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive relief.

In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal of their
claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions
Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition Law
(the "UCL"), but not their antitrust conspiracy claims. In June
2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the matter pending
the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant financial
institutions. After numerous stays since 2009, the Ninth Circuit
entered an order lifting the stay on August 29, 2012, and will now
hear the appeal. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on February
11, 2013, and the parties await the court's decision.


CAPITAL ONE: Summary Judgment Bid in Credit Card Fees MDL Opposed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate
Multi-district Litigation filed a supplemental opposition to
Capital One Financial Corporation's motion for summary judgment,
according to Capital One's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer
order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two
pending putative class actions against COBNA-Nancy Mancuso, et al.
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and
Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D.
Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred
into the MDL. On August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges in a putative class
action that COBNA breached its contractual obligations, and
violated the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the UCL, the California False
Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on certain
credit card accounts. The MDL plaintiffs seek statutory damages,
restitution, attorney's fees and an injunction against future rate
increases. Fact discovery is now closed. On August 8, 2011,
Capital One filed a motion for summary judgment, which remains
pending with the court. On July 22, 2013, the MDL plaintiffs filed
a supplemental opposition to Capital One's motion for summary
judgment. As a result of a settlement in another matter, the
California-based UCL and TILA claims in the MDL are extinguished.


CAPITAL ONE: Expects Remand of Checking Account Overdraft Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation expects the conclusion of
discovery in In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation in the
first quarter of 2014 and anticipates a remand to the Eastern
District of Louisiana in the second quarter of 2014, according to
the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and COBNA were
named as defendants in a putative class action named Steen v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff
challenges practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-
sufficient funds fees on consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff
alleges that the company's methodology for posting transactions to
customer accounts is designed to maximize the generation of
overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of contract, breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade
practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the
Southern District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings
as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous
defendant banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In
January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against
CONA in the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 21, 2011, the MDL
court granted CONA's motion to dismiss claims of breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Texas law, but
denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. On June 21,
2012, the MDL court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The modified scheduling order entered by the MDL
court on August 13, 2013, contemplates the conclusion of discovery
in the first quarter of 2014 and the company anticipate a remand
to the Eastern District of Louisiana in the second quarter of
2014.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Master Complaint in Illinois TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation is facing a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Litigation, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was
created as a result of a transfer order issued by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ("TCPA MDL"),
which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative
class actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles
C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D.
Illinois)-and several individual lawsuits. On February 28, 2013,
the putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint and individual lawsuits allege that
COBNA and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to
do so.

The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent and
willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief.


CBS CORP: Simon & Schuster Unit Settles E-Book Buyers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simon & Schuster, the publishing business of CBS Corporation,
entered into the Minnesota Settlement with e-book purchasers who
are alleging antitrust claims, according to CBS' Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 9, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL") issued an order consolidating
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York various purported class action suits that private
litigants had filed in federal courts in California and New York.
On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint with the court against the Publishing
parties. These private litigant plaintiffs, who are e-book
purchasers, allege that, among other things, the defendants are in
violation of federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection
with the sale of e-books pursuant to agency distribution
arrangements between each of the publishers and e-book retailers.
The consolidated amended class action complaint generally seeks
multiple forms of damages for the purchase of e-books and
injunctive and other relief. On March 2, 2012, the Publishing
parties filed a motion to dismiss this action. On May 15, 2012,
the court denied the motion to dismiss.

On June 20, 2013, Simon & Schuster entered into the Minnesota
Settlement, subject to court approval. Upon final approval of the
Minnesota Settlement by the court, Simon & Schuster will be
dismissed with prejudice from the MDL litigation and only those
individuals who elect to opt out of the States settlement or the
Minnesota Settlement will have any potential claims against Simon
& Schuster.

Similar antitrust suits have been filed against the Publishing
parties by private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class
actions, under Canadian law, commencing on February 24, 2012; and
by an Australian e-book retailer in the United States Court for
the Southern District of New York on September 16, 2013. Simon &
Schuster intends to defend itself in these matters.

In addition, the European Commission (the "EC") and Canadian
Competition Bureau are conducting separate competition
investigations of agency distribution arrangements of e-books in
this industry and Simon & Schuster is cooperating with these
investigations. On September 19, 2012, the EC began accepting
public comment on the terms of a proposed settlement. On December
12, 2012, following the close of that comment period, the EC
accepted the proposed settlement. The settlement between the EC
and certain Publishing parties, including Simon & Schuster,
requires the adoption of certain business and compliance practices
similar to those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Fund Investors Appeal Dismissal of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The case filed by Schwab Total Bond Market Fund investors against
Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. remained pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the plaintiffs
are appealing the dismissal of their remaining claims, according
to The Charles Schwab Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund (Northstar
lawsuit). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.
(CSIM) as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly
deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and rescission damages,
unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys'
fees. Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before
the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2011, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs
again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is pending.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Ruling in Suit Over 2008 Offering Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit filed against Chesapeake Energy
Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma has taken an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit from the order granting summary judgment to
defendants, according to Chesapeake's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September
11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the officer and director
defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation
and materiality on December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted
as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013. Final
judgment in favor of Chesapeake and the officer and director
defendants was entered on June 21, 2013, and the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal on July 19, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit. The company is currently unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss
associated with this matter.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of 2012 Securities Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a 2012 shareholder litigation filed against
Chesapeake Energy Corporation lodged a notice of appeal of the
dismissal of the suit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012 against the
Company and its former CEO, Aubrey K. McClendon. On July 20, 2012,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff, which filed an amended
complaint on October 19, 2012 against the Company, Mr. McClendon
and certain other officers. The amended complaint asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged
misrepresentations regarding the Company's asset monetization
strategy, including liabilities associated with its volumetric
production payment (VPP) transactions, as well as Mr. McClendon's
personal loans and the Company's internal controls. On December 6,
2012, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the action. On April 10, 2013, the Court granted the motion, and
on April 16, 2013 entered judgment against the plaintiff and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal on June 14, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit. The company is currently unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss
associated with this matter.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Wins Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
dismissed a lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against
Chesapeake Energy Corporation, according to the company's Nov. 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In June and July 2012, three putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
against the Company, Chesapeake Energy Savings and Incentive Stock
Bonus Plan (the Plan), and certain of the Company's officers and
directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The three cases have been
consolidated, and the Plan was not named in the consolidated
amended complaint which was filed on February 21, 2013. The action
was brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
Plan and alleged that, as fiduciaries of the Plan, defendants owed
fiduciary duties, which they purportedly breached by, among other
things, failing to manage and administer the Plan's assets with
appropriate skill and care and engaging in activities that were in
conflict with the best interest of the Plan. The plaintiffs sought
class certification, damages of an unspecified amount, equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The defendants filed
a motion to dismiss on April 22, 2013, which was granted on
October 11, 2013. The company is currently unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss
associated with this matter.


CITIZENS INC: "Andrade" Plaintiffs Haven't Filed Individual Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since the December 9, 2009 ruling by a Texas district court, which
denied recertification of the class in Delia Bolanos Andrade, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. Citizens Insurance Company of America, et al.,
of which Citizens, Inc. is a defendant, no individual cases have
been further pursued by the plaintiffs, according to Citizens
Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Citizens Inc. is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on August 6, 1999,
in the Texas District Court, Austin, Texas, now styled Delia
Bolanos Andrade, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Citizens Insurance Company
of America, et al., Defendants in which a class was originally
certified by the trial court and reversed by the Texas Supreme
Court in 2007 with an order to the trial court to conduct further
proceedings consistent with its ruling.  The underlying lawsuit
alleged that certain life insurance policies CICA made available
to non-U.S. residents, when combined with a policy feature that
allowed certain cash benefits to be assigned to two non-U.S.
trusts for the purpose of accumulating ownership of the company's
Class A common stock, along with allowing the policyholders to
make additional contributions to the trusts, were actually offers
and sales of securities that occurred in Texas by unregistered
dealers in violation of the Texas securities laws.  The remedy
sought was rescission and return of the insurance premium
payments.  On December 9, 2009, the trial court denied the
recertification of the class after conducting additional
proceedings in accordance with the Texas Supreme Court's ruling.

The remaining plaintiffs must now proceed individually, and not as
a class, if they intend to pursue their claims against the
company.  Since the December 9, 2009 trial court ruling, no
individual cases have been further pursued by the plaintiffs.  The
probability of the plaintiffs further pursuing their cases
individually remains unknown.  An estimate of any possible loss or
range of losses cannot be made at this time in regard to
individuals pursuing claims.  However, should the plaintiffs
further pursue their claims individually, the company intends to
vigorously defend any proceedings.


CROWN CRAFTS: Suit Over CCIP Crib Bumper Products Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the crib bumper
products of Crown Crafts Infant Products, Inc. (CCIP) put children
at risk of suffocation or crib death, according to Crown Crafts
Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 29, 2013.

As reported in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, an alleged California purchaser
of a CCIP bedding set filed on March 27, 2013, a complaint against
the Company and CCIP in the Superior Court for the County of
Riverside, California, purportedly on behalf of herself and
similarly situated California consumers. The complaint generally
alleged that CCIP's crib bumper products put children at risk of
suffocation or crib death and that the Company and CCIP concealed
and failed to disclose these purported risks through allegedly
false and misleading advertising and product packaging. The
complaint did not allege that any child has actually been harmed
by these products. The complaint alleged violations of various
consumer protection laws in California. The purported class was
defined in the complaint as "All California consumers who, within
the applicable statute of limitations, purchased a Crown Craft
[sic] crib bumper, either alone or as part of a bedding set."

On April 29, 2013, the Company and CCIP removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On September 6, 2013, the Company, CCIP and the
plaintiff stipulated to a dismissal of the complaint without
prejudice, with each party to bear only its own costs and fees,
and a dismissal was accordingly granted by the Court.


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wins Preliminary Approval of Labor Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. reached an agreement to settle a
labor claim that was remanded to the Superior Court of California,
and the court has preliminarily approved that settlement,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time. The complaint, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements. In September 2011, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January 2013, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on some claims, but
remanded the case to the trial court for clarification of its
decision on one of the claims. The Company has reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the claim that was
remanded to the trial court, and the court has preliminarily
approved that settlement.


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Delcath Systems, Inc. to dismiss In re Delcath
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116 is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,
v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-
03116-LGS.  On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,
Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green
and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff,
Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants
(the "Defendants").  The consolidated amended complaint asserts
that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New
Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for
Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for
the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular
melanoma in the liver.  The putative class period alleged in the
amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including
September 13, 2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs.  On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed their motion
to dismiss, which is currently pending.  Per the Court's order,
plaintiff's opposition is due on December 2, 2013, and defendants'
reply in support of their motion to dismiss is due on December 23,
2013.


DELTA APPAREL: Suit by Former Activewear Employee in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery process is ongoing in a suit by a former employee of
Delta Apparel, Inc.'s Activewear business unit at its Santa Fe
Springs, California distribution facility and the issue of class
certification remains pending, according to Delta Apparel Inc.'s
Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-QT filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the transition period from June 30, 2013
to Sept. 28, 2013.

The company was served with a complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March
13, 2013, by a former employee of the company's Activewear
business unit at the company's Santa Fe Springs, California
distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and
hour laws and unfair business practices with respect to meal and
rest periods, compensation and wage statements, and related claims
(the "Complaint"). The Complaint is brought as a class action and
seeks to include all of the company's Activewear business unit's
current and certain former employees within California who are or
were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint
also names as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent
contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and seeks to include
all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and
the Soffe independent contractor within California who are or were
non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and
compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment interest. The discovery process in this matter is ongoing
and the issue of class certification remains pending.

While the company will continue to vigorously defend this action
and believe it has a number of meritorious defenses to the claims
alleged, the company believes a risk of loss is probable. Based
upon current information, it believes there is a range of likely
outcomes between approximately $15,000 and $975,000. During the
transition period ended September 28, 2013, the company recorded a
liability for the most likely outcome within this range. However,
depending upon the scope and size of any certified class and
whether any of the claims alleged are ultimately prevailed upon at
trial, the company could be required to pay amounts exceeding
$975,000.


EQUIFAX INC: Lead Counsel Appointment in Calif. Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties are awaiting a ruling from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on motions to appoint lead
counsel in the consolidated actions alleging Equifax companies
violated the California Credit Reporting Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law, according to Equifax Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al., plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in
bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an
account following a bankruptcy discharge.

On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement
Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the
procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy
on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for
injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages. On May
7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-
notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011.  The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.  On July 15,
2011, following another approval hearing, the District Court
approved the settlement.

Several objecting plaintiffs subsequently filed notices of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, on
April 22, 2013, issued an order remanding the case to the District
Court for further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, the District
Court held a hearing on a motion to disqualify one set of counsel
for the plaintiffs and competing motions by two sets of
plaintiffs' counsel to be appointed interim lead class counsel.
The parties are awaiting a ruling from the District Court on those
motions.


FAIRWAY GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 18 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Fairway Group Holdings Corp. pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with
Fairway's April 17, 2013 initial public stock offering, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 14, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or
619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/fairway/

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 an absent class member.

The complaint charges Fairway, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of the
Securities Act.  Fairway was founded in 1933 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.  The Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates food retail stores in twelve locations in
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.  At the time of the IPO, the
Company had adopted an expansion plan it was then implementing to
open hundreds of new stores to expand the Fairway chain to 300
stores nationwide.

On or about September 24, 2012, Fairway filed with the SEC a
Registration Statement on Form S-1, which would later be utilized
for the IPO following several amendments in response to comments
by the SEC.  The complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement, and the documents referenced and incorporated therein,
was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
its preparation.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others, which existed at the
time of IPO: (i) that the Company's operating and management
structure were not capable of effectively running its expanding
business; (ii) that the Company had millions of dollars of
redundant costs built into its budget; (iii) that competitive
pricing pressure from grocery chains like Whole Foods and Trader
Joe's was negatively impacting same store sales trends and profit
margins; and (iv) that the terms of a new store lease in the
Chelsea section of Manhattan, were not financially viable.

Following the disclosure of multiple quarters of disappointing
financial results following the IPO, several of the underwriters
downgraded the Company's stock ratings and at the time of the
filing of this lawsuit, Fairway stock was trading at under $8 per
share, a decline of more than 37% from the IPO price of $13.00 per
share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Fairway common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's April
17, 2013 IPO.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller,
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and
multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management
in excess of $2 trillion.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Trial in Firefighters' Suit Stayed Pending Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All trial court class proceedings in a suit filed by firefighters
seeking damages from Federal Signal Corporation for exposure to
sirens are stayed pending a final decision from the Illinois
Appellate Court which is reviewing the reversal of a class
certification order, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming
that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing
and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases
filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of
2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were
filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County
involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.  An additional 40 Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel
later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine.
The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict
returned against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying
amounts totaling $0.4 million.

The Company appealed this verdict.  On September 13, 2012, the
Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. Two justices voted
to uphold the verdict and one justice filed a lengthy and vigorous
dissent. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing
with the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7,
2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for
leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.
On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs,
which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, the trial court on March 12, 2012 entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012.

Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the three
firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the
jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company in this
trial.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order. On April 23, 2013, the Illinois Appellate
Court granted the Company's petition for review. Briefing on this
appeal was completed during July 2013. Pursuant to Illinois law,
all class proceedings in the trial court are stayed pending a
final decision from the Illinois Appellate Court on this issue.


FIFTH THIRD: Provides Update on Antitrust Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------
In its Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, Fifth
Third Bancorp provided update regarding the process by which it is
settling a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally
filed against Visa, MasterCard and several other major financial
institutions.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa, MasterCard and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are
unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also
subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as
discussed in Note 15 and has also entered into judgment and loss
sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named
defendants. On October 19, 2012, the parties to the litigation
entered into a settlement agreement. The court entered a Class
Settlement Preliminary Approval Order on November 27, 2012.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp
paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account.

Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another
settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from
plaintiffs not included in the class action. More than 7,900
merchants have requested exclusion from the class settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the
funds paid into the class settlement escrow account will be
returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion
Takedown Payments. A number of the merchants who requested
exclusion from the class have filed separate federal lawsuits
against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging
similar antitrust violations. The federal lawsuits have been
tentatively transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp was not named as a
defendant in any of the federal lawsuits, but may have obligations
pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or
loss sharing agreements noted. In addition, one merchant filed a
separate state court lawsuit against Visa, MasterCard and certain
other defendants, including the Bancorp, alleging similar
antitrust violations.


FIFTH THIRD: Seeks Approval of $16MM Securities Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp sought approval by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio of the $16 million
agreement it entered into to settle a consolidated securities suit
filed against it, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its
Chief Executive Officer, among other parties. The five cases have
been consolidated under the caption Local 295/Local 851 IBT
Employer Group Pension Trust and Welfare Fund v. Fifth Third
Bancorp. et al., Case No. 1:08CV00421, and are pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On
December 18, 2012, the Bancorp entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve these cases. The settlement is subject to court
approval, which process is ongoing.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Bancorp and its insurer will pay a total of $16
million to a fund to settle all the claims of the class members.

In the settlement the Bancorp has denied any liability and has
agreed to the settlement in order to avoid potential future
litigation costs and uncertainty. The Bancorp does not consider
the impact of the settlement to be material to its financial
condition or results of operations.


FIFTH THIRD: Keeps ERISA Suit Stayed Pending High Court Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to stay a lawsuit alleging Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations by Fifth Third Bancorp remains pending as
the company petitions the United States Supreme Court to review
and reverse a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, reversing the dismissal of the suit, according to the
company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers
alleging violations of ERISA based on allegations similar to those
set forth in the securities class action cases filed during the
same period of time. The two cases alleging violations of ERISA
were dismissed by the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court decision.

The Bancorp petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review
and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and sought a stay of
proceedings in the trial court pending appeal. On March 25, 2013,
the Supreme Court issued an order directing the Solicitor General
to file a brief stating the view of the United States on the
issues raised in the Bancorp's petition. The motion to stay
remains pending. The impact of the final disposition of the ERISA
lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time.


FIRST NATIONAL: Debt Collection Letter Violated FDCPA, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Lowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, a Georgia limited
liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00407 (N.D. Ill., January 21,
2014) is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for
a finding that the Defendants' form debt collection letter
violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages for that violation.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc., is a Nevada corporation.
FNCB operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts
to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state,
including consumers in the state of Illinois.  Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company.  The
Defendants act as debt collectors because they regularly use the
mails and the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect,
delinquent consumer debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com

Defendant First National Collection Bureau, Inc., is represented
by:

          James R. Bedell, Esq.
          MOSS & BARNETT, PA
          4800 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South 7th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 877-5000
          E-mail: bedellj@moss-barnett.com

               - and -

          Stacie Elaine Barhorst, Esq.
          KAPLAN PAPADAKIS & GOURNIS PC
          180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2108
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-0531
          E-mail: sbarhorst@kpglaw.com

Defendant Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is represented by:

          Brian Patrick O'Meara, Esq.
          David Luther Hartsell, Esq.
          Paul Joseph Catanese, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 849-8100
          E-mail: bomeara@mcguirewoods.com
                  dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com
                  pcatanese@mcguirewoods.com


FMS INC: Faces Class Suit in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Akoundi on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. FMS Inc.; and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-00366-RWS
(S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2014) is brought for damages, and
declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the Defendant's
alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and
unfair practices.

FMS Inc. is a foreign corporation based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  FMS
is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and
regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to
attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.  The
identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          100 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459-4971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com


GANNET CO: Delaware Suit Over Belo Corp. Acquisition Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In re Belo Corp. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 8649-VCL
(Delaware Chancery Court) was dismissed without prejudice,
according to Gannett Co., Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 29, 2013.

Since the announcement of the Company's acquisition of Belo Corp.
on June 13, 2013, Belo, Belo's directors and the Company have been
named as defendants in four substantively similar putative class
action lawsuits brought by and on behalf of shareholders of Belo.
The actions are: Jacob Hulsebus v. Belo Corp., et al., Cause No.
DC-13-06601 (District Court of Dallas County, Texas), which was
commenced on June 14, 2013 (the Hulsebus Case); IBEW Local 363
Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Belo Corp., et al., Civil Action
8649-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court), which was commenced on June
17, 2013 (the IBEW Case); Oakland County Employees' Retirement
System v. Belo Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 8677-VCL (Delaware
Chancery Court), which was commenced on June 24, 2013 (the Oakland
Case); and Norfolk County Retirement System and Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Judith L. Craven, et al., C.A. No. 8732-VCL
(Delaware Chancery Court), which was commenced on July 16, 2013
(the Norfolk County Case). The IBEW Case, the Oakland Case and the
Norfolk County Case have been consolidated into In re Belo Corp.
Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 8649-VCL (Delaware Chancery
Court) (the Consolidated Delaware Case).

The actions allege, among other things, that Belo's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger and
that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The actions seek, among other things, to enjoin
the Merger. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the
preliminary proxy statement filed by Belo in connection with the
stockholders' meeting to approve the Merger fails to provide all
material information and/or provides misleading information to
Belo's stockholders.

On September 30, 2013, the Consolidated Delaware Case was
dismissed without prejudice as the plaintiffs in that case decided
to go forward solely with the case in Texas and join the Texas
action in order to pursue their claims in that court.

In addition, on September 30, 2013, the parties to the Hulsebus
Case entered into a Rule 11 Agreement pursuant to which the
defendants to the Hulsebus Case have no obligation to respond to
plaintiff's petition until 30 days after plaintiff files its
Second Amended Petition for breach of fiduciary duty. The Company
believes these lawsuits are meritless and intends to vigorously
defend all pending actions related to the Merger.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Ga. Supreme Court Hears Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter C. Jones, writing for SavannahNow.com, reports the state
Supreme Court justices in Georgia focused on the mechanics of a
class-action lawsuit on Feb. 17 as they considered an appeal in a
case against a large pulp mill that releases hydrogen-sulfide gas.

The time for the state's highest court to consider the matter
means Effingham County residents suing Georgia-Pacific Corporation
over the release of the smelly, corrosive gas at the Savannah
River Mill will have to wait another three or four months for
their day in court.

Two couples living across from the plant, Kirbi and Aaron Ratner
and David and Kathy McDonald, filed suit against the company in
2010.  Their lawyers asked Effingham Superior Court Judge William
E. Woodrum Jr. to certify a class of 116 owners of 65 parcels also
near the plant, making it a class-action lawsuit so they could all
win or lose in a single trial.

Judge Woodrum agreed, and so did the Georgia Court of Appeals.
That prompted Georgia-Pacific's attorneys to ask that the Supreme
Court reverse the class action.

On Feb. 17, both sides got to make their arguments to the seven,
top-court justices.  Arguing for the paper company, David Hudson
said just because everyone in the proposed class owns land near
the mill doesn't mean they have the same circumstances in the
courtroom.

But John Bell Jr., the attorney for the suing property owners,
said separate trials for each parcel would waste the court's time.
He said that his firm and Mr. Hudson's law firm have opposed each
other in similar class-action lawsuits and that it wasn't hard to
determine what each property owner was due.

Mr. Bell said the gas is corrosive that it has destroyed the
copper tubing in air conditioning units, many that Georgia-Pacific
replaced in exchange for an agreement not to sue.

Mr. Hudson told the justices that the company tried to help the
property owners.

Justice David Nahmias, who spent most of his legal career as a
federal prosecutor prior to joining the Supreme Court, challenged
Mr. Bell about the mechanics of trying a case with plaintiffs in
different circumstances.  But Justice Carol Hunstein, who as a
superior court judge had tried many condemnation cases, jumped in
to help explain Bell's reasoning.

Four of the justices, like Justice Hunstein, were trial judges,
while the other three were not.  As they deliberate privately,
they normally share their experiences as well as debate legal
points, but it's less often that they do it during oral arguments.


GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Faces Suit for Illegally Contacting Class
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd M. Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similar
situated v. Global Exchange Vacation Club, and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:14-cv-00096-CJC-RNB (C.D.
Cal., January 21, 2014) seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the alleged illegal
actions of the Defendants in negligently knowingly and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone; thereby,
invading his privacy.

Global Exchange is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in Mission Viejo, California.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          David L. Weisberg, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 221
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  david@kristensenlaw.com


HARRIS TEETER: Has MoU to Settle Suit Over Kroger Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Harris Teeter Supermarkets, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle In re Harris Teeter Merger Litigation, 13-
CVS-12579, according to the company's Dec. 2, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended October 1, 2013.

Several purported class action complaints relating to the merger
[with The Kroger Co. ("Kroger") and Hornet Acquisition, Inc.
("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Kroger.] have been
filed in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina on behalf of putative classes
of the Company's public shareholders (the "state cases"). The
complaints name as defendants the members of the Company's Board
of Directors (the "Board"), the Company, Kroger and Merger Sub.
The state cases generally allege that members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders with
respect to the Merger Agreement and by omitting information
material to shareholders from the preliminary proxy statement and
that the other defendants aided and abetted that breach. Two of
the cases also purport to assert derivative claims on behalf of
the Company. The state cases were subsequently consolidated by
court order dated August 29, 2013 under the caption In re Harris
Teeter Merger Litigation, 13-CVS-12579 (the "consolidated state
court action").

Another complaint, which includes both individual and class claims
relating to the merger, has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina naming
as defendants the Company and the members of Board (the "federal
case"). The federal case, Joel Krieger v. Harris Teeter
Supermarkets, Inc. (Case No. 3:13-cv-453), filed August 9, 2013,
makes allegations similar to those in the state cases and in
addition purports to assert claims for, among other things,
violations of the federal securities laws and fraud related to the
preliminary proxy statement. On September 19, 2013, the court
entered an order staying all activity in the federal case pending
the outcome of the consolidated state court action.

The company believes that these lawsuits are without merit,
however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, on September 24, 2013, the defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") regarding settlement of the consolidated state
court action. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms
of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all
claims which were or could have been asserted in the consolidated
state court action. In consideration for such settlement and
release, the parties to the consolidated state court action agreed
that the Company would make certain supplemental disclosures to
the Company's definitive proxy statement, filed with the SEC on
August 27, 2013, which supplemental disclosures were also filed
with the SEC on September 24, 2013. The Memorandum of
Understanding permits the parties to engage in confirmatory
discovery, which has been completed.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will
attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon a stipulation of
settlement to be submitted to the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina for
approval at the earliest practicable time. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
approval by the court, which will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. Under the terms of
the proposed settlement, following final approval by the court,
the action will be dismissed with prejudice.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Accused of Selling Wholly Defective Humidifiers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Scott, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Honeywell International Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00157-PAB-CBS (D. Colo., January 21, 2014) is
brought on behalf of a class of individuals and entities, who own
or have owned homes or other residential buildings or structures
in which Honeywell TrueSTEAM humidifiers, model numbers HM506,
HM509, or HM512 are or have been installed.

Honeywell Humidifiers are marketed as providing "whole home
humidification," and are touted as "providing the high performance
and efficiency of steam humidification with easier maintenance
than traditional humidifiers," Mr. Scott says.  Despite those
claims, however, he contends, Honeywell Humidifiers are
unreliable, difficult to maintain, and wholly defective.

Honeywell is a Fortune 100 company that develops and manufactures
a vast array of technologies, including various products designed
for use in homes by individual consumers.  Honeywell is a Delaware
corporation, with its principal place of business in Morris
Township, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Anderson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Bonnie J. Prober, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: bprober@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 576-1776
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com


INDYMAC BANK: Faces "Hoilien" Suit Alleging Wrongful Foreclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
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. 1:14-cv-
00023-SOM-BMK (D. Haw., January 21, 2014) is brought for Unfair
Business Practices under California Business and Professions Code
violations, wrongful foreclosure, and quiet title.

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


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Funds Settlement of Suit v. Temple-Inland
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company funded the settlement of consolidated
lawsuits filed against Temple-Inland Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana over the Bogalusa
Incident, according International Paper's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Temple-Inland Inc., which the company acquired in February 2012,
(or its affiliates), was a defendant in 28 civil lawsuits in
Louisiana and Mississippi related to the Bogalusa Incident.
Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana state court
shortly after the incident and were removed and consolidated in an
action then pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana along with a civil case originally filed in
that court. During August 2012, an additional 13 causes of action
were filed in federal or state court in Mississippi and Louisiana.
In October 2012, International Paper and the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee, the group of attorneys appointed by the Louisiana
federal court to organize and coordinate the efforts of all the
plaintiffs in this litigation, reached a tentative understanding
on key structural terms and an amount for resolution of the
litigation. The court granted preliminary approval for the
proposed class action settlement on December 19, 2012. There were
no opt-outs and four objections which were all later withdrawn.
The Fairness Hearing was held July 10, 2013, and the court issued
its Final Order and Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement the
same day.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the class action
settlement was deemed final on August 9, 2013. The company funded
the settlement in September 2013. This settlement did not have a
material effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Containerboard
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company is facing two lawsuits related to its
pricing of containerboard products, one of which is in the
discovery phase and the other in the preliminary stages, according
to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The
complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005
through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby
increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is
all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from
any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period August 2005 to the present. The complaint seeks to recover
an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees
on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were
filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of
Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named
as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County,
Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law
by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of
containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the
state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee
indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations
made and intends to vigorously defend each action. However,
because the Kleen Products case is in the discovery phase and the
Tennessee action is in the preliminary stages, the company is
unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Suits Over Gypsum Board in Discovery Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. cases filed by purchasers of gypsum board against Temple-
Inland Inc., are in the discovery and Canadian cases are in a
preliminary stage, according International Paper's Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In late December 2012, purchasers of gypsum board filed purported
class action complaints alleging civil violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act against and a number of other gypsum manufacturers
in three separate actions. Two of the actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D.
PA) and one in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (N.D. IL). The case in the N.D. IL was voluntarily
dismissed in December. Since that time, approximately 25
additional actions were collectively filed between the E.D. PA and
the N.D. IL and the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina (W.D. NC), on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers. The complaints are similar and allege that the gypsum
manufacturers conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1)
raise prices of gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the
present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of
issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and
limit order fulfillment. The alleged classes are all persons who
purchased gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products directly
or indirectly from any defendant and the conspiracy is alleged to
have commenced on or before either September 2011 or January 2008.
The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble actual damages
and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported classes.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to E.D. PA for coordinated
and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The
amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement
beginning in or before September 2011.

The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to
vigorously defend the consolidated action.

In addition, in September 2013, purported class actions were filed
in courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit
alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking
damages and injunctive relief. The Company has not yet filed an
answer in either case, but intends to dispute the allegations made
and to vigorously defend the litigation. Because the U.S. cases
are in the discovery phase and the Canadian cases are in a
preliminary stage, the company is unable to predict an outcome or
estimate the company's maximum reasonably possible loss. However,
it does not believe that any material loss is probable.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dismissal of Firefighters Lawsuit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the suit North Port Firefighters' Pension v.
Temple-Inland Inc. filed a notice of appeal of a ruling by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
dismissing a Second Amended Complaint, according International
Paper's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Temple-Inland was named as a defendant in a lawsuit captioned
North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in
November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleges a
class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual
defendants contending that Temple-Inland and certain individual
defendants misrepresented the financial condition of Guaranty
Financial Group during the period December 12, 2007 through August
24, 2009. On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 28, 2013, the district court granted Temple-Inland's and
the individual defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice.
On April 26, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
that asserted claims against the individual defendants, but did
not assert any claims against Temple-Inland. On July 30, 2013, the
district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint filed
against the individual defendants with prejudice, also noting that
since the plaintiff did not seek the court's leave to amend its
complaint with respect to the claims against Temple-Inland, all
claims against Temple-Inland were dismissed with prejudice. On
August 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
district court's ruling.


JG WENTWORTH: Faces Consumer Fraud Law Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Brakken, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that Belleville resident Valerio Sanders filed a class action
complaint Feb. 11 in the St. Clair Circuit Court against JGWPT
Holdings Inc., JGWPT Holdings LLC, J.G. Wentworth LLC, Peachhi
LLC, Peach Holdings Inc., Peachtree Financial Solutions LLC,
Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC, Settlement Funding LLC, doing
business as Peachtree Settlement Funding, Brian P. Mack and the
Mack Law Group PC, citing violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act.

According to the complaint, JGWPT entities were engaged in the
business of purchasing deferred payment annuities, including
structured settlements.  The plaintiff states the defendants used
advertisements that stated beneficiaries of deferred payment
annuities could get quick cash in exchange for the annuity.

Since 1995, JGWPT companies and its predecessors have purchased
over $9.1 billion in future payment obligations, the firm's
website states.

The JGWPT entities purchased deferred payment annuities from
consumers, including the plaintiff, for an amount that was
discounted to present cash value, but intentionally failed to
inform consumers that if their settlement contained an anti-
assignment clause, no lump sum payment could be made to the
consumer, according to the complaint.  The plaintiff further
alleges, JGWPT entities failed to inform consumers, including the
plaintiff, that anti-assignment clauses prohibited the sale of
deferred payment annuities.

In order to facilitate the process, Brian P. Mack and the Mack Law
Group PC would obtain Qualified Orders for the JGWPT entities so
they could purchase the deferred payments at a discounted rate and
to avoid tax consequences, according to the complaint.  The
plaintiff contends the defendants' actions violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, costs and fees.

He is being represented in the case by David Cates --
dcates@cateslaw.com -- and Ryan Mahoney -- rmahoney@cateslaw.com
-- of Cates Mahoney LLC and Brad L. Badgley of Brad L. Badgley PC.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case no. 14-L-148.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Lululemon Athletica Inc. says its nearly
year-long struggle with bad publicity linked to slowing growth and
a messy product recall did not reflect any corporate intent to
defraud shareholders, and that an expanded lawsuit suggesting
otherwise should be thrown out of court.

In a filing on Feb. 18 in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan,
the Canadian yoga wear retailer said it promptly addressed quality
control problems as they became apparent, and updated investors in
real time about the impact.  It acknowledged that comments in
November by founder and Chairman Dennis "Chip" Wilson that some
women's body shapes "just actually don't work" with Lululemon yoga
pants prompted much negative press.  But it said none of this
meant it owes shareholders money.

"While all of this makes for interesting reading," the company
said, "it does not constitute securities fraud."

Lululemon is seeking to dismiss an amended lawsuit accusing it of
misleading and defrauding shareholders between Sept. 7, 2012 and
Jan. 10, 2014, just before shares of the company fell to a two-
year low after the company issued its second lowered earnings
forecast in a month.

Hannah Ross -- hannah@blbglaw.com -- a partner at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, which represents investors led by the
Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, declined to comment on
the filing.  The fund is based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Shareholders accused Lululemon of hiding defects in its black luon
pants, which were recalled; concealing its inability to address
quality shortfalls; using deep discounting to boost market share,
and concealing plans to replace Christine Day as chief executive.

Last month, Ms. Day stepped aside and was replaced as chief
executive by former TOMS Shoes president Laurent Potdevin.
Mr. Wilson is stepping down this year as non-executive chairman.
Ms. Day and Mr. Wilson are defendants in the shareholder lawsuit.

Mr. Wilson, in a separate filing on Feb. 18, said he had last held
a management role at Lululemon in January 2012, and that
allegations that he "dipped in and out of daily affairs" did not
show he knew about, or was complicit in, any fraud.  He also said
his alleged sales of $184 million of Lululemon stock during the
class period was not fraudulent, as the lawsuit contended, because
they were made under a prearranged trading plan and not suspicious
in timing or quantity.

Last month, after Lululemon issued the second reduced earnings
forecast, Chief Financial Officer John Currie called the quality
issues "a real wake-up call" and admitted that 2013 was a tough
year.

"You always hear the phrase that any PR is good PR.  What we
learned is that's not always the case," he said.  "We're taking it
seriously.  Like, we get it."

The case is In re: Lululemon Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-04596.


MIAMI'S BEST: Willfully Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Jimenez Toledo and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Miami's Best Latin American Grill, Inc. d/b/a
Miami's Best Latin American/Grill, Inc. (# 237), Kevin S. Tang,
Case No. 0:14-cv-60155-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 21, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Miami's Best Latin American Grill, Inc., doing business as Miami's
Best Latin American/Grill, Inc. (# 237) is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Broward County.  Kevin S. Tang
is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          K. David Kelly, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, PA
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                  david.kelly38@rocketmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Puemsuk Tony Pornprinya, Esq.
          10800 Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33161-7400
          Telephone: (305) 893-8989
          Facsimile: (305) 891-7717
          E-mail: tony@miamidadelaw.net


NEW JERSEY: Bridgegate Panel Seeks Compliance With Subpoenas
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
New Jersey legislative committee filed court papers on Feb. 19 to
compel compliance with its subpoenas by two figures implicated in
last September's closure of local access lanes to the George
Washington Bridge.

The Legislative Select Committee on Investigation seeks
declaratory judgments that Gov. Chris Christie's former chief of
staff, Bridget Kelly, and his former campaign manager,
Bill Stepien, are acting in violation of valid subpoenas.  Both
have invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The complaints and briefs, seeking injunctive relief, were filed
in Mercer County Superior Court.

Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson on Feb. 13 issued orders to show
cause setting down arguments in the two matters for March 11.  The
lawyers for Kelly and Stepien have until March 3 to answer the
committee's complaints, and the committee in turn has until
March 7 to respond to the answers.

"[The] court filings are an unfortunate but necessary step to
further the committee's work," said the committee cochairs,
Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, and Sen. Loretta
Weinberg, D-Bergen.  "The committee remains confident in its legal
position.  We will now let the judicial process play out."

Ms. Kelly's lawyer, Michael Critchley --
mcritchley@critchleylaw.com -- of Roseland's Critchley, Kinum &
Vazquez, says he has not had a chance to review the documents
filed.  "I look forward to discussing this in front of whatever
judge it is assigned to," he says.

Mr. Stepien's lawyer, Kevin Marino -- kmarino@khmarino.com -- of
Marino, Tortorelli & Boyle in Chatham, says, "We will review the
filing and respond appropriately.

Gov. Christie fired Ms. Kelly in January after learning that she
orchestrated the Sept. 9 through Sept. 13 lane closings with
David Wildstein, the director of interstate capital projects at
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, possibly because
the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich, declined to
endorse Christie for reelection.

Gov. Christie demanded that Mr. Stepien withdraw his name from
consideration for the job of state Republican Party chairman --
and to give up a consultancy with the Republican Governors
Association, which Christie chairs -- in light of emails turned
over to investigators by Mr. Wildstein, showing Mr. Stepien and
Mr. Wildstein discussed the closures.

The complaints were filed by the committee's special counsel, Reid
Schar, of Jenner & Block in Chicago, and local counsel Leon Sokol
and Anthony Bocchi, of Sokol, Behot & Fiorenzo in Hackensack.


NIKON CORP: Lieff Cabraser Mulls Suit Over Camera Dust/Oil Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PetaPixel reports that a US law firm is in the process of
collecting information from upset Nikon D600 owners to possibly
file a class action lawsuit against the Japanese camera giant over
the D600's widely-reported sensor dust/oil issues.

Initially reported by Nikon Rumors, it seems Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein -- a law firm with offices in San Francisco,
New York and Nashville -- is currently collecting complaints as
they look into filing a class action lawsuit against Nikon.

The law firm is accusing Nikon of handling the situation poorly by
admitting there was an issue, but claiming it only caused problems
"in rare cases."

Nikon did not identify the cause for the debris buildup on the
D600 sensor, nor acknowledge, as many consumers have alleged, that
this is a widespread problem with the camera.  To eliminate the
unwanted and distracting spots in their photos, D600 owners have
had to repeatedly send the camera to service technicians for
cleaning at great inconvenience and cost.  They are also alleging
that many returned D600s were never fully fixed before being sold
as 'refurbished' to even more now-disgruntled users.


NU SKIN: Faces "Freedman" Suit in Utah Over Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Freedman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nu Skin Enterprises Inc., Ritch N. Wood, and M. Truman
Hunt, Case No. 2:14-cv-00033-DB (D. Utah, January 21, 2014) is a
federal securities class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
purchasers of Nu Skin's publicly traded common stock between
July 10, 2013, and January 14, 2014, inclusive.

Nu Skin is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Provo, Utah.  Nu Skin is a direct selling
company that purports to develop and distribute more than 200
premium-quality anti-aging personal care products and nutritional
supplements under the Nu Skin and Pharmanex brands in 53 markets
worldwide, including North Asia, Greater China, the south
Asia/Pacific, the Americas and Europe, the Middle East, and
Africa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas R. Karrenberg, Esq.
          Jon V. Harper, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
          50 West Broadway, #700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 534-1700
          Facsimile: (801) 364-7697
          E-mail: tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com
                  jharper@aklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
          Julie B. Palley, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com
                  jpalley@barrack.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert S. Clark, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
          185 S State St., Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          E-mail: rclark@parrbrown.com


OZ MINERALS: Faces Third Shareholder Class Action Over Zinifex
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Chambers, writing for The Australian, reports that
OZ Minerals has been threatened with another class action over
disclosure around global financial crisis debt refinancing,
despite having settled two similar actions for AUD60 million in
2011.

"OZ Minerals has received a letter from a Sydney law firm that
says it represents a former shareholder of Zinifex and that the
person intends to commence on behalf of all Zinifex shareholders
who acquired shares in OZ Minerals," the company said on Feb. 17.

"OZ Minerals will vigorously defend any proceedings that may be
commenced."

OZ was formed in 2008 out of a so-called merger of equals between
the Owen Hegarty-founded Oxiana and the Andrew Michelmore-led
Zinifex.

In 2011, OZ settled two shareholder class actions, launched by
Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon, for a combined AUD60
million.  The shareholder claims were over alleged breaches of
continuous disclosure obligations relating to OZ's debt
refinancing agreement in 2008.

The new claims, being led by a small Sydney-based firm called ACA
Lawyers and portrayed by OZ as representing just one shareholder
so far, are focused on the same area the settled class actions
were based on.

The difference is that ACA is targeting Zinifex shareholders
rather than Oxiana investors, who were represented in the earlier
cases.

The new claim is based on alleged failure to disclose that
Oxiana's debt was "unfavorably refinanced at the height of the
global financial crisis" the week before the merger was agreed.

"We contend the near-term loan maturity put Oxiana at risk of
insolvency given the extent of global credit rationing throughout
2008," ACA said.

The class action would be backed by Britain-based Harbour
Litigation Funding, ACA said.


PELHAM, AL: Settles Firefighters' Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Martin J. Reed, writing for AL.com, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed by a group of Pelham firefighters seeking unpaid
overtime and other compensation appears to be heading toward a
settlement and avoiding a trial set for March 3.

The Pelham City Council on Feb. 17 approved a resolution that
authorizes a settlement of certain claims in the lawsuit filed in
May 2010 by Pelham firefighters Kenneth Camp, Michael Todd
McCarver, Patrick Smith, Stephen Kiel and Randal Bearden.

The resolution calls for the city to pay $170,000 to settle the
Fair Labor Standards Act claims in the lawsuit: $55,000 would go
to the firefighters represented under the class-action litigation
and the remaining $115,000 would go to their attorneys.  The
proposal remains subject to the court's approval.  The resolution
authorizes Mayor Gary Waters, City Clerk Marsha Yates and City
Finance Director Tom Seale to execute the required documents for
the settlement and transfer the $170,000 from the municipality's
general fund.

"This would still have to be approved by the judge in the case,
but the parties believe it will be," Mr. Hayes said.

The amount is a decrease from the $610,000 proposed total in a
previous settlement effort that derailed in December and led to a
federal court hearing in Birmingham over finger-pointing by both
sides.

The firefighters' attorneys blasted the city's decision to reject
a settlement contained in a memorandum of agreement signed by
Waters, lawyers and other parties in the case.  The city responded
by claiming the attorneys for the firefighters violated the
confidentiality provisions of their mediation process and
publicized information about proposed settlement efforts.

U.S. District Court Judge Madeline Haikala during a Dec. 13
hearing said she would set a trial date after lawyers for the city
and the firefighters agreed that a settlement was unlikely in the
case.


PEPE'S RETAIL: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Marin, Tania Melendez, Everardo Mascoti, Erica Alvarado,
Daniel Gutierrez, Araceli Ramirez, Evangelina Martinez, Dalia De
Alba and Balvina Barelas, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated persons v. Pepe's Retail Meats, Inc. d/b/a
Perez Restaurant and Jose Perez, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00397 (N.D. Ill., January 21, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage law for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay similarly situated tipped
employees at least the federally or Illinois-mandated minimum
wages for all time worked and overtime wages for all time worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Perez Restaurant is an Illinois corporation that conducted
business in Illinois.  Jose Perez is the owner and operator of
Perez Restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          401 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121
          Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
          E-mail: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com
                  aayala@wagetheftlaw.com
                  jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com

               - and -

          Yolanda Carrillo, Esq.
          WORKING HANDS LEGAL CLINIC
          401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 795-9115
          E-mail: ycarrillo@workers-law.org


PLAINS ALL: Faces Lawsuits Over Proposed Merger With PNG
--------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAA) is facing lawsuits by
unitholders of PAA Natural Gas Storage, L.P. (PNG) over a proposed
merger, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, Robert and Teresa Vicars, purported common
unitholders of PNG, filed a class action petition on behalf of
PNG's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of PNG
against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., PNG's general partner
and the directors of PNG's general partner in the 152nd Judicial
District of Harris County, Texas ("Vicars").  A similar class
action complaint was filed against the same defendants, together
with PAA GP LLC, Plains All American GP LLC and Plains AAP, L.P.,
on September 17, 2013, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by purported PNG common unitholder Stephen Ellman
("Ellman").  A third class action complaint for breach of
fiduciary duties was filed against the same defendants as in the
Ellman Suit on October 2, 2013, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division by
purported unitholder The Duckpond CRT UTD 2/14/03, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated ("Duckpond").

The Vicars and Ellman complaints allege, among other things, that
the consideration offered by the company is unfair and inadequate
and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an
allegedly conflicted and unfair process, the defendants have
breached their duties under PNG's partnership agreement as well as
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are
engaging in self-dealing. These two lawsuits generally allege
that: (i) the defendants are engaging in self-dealing, are not
acting in good faith toward PNG, and have breached and are
breaching their duties owed to PNG; (ii) the defendants are
failing to properly value PNG and its various assets and
operations and are ignoring or are not protecting against the
numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed
transaction; and (iii) we, PNG's general partner, PNG and other of
the company's affiliates have aided and abetted the defendant
directors the purpose of advancing their own interests and/or
assisting such directors in connection with their breaches of
their respective duties. In addition, Ellman further includes (i)
purported derivative claims on behalf of PNG based on the alleged
breaches of duties by the defendants and (ii) a claim that the
defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process.  In Duckpond, the
complaint alleges, among other things, that the implied price per
unit materially undervalues PNG and is unfair to its unitholders.

The Duckpond plaintiff further alleges that the defendants who are
directors and officers of the general partner of PNG have breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care and the other
defendants have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches. Based
on these allegations, the plaintiffs generally seek to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger. To the
extent that the merger is implemented before relief is granted,
plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. The plaintiffs also
seek money damages and attorneys' fees. In Duckpond, that
plaintiff also seeks a constructive trust in favor of the
purported class of PNG unitholders upon any benefits improperly
received by the defendants.


PNEUMO ABEX: Jury Awards $11MM to Mesothelioma Victim's Family
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a jury awarded the family of a deceased auto parts worker
diagnosed with mesothelioma $11 million in damages in the family's
wrongful death lawsuit after previously awarding the family nearly
$4 million in a personal injury lawsuit.

The wrongful death lawsuit was the second trial in a pair of
trials in the Alameda County Superior Court.  The jury deliberated
for less than two hours after the two-day trial, reaching its
verdict on Jan. 15 in Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee's courtroom.  It
awarded $6 million to decedent Gordon Bankhead's wife Emily
Bankhead and $2.5 million to each of Gordon Bankhead's adult
daughters -- Tammy Bankhead and Debbie Bankhead-Meiers.

The family filed its wrongful death lawsuit against defendant
Pneumo Abex LLC, successor of Abex Corporation, in June 2012.

According to the complaint, Gordon Bankhead worked as a parts man
from 1965 until 1999 in the service and repair of heavy duty
vehicles.  His exposure to asbestos dust is primarily attributed
to his work with vehicle brake parts.

Gordon Bankhead was involved in regularly inspecting, replacing,
grinding and blowing out dust from the asbestos-containing brakes.

Defendant Pneumo Abex manufactured brake linings Gordon Bankhead
was exposed to, which were attached to brake shoes and axles and
were sold to his employers.  He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
January 2010 and filed his asbestos personal injury complaint in
March 2010.

Gordon Bankhead died from his illness at age 68 in October 2011,
which led to the wrongful death lawsuit, intended to compensate
his family for their loss of his companionship.

Pneumo was not allowed to dispute its responsibility for Gordon
Bankhead's death during the wrongful death lawsuit, and the jury
was not informed of the details behind the defendant's liability
nor the family's previous verdicts in the personal injury
complaint.

The jury was asked to determine an appropriate number to
compensate the family for losing their loved one 17 years before
his life expectancy.

"Immediately prior to the conduct of defendants herein giving rise
to the decedents exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials and before the fatal asbestos-related disease was
diagnosed, plaintiff's decedent was an adult person in good
physical and mental condition and was a faithful and dutiful
husband and father," the complaint stated.

According to the 10-count complaint, Pneumo Abex knew of the
dangers associated with asbestos exposure but suppressed
information relating to the dangers and failed to properly warn
Gordon Bankhead.

"Each of the foregoing acts, suggestions, assertions and
forebearances to act when a duty existed to act, the said
defendants, and each of them, having such knowledge, knowing the
decedent did not have such knowledge and would breathe such
material innocently, was done falsely and fraudulently and with
full intent to induce decedent to work in a dangerous environment
and to cause decedent to remain unaware of the true facts," the
complaint says.

The Bankheads' personal injury lawsuit went to trial in October
2010, and was conducted in two phases.  The first phase of the
trial was to determine liability.  The second phase of the trial,
beginning in January 2011, was to determine punitive damages.

As part of the first phase, the jury found that the defendants
defectively designed their brakes, failed to adequately warn
consumers and customers of the dangers in working with the brakes,
were negligent and intentionally failed to inform the claimant of
preventative measures.

They presented 30 percent liability to each brake manufacturer,
including Pneumo Abex, 15 percent to each brake shoe manufacturer
and 10 percent to Gordon Bankhead's employers.

The jury awarded Gordon Bankhead $1.47 million for his past and
future economic loss and $1.5 million for his pain and suffering.
They awarded Emily Bankhead $1 million for her loss of her
husband's support and companionship.

Defendants Pneumo Abex and ArvinMeritor were the only two
defendants left by the time the second phase of the first trial
commenced.  The rest had settled.  The jury awarded $9 million in
punitive damages, finding that the defendants' actions were
malicious, fraudulent and oppressive.  Pneumo Abex appealed, but
the verdict was upheld.

The Bankheads were represented by Joseph Satterley and Justin Bosl
of Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood and former partner Leigh
Kirmsse in the first trial.


REMINGTON FINANCIAL: Co-Owner Faces Fraud Charges
-------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Roebuck, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
that a Philadelphia financier responsible for arranging funding
for some of Center City's most high-profile developments was
convicted Feb. 19 on federal fraud charges in a case victims hoped
would spur federal regulators to more closely police financial
crimes against small business owners.

Jurors took less than three hours to determine Matthew McManus,
former co-owner of Remington Financial Group, helped bilk nearly
2,000 clients nationwide out of $26 million they put forward
hoping to land development loans for projects ranging from a
Camden waterfront apartment complex to a California housing
development.

Witnesses testified that Mr. McManus and co-owner Andrew
Bogdanoff, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges in August, ran
their company almost as two parallel businesses.

For well-connected clients, such as developer Bart Blatstein,
Mr. McManus worked tirelessly to put together financing deals for
projects like The Edge at Avenue North, an apartment complex and
shopping center on North Broad Street near Temple University.

Meanwhile, the company also took money from smaller loan seekers
who Messrs. McManus and Bogdanoff had no intention of helping.

"Everyone who was working for this company knew it was a fraud,"
prosecutor David L. Axelrod said.

Remington Financial's scheme worked similarly victim by victim.

Clients seeking project funding found their way to Remington
Financial after a reference from a New York loan brokerage.
Remington would agree to arrange financing for up-front fees in
excess of $10,000.

Once the money had been paid, the company intentionally found
faults with proposed projects so it could later blame those
problems for its inability to find financing.

In 2007 alone, the $6.5 million in revenue Remington earned from
its fraud scheme far outweighed the $4.5 million it brought in
through legitimate means, Mr. Axelrod said.

Testifying in his own defense, Mr. McManus said he took on all
clients in good faith.

One of the victims was Ingrid Robinson, 65, of San Anselmo,
Calif., who in 2007 paid Remington Financial $10,000 in hopes of
securing funding for a condo and retail development she hoped to
build.

But after realizing she had been duped, Robinson went to the feds.
On Feb. 19, she said she hoped the case would prompt more than
just lengthy prison terms for McManus and the nine other people
convicted in the scam.

"I'm ecstatic," she said after the Feb. 19 verdict.

Currently, frauds against small businesses fall into a gap in the
purview of financial regulatory agencies.  The U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission protects investors in mostly larger, public
companies.

The Pennsylvania Securities Commission handles small-scale stock
and bond transactions.  But unlike some states, Pennsylvania laws
do not treat loans the same way as securities.


SCORES HOLDING: Provided Updates on Status of Labor Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, Scores
Holding Company, Inc. provided update on the settlement it entered
with tipped employees.

On September 26, 2011, the Company, Richard Goldring and Elliot
Osher (Goldring and Osher were formerly two of the Company's
principal shareholders) (collectively the "Defendants") and Sari
Diaz et al. (the "Plaintiffs") entered into a Court approved Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement")
relating to a purported class action and collective action on
behalf of all tipped employees filed by Plaintiffs, pursuant to
which Defendants agreed to make a settlement payment of $450,000
to resolve and settle awards to Plaintiffs and related Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees. Additionally, the Defendants agreed to pay the
employer portion of payroll taxes on approximately $300,000 in
distributions, approximately $15,600.

In a settlement payment agreement among the Company, Goldring and
Osher, the Company agreed to advance all of the Defendants'
obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to pay $64,500 of
Goldring's and Osher's legal fees to their designated attorney. In
consideration for the Company's payment of these obligations,
Goldring and Osher agreed, jointly and severally, to pay the
Company $440,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the
unpaid balance of such amount, in 40 equal monthly payments of
$11,965 per month. To secure his obligations under this agreement,
Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of his
interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the
principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring
(the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the
Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this
settlement payment agreement are paid in full. As of March 31,
2013, the settlement receivable is $261,900.

On December 29, 2011 the Company entered into a Promissory Note
with Goldring for $30,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per
annum on the unpaid balance. To secure his obligations under this
agreement, Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of
his interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the
principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring
(the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the
Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this
settlement payment agreement are paid in full. Three payments of
$11,965 are due beginning March 2015. As of March 31, 2013, this
promissory note balance is $31,931.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Sued in Wash. Over Riata Defibrillation Leads
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. is facing lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington filed by plaintiffs
alleging they suffered injuries caused by Riata and Riata ST
Silicone Defibrillation Leads, according to St. Jude Medical,
Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

In April 2013, a lawsuit seeking a class action was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington by plaintiffs alleging they suffered injuries caused by
Riata and Riata ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. The potential
class of plaintiffs in this lawsuit is limited to residents of the
State of Washington. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts, punitive damages and a declaratory judgment
that the Company is liable to the proposed class members for any
past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and corrective
medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses.

As of November 1, 2013, the Company is aware of 35 lawsuits from
plaintiffs alleging injuries caused by, and asserting product
liability claims concerning, Riata and Riata ST Silicone
Defibrillation Leads. Most of the lawsuits have been brought by a
single plaintiff, but some of them name multiple individuals as
plaintiffs. The action in Washington is the only case that seeks a
class action. Outside of this class action, five separate multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been initiated against the Company that
involve more than one unrelated plaintiff: a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining 29 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior
Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on
April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining two unrelated
claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
city and county of Los Angeles on April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining two claimants was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 4,
2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining three unrelated claimants
was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and
county of Los Angeles on April 29, 2013; and a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining 21 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior
Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on July
15, 2013.

Of the 35 lawsuits, 14 cases are pending in federal courts,
including three in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, five in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, one in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, one in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, one in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York, one in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York, one in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and one discussed
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The remaining 21 lawsuits are pending in state courts
across the country, including seven in Minnesota, ten in
California, one in Indiana, two in Kentucky and one in Florida.

All but one of the claimants in the aforementioned suits allege
bodily injuries as a result of surgical removal and replacement of
Riata leads, or other complications, which they attribute to the
leads. The majority of the claimants who seek recovery for
implantation and/or surgical removal of Riata leads are seeking
compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and declaratory
judgments that the Company is liable to the claimants for any
past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and corrective
medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses. Several
claimants also seek punitive damages. The Company is responsible
for legal costs incurred in defense of the Riata product liability
claims including any potential settlements, judgments and other
legal defense costs.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Dismissal of Silzone Case in Ontario on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Outstanding Silzone cases against St. Jude Medical, Inc. consist
of one class action in Ontario whose dismissal is currently on
appeal, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 28, 2013.

The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone coating, which the Company stopped selling in January
2000. The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of one class
action in Ontario that has been appealed by the plaintiffs and one
individual case in Ontario. In June 2012, the Ontario Court ruled
in the Company's favor on all nine common class issues in a class
action involving Silzone patients, and the case was dismissed. In
September 2012, counsel for the class filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario and filed their
initial appellate brief in February 2013.

The Company filed its responsive brief in August 2013. The oral
argument concerning the appeal was expected to be heard in
November 2013 but that hearing date has recently been adjourned
and no new hearing date has been scheduled. The individual case in
Ontario requests damages in excess of $1 million (claiming
unspecified special damages, health care costs and interest).
Based on the Company's historical experience, the amount
ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to
the amount claimed. To the extent that the Company's future
Silzone costs (inclusive of settlements, judgments, legal fees and
other related defense costs) exceed its remaining historical
insurance coverage of approximately $10 million, the Company would
be responsible for such costs.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Securities Suit Trial to Begin July 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
The trial of a securities suit against St. Jude Medical, Inc. in
federal district court in Minnesota is presently scheduled for
July 2014, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on
behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between
April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the
Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated
October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages
and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown
in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated
orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members allege
that the defendant's failure to disclose the information resulted
in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price. In December 2011, the Court issued a decision
denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October
2010. In October 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and the discovery phase of the
case closed in September 2013. On October 15, 2013, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment and a hearing is scheduled for
January 2014 and a ruling is expected later in 2014. Subject to
the outcome of this hearing, the trial of this class action matter
is presently scheduled for July 2014. The defendants intend to
continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this
lawsuit.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Ruling on Bid to Junk Minn. Suit Seen This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a securities suit
filed against it and a ruling is expected later in 2014, according
to St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2013.

On December 7, 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and an
officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the defendants between October 17,
2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint, which seeks unspecified
damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, challenges
the Company's disclosures concerning its high voltage cardiac
rhythm lead products during the purported class period. On
December 10, 2012, a second securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company
and certain officers for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly
traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011 and
November 20, 2012. The second complaint pursues similar claims and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys'
fees. In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and
appointed a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. In September 2013,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and
amended complaint. Oral argument concerning this motion to dismiss
was scheduled for early January 2014, and a ruling is expected
later in 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
the claims asserted in this matter.


TARGET CORP: Banks, Credit Unions Rack Up $200MM in Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that banks and
credit unions racked up more than $200 million in expenses from
the massive Target Corp. data breach in the last quarter of 2013,
trade groups for the financial institutions announced on Feb. 18.

Payment card replacements cost $172 million for banks and $30.6
million for credit unions, according to the Credit Union National
Association and Consumer Bankers Association, which has members
that include Bank of America Corp., Capital One Financial Corp.
and JPMorgan Chase & Co.  A majority of the 40 million cardholders
Target said the breach affected used cards from the associations'
members.

In all, as many as 110 million customers may have had their
personal information stolen during the holiday shopping season
last year.  That figure includes as many as 70 million customers
who had their name, address and other information exposed to
hackers, but not necessarily their payment card data.


THINK RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Hourly Workers Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heath Haukland, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Think Resources n/k/a Randstad Engineering, Case No.
3:14-cv-00145-H-DHB (S.D. Cal., January 21, 2014) alleges that
Randstad Engineering failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other hourly
workers like him, overtime as required by state and federal law.

Instead, Mr. Haukland contends, the Company paid him the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
in a workweek.

Randstad Engineering is a corporation doing substantial business
in California.  Randstad is a staffing company that provides
skilled personnel, who can provide a range of services to a
variety of industries across and outside the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Alexander Olsen, Esq.
          OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 550-9352
          Facsimile: (619) 923-2747
          E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


TIME WARNER: Shareholder Launches Class Action to Stop Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline.com reports that a Time Warner Cable shareholder has
launched a potential class action suit against the company to halt
its acquisition by Comcast in a $45.2 billion all-stock deal.
Filing in the Supreme Court of New York one day after the TWC-
Comcast deal was formally announced on February 13, Breffni
Barrett is accusing TWC, its chairman and CEO Rob Marcus, former
Sen. John Sununu and other members of the company's board of
cutting themselves a sweet deal and breach of fiduciary duty.  The
shareholder also says in the action, which also names Comcast as a
defendant, that the mega-merger risks regulatory wrath.  Of
course, while it is easy to file an action such as this one, it is
very hard to prove that a board acted as badly as Mr. Barrett
alleges -- especially when it had its own teams of lawyers going
over every detail before anything was made public.  Additionally,
the merger is subject to approval by shareholders from both
companies as well as a careful look from both the FCC and the
Department of Justice.


UDREN LAW: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Justensen and Tommie R. Powers, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Udren Law Offices, P.C., a
foreign professional corporation, and Darla Grondin, individually,
Case No. 6:14-cv-00088-ACC-KRS (M.D. Fla., January 21, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          N. James Turner, Esq.
          N. JAMES TURNER, LLC
          37 N Orange Ave., Suite 500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (888) 877-5103
          E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com


UNCLE BEN'S: Rice Mix Recalled Following School Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Weise, writing for USATODAY, reports that a possible
overdose of an important vitamin might be behind the mysterious
symptoms linked to Uncle Ben's Infused Rice served at schools in
Texas on Feb. 7.  The product has been recalled and the Food and
Drug Administration is warning consumers not to use it.

Students at three public schools in Katy, Texas, experienced
burning, itching rashes, headaches and nausea after eating Uncle
Ben's Infused Rice Mexican Flavor on Feb. 7.  The symptoms
disappeared after 30 to 90 minutes.

A previous incident on Dec. 4 sickened 25 students in Illinois
with similar complaints after the school lunch included the grain.
North Dakota reported a similar incident at a day care on Oct. 30.

FDA tested rice that was left over from the Illinois school lunch
and the results showed an increased amount of niacin, or Vitamin
B3, in the rice.

"Overexposure to niacin can lead to skin reactions such as redness
and flushing, itching and dry skin.  Very large doses can cause
indigestion and nausea," said FDA's Theresa Eisenman.

"There is no confirmation at this time that the Texas incident was
caused by excess niacin, and the rice eaten was not part of the
previous recall.  Investigation into this outbreak continues,"
Ms. Eisenman said.

Niacin is one of several essential human nutrients routinely added
to foods.  Lack of niacin can cause a disease called pellagra that
causes nausea, skin and mouth lesions, headache and exhaustion.

U.S. bakers began to use flour fortified with niacin, riboflavin,
thiamin and iron in 1930.  Before flour was enriched, pellagra was
associated with poverty and poor diet in the United States.

Mars Foodservices, the maker of Uncle Ben's rice products, is
recalling all bags and lot numbers of its Uncle Ben's Infused Rice
products produced in 2013.

The recall does not affect Uncle Ben's Brand Ready to Heat, Boxed,
Bag or Cup products sold directly to consumers at grocery stores
and other retail outlets.

The rice was sold in 5-pound and 25-pound bags.  It is typically
distributed to restaurants, schools, hospitals and other
commercial establishments.  It is possible that consumers might
have purchased the products over the Internet and at warehouse-
type retailers, the FDA said in a release.

The FDA said food service companies and consumers who have
purchased the products should not use the rice, and should return
it.


UNILEVER US: July 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
Dahl Administration, LLC on Feb. 17 disclosed that a settlement
has been reached in three class action lawsuits against Unilever
United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc. and Les Emballages Knowlton,
Inc.  The lawsuits allege that Defendants designed, manufactured
and sold the Suave(R) Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day
Smoothing Kit, that the Smoothing Kit caused some consumers who
used it to suffer injuries to their hair and/or scalp, and that
Unilever misled consumers into purchasing and using the Smoothing
Kit by making false and misleading statements about the safety of
the Smoothing Kit and failing to disclose its risks.  Defendants
deny that they did anything wrong.  To avoid the cost of a trial,
and potential risks for both sides, the Parties have reached a
class action settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on February 12, 2014.

Under the terms of the settlement, you may be entitled to
compensation if you purchased or used the Smoothing Kit in the
United States before February 17, 2014.  Excluded from the Class
are persons who purchased for resale and not for personal or
household use; persons who signed a release of any Defendant in
exchange for consideration; officers, directors or employees of
any Defendant or any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling
interest (or their immediate family); any legal counsel or
employee of legal counsel for any Defendant; and the presiding
judges and their immediate families.  Also excluded are those
persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

Unilever has agreed to create two funds: a "Reimbursement Fund" of
$250,000, to reimburse consumers for their purchase of the
Smoothing Kit, and an "Injury Fund" of $10,000,000, to compensate
consumers for bodily injuries and for emotional distress that
accompanied such bodily injuries. Class Members may be eligible to
receive a payment from one or both funds.

Any Class Member who purchased the Smoothing Kit may submit a
claim against the Reimbursement Fund for a one-time payment of up
to $10.  Any Class Member who suffered certain kinds of bodily
injury to his or her hair or scalp as a result of using the
Smoothing Kit may submit a claim against the Injury Fund in one of
three ways.  Under "Option A," Class Members who incurred expenses
to redress their Covered Injuries but who do not have receipts may
make a claim for reimbursement of up to $40.  Under "Option B,"
Class Members who incurred expenses to redress their Covered
Injuries for which they have receipts may make a claim
reimbursement of their documented expenses up to $800.  Under
"Option C," Class Members who have suffered significant Covered
Injuries may make a claim to recover damages for those injuries of
up to $25,000, and may also seek reimbursement of certain
expenses.

If the claims made against either Fund collectively exceed the
total amount of that Fund, the payments made from that Fund to
each Class Member who submitted a valid claim will be distributed
pro rata, under a formula to be approved by the Court.

How Do You Submit A Claim?

To qualify for payment, you must complete and submit the
appropriate Claim Form, signed by you under penalty of perjury,
along with certain supporting documents by September 25, 2014.
Online Claim Forms and instructions for submitting claims online
are available at http://www.Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com/

Claim Forms and instructions for completing them can also be
obtained by calling 1-888-848-9961.  Completed Claim Forms and
supporting materials should be emailed to
mail@Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com or mailed to Smoothing Kit
Class Administrator, c/o Dahl Administration, P.O. Box 3614,
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614.

What Are Your Other Options?

If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude yourself by May 28, 2014.  The detailed notice available
at www.Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com or by calling 1-888-848-
9961 explains how to exclude yourself from the settlement.  If you
properly exclude yourself, you will not get any settlement payment
and you cannot object to the settlement.  You also will not be
bound by the settlement and may be able to sue Defendants on your
own in the future.

If you're a Class Member, you can object to any part of the
settlement you don't like and the court will consider your views.
Your objection must be timely, in writing, and contain certain
specific information as described at
www.Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com or available by calling
1-888-848-9961.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 1:30 P.M on
July 9, 2014, in Chicago, Illinois.  At this hearing the Court
will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate and whether to approve Class Representatives' incentive
awards and attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Unilever.
You may attend the hearing, and you may hire your own lawyer, but
you are not required to do either.  The Court will consider timely
written objections and will listen to objectors who request to
speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the settlement.

What To Do If You Have Questions

This information is just a summary.  Detailed notice, as well as
the Settlement Agreement and other documents filed in this
lawsuit, can be found online at
www.Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com

For more information, you may call or write to the Smoothing Kit
Class Administrator at 1-888-848-9961 or P.O. Box 3614,
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614 or
mail@Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com


UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Accused of Not Properly Paying Canvassers' OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
William White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Universal Windows Direct of Wisconsin, Inc., d/b/a
Universal Windows Direct and Roofing of Milwaukee, Erik Beste, and
John J. Lambrecht, Jr., Case No. 2:14-cv-00069-JPS (E.D. Wis.,
January 21, 2014) alleges that it is the policy of Universal to
compensate their Canvassers at a rate less than one and one half
times their respective regular rates for hours worked over 40
hours per workweek.

Universal Windows Direct of Wisconsin, Inc. operates Universal
Windows Direct and Roofing of Milwaukee in West Allis, Wisconsin.
Erik Beste and John J. Lambrecht, Jr. are the owners of Universal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Modl, Esq.
          AXLEY BRYNELSON LLP
          2 E Mifflin St., Suite 200
          PO Box 1767
          Madison, WI 53701-1767
          Telephone: (608) 257-5661
          Facsimile: (608) 257-5444
          E-mail: mmodl@axley.com


WARNER MUSIC: Settles Royalties Class Action for $11.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
AllAccess.com reports that Warner Music Group has reached a
settlement valued at a minimum of $11.5 million in a class action
lawsuit over how it calculated royalties for downloads and
mastertones of recordings.  Warner Music Group denies any
wrongdoing.

People who have the right to receive royalties from contracts
dated before January 1, 2002 with a WMG U.S. Label that pays on a
Royalty Rate Basis or a Penny Rate Basis may be eligible for cash
payments for past royalties paid; and/or an increase in download
and mastertone royalties going forward.  The increase in future
royalty payments will give artists an increase of 5 percentage
points in their royalty rate on U.S. exploitations of downloads
and mastertones (or more if necessary to reach a floor of 10%,
capped at a maximum of 14%) and a 2.5 percentage point increase on
foreign exploitations.

In order to receive benefits from the Settlement, a valid claim
must be submitted by May 31, 2014.

People who want to keep the right to sue Warner Music Group must
exclude themselves from the Settlement by May 31.  People who stay
in the Settlement may object to it by May 31.  People who do not
exclude themselves or who do nothing will be bound by the Court's
decisions.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 2, 2014 to consider
whether to approve this Settlement and a request for attorneys'
fees up to $2,875,000 plus reimbursement of costs and expenses.
People impacted may appear and speak, or may hire their own lawyer
to appear and speak, at the hearing at their own expense.

More information about the Settlement, including rights and
benefits, is available at http://www.wmgdownloadsettlement.com


WESTJET AIRLINES: Quebec Court Authorized Air Fare Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
BGA Avocats S.E.N.C.R.L. on Feb. 17 disclosed that on Oct. 29,
2013, the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal)
authorized the institution of a class action against Westjet, an
airline carrier, on behalf of the following described "Class":

     "All persons who are disabled (handicapped) or recognized
     as having a functional disability by reason of their
     obesity, domiciled in Quebec, who had to pay additional fees
     to Westjet for the seat of an Attendant* and/or for a seat
     adapted to their condition on a flight operated by Westjet
     or by another carrier on its behalf since December 5, 2005.

                              - and -

     All natural persons in Quebec who, since December 5, 2005,
     had to pay fees to Westjet for a seat on a flight operated
     by Westjet or by another carrier on its behalf a domestic
     flight when they were acting as the Attendant* of a person
     with a disability."

The class action is a claim for compensatory, moral and punitive
damages against WestJet to sanction a practice and a fare policy
that the Class Action Representatives allege to be discriminatory,
abusive and faulty towards persons with a disability and/or
functionally disabled by obesity.  The Superior Court will have to
decide if WestJet committed a fault and if the members of the
Class must be indemnified.

To participate in the class action

You have nothing to do to become a member of this class action.
You are automatically part of the Class. Any member of the Class
that has not requested his exclusion from the Class by March 21,
2014 at 4:30 p.m. in the manner indicated below will be bound by
any judgment to be rendered on the class action.

Other than the Representatives, the members of the Class cannot be
required to pay the costs of the class action if the action is
dismissed.  A member of the Class may intervene in the class
action if it is considered by the Court useful to the Class.

For any additional information pertaining the "WESTJET"
Class action, you may consult the web page
http://www.bga-law.com/westjetand/or the complete notice
available at the Superior court Clerk office at the Montreal Court
House, and/or contact:

     Me David Bourgoin
     BGA BARRISTER& SOLLICITORS LLP.
     67, rue Sainte-Ursule, Quebec (Quebec) G1R 4E7
     Phone: 1-877-707-8008
     Telecopy: 1-866-616-0120
     E-mail: info@bga-law.com


* New Oregon Bill Tackles Unclaimed Class Action Judgments
----------------------------------------------------------
Saul Hubbard, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that the
Oregon House on Feb. 17 approved a controversial bill that would
change what happens with the unclaimed money damages from class
action judgments or settlements in state court.

Under House Bill 4143, those unclaimed funds would be used to
bolster legal aid services for low-income Oregonians, rather than
automatically being returned to the company that lost the lawsuit,
as they are now.

Unclaimed funds are a common occurrence with class actions, either
because people entitled to funds fail to claim them or can't be
found, or because the individual claims are so small that the cost
to disburse them exceeds their value.

The House passed the policy on a 36-21 vote that fell mostly along
party lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed.

The bill is moving forward against the backdrop of potentially the
largest-ever class action judgment issued by Oregon's courts.

In late January, a Multnomah County jury found in favor of
consumers in a case about the propriety of a 35-cent charge tacked
on to debit card gas purchases at Arco stations and AmPm
minimarkets in recent years in Oregon.  BP West Coast Products is
expected to appeal.  But, if the jury's decision is upheld, the
final judgment for an estimated 2.9 million claimants could be
worth $580 million, according to lawyers representing consumers.

If passed this session, House Bill 4143 is drafted to go into
effect immediately, affecting all future final judgments.

On Feb. 17, proponents of the bill said that returning damages to
the companies at fault doesn't make sense, and that those dollars
could provide much-needed funding to Oregon's Legal Aid Services,
a nonprofit agency.

Supporters also argued that the vast majority of other states
currently allow or require that unclaimed damages go to nonprofit
agencies.  Federal courts, meanwhile, where multi-state class
actions play out, have case-by-case discretion about how to
allocate those damages.

Critics, however, said the bill would not provide any more funds
to consumers actually harmed by companies that lost a class
action.

The bill also would make it easier for trial lawyers to file class
actions without first having to identify the potential victims of
a company's alleged malfeasance, opponents said.

And it would allow state judges to make a determination that
returning stipulated damages to victims is "not practicable" and
send the money directly to the legal aid fund, a potential due
process violation, they said.

Several Republican lawmakers argued that the issue was "too
complicated" to take up in the current short legislative session.

HB 4143 would allow unclaimed class action funds to be placed in a
new state account.  The interest earned would go to legal aid
services.  Before it was amended, HB 4143 would have allowed the
unclaimed damages to instead go into the state's reserve, or rainy
day, fund.

The bill now heads to the Senate.


                             *********

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  * * *