CAR_Public/140310.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 48

                             Headlines


ACT INC: Sued for Illegally Selling Personally Identifiable Info
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Removed "Hug" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
ARAYA INC: Recalled Choco & Marshmallow Products Over Allergens
ASA LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Employee's Wages, Illinois Suit Says
ASCENA RETAIL: Accused of ADA Violations in W.D. Pennsylvania

BLUE CROSS: Discriminates Against Poor People With HIV, Suit Says
BP PLC: Lawyers Insist Deepwater Settlement Misinterpreted
C & J CLARK: Faces "Jahoda" ADA Violations Suit in Pennsylvania
CAC FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CANON BUSINESS: Faces More Discovery in Background Check Case

CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC: Paramedics Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CODMAN NEURO: Class I Recall for TRUFILL n-BCA
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lidoderm Product
ESTATE INFORMATION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FISHER-PRICE: No Recall for Seahorse Toy Despite Safety Concerns

FLAT CREEK: Heavenly Blue Cheese and Aztec Cheddar Cheese Recalled
FORD MOTOR: Fiesta & Focus Have Faulty Transmissions, Suit Says
GANNETT CO: Accused of Discriminating Against Black Workers
GANO EXCEL: C'Real Spirulina Due to Undeclared Allergens Recalled
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

GENERAL MILLS: Sued by "Kellogg" Over False Claims on Kix Cereal
GOYA FOODS: Malta Goya Drinks Contain Carcinogen, Suit Claims
HALLIBURTON CO: Justices Reluctant to Overturn 1988 Ruling
HERBASWAY LABORATORIES: Sued for Bogus Claims on Daily Detox Pill
HUMAN SCIENCE: Pro ArthMax Recalled Due to Active Ingredients

IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
ILLINOIS: Faces Fifth Lawsuit Over New Pension Law
INTEGRITY STAFFING: Supreme Court to Review Unpaid Security Checks
KENNETH KEYSER: Owner of Cottage Garden Faces OT Suit
KIA MOTORS: "Patterson" Fraud Suit Transferred to California

KINNIKINNICK FOODS: 5 Foods Products Recalled Due to Allergen
KINNIKINNICK FOODS: Recall on Products With Milk Allergen Expanded
LEHIGH VALLEY: Voluntarily Recalls Orange Juice Over Allergen
LIVEDEAL INC: Lawsuit by GES Closed After Settlement Payments
MARCHELLO'S GARDEN: Fails to Properly Overtime, Class Claims

MARINA DISTRICT: Refused to Refund Buy-In Money, Suit Claims
MOTLEY RICE: Sued by South Carolinians Over Worker's Comp Loss
MT. GOX: Faces Suit Over Breach Resulting in 744K-Bitcoin Loss
NUCOR CORP: Still Faces Suits Alleging Antitrust Law Violations
OMNICARE INC: Supreme Court to Review Investors' Securities Suit

PATHEON INC: Continues to Face Suit Over Product Recall
PAYPAL INC: "Zepeda" Suit Settlement Needs Revision, Court Ruled
PNC FINANCIAL: Allowed to Appeal CBNV Mortgage Suit Certification
PRIDE MEDICAL: Doc Revealed HIV Status of 379 Patients, Suit Says
SAFEWAY INC: Settles False Advertising Suit for $2.25 Million

STANFORD GROUP: Investors May Recover via Class Suits, SC Ruled
STATE AUTO: Faces Litigation Over Insurance to Value Program
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Being Sold to Martin for Too Little, Suit Says
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Several Suits Over Chrome 6 Emissions Stayed
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: No Trial Date Yet in Suit Over Oro Grande Plant

TOTAL SYSTEM: Awaits OK of Accord in Suit Over NetSpend Merger
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Claims
VITACOST.COM INC: No Writ Filed v. Dismissal of Securities Suit
WATTS WATER: "Trabakoolas" Suit Stayed for Possible Settlement
WILLIAM OLEFINS: Sued by Louisiana Residents Over "Toxic Cloud"

* Child Product Safety Recalls Have Dismal Response Rate of 10%


                             *********


ACT INC: Sued for Illegally Selling Personally Identifiable Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathlene Silha, Arie Wolf, Karoline Kamzic, and Elyse Stevens, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ACT,
Inc., an Iowa not-for-profit corporation, and The College Board, a
New York not-for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00505 (N.D.
Ill., January 23, 2014) is a consumer class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, whose private,
nonpublic personally identifiable information was deliberately
sold by the Defendants for monetary gain without the legal consent
of the Plaintiffs and the Class.

ACT is an Iowa not-for-profit corporation that conducts business
throughout the United States with its principal place of business
located in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa.  TCB is a New York
not-for-profit corporation that conducts business throughout the
United States with its principal place of business located in New
York City.  ACT and TCB are national testing agencies that
administer, for a fee, the ACT and SAT college entrance exams to
more than 1,600,000 minor-aged high-school students annually.  TCB
also administers the PSATINMSQT, CLEP, and AP (Advanced Placement)
tests to these same students.  These tests are generally mandatory
for students desiring to attend college after high-school or earn
college credit while in high school.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950
          E-mail: ldrurvlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Jim Rowe, Esq.
          ROWE & ASSOCIATES
          One Dearborn Square, Suite 644
          Kankakee, IL 60901
          Telephone: (815) 929-3844
          E-mail: jr@rowelegal.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          John H. Alexander, Esq.
          JOHN H. ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES
          55 West Monroe, Suite 2455
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 263-7731
          E-mail: john@jaalexanderlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Langendorf, Esq.
          134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1515
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5933
          E-mail: rlangendorf@comcast.net

Defendant The College Board is represented by:

          Theodore R. Scarborough, Jr., Esq.
          Robert Jason Burch, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (CHICAGO)
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: tscarborough@sidley.com
                  rburch@sidley.com


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Removed "Hug" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Hug v. American Traffic
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1322-CC-10189, was removed from the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00138-ERW to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY AND DANIS
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James E. Crowe, III, Esq.
          Edward L. Dowd, Jr., Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT, LLP
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 889-7300
          Facsimile: (314) 863-2111
          E-mail: jcrowe@dowdbennett.com
                  edowd@dowdbennett.com


ARAYA INC: Recalled Choco & Marshmallow Products Over Allergens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Araya Inc of Katy, TX, in January issued a voluntarily recalling
various types of products including Marshmallows, Chocolate
gourmet bars, Dry Fruits covered in chocolate and assorted
chocolate gift boxes because they may contain traces of allergens
not declared on the label.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to Wheat, Tree Nuts, Soy and Milk Protein run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The Marshmallows, Chocolate gourmet bars, Dry Fruits covered in
chocolate and chocolate gift boxes were distributed nationwide
directly to customers via FedEx from internet sales and in the
state of Texas through these retailers:

CENTRAL MARKET - HOUSTON, CENTRAL MARKET - NORTH LAMAR, CENTRAL
MARKET - PRESTON, CENTRAL MARKET - WESTGATE, HEB - FRY RD, HEB #99
Louetta, HOTEL MOKARA

All products within "best buy" date are being recalled including:

  Product Name                    UPC Code          Potential
                                               Undeclared Allergen
GOURMET BAR - BACON               729440332044       Wheat
GOURMET BAR - CAYENNE PEPPER      729440332006
GOURMET BAR - CRISPY ORANGE       729440332051
GOURMET BAR - CURRY               729440332037
MARSHMALLOW - CHOCOLATE           760921366004      Milk Protein,
                                                   Soy, Wheat
MARSHMALLOW - COCONUT             760921366011
MARSHMALLOW - COOKIES AND CREAM   760921366066
MARSHMALLOW - GINGERBREAD         760921366003
MARSHMALLOW - PEPPERMINT          760921366097
MARSHMALLOW - RED VELVET          760921366073
MARSHMALLOW - VANILLA             760921366028
GOURMET BAR - MENDIANT - DARK     729440332075      Tree Nuts and
                                                    Wheat Soy and
                                                    Milk

GOURMET BAR - MENDIANT - MILK     729440332082
DRY FRUIT - ORANGE PEEL           729440332105      Tree Nuts,
                                                    Wheat
DRY FRUIT - MANGO CAYENNE         729440332136
DRY FRUIT - PEARS                 729440332112
CHOCOLATE GIFT BOX - SC 6 OREOS   729440332167      Wheat Outside
                                                    Label declares
                                                    Soy and Milk
                                                    as ingredients
                                                    but does not
                                                    identify them
                                                    as allergens
CHOCOLATE GIFT BOX - SC
SMALL 12 CHOCOLATE                729440332488
CHOCOLATE GIFT BOX - SC
SMALL 6 CHOCOLATE                 729440332235
CHOCOLATE - S'MORES               729440332402      Wheat

The voluntary recall was initiated by Araya after reviewing with
the FDA the current product labels and determining that the
allergen declaration was not complete since it did not state all
the allergens present in the facility.  The firm also uses peanuts
in some products; however, peanuts are declared as an allergen on
all product labels and are not part of this recall.

Customers who purchased any of the recalled products listed above
and are allergic or have a severe sensitivity to wheat, tree nuts,
milk protein or soy, please do not consume the products.

Please discard them.  For a full refund, consumers may visit at
any of stores with your proof of purchase receipt.  Store
locations are: 2013 W. Gray St., Houston TX 77019; 1141 Uptown
Park Blvd., Houston TX 77056; and 1575 West Grand Pkwy S., Katy TX
77494.

Consumers who purchased any of the recalled products through the
internet or who have questions about this recall may contact the
company at 281-395-1050 from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. CST Monday-
Friday.


ASA LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Employee's Wages, Illinois Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Cross v. ASA Logistics, Inc., Estes Express Lines, Inc.,
and PB & LB Delivery, Case No. 1:14-cv-00519 (N.D. Ill.,
January 23, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Portal to Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, for the Defendants'
alleged failure to pay wages to the Plaintiff.

ASA Logistics, Inc. and Estes Express Lines, Inc. are trucking and
delivery companies that maintain offices in Romeoville, Illinois.
PB & LB Delivery is a trucking and delivery company that maintains
an office in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marty Denis, Esq.
          Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
          BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP
          525 West Monroe, Suite 2360
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 648-5570
          E-mail: mdenis@bkd-law.com
                  bhilbert@bkd-law.com


ASCENA RETAIL: Accused of ADA Violations in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., doing business as
Catherines Plus Sizes, Case No. 2:14-cv-00102-LPL (W.D. Pa.,
January 23, 2014) is brought pursuant to the The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Discriminates Against Poor People With HIV, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Choate at Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross-
Blue Shield and two other insurers discriminate against poor
people with HIV, just in time to avoid having to cover them under
the Affordable Care Act, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff John East sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Louisiana, the Louisiana Health Cooperative, and Vantage Health
Plan in a 41-page lawsuit.  East claims the defendants changed
their policies to they can deny coverage to HIV patients.

Blue Cross did this, East claims, by stating that it would no
longer accept funds from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The
federal program makes grants to states, cities and nonprofit
organizations to provide people living with HIV access to health
care by helping them pay of health insurance premiums.

East claims that Blue Cross has accepted payments from the Ryan
White program since at least 2009.  Blue Cross's policy change
came just as open enrollment began for the Affordable Care Act's
insurance exchange marketplace, East says in the complaint.

Blue Cross claimed it made the change under guidance from the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which advised not to
accept third-party premium payments from hospitals, health care
providers and other commercial entities.  But that guidance did
not discourage insurers from accepting payments from other
sources, such as federal programs like the Ryan White program,
East says.

Despite receiving clarification that Blue Cross could receive
payment from federal programs, on Feb. 13 it issued a statement
that it would not accept payment from the Ryan White program.

Defendants Louisiana Health Cooperative and Vantage Health Plan
followed suit by informing enrollees that payments made by the
Ryan White program would not be accepted beginning in March 2014,
East says in the complaint.

East says that a recently disclosed email makes it clear Blue
Cross changed its rules in the pursuit of cold, hard cash.  The
complaint states: "Indeed, in an email that was recently made
public, a congressional staffer in Senator Mary Landrieu's office
wrote that BCBS LA told me their decision was not due to the CMS
[Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] guidance or any
confusion (as we thought before) but was in fact due to adverse
selection concerns."

Under Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, health insurers
that receive federal funds are prohibited from discriminating
against anyone on the basis of a disability or pre-existing
condition.

East claims the defendants' policy changes are clearly
discriminatory, as they would deny coverage to hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of low-income Louisiana residents with HIV -- which
could hasten their deaths and increase their suffering.

Residents of Jefferson Parish who are eligible for assistance
through the Louisiana Health Insurance Program may be able to pay
for a health insurance plan offered by Humana Medical Plan using
the Ryan White Program.  But With Blue Cross and other insurers
refusing to accept funds from the Ryan White Program, Humana may
have difficulty maintaining its position as the only insurer in
Louisiana complying with the Affordable Care Act, East says.

According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Louisiana has the second highest rate of HIV infection
in the United States.

East seeks class certification, an injunction and damages for
discrimination, violations of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, disparate impact, unlawful marketing
practices to discourage enrollment in health insurance plans,
breach of contract, breach of faith and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Bushofsky, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          32nd Floor 191 North Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 845-1200
          Facsimile: (312) 845-5500
          E-mail: Jeffrey.Bushofsky@ropesgray.com


BP PLC: Lawyers Insist Deepwater Settlement Misinterpreted
----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that when BP
reached a settlement to compensate people who were financially
harmed by the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,
the two sides could barely contain their glee.  At a November 8,
2012, hearing before New Orleans U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier,
lawyers for BP Exploration & Production Inc. and for the
plaintiffs extolled the class action settlement as a shining
landmark in mass torts resolutions.

BP's lead lawyer, Richard Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis, boasted how
the parties were determined not to let this litigation turn into
another Exxon Valdez quagmire, where the oil company is still
fighting claims after two decades.  Instead, he said, two years
after the 2010 Deepwater disaster the two sides had crafted a
creative solution that would streamline the processing of claims.
James Roy, one of the lead plaintiffs lawyers, gushed over BP's
generosity.  "There is no cap on the amount BP will have to pay
under this settlement," he said.  BP had valued this deal at $7.8
billion, but would pay much more if it had to, he added.  "The
truth of the matter, Your Honor, is that if it ends up paying 20,
25, 30 billion, BP has agreed to do that."

A year and a half later, no one is smiling.  After paying $3.84
billion in claims so far, BP has declared war against plaintiffs,
their lawyers, and Judge Barbier.  It loudly insists that the
settlement agreement has been misinterpreted to allow claims by
people and businesses whose losses weren't caused by the Deepwater
disaster.  In a highly unusual move, it has even threatened to try
to undo the settlement.

The plaintiffs lawyers maintain that BP is twisting the facts and
has turned its back on a deal it now regrets.  The company says
that it is simply determined to have the settlement agreement
applied correctly.  "BP and its counsel have consistently
maintained that the settlement agreement was designed to fairly
and adequately compensate those who were injured as a result of
the spill, and we have consistently sought enforcement of this
requirement for class membership," said BP group general counsel
Rupert Bondy in a statement.

BP, however, is in an awkward, if not dangerous, position.  The
controversy over the settlement raises two basic questions.  Did
the oil giant's top in-house attorneys and its outside counsel at
Kirkland & Ellis -- one of the world's most sophisticated
litigation firms -- draft an imprecise settlement agreement that
exposed the company to claims it didn't intend to pay? Or, as
Judge Barbier would later contend, have BP and its lawyers changed
their story about this settlement?

On April 20, 2010, an explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling
rig off the coast of Louisiana killed 11 men and triggered a
gusher of oil for 87 days that polluted the Gulf of Mexico and its
coastline.

Two months after the explosion, facing a furious public backlash
and the threat of crippling litigation, BP agreed to fund the Gulf
Coast Claims Facility, led by Kenneth Feinberg, to reimburse
people and businesses who were financially harmed by the spill.
In evaluating claims, the GCCF considered a range of financial
data -- but also required claimants to show that the Deepwater
spill was the proximate cause of their loss, which often involved
some subjective analysis.  If an ice cream stand 20 miles inland
did poorly in the summer of 2010, how much could be attributed to
a drop in tourism caused by the spill?


C & J CLARK: Faces "Jahoda" ADA Violations Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C & J Clark America, Inc., doing business as Clarks,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00101-LPL (W.D. Pa., January 23, 2014) accuses
the Company of violating The Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAC FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Lissette Calderon, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. CAC Financial Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-00515-
NGG-RLM (E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CANON BUSINESS: Faces More Discovery in Background Check Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canon faces additional discovery into claims that it relies on
criminal-background checks without letting employees or job
applicants dispute the findings, reported Rose Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Anya McPherson leads the class action against Canon Business
Solutions, now known as Canon Solutions America, in Camden, N.J.
In a 2012 application for a permanent position, the temporary data
entry employee in Burlington, N.J., allegedly told Canon that she
had not been convicted of a crime within the last seven years.
McPherson says she got the permanent job but human resources
called her and fired her two weeks later because the background
check had uncovered a more-than-decade-old felony conviction.

The complaint alleges that McPherson had gotten the conviction
expunged after applying for executive clemency.  It also says
Canon never gave McPherson a copy of the report, described her
rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), or gave her an
opportunity to explain the conviction before firing her.
McPherson claims Canon typically fires employees and denies jobs
to applicants without properly disclosing or allowing them to
dispute the accuracy of their criminal-background reports.

She seeks to represent all those who suffered an adverse
employment action based on consumer reports within five years
before the complaint was filed until the date of trial.

After a federal magistrate refused to limit discovery to the two-
year limitations period of the FCRA, Canon moved for partial
summary judgment or to strike the class definition.  The company
said that the FCRA allows 5-year-old claims to be brought only if
they were unknown to the claimant for no more than two years
before the complaint was filed.

U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle denied Canon's "premature"
motion Feb. 20.  "Here, claims arising within five years of the
complaint are timely under the FCRA, except if the injured party
had knowledge of the violation more than two years prior to the
filing of the complaint," Simandle wrote.  "In other words, all
claims within the proposed five-year definition are potentially
timely. At this stage, the record does not foreclose the
possibility that evidence may demonstrate a corporate policy of
concealment, or at least lack of notice to the affected
individuals that negative criminal background information had
surfaced in the [consumer reporting agency] CRA reports, and could
permit an inference that the putative class members, or a subclass
of members, did not have knowledge of alleged violations before
Dec. 21, 2010.  Further discovery may well shed light on a scheme
to use and conceal CRA reports, or may buttress defendant's
position that putative class members were aware of Canon's use of
background checks before December 21, 2010.  Because 'it is not
clear that, as a matter of law,' plaintiff's class allegations
must fail, the 'parties should have the opportunity to develop the
record on this issue.'"

Finding that limited discovery would not unreasonably burden
Canon, the court ordered depositions of company representatives
and database discovery for Dec. 21, 2007, to Dec. 21, 2010.

As Canon has thus far provided discovery largely limited to
reports related to claims arising after Dec. 21, 2010, McPherson
has asked the magistrate judge to compel more discovery, according
to the ruling.

The case is Anya McPherson v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 1:12-cv-07761-JBS-AMD, in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.


CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC: Paramedics Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Madden, Greg Carney, Frank Broccolo, Keith Poston, Jennifer
Skipton, Grant Mizner, DeAnna Danley, Charlene Holbird, Michael
Zofcak, Robin Stout, Erik VanDerHorst, Kenneth Atwell, David
Shafer, Andrew Kilgore, Michelle Reid, Ryan Ellison, Casey Spirk
Josh Sims, Jennifer McComiskey, Karol Hodge, Brian Evanger, Brian
Stafford, Roy McGinnis, Beth Cook Buford Bost, Paul Stevens all
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. Charleston County, South Carolina, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00208-DCN (D.S.C., January 23, 2014) is brought individually
and as a collective action for unpaid overtime compensation, for
liquidated damages, and for other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.  The Plaintiffs have been employed by
Charleston County as paramedics, crew chiefs or emergency medical
technicians.

Charleston County is political subdivision of the state of South
Carolina, with the power to sue and be sued in its own name.
Charleston County operates an EMS Department to provide emergency
medical services to the citizens and residents of Charleston
County, as well as to other persons within the County in need of
emergency medical attention or care.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Jordan, Esq.
          STEINBERG LAW FIRM, LLP
          PO Box 1028
          Goose Creek, SC 29445
          Telephone: (843) 572-0700
          Facsimile: (843) 572-1871
          E-mail: mjordan@steinberglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Amy L. Gaffney, Esq.
          GAFFNEY, LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC
          3710 Landmark Drive, Suite 109
          Columbia, SC 29204
          Telephone: (803) 790-8838
          Facsimile: (803) 790-8841
          E-mail: agaffney@glelawfirm.com


CODMAN NEURO: Class I Recall for TRUFILL n-BCA
----------------------------------------------
Codman Neuro in January said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has classified the recently initiated medical device
correction notice related to the TRUFILL n-BCA Liquid Embolic
System as a Class I recall.

TRUFILL n-BCA is indicated for embolization of cerebral
arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) when presurgical
devascularization is desired.  The use of incorrectly mixed
product can result in the liquid mixture solidifying too slowly in
unintended areas, which may lead to embolization or reflux into
arteries and pulmonary vessels.  This could result in significant
impact to the patient, including neurological deficits, pulmonary
emboli and possibly death.

In Oct. 2013, Codman Neuro identified an incorrect statement in
the product's Instructions For Use (IFU) that described suggested
mixing ratios for use in certain treatment conditions, informed
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory
authorities, and issued a corresponding correction notice to
inform customers in the U.S., Costa Rica, Puerto Rico and Russia.
The error was identified through routine internal procedures.

Product is not being removed from the market.  The company is
informing physicians of this incorrect statement and updating the
product's IFU.  The product's IFU incorrectly noted: "A 2:1 (67%
Ethiodized Oil / 33% nBCA) for feeding pedicle injections close to
the nidus at high flow rates where venous opacification occurs on
contrast injections within 1/2 second."

The correct information should have stated: "A 2:1 (67% Ethiodized
Oil / 33% nBCA) for Intranidal injections without AV fistulae or
high flow rates in order to more deeply penetrate the nidus."

No corresponding patient deaths or permanent patient injuries have
been reported to date.  When the product is mixed correctly, it is
expected to perform as intended.  Thorough product training is
required before purchasing the TRUFILL nBCA.  The company has
verified that all related physician training materials and
promotional documents contain correct information.

All customers who have purchased TRUFILL nBCA are reminded to
review the correction notice and other product literature to
ensure proper mixing procedures are followed.  They may also call
Codman Neuro with questions or to report any malfunction or
adverse event on weekdays between the hours of 7:00am and 6:30pm
Eastern Time at 1-866-491-0974, Option 2. TRUFILL nBCA products
associated with the correction notice were manufactured between
February 25, 2010 and Oct., 31, 2013, distributed to hospitals and
surgical centers, and include the following codes (all lots):

  Product Code      Description
  ------------       -----------
  631400           Two 1 gram tubes nBCA
  631500           One 1 gram tube nBCA

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products may be reported to the FDA: Online: complete and
submit the report available at:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form at:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

                        About Codman Neuro

Codman Neuro is a global neurosurgery, neurovascular and
neuromodulation company that offers a broad portfolio of devices
for hydrocephalus management, neuro intensive care and cranial
surgery as well as aneurysm coils, vascular reconstruction devices
and other technologies used in the endovascular treatment of
cerebral aneurysms and stroke.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lidoderm Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Teikoku Pharma, Actavis, Watson
Pharmaceuticals et al. conspired to keep generic forms of
Lidoderm, an anesthetic patch for shingles, off the market, a
union health plan claims in a Tennessee federal antitrust class
action, reported Courthouse News Service.


ESTATE INFORMATION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Caruso and Estate of Domenic J. Caruso, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Estate Information
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00477-JEI-KMW (D.N.J., January 23,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Adam Frischberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL A. FRISCHBERG, LLC
          3000 Atrium Way, Suite 212
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 273-6979
          Facsimile: (856) 273-6982
          E-mail: daniel@frischberglaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Patrick Kelly, III, Esq.
          KELLY LAW OFFICES LLC
          3000 Atrium Way, Suite 291
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (609) 261-6100
          Facsimile: (609) 261-6105
          E-mail: Tom@TPKelly.com


FISHER-PRICE: No Recall for Seahorse Toy Despite Safety Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
An investigation from Scripps Denver station KMGH has revealed
serious safety concerns about one of the most popular children's
toys on the market that is still being sold in stores despite
consumer calls for a recall.

The Fisher-Price Soothe & Glow Seahorse is the seventh best-
selling toddler toy on Amazon.com, but it's also the subject of
dozens of negative reviews and at least 10 complaints to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission from parents who say it got
dangerously hot and even started smoking when they simply changed
the batteries.

Triana Burdick says the toy is a favorite in her house.  Each of
her two children has one.

"I think the light is kind of soothing to them, in the dark, and
then the music," Ms. Burdick said.  "They always liked listening
to it, falling asleep."

Ms. Burdick's son Christopher got his Soothe & Glow Seahorse four
years ago.  His little sister Lila's was a gift in 2011.

"It usually was in their bed all the time," Ms. Burdick said.
"Whenever they napped, whenever we put them down."

But when Ms. Burdick changed the batteries in Lila's doll for the
first time, she said it felt hot, and she heard a sizzling noise.
Then the battery coils started heating up, and smoke poured out of
the toy.

"It was melting the plastic on the inside," Ms. Burdick said.
"The first thought that went through my head was like, 'Oh, my
God, it could have caught fire.  It could have caught a blanket in
her bed on fire.'  I freaked out right away."

Ms. Burdick showed the toy to her husband, and they checked to
make sure the batteries were correctly installed.

"Everything was fine," she said.  "So we just assumed, I don't
know, maybe it was a random malfunction."

But the CPSC complaints and Amazon.com reviews, which date from
October 2012 to as recently as February 2014, show it wasn't
random at all.

One reviewer wrote, "The toy just suddenly started burning . . ."

Another wrote he picked up his daughter's seahorse and "it was
stinking, took the cover off it and the battery compartment was
smoking, removed the backing and the spring was orange and had
melted the plastic around it."

Still another wrote, "Does a house have to burn down before they
recall this thing?"

The online complaints included problems when using both regular
alkaline and rechargeable batteries.  The Soothe & Glow Seahorse
manual says both types are acceptable.

Ms. Burdick said when she called Fisher-Price, they told her to
send them the toy in exchange for a new one.

So CALL7 Investigator Keli Rabon found another family who
experienced the same problem -- and took their toy to University
of Denver electrical engineering professor Dr. David Gao.

Seconds after he put in three brand new batteries, the coil began
to burn.  It turned bright red, smoke poured out of the
compartment, and the plastic casing around it began to melt.

Four minutes later, Dr. Gao took the battery out.

"The coil is about to fall, due to the burning and the heat," he
said.

Dr. Gao said the burn risk isn't the only problem.  He said the
fumes from the melting plastic can be poisonous, and overheated
batteries are dangerous, too.

"If we left this burning to keep going, the battery may explode,"
he said.

Dr. Gao said he believes the problem with the Soothe & Glow
Seahorse is a design flaw that involves the battery coil, metal,
wiring, and soldering inside the toy.

"I think this product should be recalled," he said.

Instead, the CALL7 Investigators found Fisher-Price may have
quietly addressed the problem without issuing a recall for the
faulty toys already in consumers' homes. The seahorse Dr. Gao
tested used three batteries, as did Burdick's problem toy, and the
examples CALL7 found online.  But a brand new Soothe & Glow
Seahorse purchased on Amazon.com requires only two batteries --
not three.  The toys are otherwise nearly identical, and both were
made in China.

"I think the two-battery version may be an improved design by the
company," said Dr. Gao.  "I don't understand why in the market,
there are still these two different versions."

Fisher-Price refused to acknowledge any modifications to the
Soothe & Glow Seahorse, and told the CALL7 Investigators the
company has no plans to recall it.  The company also refused to
answer questions about where in China the toy was made, or about
how it determines a recall is necessary, instead releasing this
written statement:

"The Soothe & Glow Seahorse has been a hugely popular item since
its introduction in 2008.  We've received calls from a very small
percentage of consumers who have experienced an issue with this
product.  We completely understand some consumers have concerns,
which we're taking seriously and working to address as effectively
as possible.

We want to reassure everyone that the Seahorse is safe and we hope
the following information will help put consumers' minds at ease.

AA batteries have limited energy that depletes quickly.  In the
rare instance that a portion of the battery compartment is
reported to have heated up, which we realize can be concerning to
parents, it is brief and does not involve any other part of the
toy beyond the battery compartment.

We value consumers' trust and want to assure them that we would
never do anything that compromises children's safety.

If consumers have any questions regarding the Soothe & Glow
Seahorse product or if they've experienced an issue, we encourage
them to call our consumer services team at
888.253.4303888.253.4303, Mon.-Fri., 9 a.m.-6 p.m.  We're ready to
listen and help."

Ms. Burdick said that answer leaves her wondering how safe her
children's Fisher-Price toys really are.

"It sounds like maybe they are trying to fix it, but not actually
take care of the people that already have them," she said.  "I
don't know why they're waiting for someone to get hurt."

The CALL7 Investigators asked the Consumer Product Safety
Commission about the criteria it uses to determine the need for a
recall -- and about a company's responsibility to notify the CPSC
about defective products.

The CPSC said a company is required to report any complaints about
products that represent a "substantial hazard" to the public.  But
it's the companies that decide what qualifies as "substantial."

To report a problem with the Soothe & Glow Seahorse or any other
product, and to research complaints and recalls, go to
SaferProducts.gov.


FLAT CREEK: Heavenly Blue Cheese and Aztec Cheddar Cheese Recalled
------------------------------------------------------------------
Flat Creek Farm & Dairy of Swainsboro, GA announced in January a
recall of its Heavenly Blue Cheese and Aztec Cheddar cheese.  The
purpose of the updated press release is to provide the correct lot
number for the Aztec Cheddar cheese.  The lot number that appears
on the Aztec Cheddar cheese is 130823XCAZ, not 130823XAZ as
previously reported.  As of Dec. 24, 2013, all customers that
purchased the product have been notified and all products have
been either recovered or destroyed.  Since the previous recall,
the dairy has conducted extensive independent testing and results
come back negative for any contamination.

The 90 pounds of Heavenly Blue and 78 pounds of Aztec Cheddar
cheese, were recalled because of potential contamination by
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis, no illnesses have been reported to
date.

The cheeses were distributed in certain parts of Georgia and
Florida and (6) online orders (www.flatcreekdairy.com), which have
all been notified.  The product was packed in clear plastic and
ranged in sizes from 1/2 pound to whole wheels.  The recall was
specific to product marked with the lot codes 130916XHB (Heavenly
Blue) and 130823XCAZ (Aztec Cheddar), which can be found on the
front of the package.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program conducted
by the Georgia Department of Agriculture, which revealed that the
finished products were potentially contaminated.

Consumers that have concerns about this recall should call Flat
Creek Dairy & Farm at 478-237-0123 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST
for more information.

Again, all of recalled product has been either recovered or
destroyed.  Since the previous recall, the dairy has conducted
extensive independent testing and results come back negative for
any contamination.


FORD MOTOR: Fiesta & Focus Have Faulty Transmissions, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Fiesta 2011-14 and Focus 2012-14 models have defective
PowerShift six-speed transmissions, a class action filed in
February claims in California Superior Court, according to
Courthouse News Service.


GANNETT CO: Accused of Discriminating Against Black Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Arkansas sports broadcaster has accused Gannett and its THV
Channel 11 station of running a racist workplace that makes it
impossible for black workers to be promoted to lead anchor and
management positions, according to Erik de la Garza, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Named plaintiff Mark C. Nelson pka Mark Edwards sued Gannett Co.
dba Today's THV Channel 11 in a 26-page lawsuit with 23 pages of
attachments.  Nelson claims that Gannett ran a sophisticated
scheme and cover "in the form of focus groups and other means and
methods that are subjectively manipulated by Gannett to achieve
its discriminatory goals and objectives."

According to the class action lawsuit, Gannett "has a corporate
custom, policy, pattern, practice and procedure of not promoting
African-Americans to director and leadership positions and
utilizing a 'one-and-done policy' that disparately impacts
African-American employed within the company."

Gannett, based in McLean, Va., is best known for its flagship
newspaper, USA Today.  Its chain of newspapers, TV stations and
other media reach than 110 million people a month, according to
the complaint.

Edwards says he began working for Gannett at THV Channel 11 in
2003 "in what is referred to as a 'number three' position" --
editing and production, rather than sports anchor or broadcaster.
In 2007, he says, he was offered a prime sports broadcasting spot
in Cleveland, Ohio, one of the nation's top 15 news markets.
Apparently, the offer was from a competitor, which is not named in
the complaint.  "This broadcasting position provided a substantial
increase in pay, promotion, terms, conditions, privileges and
employment benefits.  The position offered plaintiff the
opportunity to cover and broadcast professional sports teams, such
as the Cleveland Cavaliers, Cleveland Browns, (and) Cleveland
Indians on television and also provided further advancement
opportunities in major sports broadcasting venues.  At the time of
this offer, Larry Audas, the General Manager at THV Channel 11,
approached plaintiff and advised plaintiff that defendant was
opposed to him leaving.  Mr. Audas, on behalf of Channel 11,
advised plaintiff that defendant would promote plaintiff to a
higher sports broadcasting position on weekends with the company,
a number two position, and ultimately plaintiff would be on a
'fast track' for the number one position as sports director at THV
Channel 11, if plaintiff stayed in Little Rock, Arkansas,"
according to the complaint.

Nelson says he stayed, and the Cleveland job went to someone else.
He says he worked on the station's morning show for a week and was
offered a weekend morning show co-anchor position.

The complaint continues: "After remaining in employment for
several years with the defendant, in approximately May 2012, Wes
Moore, a white sports anchor and director, left Channel 11.
Plaintiff was in an optimum position to take over as the anchor
and sports director with the attendant advertising, marketing,
promotion and raise-in-pay that accompanies such advancement
within the company.  However, rather than offer this opportunity
to plaintiff, instead, Channel 11 hired a white male with less
sports broadcasting experience from another station in July-August
of 2012.  For reasons never explained to plaintiff, defendant did
not provide plaintiff with an offer to be promoted, marketed or
further advanced with the defendant as sports director, or anchor
as was promised and represented by him."

In late 2012, Nelson claims, an Arizona station offered him "a
substantial, meaningful and quality promotion, including an
increase in pay, benefits privileges and television director and
leadership advancement opportunity."

He claims that Gannett sabotaged that job offer: "(D)efendant
concealed from the plaintiff that it retaliated against plaintiff.
Defendant willfully and intentionally interfered with the Arizona
offer of promotion to plaintiff and the advancement and
opportunity for a better employment opportunity in Arizona.
Defendant unlawfully retaliated because of plaintiff's race and in
order to depress and keep plaintiff in Arkansas in an unequal and
disparate employment setting for African-Americans, which
defendant created, implemented and maintained throughout its
company.

"Defendant concealed, suppressed and omitted the fact that it had
directly and unlawfully communicated with the television station
in Arizona and further omitted from plaintiff that defendant had
provided false, racial stereotyped information about plaintiff's
employment and work history with defendant. Defendant further
manipulated evidence of focus groups to cast a negative impression
on African-Americans and perpetuate its racial glass ceiling and
denial of advancement opportunities for plaintiff and others
similarly situated.  Defendant's unlawful, retaliatory and unfair
conduct and actions against the plaintiff terminated the
employment opportunity, disparaging plaintiff's reputation in the
television broadcasting community and maintain plaintiff locked in
an unequal and disparate employment setting."

Nelson estimates the class includes "several hundred" people
spread about the South.  They are defined as "all African American
employees employed within Gannett, in the states of Texas,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia,
Virginia, North and South Carolina and Florida, who were denied
promotion, equal pay and employment benefits."

Gannett recently bought Belo Corp. for $2.2 billion, creating the
largest independent group of major network affiliates in the top
25 markets, according to the complaint.  Gannett claims its TV
stations reach one-third of American households.

"In sum, the overall employment atmosphere and attitude at the
defendant is hostile toward recruitment, training, leadership,
management and advancement of African-Americans into top
broadcasting leadership positions and opportunities," Nelson
claims.

He seeks class certification, restitution, and compensatory and
punitive damages for Civil Rights Act violations, loss of
prospective earnings and a court order "to enjoin the
discriminatory practices."

In a page attached to the lawsuit, "Dismissal and Notice of
Rights," dated Nov. 26, 2013, the EEOC's Little Rock Area Office
wrote, in a form letter: "THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS
CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:" -- it then checked the fifth of
seven boxes.

The fifth box on the form states: "The EEOC issues the following
determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to
conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of
the statutes.  This does not certify that the respondent is in
compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other
issues that might be construed as having been raised by this
charge."

Marked as Exhibit 2 is a 1999 lawsuit against Today's THV Channel
11 in which Richelle A. McCoy accused the station of racial
discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip J. Duncan, Esq.
          THE DUNCAN FIRM
          900 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          Facsimile: (501) 228-0415


GANO EXCEL: C'Real Spirulina Due to Undeclared Allergens Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gano Excel USA, Inc. of Irwindale, CA in January initiated a
recall of all C'Real Spirulina.  C'Real Spirulina is being
recalled because of the undeclared food allergens, wheat and soy.
People who have allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat and/or soy
run the risk of life threatening allergic reaction, anaphylaxis,
that requires immediate medical care if they consume the product.

Gano Excel immediately segregated its entire C'Real Spirulina
inventory and is notifying customers not to consume this product
if they are allergic to wheat and/or soy.

C'Real Spirulina is an instant cereal that is sold by the box with
15 packets of instant cereal per box.

Gano Excel USA, Inc. wants to ensure its products are safe.
Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the
California Department of Public Health, Gano Excel USA, Inc. is
voluntarily recalling all C'Real Spirulina from all of its
distributors.  Consumers in possession of C'Real Spirulina who are
allergic to wheat and/or soy should not eat the product and should
return the product to the place of purchase.

Gano Excel USA, Inc. said it would be sending recall notices to
all of its direct customers.  Please call Matthew Nguyen at (626)
480-7550 for further information.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Maddy, Kurt Fredrick, Frederick R. Shellhammer, III, Frank
Michienzi, Mario Laureano, Anthony Chelpaty, William Madden,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
General Electric Company, a New York corporation, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00490-JEI-KMW (D.N.J., January 23, 2014) is brought to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from GE pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs have worked as service technicians for GE in New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Florida, Delaware and
Georgia.

General Electric Company is a New York corporation that has done
business throughout the United States, including in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Florida, Delaware and Georgia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nina K. Markey, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          Three Parkway
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-1321
          Telephone: (267) 402-3020
          E-mail: nmarkey@littler.com


GENERAL MILLS: Sued by "Kellogg" Over False Claims on Kix Cereal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that General Mills pushes Kix
cereal with false claims that it's made from "All Natural Corn &
Honey," according to a federal class action filed by, of all
people, Daniel Kellogg.


GOYA FOODS: Malta Goya Drinks Contain Carcinogen, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thamar Santisteban Cortina, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Goya Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00169-L-
NLS (S.D. Cal., January 23, 2014) alleges that Goya has actively
concealed from the Plaintiff and the class material facts
concerning the amount of 4-MeI in the Malta Goya beverages, as
well as its potential health harms.

4-MeI is an impurity generated during the manufacture of caramel
colors III and IV used in some soft drinks.  4-MeI has been found
by the National Toxicology Program to cause lung tumors in
laboratory animals.

Goya Foods, Inc. is a New Jersey company with its principle place
of business in Secaucus, New Jersey.  Goya sells "Malta Goya" cola
soft drinks throughout the state of California.  Malta Goya
beverages contain an amount of 4-methylimidazole (4-MeI), a
carcinogen, sufficient to expose California consumers to
substantial health risks, according to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          The Palm Canyon Building
          2870 Fourth Avenue, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


HALLIBURTON CO: Justices Reluctant to Overturn 1988 Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for the New York Law Journal, reports that
despite the urgent plea of business advocates, the U.S. Supreme
Court on March 5 appeared reluctant to completely overturn a key
precedent that has made it easier for plaintiffs to sue companies
for securities fraud.

Instead, during arguments in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund,
several justices latched onto what they labeled "the law
professors' brief" filed in the case as a possible "midway
position," in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The brief,
authored by John Elwood of Vinson & Elkins, suggests that
plaintiffs be required to conduct an "event study" at the class-
certification stage showing that a company's misstatements had a
significant impact on share prices.

Justice Kennedy, a crucial vote in this and most other cases,
returned to the professors' brief at least three times during
argument, making it clear he saw it as a way to modestly increase
the burden for plaintiffs in securities class actions -- thereby
updating but not overturning the 1988 precedent Basic Inc. v.
Levinson.

That decision endorsed a "fraud on the market" theory holding that
investors rely on an efficient market, and that share prices
reflect information or misinformation that is available to the
public.  The theory has allowed plaintiffs to sue for securities
fraud without the costly burden of having to prove specifically
that individual investors read company statements and were misled
and harmed by them.

By the end of the hourlong argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was
referring to the brief's compromise position as "Basic writ
small," and Justice Elena Kagan was asking advocates for their
views on the impact "if the law professors' position was adopted."
Neither side rejected the idea outright, though plaintiffs' lawyer
David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner said event studies can
become costly and complicated, especially if there are multiple
events -- company misstatements -- whose price impact would have
to be analyzed.

The Elwood brief was actually one of three amicus curiae briefs
filed in the case on behalf of legal academics.  Such briefs have
proliferated at the Supreme Court in recent years, according to a
2012 study by Harvard Law School professor Richard Fallon.
Justice Kennedy did not mention which one he referred to, but it
was clear to the advocates that it was Elwood's.

On March 5, after the arguments, Mr. Elwood said, laughing, that
it would have been nice if Justice Kennedy had called it the
"Elwood brief," but thought the justice might have been reluctant
to give one of his former law clerks a shout-out by name.
Mr. Elwood clerked for Justice Kennedy in 1996-97.

University of Michigan Law School professor Adam Pritchard, one of
the law professors Elwood represented in the brief, said he has
advanced the "event study" idea in two previous briefs in related
Supreme Court cases.

"Finally, someone is paying attention, I hope," Mr. Pritchard
said.  It could benefit plaintiffs in some cases, defendant
companies in others, he said, making it a good foundation for a
compromise.  "Everyone has something to like or dislike," he said.

The case before the court on March 5 was brought by investors who
claim they were harmed by misleading statements from Halliburton
Co. that underestimated the company's exposure to asbestos
liability claims and other business setbacks.  Halliburton sought
dismissal, and after a lengthy appeals process -- including a
previous decision by the Supreme Court -- the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed certification of the class,
with the help of the Basic presumption.


HERBASWAY LABORATORIES: Sued for Bogus Claims on Daily Detox Pill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbasway Laboratories sells a "Daily Detox" diet supplement with
bogus claims that it can "detoxify your liver," a class action
claims in Bergen County Court, according to Courthouse News
Service.


HUMAN SCIENCE: Pro ArthMax Recalled Due to Active Ingredients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gardena, CA, Human Science Foundation in January issued a
voluntarily recalling all lots of Pro ArthMax 120 count bottle,
labeled and sold as a dietary supplement to the consumer level.
The product has been found to contain undeclared active
pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), making it an unapproved new
drug. FDA sample analysis tested the product to contain the
following APIs: 2.4mg of Chlorzoxazone, 0.78mg of Nefopam, 2.5mg
of Diclofenac, 7.7mg of Ibuprofen, 2.1mg of Naproxen, and 1.9mg of
Indomethacin.

Use of this product containing the undeclared drug ingredients
listed above, has a reasonable probability of resulting in fatal
adverse events in consumers and patients with underlying
illnesses, including known allergy to the hidden ingredients,
cardiac, gastrointestinal, hepatic, and renal conditions as well
as patients who recently undergone cardiac bypass graft surgery.
Consumers would be unaware that the product contains Non-Steroidal
Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) (and other ingredients), may
inadvertently overdose by taking another NSAID concurrently, thus
increasing the risk for NSAID associated adverse events, which
include but are not limited to, myocardial infarction, stroke,
congestive heart failure, renal toxicity, and bleeding,
ulceration, or perforation of the stomach or intestines.

The product is marketed as a dietary supplement for joint pain and
arthritis and is packaged in 120-count tablets per bottle, in a
white plastic screw top bottle.  Product was distributed to direct
consignees in the state of California then further distributed
nationwide to retail stores and via internet sales.

Company is notifying its distributors and customers by telephone
and e-mail and is arranging for return for credit of all recalled
products.  Consumers/distributors/retailers that have product
which is being recalled should stop using and return to place of
purchase for credit.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Human
Science Foundation by email to hsf@hs-foundation.com from Monday
through Friday, 10 AM and 4 PM, PST.  Consumers should contact
their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced
any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug
product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lowenbein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00516-
SJ-RLM (E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) accuses the Company of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ILLINOIS: Faces Fifth Lawsuit Over New Pension Law
--------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a fifth lawsuit has been filed
by state employees challenging Illinois' new pension law.

The lawsuit from current and former employees at the University of
Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and Parkland Community College was
filed in Champaign County Circuit Court on March 6.  It says the
legislation passed by the General Assembly in December violates
several provisions of the state constitution, which says
retirement benefits should not be diminished or impaired and
private property should not be "taken or damaged for public use."

The Illinois Supreme Court consolidated four other lawsuits
challenging the legislation in Sangamon County Circuit Court.

Illinois' five public-retirement systems had a $100 billion
unfunded liability when the Legislature passed the measure.  The
bill saves an estimated $145 billion, largely by cutting benefits
for employees and retirees.


INTEGRITY STAFFING: Supreme Court to Review Unpaid Security Checks
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court said March 3, 2014, that it will look for
conflicts in the pursuit of class and collective claims by
warehouse workers who fill Amazon orders fighting unpaid security
checks, reports Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, both of Nevada, worked in Las Vegas-
area warehouses of Integrity Staffing Solutions where they filled
orders for Amazon.com.  Every day at quitting time, Integrity
forced the workers to wait in a long line to face a thorough
searched and metal detector.

Integrity said that the searches were necessary to cut down on
employee theft.  The checks could take nearly half an hour at the
end of the working day and the employees were not paid for the
time.

Busk and Castro filed a federal class action against Integrity in
2010, alleging that the unpaid security sweeps violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law.  They also claimed that
the company refused to pay them for their 30-minute lunches, 10
minutes of which they spent walking to and from a cafeteria and
going through a security check.  Even at lunch managers allegedly
harassed them to "finish their meal period quickly so that they
would clock back in on time," the plaintiffs claimed, as it took
about 10 minutes out of their lunchtime to do so.

U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed the case after finding
that the plaintiffs had failed to state a valid claim for
compensation.  Hunt cited several out-of-circuit cases in finding
that time spent going through security does not qualify for
compensation under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.  Hunt also
found that the state-law claims presented conflicting class-
certification mechanisms since plaintiffs must opt into a
collective action under FLSA but must opt out of a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit partly reversed that ruling
last year, saying "such actions can peacefully coexist."  Turning
to the merits, the panel also found no reason to bar a suit under
the Portal-to-Portal Act, which amended FLSA to generally preclude
compensation for activities that are "preliminary" or
"postliminary" to the "principal activity or activities" that the
employee "is employed to perform."  This act contains an exception
the act gives for such activities that are "integral and
indispensable" to an employee's principal duties, according to the
ruling.

The ruling did, however, block the employees form claiming that
their lunch breaks violated federal labor law.  The Fair Labor and
Standards Act does not require employers to pay their workers for
lunch breaks, and the plaintiffs failed to show that they were
made to do work during their lunch breaks, the court found.  State
law may still provide relief for the workers to recoup unpaid
wages, the judges added.

The Supreme Court did not issue any comment in granting the board
a writ of certiorari March 3, 2014, as is its custom.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          E-mail: mark@thiermanlaw.com
                  josh@thiermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Schnapper, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF LAW
          P.O. Box 353020
          Seattle, WA 98195
          Telephone: (206) 616-3167

The appellate case is Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, Jesse,
et al., Case No. 13-433, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.


KENNETH KEYSER: Owner of Cottage Garden Faces OT Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Jaime Pillco on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kenneth Keyser, a/k/a Kenny Kaiser, in his individual
and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-00513-LDW-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) is a civil action based upon alleged
flagrant and willful violations committed by the Defendant of the
Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Keyser is a Defendant in the action in his individual
capacity.  He has been residing in Suffolk County, New York, and
has been maintaining an office and regularly doing business in
East Hampton, New York.  During the relevant times, he has owned
and operated an unincorporated landscaping business in New York
that primarily operates in the County of Suffolk.  Mr. Keyser's
landscaping business has at times operated as "KK Landscaping"
and, most recently, as "Cottage Garden."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Zelenznik Stecker, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: dzs@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


KIA MOTORS: "Patterson" Fraud Suit Transferred to California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Douglas A. Patterson v. Kia
Motors America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01003, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The California
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00327-GW-FFM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges fraud and violations of the Truth in Lending
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward B. Davis, Esq.
          BELL DAVIS AND PITT PA
          227 West Trade Street, Suite 2160
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 227-0400
          Facsimile: (704) 227-0178
          E-mail: ward.davis@belldavispitt.com


KINNIKINNICK FOODS: 5 Foods Products Recalled Due to Allergen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kinnikinnick Foods of 10940 120 Street, Edmonton, AB, in January
issued a warning to consumers with MILK Allergies not to consume
these Kinnikinnick Products.

   -- Original Homestyle Waffles
   -- Cinnamon & Brown Sugar Homestyle Waffles
   -- Pancake & Waffle Mix
   -- Kinni-Kwik Bread & Bun Mix
   -- Panko Style Bread Crumbs

Kinnikinnick has determined that an ingredient used in the
production of these products contained MILK allergens that were
not listed by the manufacturer of that ingredient and may be
present in these finished products.  MILK is not declared on the
packaging of these 5 Kinnikinnick products.  Routine testing by
Kinnikinnick discovered this MILK contamination in a specific lot
of an ingredient which was certified by the manufacturer to
contain no MILK allergens.  Regulatory agencies in Canada and the
USA have been notified of these findings regarding this
manufacturer.  Many of the Best Before dates listed are already
expired, however these are listed for completeness.

The products being recalled are:

   -- Kinnikinnick Original Homestyle Waffles
      Weight: 210 g/7.4oz Qty/Pkg: 6 Cardboard Box
      UPC: 62013300198 1

   -- Kinnikinnick Cinnamon & Brown Sugar Homestyle Waffles
      Weight: 210 g/7.4oz Qty/Pkg: 6 Cardboard Box
      UPC: 62013300199 8

   -- Kinnikinnick Kinni-Kwik Bread & Bun Mix
      Weight: 465g/16.4oz Cardboard Box
      UPC 62013310550 4

   -- Kinnikinnick Panko Style Bread Crumbs
      Weight: 350g/12.5oz Cardboard Box
      UPC: 62013360015 3

   -- Kinnikinnick Pancake & Waffle Mix
      Weight: 454g/16oz Cardboard Box
      UPC: 62013310512 2


KINNIKINNICK FOODS: Recall on Products With Milk Allergen Expanded
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinnikinnick Foods of 10940 120 Street, Edmonton, AB in January
said it was expanding previous recalls of January 10 & 15th.
Kinnikinnick has determined that an ingredient used in the
production of these products contained MILK allergens that were
not listed by the manufacturer of that ingredient and may be
present in these finished products.  MILK is not declared on the
packaging of these 5 Kinnikinnick products.  Routine testing by
Kinnikinnick discovered this MILK contamination in a specific lot
of an ingredient which was certified by the manufacturer to
contain no MILK allergens.  The distributor of this ingredient in
Canada, Burnbrae Farms, has currently recalled 4 lots of this
ingredient and several additional lots are under investigation.

The company is voluntarily recalling all lots produced up to and
including the Best Before dates indicated below which contained
the ingredient.

Lots produced after the listed Best Before dates do not use this
ingredient and are not a part of this recall.

Affected Products:

   -- Original Homestyle Waffles
      Weight: 210 g/7.4oz Qty/Pkg: 6 Cardboard Box
      UPC: 62013300198 1
      Up to and including Best Before
      2014AU10       20140810        140810

   -- Kinni-Kwik Bread & Bun Mix
      Weight: 465g/16.4oz Cardboard Box
      UPC 62013310550 4
      Up to and including Best Before
      2014DE19        20141219        141219

   -- Panko Style Bread Crumbs
      Weight: 350g/12.5oz Cardboard Box
      UPC: 62013360015 3
      Up to and including Best Before
      2014AU09      20140809        140809

   -- Pancake & Waffle Mix
      Weight: 454g/16oz Cardboard Box
      UPC: 62013310512 2
      Up to and including Best Before
      2015JA06       20150106        150106

   -- Cinnamon & Brown Sugar Homestyle Waffles
      Weight: 210 g/7.4oz Qty/Pkg: 6 Cardboard Box
      UPC: 62013300199 8
      Up to and including Best Before
      2014AU11       20140811        140811

A complete list of affected Best Before dates is available at
www.kinnikinnick.com

Disclaimer icon Best before dates are embossed on the top flap of
the box, applied with an ink jet printer on the side or as an
applied label to the bottom of the box.

The products are distributed across Canada and the United States
in retail stores and through direct shipments.

This may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction in persons
with allergies to MILK.  Consumers who are allergic to MILK should
dispose of or return the product to point of sale for a refund.

Consumers WITHOUT allergies to MILK may continue to consume these
products.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with this recall.

Consumers can contact Kinnikinnick Foods by calling 780-424-2900
or by emailing info@kinnikinnick.com.


LEHIGH VALLEY: Voluntarily Recalls Orange Juice Over Allergen
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Lehigh Valley Dairy is
voluntarily recalling orange juice because it may contain milk, a
common allergen.

The Food and Drug Administration said the recall on March 6
affects multiple brands distributed to both retail and food-
service locations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, D.C.

The affected brands and sizes are Lehigh Valley half pints, half
gallons and gallons; Swiss Premium half gallons and gallons, and
Price Chopper gallons.

The Allentown-based dairy said due to a manufacturing error, milk
became mixed with the orange juice.  All of the affected products
have a sell-by date of March 23 and plant code 42-099.

Lehigh Valley Dairy said consumers should discard the product and
return the packaging to the place of purchase for a refund or
exchange.


LIVEDEAL INC: Lawsuit by GES Closed After Settlement Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation Global Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc.
is fully resolved and the matter closed after payment of class
members and attorneys' fee, according to LiveDeal's Jan. 10, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc., which the
company refers to as GES, filed a consumer fraud lawsuit against
the company in the King County Superior Court in the State of
Washington, alleging that the company's use of activator checks
violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act and seeking class
certification pursuant to Washington law. GES sought injunctive
relief against the company's use of activator checks, damages in
an amount equal to three times the damages allegedly sustained by
the members of the putative class, exemplary damages for the
alleged violation of law and its fees and costs. The company
denied the allegations and commenced defending the litigation.

Early in 2010, the Court denied both parties' dispositive motions,
at which time they commenced settlement discussions. The parties
reached a settlement and entered into a settlement agreement on or
about November 5, 2012. The settlement agreement required $150,000
to be paid to plaintiff's counsel, $10,000 to be paid to GES as
the "representative plaintiff" and $70 to be paid to each eligible
class member. The Court granted final approval of the settlement
on April 26, 2013 and the Court's order became final on May 27,
2013. All class member claims have been paid and the last
attorneys' fee payment was made on November 23, 2013. Accordingly,
the litigation is fully resolved and the matter closed.


MARCHELLO'S GARDEN: Fails to Properly Overtime, Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis O. Rubio on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and Jose A. Mendez, and Jose L. Benitez, individually v.
Marchello's Garden Grill, Inc., d/b/a Garden Grill, and Beach Hut
at Venetian Shores, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Beach, and Gloria Marsilio
and Fred Marsilio, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-00497-JFB-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to
compensate the Plaintiffs for time worked in excess of 40 hours
per week at a rate of at least one and one-half times their
regular hourly rate.

Marchello's Garden Grill, Inc. does business in the state of New
York, maintaining a place of business in Smithtown, New York.
Beach Hut at Venetian Shores, Inc. does business in the state of
New York, maintaining a place of business in Babylon, New York.
The Corporate Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.
The Individual Defendants own, operate or manage the Corporate
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
          Ilan Weiser, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com
                  mm@shulmankessler.com
                  iweiser@shulmankessler.com


MARINA DISTRICT: Refused to Refund Buy-In Money, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
An Atlantic City casino hoodwinked by counterfeit chips in a poker
tournament has refused to refund competitors their buy-in money, a
class claims in court, according to Kevin Koeninger, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The 2014 Borgata Winter Poker Open, referred to as the "Big Stack,
No Limit Hold 'Em," kicked off at the Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa
in Atlantic City, N.J., on Jan. 12, 2014.  On Jan. 17, posts
appeared on the online poker forum Two Plus Two about a 24-hour
suspension of the tournament after the discovery of counterfeit
poker chips.

Several media outlets reported on the arrest later that month of
42-year-old Christian Lusardi of Fayetteville, N.C., after
investigators allegedly linked him to $2.7 million worth of
counterfeit poker chips flushed down an Atlantic City toilet.

CNN said the flushed chips had clogged the sewers, and that
tournament officials subsequently found 160 counterfeit poker
chips -- each with a value of $5,000, for a total of $800,000 --
among the genuine casino chips.  The tournament was canceled with
27 of the original 4,800 entrants still competing, CNN reported.

Recreational poker player Jacob Musterel says he had paid two $560
entry fees for the tournament and wants to represent a class of
players.  He sued the Marina District Finance Co. Inc., the Marina
District Development Co. LLC, the Marina District Development
Holding Co. LLC, Boyd Atlantic City Inc. and Boyd Gaming Corp. on
Feb. 18 in Atlantic County Superior Court.

Lusardi is not named in the complaint.

The tournament billed the prize money as the "$2 million
guarantee," and a $560 buy-in got each player 20,000 chips, the
class says.

"As is now well known, the subject poker tournament turned out to
be an utterly compromised and 'rigged' event, with defendants
negligently permitting an individual to introduce large amounts of
counterfeit chips into the tournament, tainting the games and
essentially forfeiting the participants' buy-in money, without the
participants having been provided with a fair opportunity to win
the tournament's prize money, as promised," the complaint states.

The class blames the defendants for having "failed to properly
supervise the event (or their staff); failed to implement adequate
security measures; failed to detect a participant's introduction
of significant amounts of counterfeit chips into the game at
various times, even (upon information and belief) after other
participants had noticed the counterfeit chips and compromised
play, and informed staff; did not halt the event as soon as the
event was, or should have been, recognized as compromised; failed
during the tournament to count the chips on an ongoing basis and
failed to adequately secure the legitimate chips during breaks in
play; and otherwise acted negligently in permitting an utterly
rigged gaming event to occur at their casino."

Essentially admitting its guilt after the tournament's
cancelation, officers for the defendants "characterized the
security failures as . . . a 'learning experience' for the casino,
and as presenting an opportunity to improve its security apparatus
(obviously inadequate for the subject tournament) for future
events," according to the complaint.

"Disgracefully, however, defendants' security 'education' unjustly
comes at the expense of the plaintiff and the other members of the
plaintiff class, unless the entry fees are refunded," the class
says.

In addition to the return of their buy-in money, the class wants
treble damages for negligence, consumer fraud, breach of contract
and unjust enrichment.


MOTLEY RICE: Sued by South Carolinians Over Worker's Comp Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolinians allegedly exposed to asbestos say in court that
they cannot collect worker's compensation because of the Motley
Rice law firm's mishandling of their third-party claims, reports
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Odell Parker leads the county court class action on behalf of
South Carolina residents who have suffered physical injuries as a
result of exposure to materials containing asbestos during the
course of their employment.  Parker and the other named plaintiffs
claim to be members of a potential class of 14,900.

Each of the plaintiffs claims to have been represented by Motley
Rice, which pursued asbestos cases on their behalf as co-counsel
and/or members of joint ventures with other law firms located in
Mississippi and Georgia.

Motley Rice and its principal, defendant Joseph F. Rice, "knew or
should have known that under South Carolina law an injured worker
intending to proceed with the claim against a third-party who
caused injury to the employee during the course and scope of the
employment was required to satisfy the notice provisions of S.C.
Code Ann. Section42-1-560(b) or they would otherwise lose their
workers' compensation benefits," the complaint states.

Indeed, at the time the class retained Motley Rice, the plaintiffs
were allegedly presented with a contract that stated, among other
things, "I understand that Attorneys are not being employed or
retained to advise me or file any type of claim for compensation
pursuant to the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act or any other
workers' compensation act."

Another form, titled "Information Regarding Your Asbestos Claim,"
stated "Your employer is not a defendant unless you pursue a
Workers' Compensation claim.  I do not represent you in worker
compensation claims," according to the complaint.

Nevertheless, "neither defendants nor their co-counsel/joint
ventures informed plaintiffs at any point during the
representation of the need to engage counsel or take other actions
to protect plaintiffs' workers' compensation benefits prior to or
during the representation of plaintiffs on the third-party claims
against the asbestos manufacturers," the class claims.

Because they limited the scope of their representation to pursuing
only third-party claims on the their behalf, Rice and his law firm
allegedly never provided notice of the claims to their employers,
their employers' workers compensation policy carrier, or to the
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission.

The class says Motley Rice should have advised them that the
action could lead them to lose their worker's compensation
benefits.

"Had defendants and their co-counsel/joint venturers satisfied the
minimum standard of conduct with regard to their fiduciary duties
by explaining the proposed limitation on the scope of
representation (to exclude workers' compensation claims) and how
the proposed limitation on the scope of the represent may impact
their workers compensation claims, plaintiffs would have engaged
counsel or taken other steps to protect their entitlement to and
recovery of workers' compensation benefits," the complaint states.

The legal malpractice action concedes that Motley Rice pursued one
of three possible legal avenues available to the plaintiffs, and
that they have all received monetary settlements in exchange for
releasing the manufacturers from all claims.  They insist,
however, that the attorneys' fees taken out of these settlements
was not commensurate with the work performed, and that in the end,
pursuing the litigation against the third-parties without
providing notice to their employers cost them their "valuable
workers' compensations benefits."

Motley Rice did not return a call seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Ruth Parker, Larry Southern, Roy Southern, Yvonne Harris and
Barbara Patterson are also named plaintiffs.  They seek punitive
damages and disgorgement of legal fees for legal malpractice,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas Pendarvis, Esq.
          PENDARVIS LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          500 Carteret St., Suite A
          Beaufort, SC 29902
          Telephone: (843) 524-9500
          Facsimile: (843) 524-9501
          E-mail: Thomas@PendarvisLaw.com


MT. GOX: Faces Suit Over Breach Resulting in 744K-Bitcoin Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
A massive security breach at Mt. Gox allowed hundreds of millions
of dollars in bitcoins to be pilfered from the now-bankrupt
exchange, users claim in a federal class action, reports Annie
Youderian at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Gregory Greene says the Tokyo-based exchange touted
itself as the "world's largest bitcoin exchange," handling "over
80% of all bitcoin trade."

Bitcoin is a digital currency introduced in early 2009, the same
year Mt. Gox launched its online trading platform.  The Web site
allowed users to buy and sell bitcoins, which are not issued or
directly regulated by any central authority or government,
according to the lawsuit filed February 27, 2014, in Chicago.

The price of the crypto-currency is highly volatile and topped
$1,000 last November.  It's now at about $566.

But the price on Mt. Gox plummeted after the exchange froze
bitcoin withdrawals earlier in February while it purportedly
investigated a "bug" or "technical glitch," users say.

"Shortly thereafter, media outlets around the world began
reporting that Mt. Gox had actually shut down due to a security
breach that went unnoticed for years, which resulted in the loss
of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of its users' bitcoins
(approximately 744,000 of them)," the lawsuit states.
(Parentheses and emphasis in original.)

The exchange filed for bankruptcy protection February 28, 2014, in
Japan.  Since the site went dark, users have allegedly been unable
to withdraw their bitcoins, which they say just "disappeared."

"The company believes there is a high possibility that the
bitcoins were stolen," Mt. Gox reportedly said in a statement.

Greene, who lost about $25,000 in bitcoins, claims Mt. Gox failed
to deliver on its promises to "securely store [his] bitcoins in a
virtual 'vault' for safekeeping" and to grant him access "at any
time."

Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles "was and is aware of the conduct and
security problems underlying the widespread loss of bitcoins, and
was and is aware that he and his co-defendants were wrongfully
obtaining bitcoins for fiat currency by shutting down the Mt. Gox
exchange and capturing its users' property," class members say.

They are suing MtGox Inc., Mt Gox KK, Tibanne KK and Karpeles for
consumer fraud, fraud in the inducement, negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, trespass to
chattels, conversion, accounting and constructive trust.

They also seek an order forcing the exchange to unfreeze the
digital currency and "immediately make full restitution of all
funds wrongfully obtained."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          David I. Mindell, Esq.
          Alicia Hwang, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com
                  dmindell@edelson.com
                  ahwang@edelson.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Megan Lindsey, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          999 18th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 357-4878
          Facsimile: (303) 446-9111
          E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com
                  mlindsey@edelson.com


NUCOR CORP: Still Faces Suits Alleging Antitrust Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation continues to face antitrust lawsuits filed by
Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2013.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed in September
and October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in
July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The plaintiffs
allege that from April 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007, eight
steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The
plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.


OMNICARE INC: Supreme Court to Review Investors' Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical care giant Omnicare persuaded the Supreme Court on
March 3, 2014, to review whether investors have adequately pleaded
securities claims, according to Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News
Service.

After Omnicare, which is the nation's largest provider of
pharmaceutical care services for the elderly and other residents
of long-term care facilities in the United States and Canada made
its December 2005 public stock offering, investors claimed that
there were material misstatements or omissions in a registration
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

They claimed Omnicare had made kickback arrangements with
pharmaceutical manufacturers and had submitted false claims to
Medicare and Medicaid, among other illegal activities.

Meanwhile the company's SEC registration statement had stated
"that its contracts with drug companies were 'legally and
economically valid arrangements that bring value to the healthcare
system and patients that we serve,'" according to the complaint
(emphasis in original).

A federal judge in Kentucky never certified a class in the 2006
lawsuit and dismissed the complaint in its entirety in 2007.

The 6th Circuit revived the allegations under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1934 two years later, but the court dismissed
the case again in 2012, finding that Section 11 claim "sounds in
fraud."

In a partial reversal last year, the federal appeals court revived
the allegation that Omnicare's statements of "legal compliance"
involved material misstatements and omissions.

The Supreme Court granted Omnicare a writ of certiorari March 3,
2014, but did not issue any comment on the case, as is its custom.

The Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers
Pension and Welfare Fund leads the class action along with the
Cement Masons Local 526 Combined Funds and the Laborers District
Council Construction Industry Pension Fund.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Kevin L. Murphy, Esq.
          GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY, LLP
          2400 Chamber Center Drive, Suite 300
          Fort Mitchell, KY 41017,
          Telephone: (859) 282-8800
          E-mail: kmurphy@graydon.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
          Henry Rosen, Esq.
          Steven F. Hubachek, Esq.
          Amanda M. Frame, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  erici@rgrdlaw.com
                  henryr@rgrdlaw.com
                  shubachek@rgrdlaw.com
                  aframe@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Harvey Kurzweil, Esq.
          Richard W. Reinthaler, Esq.
          James P. Smith III, Esq.
          John E. Schreiber, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue,
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-6700
          E-mail: hkurzweil@winston.com
                  rreinthaler@winston.com
                  jpsmith@winston.com
                  jschreiber@winston.com

               - and -

          Linda T. Coberly, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-8768
          Telephone: lcoberly@winston.com

               - and -

          Steffen N. Johnson, Esq.
          Elizabeth P. Papez, Esq.
          Andrew C. Nichols, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 282-5000
          E-mail: sjohnson@winston.com
                  epapez@winston.com
                  anichols@winston.com

The case is Omnicare, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. The Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund and The Cement
Masons Local 526 Combined Funds, Respondents, Case No. 13-435, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


PATHEON INC: Continues to Face Suit Over Product Recall
-------------------------------------------------------
Patheon Inc. faces suits in connection with the recall of certain
lots of allegedly defective products, according to the company's
Jan. 10, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2013.

One putative class action and four individual plaintiff actions
are pending in the United States against one of the Company's
customers in connection with the recall of certain lots of
allegedly defective products manufactured by the Company for the
customer. The Company has also been named in the putative class
action and in three of the individual plaintiff actions. The
customer has given the Company notice of its intent to seek
indemnification from the Company for all damages, costs and
expenses, pursuant to the manufacturing services agreement between
the customer and the Company. As these cases are at an early
stage, the Company is unable to estimate the number of potential
claimants or the amount of potential damages for which the Company
may be directly or indirectly liable in the actions.


PAYPAL INC: "Zepeda" Suit Settlement Needs Revision, Court Ruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement to end claims PayPal wrongly closed accounts
due to unfounded concerns of suspicious activity is overly broad
and must be revised, a federal judge ruled, according to
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Moises Zepeda claimed that he logged onto his
PayPal account, which he used for business purposes, and found a
notification telling him his access had been limited.  PayPal did
not give him a specific reason for the subsequent account closure,
only that there were issues with security, he said.

Zepeda further stated that PayPal held his funds and retained the
interest from these withheld amounts.  The lawsuit went on to
claim PayPal did not inform Zepeda or other sellers with similar
issues how to have the hold released or how to avoid future holds
being placed on their accounts.

Zepeda's 2010 lawsuit, which came on the heels of two similar
lawsuits that were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice,
asserted breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and Unfair Competition Law.

Meanwhile, another class action lawsuit was also filed in 2010 by
Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel against PayPal and eBay claiming
that PayPal improperly restricted and closed customer accounts
because of suspicious activity without notice.  PayPal allegedly
froze the accounts, preventing users from recovering their funds.

Fernando's lawsuit alleged conversion, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and the
terms of a 2004 settlement stemming from the 2002 Comb vs. PayPal
case.

The Comb settlement called for PayPal to comply with certain
procedures for limiting accounts and responding to and returning
funds to customers whose accounts have been limited.  PayPal also
agreed to pay $9.25 million into a settlement fund used to pay
class members with valid claims and pay attorney fees and costs.

In 2011, both the Zepeda and Fernando litigants participated in
separate mediation, resulting in a global settlement of both
actions.  However, things broke down when one of the attorneys for
the Fernando plaintiffs, Marina Trubitsky, stated that two of the
plaintiffs wanted to negotiate individual settlements and that the
global settlement could not move forward.

U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong ordered all
parties in both cases to participate in a mandatory settlement
conference before Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins, but
Trubitsky did not show up, so the conference proceeded in only the
Zepeda case.

The Zepeda class, which added eBay as a defendant, renewed their
motion for preliminary approval of their proposed settlement,
which calls for PayPal to implement certain business practices,
including: disclosing its use of fraud and risk modeling in the
PayPal User Agreement; distinguishing how it uses the terms
"holds," "reserves" and "limitations" in the agreement; and
disclosing the reason for a hold, reserve or limitation to the
extent that it is not inconsistent with PayPal's security
requirements.

The settlement does not provide for any monetary relief to class
members.  However, it does require PayPal to pay $1.425 million
into a settlement fund to go toward $500,000 in attorney fees,
$5,000 incentive awards for the class representatives, and a
$250,000 cy pres award to Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The settlement class is defined as "all current and former users
of PayPal who had an active account between April 19, 2006 and the
date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order."

Among other things, the agreement calls for the class to release
PayPal and eBay from liability for any claims that were or could
have been brought in the Zepeda or Fernando actions and for any
claims that "in any respect" relate to PayPal's obligations under
the EFTA or the Comb settlement.

Objectors to the settlement -- which include plaintiffs in the
other actions -- claimed that the settlement "is collusive and
unfair on the grounds that it vitiates 'the force and effect' of
the Comb settlement, essentially in exchange for a 'pay off' to
plaintiffs' attorneys and the class representatives," according to
the ruling.

Armstrong called the objectors' argument "discursive and not
expressed in a particularly cogent manner," but agreed that there
were concerns regarding the fairness of the settlement.  "Despite
the relatively discrete nature of the business practices being
targeted and users affected in this case, the Settlement Agreement
broadly defines the Settlement Class as any person who has used
PayPal at any time since April 9, 2006, irrespective of whether
the user was affected by this reserve practice at issue,"
Armstrong wrote.

Because the agreement also calls for the class to release any and
all claims relating not only to PayPal's practice of placing
reserves on certain accounts, but to any claims that "relate in
any respect" to the company's obligations under the EFTA and the
Comb settlement, it "effectively immunizes PayPal and eBay from
any liability for any claims predicated on violations of the Comb
settlement or EFTA," Armstrong said.

Armstrong was also troubled by the fact that the only people
receiving money will be the class representatives and their
counsel.

"The breadth of the release relative to the claims alleged,
coupled with the lack of any monetary benefit to the class,
militate against preliminarily approving the Settlement
Agreement," Armstrong ruled.

The class can resubmit an amended motion for preliminary approval
with a revised settlement agreement or a thorough analysis of
Armstrong's concerns.

The case is Moises Zepeda, et al. v. Paypal, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:10-cv-02500-SBA, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division.


PNC FINANCIAL: Allowed to Appeal CBNV Mortgage Suit Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted
the motion of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. to appeal
from the order granting the motion for class certification in In
re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices
Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674), according to
PNC's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In the lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re:
Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation
(No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674), the company filed a motion
seeking leave to appeal the granting of the motion for class
certification in August 2013. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit granted the motion in October 2013, allowing
an appeal of the class certification motion to proceed before it.


PRIDE MEDICAL: Doc Revealed HIV Status of 379 Patients, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Courtney Walters reports that
an Atlanta doctor sent unencrypted "HIV/AIDS Patient Lists" to a
"gay-oriented" magazine, disclosing 379 patients' names and HIV
status, a class action claims in court.

Lead plaintiff John Doe sued Pride Medical Services, three
doctor/owners, a pharmacist and another part-owner of the clinic,
in Fulton County State Court.

Doe says he was diagnosed with HIV in 2008, and became a patient
of Pride Medical in October 2011.  He claims Pride kept a
spreadsheet on patients, covering "How Did You Find Us?",
insurance plans and other information, including their
"unambiguously" identifiable names and HIV/AIDS status -- "HIV
(+/-)" -- and that "every cell [in the spreadsheet] (with a few
exceptions) contains a 'P,' 'N,' or 'U' next to the patient's
name."

"The 'P,' 'N,' or 'U' stand for positive, negative or unknown,"
according to the complaint.

Doe claims that on Dec. 5, 2012, defendant Dr. Lee R. Anisman,
Pride Medical's senior physician and majority owner, "met for the
first time the owner of a certain Atlanta-based gay magazine (a
'List Recipient') at a party."  (Parentheses in complaint.)

Six days later, at 4:39 p.m., "Dr. Anisman emailed the HIV/AIDS
Patient List to the business email address of the List Recipient
from Dr. Anisman's American Online ('AOL') email account at [aol
address]."

This was the "first disclosure," Doe says.

The complaint continues: "The List Recipient did not request this
document from Dr. Anisman.

"The email address to which the First Disclosure was sent was a
business email account, which several employees of the business
checked regularly.

"Therefore, multiple people working for that certain Atlanta-based
gay magazine had access to the HIV/AIDS Patient List and may have
reviewed it.

"The HIV/AIDS Patient List that was sent in the First Disclosure
on December 11, 2012 contained the patient list for 2011,
consisting of 214 names and their HIV status."

This disclosure was illegal, Doe says.  Then came a second illegal
disclosure.

"Again, on March 26, 2013, Dr. Anisman emailed the HIV/AIDS
Patient List to the List Recipient from his AOL account," the
lawsuit states.

"The List Recipient did not request this document at any time from
Dr. Anisman."

The second disclosure was sent to the same company-wide email
account at the gay magazine, and contained, in addition to the
2011 list of 214 names and their HIV status, "the patient list for
2012, consisting of 165 names and their HIV status," according to
the complaint.  It also contained at "2013 Tab," in which, at
last, "the patient names were redacted," Doe says.

Doe says his name and HIV status were revealed by the illegal
disclosures.  He seeks class certification for the, at minimum,
379 people whose names and HIV/AIDS status were disclosed, and
punitive damages for violation of medical privacy laws, invasion
of privacy, breach of confidential relationship and fiduciary
duty, negligence, gross negligence, wrongful disclosure of
privileged information, and breach of contract.

The 25-page lawsuit gives no indication why Anisman may have done
this.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd J. Poole, Esq.
          POOLE LAW GROUP
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 225
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-4008
          Facsimile: (888) 709-5723
          E-mail: todd@poolelawgroup.com


SAFEWAY INC: Settles False Advertising Suit for $2.25 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that prosecutors in Northern
California say Safeway has agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle a
lawsuit alleging that the grocer engaged in false advertising,
unfair competition and violated a 2008 injunction.

Under the deal, the Pleasanton-based supermarket chain does not
admit liability, but it is bound by a permanent injunction barring
it from making false or misleading statements, charging more than
the lowest posted price and failing to honor valid coupons,
discounts or offers.

Safeway has also agreed to take certain measures including adding
more signs to notify consumers of its price-accuracy policy and
hiring an independent auditor to conduct annual reviews.

The March 6 settlement comes on the same day that Safeway and
Albertsons announced a merger of two of the nation's biggest
supermarket chains valued at more than $9 billion.


STANFORD GROUP: Investors May Recover via Class Suits, SC Ruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal law does not preclude investors allegedly defrauded by R.
Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme from attempting recovery
via state class actions, reported Barbara Leonard at Courthouse
News Service, citing a Supreme Court ruling dated February 26,
2014.

For nearly 15 years, Stanford Group Co. and related entities sold
certificates of deposit issued by its Antigua-based Stanford
International Bank, and then used investor funds to cover its
liabilities.  Its eponymous leader was sentenced in 2012 to 110
years in federal prison after a federal jury in Houston, Texas,
convicted him on 13 of 14 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and
mail fraud.

The Northern District of Texas consolidated several class actions
brought under state law.

James Roland and Leah Farr lead class actions that alleged
violations of Louisiana law.  Samuel Troice leads a group of Latin
American investors who brought claims under Texas law.  Named as
defendants are SEI Investments, which advised the Stanford Trust
Co., the bank's lawyers with Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne and
Parke, and the bank's insurance brokers with Willis of Colorado.

In 2010, the federal judge presiding over the multidistrict
litigation found that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act (SLUSA) precluded the claims.  That law says plaintiffs may
not maintain a class action "based upon the statutory or common
law of any state" in which the plaintiffs allege "a
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection
with the purchase or sale of a covered security."

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit reversed in September 2012,
finding that the defendants' alleged actions "are not more than
tangentially related to the purchase or sale of covered securities
and are therefore not sufficiently connected to such purchases or
sales to trigger SLUSA preclusion."

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants a writ of certiorari
last year and affirmed, 5-2, on February 26, 2014.

"We believe the basic consequence of our holding is that, without
limiting the federal government's prosecution power in any
significant way, it will permit victims of this (and similar)
frauds to recover damages under state law," Justice Stephen Breyer
wrote for the majority (Parentheses in original).

The ruling highlights the aims of both the SLUSA, which it dubs
the Litigation Act, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, or PSLRA.

Both were enacted "to protect securities issuers, as well as the
investment advisers, accountants, and brokers who help them sell
financial products, from abusive class-action lawsuits," Breyer
wrote (emphasis in original).

"The dissent worries our approach will 'subject many persons and
entities whose profession it is to give advice, counsel, and
assistance in investing in the securities markets to complex and
costly state-law litigation,'" he added.  "To the contrary, the
only issuers, investment advisers, or accountants that today's
decision will continue to subject to state-law liability are those
who do not sell or participate in selling securities traded on U.
S. national exchanges.  We concede that this means a bank,
chartered in Antigua and whose sole product is a fixed-rate debt
instrument not traded on a U.S. exchange, will not be able to
claim the benefit of preclusion under the Litigation Act.  But it
is difficult to see why the federal securities laws would be -- or
should be -- concerned with shielding such entities from
lawsuits."

Breyer and the others in the majority saw no evidence of how their
holding "could significantly curtail the SEC's enforcement
powers."

"We find it surprising that the dissent worries that our decision
will 'narro[w] and constric[t] essential protection for our
national securities market,' and put 'frauds like the one here . .
. not within the reach of federal regulation,'" the opinion
states.  "That would be news to Allen Stanford, who was sentenced
to 110 years in federal prison after a successful federal
prosecution, and to Stanford International Bank, which was ordered
to pay billions in federal fines, after the same.  Frauds like the
one here -- including this fraud itself -- will continue to be
within the reach of federal regulation because the authority of
the SEC and Department of Justice extends to all 'securities,' not
just to those traded on national exchanges."

There is only one difference between the majority's approach and
that of the dissent, Breyer said.

It "is that we also preserve the ability for investors to obtain
relief under state laws when the fraud bears so remote a
connection to the national securities market that no person
actually believed he was taking an ownership position in that
market," the ruling states.

"Thus, despite the government's and the dissent's handwringing,
neither has been able to point to an example of any prior SEC
enforcement action brought during the past 80 years that our
holding today would have prevented the SEC from bringing," it
continues.

The handwringing in the dissent, written by Justice Anthony
Kennedy and joined by Justice Samuel Alito, goes on for 18 pages.

They said the SLUSA's language precludes "a broad range of state-
law securities claims in order to protect those who advise,
counsel, and otherwise assist investors from abusive and
multiplicitous class actions designed to extract settlements from
defendants vulnerable to litigation costs."

"The court's narrow reading of the statute will permit
proliferation of state-law class actions, forcing defendants to
defend against multiple suits in various state fora," Kennedy
wrote.  "This state-law litigation will drive up legal costs for
market participants and the secondary actors, such as lawyers,
accountants, brokers, and advisers, who seek to rely on the
stability that results from a national securities market regulated
by federal law.  This is a serious burden to put on attorneys,
accountants, brokers, and investment advisers nationwide; and that
burden itself will make the national securities markets more
costly and difficult to enter.  The purpose of the act is to
preclude just these suits.  By permitting the very state-law
claims Congress intended to prohibit, the court will undermine the
primacy of federal law in policing abuses in the securities
markets."

Justice Clarence Thomas focused on the statutory language in a
concurring opinion.

The case is Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, et al., Case No.
12-79, in the Supreme Court of the United States.


STATE AUTO: Faces Litigation Over Insurance to Value Program
------------------------------------------------------------
State Auto companies were named defendants in Schumacher vs. State
Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al., which alleges that
the company's coverage limits and premiums were improperly
increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program,
according to State Auto Financial Corporation's Nov. 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs.
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed
against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C
in Federal District Court in Ohio. Plaintiffs claim that in
connection with the homeowners policies of various State Auto
companies, the coverage limits and premiums were improperly
increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program and
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased coverage in excess of that
which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss.
Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement.
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages to be determined by the court. The Company
intends to deny any and all liability to plaintiffs or the alleged
class and to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Being Sold to Martin for Too Little, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
At $2.7 billion, Texas Industries is selling itself too cheaply to
Martin Marietta Materials, a class of shareholders claim in Texas
Federal Court, reported Courthouse News Service.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Martin Marietta will
acquire all outstanding shares of Texas Industries common stock in
a tax-free, stock-for-stock transaction.  Texas Industries
shareholders will receive 0.7 Martin Marietta shares for each
share of Texas Industries common stock they own at closing.  Based
on the closing market prices for the shares of both companies on
Jan. 27, 2014, and their debt levels as of their most recently
completed quarters, the combined company will have an enterprise
value of approximately $8.5 billion, according to a statement by
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, which placed Texas Industries'
'B-' corporate credit rating and 'B-' senior unsecured debt rating
on CreditWatch with positive implications.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Several Suits Over Chrome 6 Emissions Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court has stayed four lawsuits filed against subsidiaries of
Texas Industries, Inc. over chrome 6 emissions from its Crestmore
cement plant pending a ruling in Virginia Shellman, et al. v.
Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al., according to the
company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The
lawsuit against three of the company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the company's Crestmore cement plant. The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The suit requests,
among other things, establishment and funding of a medical testing
and monitoring program for the class until their exposure to
chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as well as
punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: No Trial Date Yet in Suit Over Oro Grande Plant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set in lawsuits filed against Texas
Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries over the Oro Grande, California
cement plant, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the company's
subsidiaries in the same court involving similar allegations,
causes of action and requests for relief, but with respect to the
company's Oro Grande, California cement plant instead of the
Crestmore plant. The suits involve approximately 300 individual
plaintiffs. Texas Industries, Inc. and the company's subsidiaries
operating in Texas have been similarly dismissed from these suits.
The court has dismissed from these suits plaintiffs that failed to
provide required information, leaving approximately 250
plaintiffs. Prior to the filing of the lawsuits, the air quality
management district in whose jurisdiction the plant lies conducted
air sampling from locations around the plant. None of the samples
contained chrome 6 levels above 1.0 ng/m^3.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from suit
to suit. Following dismissal of certain causes of action by the
court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the remaining causes of
action typically include, among other things, negligence,
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress,
trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability, willful
misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices,
wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs generally
request, among other things, general and punitive damages, medical
expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and medical
monitoring costs. At the date of this report, none of the
plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any
specific amount or range of damages. Some of the suits include
additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant
located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or
former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants. Discovery is
proceeding in all of the suits, and the trial for the claims of 14
of the individual plaintiffs is currently scheduled to begin in
January, 2015. No trial date has been set in the class action
suits or for other individual plantiffs.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Awaits OK of Accord in Suit Over NetSpend Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a
settlement it reached in suits over its merger with NetSpend
Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A putative class action entitled Koehler v. NetSpend Holdings,
Inc. et. al. (the "Koehler action") was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on March 1, 2013 and a putative
class action entitled Bushansky v. NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et al.
(together with the Koehler action, the "Actions") was filed in the
District Court of Travis County, Texas on February 25, 2013, each
in connection with TSYS' proposed merger with NetSpend pursuant to
the Merger Agreement. On May 21, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court
issued a memorandum opinion in the Koehler action denying the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to
enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger.

While TSYS and the other defendants believe that each of the
Actions is without merit, in an effort to minimize the cost and
expense of any litigation relating to such Actions, on May 29,
2013, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs regarding settlement of the Actions. In connection with
the settlement contemplated by that agreement in principle, as set
forth in a Memorandum of Understanding, dated as of May 29, 2013,
and, later, a Settlement Agreement, dated as of September 20, 2013
(the "Settlement Agreement"), the Actions and all claims asserted
therein will be dismissed.

In addition, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
TSYS and/or NetSpend, where applicable, agreed (a) to make certain
amendments to the Merger Agreement; (b) that, consistent with the
terms of the Merger Agreement, prior to the receipt of approval of
the NetSpend stockholders, NetSpend could furnish information to,
and engage in discussions and negotiations with, third parties who
make unsolicited bona fide acquisition proposals if certain
conditions were met; (c) that the special meeting of NetSpend
stockholders that was scheduled to be held on May 31, 2013 would
be adjourned to June 18, 2013; (d) that NetSpend would not take
certain positions with respect to any appraisal proceeding
perfected under Delaware law; (e) that certain information would
be provided to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Actions in
connection with any perfected appraisal proceeding; and (e)
without admitting that any of the claims in the Actions have merit
or that any supplemental disclosure was required under any
applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, that they would
acknowledge that the filing and prosecution of the Actions were
the cause, in whole or in part, of certain supplemental
disclosures made in connection with the proposed merger.

Following submission of the Settlement Agreement to the Court of
Chancery, on October 4, 2013, the Court entered an order
scheduling further proceedings related to the settlement. Among
other things, the Court scheduled a hearing for December 18, 2013
to consider whether or not to approve the settlement as proposed.


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Triquint Semiconductor to RF Micro Devices too cheaply through an
unfair process, in a stock swap, shareholders claim in Multnomah
County Court.


VITACOST.COM INC: No Writ Filed v. Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a securities lawsuit filed against
Vitacost.com, Inc. did not file a petition for a writ of
certiorari against a court opinion affirming the dismissal of a
second amended complaint, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On May 24, 2010, a punitive class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR. After being
appointed to represent the purported class of shareholders, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Vitacost, its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering ("IPO"). On December
12, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On January 11, 2012, lead plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Vitacost, its current and
former officers and directors, and its underwriters. Lead
plaintiff purported to bring its action on behalf of investors who
purchased stock in connection with or traceable to the Company's
IPO between September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010. The complaint
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
during the period by, among other things, disseminating false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning
the Company's current and prospective business and financial
results. The complaint also alleged that as a result of these
actions the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during
the class period. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses.

On June 25, 2012, the Southern District of Florida entered its
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in full and
dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice. On July
23, 2012, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit of the order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. On
May 5, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion affirming the
dismissal. The deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court passed on August 5, 2013, and lead
plaintiff did not file a petition.


WATTS WATER: "Trabakoolas" Suit Stayed for Possible Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
stayed the suit Trabakoolas et al., v, Watts Water Technologies,
Inc., et al., to allow parties to explore the possibility of a
settlement, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 29, 2013.

On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies (Taizho) Co., Ltd., among
other companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking to recover damages and
other relief based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors.
The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified
amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  No class certification hearing has been scheduled and
the matter is currently in the discovery phase.  On August 22,
2013, the Court stayed the action for 45 days, to allow the
parties to explore the possibility of settlement.  On October 8,
2013, this stay was extended until November 7, 2013, in order to
allow the parties additional time to explore settlement.  The
Company intends to request a further extension of the stay for
this purpose. If the stay is lifted, the Company intends to
continue to vigorously contest the allegations in this case.


WILLIAM OLEFINS: Sued by Louisiana Residents Over "Toxic Cloud"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a history of safety violations preceded a fatal Louisiana
plant explosion that caused a fire and released a "toxic cloud," a
federal class action claims.

The Geismar, La., facility operated by William Olefins LLC
"produces approximately 1.3 billion pounds of ethylene and 90
million pounds of polymer grade propylene," according to the
complaint filed February 24, 2014.

It exploded on June 13, 2013, at approximately 8:30 a.m., leading
to a mandatory evacuation, including "road closures and the shut-
down of businesses in the area," Abraham Bosley, who purports to
represent a class, claims in Federal Court.

The U.S. Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration cited William Olefins for the explosion in
December, saying its workplace-safety failures "cost two workers
their lives," according to the complaint.

Abraham Bosley named Williams Olefins LLC as a defendant as well
as the Tulsa, Okla.-based subsidiary Williams Partners LP.  He
purports to anyone who suffered injuries or damages while working,
shopping and/or residing in and around Geismar, La., at the time
of the explosion.

"Following the explosion and subsequent fire, a large amount of
toxic chemicals were released into the surrounding areas including
but not limited to ethylene, propylene and other gases and toxic
materials," the complaint states.

Residents and other members of the class "have suffered injury to
their respiratory systems" and other damages and expenses related
to "evacuation, inconvenience, loss of income, and fear and
fright," according to the complaint.

Among six OSHA violations for which William Olefins was cited
after the explosion was one "willful" violation "for failing to
develop clear, written procedures for how to change and put idle
pressure vessels into service," according to the complaint.

Williams Olefins and Williams Partners "had a history of
citations, warnings and shut-downs due to improper storage and
handling of chemicals," including a 2010 citation for releasing
excess ethylene and a 2012 propylene leak, the class claims.

Fault lies with William Olefins and Williams Partners because they
failed to reasonably handle chemicals, properly maintain gas
lines, inspect products and implement safety regulations, among
other things, the complaint continues.

Lead plaintiff Bosley says he was working at a nearby plant when
the explosion occurred.  The class seeks actual and punitive
damages.

Williams Olefins did not immediately return a request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric O'Bell, Esq.
          GAUTHIER, HOUGHTALING & WILLIAMS, LLP
          3500 N. Hullen Street
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 456-8600
          Facsimile: (504) 456-8624


* Child Product Safety Recalls Have Dismal Response Rate of 10%
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia McElhaney and Jayne O'Donnell, writing for USATODAY, report
that despite efforts of federal regulators, consumer groups and
companies, child product safety recalls have a dismal response
rate of just 10%, according to a new KID report.

"The return rate of recalls is really abysmal," says Nancy Cowles,
KID's executive director.  "The government makes announcements,
but people don't hear about them or don't respond."

Children's product companies and regulators wait too long to
recall products and the practice has contributed to infant and
children's deaths, the report says.  It typically takes 13 reports
of design flaws and two injuries to recall products, KID says.

A recall can mean a refund, a repair or a replacement, says Scott
Wolfson, communications director at the Consumer Product Safety
Commission.  Companies can choose among the three.

Product recalls in the report include unstable dressers, the Nap
Nanny infant recliner and baby monitor power cords.

Julie Vallese, a spokeswoman for the Juvenile Product
Manufacturers Association, says toys and children's products have
always had low recall response rates and the issue is one several
administrations have grappled with.

And, she adds, the study is focusing on the wrong thing.

"Return rates for products are a poor indicator of recall
effectiveness, since a variety of factors affect how consumers
decide to respond," says Ms. Vallese, a former spokeswoman for the
CPSC.  "Many products may no longer be in use or have already been
disposed of by consumers."

Ms. Cowles thinks lack of publicity is the larger problem.
Companies and the CPSC distribute joint press releases about
recalls, and companies with websites have to post the information.
Then it's up to the company to share information about a recall on
social media and elsewhere.

Charley Pereira of Nagshead, N.C., and Washington, D.C., became an
advocate for child safety after his 10-month-old daughter Savannah
was strangled by the cord of her baby monitor in 2010, a death
that helped prompt recalls of some monitors.  He has fought for
stricter rules for the way baby monitors are created and succeeded
in stopping companies from portraying baby monitors at an unsafe
distance in advertising.

Mr. Pereira also worked to add safety labels to products to reduce
their risks -- and the need to be recalled.  He said that many
companies are hesitant to put safety labels on products because
they believe it will make people afraid to purchase them.

There were 63 recalls in 2013 involving companies that used a
Facebook or Twitter page within six months before the recall.  Of
these, the manufacturer only mentioned the product recall on
Facebook in nine of those cases and on Twitter in eight, the
report says.

Many people say they hear of about two to three recalls per year,
when there are typically more than 100 recalls on children's
products alone each year, Ms. Cowles says.  In 2013, there were
113 children's products recalled.

Raedyn Grasseth was shocked when she received a call during her
overnight shift as an emergency medical technician saying that her
10-month-old daughter, Riley, was not breathing.  The infant, who
was sleeping in her portable crib, was strangled when it collapsed
on her.  Though Ms. Grasseth dispatched an ambulance to her own
home immediately, it was too late.  Soon after Riley's death, Ms.
Grasseth learned the company that made the crib had recalled it
five years earlier.  She had no idea.

Now, Ms. Grasseth advocates in Riley's honor through Kids In
Danger, an organization devoted to children's safety and recall
awareness.

"We had heard of different things being recalled from time to
time, but not of any place to check and see if there was a
database to search," Ms. Grasseth said in an e-mail interview.
"We did not realize that her portable crib was recalled until the
coroner told us."

But reaching the consumer isn't the only problem.  "Research has
shown that consumers need to hear about recalls multiple times
before they take action," CPSC's Wolfson says.

KID co-founder Linda Ginzel's son, Danny Keysar, died when his
crib collapsed on him in 1998.  Unbeknownst to Ms. Ginzel, the
crib had been recalled five years earlier.  Ms. Ginzel says
companies should promote recalls the way they promote products,
and Ms. Cowles agrees.

"I think social media (are) like any other tool a company has at
their disposal," Ms. Cowles says.  "They should use it in the same
way they would use it for advertising."

The increased publicity, Ms. Ginzel and Ms. Cowles say, would save
many more children's lives.

"It happened so many years ago and I still can't believe that this
was how my son was killed," Ms. Ginzel says.

She hopes no other families ever have to feel that way.


                             *********

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  * * *