CAR_Public/140304.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 44

                             Headlines


1196110 AB: Recalls Dry Garlic Ribs Due to Undeclared Mustard
ALAFAYA WOODS: Class Action Settlement Claim Forms Due on July 7
APPLE INC: Seeks Remand of E-Book Price-Fixing Suit to Texas
AQUAFUCHSIA FOODS: Recalls Alfalfa Sprout With Touch of Radish
BANK OF AMERICA: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

BCSB BANCORP: Faces Putative Stockholder Complaint
BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL: Court Consolidated Suits v. Accentia
BLUESTERN BRANDS: Fingerhut Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
BRP: Recalls Heated Gloves and Lithium-Ion Rechargeable Batteries
BUCKSTONE INC: Recalls Jardine's and D.L. Jardine's Products

BURNBRAE FARMS: Recalls Dried Whole Eggs
BUTLER COUNTY: Prison Employees' Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
CATERPILLAR: Recalls CT660 Model Due Inoperative Brake
CC-PALO ALTO: Faces Class Action Over CCRC Entrance Fees
COBB ELECTRIC: Judge Approves $100-Mil. Class Action Settlement

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Former Pilots File Class Action
CREIG NORTHROP: Class Action Over Alleged Kickbacks Certified
DELANO FARMS: Court Partially Decertifies Class in Arredondo Suit
EQUAL ENERGY: Facing Lawsuit Due to Petroflow Arrangement
FEDERAL MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Underinsured Benefits

FIDELITY NATIONAL: "Henson" Suit Moved to Calif. Central Dist.
FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES: Settled Minimum Wage Lawsuit
FORGE GROUP: Class Action Call Gets 150 Inquiries
FRED DEELEY: Recalls 297 Motorcycles Due to Programming Error
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 82,545 HHR, ION, SKY and SOLSTICE Cars

GOOGLE INC: Judge Koh Grills Plaintiff Lawyers in Privacy Suit
HAZELWOOD: Morwell Residents Mull Class Action Over Mine Fire
HERSHEY CO: Judge Tosses 91 Chocolate Price-Fixing Cases
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Moved to Dismiss Amended Pension Fund Complaint
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Narrows Autonomy Acquisition Suit

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Commenced Mediation in "Gammel" WebOS Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Moved to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
HOECHST CELANESE: Seeks Dismissal of Chemical Spill Class Action
HOME DEPOT: Bid to Remand "Bell" Suit to Superior Court Denied
IEC ELECTRONICS: Responded to Consolidated Shareholder Suit

JABURG & WILK: Obtains Final Approval of "Eibert" Suit Settlement
LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Class Action Over Mobile Phone Defects
MAMMUT SPORTS: Recalls Crevasse Rescue Devices Due to Injury Risk
MEDALLION PLUS: Recalls Tekki Shomen Noodles in a Cup
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Law Firm Files Class Action

NEW ORLEANS: Settles Lead Exposure Class Action for $67 Million
NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 1,047 NV200 Trucks Due to Tire Label Issues
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeal in Genaera Trust Suit Still Pending
OZ MINERALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
PREVOST: Recalls 34 X3-45 Coach Buses Due to Short Circuit Risk

QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Quality Candy Due to Undeclared Sulphites
REAL TIME: "Hurrle" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on FCC Petition
RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Plumber Sacked Over OSHA Asbestos Complaint
ROWE FINE: Recalls Ottomans Due to Risk of Suffocation
SCORES HOLDING: Goldring Note Balance Was $32,737 at Sept. 30

SINOTECH ENERGY: Court Dismisses "Athale" Class Action
SUN HING: Recalls Canadian Liver Pate Products
TIMMONSVILLE: "Desarno" Suit Remanded to S.C. State Court
TPUSA INC: Loses Bid to Block Certification in "Tanner" Suit
WELLS FARGO: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Transaction Fees

WHIRLPOOL CORP: High Court Allows Washer Class Actions to Proceed
WHITECAP INVESTMENT: "Chapin" Suit Remanded to Superior Court
ZIPCAR INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Vehicle Damage Policy

* Oregon District Attorneys Support Class Action Bill


                             *********


1196110 AB: Recalls Dry Garlic Ribs Due to Undeclared Mustard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           1196110 AB Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8668

The food recall warning issued on February 13, 2014 has been
updated to include additional products.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

1196110 AB Ltd. operating as Malley's Seafood is recalling
Malley's brand Dry Garlic Ribs from the marketplace because they
contain mustard and soy which are not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to mustard or soy should not consume the
recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

Affected products:
1362 g and 2.27 kg. Malley's Dry Garlic Ribs with all codes where
mustard and soy are not declared in the list of ingredients


ALAFAYA WOODS: Class Action Settlement Claim Forms Due on July 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If you were an owner of a single-family lot in the Alafaya Woods
Subdivision and were a member of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's
Association on July 18, 2001, you could receive benefits from a
class action settlement.

A settlement of a class action lawsuit may affect you if you were
an owner of a single-family lot in the Alafaya Woods Subdivision
located in the City of Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida, east of
SR 434 (Alafaya Trail) and south of Mitchell Hammock Road, and you
were a member of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association, all on
July 18, 2001.  This settlement will compensate people who were
owners and members at that specific time for the Florida
Department of Transportation's taking of your interests in the
common area of Alafaya Woods.  You may elect to refuse to
participate in this settlement, but your claims will be barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.

The Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Seminole County has ordered that this notice appear in a local
newspaper twice to notify class members of the class action
settlement.  The court has already held a hearing in which it
determined that the class action settlement was fair, equitable,
and just.

Who is affected?

Single-family lot owners who were members of the Alafaya Woods
Homeowner's Association on July 18, 2001 are included in the
settlement.

What is this about?

The lawsuit claimed that the Florida Department of Transportation
completed an inverse condemnation and exercised its eminent domain
powers over certain common areas in which the lot owners and
members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association have easement
interests and property rights.  Florida law holds that easement
holders have the right to be paid just compensation for these
easement interests.  The Florida Department of Transportation
denied any wrongdoing and asserted many defenses.  The settlement
is not an admission of any wrongdoing or an indication that any
law was violated.

What can you get from this settlement?

The lot owners and members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's
Association were awarded a lump sum amount of $1,460,000 which
includes administrative expenses to be incurred.  There were 2,231
lots on July 18, 2001.  Accordingly, this works out to an
estimated recovery of $654.41 per lot, minus administrative
expenses incurred in identifying class members and administering
the claims in the class action settlement.

How do you get a payment?

A detailed notice and claim form packet containing the necessary
documents to submit a claim will be sent to all reasonably
identifiable members of the class.  The claim form packet is
scheduled to be mailed on approximately March 10, 2014.
Additionally, you may call 407-542-1810 to request a claim form
packet.  Claim form packets will also be available at
www.AlafayaWoodsClassAction.com.  You will be required to provide
proof of identity and submit a properly completed claim form,
including a declaration of ownership of a single-family lot within
Alafaya Woods Subdivision prior to receiving any compensation.
Seminole County property records will be examined to confirm lot
ownership by class members.  Claim forms are due on or before
July 7, 2014.

What are your options?

If you do not wish to receive a payment, then you are not required
to do anything.  You may elect to refuse to participate in this
settlement, but your claims will be barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.  For more details, call 407-542-1812,
write to Alafaya Woods Class Action, c/o Defense Litigation Group,
Inc., 257 Plaza Drive Suite A, Oviedo, FL 32765, or visit
the website www.AlafayaWoodsClassAction.com.  The Alafaya Woods
Homeowner's Association will also hold a number of public
informational meetings regarding this class action settlement.


APPLE INC: Seeks Remand of E-Book Price-Fixing Suit to Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that
Apple is seeking to escape from New York.  Apple has moved to have
its pending state and class action trial over e-book price-fixing
damages remanded to the courts they originated in.  For the
consumer class action, that would mean a potential home court
advantage for Apple, as the case would be moved to the Northern
District of California, while the states' action could be moved to
the Western District of Texas.

In an order on Feb. 23, Judge Denise Cote set the deadline for any
opposition to Apple's suggestion of remanding the case for
March 7, with replies due March 14.

Citing a Supreme Court decision [Lexecon], Apple attorneys argue
that the case management order that brought the federal, state,
and class action cases together in New York applied to pretrial
activity only.  Thus, any upcoming damages trials in the consumer
and state actions should be moved from the Southern District of
New York (where Apple has not fared well so far) to Northern
California, where the first class action suit from Hagens Berman
was filed in 2011, and to the Western District of Texas, where the
states' action is based.

"The [New York] Court never entered an order consolidating the
class actions and States' action (except insofar as it overlapped
with the DOJ's liability case) for any purpose other than pretrial
proceedings," the Apple's brief states.  "[The New York] Court's
primary purpose, the coordination of consolidated pretrial
discovery in the State and class actions, is complete."

In addition to filing a motion to have the remaining damages
trials remanded to their original Northern California and Texas
jurisdictions, Apple filed its opposition to the state and
consumer class action motions for summary judgment.  That motion,
however, was filed under seal and is not yet public.

But while Apple did file its opposition to the plaintiffs' summary
judgment motions in New York, it also argued that the motions
present "questions of law closely intertwined with trial
proceedings," and therefore should not be decided by Judge Cote in
New York, but "by the court that will conduct the trial."

The filing acknowledges that Apple's remaining motion to dismiss
the class action case against it, as well as the plaintiff's
motion for class certification (which Apple has opposed) are still
pending before Judge Cote.  But after Judge Cote issues rulings on
those motions, Apple argues, any case going forward to trial
should be remanded to courts in Northern California and Texas
before April 11, 2014, when the parties are scheduled to submit
joint pretrial orders, as required by this Court's trial
procedures.

After that April 11 date, Apple maintains, all pretrial
proceedings will have "run their course," and it would be "an
exercise in futility for the parties to submit papers governing
the conduct of a trial over which this Court has no jurisdiction."

Currently, Apple is on track for a May, 2014 trial for damages,
following Judge Denise Cote's July, 2013 ruling that Apple was the
"ringmaster" of a conspiracy with five major publishers to fix
e-book prices.  The plaintiffs have put Apple's liability between
$697 million and $840 million.


AQUAFUCHSIA FOODS: Recalls Alfalfa Sprout With Touch of Radish
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Aquafuchsia Foods Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8662

Aquafuchsia Foods Inc. is recalling Aquafuchsia brand Salad plus
Alfalfa with a touch of radish! from the marketplace due to
possible Salmonella contamination.  Consumers should not consume
the recalled product.

The recalled product has been sold in Quebec.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick.  Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

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

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

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

Affected products: 125 g. Aquafuchsia Salad Plus - Alfalfa with a
touch of radish! with 0 551176 1 UPC


BANK OF AMERICA: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by Hausfeld LLP; Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP; and Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

If You Purchased Municipal Derivative Transactions from January 1,
1992 to August 18, 2011 You Could Get a Payment from a Class
Action Settlement

A partial Settlement has been reached with Bank of America, one of
the Defendants, in a class action lawsuit alleging price-fixing in
the sale of municipal derivatives transactions.  The case, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950, No. 08-
02516, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Class Members include all state, local and municipal government
entities, independent government agencies, quasi-government,
non-profit and private entities that purchased:

(a) By negotiation, competitive bidding or auction municipal
derivative transactions directly from an Alleged Provider
Defendant or Co-Conspirator, or through an Alleged Broker
Defendant or Co-Conspirator,

(b) Any time from January 1, 1992 through August 18, 2011 in the
U.S. and its territories or for delivery in the U.S. and its
territories.

A list of the Alleged Provider and Broker Defendants and Co-
Conspirators can be found at
http://www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.com

The Settlement affects only claims against Bank of America.  The
case is continuing against the other non-settling defendants.
Bank of America has paid $10 million into an escrow account and an
additional $10 million will be paid later.  Bank of America will
also provide information to the attorneys for the Class and
cooperate in connection with claims against the non-settling
defendants.

Class Members who wish to remain in the Settlement do not need to
do anything now.  If the Settlement is approved, they will need to
submit a claim form in order to receive a payment.  Claim forms
are not available right now.  Class Members can register on the
website to receive a claim form when it becomes available.  By
remaining in the Settlement, Class Members will give up the right
to sue Bank of America for the claims in this class action.
However, they will still have the right to exclude themselves from
any subsequent class that may be certified in the case.

Class Members who do not wish to participate in the Settlement
must send a written request to be excluded postmarked no later
than May 6, 2014.  Class Members who request to be excluded will
retain their right to sue Bank of America on their own for the
claims in this lawsuit.

Class Members who remain in the Class can object to or comment on
the Settlement.  They must file an objection with the Court and
deliver a copy to Class Counsel and Bank of America postmarked no
later than May 6, 2014.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Hausfeld LLP; Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP; and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as Class Counsel
to represent all members the Class.  Class Members who want to be
represented by their own lawyer may hire one at their own expense.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on June 6, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.
at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 to consider whether to
approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and
whether to approve Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of
litigation expenses.

Class Members or their lawyers may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing but they are not required to.  Class Members who want to
be heard by the Court must file a written request with the Court,
and deliver a copy to Class Counsel and Bank of America no later
than May 6, 2014.  The Court may change the time and date of the
hearing. Any change will be posted on the settlement website.

For more information on this lawsuit, Class Member rights, or to
obtain a list of defendants, call 1-877-310-0512, visit
http://www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.comor write to:
Municipal Derivatives Settlement, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., PO
Box 2500, Faribault, MN 55021-9500.


BCSB BANCORP: Faces Putative Stockholder Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
A purported stockholder of BCSB Bancorp Inc., on December 9, 2013,
filed a putative class action and derivative complaint making
various allegations against the Company relating to F.N.B.'s
proposed acquisition of BCSB Bancorp, according to the Company's
Form 8-K dated December 26, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 26, 2013.

BCSB Bancorp, Inc. ("BCSB Bancorp") and F.N.B. Corporation
("F.N.B.") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of June 13, 2013, pursuant to which F.N.B. is to acquire BCSB
Bancorp through the merger of BCSB Bancorp with and into F.N.B.,
with F.N.B. being the surviving corporation. F.N.B. and BCSB
Bancorp recently became aware that on December 9, 2013, a
purported stockholder of BCSB Bancorp filed a putative class
action and derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County, Maryland, captioned Darr v. BCSB Bancorp, Inc., et al., at
Case No. 03-C-13-014034, and naming as defendants BCSB Bancorp,
its board of directors and F.N.B. The lawsuit makes various
allegations against the defendants relating to F.N.B.'s proposed
acquisition of BCSB Bancorp, including that the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 19, 2013 in connection
with the proposed acquisition omits certain information allegedly
necessary for BCSB Bancorp's shareholders to make an informed vote
on the proposed transaction, that the director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to BCSB Bancorp in approving the proposed
transaction and that F.N.B. aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. The lawsuit generally seeks an injunction barring the
defendants from consummating the merger transaction.
Alternatively, if the companies complete the transaction before
the court enters judgment, the lawsuit seeks rescission of the
merger or, in the alternative, rescissory damages, an accounting
for all resulting damages and for all profits and any special
benefits defendants obtained as a result of the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty, and an award for the costs and expenses
incurred in the lawsuit, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Earlier, on June 21, 2013, the same plaintiff had filed a similar
action against the same defendants in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Case No. 24C13004131. The plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed that case without prejudice before filing a second case
against the same defendants alleging similar claims in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County, Case No. 03-C-13007839 OC. The
plaintiff also voluntarily dismissed its second complaint on
September 6, 2013.

F.N.B. and BCSB Bancorp believe the allegations in the recently
filed complaint are without merit and intend to defend vigorously
against the allegations in the complaint.

BCSB Bancorp Inc. is the holding company for Baltimore County
Savings Bank (the Bank). The Company's primary asset is its
investment in the Bank. The Company is engaged in the business of
directing, planning, and coordinating the business activities of
the Bank. The Bank is a community-oriented Maryland chartered
commercial bank dedicated to serving the financial service needs
of consumers and businesses within its market area, which consists
of the Baltimore metropolitan area. The Bank attracts deposits
from the general public and invests these funds in loans secured
by first mortgages on owner-occupied, single-family residences in
its market area and other real estate loans consisting of
commercial real estate loans, construction loans and single-family
rental property loans. The Bank also originates consumer loans and
commercial loans. Effective February 18, 2014, FNB Corp acquired
the entire share capital of BCSB Bancorp Inc.


BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL: Court Consolidated Suits v. Accentia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on December 4, 2013, ordered to consolidate the
purported class actions against Biovest International, Inc.'s
former parent corporation, Accentia, according to Biovest's Form
10-K filed on December 27, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013.

On July 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013, purported class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida (Tampa Division) against Biovest's former parent
corporation, Accentia, and several current and former directors
and officers of Biovest and Accentia (the "Class Action"). Biovest
was not named as a defendant in either complaint. The complaints
allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to make false
statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Accentia and/or
Biovest to fail to disclose material information, concerning the
results of the Phase III clinical trial of BiovaxID and status of
its approval by the FDA. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified
amount on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock of
Accentia or Biovest between July 24, 2008 and August 14, 2012 and
were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of common
stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations.  On
December 4, 2013 the District Court entered an Order consolidating
the Class Action cases and appointing a group of lead plaintiffs,
beginning a 45-day period during which a Consolidated Complaint
must be filed and served.

Biovest said that "Although the time to respond to this Class
Action complaint is still underway, our officers and directors
believe this litigation to be without merit, deny any wrongdoing
or liability and intend to vigorously defend the alleged claims."

Biovest International, Inc. (Biovest) operates through three
segments: Cell Culture Products and Services segment, Instruments
and Disposables segment and Therapeutic Vaccine. The Company's
Cell Culture Products and Services segment is engaged in the
production and contract manufacturing of biologic drugs and cell
production for research institutions worldwide. The Instruments
and Disposables segment is engaged in the development, manufacture
and marketing of patented cell culture systems, equipment and
consumable parts to pharmaceutical, diagnostic and biotechnology
companies, as well as research institutions worldwide. The
Therapeutic Vaccine segment is focused on developing BiovaxID. As
of September 30, 2011, Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. owned
approximately 62% of interest in the Company.


BLUESTERN BRANDS: Fingerhut Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyerandSettlements.com, reports a
potential Fingerhut Robocalling Class-Action Lawsuit has been
filed in US District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania.  The
named defendant is Bluestern Brands, doing business as Fingerhut.
The allegation is that Fingerhut initiated a series of automated
phone calls to the plaintiff's cell phone without the prior
consent of the plaintiff.

There are lots of other complaints out there involving Fingerhut
robocalls, or automated calling.  One respondent to a chat board
noted that Fingerhut had been "calling and harassing [my] wife who
has had a massive stroke over $19.17.  The total amount for the
product is 130.00+ interest!  It is difficult for my wife to
speak, yet this person insisted on talking to her and kept her on
the phone while he kept making mistakes concerning the issue.  She
cannot hold a phone at any length of time and speaking is
extremely hard for her.  We are on Social Security and send our
payments per money order, yet if it's not there on the date they
require, they call and harass my wife."

Another respondent who identifies himself as Don, of Missoula,
Montana, wrote on February 7 that he had tried to return an
appliance he purchased through Fingerhut after he found the same
item at another retailer for $100 less.  He waited a month
following his request for a copy of his bill, in addition to a
return label so he could ship the unwanted item back.  After more
than 30 days had elapsed, Don had yet to receive any needed
paperwork: "just over 50 phone calls at all hours from Fingerhut
collections, usually no one on line, silence, then quick busy.
The few times someone was on other end, they spoke
indistinguishable English and would not listen to my complaint.
The calls have come continuously for about a month."  After
finally getting through to someone at the corporate headquarters
at Fingerhut, Don was told that "I did receive too many calls, but
glitches in computer system happens so it is not their fault for
plus 50 calls even Sundays at 8 am with no one on the line, as
many as 5 in a day."

It's a common complaint, and the legal challenge is that Fingerhut
calls violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

It should be noted that as of February 21, 2014, Fingerhut was
tagged with an "A-Minus" rating with the Better Business Bureau
(BBB).  Of 1,629 complaints closed with the BBB in the last three
years, 640 of those complaints were closed in the past 12 months.
Of all the listed complaints, the majority at 766 were centered on
problems with a product or service.  However, the second-highest
level of complaints, numbering 596, was for billing and collection
issues.  Fingerhut robocalls were not broken out as a separate
category.

Ripoff Report, a popular consumer online complaint board, lists an
approximate total of 562 reports for Fingerhut.


BRP: Recalls Heated Gloves and Lithium-Ion Rechargeable Batteries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Posting date:             February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38049

Affected products: BRP Can-Am and Ski-Doo heated gloves and
lithium-ion rechargeable batteries

The recall involves BRP Can-Am and Ski-Doo heated gloves and
lithium-ion rechargeable batteries.  Both gloves are only
available in black.  The Can-Am gloves have "can-am" on the
pointer finger and on the wrist band of each glove.  The Ski-Doo
gloves have "ski-doo" on the pointer finger and wrist band of the
glove.  Both gloves come in sizes XS, S, M, L, XL, 2XL and 3XL.
The battery pack is wrapped in white plastic with black writing.

The recalled product codes are listed as:

   Product Name             Product Code    Product Description
  Can-Am heated gloves        446247      Sold with 2 Lithium-ion
                                          rechargeable batteries
                                          and charger
  Ski-Doo heated gloves       446248      Sold with 2 Liothium-ion
                                          rechargeable batteries
                                          and charger
  2 Lithium-ion
  rechargeable batteries     4880580001   Available separately as
                                          an addition to the
                                          batteries supplied with
                                          gloves

While charging, the lithium-ion rechargeable batteries can
overheat and pose a fire hazard.

BRP has received two reports of batteries overheating while
charging in Canada and one report in the United States.  In two
reports, there were minor property damages.  No injuries were
reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.

In Canada, 24 Can-Am gloves were sold, 1,026 Ski-Doo gloves were
sold and 154 additional rechargeable battery packs were sold.  In
the United States, 39 Can-Am gloves were sold, 356 Ski-Doo gloves
were sold and 54 additional battery packs were sold.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
August 2013 to February 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

  Distributor     BRP
                  Valcourt
                  Quebec
                  Canada

Consumers should disconnect all battery packs from the electrical
connections inside the gloves' battery pouches immediately and
avoid charging the battery packs.  Consumers should visit an
authorized BRP dealership and return all battery packs and charger
for a full reimbursement.  Consumers can keep the gloves.


BUCKSTONE INC: Recalls Jardine's and D.L. Jardine's Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Buckstone Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8670

Affected products:

   -- Jardine's 3 Compadres Sampler (gift basket) with
      0 22531 00035 9 UPC;

   -- D.L. Jardine's Queso Loco Cheese Salsa & Dip with
      0 22531 52300 1 UPC


BURNBRAE FARMS: Recalls Dried Whole Eggs
----------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Burnbrae Farms Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario


Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8672

Affected products: 22.7 kg. Burnbrae Farms Dried Whole Eggs with
Lot #3273 where "may contain milk" is not declared on the label


BUTLER COUNTY: Prison Employees' Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit captioned SANDRA J. BABCOCK
Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. BUTLER COUNTY, et al., Defendants, NO.
12CV394, (W.D. Penn.), the purported class, who are employees at a
Butler County prison, alleged that Defendants, Plaintiffs'
employers, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Specifically, the Plaintiffs, in their Amended Complaint, alleged
that the Defendants required them to take a one-hour meal break,
during which time the Plaintiffs were "on call" (requiring them to
remain within the prison and in their uniforms), and they were not
paid for fifteen minutes of their one-hour meal break.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented, and a
thorough analysis of the FLSA law specifically related to meal
periods, District Judge Arthur J. Schwab granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. In so doing, the Motion for
Collective Action Certification filed by Plaintiffs was denied as
moot.

Judge Schwab found that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for
which relief can be granted because the Defendants' payment to
Plaintiffs for 45 minutes of the 60 minute meal period complies
with the meal period regulation, set forth at 29 C.F.R. Section
785.19.

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Memorandum
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/KJhxJKfrom Leagle.com.


CATERPILLAR: Recalls CT660 Model Due Inoperative Brake
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           5
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014057
TC ID number:             2014057

On certain vehicles, brake s-cam bracket assemblies on the
steering axle could fracture, causing an inoperative brake on the
affected wheel end.  This could cause the vehicle to pull to one
side while braking and/or increase stopping distances, increasing
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will affect repairs.

Affected products: 2012, 2013 CATERPILLAR CT660


CC-PALO ALTO: Faces Class Action Over CCRC Entrance Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Gerace, writing for Senior Housing News, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed recently in California is raising
questions about the way continuing care retirement communities
handle entrance fees in cases where residents or their estates are
eventually repaid a portion of the upfront fee.

Residents of Vi at Palo Alto allege in a complaint that Vi
(formerly Classic Residences by Hyatt) transferred $190 million of
entrance fees to corporate parent CC-Development Group Inc.,
leaving those residents with no assurance they'll get their money
back.  The California community is now running a $300 million
deficit as a result, says the lawsuit, led by current resident Dr.
Burton Richter, a 1976 Nobel Laureate in Physics.

While in recent years some CCRCs have encountered difficulty
meeting current refund obligations, the Palo Alto plaintiffs are
preemptively suing over fears Vi won't be able to meet future
obligations, even though the community has to date repaid all its
obligations to residents, according to one of the company's
lawyers.

"Everyone who has made a claim for a refund [at Vi at Palo Alto]
has been paid in a timely manner," says Paul Gordon, partner at
HansonBridgett and part of Vi's counsel.  "The reserve
requirements under the law have been met or exceeded.  The
implication of failure to fund [entrance fee] reserves are wrong."

Vi's policy is to repay entrance fee obligations upon reselling a
unit to a new resident.  In other words, departing residents
aren't given a portion of the same entrance fee they originally
paid; rather, they are repaid through funds Vi receives in the
form of an incoming resident's entrance fee -- a standard practice
throughout the CCRC industry, Mr. Gordon notes.

The CCRC, which has 388 apartment units along with a 106-unit
healthcare center, is fully occupied with a waiting list, he says.

Once entrance fees are paid, they belong to Vi and can be
distributed to investors, as is the case at the Palo Alto
community, he continues, an action the plaintiffs are protesting.

"Dr. Richter was never informed that CC-Palo Alto intended to
transfer his entrance fees upstream to (CC-Development Group),"
says the complaint.  "Nor was he informed that CC-Palo Alto did
not intend to maintain cash reserves to cover its entrance fee
obligations.  Dr. Richter expected CC-Palo Alto would maintain
sufficient reserves."

Despite the transfer of those entrance fees, Vi does not
anticipate issues in meeting contractual obligations, the company
says.

For new contracts signed in the second half of 2012, Vi at Palo
Alto must have a refund reserve of about 15% per contract, but
according to Mr. Gordon, considering the community's high
occupancy and historical performance, there's only a small chance
the reserve will be necessary.

The class action lawsuit also alleges that Vi at Palo Alto is
inflating monthly service fees by charging residents for items not
contractually specified.  However, the contract all residents sign
says that all costs of operating the community will be paid by
monthly fees, rather than entrance fees, including property taxes
and marketing expenses, according to Mr. Gordon.  Still, he says
Vi has made some temporary concessions pending a property tax
appeal in an effort to satisfy residents.

CC-Palo Alto, Inc., does business as Vi at Palo Alto.


COBB ELECTRIC: Judge Approves $100-Mil. Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Wiley, writing for Cherokee Tribune, reports that a
four-year battle a judge called "trench warfare at its worst" over
a class-action lawsuit alleging that Cobb Electric Membership
Corp. withheld millions of dollars from customers ended on
Feb. 25.

Cobb Superior Court Judge Stephen Schuster signed off on the $100
million settlement on Feb. 25 that is the largest class-action
settlement in Cobb County's history.

Cobb EMC is a nonprofit owned by its 175,000 customers, called
"members," and is accused of failing to return excess revenues to
customers.

The suit says that $286 million should have been returned to
members but instead was kept.  An estimated 900,000 customers are
now owed money.  The EMC has offered a settlement to pay $98
million, about one-third of what the suit says it owes.

At the end of each year, the EMC places its excess revenue in a
capital account where it is assigned to the members based on how
much electricity they use.

Until the lawsuit was filed in 2010, the last time Cobb EMC
refunded capital credits to its members was in 1976, when it
returned $500,000.

Payouts range from fewer than $100 to several million dollars.
Members can choose to receive an immediate payout of a portion of
their capital credits or to receive the full amount on a yearly
basis over 24 years.

The Cobb Board of Education has been offered the largest payout.
It opted to take an immediate lump sum of $1.8 million.  If the
board had chosen to receive payments over 24 years, it would have
received $5.15 million.

The district isn't sure yet how it will spend the cash or when it
will receive a check, said school board Chairwoman Kathy
Angelucci, who sat in court Tuesday next to Vice Chairman
Randy Scamihorn.

Still, it's a needed boost for the school system facing an $80
million shortfall.

The Cobb Board of Commissioners is another top customer offered a
lump sum of almost $1.6 million or a staggered payment of $4.9
million.

The Cherokee County Water Authority, Cherokee Board of Education
and city of Powder Springs are among other government entities
that will get a refund.

"These public entities have benefitted very much so from this
litigation," said Hylton Dupree, attorney for current EMC members,
of Marietta-based Dupree & Kimbrough LLP.

Nonprofits will also get a check.  The YMCA of Cobb has been
offered a one-time payout of $38,419 or $182,084 over 24 years.

Cobb EMC will pay $19.8 million in attorneys' fees.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Former Pilots File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. on Feb. 25
disclosed that six former Continental Airlines pilots who now work
for the merged United Airlines have filed a class-action lawsuit
against their own union on Feb. 25 based on claims their seniority
was unfairly stripped when the two airlines merged in 2010.

The lawsuit accuses the Air Line Pilots Association, International
(ALPA) of breaching its duty of fair representation to the former
Continental pilots by stripping their seniority in favor of a
larger group of pilots who worked for United before the merger.
For pilots, seniority controls pay, rank, schedule, flight routes,
types of aircraft flown, and job security in recession layoffs.
The lawsuit says ALPA sacrificed member interests to pursue its
controversial goal of achieving monopoly status as the only union
available to every airline pilot in North America.

The former Continental pilots say ALPA favored the United pilots
because there were more of them and because the United pilots had
enough votes to switch to a different union if they didn't get
their way.  In 2005, ALPA lost many of its members when U.S.
Airways and America West merged. In that merger, ALPA provided
favorable seniority for America West pilots only to see the larger
group of U.S. Airways pilots lead the switch to a new union.

"This union had been burned once before and, instead of seeking a
fair resolution for all its members, it ignored its duty to be
fair by repeatedly poisoning the process simply to favor the side
with more political clout.  This caused enormous loss to the
former Continental pilots," says Adam Milasincic --
amilasincic@azalaw.com -- an attorney in Houston's Ahmad,
Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, or AZA who is representing
the former Continental pilots with firm partner Joseph Ahmad and
Houston attorney Howard Dulmage of The Law Offices of Howard T.
Dulmage, PLLC.

After the merger of Continental and United, ALPA sponsored
arbitration to combine the airlines' pilot seniority lists.  The
lawsuit says ALPA skewed the arbitration's result in numerous
ways, such as assisting the United pilots with discovery, and even
paying a witness to appear for the United pilots.

The lawsuit cites the union's adoption of a seniority formula that
favored the United pilots over their peers at Continental,
including using factually incorrect information to further skew
the seniority results, which caused the former Continental pilots
to lose years -- and in some cases decades -- of seniority. As a
result, the former Continental pilots are asking a federal judge
to scrap the arbitration results and order ALPA to restart the
process of combining the airlines' pilot seniority lists with no
favoritism toward pilots who worked for United before the merger.

The lawsuit is Michael Carr; Gregory Kathan; Kelly L'Roy; Perry
Meier; Charles Mulhall; and Scott Mund, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated v. Air Line Pilots Association,
International, No. 4:14-cv-00451, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.  The web site
http://www.LegacyCALPilots.comhas been established to track the
lawsuit's progress.

Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., or AZA, --
http://www.azalaw.com-- is a Houston-based law firm that is home
to true courtroom lawyers with a formidable track record in
complex commercial litigation, including energy, intellectual
property, securities fraud, construction and business dispute
cases.  AZA is recognized by Chambers USA 2014 as among the best
in Texas commercial law and by U.S. News & World Report and The
Best Lawyers in America as one of the country's best commercial
litigation firms in the 2014 listing of the nation's leading law
firms.  National corporate counsel named AZA one of the country's
best in client service among law firms serving the Fortune 1000.
AZA has been hired on many occasions by the same companies the
firm has prevailed against at trial.

For more information on the class-action lawsuit filed by the
former Continental pilots, please contact Mary Flood at
800-559-4534 or mary@androvett.com


CREIG NORTHROP: Class Action Over Alleged Kickbacks Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Harney, writing for Inman News, reports that at the end of
January, a U.S. District Court in Maryland certified a major
class-action suit against the Creig Northrop Team P.C., which is
affiliated with Long & Foster Real Estate Inc.  The Northrop Team
was ranked No. 2 in the U.S. last year and No. 1 the year before
in transaction volume by the Wall Street Journal and REAL Trends
Inc.

The class certified by the court is potentially large -- all
purchasers from Jan. 1, 2008, up to the present who have engaged
the Creig Northrop Team and a defendant title insurance agency in
connection with their transactions.

The case (Patrick Baehr et al. v. The Creig Northrop Team P.C. et
al.) was filed last year and alleged that the Northrop group
received more than $500,000 in kickbacks in violation of RESPA
from Lakeview Title Co. Inc. over a period of years.

RESPA prohibits payments between realty service providers in
exchange for referrals of business.  The suit claimed that
Northrop engaged in two illegal schemes -- "a sham employment
agreement and a sham marketing agreement to generate unearned fees
and kickbacks."

The lawsuit seeks $11.2 million in compensatory damages, plus
"three times the actual damages awarded," and "treble damages for
settlement services charged by Long & Foster."

The Northrop Team denied these claims and sought dismissal of the
case and rejection of the request for class-action certification.
Greg Lawrence and Glen Donaldson, attorneys representing the
plaintiffs, declined to discuss the substance of the case but
welcomed the class certification decision by the court.

According to the suit, Patrick and Christian Baehr purchased a
home through the Northrop Team in 2008 and were referred to
Lakeview Title for their title insurance and settlement services.
Unknown to the Baehrs, according to the suit, the defendants had
created a sham employment agreement between the title agency and
Carla Northrop, Creig's wife, "to disguise payments of illegal
referral fees."

Northrop and Lakeview allegedly also created a marketing agreement
under which Northrop would designate Lakeview as its exclusive
provider of title and settlement services.  In exchange for this
endorsement, the title company paid Northrop $6,000 a month for
what the court called "mostly unspecified" marketing services,
although actual payments varied and reached as high as $12,000 a
month, according to the suit.

However, the court said in its summary, there is no record of "any
real joint marketing services reasonably related to actual amounts
paid by Lakeview."

Under RESPA, realty and other firms covered by the law can conduct
joint promotions, but the parties must each contribute substantive
services to justify any compensation.  Also, any payments made
from one party to another must bear some reasonable relationship
to the value of the actual services provided.

Marx Sterbcow, a RESPA attorney based in New Orleans, said the
district court's willingness to "quickly" certify the class action
should refocus the realty brokerage industry's attention on the
potential legal vulnerability of some of their long-standing
business arrangements with affiliates.


DELANO FARMS: Court Partially Decertifies Class in Arredondo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the defendants' motions for decertification in the case
captioned SABAS ARREDONDO et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELANO FARMS CO.,
et al., Defendants, NO. 1:09-CV-01247 MJS, (E.D. Cal.).

On April 19, 2011, the Court granted, in part, the motion of
Plaintiffs Sabas Arrendondo, Jose Cuevas, Hilario Gomez, Irma
Landeros and Rosalba Landeros seeking class certification pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On March 22,
2013, the Defendants filed separate motions for decertification of
the class.

In his ruling, Judge Seng decertified the post-work and tray
washing subclasses.  The Court certified the following pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3):

All non-exempt agricultural employees of DELANO FARMS COMPANY,
CAL-PACIFIC FARM MANAGEMENT, L.P., and T&R BANGI'S AGRICULTURAL
SERVICES, INC. who performed field work at Delano Farms in
California from four years prior to the filing of this action to
the present, excluding irrigators, tractor drivers, swampers, and
workers employed only in cold-storage." The class will be divided
into these subclasses:

(1) Field workers who performed uncompensated and unrecorded work
     before the fixed start time in the harvest and pre-harvest
     work.

(2) Field workers who incurred unreimbursed necessary tools
     expenses in the harvest and pre-harvest work.

(3) Field workers who, due to the violations claimed in the pre-
     shift work subclass, received an inaccurate itemized wage
     statement.

(4) Field workers who were not paid wages within 72 hours of
     their termination and who qualify as a member of the pre-
     shift work subclass.

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's February 20, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/5UMxw2from Leagle.com.


EQUAL ENERGY: Facing Lawsuit Due to Petroflow Arrangement
---------------------------------------------------------
Equal Energy Ltd., on December 26, 2013, was served with a
putative class action lawsuit alleging that the members of Equal's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Equal's
shareholders in connection with Petroflow Energy Corporation's
acquisition of Equal's outstanding common shares, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated December 26, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2013.

On December 26, 2013, Equal Energy Ltd. was served with a
Complaint related to a putative class action lawsuit that has been
filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County in the State of
Oklahoma. The complaint, which names as defendants Equal, members
of Equal's board of directors, Petroflow Energy Corporation
("Petroflow") and Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp. ("Petroflow
Sub"), alleges that in connection with the recently announced
proposed acquisition of the outstanding common shares of Equal by
Petroflow (the "Arrangement"), the members of Equal's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Equal's shareholders
in connection with the Arrangement. The Complaint further claims
that Equal, Petroflow and Petroflow Sub aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Complaint generally
alleges that the Arrangement involves an unfair price, unfair
sales process, self-dealing and unfairly preclusive deal
protection devices. The plaintiff in the action seeks injunctive
relief, including to enjoin the Arrangement, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs. Equal and the other
defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint.

Equal also understands that three other Complaints related to
putative class action lawsuits arising from the Arrangement have
been filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County in the State
of Oklahoma.

One of these additional Complaints, which has not yet been served
on Equal, names as defendants Equal, members of Equal's board of
directors, and Petroflow, and alleges that in connection with the
Arrangement, the members of Equal's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Equal's shareholders in connection with
the Arrangement. The Complaint further claims that Equal and
Petroflow aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. The Complaint generally alleges that the Arrangement
involves an unfair price, unfair sales process, self-dealing and
unfairly preclusive deal protection devices. The plaintiff in the
action seeks injunctive relief, including preliminary and final
injunctions against completion of the Arrangement, compensatory
damages suffered as a result of the defendants' wrongful conduct,
and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs. Equal and the
other defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint.

The second of these additional Complaints, which has not yet been
served on Equal, names as defendants Equal, members of Equal's
board of directors, Petroflow and Petroflow Sub, and alleges that
in connection with the Arrangement, the members of Equal's board
of directors (i) breached their fiduciary duties to Equal's
shareholders in connection with the Arrangement and (ii)
"oppressed" Equal's minority shareholders in violation of the
Alberta Business Corporations Act. The Complaint generally alleges
that the Arrangement involves an unfair price, unfair sales
process, self-dealing and unreasonable deal protection devices.
The plaintiff in the action seeks injunctive relief, including
preliminary and final injunctions against completion of the
Arrangement or any step in furtherance of its completion,
compensatory damages, and an award of attorneys' and other fees
and costs. Equal and the other defendants have not yet responded
to the Complaint.

As of the date of this Report, the third additional outstanding
Complaint was not yet available for review from the Court and has
not yet been served on Equal.

Equal Energy Ltd. (Equal) is an exploration and production company
with oil and gas properties located principally in Alberta, and
Oklahoma. Equal is engaged in the exploration for, and
acquisition, development and production of, petroleum and natural
gas with operations in western Canada and Oklahoma. During the
year ended December 31, 2011, production averaged 10,142 barrel of
oil equivalent per day and consisted of approximately 47% natural
gas, 23% crude oil and 30% natural gas liquids. Equal Energy
Production Partnership (EEPP) holds all of its Canadian oil and
gas properties and associated assets. Equal and Equal Energy
Partner Corp., are the partners in EEPP and respectively hold a
99.9957% and 0.0043% interest in EEPP. On October 15, 2012, it
sold the Halkirk/Alliance/Wainwright/Clair Assets (HAWC) and all
remaining Canadian non-producing assets. Effective October 1,
2012, the Company sold its Lochend Cardium assets.


FEDERAL MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Underinsured Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Brakken, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
a Philadelphia couple has filed a class action lawsuit over claims
they are owed underinsured benefits.

Terry Easterday and Linda Easterday, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against The
Federated Mutual Insurance Co., citing breach of contract and
violation of the Pennsylvania Bad Faith Statute.

The complaint states that on May 3, 2010, and Aug. 18, 2011,
Terry Easterday was involved in motor vehicle collisions with
underinsured drivers and was driving a vehicle insured by the
defendant at the time of the accident.  After making claims and
receiving payments from the other drivers' insurance companies,
the plaintiffs sought underinsured coverage from the defendant,
according to the complaint.  The complaint says the defendant
failed to pay underinsured motorist benefits to the plaintiffs,
saying they waived underinsured motorist coverage under a
"rejection of underinsured motorist coverage" clause.

The plaintiffs claim the rejection of underinsured motorist
coverage form does not specifically comply with the requirements
of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law,
and therefore the defendant is required to pay
uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits due under certain
automobile policies.

The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief and damages,
including punitive damages, costs and fees.  They are being
represented by James C. Haggerty -- jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com --
of Haggerty, Goldberg, Schleifer & Kupersmith PC and James D.
Hagelgans of Hagelgans & Veronis LLP.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case ID. 140201215.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: "Henson" Suit Moved to Calif. Central Dist.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order
transferring venue of the case captioned MELISSA HENSON and KEITH
TURNER, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 1:13-CV-01452-AWI-JLT, (E.D. Cal.) to the Central District of
California.

This class action alleges violations of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The Defendant
filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(3) challenging venue. The Defendant requested that the Court
transfer this action to the Central District of California
pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a) or 1404(a).
Alternatively, the Defendant contended that this action should be
dismissed pursuant to the 12(b)(6) motion.

Transferring Plaintiff Henson's RESPA claims to the CDC is in the
interest of justice. Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the
CDC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) is granted as to
Plaintiff Henson's claims," ruled Judge Ishii.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice.

A copy of the District Court's February 18, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/kqsFgcfrom Leagle.com.


FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES: Settled Minimum Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc., has settled a lawsuit alleging that
it has violated the Florida Minimum Wage Act, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on December 27, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 28, 2013.

The Company states: "During the 3rd quarter of our fiscal year
2011, suit was filed against us alleging that we charge employees
for required uniforms in violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act
of the Florida Constitution. Subsequent to the end of our fiscal
year 2013, the Plaintiff's motion to certify the suit as a class
action was denied by the Court and we settled the lawsuit. This
lawsuit was uninsured and the settlement did not have a material
effect on us."

Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. operates in South Florida as a chain
of full-service restaurants and package liquor stores. The Company
conducts its business through two segments: the restaurant segment
and the package liquor store segment. At September 28, 2013, it
operated 25 units, of restaurants, package liquor stores and
combination restaurants/package liquor stores that it either owns
or have operational control over and partial ownership in; owned
but not operated one adult entertainment club, and franchised an
additional five units, consisting of one restaurant and four
combination restaurants/package liquor stores. The Company holds
four types of units: Company Owned, Company Managed, Company owned
Club and Franchised.


FORGE GROUP: Class Action Call Gets 150 Inquiries
-------------------------------------------------
Babs McHugh, writing for ABC Rural, reports that a call for
shareholders to join a class action against engineering and
construction company Forge Group has so far received 150
inquiries.

Litigation specialists Bentham IMF says they were mainly retail
shareholders, known as 'mums and dads investors'.

Forge went into receivership on February 13, with a total debt of
more than $800 million.

About 1,600 workers were sacked, most of them in Western
Australia.

Bentham IMF will allege that the directors failed to meet their
continuous disclosure obligations, misled the market and engaged
in misleading and deceptive conduct.


FRED DEELEY: Recalls 297 Motorcycles Due to Programming Error
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights and Instruments
Units affected:           297
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014058
TC ID number:             2014058
Manufacturer recall
number:                   0615

Certain motorcycles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices.
Due to a programming error in the body control module, the brake
lamp lit area may be less than what is allowable by the standard.
This could render the vehicle less visible to other motorists,
possibly resulting in a crash causing property damage and/or
personal injury.

Correction: Dealers will correctly reprogram the settings in the
body control module.

Affected products:

  Maker                Model             Model Year(s) Affected
  -----                -----             ----------------------
  HARLEY-DAVIDSON    SOFTAIL SLIM         2014
  HARLEY-DAVIDSON    SOFTAIL BREAKOUT     2014


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 82,545 HHR, ION, SKY and SOLSTICE Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           82545
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014060
TC ID number:             2014060
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14063

On certain vehicles, a defect in the ignition switch could allow
the switch to move out of the "run" position if the key ring is
carrying added weight and the vehicle goes off-road or is
subjected to some other jarring event.  The timing of the key
movement out of the run position, relative to the activation of
the sensing algorithm of the crash event, may result in the
airbags not deploying, increasing the risk of injury.

Dealers will replace the ignition switch.

Note: Until the correction is performed, all items should be
removed from the key ring.

Note: This is an expansion of recall 2014-038.

Affected products:

  Maker        Model           Model Year(s) Affected
  -----        -----           ----------------------
  SATURN        ION            2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
  SATURN        SKY            2007
  PONTIAC       SOLSTICE       2006, 2007
  CHEVROLET     HHR            2006, 2007


GOOGLE INC: Judge Koh Grills Plaintiff Lawyers in Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District
Judge Lucy Koh voiced concerns about allowing legions of email
users to band together with claims that Google Inc. violated their
privacy by automatically scanning Gmail messages.

At a hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on Feb. 27, Judge Koh grilled plaintiffs lawyers on
issues ranging from how they will determine who belongs in the
proposed classes to how they will demonstrate what email users
collectively knew about Google's policies.  Google insists that
email scanning is common knowledge.  But plaintiffs claim Google
has not publicly explained how it intercepts messages to help sell
ads, and they accuse the company of violating the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and a handful of state privacy laws.

Arguing the motion before Judge Koh, Sean Rommel --
srommel@wylyrommel.com -- of Wyly-Rommel said the plaintiffs have
retooled their theory to focus on "Content One Box," a little-
known tool that Google allegedly uses to extract information from
users' messages.  Judge Koh was perplexed by the shift in the
plaintiffs' arguments.  She allowed them to move forward with most
of their claims in September, denying Google's motion to dismiss
the case.

"Your position sounds completely different than what you
previously argued to me on the motion to dismiss," she said.

Google lawyer Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- of Cooley
seconded Judge Koh's frustrations.  He told her he'd prepared a
list of every time the plaintiffs have adjusted their proposed
class definitions.

"They've changed their theory so many times that we got dizzy," he
said.

Many in the Valley are closely watching In re Google Gmail
Litigation, 13-2430, which has spawned similar email privacy suits
against Yahoo Inc. and LinkedIn Corp.  The cases threaten to deal
painful financial blows to tech companies if plaintiffs lawyers
prevail.  ECPA allows for damages of as much as $10,000 per
violation, with classes of users potentially numbering in the
millions.

Plaintiffs lawyers at Texas' Wyly-Rommel and Alabama's Cory Watson
Crowder and DeGaris want Judge Koh to bless a sweeping class of
non-Gmail users who have sent or received emails from people who
use the service, as well as classes of minors, Google Apps for
Education users, Cable One users and several state classes.

Plaintiffs claim their case is tailor-made for class
certification.

"The uniform nature of Google's secret content extraction,
acquisition, and use practices -- practices that are not necessary
for or part of the Gmail delivery process -- and Google's failure,
through its uniform disclosures, to truthfully and adequately
inform consumers about these secret and unlawful privacy
violations, make this case perfectly suited for class treatment,"
Mr. Rommel wrote in court papers.

But Mr. Rhodes argued that the case will require investigations
into how much each user knew about Google's practices, making it
inappropriate for class certification.  He noted that the media
had widely reported Google's scanning of messages to target
advertisements before the complaint was filed.

"There is a body of people in the class who have . . . actual
knowledge of what's actually going on, and they have accepted that
as a fair trade-off," he said.

Mr. Rhodes added that verifying which users belong to more
specific classes, such as for minors, could prove problematic
because users self-report their backgrounds to Google.  He
insisted that plaintiffs have yet to explain how they would sift
through hundreds of millions of email users to determine who truly
belongs in the classes.

"What you have here are lawyers who keep promising and promising
and promising that we have a way to do it, it can be done,"
Mr. Rhodes said.  "The burden is on them to show that they have a
workable process."

Judge Koh pressed Mr. Rommel about how plaintiffs would treat
users who use Gmail as well as another email provider.

"How are we supposed to make sure that our classes aren't over-
inclusive?" she asked.

Mr. Rommel brushed aside concerns about determining class
membership and said any burden on Google was justified: "It's not
an extraordinary process if the company violates the law to get us
there."


HAZELWOOD: Morwell Residents Mull Class Action Over Mine Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Savage, writing for ABC News, reports that Morwell locals
are gathering evidence for a possible class action as Premier
Denis Napthine visits the town, which has been engulfed in fire
smoke since February 9.

The Hazelwood open cut mine fire, which has been choking the town
for two-and-a-half weeks, could take months to extinguish.  As
crews continue to face challenges battling the mine blaze, there
is growing panic in the town about the possible long-term health
impacts of the smoke.  Morwell residents living with smoke, fumes
and falling ash from the fire say they have had enough.  Residents
are being told they will not suffer any health problems from
short-term exposure to the fine particles in the smoke.

Health risks travel further than flames

It is not just those living in areas directly affected by
bushfires who need to be aware of the dangers of the smoke.
However, Ambulance Victoria and police are warning their female
staff to stay away from the fire front if they are pregnant or
trying to conceive.

Council workers have also been going door-to-door in Morwell to
check how residents are coping.  Authorities are adamant there is
no risk to the public and say any plans to evacuate Morwell are a
long way from being put into action.

Victoria's chief health officer Rosemary Lester says an evacuation
plan has been prepared, just in case.

"We've been keeping a very close eye on the carbon monoxide and
that has not been a level of concern, which is good," she said.

But she was unable to say what would be considered as "long-term"
exposure.

"That's something we're continuing to take advice from national
and international experts," she said.

Crews had hoped to have fire out within a fortnight

Authorities repeatedly had hoped the coal mine fire would be
extinguished within 10 to 12 days.  But the Fire Services
Commissioner concedes it could take months.

"It's got the potential to be that.  This is the best case
scenario, 14 days," he said.

But hot and windy weather forecast for March 5 and March 6 could
set the firefighting effort back further.

About 200 firefighters have been battling the blaze since it
started.  They have had to work short shifts because of the carbon
monoxide in the area.  So far 20 firefighters have been treated.

Locals consider possible class action against mine

Hundreds of locals were expected to go to a protest meeting in
Morwell on March 2, where they plan to gather evidence for a
potential class action against the mine's owner.  Organizer
Nerissa Albon says a social media campaign has attracted an
enormous response and she is expecting a big turn-out.

"We're going to collect data to find out whose businesses are
suffering and what are the health issues," she said.

"They're scared, they're starting to get annoyed now . . . .
nobody can say when it's going to finish, it could go on for
months," she said.  "They would want compensation."

She has also invited the mine owners to attend the March 2
meeting, but has yet to receive any response.

Premier Napthine visited a health assessment centre in Morwell on
Feb. 26.  One of his MPs, Russell Northe, has hit out at a lack of
information in the early stages of the crisis.


HERSHEY CO: Judge Tosses 91 Chocolate Price-Fixing Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the makers of three-quarters of America's chocolate --
Hershey, Mars and Nestle -- got a federal judge in Harrisburg,
Pa., to toss 91 cases claiming that the companies fixed prices
between 2002 and 2007.  The defense firms behind the Feb. 26
ruling include Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Mayer Brown (for
Nestle USA Inc.; Kirkland & Ellis (for The Hershey Company and
Hershey Canada Inc;); and McDermott Will & Emery (for Mars Inc.).

The allegations, brought by dozens of grocery stores and direct
purchasers that bought chocolate during that time period, were
based largely on a parallel investigation in Canada, which led to
a guilty plea by Hershey Canada last year and has charges pending
against the Canadian affiliates of Mars and Nestle.

"Initially, plaintiffs' claims of a domestic price-fixing
conspiracy were quite plausible," said U.S. District Chief Judge
Christopher C. Conner of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in In
re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation.  "The Canadian
trade spend conspiracy raised the specter of Sherman Act
violations in our contiguous marketplace.  Litigation and merits
discovery properly ensued.  But, at the end of the day, the
probata could not match the allegata."

Mr. Conner held oral arguments on the six motions to dismiss in
the multidistrict litigation in October and was told by the
parties the following month that the final court-ordered mediation
session hadn't resulted in an agreement.  He granted all six
motions for summary judgment on Feb. 26.

"Specifically, plaintiffs contend that defendants were in
possession of one another's pricing information prior to formal
price increase announcements and, spurred by the success of a
price-fixing conspiracy among their affiliates in Canada, tacitly
agreed to follow in lockstep any list price increases initiated by
competitors," Mr. Conner said.

Noting that years of litigation and extensive discovery had fully
developed the record, Mr. Conner said the "plaintiffs cannot
establish that defendants' actions were more likely than not the
result of concerted and collusive action."

The plaintiffs identified price increases in 2002, 2004 and 2007
as incidents that demonstrate price-fixing among America's biggest
chocolate producers.  Hershey holds 42 percent of the domestic
market, Mars has 28 percent and Nestle has 8 percent, according to
the opinion.  Although it's third in the United States, Nestle is
the market leader in Canada, Mr. Conner said in a footnote.

Having explained that regular candy bars are called "singles" and
king-sized bars are called "kings," both of which fall into the
category of immediate consumption products, Mr. Conner said, "It
is undisputed that from 2002 through 2007, the period in which
defendants allegedly conspired to raise the prices of singles and
kings, the average market cost for cocoa increased by 53 percent."

Other than immediate-consumption goods, there are future-
consumption goods, which include bags of small candies called
"bite-size" or "miniature."  Singles and kings are typically
consumed immediately after purchase, while bags of small candies
are usually consumed at a date later than when they are purchased.

In December 2002, Mars was the first to raise the price of its
singles by 3.5 cents.  Two days later, Hershey increased its
prices by the same amount and later that month Nestle raised its
price by 3.3 cents, according to the opinion.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Moved to Dismiss Amended Pension Fund Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company on October 24, 2013, moved to dismiss a
pension fund's amended putative securities class action alleging
violations of HP's Standards of Business Conduct, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on December 30, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2013.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On
February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013. A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was
scheduled for January 23, 2014.

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises, including customers in the Government, health and
education sectors. Its operations are organized into seven
segments: the Personal Systems Group (PSG), Services, the Imaging
and Printing Group (IPG), Enterprise Servers, Storage and
Networking (ESSN), HP Software, HP Financial Services (HPFS) and
Corporate Investments. The Company's offerings include personal
computing and other access devices; multi-vendor customer
services, including infrastructure technology and business process
outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application
development and support services and consulting and integration
services, and imaging and printing-related products and services.
In January 2014, Qualcomm Inc acquired a patent portfolio from
Hewlett-Packard Company.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Narrows Autonomy Acquisition Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on November 26, 2013, granted, in part, and denied,
in part, Hewlett-Packard Company's motion to dismiss the complaint
alleging that the Company made false statements related to its
acquisition of Autonomy, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on December 30, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013.

In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated
putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011
to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and
making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy
and the financial performance of HP's enterprise services
business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material information and
making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy
and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by
engaging in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, HP
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part
HP's motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed against HP and
Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements and/or omissions
made on or after May 23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the
plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged statements and/or
omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012.

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises, including customers in the Government, health and
education sectors. Its operations are organized into seven
segments: the Personal Systems Group (PSG), Services, the Imaging
and Printing Group (IPG), Enterprise Servers, Storage and
Networking (ESSN), HP Software, HP Financial Services (HPFS) and
Corporate Investments. The Company's offerings include personal
computing and other access devices; multi-vendor customer
services, including infrastructure technology and business process
outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application
development and support services and consulting and integration
services, and imaging and printing-related products and services.
In January 2014, Qualcomm Inc acquired a patent portfolio from
Hewlett-Packard Company.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Commenced Mediation in "Gammel" WebOS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company on December 3, 2013, commenced mediation
with plaintiffs before a private mediator regarding a putative
securities class action alleging, among other things, that the
Company made false statements about its business model, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 30, 2013, with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2013.

Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative
securities class action filed on September 13, 2011 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010 to
August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making
false statements about HP's business model, the future of the
webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing and
integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC. On
April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended
complaint. On October 19, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint asserting the same causes of action but dropping one of
the defendants and shortening the period that the alleged
violations of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011 to
August 18, 2011. On December 3, 2012, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. On May 8, 2013, the court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
As a result of the court's ruling, the alleged class period in the
action runs from June 1, 2011 to August 18, 2011. The parties
commenced mediation before a private mediator on December 3, 2013.

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises, including customers in the Government, health and
education sectors. Its operations are organized into seven
segments: the Personal Systems Group (PSG), Services, the Imaging
and Printing Group (IPG), Enterprise Servers, Storage and
Networking (ESSN), HP Software, HP Financial Services (HPFS) and
Corporate Investments. The Company's offerings include personal
computing and other access devices; multi-vendor customer
services, including infrastructure technology and business process
outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application
development and support services and consulting and integration
services, and imaging and printing-related products and services.
In January 2014, Qualcomm Inc acquired a patent portfolio from
Hewlett-Packard Company.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Moved to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company on August 16, 2013, filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the Company
failed to restrict 401(k) participants from investing in HP stock,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 30, 2013,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2013.

In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative
class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to
November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby
violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative
information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and
HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict
participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises, including customers in the Government, health and
education sectors. Its operations are organized into seven
segments: the Personal Systems Group (PSG), Services, the Imaging
and Printing Group (IPG), Enterprise Servers, Storage and
Networking (ESSN), HP Software, HP Financial Services (HPFS) and
Corporate Investments. The Company's offerings include personal
computing and other access devices; multi-vendor customer
services, including infrastructure technology and business process
outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application
development and support services and consulting and integration
services, and imaging and printing-related products and services.
In January 2014, Qualcomm Inc acquired a patent portfolio from
Hewlett-Packard Company.


HOECHST CELANESE: Seeks Dismissal of Chemical Spill Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Kitzmiller, writing for GoUpstate.com, reports that
attorneys for several companies accused of contaminating ground
and surface water with cancer-causing chemicals are petitioning
the court to dismiss the federal class action lawsuit against
them.

In January, Jay Easler, with representation by the Louthian and
Harpootlian law firms, filed a class action law suit on behalf of
the residents in Cannon's Campground and other communities
surrounding the old Hoechst Celanese industrial site.

The lawsuit alleges Hoechst Celanese and more than a dozen
companies that have owned or operated on the site released a list
of chemicals into the water system both by dumping into waterways
and by seepage into the ground water.  The suit claims the
pollution has diminished property values and caused a variety of
illnesses in residents over several decades.

The motion for dismissal, filed in Greenville, asks Judge
Timothy M. Cain to dismiss the suit on several grounds.  First,
attorneys for Hoechst Celanese said the suit failed to prove an
"imminent and substantial danger to health or the environment."
Despite dozens of pages outlining chemical spills and discharges
cited in reports from the S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control, the motion claims the chemicals have not
caused harm to Mr. Easler or the community.

While the suit describes a plume of groundwater contamination from
the site, private testing wells dug on Mr. Easler's property did
not produce toxic levels of the chemicals alleged to have been
discharged from the site, according to the motion.


HOME DEPOT: Bid to Remand "Bell" Suit to Superior Court Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in SANDY BELL and MARTIN GAMA, individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware corporation; JOHN BROOKS, an individual; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-02499-GEB-CKD,
(E.D. Cal.) filed a motion on November 5, 2012, to remand the
putative class action to the Superior Court of the State of
California from which it was removed. The motion was granted, but
the Ninth Circuit vacated the remand order stating in pertinent
part:

Following the issuance of the Remand Order. . . this [the Ninth
Circuit] decided Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, 728
F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013). . . . As explained in Rodriguez, "[a]
defendant seeking removal of a putative class action must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum,"
irrespective of the damages alleged in the complaint. Id. at 981.

Because the "legal certainty" standard no longer applies, we
vacate the district court's April 26, 2013 [order] and remand
this appeal to the district court for consideration of federal
jurisdiction in light of Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services,
LLC. (U.S. Ct. Appeals Order 2, ECF No. 31.)

According to Senior District Judge Gariand E. Burrell, Jr.,
since federal jurisdiction should be considered in light of
Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC., Plaintiffs' pending
remand motion, which is premised on an inapplicable standard, is
denied.  Further, Plaintiff must file a brief no later than March
13, 2014, concerning the jurisdictional issue in light of
Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC. The hearing on the
matter shall be noticed in accordance with the court's regularly
scheduled law and motion matters, ruled Judge Burell.

"Further, the status conference currently scheduled for April 28,
2014, is rescheduled to June 23, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. A joint status
report shall be filed fourteen days prior to the status
conference," he added.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/CGKZd1from Leagle.com.


IEC ELECTRONICS: Responded to Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
IEC Electronics Corp., filed a response to the Securities and
Exchange Commission's formalized investigation in an amended
complaint in a now consolidated shareholder class action
originally filed June 28, 2013, seeking unspecified compensatory
damages, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December
24, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2013.

In connection with the Company's restatement of its financial
statements, the Audit Committee conducted an independent review of
the underlying facts and circumstances, and the Company is
responding to a now formal investigation by the staff of the SEC
relating to the restatement and other matters and an amended
complaint in a now consolidated shareholder class action
originally filed June 28, 2013 in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and its
CEO and CFO seeking unspecified compensatory damages. While the
Company believes the complaint is without merit, it is too early
to determine the potential outcome.

IEC Electronics Corp. (IEC) is a provider of electronic contract
manufacturing services (EMS) to advanced technology companies. The
Company specializes in the custom manufacture of circuit cards and
system-level assemblies; an array of cable and wire harness
assemblies, and precision sheet metal components. The Company
utilizes automated circuit card assembly equipment together with a
manufacturing stress testing methods. The Company manufactures a
range of assemblies that are incorporated into many different
products, such as military and aerospace systems, medical devices,
industrial equipment and transportation products. Its products are
distributed to and through original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs). The Company supports multiple divisions and product lines
for many of its customers and frequently manufactures successive
generations of products.


JABURG & WILK: Obtains Final Approval of "Eibert" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Michael J. Davis granted final approval of a
settlement resolving the case captioned Joseph Eibert and Sarah
Eibert, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. and Stewart, Zlimen &
Jungers, Ltd., Defendants, CIVIL FILE NO. 13-CV-00301 (MJD-AJB),
(D. Minn.).

The Court concluded that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable and adequate.

The Court dismissed with prejudice this Class Action against
Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/x64nkhfrom Leagle.com.


LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Class Action Over Mobile Phone Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action settlement has been reached with LG Electronics MobileComm
USA Inc. regarding an alleged defect in some of its mobile phones.

LG has denied the allegations but agreed to settle the class
action lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty and expense of trial.

Consumers who purchased an LG G2x mobile phone between April 15,
2011, and Oct. 30 were eligible to receive $19 from the
settlement.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
settlement on Jan. 13, and awarded the class counsel $1.6 million
in attorneys fees and $30,166.01 in reimbursement of expenses.

The class action lawsuit alleged that LG G2x mobile phones had
defects that caused the phones to either repeatedly freeze, shut
down and power off randomly, or bleed or leak backlight from the
edges of the phones' screens, according to a complaint filed
July 18, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California at San Diego.

The defendant knew or should have known of the defects prior to
selling or placing the mobile phone into the stream of commerce
and was aware of hundreds, if not thousands, of consumer reports
and complaints about the power-off and screen bleeding defects
plaguing the LG mobile phones, the complaint says.

The defendant harmed the plaintiff and other class members
throughout the country by manufacturing and selling defective
mobile phones.  LG has failed to remedy the harm consumers
suffered and has earned substantial profits from its unlawful
conduct.

The class action plaintiffs were being represented by William J.
Doyle II -- bill@doylelowther.com -- John Lowther --
john@doylelowther.com -- and James R. Hail -- jim@doylelowther.com
-- of Doyle Lowther LLP; Thomas E. Glynn of Glynn Law Group; and
Alan M. Mansfield -- amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- of the
Consumer Law Group.

LG was represented by Jiyoun Chung -- jiyoun.chung@shearman.com --
James Donato -- jdonato@shearman.com -- and Christopher LaVigne --
christopher.lavigne@shearman.com -- of Sherman & Sterling LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California at San
Diego case number: 3:11-cv-01576


MAMMUT SPORTS: Recalls Crevasse Rescue Devices Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mammut Sports Group, Inc, of Williston, Vt., announced a voluntary
recall of about 70 in the U.S. and 80 in Canada Mountain climbing
rescue devices.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The pull cord lock cam can fail, posing a risk of death and injury
during a rescue.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Mammut's RescYou crevasse rescue devices with
batch numbers 12-12 and 03-13.  The crevasse rescue devices are
pulley systems used for ski mountaineering and mountain climbing
to lift a skier or climber who has fallen into a crevasse.  The
rescue device consists of blue- and silver-finished mechanical
ascenders, each using a cam that grabs a lifting rope, allowing
the rope to slide only in one direction.  The ascenders are
connected by an orange rope threaded through pulleys.  "MAMMUT
RESCYOU" and the batch number are printed in white on the side of
the blue ascender.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/zGAoe2

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
specialty outdoor stores in the U.S. and Canada and online at
http://www.mammut.comfrom June 2013 through January 2014 for
about $125.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled RescYou
devices and contact Mammut for a free replacement crevasse rescue
device.


MEDALLION PLUS: Recalls Tekki Shomen Noodles in a Cup
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Medallion Plus Imports Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8675

The food recall warning issued on February 18, 2014 has been
updated to include an additional product.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Medallion Plus Imports Ltd. is recalling Tekki Shomen brand
Noodles in a Cup from the marketplace because it contains milk
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
milk should not consume the recalled product described below.

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

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

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

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

Affected products: 40 g. Tekki Shomen Seafood Royale with
4 804888 899710 UPC


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP law firm on Feb. 25 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit against Merge Healthcare
Incorporated and certain of its officers.  Filed in United States
District Court, Northern District of Illinois, the case is on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of
Merge from August 1, 2012 through January 7, 2014.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages resulting from the Company's alleged
violation of the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Merge securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 11, 2014 to participate by
asking the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
To discuss this action or discuss your possible alternatives,
contact Mark L. Knutson at mlk@classactionlaw.com or 877-493-5366
toll free.

Merge develops software solutions that facilitate the sharing of
images to create an electronic healthcare environment for patients
and physicians worldwide.  The Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company.
Specifically, Defendants made misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that aspects of certain customer contracts
concerning the Company's eClinical business had been falsified;
(2) that as a result the Company's reported subscription backlog
was overstated; (3) that the Company lacked adequate controls; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements
about the Company lacked a reasonable basis and were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 8, 2014, the Company disclosed that it was revising its
reported subscription backlog totals after concluding that a
former sales employee had falsified certain customer contracts
having an apparent value of approximately $5.8 million.  Merge
securities declined $0.21 per share (nearly 8.33%) on the news to
close at $2.31 per share on January 8, 2014, and further declined
$0.21 per share the next day.

Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP concentrates its practice in the areas of
securities class litigation.


NEW ORLEANS: Settles Lead Exposure Class Action for $67 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Olson, writing for Overlawyered, reports that following
news of a $67 million settlement over lead exposure in New Orleans
public housing, various residents feel unfairly left out.  Lawyers
in charge explain that the case covers only a set class of
plaintiffs: to qualify for funds, claimants must have lived in
New Orleans public housing before February 2001, have been born
before late 1987, and be able to show medical records indicating
lead poisoning before the age of six.

Unfortunately, the televised report makes it very hard to evaluate
the strength of the protesters' complaints, since it does not sort
out such questions as: are they saying that their personal
situations do qualify for compensation under the settlement's
terms, but that they missed out by not being notified in time? Or
are they claiming instead that the settlement should have been
negotiated to compensate a more broadly defined class, such as
persons whose claims are more recent? If the latter, as one
passage in the report suggests, their right to seek compensation
by way of a separate suit may not actually have been extinguished.


NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 1,047 NV200 Trucks Due to Tire Label Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Label
Units affected:           1047
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014059
TC ID number:             2014059

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims.  The
Tire and Loading Information label may contain misspelled words in
French.

Correction: Owners will be supplied with a revised Tire and
Loading Information Label and installation instructions.  Owners
may also have the label installed by a dealer.

Affected products: 2014 NISSAN NV200 model


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeal in Genaera Trust Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohr Pharmaceutical Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
December 27, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013, that an
appeal of a dismissed putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
the Genaera Liquidating Trust is pending.

In June 2012, the Company was named, along with other parties, as
a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit being brought, as
amended, on behalf of the Genaera Liquidating Trust ("Trust").
The Company purchased biotechnology assets from the Trust in 2009.
On August 12, 2013, the court dismissed each of the plaintiff's
claims against the Company. An appeal of the dismissal is pending;
however management believes that there is a remote possibility the
litigation will have a material adverse impact on the Company's
financial condition.

Ohr Pharmaceutical Inc (Ohr) is a biotechnology company. The
Company focuses on the development of its two products, OHR/AVR118
for the treatment of cancer cachexia (multi-symptom wasting
disorder), and Squalamine for the treatment of the wet form of
age-related macular degeneration using an eye drop formulation. As
of September 30, 2012, the Company is engaged in the clinical
testing of OHR/AVR118 and the Squalamine eye drop program for the
treatment of wet-AMD. On September 24, 2012, the Company announced
the initiation of a multi center, randomized, placebo controlled
Phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Squalamine
eye drops for the treatment of the wet form of age-related macular
degeneration. In September 2012, the Company commenced a clinical
study, named OHR-002.


OZ MINERALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a multi-million
dollar class action has been launched against Australian-based
mining company OZ Minerals Ltd. for allegedly misleading
shareholders.  Almost 40,000 shareholders are behind the class
action filed in the Federal Court on Feb. 26.

Oz Minerals has been accused of misleading and deceptive conduct
and for failing to disclose to the market its true debt position.
ACA Lawyers say more than AUD250 million in compensation is being
sought for former Zinifex shareholders who acquired OZ Mineral
shares in 2008 as a result of a merger between Zinifex and Oxiana.

In July 2011 the Federal Court approved the settlement of two
previous class actions against OZ Minerals for about AUD60
million.  These settlements excluded Zinifex shareholders.

ACA Lawyers' Principal Craig Allsopp said OZ Minerals' true debt
position was material information which should have been disclosed
to the market.

The first directions hearing will be on April 4, in Melbourne.


PREVOST: Recalls 34 X3-45 Coach Buses Due to Short Circuit Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           34
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014056
TC ID number:             2014056
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SR14-12

On certain coaches equipped with Sure Power DC/DC convertors, the
convertors could develop an internal short circuit, resulting in a
risk of overheating, smoke and/or fire.  This may result in
property damage and/or personal injury.

Owners will be supplied with replacement parts and instructions on
how to affect repairs.

Affected products: 2008, 2009, 2010 PREVOST X3-45 COACH


QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Quality Candy Due to Undeclared Sulphites
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Quality Natural Foods Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8659

Affected products: 350 g. Quality Ram Paan Sugar Candy or Ram Pan
Candy with all codes where sulphites are not declared on the label


REAL TIME: "Hurrle" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on FCC Petition
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle stayed the case captioned
RICHARD HURRLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. C13-5765 BHS, (W.D. Wash.).

Mr. Hurrle filed this class action complaint against Real Time on
August 30, 2013, alleging that Real Time called him on his
cellular telephone using an autodialer and demanding payment for a
debt. Each of the subject calls placed by Real Time were allegedly
made by means of an autodialer and were allegedly made despite the
fact that Mr. Hurrle has no business relationship with Real Time
and he has never given consent to Real Time to call his cellular
telephone. Mr. Hurrle asserts that Real Time's actions are a
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  On
December 12, 2013, Real Time filed a motion to stay this action
pending the outcome of pending petitions to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), to which Congress delegated some
authority to interpret the TCPA.

"In this case, Real Time has shown that a stay of this action is
warranted pending resolution of at least the In Re Communications
Innovators petition," ruled Judge Settle. "The complaint alleges
that Real Time implements an autodialer to call debtors regarding
unpaid debt. The law is unclear whether Congress intended the TCPA
to prevent this activity. Telemarketing is one activity while
collecting debt from known debtors seems to be a wholly separate
activity. Whether the latter activity falls within the scope of
the TCPA is currently being addressed by Congress and the FCC. The
issue is clearly one of policy within those bodies, and guidance
on the "capacity" of autodialing systems would further clarify the
law that Hurrle seeks to enforce in this action. Therefore, the
Court grants Real Time's motion and this action is stayed pending
resolution of the Communication Innovators' petition. After that,
either party may move the Court to reopen the matter."

The Court ordered the Clerk of Court to administratively close the
matter until a motion to reopen the action is filed.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/b17eK9from Leagle.com.


RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Plumber Sacked Over OSHA Asbestos Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Donnelly, writing for Staten Island Advance, reports that
Richmond University Medical Center was more concerned about the
bottom line than its workers' health, contends a lawsuit filed by
a plumber allegedly sacked for complaining about asbestos
exposure.

James Pepe, 33, says supervisors and hospital officials repeatedly
denied his requests for protective gear, claiming it would "cost
too much money" to abate exposed asbestos, which he allegedly
found in the plumbing shop and on pipes in various areas of the
building.

Derided as a "clown" and a "hypocrite," by supervisors, Mr. Pepe
was fired in December after blowing the whistle to the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), alleges his
lawsuit.

"Defendants ultimately terminated plaintiff Pepe's employment
solely because he complained that defendants were in violation of
federal health and safety laws by ordering employees, including .
. . Pepe, to work in enclosed spaces with exposed asbestos without
any of the required protective gear, proper notification or
requisite training," his court filing contends.

Mr. Pepe has sued Richmond University and Mount Sinai Hospital,
with which Richmond University is affiliated, according to his
legal papers filed in state Supreme Court, St. George.  Advance
records show the two hospitals entered into a clinical affiliation
in the spring of 2012.

Mr. Pepe seeks unspecified monetary damages.  His lawyer, Alex
Umansky of the Manhattan-based firm, Phillips & Associates,
declined comment on the lawsuit.

In a statement, Richmond University said Mr. Pepe's sacking "was
not in any way connected" to his safety allegations to OSHA.

The hospital said it conducted "extensive" tests and forwarded
them to OSHA.

"We are confident that there is no exposure risk to employees or
patients," said the statement.  "Richmond University Medical
Center takes all safely issues very seriously and has an active
process for investigating and addressing environmental concerns in
a timely manner."

A Mount Sinai spokesman did not immediately return a phone call
Tuesday seeking comment.

According to court papers, the hospital hired Mr. Pepe as a
plumber in October 2005.

In early 2007, he complained to his plumbing supervisor about
exposed and friable asbestos "all over" the plumbing shop, said
court documents.  He was told to forget about it because the
hospital "can't afford to have it abated," court filings contend.

Asbestos-related illnesses, which attack the respiratory and
digestive systems, are caused by exposure to airborne asbestos --
typically over time.

Tradesmen, such as plumbers, steamfitters, carpenters,
electricians and insulation workers who labored before the early
1970s, when use of asbestos products was prevalent in those
industries, are considered to be the most susceptible to asbestos-
related illnesses.

Between 2007 and 2013, Mr. Pepe was required to perform a number
of jobs which he believed potentially exposed him to asbestos,
said court documents.  He was asked to repair a high-pressure
steam pipe inside a tunnel at the hospital and to fix asbestos-
insulated pipes in the basement, sub-basement and in ceilings on
various floors.

He contends he was rebuffed and sometimes threatened with losing
his job each time he expressed concern about possible asbestos
exposure and asked for protective gear.  He often was told that
wetting down the pipes would make them safe to work on, court
documents state.

"Shockingly, defendants wholly ignored plaintiff Pepe's very
serious complaints of asbestos contamination in the workplace and
immediately directed plaintiff Pepe to continue working in
enclosed areas containing asbestos," said court filings.

Fearful of losing his job, Mr. Pepe always did the work.

Even so, Mr. Pepe alleges he was ridiculed.

The facilities supervisor called him a "hypocrite" because he
worried about asbestos-causing lung cancer, yet still smoked
cigarettes, court records said.

That supervisor also called Mr. Pepe a "clown" and warned a co-
worker, "Don't pick up any of [Pepe's] bad habits."

When Mr. Pepe asked another supervisor if he'd make his own son
work in such conditions, the man responded, "Hell, no!" maintain
court records.

Tensions boiled over in November of last year.

Mr. Pepe refused to work on a steam pipe, whose fittings were
allegedly covered with asbestos, unless given protective gear,
said court documents.

He was suspended without pay.  About a week later, he complained
to OSHA on two separate occasions about working conditions at
Richmond University.

Ted Fitzgerald, an OSHA spokesman, said the agency is
investigating a complaint about the hospital.  However,
Mr. Fitzgerald said he wasn't at liberty to identify the
complainant or the nature of the allegation.

Mr. Pepe said he was fired on Dec., 3, less than a week after his
second complaint to OSHA.  He alleges he was sacked under the
pretext of failing to notify his supervisor and timely contain a
water leak that caused significant damages on Nov. 15.  Mr. Pepe
contends he informed his supervisor that an on-site contractor
shut the open valve and housekeeping was called to clean up the
standing water, in accordance with protocol.


ROWE FINE: Recalls Ottomans Due to Risk of Suffocation
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rowe Fine Furniture Inc., of Elliston, Va., announced a voluntary
recall of 220 Dalton Ottomans with Storage Compartments.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Young children can become entrapped inside the storage compartment
of the ottoman, posing a risk of suffocation.

The firm has received one report of a 3 year old that became
entrapped in the storage compartment when an older sibling closed
the lid.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Dalton style ottomans with storage
compartments.  The wooden ottoman measures 35 inches long, 25
inches deep and 13 inches high.  The storage compartment has a
cushioned top lid supported by two hinges and two lid support
arms. Model number F135-064 is printed on a tag stapled to the
underside of the storage ottoman.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/0du8ku

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at authorized Rowe Fine Furniture distributors nationwide from
August 2011 to May 2013 for about $450.

Consumers should contact Rowe Fine Furniture for a free
replacement lid and warning label.  The replacement lid has a
handle and vent for increased ventilation.


SCORES HOLDING: Goldring Note Balance Was $32,737 at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2013, Richard Goldring's promissory note
balance assigned to Scores Holding Company, Inc., relating to a
purported class action and collective action was $32,737,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on December 27, 2013,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2013.

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 September 30,
2013, the settlement receivable is $195,974.

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 September 30, 2013,
this promissory note balance is $32,737.

Scores Holding Company, Inc. (Scores) is engaged in the business
of licensing the Scores trademarks and other intellectual property
to gentlemen's nightclubs with adult entertainment in the United
States. These clubs feature topless female entertainers together
with watching sporting events and corporate and private parties.
There are five clubs operating under the Scores name, in New York
City, Baltimore, Chicago, Tampa and New Orleans. The Company's
trademarks are held by the Company's wholly owned subsidiary,
Scores Licensing Corp. (SLC).


SINOTECH ENERGY: Court Dismisses "Athale" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Alison J. Nathan dismissed the case captioned
BHUSHAN ATHALE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SINOTECH ENERGY LIMITED, ET AL,
Defendants, NO. 11 CIV. 05831 (AJN), (S.D. N.Y.)

This is a securities class action brought on behalf of a class of
SinoTech Energy Limited shareholders, against (1) SinoTech; (2) a
number of SinoTech officers and directors (Individual Defendants);
(3) UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, and
Lazard Capital Markets, which served as financial advisors to and
assisted SinoTech in its IPO (Underwriter Defendants); and (4)
Ernst & Young Hua Ming (EYHM), which served as SinoTech's auditor.
EYHM moved to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 8, 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

Judge Nathan held that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
alleged: (1) that EYHM knew of and disregarded, or otherwise
recklessly failed to discover, numerous red flags that the
underlying fraud was occurring; (2) that EYHM committed or
overlooked violations of accounting and auditing standards in a
manner that establishes or supports scienter; or (3) that the size
of the underlying fraud was so large that it supports scienter.

"Having thus failed to plead facts giving rise to an inference
that EYHM knew of the fraud, or that no reasonable auditor would
have failed to discover the fraud, Plaintiffs have failed to meet
the demanding standard for pleading auditor scienter, and EYHM is
entitled to dismissal of the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim
against it," Judge Nathan concluded.

The Court granted EYHM's motion to dismiss.

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Memorandum &
Order is available at http://is.gd/GkVtAyfrom Leagle.com.


SUN HING: Recalls Canadian Liver Pate Products
----------------------------------------------
Sun Hing Foods, Inc., the Importer of Record, a South San
Francisco, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 1,282
pounds of Canadian liver pate products which were produced without
the benefit of full USDA inspection, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
While this is a Class I recall, FSIS issues a Public Health Alert
for an imported product when the country of origin recalls the
product.  However, FSIS issues a recall for an imported product
when the product is not presented for inspection at the U.S.
border.  In the United States, the recall is undertaken by the
Importer of Record, which is accountable to FSIS.

The Sun Hing Foods, Inc., products subject to recall include:

   -- 2.75-oz. and 4.76-oz. packages of "FLOWER BRAND, LIVER PATE
      / PATE DE FOIE" bearing case code "215960."

   -- 4.76-oz. packages of "FORTUNE BRAND, LIVER SPREAD / PATE DE
      FOIE" bearing case code "215960."

Packages will bear the Canadian establishment number "265."  The
products were distributed into commerce in Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia.

The problem was discovered when FSIS import staff reviewed records
and discovered that the product was not presented by the
independent third party carrier for USDA inspection at the U.S. -
Canadian border.

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

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness due to
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about illness
should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Rosenda
Chan, Office Manager, at (650) 583-8188, ext. 610. Media with
questions about the recall should contact Winnie Ho at (650) 583-
8188, ext. 637.

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


TIMMONSVILLE: "Desarno" Suit Remanded to S.C. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
In Rose Desarno, Plaintiff, v. Town of Timmonsville, Mayor Derrick
Jackson, and Former Mayor James Beard, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 4:13-CV-02031, (D. S.C.), the Plaintiff initially brought the
action both individually and on behalf of three proposed classes
of similarly situated plaintiffs in the Florence County South
Carolina Court of Common Pleas; however, on February 19, 2014, the
Court issued a consent order granting Plaintiff's motion to amend
the complaint.

Pertinent to a motion to remand pending before Court, Plaintiff's
amended complaint omitted the class allegations she asserted in
her initial complaint.  Furthermore, on the same day the Court
granted Plaintiff's motion to amend, all parties stipulated to the
dismissal of the Honda Parties, who were the parties who removed
the action to the District Court. Accordingly, the only causes of
action now alleged by Plaintiff are her claims, under South
Carolina state law, of negligence, gross negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, public nuisance, private nuisance, quantum meruit,
unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress (outrage). All of these claims arise from the occurrence
of adverse effects to her health and property that she alleges
resulted from the actions and omissions of Defendants in their
management of the drinking water and sewage systems in
Timmonsville, South Carolina.

Against this backdrop, District Judge R. Bryan Harwell granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court.

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/nKfEbrfrom Leagle.com.


TPUSA INC: Loses Bid to Block Certification in "Tanner" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In BRADY TANNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TPUSA, INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-33 (WLS), (M.D. Ga.), District Judge W. Louis
Sands granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and
Judicial Notice; and denied Defendant TPUSA, Inc.'s Motion to Deny
Conditional Certification:

* The Court conditionally certifies the collective class defined
  in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint;

* The Plaintiffs are authorized to disseminate the proposed Notice
  and Consent to Join form, provided that they modify the
  statutory period;

* The Defendant is ordered to produce to Plaintiffs, within
  14 days of the entry of this Order, a list in electronic and
  importable format, of all persons employed by defendant as call
  center agents in Georgia from three years prior to the date of
  the order to the present, including their name, address,
  telephone number, dates of employment, location of employment,
  date of birth, and last four digits of their Social Security
  Number; and

* The Defendant is ordered to post the Notice of Collective Action
  and Consent Form at conspicuous places in the Albany and
  Augusta, Georgia call centers.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/tsAggLfrom Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Transaction Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge refused on Feb. 22 to certify a class of merchants
accusing Wells Fargo Bank NA and First Data Merchant Services
Corp. of charging them unauthorized transaction fees, ruling the
merchants don't meet the requirements for certification and
dismissing the suit.

U.S. District Judge Arthur D. Spatt denied lead plaintiff Spread
Enterprises Inc.'s motion for class certification, finding that it
has not established that enough merchants were affected or that
they entered into similar merchant processing agreements with
Wells Fargo and First Data.  The order also dismisses the suit
because Judge Spatt said the court doesn't have jurisdiction to
hear a suit between Florida-based parties after denying class
certification.

Spread, a company that operates the international telephone
service provider Ola Brasil, was looking to certify a class of
merchants who were part of a merchant processing agreement with
Wells Fargo and First Data and who submitted transactions and were
charged fees, according to the order.

But the court found that Spread's motion for certification failed
with respect to many class action requirements.  The court said
Spread's estimate concerning the size of the class is speculative
and that each potential class member did not experience the same
injury as a result of the alleged overcharging.

Judge Spatt also said he cannot ignore the significant variations
in the way the merchant processing agreements stipulate which fees
will be charged and how they will be charged.  Not all of the
agreements contain the same language, so the court would be called
on to make individual interpretations based on the different
language.

Spread sued Wells Fargo and First Data in September 2011, claiming
the credit card servicer charges an undisclosed 20 cent
authorization and captures fees for each transaction.

Under an agreement, Wells Fargo functions as a member bank and
accepts credit card payments from card-issuing banks on Spread's
behalf, according to the suit.  Contracting with First Data
enables Spread's prepaid telephone minutes for long distance calls
using a credit card, the suit said.

But the hidden fees drive up costs for its service because the
additional expense is passed on to its customers, Spread alleged.

In August 2012, Judge Spatt dismissed a claim from the suit
alleging the extra fees assessed to businesses violate the New
York General Business Law because the service fees don't target
consumers directly.  Businesses are not considered customers under
the statute and the additional service fees were aimed at the
merchants, not their patrons, he said.

Spread Enterprises is represented by Frederic S. Fox --
ffox@kaplanfox.com -- of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Marc A.
Wites -- mwites@wklawyers.com -- of Wites & Kapetan PA and
Lawrence B. Lambert.

The defendants are represented by Oksana G. Wright --
owright@foxrothschild.com -- David H. Colvin --
dcolvin@foxrothschild.com -- and Scott L. Vernick --
svernick@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild LLP.

The case is Spread Enterprises Inc. v. First Data Merchant
Services Corp. et al., case number 2:11-cv-04743, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: High Court Allows Washer Class Actions to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report
that the U.S. Supreme Court gave consumers a victory on Feb. 24 by
allowing them to proceed with class-action lawsuits alleging that
millions of front-loading washing machines they bought suffered
from mold or musty odors.

By refusing to hear the appeals in three lawsuits, the court
allowed claims against Whirlpool Corp., Sears Holdings Corp. and a
unit of Germany's BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeraete GmbH to move
forward as class actions in lower courts.

Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers had urged the Supreme
Court to hear the companies' appeals.

At issue in the washing-machine cases was whether claims about
alleged defects in Whirlpool washers, Kenmore-brand washers made
for Sears by Whirlpool, and BSH Home Appliance Corp washers were
similar enough to be heard at the same time.

Consumers said the machines did not clean themselves properly,
while the companies said only a small number of machines had
problems.

Whirlpool said in a statement that it would keep vigorously
defending against the lawsuits, which it called an "attack" on
American manufacturing.

Samuel Issacharoff, a New York University law professor who
represents Sears and Whirlpool consumers, called the court's
decision "a big win."

According to The Wall Street Journal's Brent Kendall, the court's
decision to stay out of the dispute marks a breather for justices
who in recent years have issued a string of rulings disallowing
class-action cases.  Business groups had filed briefs supporting
the defendants in the washing-machine cases, hoping the court
would yet again cut back on lawsuits in which litigants make
claims on behalf of a large group of plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs said their lawsuits were precisely the type that
deserved to proceed as class-actions.  The washer models in
dispute, sold since 2001, were delivered with a uniform design
defect that caused mold accumulation, and buyers had to absorb
time and expense to try to fix the issue, the plaintiffs said in a
court brief.

The washers "were designed and delivered to purchasers in a form
unsuitable for their ordinary and intended use," they said.

Companies dislike class-actions because they threaten to impose
large-scale financial liability.  Businesses say that once courts
allow class-actions to proceed defendants face enormous pressures
to settle, even in cases that lack merit.

Consumer advocates say class-actions are an important tool for
people to vindicate their legal rights, particularly in relatively
small-money cases where it might not be feasible for consumers to
pursue legal relief individually.

U.S. appeals courts decided to allow the washer cases against
Whirlpool and Sears to proceed as class-actions, ruling the
lawsuits were unaffected by a Supreme Court ruling last year that
tossed out a class-action lawsuit against Comcast Corp.

In a related matter, a federal court in California allowed a
similar class-action lawsuit over Bosch brand washing machines.

The Supreme Court on Feb. 24 left those rulings in place,
rejecting the defendants' appeals without comment.


WHITECAP INVESTMENT: "Chapin" Suit Remanded to Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge CURTIS V. Goomez remanded the case captioned CARY
CHAPIN, BARBARA DOUMA, EMILY BRATTON, JOHN BALDWIN, DEAN BALDWIN,
TERRY WITHAM, ANN McCRAVE, CELSO PRINCIPAAL, HARRY EISENER,
CYNTHIA SAUERS, ELISA ADAMS, DENISE BARBIER, TRUMAN BARBIER, and
JEFFREY McCRAVE, Plaintiffs, v. WHITECAP INVESTMENT CORP. d/b/a
PARADISE LUMBER, XYZ CORP., MSI BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., JOE DOE,
JANE DOE, Defendants. WHITECAPE INVESTMENT CORP. d/b/a PARADISE
LUMBER, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. PUTNAM LUMBER AND EXPORT
COMPANY, PUTNAM FAMILY PROPERTIES, INC., and GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD
PRESERVING, INC. Third-Party Defendants, CIVIL NO. 2013-42,
(D.V.I.) to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in this matter on August 13,
2012, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, which alleged
claims for: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of warranty; 3)
negligence; 4) strict product liability; and 5) deceptive trade
practices.

On August 31, 2012, Paradise Lumber filed third party claims
against Great Southern Wood Preserving, Inc.  Putnam Lumber and
Export Company, and Putnam Family Properties. Putnam filed
counterclaims against Paradise Lumber. Putnam also filed cross-
claims against Great Southern for indemnity and contribution.
On October 16, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
additional plaintiffs. On March 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to amend their First Amended Complaint in the Superior
Court. In the proposed amended complaint's caption, there were a
number of additional plaintiffs not included in the First Amended
Complaint. The proposed amended complaint also included class
allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The proposed amended
complaint alleged that it met the jurisdictional requirements for
class actions to be heard in the District Court of the United
States Virgin Islands. The statement of jurisdiction set forth the
jurisdictional statute for the Superior Court.

Third-party defendant Great Southern filed a notice of removal
with the District Court. The removal was joined by the third-party
defendant Putnam on April 24, 2013. The notice of removal alleges
that the District Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.

Before the Superior Court could rule on the motion to amend, the
plaintiffs withdrew the motion. On April 25, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the matter to the Superior Court.

Judge Goomez held that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
the complaint had not yet been granted, and it cannot be granted
now that it has been withdrawn. Therefore, the operative complaint
at the time the third-party defendants filed their notice of
removal was the First Amended Complaint. The First Amended
Complaint did not contain any class action allegations, and thus
the minimal diversity rule of 28 U.S.C. Section 1453 was not
triggered. The First Amended Complaint named plaintiffs who are
residents of the Virgin Islands and defendants who are
incorporated in, and therefore residents of, the Virgin Islands.
Therefore, there was not complete diversity in the First Amended
Complaint, said Judge Goomez. Without complete diversity, this
case cannot fall within the diversity jurisdiction of this Court,
he added.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/Mdtj46from Leagle.com.

Terri L. Griffiths, Esq. -- griffiths_terri@yahoo.com -- Lee J.
Rohn and Associates, St. Croix, U.S.V.I., for plaintiffs.

Dudley Topper and Feuerzeig, LLP, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for
Defendant MSI Building Supplies.

Dudley Topper and Feuerzeig, LLP, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. for
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Whitecap Investment Corp.

Daryl C. Barnes, Esq. -- dbarnes@bryantbarnes.com -- Bryant,
Barnes, Moss & Beckstedt, St. Croix, U.S.V.I. for Third-Party
Defendant Great Southern Wood Preserving, Inc.


ZIPCAR INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Vehicle Damage Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on Feb. 24 tossed a putative class action alleging car-
sharing company Zipcar Inc. violates state business law with its
practice of charging customers for vehicle damages without
following certain procedures, ruling that private plaintiffs can't
sue under the relevant statute.

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Zipcar's motion to
dismiss Michael and Jessica Sigall's class complaint while denying
as moot the Sigalls' motion for class certification.  The judge
found that the plaintiffs can't base their lawsuit against Zipcar
on alleged violations of New York General Business Law Section
396-z -- which governs rental vehicle companies -- because that
statute doesn't allow for a private cause of action.

Judge Oetken further ruled that the Sigalls' claims of fraud and
deceptive business practices can't proceed because they are
dependent on invoking the rental car statute.

The Sigalls sued in July 2013, alleging Zipcar violated the
statute, which states that a rental car company can't hold an
authorized driver liable for damages without following certain
procedures.  Jessica Sigall rented a Zipcar in October 2012 with a
credit card issued to her father, Michael, and the vehicle
sustained mirror damage from an unknown party, according to court
documents.  Zipcar charged Michael Sigall's credit card $486.34
for the damage.

The plaintiffs claimed the charge was improper because they didn't
agree to the fee after the damage occurred and no court determined
they were liable.  The Sigalls alleged they made a claim with
their insurer that was not paid because Zipcar didn't provide the
required documentation.  With their suit, the Sigalls sought to
represent a class of all New York-based Zipcar members.

Judge Oetken asserted the Sigalls can't bring suit against Zipcar
for violations of Section 396-z.  While New York's highest court
has established a renter can assert noncompliance with the statute
as an affirmative defense, the Appellate Division has held that
the statute can't provide the basis for a private suit, the judge
wrote.

The plaintiffs' deceptive business practice and fraud claims also
can't survive because they are based on the assumption that
Section 396-z voids provisions in Zipcar's member agreement making
members liable for vehicle damages and authorizing the company to
charge them for such costs, Judge Oetken said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tiffany N. Hardy of Edelman
Combs Lautner & Goodwin LLC and Lawrence Katz.

Zipcar is represented by Dennis R. Lafiura, Paul J. Halasz --
phalasz@daypitney.com -- and Paul R. Marino --
pmarino@daypitney.com -- of Day Pitney LLP.

The case is Michael Sigall et al. v. Zipcar Inc. et al., case
number 1:13-cv-04552, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


* Oregon District Attorneys Support Class Action Bill
-----------------------------------------------------
Nigel Jaquiss, writing for Willamete Week, reports that the
maneuvering around House Bill 4143A, which would allocate
unclaimed monies from class action lawsuits to legal aid for
low-income Oregonians, was set to continue on Feb. 25 in an
8:00 a.m. meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bill has generated strong feelings on both sides, with trial
lawyers, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and former Gov. and AG
Ted Kulongoski and former AG Hardy Meyers advocating for joining
48 other states in forcing those who lose class action suits to
actually pay the award the court says they owe.  On the other
side, former AG Dave Frohnmayer, whose law firm represents BP and
Phillip Morris, both of which could lose financially if the bill
passes, is arguing for the status quo.

Joining Mr. Frohnmayer in opposition are many of the state's
business organizations, including Associated Oregon Industries.

Now one group -- the Oregon District Attorneys Association -- that
carries a lot of clout with moderates who might be swayed by the
business lobby, is weighing in.

On Feb. 23, the District Attorneys submitted a letter strongly
supporting the bill.


                             *********

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  * * *