CAR_Public/140317.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 53

                             Headlines

23ANDME INC: Buyers of DNA Saliva Kit Sue Over Accuracy Issues
AARONS INC: Faces Suit Alleging Job Discrimination in Florida
AC CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Builders" Insurance Suit in S. Carolina
ALLCONNECT INC: Sued by Sales Representative Over Overtime Wages
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

AMERICAN EXPRESS: September 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMSAFE COMMERCIAL: NHTSA Probes Safety of Child Car Seat Buckles
ANZ BANK: Maurice Blackburn Appeals Federal Court Ruling
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged ADA Violation
BFGOODRICH COMMERCIAL: NTSB Probes Crash Linked to Recalled Tire

BILLABONG INT'L: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action
CONN'S INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in Texas
EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Online Nursing Program
FOREST LABORATORIES: Judge Tosses Lexapro Marketing Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Federal Prosecutors to Probe Recall Liability

GENERAL MOTORS: Taps Jenner & Block for Vehicle Shutdown Probe
GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Privacy Suit to Proceed
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Ordered to Explain Failure to Recall Baby Seats
HONDURAS MAYA: Accused of Not Paying Overtime and Minimum Wages
HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Members' PII & PHI, Suit Says

KIPP NYC: Sued in E.D.N.Y. for Failing to Pay Overtime
KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Class Action for $12.8 Million
LIFELOCK INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Arizona
MARS FOOD: Recalls Uncle Ben's Rice Due to Packaging Problem
MARS FOODSERVICES: Recalls Infused Rice Products for Wholesale

MED-VET INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 1/2cc U-40 Insulin Syringes
MERISANT COMPANY: Misleads PureVia(R) Stevia Consumers, Suit Says
MONSANTO CO: Parties in GMO Suit Agree to Tight Mediation Timeline
MT. GOX: 400+ People to Join Class Action Over Collapse
MYNICKNAXS LLC: Recalls Reduce Weight Fruta Planta

MYNICKNAXS LLC: Recalls All Weight Loss Formulas
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Athletic Scholarship Cap
NEW JERSEY: Judge Reserves Decision on Bridgegate Subpoena
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT: Sued by Operators Over FLSA Violations
PELLA CORP: Faces "Anderson" Product Liability Suit in Iowa

PEOPLE SALES: Steak 'N Shake Operator Sued for Not Paying OT
PFIZER INC: Recalls Effexor XR Drug After Cross Contamination
PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Recalls 600 Respironics Trilogy Ventilators
PRO-PET LLC: Recalls Limited Dry Dog & Cat Foods Due to Salmonella
ROOS FOODS: Recalls Variety of Cheeses Due to Listeria

ROOS FOODS: Expands Recall on Cheeses Due to Listeria
ROTH FARMS: Recalls "Curly Parsley" Due to Salmonella
SANTA FE GOLD: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Mexico
STATE FARM: Karmeier to Contest Subpoena in Racketeering Suit
TARGET CORP: Sued by Amalgamated Bank Over Data Security Breach

TIGER BRANDS: Bread Pricing Class Action Seeks R2.1 Million
TINTING OF POMPANO: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
UNILEVER US: Recalls Limited 20-Count Boxes of Popsicle
UNITED STATES: Judge Blocks Destruction of NSA Telephone Records
VALLEJO'S RESTAURANTS: "Padilla" Sues for Meals, Rest Period

VALLEJO'S RESTAURANTS: "Padilla" Sues for FLSA Violations
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Dark Chocolate Almonds
WERNER LADDER: Faces Product Liability Suit in Texas
WHISPERTEXT LLC: Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Text Messages
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Tom Yom Soup Due to Undeclared Milk

WOLFGANG B. GOURMET: Recalls 236 Units of Fairway Grilling Sauce
Z-ULTIMATE SELF: Instructors Seek to Recover Back/Overtime Wages

* "Fraud on the Market" Ruling Bittersweet for Defense Lawyers
* Missouri House Approves Cap on Medical Malpractice Suit Damages


                             *********


23ANDME INC: Buyers of DNA Saliva Kit Sue Over Accuracy Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Martin, Carrie Martin, and Kryssa Cable, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. 23andMe,
Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00429-LHK (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2014) is
a consumer action brought on behalf of those who purchased
23andMe's DNA Saliva Collection Kit and Personal Genome Service
from November 2007 through the present.

Founded in April 2006, 23andMe began offering its direct-to-
consumer DNA testing service in November 2007.  The customer's
results were then posted online, along with an assessment of
inherited traits, genealogy, and possible congenital risk factors.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant made these and other
representations without ever substantiating the accuracy of the
product.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-Mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          THE ALEXANDER FIRM P.C., A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5335
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5338
          E-mail: info@alexanderfirmpc.com

               - and -

          Amir S. Salehi, Esq.
          SALEHI & ASSOCIATES
          12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1300
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-3366
          Facsimile: (310) 820-3361
          E-Mail: salehiassoc@lawyer.com


AARONS INC: Faces Suit Alleging Job Discrimination in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Combs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aarons, Inc., d/b/a Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00048-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., January 28, 2014)
alleges job discrimination (sex).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy William Alters, Esq.
          Matthew T. Moore, Esq.
          MORELLI ALTERS RATNER, PA
          4141 NE 2nd Ave., Suite 201
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 571-8550
          Facsimile: (305) 571-8558
          E-mail: jalters@morellialters.com
                  mmoore@morellialters.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shane T. Munoz, Esq.
          Ashwin Robert Trehan, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 261-7803
          Facsimile: (813) 261-7899
          E-mail: smunoz@fordharrison.com
                  atrehan@fordharrison.com


AC CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Builders" Insurance Suit in S. Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
Builders Mutual Insurance Company v. AC Construction Inc., a/k/a
AC Construction Company a/k/a AC Construction Co a/k/a AC
Construction; Judith A. Watkins, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated; The Villas at Charleston Park Condominium
Owners Association Inc; State Farm Insurance Company; American
Safety Insurance Company; and United Specialty Insurance Company,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00239-SB (D.S.C., January 28, 2014) asserts
insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cheryl D. Shoun, Esq.
          TAYLOR SHOUN BOWLEY AND BYRD
          39 Broad Street, Suite 101
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 723-4020
          Facsimile: (843) 723-4021
          E-mail: CShoun@nexsenpruet.com

               - and -

          Kenyatta L. Gardner, Esq.
          Stephen P. Groves, Sr., Esq.
          NEXSEN PRUET (CHAS)
          PO Box 486
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 720-1795
          E-mail: kgardner@nexsenpruet.com
                  sgroves@nexsenpruet.com


ALLCONNECT INC: Sued by Sales Representative Over Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ayisha Randle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Allconnect, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00245-WSD (N.D.
Ga., January 28, 2014) alleges that the Company fails to pay
federally mandated overtime wages to the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

From March 2012 to November 2013, Ms. Randle was employed by
Allconnect as a "Home Service Consultant" or sales representative.

Allconnect, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Georgia.  Allconnect provides third-party sales and customer
account set-up services for customers of other companies like
cable and phone providers.  In particular, customers of companies,
like Dish Network, DirectTV, and AT&T, outsource calls from their
prospective new customers to AllConnect whereat the calls are
received and handled by AllConnect sales representatives.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Barrett, Esq.
          V. Severin Roberts, Esq.
          BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 214-0120
          Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
          E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com
                  ben@bf-llp.com
                  vsroberts@bf-llp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Rudolph Simpson, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP-ATL
          1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 231-1400
          Facsimile: (404) 240-4249
          E-mail: msimpson@laborlawyers.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Campbell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Allied Interstate, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00580-JLL-MAH
(D.N.J., January 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, which broadly prohibits unfair or
unconscionable collection methods.

New York-based Allied Interstate, LLC, is a limited liability
company engaged in the business of collecting debts, including in
New Jersey.  The Company regularly collects or attempts to
collect, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA, PC
          147 West 35th Street, Suite 1008
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (201) 873-7675
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: September 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
To all individuals and businesses that accept American Express
cards: Notice of a class action settlement

This notice is authorized by the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of New York to inform you about a proposed settlement in
In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust
Litigation(II), No. 11-MD-2221 and Marcus Corp. v. American
Express Co. et al., 13-CV-07355.  These cases allege that certain
rules applicable to merchants that accept American Express cards
violate antitrust laws and result in merchants paying excessive
fees.  American Express denies the claims and says it has done
nothing wrong.  The Court has not decided which side is right
because the parties agreed to settle.

The settlement applies to a class comprised of all merchants that
accept American Express cards at any location in the United States
(including at a physical merchant location, online or via a mobile
application) as of or after February 12, 2014, onward.

The Settlement Terms. The settlement will require American Express
to change its rules to allow merchants who accept American Express
cards to charge customers an extra fee or "surcharge" if they pay
with an American Express credit or charge card, under certain
conditions including that any surcharge apply to all credit and
charge card transactions.  The specific rule changes and terms of
the settlement are explained in detail in the court-approved
long-form notice and the Class Settlement Agreement, which are
found at the case website (www.AmexMerchantSettlement.com).  You
should review these documents carefully.  Your legal rights are
affected even if you do nothing.  You can also obtain copies of
the Notice and Class Settlement Agreement by calling the toll-free
number below.

If you want to seek monetary damages related to American Express's
existing merchant rules, you can pursue those claims consistent
with the dispute resolution provisions contained in your card
acceptance agreement.  No money will be distributed to the class.

Your Options. You may object to the settlement by June 6, 2014.
The Notice available at the case website --
www.AmexMerchantSettlement.com -- explains how to object.  The
Court will hold a hearing on September 17, 2014 to consider
whether to approve the settlement and the request by the attorneys
for the class for fees, expenses, and service awards up to a
maximum total of $75 million.  You do not need to appear at the
hearing or hire your own attorney, although you have the right to
do so at your own expense.  Regardless of whether you object, if
the settlement is finally approved, you will be bound by the
Court's final judgment, and the releases explained in the Class
Settlement Agreement.


AMSAFE COMMERCIAL: NHTSA Probes Safety of Child Car Seat Buckles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Parrott, writing for The Elkhart Truth, reports that an
Elkhart factory stands at the center of a federal investigation
into the safety of buckles that it makes for child car seats.

Car seat manufacturer Graco last month announced a recall of about
3.7 million car seats after the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration determined they could pose a safety hazard because
the buckles can be difficult to open.

An NHTSA report quotes a mother who spent 45 minutes squeezing her
toddler daughter out of her car seat because she couldn't unlatch
the buckle.

"My toddler became increasingly upset as it was getting scary,"
she wrote.  "It's extremely unnerving to have this happen to your
child, and even more, the worst case scenarios are already playing
in my mind: What if we had a car fire or a car accident?"

The buckles in the recalled seats were made by AmSafe Commercial
Products' Elkhart plant at 22937 Gallatin Way.  The NHTSA also is
investigating EvenFlo car seats for the same reason, and those
seats also contain AmSafe buckles.

The NHTSA confirmed it is in contact with AmSafe to determine
whether its buckles have been placed in any other child car seat
brands.

AmSafe's Elkhart plant referred The Elkhart Truth to spokesman
Peter Miller at AmSafe's Phoenix headquarters.

Graco initially balked at the recall, arguing the buckles become
stuck because "food, dried liquid drinks, vomit, formula, etc."
seeps into the buckles over time, causing the buckles to become
difficult to unlatch, according to NHTSA documents.  But the
agency dismissed that reasoning, saying it's "completely
foreseeable" that such items will contaminate a child car seat.

Graco has received more than 6,100 consumer reports complaining
about the problem, according to NHTSA documents.  Graco is a
defendant in two lawsuits over the issue, one a class-action suit
filed in a California federal court, and the other a wrongful
death suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, in which 2-year-old
Leiana Ramirez allegedly was killed while sitting in a Graco car
seat during a car fire that followed an accident.

The Graco seats recalled were the model years 2009-2013, produced
with the "Signature," "QT" and "QT3" buckles.

In May, Graco switched from using the AmSafe buckle to a new one
supplied by Westfield-based Indiana Mills and Manufacturing Inc.
Graco is offering consumers that buckle as a replacement for the
recalled seats.


ANZ BANK: Maurice Blackburn Appeals Federal Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Amy Bainbridge, writing for ABC News, reports that law firm
Maurice Blackburn has lodged an appeal in the Federal Court over
the results in its class action against ANZ over bank fees.

The class action, the largest in Australian history, was launched
against ANZ bank over the fees it charged more than 43,500
customers.  It is part of a broader action against a total of
eight banks and the fees they charged their customers, and is
funded by publicly listed litigator Bentham IMF.  The ANZ case is
seen as a test case ahead of the action against the other banks.

Last month, Justice Michelle Gordon found ANZ had illegally
charged late payment fees to its customers.  But it only amounted
to a partial victory for Maurice Blackburn because Justice Gordon
ruled that honor and dishonor fees and over-limit fees were
lawful.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Paul Gillett says the appeal
argues that the customers are entitled to a refund of honor and
dishonor fees and over-limit fees in the same way as the late
payment fees are to be repaid.

"There are obviously a number of different courses of actions
which are set out in our court documents and our notice of appeal
but, in a nutshell, I think you can boil it down to three general
propositions," he told the ABC.

"Firstly, we say that if the wording of the contracts is analyzed,
that there is a reasonable chance that a full court will agree
with our submission that those contracts in fact mean that ANZ was
not allowing its customers to overdraw and that therefore those
fees were payable on breach of contract.

"The second element of the appeal is, in broad terms, that the
fees were as a result of penalties and illegal -- and that
illegality is evidenced by ANZ's failure to set the fees by
reference to a genuine pre-estimate of damage.

"And thirdly, in relation to the statutory courses of action which
deal with unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms, we say
that a proper consideration of the disparity between the amount of
the fees and the underlying costs in fact leads to a conclusion
that those fees were unconscionable and unfair under statute."

The late fee component is thought to make up about a quarter of
the total $57 million claim.

ANZ is still considering its position and whether to appeal
against last month's ruling.

It is understood the bank still has another three weeks to lodge
an appeal.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Yoni Heisler, writing for TUAW, reports that a new class action
lawsuit against Apple alleges that the company is in violation of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act for not designing
and providing store employees with point of sale devices (POS)
that can independently be used by blind people.

According to the suit, which was filed in the US District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, visually impaired
individuals purchasing an Apple product with a debit card cannot
independently enter their PIN into Apple's point of sale device.
As a result, the plaintiff argues that Apple is denying him and
other similarly situated individuals with the ability to fully and
equally enjoy the goods, services, and advantages the company
provides to the public at large.

Further, the plaintiff argues that a large number of other
retailers already use POS devices with "tactiley discernible
keypad surfaces", implying that there's no reason why Apple can't
do the same.

The complaint reads in part:

Plaintiff intends to continue to be a customer of Defendant's
stores, and desires to make future payments by debit card.
However, unless Defendant is required to install ADA compliant POS
Devices, Plaintiff will continue to be unable to independently
make payments for any purchases by debit card.

. . .

Defendant does not provide any auxiliary aids or services
calculated to make its POS Devices fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, blind people.

As a result of Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA, Plaintiff
and the Class, unlike persons without visual impairments, cannot
independently make a debit purchase at Defendant's stores

With respect to recourse, the plaintiff is seeking an injunction
that would require Apple to either update or replace its current
fleet of POS devices as to make them independently usable by the
visually impaired, and thus ADA compliant.  The complaint also
argues that Apple can, without any undue burden, implement
"auxiliary aids and services" to address the issue.

Otherwise, the complaint states that Apple's non-compliance would
effectively force blind people to part ways with their private
banking information (their PIN) if they wish to make debit card
purchases.

Originally put into law in 1990, Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act requires that places of public accommodation be
readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities.


BFGOODRICH COMMERCIAL: NTSB Probes Crash Linked to Recalled Tire
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that federal safety officials are
investigating a fatal church van crash in north Florida that
involved the catastrophic failure of a tire that was part of a
July 2012 recall.

The National Transportation Safety Board reported on March 12 that
the 2-year-old BFGoodrich Commercial T/A A/S was part of a product
recall initiated by that company for approximately 794,000 tires.

On Feb. 21, the left rear tire blew out on the New Port Richey's
First Baptist Church van that was traveling on Interstate 75 near
Lake City.  Two adults were killed in the crash.  Another adult
and seven children were injured.

The NTSB says it will examine the tire and try to see if the
church ever received the safety recall notice.


BILLABONG INT'L: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Redman and Mitchell Neems, writing for The Australian,
report that Slater & Gordon is preparing a class action against
Billabong International on behalf of investors who say the
surfwear retailer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and
failed to comply with its continuous disclosure obligations.

However, the surfwear retailer said it had not been contacted by
Slater & Gordon, nor has it been served with any proceedings.

The action will allege Billabong gave earnings guidance for fiscal
2012 that lacked reasonable grounds.  The legal firm said
Billabong forecast strong earnings growth in August 2011, then a
few months later withdrew the guidance and flagged a substantial
fall in earnings.

In the following days the company's share price dropped by more
than 50 per cent.  Investors allege Billabong misrepresented the
assumptions on which the fiscal 2012 earnings growth guidance was
based, Slater & Gordon senior associate Odette McDonald said in a
statement.

"The company stated that achieving guidance depended on internal
initiatives, such as achieving synergies between its newly-
acquired retail outlets, and increasing the proportion of total
revenue from Billabong product," Ms. McDonald said.

"However, it is alleged that, in reality, Billabong's growth
guidance required an extraordinary lift in overall sales revenue
during an extremely challenging retail environment.

"Our clients allege that Billabong's internal initiatives had no
viable chance of substantially increasing profit margins, contrary
to what the company had conditioned investors for.

"They further allege that, had the market been informed of the
true dependencies underpinning the earnings forecast, it would
have disregarded the guidance as unrealistic, and this would have
been reflected in Billabong's share price."

Ms. McDonald said that based on investigations so far, the legal
firm believes Billabong has a case to answer.

Comprehensive Legal Funding is funding the proposed action, which
investors can join until April 4.

Billabong released a statement saying it had become aware of media
reports suggesting that Slater & Gordon was preparing to commence
a class action on behalf of a number of investors.

"Billabong has not been contacted by Slater & Gordon, nor has it
been served with any proceedings," the group said.

Billabong added that it will "vigorously defend" claims of the
nature described in those media reports.  But more importantly,
the retailer said, the group will continue its focus on the
"important operational and structural changes" necessary to drive
its ongoing turnaround program.


CONN'S INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 5 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Conn's,
Inc. common stock during the period between April 3, 2013 and
February 19, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 5, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Conn's and three of its senior executive
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Conn's, based in The Woodlands, Texas, is a specialty retailer of
home appliances, furniture, mattresses and consumer electronics
and a provider of consumer credit.  For the twelve months ended
January 31, 2013, the Company financed approximately 70.9% of its
retail sales, including down payments, under Conn's in-house
financing plan.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements or failed to disclose
adverse facts regarding Conn's business and prospects, including
the extent to which Conn's growth was attributable to utilizing
underwriting and collections practices that weakened its portfolio
quality and left it susceptible to substantial increases in bad
debt, and that Conn's faced increased delinquency and charge off
rates in its credit segment.  As a result of the defendants' false
statements, Conn's stock traded at artificially inflated levels
throughout the Class Period, reaching a high of $79.24 per share
on December 26, 2013.

On February 20, 2014, the Company issued a press release
announcing preliminary fourth quarter fiscal 2014 results and
updating its fiscal 2015 earnings guidance.  The press release
revealed that the Company's "[c]redit segment provision for bad
debts as a percentage of the average outstanding portfolio balance
is expected to exceed previously issued full-year fiscal 2014
guidance," and that the "percentage of the customer portfolio
balance 60-plus days delinquent was 8.8% at January 31, 2014, an
increase of 30 basis points from October 31, 2013."  In the press
release, the Company also revealed that it was lowering its
recently issued fiscal 2015 earnings guidance.  On this news, the
price of Conn's common stock fell $23.91 per share, or almost 43%,
on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Conn's common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

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


EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Online Nursing Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lois Elfman, writing for Diverse, reports that in February, 17
students from 11 states filed a class-action lawsuit against
Excelsior College alleging some details of the distance learning
program for the accredited nursing associate degree (ADN) were
withheld and others misleading.  The students, who are seeking $10
million in damages, claim they were not given adequate details
about fees and failure rates prior to enrolling.  They further
claim Excelsior was motivated by profit because students pay an
annual registration fee and also have to pay to retake the final
exam.

Although not part of the initial complaint, allegations have also
been raised about racial bias in the administration of the final
exam.

It is noted on Excelsior's website: "Excelsior's unique exam-based
program is specifically designed to provide a pathway to a nursing
degree for LPNs (licensed practical nurses), LVNs (licensed
vocational nurses), paramedics, and individuals who hold degrees
in clinically oriented health care fields."

According to William M. Stewart, assistant vice president of
Excelsior College, the ADN is a self-paced program where students
study on their own.  Although the college is an open-enrollment
institution, there is admission criteria for the ADN program,
which is limited to individuals with defined health care
experience.

"While students do progress through the program at their own pace
and most complete it in an average of three years, there is a
seven-year limit to degree completion," says Dr. Mary Lee Pollard,
dean of Excelsior's school of nursing.  "Progress for students in
the AD program is monitored by both academic advisors and faculty.

"In addition, students in the AD program have the opportunity to
participate in online conferences to help them structure their
study in preparation for taking examinations and the capstone
clinical assessment," she continues.  "The online conferences
support independent learning through self-paced learning modules
and the use of an electronic discussion board for questions and
answers.  Students participating in the conferences receive
valuable feedback and guidance in preparing for their
examinations."

Dr. Pollard says students are encouraged to maintain frequent
contact with their academic advisors, all of whom are credentialed
at the master's level.

"Advisors are available to students at any point in the program
via phone and the student communication method referred to as the
Message Center," Dr. Pollard says.  "Students may also schedule
appointments with members of our faculty for one-on-one
consultations and help with any portion of the academic program."

Jillian Phelan, one of the plaintiffs, said she was not an LPN,
LVN or paramedic, but she had attended North Central Michigan
College and was allowed to transfer her credits.

"I had some clinical courses at the previous college.  Those are
the credits that transferred over. How are they to say that's good
enough?" says Ms. Phelan.

Ms. Phelan says her work wasn't supervised, she received little
feedback and she needed to schedule appointments to speak with
advisors.  Those calls were approximately 30 minutes in length and
were subject to availability of staff, and there were sometimes
long delays.  Furthermore, she was only allowed a certain amount
of calls per month.

"Later, I found out that the 'staff' were not of EC, they were
outside hired RNs of different areas, such as the CEs [clinical
examiners who administered the final]," Ms. Phelan says.  "I
thought I was speaking to EC professors, but this was untrue."

Ms. Phelan says there were no benchmarks at which a student was
required to communicate with an advisor.  She says she received no
feedback on the online Focused Clinical Competency Assessment that
preceded the final, despite requesting it.

The complaint, filed in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Excelsior is headquartered in
Albany, N.Y.), alleges violation of New York General Business Law.

The complaint states that after enrolling in the program students
would learn there was an annual registration fee of approximately
$500 and asserts that annual fee motivates Excelsior to prolong
the time it takes a student to finish the program.  Plaintiffs
also allege Excelsior does not disclose to consumers and potential
students its associate's degree nursing program graduation rates.
There are additional fees each time a student takes the exam.

A series of online examinations are given over the course of
study, including the Focused Clinical Competence Assessment, which
tests knowledge on certain clinical aspects of nursing.
Graduation is defined by passing the Clinical Performance in
Nursing Examination (CPNE), which assesses a student's clinical
competence.  That is an intensive two-and-a-half day examination
conducted one-on-one with clinical examiners (registered nurses)
at an acute care facility.

"The CPNE is an objective measurement of their ability to perform
at the level that would be expected of a day one registered nurse
from any program," Mr. Stewart says.

The lack of objectivity of the CPNE is at the core of what
plaintiffs are claiming, alleging that students were treated
subjectively at the whim of the clinical examiners.  "Some
students would inherently face different scenarios than other
students, and that the examiners and the test criteria vary from
site to site," is written in the complaint.

"The Defendant completely controls the design, administration and
outcome of the CPNE without policing, or assurance of neutrality,
by a detached third party of the exam-taking process," is also
noted in the suit.

A student must pass the CPNE before Excelsior will provide the
paperwork necessary for the student to sit for the National
Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX),
passage of which is mandatory to work as a registered nurse.

Ms. Phelan did pass the CPNE, but in the complaint she states she
was "permitted to pass solely because of the Examiner's
discretion."

"I felt that the four Caucasian women [Phelan being one] were
treated better than the two Hispanic women," Ms. Phelan tells
Diverse.  "One Latina girl was crying after being scolded by the
clinical administrator [the nurse who oversees the CPNEs] out in
the hallway, and the other was cut and took the first flight home
to California.

"The Caucasian women spoke of being 'helped' during their PCSs
including myself," she adds.  "Later, I was told that it was not
allowed for students to congregate after our testing days."

She says she believes the no congregating rule was meant to stop
the test takers from sharing their experiences.  As she and
several other Excelsior students taking the CPNE were staying at
the same hotel near the test site, they talked about what they'd
experienced.

When asked by Diverse, Mr. Stewart says 60 to 65 percent of
Excelsior students pass the CPNE the first time they take it.  The
pass rate for second-time exam-takers is 52 percent and those
taking it a third time pass at the rate of 54 percent.  He notes
that Excelsior students who pass the CPNE go on to pass the NCLEX
at a rate comparable to the national pass rate.

Ms. Phelan did pass the NCLEX, but says she was only able to do it
after additional assistance, including paying for a prep course.

Dr. Suzanne Marnocha, professor, assistant dean and pre-licensure
director of the College of Nursing at the University of Wisconsin
Oshkosh, is not familiar with Excelsior's nursing programs, but is
familiar with distance learning since UWO has an accelerated
bachelor's in nursing program held predominantly online.  Students
in that program participate in clinical study near where they
reside. She says experience as an LPN is not a substitute for
supervised clinical instruction as part of registered nursing
education.  Working alongside registered nurses in the workplace
does not equal supervised clinical learning.

"I believe strongly that nurses need clinical experience, both
simulated and face-to-face human clinical experience, that is
supervised by a professional instructor," says Marnocha.  "You
need to select a program that would help you know even the most
minute things you're doing wrong early on so you can correct
them."

In practical terms, students don't know what they don't know and
therefore at times wouldn't know what questions to ask.  It's up
to a trained instructor, not a co-worker, to educate and inform
nursing students.

Excelsior graduate Megan Keenan has another opinion.  She says her
background as an LPN combined with her high degree of self-
motivation allowed her to thrive in the Excelsior program.  She
says to prepare for the CPNE she used all of Excelsior's study
materials and guides and applied them in her daily work as an LPN.

"We're not traditional students because we have to come into it
with a certain level of clinical competency, then use the tools
that Excelsior provides to be able to pass the test with a certain
level of clinical competency," says Ms. Keenan.

Ms. Keenan says she called her advisors multiple times prior to
the CPNE and participated in a preparatory workshop (the complaint
notes there is a separate fee for this workshop).  She says the
exam was intense, but the examiners were very clear.  She passed
the NCLEX soon after finishing her work at Excelsior and works
full-time in the vascular surgery practice at Albany Medical
Center.  She is currently enrolled in Excelsior's master's in
nursing program working toward a master's in clinical systems
management.

"If it wasn't for a program like Excelsior, there is no way that I
would have been able to get my RN," says Ms. Keenan, who was a
single mother during her ADN studies.  "I came out of that program
as such a strong nurse because I had no choice but to be self-
motivated and dedicated to the schoolwork."

Excelsior's ADN program has been continuously accredited since
1975 by the Accrediting Commission for Education in Nursing
(previously known as the National League for Nursing Accrediting
Commission). Request for comment from ACEN received no reply.

The Excelsior College School of Nursing has been designated a
2011-16 NLN Center of Excellence in Nursing Education by the
National League for Nursing (NLN).

"The NLN Center of Excellence designation is given to schools that
demonstrate excellence in one specific area or category.  COE
designation is about creating environments that promote
excellence.  In the case of Excelsior, that category is Creating
Environments that Enhance Student Learning and Professional
Development," wrote Karen R. Klestzick, chief communications
officer of NLN, in an email.

"Schools and programs go through a rigorous application process.
A review panel comprising faculty from other COE designees rates
each applicant based on specific criteria related to the one
category the school selects," she adds.  Additional information is
available on the NLN website.

Mr. Stewart says 42,000 individuals have earned associate degrees
in nursing from Excelsior to date.

"It is difficult to say how many of our 42,000 AD nursing
graduates are still practicing RNs," says Dr. Pollard.  "Given
that the program has been in existence since 1975 and the average
age of our AD nursing students has been in the mid-30s, those who
graduated 20 years ago may have retired by now.  We do, however,
conduct one- and three-year exit surveys of our graduates and, on
these, we know that after three years more than 90 percent of our
graduates are still in the profession.  National data show that
many nursing graduates leave the profession after just one year."

Ms. Phelan, who is currently working toward her bachelor's degree,
says she loves nursing, but feels stymied in her job search.

"I want to work with the best, but unfortunately with Excelsior on
my resume no hospital wants to hire me," says Ms. Phelan, who
currently works at a rehabilitation facility.  "I haven't been
able to find work in a hospital that's willing to train me the
right way."


FOREST LABORATORIES: Judge Tosses Lexapro Marketing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a Massachusetts
federal judge on March 5 tossed a putative class action brought
against Forest Laboratories Inc. by California purchasers of the
antidepressant Lexapro who said Forest misrepresented information
on the drug's efficacy for adolescents, holding that the claims
are barred by California's safe harbor provision.

The lawsuit, which was filed in February 2013 and arose out of the
marketing and sales of the depression drug by Forest, was added as
a tag-along to a larger multidistrict case accusing Forest of
fraudulently marketing Celexa and Lexapro as safe for use in
children.  After the transfer, Forest moved to dismiss the suit
under California's safe harbor, saying the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration determined that there is "substantial evidence" of
efficacy for the treatment of adolescent depression and authorized
the statements the plaintiffs challenged.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton sided with Forest on
March 5, holding that the case is distinguishable from cases
involving FDA regulation of food and homeopathic remedies, in
which courts have held that the safe harbor provision did not
apply.

"In contrast to the insufficient regulatory frameworks in those
cases, the prescription drug industry is subject to comprehensive
regulations promulgated by the FDA," Judge Gorton wrote in the
12-page memorandum and order, adding that the practice in question
didn't violate federal law.  "Here, where plaintiffs base their
claims entirely on the marketing and sales of Lexapro after the
FDA approved Forest's application for an adolescent indication and
a proposed label, the safe harbor applies to bar such claims."

The March 5 dismissal means Forest will no longer have to face the
allegations brought by two plaintiffs in California who said the
company violated a number of laws by concealing material
information about the efficacy of Lexapro in treating major
depressive disorders in pediatric patients.

But R. Brent Wisner -- MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- of Baum Hedlund
Aristei & Goldman PC, counsel to the plaintiffs, said they will
likely file a motion for reconsideration and seek leave to have a
question certified to the California Supreme Court.

"We are disappointed with the court's ruling [Wednes]day.  It
contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling in Wyeth v. Levine, which
held that the FDA sets the floor, not the ceiling of drug
regulation," Mr. Wisner told Law360 on March 5.  "Simply because
the FDA, pursuant to its baseline regulatory requirements,
approved a drug for a specific indication, does not give a drug
manufacturer the right to market the drug however it sees fit."

In April 2009, about one month after Lexapro was approved for
treating MDD in adolescents, the 17-year-old son of the named
plaintiffs -- Randy Marcus and Bonnie Marcus -- was prescribed
Lexapro by his physician to treat ongoing depression.  The
plaintiffs said they and the physician were misled into believing
that Lexapro was more effective than it was and said they spent
about $495 on the drug over two years.

The plaintiffs filed suit in California in May for alleged
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law and False Advertising Law, after which the case
was transferred to the Massachusetts federal court by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Forest moved to dismiss the
suit in July and the court heard oral arguments in September,
according to court filings.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael L. Baum of Baum Hedlund
Aristei & Goldman PC.

Forest is represented by Edwin G. Schallert --
egschallert@debevoise.com -- Kristin D. Kiehn --
kdkiehn@debevoise.com -- and J. Robert Abraham --
jrabraham@debevoise.com -- of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and by
Natasha C. Lisman and William F. Benson -- benson@srbc.com -- of
Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen PC.

The case is Randy Marcus et al. v. Forest Laboratories Inc. et al.
1:13-cv-11343, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The MDL is In re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, case number 1:09-md-02067, in the same court.


GENERAL MOTORS: Federal Prosecutors to Probe Recall Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Beech and Richard Cowan, writing for Reuters, report that
federal prosecutors are examining whether General Motors is
criminally liable for failing to properly disclose problems with
some of its vehicles that were linked to 13 deaths and led to a
recall last month, according to a source familiar with the
investigation.

The New York-based probe is in its early stages, and the source
did not elaborate on the legal theory behind the potential
criminal liability.

Federal investigators are reviewing information about how GM
handled reports of problems with ignition switches that first came
to light 10 years ago, according to the source.  The source did
not want to be named because the probe has not been disclosed
publicly.

The federal probe by the U.S. attorney in Manhattan adds to a
growing list of U.S. authorities examining the recall, which GM
announced in February.  The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) previously opened an investigation into
whether GM reacted swiftly enough in its recall.

Earlier on March 11, Reuters reported that a U.S. Senate committee
chairman is seeking a hearing on the issue.  The U.S. House Energy
and Commerce Committee also ordered GM and NHTSA to turn over
information about GM's ignition switch problems.

The problems in some instances allowed the engine and other
components, including front airbags, to turn off while the vehicle
was traveling at high speed. More than 1.6 million older vehicles
are affected.

The failure is believed to be caused when weight on the ignition
key, road conditions or some other jarring event causes the
ignition switch to move out of the "run" position, turning off the
engine and most of the car's electrical components mid-drive, with
sometimes catastrophic results.

GM has recommended that owners use only the ignition key with
nothing else on the key ring.  The supplier of the ignition
switch, Delphi Automotive Plc, said in a statement on March 11
that the part had not been provided to any other automaker.

One analyst said the recall could have a longer-term impact on GM.
"The immediate financial impact is insignificant; however, there
could be some reputational risk which could impact share," RBC
Capital markets analyst Joseph Spak said.

"Obviously, the longer this stays in the headlines the worse it
could be for GM," he said.

                      Two Weeks to Respond

GM is conducting an internal investigation into the matter and has
announced that the probe would be led by Anton "Tony" Valukas, the
chairman of law firm Jenner & Block.  The criminal probe of GM
opened by Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara follows an
investigation conducted by the same office into Toyota's
disclosure in 2009 of driver complaints of unintended acceleration
by some of its vehicles.

Toyota has been engaged in negotiations with Mr. Bharara's office
to settle that probe, which is also criminal, a source familiar
with the investigation previously told Reuters.

The House committee examining the GM issue, led by Michigan
Republican Fred Upton, gave the company and NHTSA until March 25
to turn over information about their responses to consumers'
complaints about the problem.

The committee has asked GM officials to provide a briefing no
later than March 18 on how GM has responded to reports of
incidents since 2003 and its interaction with NHTSA since then on
problems related to the ignition defect.

Upton led the 2000 investigation into Firestone tire failures on
Ford Motor Co vehicles, resulting in the TREAD Act that requires
automakers to report complaints of defects to the NHTSA.

That law also makes it a crime to intentionally mislead the agency
about defects that lead to serious accidents.

The Justice Department can only open a grand jury investigation
into such allegations at the request of the U.S. Transportation
Secretary, according to the law.

"We are in communication with the Department of Justice but have
not asked Justice to investigate because we are still in the midst
of our own investigation regarding the timing of GM's recall," a
Transportation Department spokesman said in a statement.

The person familiar with the criminal probe declined to discuss
whether prosecutors were considering liability under the TREAD
Act.


GENERAL MOTORS: Taps Jenner & Block for Vehicle Shutdown Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
General Motors Co. has named general counsel Michael Millikin and
outside counsel Anton Valukas -- avalukas@jenner.com -- of Jenner
& Block to cohead an internal investigation into the company's
handling of complaints related to sudden vehicle shutdowns that
led to at least 13 deaths.

GM has issued a recall on 1.6 million cars to check for faulty
ignition switches after more than 10 years of consumer complaints
that engines and power systems would suddenly shut down -- a bug
that also disabled air bags.

Company spokesman Alan Adler confirmed the Millikin-Valukas probe
on March 10, adding that attorneys from King & Spalding would join
Jenner lawyers in the probe.

Mr. Valukas, a former U.S. attorney in Chicago, is Jenner's
chairman, and the law firm has a long-standing relationship with
GM.  Mr. Millikin's predecessor as GC, Robert Osborne, came from
Jenner and returned there in 2009 after three years of guiding GM
through legal issues, including its bankruptcy. Osborne remains of
counsel in Jenner's Washington, D.C., office.

That D.C. connection could come in handy as the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is also evaluating "the
timing of GM's defect decisionmaking and reporting of the safety
defect to NHTSA," according to a 27-page special order issued
March 4.

GM's response to the order is due by April 3, which doesn't give
Mr. Millikin, who has been part of GM's legal department since
1977, and Mr. Valukas much time to investigate beyond work already
done for the recall.

But the NHTSA also faces questions on its reaction to complaints.

A New York Times article on March 9 said the agency "received an
average of two complaints a month about potentially dangerous
shutdowns, but it repeatedly responded that there was not enough
evidence of a problem to warrant a safety investigation."  The
first complaint came in 2003, it said.

The Times story concluded that "regulators appear to have
overlooked disturbing complaints of engine shutdowns."

In a statement the NHTSA told CorpCounsel.com: "Safety is our top
priority. . . . NHTSA uses a variety of tools to evaluate the more
than 40,000 complaints it receives each year, including special
crash investigations, searches for similar complaints and
comparisons to other vehicles.  In this case, the data available
to NHTSA at the time did not contain sufficient evidence of a
possible safety defect trend that would warrant the agency opening
a formal investigation."

Staff members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee were
scheduled to meet with representatives of NHTSA on March 10 to
discuss the agency's handling of the complaints, according to the
Times.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Privacy Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Allison, writing for The Recorder, reports that a pared-
down privacy suit accusing Google of using apps installed on
Android mobile phones to collect personal data can move forward, a
federal judge in San Francisco ruled on March 10.

In re Google Android Consumer Privacy Litigation, 11-2264, alleges
that Google captured data from apps such as Foursquare, Groupon,
Angry Birds and Pandora without users' consent.  The data,
plaintiffs say, included users' locations and unique device
identifiers, as well as personal information collected by the apps
such as gender, age, search terms entered and other preferences.
The suit contends that Google misrepresented how it would collect
data and that the "surreptitious" action sapped phones' battery
power, bandwidth and storage capability, possibly leading to data
overage charges.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of
California threw out a claim under the federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, finding plaintiffs failed to show economic damages
meeting the statute's $5,000 threshold.  However, White upheld
claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and sided with
the plaintiffs' lawyers that their clients have standing based on
the reduced functionality of their Android phones due to depleted
batteries.

"Google may not have manufactured plaintiffs' mobile devices, and
plaintiffs may have an uphill battle proving this theory of
standing," Judge White wrote.  But, he added, "they have alleged
sufficient facts to show that they suffered an injury, the injury
is fairly traceable to Google's conduct, and the injury could be
redressed by the relief the plaintiffs seek."

The judge rejected a broader suit last year but gave plaintiffs
lawyers at Audet & Partners and KamberLaw a chance to amend.  The
new complaint was more limited and dropped allegations against
Google's mobile advertising platforms AdMob Inc. and AdWhirl Inc.
Google is represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati partners
David Kramer and Michael Rubin.


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Ordered to Explain Failure to Recall Baby Seats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the federal government's road
safety watchdog is ordering child seat maker Graco to explain why
it didn't include 1.8 million infant seats in a recent recall for
faulty buckles.  The company says it will comply with the request.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said on March 7
that Graco has until March 20 to explain why last month's recall
of 3.8 million child seats didn't include infant seats, which have
the same buckles that can get stuck as the child seats.

Graco Children's Products Inc. of Atlanta, a division of Newell
Rubbermaid, said the child seat buckles get stuck because children
drop food or drinks on them.  It is sending replacement buckles to
owners for free.  It said it will also send replacement buckles
for infant seats if owners request them.

The February recall covered 11 models of child seats made from
2009 through 2013 by Graco Children's Products.  It's the fourth-
largest child seat recall in U.S. history, according to NHTSA.

The agency warned that the problem could make it "difficult to
remove the child from the restraint, increasing the risk of injury
in the event of a vehicle crash, fire or other emergency."  At the
time of the child seat recall, NHTSA noted the recall had excluded
seven infant car seat models with the same buckles.  Both the
company and NHTSA have received complaints about stuck buckles on
the infant seats, the agency said.

Rear-facing infant seats aren't being recalled because infants
don't get food or drinks on their seats, Graco spokeswoman Ashley
Mowrey said in February.  Ms. Mowrey had said there have been no
reported injuries due to the defect.

NHTSA said on March 7 that Graco will face fines of $7,000 per day
if its response to its request for an explanation of why infant
seats weren't recalled is late or incomplete.

Graco said on March 7 it will comply with the request for an
explanation.


HONDURAS MAYA: Accused of Not Paying Overtime and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Maria Chavarria and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Honduras Maya Restaurant & Cafeteria Inc. and
Ana M Mejia, Case No. 1:14-cv-20340-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 28,
2014) is brought as a collective on behalf similarly situated
employees of the Defendants, who have not been paid overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Honduras Maya Restaurant & Cafeteria Inc. is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Dade County.  Ana M. Mejia is
a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          Christopher Nathaniel Cochran, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                  DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com
                  cnc02g@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adi Amit, Esq.
          LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC
          200 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 900
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 755-3425
          Facsimile: (954) 755-2993
          E-mail: adi@lubellrosen.com


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Members' PII & PHI, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Pekelney and Mark Meisel, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc.,
d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, a New Jersey
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00584-CCC-MF (D.N.J., January 28,
2014) is a nationwide class action brought against the Defendant
for failing to adequately secure and safeguard its members' (1)
sensitive personally identifiable information, which includes
members' names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and
addresses; and (2) protected health information, which contains
PII, in addition to members' demographic information, medical
histories, test and laboratory results, insurance information, and
other data collected by health care professionals to identify an
individual and determine appropriate care.

In early November 2013, two unencrypted laptop computers were
stolen from the Defendant's headquarters in Newark, New Jersey,
according to the complaint.

Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., doing business as Horizon Blue
Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey is a health service corporation
headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Pinilis, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          160 Morris Street
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 656-0222
          Facsimile: (973) 401-1114
          E-mail: wpinilis@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          David A. Straite, Esq.
          Lauren I. Dubick, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 3rd Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  dstraite@kaplanfox.com
                  ldubick@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Linda M. Fong, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5003
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Jay, Esq.
          Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          Po Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360-7900
          E-mail: jayd@gtlaw.com
                  sellingerp@gtlaw.com


KIPP NYC: Sued in E.D.N.Y. for Failing to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Amirah Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KIPP, NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00596-RJD-JO
(E.D.N.Y., January 28, 2014) alleges that the Company willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and
applicable rules by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated employees for all of their overtime hours
worked.

KIPP serves 50,000 students in 141 schools in 20 states across the
country.  KIPP was and still is engaged in providing educational
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          Building 2, Suite 220
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Class Action for $12.8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Angela Mueller, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports
that the bankrupt KV Pharmaceutical Co. has agreed to a pay a
proposed $12.8 million to settle a class-action lawsuit.

The settlement with lead plaintiffs Norfolk County Retirement
System and the State-Boston Retirement System received preliminary
approval in January from Judge Carol Jackson of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  A settlement hearing
is scheduled for April 23.

The lawsuit alleges that KV made misstatements and omissions
regarding its compliance with the FDA and with good manufacturing
practices, according to a statement from Labaton Sucharow, the New
York law firm representing the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs allege
that they purchased KV securities at artificially inflated prices
and "were damaged as a result," according to the law firm.

KV stopped production of much of its product line in 2008 after
recalling painkillers because the tablets were oversized.
The settlement with the bankrupt KV Pharmaceutical Co. entity will
not affect the restructured KV Pharmaceutical, which emerged from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September, according to the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch.


LIFELOCK INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 4 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against LifeLock, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, District
of Arizona, and docketed under 2:14-cv-00416, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired LifeLock securities between February 26, 2013
and February 19, 2014, both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased LifeLock securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 5, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.co or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection,
providing its services to consumers and enterprises.

On March 8, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint
against the Company and Defendant Todd Davis, alleging amongst
other things, that the Company issued dramatically misleading
advertisements and guarantees to customers regarding its identity
theft protection services.  Specifically, the March 8 Complaint
alleged that the Company's aggressive advertising campaigns misled
investors into believing that the Company provided certain
services and benefits which in fact were not provided.  The FTC
further alleged that the Company misled consumers to believe that
LifeLock's protection services, "provided complete protection
against all forms of identity theft by making customers' personal
information useless to identity thieves."  In fact, the Company
provided no real protection against identity theft.

As a result of its fraudulent advertising practices, in March
2010, the Company and Defendant Todd Davis entered into an
settlement order with the FTC whereby the Company settled
allegations by the FTC that certain of the Company's advertising
and marketing practices constituted deceptive acts or practices in
violation of the FTC Act.  The Settlement Order prohibited the
Company from continuing to engage in these deceptive marketing
practices.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.  Specifically, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company's marketing and advertising practices were
in direct violation of applicable government rules and
regulations; (ii) the Company was in direct violation of the
Settlement Order; (iii) the Company's revenues were earned through
violations of the FTC Act and the Settlement Order; and (iv) as a
result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 19, 2014, the Company announced that it had met with
the FTC regarding its alleged non-compliance with the terms of the
Settlement Order, after a whistleblower had discussed certain
violations with the FTC.  This announcement, which was not Filed
in a Form 8-K or other press release by the Company, was first
picked up by the market on Sunday, February 23, 2014, when a short
seller from Seeking Alpha published an article entitled:
"Lifelock: Pending FTC Investigation Revealed in 10-K".

On this news, the Company's shares fell more than $1.47 per share
to $20.32, or over 6.00%, on February 24, 2014.

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


MARS FOOD: Recalls Uncle Ben's Rice Due to Packaging Problem
------------------------------------------------------------
Mars Food North America in February said in February it was
voluntarily recalling one specific production lot of UNCLE BEN'S
READY RICE Original Long Grain White Rice product, representing
less than 3,500 cases.  This product does not meet the company's
quality standards due to punctures in the pouch packaging.

This action relates only to UNCLE BEN'S READY RICE Original Long
Grain White Rice product with a Best By date of "12/14 MADE IN
CANADA," and with Lot Code 351GBBFPXX printed on the package,
where "351GBBFP" is the lot code, and "XX" represents the
packaging equipment, and could be any of 1L, 1R, 2L, 2R, 3L, or
3R.  No other Lot Codes, or any other UNCLE BEN'S Brand products,
are involved in this action.  No Mars Foodservices products are
involved in this action.

Only this one specific lot code of the following product is
impacted.  This product should not be served or eaten.  It should
be returned to where it was purchased.

   -- UNCLE BEN'S READY RICE Original Long Grain White Rice
      (pouch)
      Lot Code: 351GBBFP[1L, 2L, 3L, 1R, 2R, 3R]
      Item No. U0317600

Mars Food North America is conducting this voluntary recall as a
result of punctures to the pouch packaging in this one production
lot.  Mars Food North America has not received any reports of
illness associated with this product, but is voluntarily recalling
the product out of an abundance of caution.

No other UNCLE BEN'S Brand products, including Mars Foodservices
products, are involved in this action.

For more information or assistance, please contact the company
toll free at 1-800-548-6253. (Monday to Friday, 9:30 a.m. to
7 p.m. EST) or via our website at http://www.mars.com


MARS FOODSERVICES: Recalls Infused Rice Products for Wholesale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mars Foodservices US in February said it was voluntarily recalling
Foodservices UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice products, which are only
sold in 5 lbs and 25 lbs bags.  UNCLE BEN'S Brand Ready to Heat,
Boxed, Bag or Cup Products available in supermarkets and other
retail outlets are not involved.  The company's Foodservices
Products are manufactured separately and are sold through
wholesale distribution channels.

Only these Foodservices products are impacted.  These products
should not be served or eaten.  They should be returned to the
distributor where purchased.

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Roasted Chicken Flavor (25-lbs)
      U3010501;

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Roasted Chicken Flavor (5 lbs)
      U0257000;

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Garlic & Butter Flavor (5-lbs)
      U0257100;

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Mexican Flavor (25-lbs)
      U0318000

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Mexican Flavor (5-lbs)
      U0257300;

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Pilaf (5-lbs) U0262000;

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Saffron Flavor (5-lbs)
      U0263002;

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Cheese Flavor (5-lbs)
      U0262900;

   -- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Spanish Flavor (25-lbs)
      U3012100

Mars Foodservices US is conducting this voluntary recall as a
result of people experiencing temporary symptoms of mild flushing
and rash after eating their Foodservices INFUSED Rice Mexican
Flavor product.  Out of an abundance of caution, the company is
removing all Foodservices INFUSED Rice products from the market.

UNCLE BEN'S Brand Ready to Heat, Boxed, Bag or Cup Products
available in supermarkets and other retail outlets are not
involved in this voluntary recall and are safe to consume.  The
company's Foodservices Products are manufactured separately and
are sold through wholesale distribution channels.

Mars Foodservices US will provide reimbursements or replacement
product.  Wholesale customers should work with their distributors.
For more information or assistance, please contact the company
toll free at 800-432-2331 (Monday to Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.
EST) or via email at mfs@usf.mars.com.  Mars Foodservices US is
continuing to work closely with the FDA to investigate this issue.


MED-VET INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 1/2cc U-40 Insulin Syringes
----------------------------------------------------------
Med-Vet International in February initiated a nationwide recall of
140 boxes of 1/2cc U-40 insulin syringes.  The syringes have been
found to be labeled with 40 units per 1/2cc syringe and they
should be marked with only 20 units per 1/2cc, which potentially
could result in lower than prescribed doses of insulin.  Animals
receiving subtherapeutic doses of insulin may exhibit signs and
symptoms consistent with hyperglycemia including, but not limited
to dehydration, increase in thirst, increase in urination, malaise
or lethargy, and urinary tract infection in addition to increasing
the risk of developing diabetic ketoacidosis.  The long term
failure to adequately control blood glucose levels can result in
vision problems, neuropathy, and damage to the pancreas.

Consumers who have these insulin syringes should quarantine all
products subject to recall.  In addition, if you may have further
distributed this product, please identify the customers at once
and notify them at once of this product recall and to quarantine
the product.

Recalled 1/2cc U-40 insulin syringes were manufactured May, 2012
and distributed from Jan 2013 to Feb 2014 to consumers, animal
hospitals, animal shelters, farmers, and veterinarians.

These 1/2cc U-40 insulin syringes have been recalled:

   -- 140 boxes of 1/2cc insulin syringe U-40 with 29g x 1/2"
      needle.  Lot Number: 20120610

The product can be identified by Item number: MV1/2CCINS-40 or
1/2CCINS-40 by Oasis.

Med-Vet International voluntarily recalled the syringes after
becoming aware of the mislabeling.  Med- Vet International has
notified the FDA of this recall action.

No injuries have been reported to date.

Med-Vet International is notifying its distributors and customers
by email and recall letter and is arranging for return of all
recalled 1/2cc U-40 insulin syringes.

Med-Vet International distributed the 1/2cc U-40 insulin syringes
nationally to veterinarians and customers.

Consumers with questions may contact the company via telephone at
1-800-544-7521 between the hours of 9am and 5pm central time.
Consumer may also contact the company via e-mail at
customerservice@shopmedvet.com


MERISANT COMPANY: Misleads PureVia(R) Stevia Consumers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Aguiar, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Merisant Company, and Whole Earth Sweetener Co., LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00670-RGK-AGR (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2014) seeks
to remedy the alleged unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business
practices of the Defendants with respect to the marketing,
advertising, labeling, and sales of PureVia(R) Stevia.

Since as early as 2008, the Defendants have manufactured,
distributed, and sold Pure Via and consistently have marketed,
advertised, and labeled Pure Via as a natural sweetener primarily
made from the stevia plant, Ms. Aguiar relates.  However, she
contends, the Defendants' labeling, advertising, and marketing
campaign is false and misleading because the Defendants tout the
stevia plant as the reason PureVia is natural, when in fact, the
stevia-derived ingredient, Reb A, is not the natural crude
preparation of stevia, but rather is a highly chemically processed
and purified form of stevia leaf extract.

Merisant was formed on March 20, 2000, and manufactures PureVia,
Equal(R), and Canderel(R) and over a dozen other products.  Whole
Earth is a wholly owned subsidiary of Merisant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (213) 985-1274
          Facsimile: (213) 985-1278
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  hcunningham@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Telephone: (205) 908-4906
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          E-mail: ekirkwoodl@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Greg L. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arjun Garg, Esq.
          Gregg F. LoCascio, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Brightbill, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5225
          Facsimile: (202) 654-9411
          E-mail: arjun.garg@kirkland.com
                  gregg.locascio@kirkland.com
                  jbrightbill@kirkland.com

               - and -

          C. Robert Boldt, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: robert.boldt@kirkland.com


MONSANTO CO: Parties in GMO Suit Agree to Tight Mediation Timeline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for National Law Journal, reports that
American farmers who sued Monsanto Co. after discovering a
genetically modified wheat strand in Oregon plan a "tight and
aggressive timeline" to attempt mediation with the company.

More than a dozen class actions were coordinated before Chief
Judge Kathryn Vratil in the U.S. District Court of Kansas.  The
cases allege that Monsanto, which field tested genetically
modified wheat about a decade ago, contaminated crops intended for
human consumption.  They were filed after an Oregon farmer
discovered genetically engineered wheat in his field last year.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has not approved genetically
modified wheat for sale.  The discovery prompted Japan and South
Korea to immediately suspend imports of soft white wheat from the
United States, and grain futures prices fell.

The plaintiffs are various classes of farmers who lost money
following the discovery.  Monsanto has called the Oregon strand an
isolated incident and has denied wrongdoing.

Judge Vratil, who ordered both sides to meet on March 3,
previously had scheduled a March 10 status conference.  But on
March 5, she canceled the hearing and stayed the litigation.

"At the Court's suggestion, the parties have agreed to a tight and
aggressive timeline for early mediation before Hon. Layn R.
Phillips," Judge Vratil wrote.

She ordered an April 11 mediation at the Newport Beach, Calif.,
offices of Phillips, who served on the bench in the Western
District of Oklahoma and now is a partner at Los Angeles-based
Irell & Manella.  The lawyers plan to come back to court on
April 18.

"The parties also note that even if the mediation is not entirely
successful, it should assist the parties in identifying and
narrowing the issues which would aid in the development of a case
management and discovery plan if needed," Judge Vratil wrote.

"Monsanto welcomes the Court's direction to pursue mediation and
the opportunity to work with the plaintiffs on resolving this
matter," Kyle McClain, chief litigation counsel at Monsanto, said
in an emailed response to a request for comment.  Representing the
company is Edward Duckers, head of the litigation practice at
Stoel Rives in San Francisco.

James Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com -- chairman of the
interim co-lead counsel team for a class of soft white wheat
farmers, most of whom live in the Pacific Northwest, and Patrick
Pendley, senior partner at Plaquemine, La.'s Pendley Baudin &
Coffin, who represents the non-soft white wheat farmer class, did
not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Pizzirusso, of Washington's Hausfeld LLP, is leading the soft
white wheat farmer class along with Erin Comite
-- ecomite@scott-scott.com -- of Scott + Scott in Colchester,
Conn., and Kim Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- a member of
Tousley Brain Stephens in Seattle.


MT. GOX: 400+ People to Join Class Action Over Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------
Lionel Laurent and Ritsuko Ando, writing for Reuters, report that
more than 400 people have signaled they would join a class action
against Mt. Gox, the world's biggest marketplace for the digital
currency bitcoin before its abrupt collapse, British-based law
firm Selachii said.

It would be the latest effort to try to recoup some of the $480
million in losses that Mt. Gox has blamed on a hacking attack that
drove it into bankruptcy.  The exchange is already being sued by a
U.S. customer for alleged negligence and fraud.

Selachii has received over 400 expressions of interest in joining
a class action, according to the law firm's co-founder Richard
Howlett.  After ending submissions on Feb. 28 the firm will tally
the list of claimants and file a suit in London against the parent
company of Mt. Gox, K K Tibanne, and Mt. Gox chief Mark Karpeles,
he said.

Although Selachii's Howlett said it was still impossible to say
what had really caused the collapse, he said the suit would focus
on customer complaints about a lack of disclosure by the exchange
and customer deposits made in the immediate run-up to its
collapse.

If Selachii does file the suit, it will be the firm's first class
action. The benefits for claimants are that legal fees will be
spread across a big number of people, Mr. Howlett said.

At a news conference on Feb. 28 at the Tokyo District Court,
Mr. Karpeles said he was very sorry and blamed Mt. Gox's collapse
on a "weakness in our system," but predicted that the bitcoin
market would continue to grow.

Bitcoin, unlike conventional money, is bought and sold on a peer-
to-peer network independent of central control.  Its value has
soared in the last year, and the total worth of bitcoins created
is now about $7 billion.

Mt. Gox said it may have lost 750,000 of its customers' bitcoins
and 100,000 of its own, equal to about 7 percent of bitcoins
worldwide, for a total loss of about $480 million.

The exchange reported having 127,000 creditors, liabilities of 6.5
billion yen ($64 million) and assets of 3.84 billion yen ($38
million).

Global regulators are also delving into the risks of bitcoin.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara has sent subpoenas to Mt.
Gox and other exchanges to seek information on how they handled
recent cyber attacks, a source familiar with the probe told
Reuters.

"There are lots of unanswered questions," said Selachii's Howlett.
"Some people have had their life savings disappear."


MYNICKNAXS LLC: Recalls Reduce Weight Fruta Planta
--------------------------------------------------
MyNicKnaxs, LLC., located in Florida, in February announced a
recall of Reduce Weight Fruta Planta because the products contain
an undeclared active pharmaceutical ingredient: Phenolphthalein.
The FDA lab analysis of the product found Reduce Weight Fruta
Planta to contain 10.2 mg of Phenolphthalein.  No illnesses or
injuries have been reported to MyKnicKnaxs, LLC., in connection
with these products.

Phenolphthalein was once an ingredient used in over-the-counter
laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity is not
currently approved for marketing in the United States.  This
undeclared ingredient makes Reduce Weight Fruta Planta an
unapproved new drug for which safety and efficacy have not been
established.  Consumption of this product could include
potentially serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular
heartbeat, and cancer with long-term use.

All lots of the Reduce Weight Fruta Planta products are being
recalled.

MyKnicKnaxs, LLC. has taken this voluntary action because it is
committed to providing accurate information to all customers and
is concerned for the health and safety of all users of Reduce
Weight Fruta Planta. MyKnicKnaxs, LLC, is working with the FDA in
the recall process.  The company sincerely regrets any
inconvenience the recall may cause customers.

Customers are advised to immediately discontinue use and Consumers
with questions should contact mynicknaxs at 386-337-8142 or via
e-mail at nicnaxs@yahoo.com Monday - Friday, 2pm - 7:00 pm, EDT.

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.

Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm. Mail to
address on the pre-addressed form.  Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178


MYNICKNAXS LLC: Recalls All Weight Loss Formulas
------------------------------------------------
MyNicKnaxs, LLC., located in Florida, in February announced a
recall of: Magic Slim, Fruta Bio, SlimEasy, Super Fat Burning
Bomb, Slim Xtreme, Meizi Evolution, Meizitang Strong Version
Botanical Slimming, Jianfeijindan Activity Girl, and Japan
Hokkaido Cangye Phamacy Co., LTD Japanese Chinese Formula pill for
weight reduction because these products contain undeclared active
pharmaceutical ingredients: Phenolphthalein, sibutramine or a
combination of both.  At this time no illnesses or injuries have
been reported to MyKnicKnaxs, LLC, in connection with these
products.

Phenolphthalein was once an ingredient used in over-the-counter
laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity is not
currently approved for marketing in the United States.
Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant (drug Schedule IV) that was
withdrawn from the U.S. market in October 2010 for safety reason
(seizure, cardiovascular risks: heart attacks, arrhythmia and
strokes among others).  These undeclared ingredients makes these
products unapproved new drugs for which safety and efficacy have
not been established.  Consumption of this product could include
potentially serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular
heartbeat, and cancer with long-term use.

All lots of these products are being recalled.

MyKnicKnaxs, LLC. has taken this voluntary action because it is
committed to providing accurate information to all customers and
is concerned for the health and safety of all users.  MyKnicKnaxs,
LLC, is working with the FDA in the recall process.  The company
sincerely regrets any inconvenience the recall may cause
customers.

Customers are advised to immediately discontinue use and should
return the products immediately to the place of purchase.
Consumers with questions should contact Chevonne Torres at
386-337-8142 or via e-mail at nicnaxs@yahoo.com Monday -
Friday,2:00 am - 7:00 pm, EDT.

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.

Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmMail to
address on the pre-addressed form.
Facsimile: 1-800-FDA-0178


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Athletic Scholarship Cap
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk Joshua Alston and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360,
report that the National Collegiate Athletic Association and five
college football conferences were hit with a new putative
antitrust class action on March 5 by a former college football
player who claims they have conspired to keep scholarship values
below the actual cost of attending school.

Shawne Alston, who played running back at West Virginia University
from 2009 to 2013, alleges the defendants have violated federal
antitrust laws by agreeing to cap the value of athletic
scholarships -- known as grants-in-aid -- despite the fact that
the NCAA's valuation of those scholarships is well below the
actual cost of attending school.  The five defendant conferences
--  the Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, Southeastern Conference and
Atlantic Coast Conference -- are the most lucrative college
football conferences in the top-tier Football Bowl Subdivision.

"The NCAA and power conferences have agreed to unlawfully cap the
value of a grant-in-aid at an amount substantially below what a
Football Bowl Subdivision football player would receive for his
services in a competitive market, and at an amount below what it
costs to attend school," the complaint says.  "This agreement
violates the Sherman Act."

Mr. Alston is seeking to represent a class of former FBS
scholarship players who have played in the defendant conferences
from February 2010 to the present.

"FBS football players should no longer be treated as second-class
citizens," Alston's attorney, Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, said in a statement. "They generate massive amounts
of money for the schools and the NCAA, and these players should
not have to struggle to make ends meet while they are surrounded
by multi-millionaire coaches."

The NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy, said the association
has received a copy of Alston's complaint and is "evaluating it as
it relates to similar cases filed by the very same plaintiffs'
counsel."

Mr. Alston received a grant-in-aid scholarship from WVU that was
intended to cover all tuition and registration fees -- along with
course-related fees, housing, meals and required textbooks -- but
actually fell significantly short of the $40,000 annual cost of
attendance, according to the complaint.  He had to take out a
$5,500 loan in 2012 to cover the difference between his grant-in-
aid and the actual attendance cost, the complaint says.

On average, grants-in-aid are a few thousand dollars short of a
typical FBS scholarship athlete's annual expenses, according to
the complaint.  A 2012 study cited by the suit found that out-of-
pocket expenses for full scholarship athletes in the FBS ranged
from $1,000 to $6,900, depending on the institution.

However, the NCAA imposed a cap on grants-in-aid in 1956 and later
removed a cost of attendance stipend in 1973, according to the
complaint.

"Ever since, the NCAA has periodically been 'working' on the
issue, with no significant changes to the capped grant-in-aid
limitations," the complaint says.  "Despite the NCAA's public
comments concerning the needs of college athletes, the collusive
cap on grants-in-aid remains in place."

The alleged collusive agreement is enshrined in the NCAA's bylaws,
and FBS member schools have agreed to not compete against one
another with respect to the amount of financial aid and other
forms of direct compensation provided to college athletes, Alston
alleges.

In a market unrestricted by the cap on grants-in-aid, the
defendant conferences' member schools and those in alleged
co-conspirator conferences would "compete vigorously" to attract
athletes using increased financial aid and other forms of
compensation, according to the complaint.

The NCAA's Board of Governors in October 2011 approved a rule
allowing conferences to provide a $2,000 stipend to scholarship
athletes to cover the gap between grants-in-aid and the true cost
of attendance as being fully compatible with the NCAA's principles
of "amateurism," according to the complaint.  But the NCAA
suspended the rule two months later after more than 100 schools
complained they couldn't afford the additional stipend but would
have to find the money to pay for it in order to compete for
recruits.

"Under the antitrust laws, a defendant's desire to save costs --
and thereby increase profits at the expense of other participants
in the market -- is not a legitimate justification for the grant-
in-aid cap or any other horizontal agreement to restrict price or
output."

Mr. Alston's suit seeks an injunction blocking the NCAA and
defendant conferences from maintaining and abiding by the current
NCAA bylaw limiting grants-in-aid and damages for the difference
between the grants-in-aid awarded and the cost of attendance.

The complaint is the latest in a long line of actions against the
NCAA and its member conferences over student athletes' rights.

A California federal judge last month ordered settlement talks
between the NCAA and student athletes in an antritrust class
action over compensation for the use of players' names and
likenesses.  In that case, the athletes, represented by Hagens
Berman and Hausfeld LLP, are seeking a share of the $800 million
in licensing fees the NCAA earns annually from a variety of
sources.  Video game developer Electronic Arts Inc. and The
Collegiate Licensing Co. were originally named as defendants in
the litigation but entered into a tentative $40 million settlement
with the student athletes in September.

Hagens Berman is also representing a former college quarterback in
a suit over the NCAA's cap on the number of football scholarships
top-division schools can award per year.  That suit survived a
motion to dismiss last year.

Mr. Alston previously filed a separate putative class action
against EA over the company's use of player names and likenesses
in August.  That case was stayed pending final consideration of
EA's settlement with the student athletes.

Mr. Alston is represented by Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP and Bruce L. Simon and Thomas K. Boardman of
Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP.

The case is Shawne Alston v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association et al., case number 3:14-cv-01011, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


NEW JERSEY: Judge Reserves Decision on Bridgegate Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
after a three-hour hearing on March 11, a New Jersey judge
reserved decision on the right of former confidantes of Gov. Chris
Christie to take the Fifth Amendment against subpoenas from the
Bridgegate investigative committee.

Judge Mary Jacobson asked both sides to brief the issue of the
power of the Legislative Select Committee on Investigation to
grant immunity to Bridget Kelly, the governor's former deputy
chief of staff, and Bill Stepien, his campaign manager, and the
effect of such a grant on criminal proceedings.

Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien are the only two out of more than 30
subpoenaed persons to assert the privilege against self-
incrimination.  The committee is asking for a declaratory judgment
that the two are in violation of valid subpoenas and that they be
ordered to comply.

Jacobson, Mercer County's assignment judge, gave the committee's
special counsel, Reid Schar -- rschar@jenner.com -- of Chicago's
Jenner & Block, until Monday to file a brief on immunity.  Defense
counsel have until the following week to respond.

Judge Jacobson had concerns that the subpoenas, which demand any
and all documents relating to closure of local access lanes to the
George Washington Bridge last September, may be overly broad.

Mr. Schar disagreed.  "This is not, has not been and the subpoenas
are not fishing expedition of any sort," he said.  "These
subpoenas are of the types that are routinely issued every day in
the United States."

Judge Jacobson asked Mr. Schar where this case fell between U.S.
v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), where the U.S. Supreme Court
disallowed a broad, unspecific document demand, and U.S. v. Ponds,
454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), where a district court allowed a
demand if the government could establish knowledge of the
existence, possession and authenticity of the documents with
"reasonable particularity."

Mr. Schar said the present case is closer to Ponds in that the
committee knows the documents exist because of emails and texts
that already have been turned over by David Wildstein, the former
director for interstate capital projects at the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey.

"Hubbell was a fishing expedition," Mr. Schar said.
"This is not based on inference?" Judge Jacobson asked.


NEW JERSEY TRANSIT: Sued by Operators Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Schaeffer v. New Jersey Transit, Case No. 2:14-cv-00578-
WJM-MF (D.N.J., January 28, 2014) is brought as a collective
action on behalf of similarly situated non-exempt operators and
operator supervisors, who suffered damages as a result of the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered in Newark, New Jersey Transit is in the public
transportation business throughout the state of New Jersey.  The
Company is one of the nation's largest providers of public
transportation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Building 2, Suite 220
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


PELLA CORP: Faces "Anderson" Product Liability Suit in Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Anderson and Susan C. Anderson, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pella
Corporation, an Iowa corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00155-MHH (N.D.
Ala., January 28, 2014) alleges product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Hoaglund, Esq.
          MCCALLUM HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLC
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 824-7767
          Facsimile: (205) 824-7768
          E-mail: ehoaglund@mhcilaw.com

               - and -

          K. Edward Sexton, II, Esq.
          GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON
          501 Riverchase Parkway East, Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 716-3000
          Facsimile: (205) 716-3010
          E-mail: esexton@gtandslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Montgomery, Esq.
          BUTLER PAPPAS WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP
          1110 Montlimar Drive, Suite 1050
          Mobile, AL 36609
          Telephone: (251) 338-3801
          Facsimile: (251) 338-3805
          E-mail: mmontgomery@butlerpappas.com


PEOPLE SALES: Steak 'N Shake Operator Sued for Not Paying OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Melvin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. People Sales & Profit Company, Inc. d/b/a Steak 'N
Shake, Case No. 2:14-cv-00012-JRH-JEG (S.D. Ga., January 28, 2014)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime and
liquidated damages due to the Plaintiff for hours worked for the
Defendant, and for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

People Sales & Profit Company, Inc., doing business as Steak 'N
Shake, is a limited liability corporation registered to do
business in the state of Georgia.  The Company operates a
restaurant by the name of "Steak 'N Shake" in Brunswick, Glynn
County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rita C. Spalding, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RITA SPALDING
          1522 Richmond Street
          Brunswick, GA 31520
          Telephone: (912) 261-8686
          Facsimile: (912) 261-8689
          E-mail: rspaldinglaw@bellsouth.net


PFIZER INC: Recalls Effexor XR Drug After Cross Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sienna Watkins, writing for The Almagest, reports that Pfizer Inc.
announced on March 6 that it is recalling the antidepressant
Effexor XR along with other generic versions of the drug because
of an accidental oversight of cross contamination with a heart
drug.

The heart drug Tikosyn was allegedly found in some bottles of
Effexor by a pharmacist.  Tikosyn, also known as dofetilide, is a
heart medication produced by Pfizer.  One 0.25 milligram capsule
found in a bottle of Effexor is said to have been unknowingly put
in on the same line with Effexor.

"Although Pfizer has not received any other such reports, these
three lots are being voluntarily recalled as a precaution because
they were packaged on the same line," the company said in an
announcement.

Some side effects of Effexor often include loss of appetite,
anxiety, insomnia, drowsiness, and nausea.  Mixed with its
ingredient venlafaxine, Tikosyn can lead to irregular heartbeats
or even death.

The company said that among three lots, there were also 104,450
bottles of medicines with nearly 65,800 of which had reached
pharmacies in the country.  This recall has included one lot of
30-count bottles of Effexor XR, one lot of 90-count bottles of the
branded drug and one lot of venlafaxine 150 mg extended release
capsules, sold by Greenstone LLC.

WebMd's article says that not all drug lots were recalled or
contaminated, but Pfizer did so as a precaution to ensure safety
for those taking the medicine.

"Pfizer has responded rapidly to this situation to ensure the
safety of patients who take our medicines," Pfizer said.  "This
recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the US Food and
Drug Administration."


PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Recalls 600 Respironics Trilogy Ventilators
----------------------------------------------------------------
Respironics, Inc., a Philips Healthcare business, in February
announced a worldwide recall of approximately 600 Philips
Respironics Trilogy Ventilators, comprising Trilogy Ventilator
Models 100, 200 and 202.

On Feb. 11, 2014, Philips Respironics initiated a voluntary recall
to address a potentially defective component on the Trilogy
Ventilator power management board, which could affect the function
of the device.  If this issue is not corrected it is possible that
the ventilator may fail to deliver mechanical breaths and that the
alarm functionality may be reduced to indicate ventilatory
failure, resulting in serious adverse health consequences or
death.  There have been no reports of death or serious injury
related to this potential problem.

The Philips Respironics Trilogy Ventilator is intended to provide
continuous or intermittent ventilatory support for the care of
individuals who require mechanical ventilation.  The devices are
intended to be used in home, institution/hospital, and portable
applications such as wheelchairs and gurneys.

During production testing Philips Respironics discovered that the
Trilogy ventilators contain a potentially defective ferrite
component on the power management board of the device.  The recall
affects 600 Trilogy Ventilator devices shipped between Dec. 31,
2013, and Jan. 30, 2014.

Philips Respironics is instructing customers to remove affected
devices from service and to return them to Philips for
replacement.  All distributors, providers, and customers with
potentially affected Trilogy devices will have their units
replaced.

Philips Respironics has notified all United States and
international distributors, providers, and customers that may have
devices subject to this recall, and has provided affected device
serial numbers for identification.  Serial numbers of affected
devices are located on the back of the device, as indicated in the
accompanying product image.

Countries where affected devices have been shipped include the
United States, France, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, India, Italy,
Korea, Kuwait, Netherlands, and Singapore.

Customers who have questions about the recall or require further
information or support concerning this issue, may contact their
local Philips Respironics representative via the Customer Care
Center phone number: 1-800-345-6443, which is active 24/7.

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.


PRO-PET LLC: Recalls Limited Dry Dog & Cat Foods Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-Pet LLC, St. Marys, Ohio, in February initiated a voluntary
recall of a limited number of Dry Dog and Cat Foods for possible
Salmonella contamination.  A single field test indicated products
manufactured during a two day period, on a single production line
may have the potential for Salmonella contamination.  Pro-Pet LLC
is voluntarily recalling the potentially impacted products made
during this timeframe.  There have been no reports of illness
related to this product to date.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.  Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

   Product              Best By       Lot Code          UPC Number
   -------              -------       --------          ----------
40 lb Hubbard Life     05 06 14       096 13 SM L2 2A   1219033878
Happy Hound Dog Food
40 lb Hubbard Life    05 06 14       096 13 SM L2 1A   1219033878
Happy Hound Dog Food
18 lb Hubbard Life     05 06 14       096 13 SM L2 1A   1219033873
Cat Stars Cat Food
40 lb Hubbard Life     05 06 14       096 13 SM L2 2A   1219033875
Maintenance Dog Food
15 lb Joy Combo Cat    05 06 14       096 13 SM L2 1A   7065407721
Food
40 lb Joy Combo Cat    05 06 14       096 13 SM L2 1A   7065407713
Food
40 lb Joy Combo Cat    05 06 14       096 13 SM L2 2A   7065407713
Food
20 lb QC Plus Adult    05 07 14       097 13 SM L2 2A   2351780103
Dog Food
40 lb QC Plus Adult    05 07 14       097 13 SM L2 2A   2351780104
Dog Food
40 lb QC Plus Adult    05 07 14       097 13 SM L2 1A   2351780104
Dog Food

These products were distributed through select retailers,
distributors and on-line consumer purchases in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia

No other products/lot numbers are affected by this recall.

Customers should immediately discontinue use of any impacted
product and contact Pro-Pet at 1-888-765-4190 for disposition.

For more information on the recall, customers can contact the
customer service line for Pro-Pet at 1-888-765-4190.  Customer
service representatives will be available Monday through Friday
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT.


ROOS FOODS: Recalls Variety of Cheeses Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------
Roos Foods of Kenton, DE is recalling the above cheeses because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

Products were distributed in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C
through retail stores.

The products are packaged in flexible plastic bags and rigid
plastic clam shell packages in 12 oz. and 16 oz. sizes under the
brand names: Mexicana, Amigo, Santa Rosa De Lima, and Anita.

Samples of Cuajada en Terron (Fresh Cheese Curd), collected by the
Commonwealth of Virginia Dept of Agriculture & Consumer Services,
have been found to contain Listeria monocytogenes.

The company has ceased the production and distribution of the
products as FDA and the company continues their investigation as
to what caused the problem.

Customers should destroy all lots of the above listed products of
the brand names Mexicana, Amigo, Santa Rosa De Lima and Anita.
For any refund, please return products to store.

If you have any further questions please contact Virginia Mejia
phone number 302 653 8458. Monday thru Friday from 9 am to 3 pm.


ROOS FOODS: Expands Recall on Cheeses Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------
Roos Foods has voluntarily expanded their Feb. 23, 2014 recall to
include all lots of Amigo and Mexicana brands of Requeson (part-
skim ricotta in 15 oz. and 16 oz. plastic containers and all lots
of Amigo, Mexicana and Santa Rosa De Lima brands of Queso de
Huerta (fresh curd cheese).

Roos Foods, Kenton De Recalls ALL LOTS of these Cheeses:

Mexicana: Cuajada En Terron, Cuajada/Cuajadita Cacera, Cuajada
Fresca, Queso Fresca Round, Queso Dura Viejo Hard Cheeses; Amigo:
Cuajada En Terron, Cuajada/Cuajadita Cacera, Cuajada Fresca, Queso
Fresca Round, Queso Dura Viejo Hard Cheeses; Santa Rosa De Lima:
Cuajada En Terron, Cuajada/Cuajadita Cacera, Cuajada Fresca, Queso
Fresca Round, Queso Dura Viejo Hard Cheeses and Anita Queso Fresco
Because Of Possible Health Risk.

Roos Foods of Kenton, DE is recalling the above cheeses because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.  Products were distributed in Maryland, Virginia and
Washing ton D.C through retail stores.

The products are packaged in flexible plastic bags and rigid
plastic clam shell packages in 12 oz. and 16 oz. sizes under the
brand names: Mexicana, Amigo, Santa Rosa De Lima, and Anita.

As a follow-up to reported illness, samples of various
intact/unopened cheeses produced or repacked by Roos Foods, Inc.,
collected by the Commonwealth of Virginia Dept of Agriculture &
Consumer Services and Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene
found to contain Listeria monocytogenes which appear to be linked
to the illnesses.

The company has ceased the production and distribution of the
products as FDA and the company continues their investigation as
to what caused the problem.

Customers should destroy all lots of the above listed products of
the brand names Mexicana, Amigo, Santa Rosa De Lima and Anita.
For any refund, please return recalled products to store.

If you have any further questions please contact Virginia Mejia
phone number (302) 653-8458. Monday thru Friday from 9 am to
3 pm EST.


ROTH FARMS: Recalls "Curly Parsley" Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------
Roth Farms Inc. of Belle Glade, Fl, in February said it was
recalling its "bunched Curly Parsley" because it has the potential
to be contaminated with 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.

The recalled "Curly Parsley" was distributed in South Florida
distribution centers.

The product comes in a 3 Wire Wooden Crate with the lot # AG01GN
on the outside tag.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the company revealed the presence of Salmonella in some Curly
Parsley samples."

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-561-996-2991


SANTA FE GOLD: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------
Santa Fe Gold Corporation on March 5 disclosed that it has
received notice that Tony Cavanaugh, an alleged stockholder of the
Company, filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State
of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, a purported class action
complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
against the Company, the five current members of its Board of
Directors, and Tyhee Gold Corp. and Tyhee Merger Sub, Inc.

The plaintiff contends that the members of the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties arising out of their
efforts to effectuate the merger of Santa Fe and Tyhee pursuant to
an unfair process, for an unfair price and lacking material
disclosures.  Further, the plaintiff contends that Tyhee aided and
abetted such conduct.  The plaintiff's complaint seeks, among
other things, damages, injunctive relief, recession of the
proposed Tyhee transaction to the extent already implemented, and
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company and its Board of Directors believe these claims lack
merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

                        About Santa Fe Gold

Santa Fe Gold -- http://www.santafegoldcorp.com-- is a U.S.-based
mining and exploration enterprise focused on acquiring and
developing gold, silver, copper and industrial mineral properties.
Santa Fe controls: (i) the Summit mine and Lordsburg mill in
southwestern New Mexico; (ii) a substantial land position near the
Lordsburg mill, comprising the core of the Lordsburg Mining
District; (iii) the Mogollon gold-silver project, within trucking
distance of the Lordsburg mill; (iv) the Ortiz gold property in
north-central New Mexico; (v) the Black Canyon mica deposit near
Phoenix, Arizona; and (vi) a deposit of micaceous iron oxide (MIO)
in Western Arizona.  Santa Fe Gold intends to build a portfolio of
high-quality, diversified mineral assets with an emphasis on
precious metals.


STATE FARM: Karmeier to Contest Subpoena in Racketeering Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that Illinois Supreme Court
Justice Lloyd Karmeier will contest any subpoena that lawyers
serve him in a civil racketeering suit against insurer State Farm,
according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams.

In a scheduling and discovery conference on Jan. 31, Judge
Williams brought up the subject after telling lawyers how to
resolve disputes.

"One issue that has been raised already on more than one occasion
would be, for example, a deposition of a sitting justice on the
Illinois Supreme Court," Judge Williams said.

"I don't know when anyone intends to start going down that road,
but I'm told that that's a road that we're going to go down.
That's going to require somebody being subpoenaed, of course, and
there is going to be a motion to quash that subpoena, and there's
going to have to be all kinds of briefing from all sides."

Class action lawyers sued State Farm in 2012, claiming its secret
and improper support of Justice Karmeier secured his victory in
the 2004 election.  They named Justice Karmeier backers Ed Murnane
and William Shepherd as defendants.  They claimed Justice Karmeier
tainted the Court so deeply that in 2005, a majority reversed a $1
billion judgment against State Farm.

Williamson County associate judge John Speroni had entered
judgment in 1999, after jurors found State Farm supplied inferior
parts for crash repairs.

The current suit seeks to recover the amount of the judgment with
14 years of interest and triple damages, bringing the total to
many billions.

Chief District Judge David Herndon presides over the case, with
Williams handling pretrial action.

Judge Williams said he recognized that a subpoena of Justice
Karmeier is a "sensitive issue.

"I don't know when that's going to come up, but like anything
here, what I don't want to have happen is for this to be a
surprise to anybody," he said.

"With respect to any deposition, I would hope that the sides
aren't going to just send out subpoenas or send out notices,
noticing depositions for some time two weeks away without talking
to everyone else.  That's not going to help get anything resolved
in an expeditious manner."

Last year, Judge Herndon denied State Farm's motion to dismiss and
a motion to reconsider.  State Farm petitioned Seventh Circuit
appellate judges in Chicago to stop the proceedings, and the
Seventh Circuit rejected the petition in January.  Judge Williams
then held a conference call with 10 lawyers, setting a deadline
for a class certification motion for April of next year.  He said
discovery would be complete by September of next year.

"The court is going to allow substantial discovery to proceed, and
I'm not going to restrict discovery to any particular issues,"
Judge Williams said.

He set trial for January 2016.

At the Jan. 31 hearing, Gordon Ball of Knoxville, Tenn., Robert
Nelson of San Francisco, and Chicago lawyers Steven Blonder,
Robert Clifford and Colin Dunn represented plaintiffs.

Joseph Cancila of Chicago and Patrick Cloud of Edwardsville
represented State Farm.

Richard O'Brien and Scott Berliant of Chicago represented Murnane.

Russell Scott of Swansea represented Shepherd.


TARGET CORP: Sued by Amalgamated Bank Over Data Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amalgamated Bank, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated institutions v. Target Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-
00263-PAM-JJK (D. Minn., January 28, 2014) arises from Target's
violations of law and misconduct that resulted in an unprecedented
data security breach and one of the largest thefts of personal and
financial information in the history of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  gmfishbein@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.coin

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael Blatchley, Esq.
          Stefanie J. Sundel, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com
                  stefanie.sundel@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
          E-mail: beng@blbglaw.com

Target Corporation is represented by:

          Michael A. Ponto, Esq.
          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com
                  wendy.wildung@faegrebd.com


TIGER BRANDS: Bread Pricing Class Action Seeks R2.1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Visser and Mark Allix, writing for BDlive, report that a
major class action against bread producers found guilty of price
fixing and market allocation by the Competition Commission has
calculated that the damage to consumers amounted to a mere R2.1m,
while the bread producers were fined almost R300m.

The finding comes as both criminal and class actions are being
prepared against construction companies who were fined R1.47bn
last year for collusion.

The class action is being brought against bread producers Tiger
Brands, Premier Foods and Pioneer Foods.  However, it remains
unclear whether they will accept the claim or oppose it given the
fact that it is substantially less than their fines for
contravening the Competition Act.

Nortons law firm director John Oxenham -- john@nortonsinc.com --
representing Premier, said several procedural elements still had
to be concluded before the quantum of the claims or the formation
of the class could be considered.

In 2009 the Competition Tribunal found bread producers Tiger
Brands, Pioneer Foods and Foodcorp guilty of price fixing and
market allocation in the Western Cape and nationally, when they
colluded to raise the price of bread and reduce the discounts
offered to independent distributors.

Free Market Foundation executive director Leon Louw said on
March 5 that the civil claims determined in the bread cartel case
at least show some proportionality to the "crime".  It could also
be an indicator of the potential claims to be faced by
construction firms found guilty of collusion, bid-rigging and
price fixing in infrastructure projects, he said.

"There is no evidence how much more our stadiums cost us (as a
result of anticompetitive practices)," Mr. Louw said.

The notion of a 10% penalty on the turnover of a company was
unrelated to its profit or the transgressions involved, he said.

Meanwhile, a former board member of construction and engineering
group Murray & Roberts said on March 5 the firm had lost money in
2010 and 2011.

"Where are all the profits? How do you collude and still lose
money?" asked Millard Arnold, now a special representative of law
firm Bowman Gilfillan, at a competition law seminar at the Mandela
Institute in Johannesburg.

Mr. Arnold referred to figures released by Statistics SA last July
which showed margins in the construction industry were 4% in 2007,
4.8% in 2008, 5% in 2009, 4.8% in 2010 and 2.8% in 2011.

The commission identified 300 collusion cases in projects worth
R47bn, but limited the scope of its investigation to 160 projects
between early 2006 and late 2009, eventually fining 15 companies a
total of R1.46bn.

Murray & Roberts paid more than R300m in such fines.

Cape Town-based law firm Abrahams Kiewitz Attorneys director
Charles Abrahams brought the bread class action on behalf of the
Children's Resource Centre, the Black Sash Trust, the Congress of
South African Trade Unions, and the National Consumer Forum.

Mr. Abrahams said at the seminar that their case was "ripe" to go
to court.  They had appointed a team of economists to assist in
quantifying the claim, but the legal action brought by Premier
before the Supreme Court of Appeal was holding them back.


TINTING OF POMPANO: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Calvo, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Tinting of Pompano Beach, Inc., a Florida corporation, Valet Tint,
Inc., a Florida corporation, Tinting of Coral Springs, Inc., a
Florida corporation d/b/a Tint World, and Robert Weiss,
individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-60213-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 28,
2014) is brought on behalf current and former similarly situated
employees for overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants do business from multiple locations in Broward and
Palm Beach County, Florida.  The action is intended to encompass
any and all locations owned, operated, controlled and managed by
the Defendants.  Robert Weiss owns, manages and operates the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
          THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


UNILEVER US: Recalls Limited 20-Count Boxes of Popsicle
-------------------------------------------------------
Unilever United States, Inc. is voluntarily recalling a limited
number of 20-count boxes of Popsicle brand Orange, Cherry and
Grape flavored ice pops because they may have been inadvertently
exposed to milk, which is not listed as an ingredient on the
label.  Persons who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

This limited voluntary recall is being conducted with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

The affected product is sold in a paperboard box, containing
20-1.65 FL OZ (48.7 ML) POPS with a unit UPC of 7756712130, with
best before dates of JUN0315GBV, JUN0415GBV, JUN0515GBV and
JUN0615GBV, which are printed on the side of each box. No other
best before dates have been affected.

The product was distributed nationwide and reached consumers
through retail stores. No product was shipped outside the U.S.

No other Popsicle brand products are affected by this limited
voluntary recall.  To date, the company has received one report of
two milk allergic reactions associated with this product.  The
company initiated the recall as a result of this consumer
complaint.

Consumers who have purchased boxes of the above product with the
affected UPC and best before dates are asked to immediately
discontinue use of the product, retain the outer box and call
877-270-7402, which is operational 24 hours a day, to request a
replacement coupon.

The company is placing a notification on the Food Allergy Research
& Education (FARE) website http://www.foodallergy.org


UNITED STATES: Judge Blocks Destruction of NSA Telephone Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in San Francisco
stopped the destruction on March 10 of millions of telephone
records collected by the National Security Agency more than five
years ago.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who is overseeing an invasion-
of-privacy lawsuit against the agency, issued a nationwide order
on March 10 to safeguard evidence until March 19, when he will
hold a hearing on extending the deadline further.

The secret federal court that approved the agency's surveillance
has required that documents be purged after five years for privacy
reasons.  On March 7, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
denied the federal government's request to keep the records for
the sake of pending lawsuits.

The NSA, which has acknowledged obtaining phone numbers and other
information on all U.S. calls, was prepared on March 11 to destroy
all records collected more than five years ago, according to court
documents.

White said he was enforcing an order he had issued in an earlier
NSA surveillance case that halted evidence from being destroyed.
He wrote that "the Court would be unable to afford effective
relief once the records are destroyed" and before he decided if
their collection was legal.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
include civil rights, environmental and religious groups as well
as gun organizations and marijuana advocates.

The NSA started collecting domestic phone call records in the wake
of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Since 2006, the agency
has obtained warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court.


VALLEJO'S RESTAURANTS: "Padilla" Sues for Meals, Rest Period
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Padilla; Oliverio Romo Tellez, v. Vallejo's Restaurants,
Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:14-at-00118 (E.D. Cal.,
January 28, 2014) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
overtime compensation, waiting time penalties, meal period
penalties, rest period penalties, inaccurate time and pay records,
untimely wages, interest, liquidated damages, costs of lawsuit and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The proposed class members were previously or currently working as
busboys, waiters, cooks, hosts and bartenders.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in Sacramento,
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Will M. Yamada, Esq.
          John P. Tribuiano III, Esq.
          Donald P. Novey, Esq.
          NOVEY, TRIBUIANO & YAMADA, LLP
          2222 Watt Avenue, Suite B-1
          Sacramento, CA, 95825
          Telephone: (916) 333-5000
          Facsimile: (916) 333-5001
          E-mail: wyamada@ntylaw.com
                  jtribuiano@ntylaw.com
                  dnovey@ntylaw.com


VALLEJO'S RESTAURANTS: "Padilla" Sues for FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Padilla; Oliverio Romo Tellez v. Vallejo's Restaurants,
Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-00264-JAM-AC (E.D.
Cal., January 28, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, costs of lawsuit and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in Sacramento,
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Will M. Yamada, Esq.
          John P. Tribuiano III, Esq.
          Donald P. Novey, Esq.
          NOVEY, TRIBUIANO & YAMADA, LLP
          2222 Watt Avenue, Suite B-1
          Sacramento, CA, 95825
          Telephone: (916) 333-5000
          Facsimile: (916) 333-5001
          E-mail: wyamada@ntylaw.com
                  jtribuiano@ntylaw.com
                  dnovey@ntylaw.com


VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Dark Chocolate Almonds
-----------------------------------------------
Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets, Inc., a Lakewood, Colorado
based natural grocery chain, is recalling one lot of six ounce
packages of Natural Grocers brand Dark Chocolate Almonds with the
Julian packed-on date 13-351 because some bags in this lot may
contain dark chocolate covered peanuts which are not declared on
the label.  People who have an allergy to peanuts run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

The recalled product lot is comprised of 1,091 six-ounce bags
bearing UPC code 0-0008265007-0 and the Julian packed-on date
"13-351".  The dark chocolate covered peanuts are similar in color
and sheen to the almonds, but the peanuts are about one-half size
compared to the almonds.  The product was distributed to some of
Natural Grocers' 75 stores located in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Utah and Wyoming in late December, 2013. Consumers can find
the specific locations of Natural Grocers stores at:
http://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locations

Only packages bearing the Julian packed on date "13-351" are
subject to recall.  The dark chocolate covered almonds used to
produce this lot were received in sealed cases from our supplier.
Out of an abundance of caution, Natural Grocers is suspending
sales of all lots of dark chocolate covered almond products from
this supplier.

The problem was reported to the company by a customer who
discovered some dark chocolate covered peanuts inside a package.
The product label displays a warning that the packaging facility
also packages products containing tree nuts, peanuts and other
allergens.  The company has received no reports of adverse
reactions to date due to consumption of these products.  Anyone
concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.
Consumers who may have purchased this product should return it to
the store for credit or refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling:


WERNER LADDER: Faces Product Liability Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------
Whitney Brakken, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that Charlotte Lynn Bowlin and Ron Bowlin filed a lawsuit Feb. 21
in the Sherman Division of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas against Werner Ladder Co., citing
products liability.  The complaint states on June 19, 2012,
Charlotte Bowlin was using was using a Werner ladder model 368 in
her home when the ladder failed, causing injuries.

The indentation and deformation of the front left ladder rail
caused a failure of the joint connecting the spreader bar to the
ladder rail when the ladder was subject to foreseeable loads
associated with its normal use, according to the complaint.

In addition, the plaintiffs state the defendant's model 368
ladders sold were designed and manufactured without a washer at
the rail-side of the rivet where the spreader and rail are joined.

The plaintiffs are seeking an undisclosed amount of damages.  They
are being represented in the case by Marc C. Lenahan and P. Wes
Black of Lenahan Law PLLC.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Case No. 4:14-cv-00111-RAS


WHISPERTEXT LLC: Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony McKenna, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. WhisperText, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 5:14-cv-00424-PSG (N.D. Cal.,
January 28, 2014) complains against WhisperText to stop its
practice of making unsolicited text message calls to cellular
telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

WhisperText, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in California.  A mobile social
networking company, the Defendant does business throughout the
United States, including in the Northern District of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Evan M. Meyers
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          161 N. Clark Street, 47th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 216-5179
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com

               - and -

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
          LEONARD LAW OFFICE, LLP
          139 Charles St., Suite A121
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 329-1295
          E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Tom Yom Soup Due to Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market Mid-Atlantic Region is recalling Tom Yom Soup
because it contains milk, an undeclared allergen.

The recalled soup was sold with a Whole Foods Market scale label
reading "Tom Yom Soup" with a UPC of <0 00000 60146 7> in 24 ounce
plastic containers with a "use by" date of 4/8/2014, which is
noted on the scale label.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The soup was distributed to Whole Foods Market stores in Kentucky,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Washington D.C. and New
Jersey (Princeton and Marlton stores only).

To date, no illnesses have been reported.

Signage is posted in Whole Foods Market Mid-Atlantic stores that
carried the product to notify customers of this recall. Customers
who have purchased this product should discard it, and may bring
in their receipt for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
call 512-477-5566, extension 20060, Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time.


WOLFGANG B. GOURMET: Recalls 236 Units of Fairway Grilling Sauce
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang B. Gourmet Foods, Inc. of Catskill, NY, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 236 units of FAIRWAY brand CONDIMENT
GRILLING SAUCE, NET WT. 12 oz., UPC 758940706093, because it
contains undeclared fish (anchovies).  The Grilling Sauce is made
with Worcestershire Sauce which contains anchovies as a sub-
ingredient but anchovies are not listed on the label.  People who
are allergic to anchovies run the risk of a serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The product was sold at 14 Fairway stores located in New York, New
Jersey, and Connecticut.

This recall affects the following lots of product: Lot # 340 GRSC
with a use-by date of 03/08/2014 and Lot # 357 GRSC use by date
03/25/2014 located on the side of the glass bottle.  No other
Fairway branded products are affected by this voluntary recall.

The company has not received any reports of illnesses associated
with this product to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered by the firm that
the product contains undeclared anchovies from the Worcestershire
Sauce ingredient.  Fairway has posted notices of the recall at its
stores and has pulled the affected lots off the shelves.

Consumers in possession of the recalled product that have an
allergy to anchovies should not consume it and return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company at (518) 719-1727, Monday - Friday, 7 am -
4 pm, ET.


Z-ULTIMATE SELF: Instructors Seek to Recover Back/Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Geiger, an individual; Robert Abelardo, an individual;
Adam Goldstein, an individual; and Ryan King, an individual v.
Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios LLC, a California limited
liability company; et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00240-REB-BNB (D.
Colo., January 28, 2014) is brought on behalf similarly situated
current and former instructors of the Defendants alleging that the
Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to, among things, back and
overtime wages for work performed for which they received no back
or overtime wages.

The Defendants comprise some but not all of the business entities
created by the Individual Defendants that operate collectively as
the Z-Ultimate Enterprise.  The Defendants operate over 100
business entities throughout the United States to further the
common goal of the Z-Ultimate Enterprise.  The Defendants
currently operate at least 83 martial arts studios, known as
dojos, in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Utah, and
Washington.

The Defendants are Ultimate Self Defense Studios LLC, a California
limited liability company; Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios LLC, a
California limited liability company; Paul Taylor, individually
and in his capacity as owner, partner, and corporate officer; Kris
Eszlinger, individually and in his capacity as owner, partner, and
corporate officer; Frank Ley, individually and in his capacity as
owner, partner, and corporate officer; Hans Prosch, individually
and in his capacity as owner, partner, and corporate officer;
Masters United III LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, an
Arizona limited liability company; Masters United 11, LLC d/b/a Z-
Ultimate Self Defense Studios, an Arizona limited liability
company; Masters United X, Inc. d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense
Studios, an Arizona corporation; Kata 7, LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self
Defense Studios, an Arizona limited liability company; Z-Ultimate
Martial Arts Supplies LLC, a California limited liability company;
Z-Ultimate Specialized Accounting LLC, a California limited
liability company; Z-Ultimate University of Martial Arts
Professionals LLC, a California limited liability company; Masters
United I LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a California
limited liability company; Masters United III LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate
Self Defense Studios, a California limited liability company;
Masters United V LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a
California limited liability company; Z-Ultimate Events LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; A L Martial Arts, Inc. d/b/a
Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado corporation; WLC
Management, Inc. d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado
corporation; Masters United VI LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense
Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; Masters United 8
LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited
liability company; Masters United 15 LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self
Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United
Partners - Broomfield LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a
Colorado limited liability company; United Partners - Castle Rock
LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited
liability company; United Partners - Centennial LLC d/b/a Z-
Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability
company; United Partners - Chicago #4 LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self
Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United
Partners - Colorado Springs 1 LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense
Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United Partners -
Denver LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado
limited liability company; United Partners - Denver South LLC
d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited
liability company; United Partners - Fort Collins LLC d/b/a Z-
Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability
company; United Partners - Glenview LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self
Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United
Partners - Highlands Ranch LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense
Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United Partners -
Highlands Ranch 2 LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a
Colorado limited liability company; United Partners - Kansas City
#3 LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited
liability company; United Partners - Kansas City 1 LLC d/b/a Z-
Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability
company; United Partners - Kansas City #4 LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate
Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United
Partners - Ken Caryle LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a
Colorado limited liability company; United Partners - Lafayette
LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited
liability company; United Partners - Lakewood LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate
Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United
Partners - Leawood LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a
Colorado limited liability company; United Partners - Littleton
LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited
liability company; United Partners - Longmont LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate
Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United
Partners - Olathe LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a
Colorado limited liability company; United Partners - Overland
Park North LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado
limited liability company; United Partners - Overland Park South
LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited
liability company; United Partners - Parker LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate
Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United
Partners - Skokie LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a
Colorado limited liability company; United Partners - Smokey Hill
LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited
liability company; United Partners - Thornton LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate
Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability company; United
Partners - West Arvada LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios,
a Colorado limited liability company; United Partners -
Westminster LLC d/b/a Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado
limited liability company; United Partners - Wheat Ridge LLC d/b/a
Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, a Colorado limited liability
company; Z-Ultimate Colorado Springs, a Colorado business; Z-
Ultimate Denver, a Colorado business; Z-Ultimate Highlands Ranch
East, a Colorado business; Z-Ultimate Parker, a Colorado business;
Z-Ultimate Smokey Hills, a Colorado business; William Clark,
individually and in his capacity as owner, partner, and corporate
officer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd A. Wells, Esq.
          Coren R. Hinkle, Esq.
          GLEASON WELLS, PC
          1615 California St., Suite 616
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 842-0831
          Facsimile: (303) 825-1150
          E-mail: todd.wells@gleasonwells.com
                  coren.hinkle@gleasonwells.com

               - and -

          Christopher Barr Davlin, Esq.
          THE DAVLIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2329 W. Main St., Suite 209
          Littleton, CO 80120
          Telephone: (720) 980-9262
          E-mail: kdavlin@davlinlawfirm.com


* "Fraud on the Market" Ruling Bittersweet for Defense Lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog,
reports that plaintiffs securities lawyers are fretting that an
upcoming Supreme Court ruling could potentially wipe out a swath
of shareholder class actions.  But they're not the only lawyers
with skin in the game.

Justices on March 5 was set to hear oral arguments on whether to
preserve a legal doctrine known as "fraud on the market" that
makes it easier for investors to band together in securities fraud
litigation without having to individually show that they relied
upon alleged false information.

If the top court decides to change course, it would be a win for
businesses, but it may be a bittersweet one for the law firms that
defend them.  "There is fear and trembling within the defense bar
that a complete overturning of the doctrine would affect their
business model," said Columbia University law professor John C.
Coffee Jr.

Some defense attorneys, though, say they're not sweating it.

"I do think it could have a major impact on securities litigation
in the United States if the court overturns Basic (the 1988 ruling
establishing the doctrine)," said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- a partner in the Los Angeles office of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. But he said his firm, which has
defended dozens of companies against securities-fraud claims,
isn't dwelling on the narrow bottom line.  "We look at it from the
perspective of what's right under the law and what's best for our
clients, and we try to achieve that result," he told Law Blog.

Boris Feldman, a securities lawyer at one of the busiest defense
firms in the arena, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP, said he
takes a similar view.  "We have corporate clients, and what's good
for them is good for the firm," he told Law Blog.  "If our clients
are prospering, we're prospering. If we have to redeploy resources
from one area to another, we'll do that."

Mr. Feldman added that he's skeptical that plaintiffs firms would
take the heat off companies even if the Supreme Court were to pull
the plug on "fraud on the market."  For one, he said, pension
funds and other institutional investors could still pursue claims
on their own.  And he said smaller investors could try to
piggyback on other judgments without relitigating the same claims.

There are also other kinds of shareholder suits that fall outside
the reach of this week's Supreme Court case, he noted.  Those
include derivative suits that seek to hold a company's directors
or officers liable for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties,
lawsuits over corporate mergers, and IPO-related litigation
brought under Section 11 of the 1933 Securities Act.

Even so, the Supreme Court case has put defense firms in an
awkward spot, says University of Michigan law professor Adam
Pritchard, who teaches corporate and securities law.  "Would it be
good for them? It would be terrible," he told Law Blog.  "It would
cut into a very important practice area for a number of white-shoe
law firms."

                           *     *     *

Melissa Lesh, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that on
March 5, the US Supreme Court might step in to debunk the "fraud
on the market" theory which, according to a new study conducted by
the Institute for Legal Reform, results in class-action lawyers
receiving more than their fair share of fees.

The US Supreme Court might debunk the "fraud on the market" theory
which results in class-action lawyers receiving more than their
fair share of fees.

The Institute for Legal Reform released a study on where money
goes in US class action suits.  It found that the "fraud on the
market" theory, established by the Supreme Court in 1988 case
Basic vs. Levinson, may be the reason these cases cost around $39
billion per year -- whilst just $5 billion is recovered.  The
theory concerns class-action securities suits and allows lawyers
to assemble actions for every investor who sells stock at a loss,
regardless of why the stock dipped.  Leonard Masiowski, an
investor awaiting his share of over $2.4 billion from a Bank of
America case, said: "We need to find a way to have the lawyers'
fees capped in such a way that the system can't be milked."  The
Supreme Court was set to reconsider the 1988 decision on March 5
in Haliburton v. Erica Fund.


* Missouri House Approves Cap on Medical Malpractice Suit Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Missouri House passed a
measure to cap noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
at $350,000 on March.

The House approved the caps, commonly called "tort reform," in
front of an audience of doctors packing the galleries.  Many of
the doctors sported red stickers reading "TORT REFORM NOW!" on
their white lab coats.

Proponents of the bill argue limiting lawsuit awards in cases of
medical malpractice is necessary to lower medical costs and keep
doctors in the state.  Bill sponsor Rep. Eric Burlison, R-
Springfield, said it came down to whether or not communities in
Missouri will have doctors.

"Where once we were competitive with other states when it comes to
the costs in our medical community we now have no caps,"
Mr. Burlison said.  "Without any caps our medical community is in
jeopardy."

Missouri had limits on medical malpractice noneconomic damages
from 2005 to 2012.  A Missouri Supreme Court decision in 2012
ruled the caps to be unconstitutional. Since then, efforts to find
a way to reinstate caps have been unsuccessful. The House passed
new caps last year but they stalled in the Senate.

Rebecca Hierholzer came to Jefferson City on March 5 to support
caps.  She is a doctor who practices in Kansas but is also the
president of a nonprofit that operates in Missouri hospitals where
she also volunteers.  Right now her employer covers her
malpractice insurance in Missouri, but she's afraid that may
change without caps.  She said the lack of caps in Missouri before
2005 caused many doctors to move their practices to Kansas, which
has limits.

"I would hate to see that exodus come back," Ms. Hierholzer said.

The cap doesn't limit economic damages, which would include lost
wages, additional medical costs and living expenses.  Supporters
of limiting noneconomic damages argue that such awards are
subjective and arbitrary.  Outsized awards could result in doctors
fleeing the state due to increased insurance premiums, according
to supporters of the limits.

But opponents argue that this hasn't yet happened and that placing
an arbitrary limit on awards doesn't take into account victims of
negligence by medical professionals.

Rep. Jeff Grisamore, R-Lee's Summit, criticized the bill and said
the "pro-life supermajority" in the House should reconsider
placing such low limits on the value of destroying a person's
quality of life.

"The mechanics of this bill does not value human life. It devalues
it," Mr. Grisamore said.  "The name of the game (for insurance
companies) is to minimize liability and maximize profits and
victims and doctors are caught in the middle."

Ms. Hierholzer said the question of pain and suffering of victims
ignores the effects on doctors and their families who face these
high costs and large lawsuits.

"How can your pain and suffering be any more than mine?" she
asked.

Opponents also charged that placing limits violated citizen's
right to a trial by jury -- the reason caps were thrown out in
2012.  The bill states that it removes the English common law jury
trial remedy for medical malpractice and creates a statutory cause
of action with limits.  Mr. Burlison said this solves the
constitutional problem of limits.  Similar limits on wrongful
death claims have been upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court.

Republicans Rep. Jay Barnes, Jefferson City, and Rep. Sheila
Solon, Blue Springs, also spoke against the bill during House
debate.

House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, has named medical malpractice
caps as one of his top priorities for this session.  The House
voted 94-61 to pass the bill, with several Republicans joining
most Democrats in voting against the caps.

The bill now moves to the Senate.

(The bill is HB 1173.)


                             *********

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  * * *