CAR_Public/140318.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 54

                             Headlines


ADOBE SYSTEMS: May Trial Set in High-Tech Employee Antitrust Suit
AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over Cole Merger
BBVA COMPASS: $11.5MM Settlement in Overdraft Fees Suit Approved
BBVA COMPASS: "Vaughan" Labor Lawsuit in Texas Stayed
BBVA COMPASS: "Garza" Labor Suit in Texas Stayed

BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces "Deaver" Labor Suit in Texas
BP PLC: Ninth Circuit Reversed Dismissal of 2006 Spills Suit
BURKETT'S POOL: Court Declines to Modify Scheduling Order
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
CHINA INTEGRATED: Cert. Discovery Ongoing in Cal. Stock Lawsuit

COLE REAL ESTATE: Has MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Clark Merger
CORPORATE PROPERTY: TRO Request in Lawsuit Over Merger Denied
CPG INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Azek Decking
EBAY INC: Court Partially Grants Atty. Fee Bid in "Keirsey" Suit
EDEN MEMORIAL: Settles Class Action for $80.5 Million

FEDERAL-MOGUL: Hughes & Coleman Files Suit Over Toxic Chemicals
GENERAL CABLE: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuits in New York
GOLDEN GATE FIELDS: "Taylor" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Refused to Seal Info in Wireless Card Suit
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Hotel Booking Conspiracy Litigation Dismissed

JINSUNMI INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 17.98 oz Lotte Frozen Fruit Bars
KIWIBANK: Customers Have Until March 31 to Join Class Action
LEHIGH VALLEY: Recalls Orange Juice Due to Undeclared Milk
MARS FOOD: Recalls Uncle Ben's Ready Rice With 351GBBFP Lot Code
MASSACHUSETTS: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. DOC Denied

MELLANOX TECH: Court Okays Objections Notice in "Turgeman" Suit
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ill.
MF GLOBAL: Corzine Flayed as Customer Class Suit Moves Forward
MICHAEL WILLNER: Galemmo Ponzi Victims File Class Action
MICHAELS STORES: 9th Circuit Reversed Remand Order in "Rea" Suit

PRO SOLUTIONS: "Hanson" Suit Dismissed In Part With Leave to Amend
QUAKER OATS: May 8 Fairness Hearing in $1.4-Mil. Class Settlement
RANBAXY LABS: Recalls 64,000 Bottles of Generic Lipitor in U.S.
ROOS FOODS: Recalls Variety of Cheeses Due to Possible Health Risk
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Refused to Certify Class in "Murray" Suit

SEMILEDS CORP: Securities Suit Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE: Court Did Not Certify Defendant Class
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Christchurch Residents Mull Class Action
TARGET CORP: Credit Unions and Bank Sue Over Giant Data Breach
TOM'S OF MAINE: Faces Class Action Over "Natural" Claims

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: To Settle Antitrust Suit for $130MM
TWIN MARQUIS: Recalls Specific Lots of Cooked and Lo Mein Noodle
UNILEVER US: Wells Suit Dismissed Pending Ruling in Reid Case
UNILEVER US: Recalls 20-Count Boxes of Popsicles
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Accused of Violating Labor Laws in California

VIRGINIA: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Court Ruled
WELLS FARGO: Ursomano Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Fladell Action
WP CAREY: TRO Request in Lawsuit Over CPA 16 Merger Denied
ZICAM LLC: Response to "Melgar" Suit Due Today
ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION: Court Did Not Certify Class in Labels Suit

* Oregon Senate Votes Against Class Action Bill
* Seven of 25 Largest Class Action Settlements Approved in 2013


                             *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: May Trial Set in High-Tech Employee Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation ("HTEAL")
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division is currently scheduled
to be held in May 2014, according to Adobe Systems Incorporated's
Jan. 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 29, 2013.

Between May 4, 2011 and July 14, 2011, five putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Santa Clara Superior Court and Alameda
Superior Court in California. On September 12, 2011, the cases
were consolidated into In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation ("HTEAL") pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In the
consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Adobe, along with
Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucas Films and Pixar, agreed not to
recruit each other's employees in violation of Federal and state
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs claim the alleged agreements suppressed
employee compensation and deprived employees of career
opportunities.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary
damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys fees. All defendants
deny the allegations and that they engaged in any wrongdoing of
any kind. On October 24, 2013, the court certified a class of all
persons who worked in the technical, creative, and/or research and
development fields on a salaried basis in the United States for
one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through
December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c)
Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March
2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through
December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December
2009; or (g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009,
excluding retail employees, corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors, and senior executives of all defendants.

The company disputes these claims and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves in this matter. As of November 29, 2013, no amounts have
been accrued as a loss is not considered probable or estimable.


AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over Cole Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation
("ARCP"), entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a
suit filed over a planned merger of Clark Acquisition, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and a direct, wholly owned
subsidiary of ARCP ("Merger Sub") and Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Cole"), according to
ARCP's Jan. 14, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As disclosed in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by
ARCP and Cole on December 23, 2013 (the "proxy statement/
prospectus"), 10 putative derivative and/or class action lawsuits
challenging the proposed transaction and certain events leading up
thereto have been filed on behalf of Cole stockholders: two
putative derivative and/or class actions in Arizona federal court
and eight putative derivative and/or class actions in Maryland
state court. The Arizona actions are captioned: (i) Wunsch v. Cole
Real Estate Investment, Inc., et al.; and (ii) Sobon v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al. The Maryland actions are
captioned: (i) Operman v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et
al.; (ii) Branham v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.;
(iii) Wilfong v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (iv)
Polage v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (v) Flynn v.
Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (vi) Corwin v. Cole
Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (vii) Green v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; and (viii) Morgan v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al. On December 12, 2013, the
Maryland court consolidated the eight Maryland lawsuits under the
caption Polage v. Christopher H. Cole, et. al., and appointed lead
counsel.

On January 10, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, ARCP, Cole and the other named defendants
in the Polage action entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiff in the Polage action to settle the case.

The defendants believe that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk that the litigation may delay or
otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to
minimize the expense of defending such action, ARCP and Cole have
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger,
all of which are set forth. The memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
Cole's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled by the
court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of
the settlement. In the event the settlement is finally approved by
the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions
that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, certain prior events
leading up thereto, including the April 5, 2013 acquisition by
Cole of Cole Holdings Corporation, and any disclosure made in
connection with any of the above, among other claims, pursuant to
terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final
approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel in
the Polage action will file a petition in the court for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Cole or its
successor, which the defendants may oppose. Cole or its successor
will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses
awarded by the court. There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.


BBVA COMPASS: $11.5MM Settlement in Overdraft Fees Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida granted preliminary approval to a $11.5 million settlement
reached in a suit alleging BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
inappropriately assessed and collected overdraft and insufficient
fund fees and the settlement amount was paid into escrow on March
29, 2013, according to the company's Jan. 21, 2014, Amendment No.
1 to Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In October 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Florida, Stephen T. Anderson,
on behalf of himself and others so situated v. Compass Bank,
wherein the plaintiff alleges the Company inappropriately assessed
and collected overdraft and insufficient fund fees. On June 27,
2012, the parties agreed to settle this matter as a nationwide
class of consumer customers for $11.5 million. The settlement was
contingent upon court approval. The court granted preliminary
approval on March 18, 2013, and the $11.5 million settlement
amount was paid into escrow on March 29, 2013. Notice was provided
to the class members in April 2013. The deadline to object to or
opt out of the settlement was June 6, 2013. The court granted
final approval on August 7, 2013. The deadline to file a claim was
September 30, 2013.


BBVA COMPASS: "Vaughan" Labor Lawsuit in Texas Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
A labor case filed by Kevin Vaughan against BBVA Compass
Bancshares, Inc. is currently stayed pending a decision from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to
the company's Jan. 21, 2014, Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In February 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Kevin Vaughan, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Compass Bank,
wherein the plaintiff alleges the Company denied earned wages,
including overtime pay, to its MBOs, and discouraged MBOs from
entering more than 40 hours per workweek in the timekeeping
system. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary relief. This case
is currently stayed pending a decision from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding whether class
action waivers violate employees' collective bargaining rights
under the National Labor Relations Act. The Company believes there
are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously.


BBVA COMPASS: "Garza" Labor Suit in Texas Stayed
------------------------------------------------
A labor case filed by Jacqueline Garza against BBVA Compass
Bancshares, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas is currently stayed pending a decision
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
according to the company's Jan. 21, 2014, Amendment No. 1 to Form
10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In May 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Jacqueline Garza, on behalf of
herself and similarly situated employees v. BBVA Bancomer USA,
Inc. and Compass Bank, wherein the plaintiff alleges the Company
denied overtime pay to its Assistant Branch Managers who were
allegedly improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay
mandates of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary relief. This case is currently stayed pending
a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit regarding whether class action waivers violate employees'
collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations
Act.


BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces "Deaver" Labor Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. continues to face a labor suit filed
by Cheryl Deaver in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, according to the company's Jan. 21,
2014, Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

In November 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, Cheryl Deaver, on behalf
of herself and others so situated v. Compass Bank, wherein the
plaintiff alleges the Company failed to provide lawful meal
periods or wages in lieu thereof, full compensation for hours
worked, or timely wages due at termination (the plaintiff had
previously filed a similar lawsuit in May 2011 which was dismissed
without prejudice when the plaintiff failed to meet certain filing
deadlines). The plaintiff further alleges that the Company did not
comply with wage statement requirements. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary relief.


BP PLC: Ninth Circuit Reversed Dismissal of 2006 Spills Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit on February 13, 2014, reinstated a securities-
fraud class action accusing BP of lying about the condition of
Alaskan pipelines responsible for two spills in 2006, Annie
Youderian at Courthouse News Service reported.

On March 2, 2006, a leak in one of BP's Alaskan pipelines spilled
200,000 gallons of oil onto the North Slope oil field in Prudhoe
Bay.  BP suggested that the spill was an anomaly, but the
discovery of a second leak five months later forced the company to
temporarily halt operations in the region.

About two weeks after the first spill, the U.S. Department of
Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration gave BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. three months to
properly inspect its three pipelines in Prudhoe Bay.

BP missed the deadline by more than a month, and when it finally
inspected the pipelines it found significant corrosion.  The
company chose to bypass certain parts of the pipeline instead of
fixing them, according to the ruling.

The second leak was found in early August 2006.

Shareholders filed a federal class action in 2008, claiming the
second spill and shutdown caused BP's share price to drop 4
percent.  They accused the nation's largest oil and gas producer
of knowingly, or with "deliberate recklessness," leading the
public to believe that the pipelines were in better condition than
they actually were.  Investors argued in an amended complaint that
BP and its executives misled the public about the likelihood of a
second leak in the wake of the first spill.

A federal judge dismissed the amended complaint on the basis that
the alleged wrongdoing "more closely resembles corporate
mismanagement than actionable securities fraud."

But the federal appeals court in Seattle largely disagreed.

"While we agree that BP's actions exemplify corporate
mismanagement, the pleadings also charge that BP is a company that
has publicly shirked responsibility for its role in causing the
Prudhoe Bay spills at every step of the way," wrote Senior U.S.
District Judge Raymond Dearie, who was designated to sit on the
three-judge panel.

At issue were comments by Maureen Johnson, the unit leader for the
Greater Prudhoe Bay area, who said that corrosion was occurring at
a low and manageable rate, and that the March spill was "unique."

"The revelation that BP ignored red flags would portend serious
corporate mismanagement, a portent that would be detrimental both
to BP and to Johnson personally, as head of the Prudhoe Bay Unit
responsible for the spill," Dearie wrote.  "In common parlance, if
anyone knew of the flawed monitoring program and the likelihood of
failures in the pipeline system, Dr. Johnson did."

BP also likely knew that its reassurances, in its 2005 annual
report, that the company was "in material compliance with
applicable environmental laws," were untrue.

"[I]n light of the significant, public nature of the potential
compliance issues, we find it most unlikely that top management
was unaware of facts undermining its belief in compliance," Dearie
wrote.

Investors also took issue with then-CEO John Browne's claim at a
press conference that the first spill occurred "in spite of the
fact that we have both world-class corrosion monitoring and leak
detection systems."

These statements "appear to be false based on the results of later
investigations revealing that the pipelines were under-inspected,
under-maintained, and subject to severe risk of corrosion-related
failure," the 9th Circuit ruled.

However, the panel said it wasn't clear from the complaint that
Browne knew about the problems.  His press conference was on April
25, 2006 -- about a month after the spill and 10 days before BP's
board received a detailed update about the spill, the court noted.

The court reinstated the shareholder class action, adding that
"after six years of preliminary litigation, the allegations must
now be tested on the merits."

Along with BP, defendants include BP Exploration Alaska Inc.,
Browne and Johnson.

In October 2007, BP pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of
the Clean Water Act and agreed to pay a $20 million fine to settle
federal and state criminal violations.  In the plea agreement, BP
admitted that it had not cleaned the line since 1998, eight years
before the first leak, or the second line since 1990, 16 years
before the second leak.

In 2011, BP Alaska settled separate claims with the Department of
Justice and the state of Alaska by agreeing to shell out $25
million in civil penalties and make $60 million in improvements to
its Alaskan pipelines.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          Erin H. Rump, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com
                  jbleichmar@labaton.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Stewart, Esq.
          Timothy Michael Moran, Esq.
          KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
          3601 Fremont Avenue North, Suite 414
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 545-0345
          Facsimile: (206) 545-0350
          E-mail: stewart@kiplinglawgroup.com
                  moran@kiplinglawgroup.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Richard C. Pepperman II, Esq.
          Patrick B. Berarducci, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com
                  berarduccip@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Diane L. McGimsey, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1888 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725
          Telephone: (310) 712-6600
          Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
          E-mail: mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          David C. Lundsgaard, Esq.
          GRAHAM & DUNN PC
          Pier 70
          2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98121-1128
          Telephone: (206) 624-8300
          Facsimile: (206) 340-9599
          E-mail: dlundsgaard@grahamdunn.com

The appellate case is Reese, et al. v. Malone, Case No. 12-35260,
in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case
is Reese, et al. v. Malone, Case No. No. 2:08-cv-01008-MJP, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.


BURKETT'S POOL: Court Declines to Modify Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley denied plaintiffs' "request for an
order modifying the scheduling order" in the case captioned JESUS
DE LEON, JOSE DE JESUS URZUA, RUBEN GALLO, RUBEN GALLO JR.,JUAN
MANUEL GALLO, CRECENSIOSANCHEZ, ALEJANDRO ROMOMORALES, JOSE
ROBERTO SANTOSCASTRO, VICENTE SANTOS CASTRO, RICARDO TRUJILLO,
LUIS GALLO, and MELKISEDEC BARRERA, on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BURKETT'S POOL PLASTERING,
INC.,ROBERT BURKETT, and MATTHEWWINDORSKI, Defendants, NO. 12-CV-
02740 TLN-EFB, (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs "seek to recover unpaid wages and all available
remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
California Labor Code and Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare
Commission."  This action was brought as a collective opt-in
action under the FLSA.

"As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, where the court finds that
the party moving to modify a Rule 16 scheduling order was not
diligent, the inquiry should end," held Judge Nunley.  "Here,
because the court finds that Plaintiffs' were not diligent,
Plaintiffs' request is denied."

A copy of the District Court's February 18, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/mbCgI4from Leagle.com.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CEC Entertainment is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Apollo Global
Management, for $54 a share or $1.3 billion, shareholders claim in
Dallas County Court.


CHINA INTEGRATED: Cert. Discovery Ongoing in Cal. Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery as to issues related to class certification is ongoing
in the suit Larry Brown, et al. v. China Integrated Energy, Inc.
et al. pending in the District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's Jan. 14, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2011.

Larry Brown, et al. v. China Integrated Energy, Inc. et al.,
(Consolidated Class Action), District Court for the Central
District of California; Case No. CV-11-02559-MMM-PLAx: This is a
shareholder consolidated class action initiated on March 25, 2011
against the Company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and its former auditors alleging violations of the
United States securities laws (including alleged
misrepresentations as to the Company's financial condition and the
non-disclosure of related-party transactions in violation of
sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ). The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, filed on December 20, 2011,
seeks the recovery of unspecified compensatory damages, as well as
the costs of suit, primarily based upon short-seller analyst
reports published in or about March 2011 (which reports prompted a
thorough independent review by the Company's audit committee).

On February 22, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
action for failure to state a legally viable claim. By Order dated
April 2, 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
Thereafter, the proceeding has entered into the discovery phase,
and on August 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. Discovery as to issues related to class
certification is ongoing, and the defendants' opposition to
plaintiff's motion was scheduled to be filed on or before February
17, 2014.


COLE REAL ESTATE: Has MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Clark Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., a Maryland corporation
("Cole") entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a
suit filed over a planned merger of Clark Acquisition, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and a direct, wholly owned
subsidiary of ARCP ("Merger Sub") and Cole according to Cole's
Jan. 14, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As disclosed in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by
ARCP and Cole on December 23, 2013 (the "proxy statement"), ten
putative derivative and/or class action lawsuits challenging the
proposed transaction and certain events leading up thereto have
been filed on behalf of Cole stockholders: two putative derivative
and/or class actions in Arizona federal court and eight putative
derivative and/or class actions in Maryland state court.

The Arizona actions are captioned: (i) Wunsch v. Cole Real Estate
Investment, Inc., et al.; and (ii) Sobon v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al. The Maryland actions are captioned: (i)
Operman v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (ii)
Branham v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (iii)
Wilfong v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (iv) Polage
v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (v) Flynn v. Cole
Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (vi) Corwin v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (vii) Green v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al.; and (viii) Morgan v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al. On December 12, 2013, the Maryland court
consolidated the eight Maryland lawsuits under the caption Polage
v. Christopher H. Cole, et. al., and appointed lead counsel.

On January 10, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, ARCP, Cole and the other named defendants
in the Polage action entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiff in the Polage action to settle the case.

The defendants believe that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the proxy statement under applicable laws; however, to
avoid the risk that the litigation may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize
the expense of defending such action, ARCP and Cole have agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of
which are set forth. The memorandum of understanding contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Cole's stockholders.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled by the court to consider
the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. In
the event the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger,
the Merger Agreement, certain prior events leading up thereto,
including the April 5, 2013 acquisition by Cole of Cole Holdings
Corporation, and any disclosure made in connection with any of the
above, among other claims, pursuant to terms that will be
disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the
settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel in the Polage action
will file a petition in the court for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by Cole or its successor, which the
defendants may oppose. Cole or its successor will pay or cause to
be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the court.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


CORPORATE PROPERTY: TRO Request in Lawsuit Over Merger Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
denied a motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the
vote of Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated's
stockholders to approve or reject a merger with W. P. Carey,
according to CPA 16 - Global's Jan. 13, 2014 Form 8-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the matter of the purported class action relating to the
pending merger between Corporate Property Associates 16 -  Global
Incorporated ("CPA 16 - Global") and W. P. Carey Inc. ("W. P.
Carey") (Ira Gaines et al v. CPA 16 - Global et al), on January
13, 2014 the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a temporary
restraining order enjoining the vote of CPA 16 - Global's
stockholders scheduled for January 24, 2014 and plaintiffs advised
CPA 16 - Global that they did not intend to pursue further a
preliminary injunction.  CPA 16 - Global expects that the
stockholder vote will take place on January 24, 2014 as originally
scheduled and, if the stockholders of CPA 16 - Global and W. P.
Carey approve the merger on that date, the closing was slated to
occur on or about January 31, 2014.

According to CPA 16 - Global's Jan. 13, 2014 Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a purported class
action complaint was filed on December 31, 2013 in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned Ira
Gaines, IG Holdings, Inc. and Ira J. Gaines Revocable Trust dated
11/24/04, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as plaintiffs, v. Corporate Property Associates 16 -
Global Incorporated ("CPA 16 - Global"), W. P. Carey Inc. ("W. P.
Carey"), WPC REIT Merger Sub Inc., Marshall E. Blume, Elizabeth P.
Munson, Richard J. Pinola, James D. Price and Trevor P. Bond, as
defendants.

The complaint relates to the proposed merger between CPA 16 -
Global and W. P. Carey (the "Merger"), which was publicly
announced on July 25, 2013.  The complaint alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty by the individual defendants, that the entity
defendants aided and abetted such breaches, and that the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus relating to the Merger, dated December
5, 2013, contained inadequate disclosure about certain matters.
The complaint demands that a class be certified and plaintiffs
named as class representatives; supplemental disclosures to the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus be issued; the Merger be
rescinded if it is consummated; damages be awarded; and
plaintiffs' attorneys fees and other costs be reimbursed. On
January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue a TRO on
January 17, 2014 enjoining the vote of the stockholders of CPA 16
- Global pending the completion of expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction hearing.


CPG INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Azek Decking
-------------------------------------------------------
David Falchek, writing for Citizens Voice, reports that a local
building product manufacturer faces a potential class-action
lawsuit alleging their decking boards didn't perform as
advertised.

Three lawsuits against CPG International of Scranton regarding its
Azek decking were recently consolidated in the U.S. District Court
of New Jersey as the plaintiffs' attorneys seek to establish a
class action.

The plaintiffs cite Azek's advertising and marketing claims,
boasting Azek's superiority to other decking.  "Wood and
composites rot, stain, and fade.  Azek doesn't" and phrases such
as "Richer, longer lasting color," are listed in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit challenges the basis for the promotional claims,
alleging that all PVC products are susceptible to degrade and fade
with exposure to sunlight and heat.  Coloring agent containing
titanium dioxide break down and "chalks" on the surface of the
decking, the lawsuit said.

"Defendants represented . . . that consumers could reasonably
expect that outdoor usage in direct sunlight would not result in
the degradation of their decks, porches and docks," the lawsuit
states.  "Defendants knew about the defects while simultaneously
placing the Azek PVC decking in the market and continuing their
marketing campaign and representations."

The lawsuit said Azek denied coverage of its "lifetime limited
warranty" for such claims on the basis that the product is not
defective, but showing signs of weathering.

While declining to discuss the specifics of pending legal matters,
CPG International President Jason Grommon said the company's
attorneys have filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.

Claims are 'meritless'

"We will continue to defend our company and our products against
what we believe are meritless claims that relate to a only a tiny
fraction of the million of feet of our product in use,"
Mr. Grommon wrote in a prepared statement.

He noted that Builder Magazine for the third consecutive year,
named Azek decking as number one in quality among makers of
composite/ PVC decking.


EBAY INC: Court Partially Grants Atty. Fee Bid in "Keirsey" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an order on February 18, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ZRQuSrfrom
Leagle.com, in TASHA KEIRSEY, Plaintiff, v. EBAY, INC, Defendant,
CASE NO. 12-CV-01200-JST, (N.D. Cal.), granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and
expenses and class representative incentive compensation awards.

The Plaintiff Tasha Keirsey has moved for an award of attorney's
fees and expenses and a class representative incentive
compensation award, in connection with the settlement of this
class action.

Judge Tigar ordered that:

1. The Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts the definitions
   set forth in the Settlement;

2. Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
   $23,750, and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
   $3,289.02, plus any reasonable expenses incurred by Class
   Counsel after November 30, 2013. This fee and expense award
   will be paid by the settlement administrator out of the
   Settlement Fund to Class Counsel within five days after the
   Effective Date.

3. Class Representative Tasha Keirsey is awarded an incentive
   compensation award in the amount of $500. This award will be
   paid by the settlement administrator out of the Settlement Fund
   to Class Counsel, on behalf of the Class Representative, within
   five days after the Effective Date.

4. The Court finds in the exercise of its discretion that the fee
   and expense award and incentive compensation award to be fair
   and reasonable. The Court finds that Class Representative and
   Class Counsel have demonstrated that: (i) the results obtained
   in light of the relevant circumstances of this action support
   the fee award; (ii) the economics of the prosecution of this
   action and the experience of Class Counsel support the fee
   award; (iii) the fee award is substantially similar to fees
   approved in similar cases; and (iv) the time and labor required
   by Representative Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel is
   consistent with the fee award and incentive compensation
   awards.


EDEN MEMORIAL: Settles Class Action for $80.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Jweekly reports that a Los Angeles Jewish cemetery accused of
dumping remains to make room for new interments has settled a
25,000-person class action.

Eden Memorial Park in Missions Hills, Calif., agreed to a
settlement worth about $80.5 million, the Los Angeles Jewish
Journal reported, citing documents filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court on Feb. 27.

The lawsuit was filed in 2009.  It claimed that Eden Memorial
Park, one of the largest Jewish cemeteries in the United States,
instructed groundskeepers to "secretly break concrete vaults with
a backhoe and remove, dump and/or discard the human remains,
including human skulls, to make room for new interments."  The
alleged incidents began as early as 1985.

About 40,000 people are buried in the 72-acre cemetery.  The
settlement will be finalized in May.


FEDERAL-MOGUL: Hughes & Coleman Files Suit Over Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Birk, writing for WBKO, reports that Bowling Green's Hughes &
Coleman law firm has filed a class action lawsuit charging
Federal-Mogul Products Incorporated with releasing toxic chemicals
from its plant in Scottsville.  The plaintiffs allege Federal-
Mogul released carcinogens into the environment surrounding its
plant that produced brake pads.

Lee Coleman leads the legal team that is holding the company
accountable for the groundwater contamination and environmental
damage within a five-mile radius of the plant.

"The reason for the five-mile radius," said Mr. Coleman, "is
because right now it is unclear how far out the danger goes, but
we do have people that live more than a mile from the plant within
a five-mile radius that are reporting injuries."

The lawsuit claims the Federal Mogul plant released carcinogens
that were 15 to 20 times higher than levels recommended by the
Environmental Protection Agency.

"We have reports of large numbers of cancers," said Mr. Coleman.
"We have reports of neurological problems.  Those are the things
if you look at the federal publications are risk of dichloroethene
and trichloroethylene which are the chemicals, DCE and TCE, I
believe is what they're commonly referred to as.  The injuries run
the gamut."


GENERAL CABLE: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuits in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation faces shareholder lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's Jan. 21, 2014, Amendment No. 2 to Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2011.

As a public company, the company is required to comply with the
periodic reporting obligations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including the requirement
that the company files annual reports and quarterly reports with
the SEC.

The company said, "Our failure to file required information in a
timely manner could subject the company to penalties under federal
securities laws, expose the company to additional lawsuits, create
a default under our existing debt instruments and facilities, and
restrict our ability to access financing. In addition, our
management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting. Our internal
control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial
reporting and the preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP").
However, our management has identified control deficiencies that
constitute material weaknesses.

"These material weaknesses resulted in material errors that caused
the company to issue, in March 2013, restated consolidated
financial statements as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for the
years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and unaudited
restated financial statements for interim periods in 2011 and
interim periods ended on March 30, 2012 and June 29, 2012, and, to
issue, in January 2014, restated consolidated financial statements
as of December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and for the years ended
December 31, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and unaudited restated
financial statements for interim periods in 2011 and 2012 and the
interim period ended on March 29, 2013. In addition, two civil
complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by named plaintiffs on behalf of
purported classes of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded securities, in one case
which was filed on October 21, 2013 between May 3, 2011 and
October 14, 2013, inclusive, and in the other case, which was
filed on December 4, 2013, between May 2, 2011 and November 4,
2013, inclusive, against the Company, Gregory Kenny, our President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, our Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The complaints allege
claims under the anti-fraud and controlling person liability
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
generally, among other assertions, that defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding revenue recognition and
other Company financial matters and omitted to state material
facts, including, among other things, that there was a lack of
adequate internal controls, thereby artificially inflating the
prices at which our securities traded. The complaints seek damages
in undefined amounts, as well as attorney's fees, experts' fees
and other costs. In addition, a derivative complaint was filed on
January 7, 2014 in the Campbell County, Kentucky Circuit Court
against all but one member of our Board of Directors, including
Mr. Kenny, a former director and against Mr. Robinson and two
former ROW officials, one of whom is a former executive officer of
the Company.

"The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by knowingly failing to ensure that the Company
implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over its
accounting and financial reporting functions and by knowingly
disseminating to stockholders materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial results and internal
controls. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
appropriate equitable relief to remedy the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty, attorney's fees, experts' fees and other costs.
The company believes the purported class action complaints, and
the derivative complaint insofar as it relates to our directors
and Mr. Robinson, are without merit and intend to vigorously
contest the actions."


GOLDEN GATE FIELDS: "Taylor" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone T. Taylor filed an action on January 28, 2014, against
defendants Golden Gate Fields, The Stronach Group (which owns and
operates the Golden Gate Fields racetrack), Mike Rogers (an
employee of The Stronach Group), and the California Horse Racing
Board (CHRB), asserting three claims of constitutional violations
under 42 U.S.C. Section  19831 against the California Horse Racing
Board, and possibly against the other three defendants, and
asserting a state-law cause of action for intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all defendants. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages "in excess of $20 million U.S.
dollars," and declaratory and injunctive relief.  The case is
captioned TYRONE T. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN GATE FIELDS, et
al., Defendants, NO. C 14-0411 PJH, (N.D. Cal.)

Also on January 28, 2014, plaintiff filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which was granted on January 29,
2014. The case was subsequently reassigned to District Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton. On February 13, 2014, plaintiff filed an
application for a temporary restraining order (TRO), and also
filed a motion to compel production of documents.

In an order dated February 19, 2014 Order, a copy of which may be
accessed for free at http://is.gd/hfTFM3from Leagle.com, District
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton found that a proper review required
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) was not completed.
Accordingly, the Court vacated the portion of the January 29, 2014
IFP order that directed that the United States Marshal serve the
summons and complaint on defendants.  Before the summons and
complaint can be served, plaintiff must file a viable complaint,
he said.

Judge Hamilton further ruled that Defendant California Horse
Racing Board is dismissed from the case, with prejudice. The
first, second, and third causes of action are dismissed as to the
remaining Defendants, with leave to amend to allege facts showing
that the Defendants are state actors, and to allege facts showing
each Defendant's involvement in the alleged constitutional
violations. The fourth cause of action is dismissed, with leave to
amend to allege facts showing that each Defendant engaged in
conduct that was so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that
usually tolerated in a civilized community, and to allege facts
describing the nature of the severe emotional distress that
plaintiff allegedly experience as a result of the expulsion from
Golden Gate Fields. Finally, the class allegations were stricken
from the complaint.

"Any amended complaint must be filed no later than March 21,
2014," said Judge Hamilton.  "Plaintiff may add no new parties and
no new claims without leave of court."

The TRO application and the motion to compel production of
documents were denied.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Refused to Seal Info in Wireless Card Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge denied various motions to seal in a lawsuit
alleging that Hewlett-Packard misrepresented the dual-band
capability of computer wireless cards, Heather Johnson, writing
for Courthouse News Service, reported in February.

Ned Karim's 2012 complaint was filed one year after a federal
judge dismissed similar but unrelated claims. It concerns a laptop
Karim bought via HP's Home and Home Office Store website in 2010.
When prompted to select a wireless card for wireless Internet
connection, Karim allegedly used the website's "Help Me Decide"
feature.

"The website represented that the available wireless cards could
connect to wireless networks operating on two different
frequencies -- the 2.4 GHz frequency and the 5.0 GHz frequency,"
according to the ruling's summary of the complaint.

Karim said the two wireless options used identical language,
claiming "flexibility to connect to most available industry
standard base WLAN (802.11b, 802.11a, 802.11g, and 802.11 draft N)
infrastructures."

"Because the 802.11a protocol operates only on the 5.0 GHz band,
and the 802.11b and 802.11g protocols operate on the 2.4 GHz band,
plaintiff understood the wireless card to be dual-band," according
to the ruling's summary of the complaint.  But Karim said the
computer he received was equipped with an "Intel Centrino-N 1000
802.11 b/g/n wireless card" that allegedly operated only on the
2.4 GHz frequency.

When Karim bought a new wireless card with dual-band capacity, he
found that it was incompatible with his computer, according to the
complaint.  Karim hope to represent a class of U.S. residents who
bought various computers from HP's website between October 2009
and April 2011, but HP argued that "many states require an
affirmative showing of consumer reliance," or require consumers to
"show knowledge of the statement prior to purchase."

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton agreed and refused to certify
a class on Feb. 10, finding that HP identified "material"
differences in state laws.

"Given the court's previous finding that California's express
warranty law does not require a showing of reliance, the court
does find that the differences in state laws regarding 'reliance'
are material," the opinion stated.

Both Karim and HP meanwhile lost bids to seal a stipulation the
parties filed "regarding summary of electronic data."

"While the court agrees that actual customer information would
warrant sealing, the parties' stipulation contains no such
'granular' information, and is (as the title suggests) merely a
summary of customer data, listing only the raw numbers of
computers sold," Hamilton wrote.

Hamilton also refused to seal a portion of Karim's motion for
class certification or HP's opposition to that motion.  A
declaration that describes the number of visitors to HP's "help me
decide" screens and the number of "clicks" on those screens, but
does not disclose anything about the functioning or design of HP's
Web site, likewise does include information that would harm HP's
competitive interests if disclosed, according to the ruling.  Both
HP and Karim wanted to seal a similar declaration, and Hamilton
rejected that motion for the same reason.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenelle Welling, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: jwelling@bramsonplutzik.com

Hewlett-Packard is represented by:

          Samuel Liversidge, Esq.
          Blaine Evanson, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7228
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6228
          E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com
                  bevanson@gibsondunn.com

The case is Nad Karim v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. C
12-5240 PJH, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Hotel Booking Conspiracy Litigation Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antitrust claims that hotel chains and online travel agencies
conspired to inflate the prices of rooms booked online are
unfounded, reported David Lee at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

The would-be class action accused 12 hotel chains -- including
Hilton Worldwide and Marriott International -- and seven online
travel agencies -- including Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline and
Travelocity -- of conspiring to impose "rate parity" in
discussions with the trade press, at industry conferences and on
conference calls with stock analysts.

It represented a consolidation of several lawsuits accusing the
defendants of having entered into horizontal agreements not to
compete with each other.  Consumers claimed that the hotel
operators in particular entered into resale-price-maintenance
(RPM) contracts with each online-travel-agency defendant.  These
agreements allegedly ensured that each online travel agency would
not discount below each hotel's own published rate on its website,
and that the hotel would provide their lowest online rate in
return.

The hotels and online travel agencies allegedly kept the scheme in
place by threatening competitors with legal action or refusing to
allow them to sell rooms if they did not maintain agreed rates in
the RPM scheme.

The online travel agencies then offered near-identical "best
price" guarantees, allegedly knowing that the prices were the only
ones available even among competitors, according to the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle tossed the multidistrict litigation
on February 18, 2014, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to
"plausibly allege a price fixing conspiracy for three antitrust
law claims and proximate causation for a state consumer protection
law claim."

She said the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts of a
price-fixing conspiracy, agreeing with the defendants that the
"alleged parallel behavior is simply the result of each
defendants' independent effort to protect their business interests
by rationally adopting similar vertical distribution agreements."

"Common economic experience" and the complaint itself provided
"obvious" explanations as to why the hotels and online travel
agencies entered into RPMs, according to the ruling.

"For the hotel defendants, an RPM agreement allowing them to
control the prices at which their rooms were sold online made
perfect economic sense," Boyle wrote.  "As a general matter, it is
quite natural for a seller to want to control the online price of
its product."

Boyle was also not swayed by the argument that the hotel and
online travel agencies' actions went against their business
interests.

"Plaintiffs first argue that '[a]bsent the conspiracy, those who
would set high prices would be undercut by those who wanted to
discount.' Not true," she wrote.  "Absent the conspiracy,
individual pairs of defendants could unilaterally adopt and
enforce the same RPM agreements, preventing any discounting as it
relates to the published rates covered in each respective RPM
agreement.  Next, plaintiffs argue that it would be in the hotel
defendants' best interest to compete with the OTAs so that the
hotel's Web site offers the lowest prices, rather than enter into
an agreement promising not to undercut the OTAs.  But this
conclusive assertion is undermined both by common economic
experience and facts in the complaint itself."

Regarding the consumer-protection claim, consumers failed to
plausibly allege the low-price guarantee had "any discernible
effect" on the prices they paid, Boyle found.

"Here, take defendants' rate guarantees away, and each plaintiff
would be stuck paying the exact same price, since, as the
complaint alleges, room prices were the same across the entire
online bookings market," the opinion states.  "Moreover,
Plaintiffs readily admit that the rate guarantees effectively
delivered on their promise (albeit deceptively) of offering the
lowest price available online.  Thus, while the rate guarantees
may be deceptive despite their literal truth, the fact that
plaintiffs got what they were promised further shows that the
guarantees had no plausible effect on the price at which rooms
were sold online."

The plaintiffs have 30 days to seek leave to amend their four
claims, Boyle said, "given all the uncertainty fleshed out" in
consideration of the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The case is In re: Online Travel Company (OTC) Hotel Booking
Antitrust Section Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-3515-B, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division.


JINSUNMI INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 17.98 oz Lotte Frozen Fruit Bars
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jinsunmi Int'l Inc. issued an update regarding its previously
announced voluntary recall of plastic pouch of Lotte Brand frozen
fruit bar (watermelon flavor)

The company initiated the voluntary recall on February 25, 2014.
Jinsunmi Int'l Inc. is recalling 102 units of its 17.98 oz.,
plastic pouch of Lotte Brand Frozen Fruit Bar (watermelon flavor)
because the frozen fruir bar contains peanuts, a known allergen,
and the food ingredient label on the plastic pouch did not state
that the product contained peanuts.

Individuals who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they come in contact with or consume this product.

Jinsunmi Int'l Inc. decided to recall the products after a
customer contacted one of its customer service representatives to
report that the ingredient label on the plastic pouch did not
state it contained peanuts.

The product being recalled is a 17.98oz silver plastic pouch that
contains 6 pieces of frozen fruit bar.  The plastic pouch is
covered with watermelon design on the front, and identified by UPC
number 8801062443055.  Lot information on this product is
13.05.01F2 and 13.07.17F2.

Jinsunmi Int'l Inc. determined that the 102 pouches of frozen
fruit bars were available for sale beginning Jan. 20, 2014 in up
to 3 grocery stores in California.  The products were sold at
Hannam Super Mart located at 1.) Fullerton, CA 2.) Diamond Bar, CA
3.) La Palma, CA

To date there has been one reported incident of an individual who
had an allergic reaction who was treated and released from further
medical care.  Jinsunmi Int'l Inc. is not aware of any other
incidences, nor have there been any other reported illnesses.

This voluntary recall does not affect any other products from
Jinsunmi Int'l Inc.

Consumers that have purchased the 17.98oz plastic pouch of frozen
fruit bar are urged to dispose of the product.

Jinsunmi Int'l Inc. is working in cooperation with the FDA.
Consumers with questions may contact a dedicated customer service
representative at the Company by dialing 213-327-0600 Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. PST or email:
JSM0600@hanmail.net.


KIWIBANK: Customers Have Until March 31 to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Voxy reports that the High Court in Auckland made a series of
initial orders on March 6 in the bank fees class action against
Kiwibank.  Importantly, the Court has confirmed the opportunity
for thousands more Kiwibank customers to sign up to the case,
ahead of a final deadline of March 31, 2014.

Fair Play on Fees lawyer Andrew Hooker says the ruling is great
for potential claimants.  "We've not been able to guarantee the
inclusion of those Kiwibank customers who've come forward since we
issued the case in November last year.  Now we can confirm that
all Kiwibank customers have three weeks to come forward and join
this important action.

As part of this procedure Kiwibank provided the Court and its
customers with an assurance that customers who participate in the
case will face no discrimination from the bank.

"We expect that thousands more Kiwis out there who are still
eligible to join the case.  We will be urging Kiwibank customers
to consider their rights to join over the next three weeks.
Anyone coming forward after March 31 will find that it is too late
to join this case".

The High Court has also given the proceeding the green light to
proceed as a representative action, and approved the litigation
funding arrangements between the claimants and funder Litigation
Lending Services.

Mr. Hooker said "This case shows the advantage of class action
proceedings.  To run this kind of case on your own would be almost
impossible but together we can challenge the banks' fee charging
practices."

The case alleges that the following default fees charged by the
bank over the past few years are unenforceable penalties which
should be returned to participating claimants:

- Unarranged overdraft fees;

- Dishonour fees;

- Credit card late payment fees;

- Credit card over limit fees.

Fair Play on Fees has announced that, in addition to the ongoing
cases against ANZ and Kiwibank, it will also be issuing cases
against ASB, BNZ and Westpac.

A similar action run in Australia resulted in a judgment last
month which found that credit card late payment fees were unfair
penalties that the bank was required to repay.  Lawyers for the
claimants in that case lodged an appeal this week against the
court's findings that the other default fees were not penalties.
That appeal is likely to be heard later this year.

The Australian case also found that claimants who operated under
the belief that the bank was entitled to charge the fee were not
constrained by the usual six-year time limit for bringing a claim.

"The law in New Zealand regarding time limits closely mirrors the
relevant Australian legislation, so we are hopeful that these
cases will now be able to claim unfair fees going back decades."

A court date for trial proceedings in the Kiwibank case is
expected to be set later this year.


LEHIGH VALLEY: Recalls Orange Juice Due to Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
Lehigh Valley Dairy is voluntarily recalling orange juice
involving Lehigh Valley brand half pints, half gallons and
gallons; Swiss Premium brand half gallons and gallons; and Price
Chopper brand gallons because these products may contain milk, an
undeclared allergen.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk, run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.  While none of
these products have been linked to any illness related to
allergens at this time, Lehigh Valley Dairy is taking this
precautionary measure because the orange juice may contain milk,
an allergen, which has not been declared on the packaging.

Due to a manufacturing error, milk became mixed with the orange
juice.  To date, no complaints or reactions have been reported.

  Size       Name            UPC #        Date          Plant Code
  ----       ----            -----        ----          ----------
Gallon     Lehigh Valley   7047243000   "SELL BY" date     42-099
                                       of March 23, 2014
           Swiss Premium   7654500106
           Price Chopper   4173517135
Half       Lehigh Valley   7047249310
Gallons   7654500132
Swiss      Lehigh Valley   7047243022
Premium     Dairy
Half Pints

The affected product has a "SELL BY" date of March 23, 2014, and
was sold by retailers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, Washington, DC, and West Virginia.  The carton
carries the above referenced Universal Product Code (UPC) and
plant code 42-099.

Consumers who purchased any of the products listed above may
discard it and return the product package to the place of purchase
for a full refund or exchange.  Consumers with questions can
contact 1-800-587-2259 between 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this
voluntary recall.


MARS FOOD: Recalls Uncle Ben's Ready Rice With 351GBBFP Lot Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mars Food North America is 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 U.S. Food and Drug Administration'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.

  Product                     Lot Code                    Item No.
  -------                     --------                    --------
Uncle Ben's Ready Rice      351GBBFP[1L, 2L, 3L,         U0317600
Original Long Grain White   1R, 2R, 3R]
Rice (pouch)


MASSACHUSETTS: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. DOC Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph L. Tauro issued a ruling on February 19,
2014, denying a motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs
in KEITH NIEMIC, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-11402-JLT, (D.
Mass.), saying the Plaintiff has not met the heavy burden of
Federal Rule 23, and that the Plaintiff, who is pro se, may not
appear for others in federal court.

In his order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/XHgzSA
from Leagle.com, Judge Tauro further:

* denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel or Law
  Student for Trial and/or for Class Action Suit, Supplemental
  Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and Motion for Appointment of
  Counsel or Law Student for Depositions and Trial.

* accepted and adopted the January 29, 2014 Report and
  Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Collings, ordered that
  Defendant UMass Correctional Health Services (UMCH)'s Motion to
  Dismiss is allowed in part and denied without prejudice in part.
  It is allowed as to all claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. Section
  1983 and denied without prejudice as to all remaining claims.

* denied Plaintiff's Emergency Request for Court Intervention.

* allowed Defendants' Motion to Enlarge Time to Response [sic].

* denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Audio Depositions of
  the Defendants as it is clear from Defendants' Opposition that
  Defendants have supplied Plaintiff with the documents and
  information he seeks. Audio depositions are unnecessary.

* denied Plaintiff's Motion for Physical Examination.

* denied Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time for
  Responding to This Court's 1-21-14 Order saying Magistrate Judge
  Collings generously gave Plaintiff more than a month to file
  these oppositions, which is longer than the time contemplated by
  the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, Plaintiff has not
  offered a good reason for an extension, and, given his multiple
  filings in this matter since January 21, he clearly has
  sufficient time to draft briefs for this case.

* denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Order the DOC Defendants
  to Refrain from Confiscating Portions of Plaintiff's Outgoing
  Legal Mail. It is not this court's role to "investigate," as
  Plaintiff requests.


MELLANOX TECH: Court Okays Objections Notice in "Turgeman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District court in Tel-Aviv, Israel, approved the form of
notice that allows objections to a petition to withdraw claims in
Mordechay Turgeman v. Mellanox et. al. (Case No.: 13189-06-13),
according to Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.'s Jan. 13, 2014, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 6, 2013, a complaint was filed in the Tel-Aviv District
court (the "Israeli Court") (Mordechay Turgeman v. Mellanox et.
al. (Case No.: 13189-06-13)), in which the plaintiff alleged that
the Company's decision to delist from the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
("TASE") was a breach of the duty of care of the Company's board
of directors (the "Board"), as well as a breach of fiduciary duty
and duty of care by the Company's president and chief executive
officer (the "Claim").  In addition, the plaintiff filed a motion
to certify the complaint as a class action.  The Company was
served with the complaint on June 16, 2013.  On December 22, 2013,
the Company and the Board filed their Response to the motion to
certificate a class action claim (the "Response").

On January 7, 2014 the plaintiff, with the consent of the Company,
filed a request to withdraw the Claim (and related class action
claim) against the Company and the Board (the "Withdrawal
Petition") after the plaintiff, in view of the facts and arguments
presented in the Response, reached the conclusion that it would be
difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Claim and have the
complaint approved as a class action. Neither the plaintiff nor
its attorneys have received or will receive any benefit in return
for their withdrawal.

On January 8, 2014, the Israeli Court ordered that a notice should
be published in two newspapers in Israel in which potential class
members, the Israeli attorney general, the director of Israeli
courts and the Israeli Securities Authority were notified that any
such party has 45 days from the date of the notice to present its
position to the Israeli Court objecting to or relating to the
Withdrawal Petition.  On January 9, 2014 the Israeli court
approved the form of the notice, and the notice was published on
Sunday, January 12, 2014.

While any withdrawal of the Claim (and related class action claim)
is ultimately within the discretion of the Israeli Court, the
Company believes that the Israeli Court will approve such
withdrawal if none of such parties make a filing objecting to such
withdrawal.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 7 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Merge Healthcare Incorporated and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed under
14-cv-00869, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Merge
between August 1, 2012 and January 7, 2014 both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of 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 Merge securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 11, 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.com 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.

Merge Healthcare Incorporated develops software solutions that
facilitate the sharing of images to create an electronic
healthcare experience for patients and physicians worldwide.  It
operates in two segments, Merge Healthcare and Merge DNA.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the
existence or amount of certain customer contracts with respect to
the Company's eClinical business had been falsified; (2) that, as
a result, the Company's reported subscription backlog was
overstated; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects lacked a reasonable basis and were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 8, 2014, the Company disclosed that it was revising its
previously reported subscription backlog totals after an internal
review concluded that a former sales employee in its eClinical
business had falsified the existence or amount of certain customer
contracts with an apparent value of approximately $5.8 million in
2012 and 2013, respectively.

On this news, Merge securities declined $0.21 per share, or nearly
8.33%, to close at $2.31 per share on January 8, 2014, and further
declined an additional $.21 per share, or approximately 9% on
January 9, 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.


MF GLOBAL: Corzine Flayed as Customer Class Suit Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine must bear the brunt of another
class action related to the "spectacular financial collapse" of MF
Global, a federal judge ruled in a 79-page order, reported Adam
Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service in February.

About $1.6 billion in customer money disappeared when MF Global
collapsed in October 2011, and the fund then failed to account for
more than $750 million of that figure.  The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission filed suit this past June against MF Global
Inc., MF Global Holdings Ltd., Corzine as CEO and the assistant
treasurer, Edith O'Brien.

Regulators said Corzine had run the company in an arrogant manner
and horrified his underlings with bad bets, particularly on
European sovereign debt.

A federal judge meanwhile consolidated shareholders suits as one
14-count action against Corzine and 22 other MF Global directors,
officers and underwriters in Manhattan.  One of the complaints at
issue in the latest ruling is a 198-page class action filed by
commodities customers of MF Global represented by a trustee
appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero gave that lawsuit a green light
on February 11, 2014.

"In a spectacular financial collapse of the magnitude that
plaintiffs exhaustively detail in their amended complaint, an
account that draws from and is supported by reports issued by
legislative and regulatory bodies on the public record, it is
reasonable to infer that someone, somewhere, at some time did
something wrong to set in motion such an extraordinary chain of
events causing such extensive harm to so many people and
interests," the 79-page order states.

Marrero took no stock in defendant MF Global's insistence that it
is implausible to accuse their executives of any liability.

"To the grim portrait of those events that plaintiffs depict,
defendants' response, stripped down to its essence, suggests that
there is nothing wrong with this picture," he wrote.

But MF Global executives "cannot overcome the inconvenient reality
that the facts contained in the CAC, if true, give rise to two
reasonable inferences: that a massive collapse such as that which
MF Global experienced does not occur in a vacuum, nor in a
corporate environment characterized by diligent management and
vigilant oversight by officers and directors; and that in this
case senior MF Global and MFGI officers failed in exercising their
legal responsibilities to MFGI's customers," Marrero added.

Some of the judge's barbs flew at the plaintiffs who filed certain
claims that "fly in the face of clear precedent from the Second
Circuit and the New York Court of Appeals, and they have brought
other claims against some defendants who could not plausibly bear
responsibility for any of the harm plaintiffs allege," according
to the ruling.

This led Marrero to toss claims against PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC), which audited MF Global from 2010 to 2011.

Marerro also dismissed 10 other counts against MF Global
executives, though six others remain.  He urged the parties to
move forward in a "just and efficient way."

"While this wasteful and rancorous litigation unfolds, investment
customers harmed by these unfortunate events must wait for any
compensation due them, without knowing how much they will recover
or when they will receive any assets they wrongfully lost because
of the violations of law claimed in this litigation," Marrero
wrote.

Corzine's spokesman Steven Goldberg emphasized the dismissal of
"half of the commodities customers' claims against Mr. Corzine on
the grounds that they were meritless as a matter of law."

"We believe that discovery in the case will reveal that the
remaining claims also are without merit, and that ultimately we
will prevail on all counts," Goldberg added.

Attorneys for the other parties did not immediately respond to e-
mail requests for comment.

The case is In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:11-cv-07866-VM, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


MICHAEL WILLNER: Galemmo Ponzi Victims File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Watkins, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reports
that victims of convicted Ponzi scheme operator Glen Galemmo are
suing one Galemmo client who actually made money.

The case, filed as a class-action suit in Hamilton County Common
Pleas Court, seeks to get money back from Michael Willner.  He
lives in Irvine, Calif., and is what the complaint calls a "net
winner" in the Galemmo case.

Mr. Willner, the complaint alleges, received "millions of dollars"
in distributions from Mr. Galemmo while he was a client.  He also
has been named as a defendant in another lawsuit involving the
$100 million-plus Ponzi scheme.  One case claimed that Mr. Willner
brought other investors in to become clients of Mr. Galemmo's
Cincinnati-based firm, Queen City Investments.

Mr. Galemmo pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati in
January to one count each of wire fraud and money laundering,
admitting to running what prosecutors say was a Ponzi scheme of
more than $100 million.  His plea agreement calls for a sentence
ranging from eight to 15 1/2 years.  Mr. Galemmo is free on bond
until the sentencing hearing, scheduled for May 28 at 10:00 a.m.

The complaint refers to any of the clients who lost money --
almost all of them -- as "net losers" in the case.  About 150
clients would qualify and be considered part of the class that
would stand to get money if the case succeeds, according to the
complaint.

Mr. Willner and his lawyer weren't surprised to hear the case was
filed.

"The lawsuit against him is a clawback suit that is commonly
asserted against innocent investors in Ponzi scheme cases and is
not indicative of any wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Willner," said
Scott Kane -- scott.kane@squiresanders.com -- a lawyer at
Cincinnati law firm Squire Sanders who represents Mr. Willner.

This type of lawsuit is typical in Ponzi scheme cases when some
investors took out more money from the invesment firm than they
put in.  Similar actions arose in the Bernie Madoff case.

Chuck Reynolds, a lawyer at Cincinnati law firm Santen & Hughes
who represents Galemmo victims, said there are other "net
winners."   They could be added as defendants to this case or they
could be sued separately, he said.

"None are as big as Willner," he said.  "We're deciding now what
to do with the others."

The case alleges two counts of fraudulent transfer and one of
unjust enrichment against Mr. Willner.  It claims that Mr. Galemmo
transferred money and other assets to Mr. Willner that should have
gone to the other clients.  The plaintiffs want to know how much
in money and other assets Mr. Galemmo transferred to Mr. Willner
over the past seven years and they seek a yet-to-be-determined
amount of money.

Mr. Willner first invested with Mr. Galemmo in 2005, learning
about him through Mr. Galemmo's brother-in-law, who was in
business in California with Mr. Willner.  He invested a couple
million dollars that multiplied on paper several times over,
according to Mr. Galemmo's false account statements.

A previous lawsuit filed by Galemmo clients included a September
filing that named Mr. Willner as a defendant and claimed
Mr. Galemmo paid him to bring in new clients.  Mr. Willner has
said in court documents that he was not paid to solicit investors.

That case includes a copy of an email it says Mr. Willner sent to
Mr. Galemmo's investors on July 19, two days after Mr. Galemmo
told investors by email that the company was shutting down.  In
that email, Mr. Willner said he was a "referral" for Mr. Galemmo.
He said he invested with Mr. Galemmo since 2005 "and it was a very
profitable ride."

Mr. Willner said he was told he was the largest shareholder in Mr.
Galemmo's fund and that he is looking for work, even though he had
been retired.

"All of my money was with Glen," he said in the email.

While the court filing lists just more than $100 million in
assets, lawyers for Galemmo clients who have sued him in civil
court have said Mr. Galemmo's company had falsely claimed that
clients' accounts had risen to around $300 million.  Clients'
attorneys are trying to track down money and assets to provide
some restitution.  Prosecutors and other attorneys have said in
court filings that the vast majority of the money invested with
Mr. Galemmo was never invested, as he claimed it was.  Instead,
they claim, he used the money to pay for his home mortgage, buy
his office building and vacation condo, buy vehicles for himself
and family members, pay expenses on sports complexes he owned, pay
tuition for his children and pay personal expenses, according to
court filings.

Mr. Galemmo told his clients in a July 17 email that his Queen
City Investment Fund had closed and directed questions to the
Internal Revenue Service.  Clients have not gotten back the money
they invested with Mr. Galemmo since then.

In typical Ponzi schemes, the perpetrator doesn't invest client
money.  He or she pays early investors using later investors'
money while pocketing much of the client money.  The scheme falls
apart when not enough new money comes into the fund.  Investments
in Mr. Galemmo's fund "have largely disappeared," according to a
lawsuit.


MICHAELS STORES: 9th Circuit Reversed Remand Order in "Rea" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Though managers suing Michaels for unpaid overtime disclaimed more
than $5 million in damages, the class action still belongs in
federal court, the 9th Circuit ruled February 18, 2014, citing
Supreme Court precedent, according to Courthouse News Service.

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Jesse A. Cripps, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: jcripps@gibsondunn.com

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          David J. Gallo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
          12702 Via Cortina, Suite 500
          Del Mar, CA 92014-3769
          Telephone: (858) 509-3652
          Facsimile: (858) 509-3717

The appellate case is P. Rea, et al. v. Michaels Stores Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 14-55008, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The District Court case
is P. Rea, et al. v. Michaels Stores Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 8:13-cv-00455-GW-AGR, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.


PRO SOLUTIONS: "Hanson" Suit Dismissed In Part With Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In GENA HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JQD, LLC, d/b/a PRO SOLUTIONS, a
California corporation, Defendant, NO. 13-05377 RS, (N.D. Cal.),
Plaintiff Gena Hanson challenges the business practices of
defendant JQD LLC (Pro Solutions), a California-based debt
collection company.  Ms. Hanson's class action complaint alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692, et seq., and California's Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. Pro Solutions moved to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety, contending that Ms. Hanson
has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In a February 19, 2014 Order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/LOuo9Dfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Richard
Seeborg granted the motion in part with leave to amend.

"Although it appears that Hanson is not necessarily foreclosed
from seeking relief under the FDCPA and the UCL, it is unclear
which specific aspects of Pro Solutions' conduct are being
targeted by her complaint," Judge Seebog concluded.  "In
particular, it is unclear which allegations hinge on the averment
that Pro Solutions operates on a "no cost" basis when providing
services to homeowners associations. This lack of clarity
obfuscates the legal theories underlying her claims," he said.

If Hanson maintains that Pro Solutions' conduct violates the law
regardless of whether the HOA incurs the vendor's costs, she can
attempt to enunciate each distinct theory of liability more
clearly in an amended complaint, Judge Seeborg continued. "If
Hanson wishes to lodge an amended complaint, she must do so within
thirty days," he added.


QUAKER OATS: May 8 Fairness Hearing in $1.4-Mil. Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Quaker Oats Co. can pay $1.4 million to reformulate its
products and ensure compliance with its labels about trans fat
content, reported Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Robert Chacanaca and Victor Guttmann had brought the first class
action in San Jose, Calif., complaining that Chewy Granola Bars
actually contain "dangerous amounts" of trans fat, "a toxic
additive that causes heart disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes."
Though the granola bars are labeled as having "0g Trans Fat," the
class claimed that the actual content is deceptively omitted
because the products contain partially hydrogenated oil (PHO).

The plaintiffs moved in late December for preliminary approval of
a settlement with Quaker Oats.  The deal emphasizes that Quaker
Oats "vigorously denies" the allegations and "stands by its
products and marketing," but has agreed to injunctive relief at a
cost of approximately $1.4 million.

"Defendant agrees to remove PHOs by December 31, 2015 from the
Oatmeal to Go and Instant Quaker Oatmeal Products that currently
contain PHOs, and not to reintroduce PHOs into those products for
a period of ten years," the motion states.  "Defendant has
informed us that the cost of reformatting these products is
approximately $1.4 million.  With respect to the other products at
issue in the litigation, defendant agrees not to introduce PHOs
for a period of ten years into Quaker Chewy Bars (which do not
currently contain PHOs), as well as the Instant Quaker Oatmeal
Products that do not currently contain PHOs.  Finally, defendant
agrees, that unless it is in early compliance with the provision
requiring removal of PHOs from the products that currently contain
them, by December 31, 2014, it will cease making the statement
'contains a dietarily insignificant amount of trans fat' on the
label of any product containing 0.2 grams or more of artificial
trans fat per serving."

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg approved the deal in February,
finding that the settlement class meets all requirements under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

"The settlement agreement and the settlement it incorporates
appear fair, reasonable, and adequate, the terms of which are
within the range of reasonableness," Seeborg wrote.  "The
settlement agreement was entered into at arms'-length by
experienced counsel after extensive negotiations spanning months,
including with the assistance of a third party mediator, Judge Leo
S. Papas (Ret.).  The settlement agreement is not the result of
collusion."

Nearly 50 different flavors of the Quaker bars and oatmeal at
issue are named in the decision.  Varieties of Instant Oatmeal and
Chewy and Oatmeal to Go bars include Raspberry Streusel, Banana
Bread, Nestle Butterfinger and 90 Calorie Low Fat Honey Nut.

Quaker is to pay up to $120,000 to cover the cost of notifying all
potential class members, the ruling states.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for May 8, according to the
ruling.

The judge advised class members to check the settlement website
regularly for updates and further details on deadlines for filing
exclusions and objections.  That Web site is password protected at
the time of litigation.

It is uncertain how the settlement will affect similar claims
pending against Quaker Oats in Chicago.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (480) 247 4553
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
                  jack@westonfirm.com
                  mel@westonfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  skye@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott P. Martin, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
          E-mail: smartin@gibsondunn.com

The case is In Re Quaker Oats Labeling Litigation, Case No. 5:10-
cv-00502 RS, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division.


RANBAXY LABS: Recalls 64,000 Bottles of Generic Lipitor in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Loftus writes for the Wall Street Journal that Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd., the India-based generic-drug maker beset by
manufacturing-quality problems, has issued another recall of
generic versions of the cholesterol drug Lipitor in the U.S. due
to a potential dose mix-up.

A Ranbaxy unit recalled from U.S. pharmacies more than 64,000
bottles of 10-milligram tablets of atorvastatin calcium -- the
generic name for Lipitor's active ingredient -- because of the
possibility that some bottles contained higher-dose, 20-milligram
tablets, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said.


ROOS FOODS: Recalls Variety of Cheeses Due to Possible Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 23 and 25, 2014, Roos Foods issued press releases for the
recall of its cheese products.  The recall has been expanded to
include all product sizes and containers of Santa Rosa de Lima
Queso Duro Blando (hard cheese), and Mexicana Queso Cojito Molido.
This update also serves as additional clarification that ALL sizes
and containers of the cheese products previously identified are
being recalled (Amigo, Anita, Mexicana, and Santa Rose de Lima
brands of: Cuajada En Terron, Cuajada/Cuajadita Cacer, Cuajada
Fresca, Queso Fresco Round, and Queso Duro Viejo (hard cheeses),
Requeson, Queso de Huerta and Quesco Fresco.  These cheeses were
packaged in various sized clear plastic wrapped Styrofoam trays,
clear plastic wrapped, clear plastic vacuum package, and clear
rigid plastic containers.

Roos Foods of Kenton, DE is voluntarily recalling the above
products 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 still
births among pregnant women.

Out of an abundance of caution, Roos Foods is also recalling all
product sizes and containers of Santa Rosa de Lima Crema
Salvadorena Cultured Sour Cream, Santa Rosa de Lima Mantequilla de
Bolsa Tradicion Centroamericana, Crema Pura Mexicana Cultured Sour
Cream, La Chapina Crema Guatemalteca Guatemalan Style Cream, and
Amigo Brand Crema Centroamericana Cultured Sour Cream.  These sour
creams were packaged in various sized white plastic tubs, clear
plastic bags, clear plastic pouches, and clear plastic jars.

Products were distributed through retail stores in Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington, DC.

Customers should destroy all lots of the above listed brand named
products.  If you have any further questions please contact
Virginia Mejia phone number 302-653-0600, Monday thru Friday from
9:00 AM to 3:00 PM EST.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Refused to Certify Class in "Murray" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
With the 7th Circuit's opening of the gates for class actions
against Sears, Roebuck and Co. over stainless steel Kenmore washer
drums, a federal judge in February refused to certify a class led
by Martin Murray, according to Courthouse News Service.

The case is Martin Murray v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al., Case
No. 4:09-cv-05744-CW, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.


SEMILEDS CORP: Securities Suit Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a securities suit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
SemiLEDs Corporation filed its Amended Complaint in the Civil
Action No. 1:13-cv-04776-DLC, according to the company's Jan. 14,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

On July 10, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, styled as Huard v. SemiLEDs Corporation, et al.,
alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws.

On July 31, 2013, a second investor filed a complaint, styled as
Mohammad v. SemiLEDs Corporation, et al. On September 30, 2013,
the Court appointed Mohammad Yasir as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as lead counsel.

On November 15, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed its Amended
Complaint, styled as In re SemiLEDs Corporation Litigation, Civil
Action No. 1:13-cv-04776-DLC (S.D.N.Y.). The Amended Complaint
alleges one count of violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and one count of violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, both arising out of alleged misstatements made by the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors in
connection with the Company's initial public offering and the
Company's results in the first, second, and third quarter of 2011.


SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE: Court Did Not Certify Defendant Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused to certify a defendant shareholder class
in an action over a $2 million tax liability that allegedly
accrued from a breached merger deal, according to Lorraine Bailey,
writing for Courthouse News Service.

Massachusetts-based Mercury Systems, a maker of big data-
processing systems, acquired KOR Electronics, a California defense
and intelligence company, for $70 million in 2011.  Shareholder
Representative Services was designated as the agent, or proxy, of
KOR stockholders with the power to act on behalf of all
shareholders on matters arising out of the merger agreement.  But
Mercury Systems claimed in a 2013 lawsuit against Shareholder and
others that the breach of the merger agreement left it with more
than $2 million in tax liabilities.

U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns refused February 14, 2014, to
let the plaintiff succeed in "seldom-seen litigating gambit, the
certification of a defendant class."

"It takes no stroke of legal acumen to recognize that all the
certification of a class of defendant security-holders will
accomplish is an escalation of the procedural complexity of this
litigation and its cost, while eviscerating the salutary purpose
of having appointed a shareholder representative in the first
place," he wrote.

The case is Mercury Systems, Inc. v. Shareholder Representative
Services LLC, et al., Case No. 13-11962-RGS, in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Christchurch Residents Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah-Jane O'Connor, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that
Christchurch residents still waiting on insurance settlements have
announced plans to take a class action against their insurer,
Southern Response.

Group spokesman Graham Bloomfield said the services of a lawyer
had been engaged and a declaration would be sought regarding
delays in settling insurance claims.

"A class action involving many Southern Response claimants is
appropriate given the very large number of people being denied
their insurance policy rights," Mr. Bloomfield said.

"We believe the delays people have faced, and are still facing,
are unreasonable and unacceptable."

"It is now over three and a half years since the first
earthquake," he said.  "There are still people living in severely
damaged houses and other people whose houses have been demolished
who have no time frame from Southern Response for repair or
rebuild."

The group will seek substantial damages from Southern Response for
each member of the class action.

"We will seek damages for the immense stress and heath issues this
insurer has caused for hundreds of their clients.  There must be
consequences for this kind of behavior," Mr. Bloomfield said.


TARGET CORP: Credit Unions and Bank Sue Over Giant Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two credit unions and a bank have joined the long list of
plaintiffs suing Target for its massive data breach, David Lee,
writing for Courthouse News Service, reported in February.

Employees Credit Union, of Dallas; KC Police Credit Union, of
Kansas City, Mo.; and American Bank of Commerce, of Wolfforth,
Texas, filed a proposed class action against the Minneapolis-based
retailer February 13, 2014, in Texas Federal Court.

Target announced in December that data for as many as 40 million
credit and debit cards used from November 27 to December 15 in its
stores were stolen.  It later increased the number of possible
data breaches to 70 million or more.  Stolen information included
names, credit card numbers, expiration dates and the three-digit
security codes on the back of the cards.

At least 53 lawsuits have been filed against Target since the
breach, according to the Courthouse News database.  In the most
recent case, the financial institutions claim as many as 70
million identities were stolen.

The credit unions and bank claims they will have to pay to cancel
and reissue compromised cards, absorb fraudulent charges made on
the cards, and lose anticipated profits from the most lucrative
retail month of the year, between Thanksgiving and Christmas.  The
credit unions claim Target knew its point-of-sale system was
vulnerable to attack as far back as 2007.  They say hackers used a
vulnerability in the system through an outside refrigeration
contractor that was allowed to link remotely to Target's internal
network.  The hackers installed malware on the payment card-
swiping machines at each of Target's 1,800 locations to steal the
information, according to the complaint.

"The Target data breach could have been prevented. As early as
2007, Target was warned by a data security expert about the
possibility of a data breach in its point-of-sale system," the 59-
page complaint states.  "Target was told how to prevent such a
breach and, if the preventative measures were not taken, warned
that a data breach could result in as many as 58 million payment
cards being compromised -- an amazingly accurate prophecy.  Even
though Target described the security expert's suggestions as 'good
ideas,' on information and belief, it did not implement them."

The banks claim that had a layered security system been in place,
the hackers would have had to determine how to deploy their
malware and then determine how to get around the antivirus
software running on the payment terminals.

"Even if they could have accomplished these feats -- which they
would not have been able to do -- the malware would have been
blocked by the firewall or network segmentation when trying to
access the Internet," the complaint states. "Had Target taken even
the most fundamental layered data security measures, the breach
would not have happened."

Molly Snyder, Target's group manager for public relations,
declined to comment on the lawsuit on February 14, 2014.  The
financial institutions seek actual and punitive damages for
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and racketeering.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
          THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
          505 Orleans, Suite 505
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 833-7700
          Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
          E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com


TOM'S OF MAINE: Faces Class Action Over "Natural" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that personal care
products manufacturer Tom's of Maine Inc. was hit with a proposed
class action in Florida federal court on March 7 by a consumer who
claims the company falsely represents that its toothpaste is
"natural" when it actually contains heavily processed ingredients.
Named plaintiff Allison Gay alleged she was duped into buying
Tom's-brand toothpaste at supermarkets in Florida based on
representations that it only contained natural ingredients.  But
Ms. Gay said Tom's toothpaste includes the sweetener xylitol and
the cleaner compound sodium lauryl sulfate, both of which are
heavily chemically processed.

"By relying on the representations that Tom's toothpaste was
natural, plaintiff and the class have been damaged and suffered an
ascertainable loss by purchasing the products because they paid
more per ounce than they would have for toothpaste that does not
claim to be natural," the complaint said.  "Plaintiff and the
members of the class did not receive the benefit of the bargain, a
natural toothpaste, when they purchased the products."

Ms. Gay claimed Tom's has violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.  She is seeking to represent a class of all
consumers in the U.S. who have purchased Tom's toothpaste
containing xylitol and SLS, along with a subclass of Florida
consumers.

According to the complaint, Ms. Gay purchased Tom's toothpaste
from Publix and Whole Foods supermarkets in Florida in 2011 based
on unqualified representations on the packaging that the products
are "natural."  She paid $3.99 for the toothpaste at Publix and
$4.99 at Whole Foods, purchase prices that represented a premium
above other toothpaste that didn't purport to be natural,
according to the complaint.

Tom's also represents on its website that its toothpaste and other
products are natural, with statements such as "[w]e do not use any
synthetic flavors or fragrances. Our customers prefer the fresh,
natural taste and smell of herbs, fruits and flowers (or no
fragrance all all!)," the complaint said. Contrary to that
representation, Tom's uses xylitol for flavoring, according to the
complaint.

Ms. Gay contends that, while there is no uniform definition among
government agencies and consumer organizations for "natural"
ingredients, "no reasonable definition of 'natural' includes
ingredients that, even if sourced from 'nature,' are subjected to
extensive, transformative chemical processing before their
inclusion in a product," the complaint said.

The suit seeks undisclosed damages, restitution and disgorgement,
and injunctive relief.

Ms. Gay is represented by Nathan C. Zipperian --
nzipperian@sfmslaw.com -- Scott R. Shepherd
-- sshepherd@sfmslaw.com -- James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com --
and Natalie Finkelman Bennett -- nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com -- of
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP, and Jeffrey Feinberg of the
Feinberg Law Firm.

The case is Allison Gay v. Tom's of Maine Inc., case number 0:14-
cv-060604, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: To Settle Antitrust Suit for $130MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America LLC entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle for $130 million a lawsuit alleging
antitrust violations arising out of Comdata's contractual
relationships with truck stops in connection with its fuel cards,
according to the company's Jan. 21, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 21, 2014, TravelCenters of America LLC (the "Company")
and certain of the Company's affiliates named in the Litigation
(as defined) (collectively, the "Company Defendants") entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs for
a settlement in the civil lawsuit captioned Marchbanks Truck
Service, Inc. d/b/a Bear Mountain Truck Stop, et al. v. Comdata
Network, Inc. d/b/a Comdata Corporation, which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No.
07-0178-JKG) (the "Litigation").  The purported class action
against Comdata Network, Inc., Comdata's parent company (Ceridian
Corporation), Pilot Travel Centers LLC, Love's Travel Stops &
Country Stores, Inc. and the Company Defendants alleges antitrust
violations arising out of Comdata's contractual relationships with
truck stops in connection with its fuel cards.

The MOU sets out a binding obligation to enter into a settlement
agreement subject to and conditioned upon: (1) the fully executed
settlement agreement and associated exhibits memorializing the
settlement terms contained in the MOU; (2) the certification of a
settlement class; and (3) court approval of the settlement
agreement.  The settlement provides for the Company and the co-
defendants to pay an aggregate of $130 million to a settlement
fund for class members, including $10 million from the Company
Defendants, in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of the
Litigation and the unconditional release of all claims that class
members brought or could have brought against the Company
Defendants and the co-defendants with respect to the Litigation
and related actions.

The settlement agreement is not yet consummated.  The terms
outlined in the MOU are subject to the parties concluding a
definitive settlement agreement, which must be presented to the
court for approval pursuant to the requirements for settlement of
a civil class action.


TWIN MARQUIS: Recalls Specific Lots of Cooked and Lo Mein Noodle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twin Marquis, Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, is recalling specific lots of
Twin Marquis COOKED NOODLE and LO MEIN NOODLE listed below because
they contain undeclared milk.  People who have an allergy to milk
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

The recalled products were distributed in NY, PA, NJ, CT, VA, MD,
MA, NC, FL, and MI through Asian food retail stores and food
services (Chinese and Asian restaurants).

Twin Marquis LO MEIN NOODLE, NET WT. 5 LB (refrigerated or
frozen), is a yellow raw noodle packed in a plastic film bag
package, and bears UPC # 7 60941 90718 8.  The following lots are
being recalled: 10329, 10330, 10331, 11301, 11302, 11304, 11305,
11306, 11307, 11308, 11309, 11311, 11312, and 11313.

Twin Marquis COOKED NOODLE, NET WT. 16 OZ, UPC 7 60941 10421 1,
and NET WT. 5 LB (refrigerated or frozen), UPC 7 60941 90714 0, is
yellow boiled noodle packed in a plastic film bag package.  The
following lots are being recalled: COOKED NOODLE 16 OZ, Lots:
10329, 10330, 10331, 11301, 11302, 11304, 11305, 11306, 11309,
11311, 11312, and 11313. COOKED NOODLE 5 LB, Lots: 10329, 10330,
10331, 11301, 11302, 11304, 11306, 11308, 11309, 11311, and 11213.
The secondary (outer) packages are brown cardboard boxes.  The lot
numbers are printed on primary plastic packages and outer boxes.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after receiving notice from the FDA
during an audit check that the dried whole egg powder supplied by
DEB-EL Food Products, LLC contains undeclared milk and thus being
recalled.  The packaging of dried whole egg powder (lot # 1843)
did not reveal the presence of milk.  The Twin Marquis' noodle
products listed above were made using the dried whole egg powder
as an ingredient.

Consumers who are allergic to milk should not consume the above
products.  Consumers who have purchased the above products and lot
numbers are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
718-386-6868, Monday - Friday, 9am - 6 pm, ET.


UNILEVER US: Wells Suit Dismissed Pending Ruling in Reid Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, Sr., signed a stipulation
and order dismissing, without prejudice, the class action
captioned JOSEPHINE WELLS and CATHERINE RENY, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., LEK INC., and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a
UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-
04749-SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

Because this matter has been resolved as part of a February 7,
2014 nationwide class settlement in a related matter, Reid, et al.
v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al., N.D. Ill. Case No. 12-cv-
6058, subject to final approval, the parties asked that Judge
Armstrong stay or dismiss this suit pending the final approval
hearing in the Reid lawsuit, currently set for July 9, 2014.

The Plaintiffs in this case assert a variety of claims relating to
a hair care product, the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30
Day Smoothing Kit. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts claims for
breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection statutes,
false advertising, unjust enrichment, strict product liability and
negligence/gross negligence on behalf of (a) a putative class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Product in any state
other than Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada and Wisconsin or,
in the alternative, (b) all persons who purchased the Product in
the state of California. The Plaintiffs' counsel have also filed
two other putative class actions alleging virtually identical
claims: the Reid lawsuit, alleging claims on behalf of residents
of Alabama, Illinois, Nevada and Wisconsin; and Naiser v. Unilever
United States, Inc., W.D. Ky. Case No. 13-cv-395, alleging claims
on behalf of residents of Kentucky.

"By stipulation of the parties, this matter is dismissed without
prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs," ruled Judge
Armstrong.

A copy of the District Court's February 19, 2014 Stipulation and
Order is available at http://is.gd/nHEw70from Leagle.com.

AZRA Z. MEHDI (220406) -- azram@themehdifirm.com -- THE MEHDI
FIRM, PC, San Francisco, CA, Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, Jeffrey R. Williams (Bar No. 84156) --
jrwilliams@schiffhardin.com -- Rocky N. Unruh (Bar No. 84049) --
runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Sarah D. Youngblood (Bar No. 244304) --
syoungblood@schiffhardin.com -- San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for
Defendants Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc. d/b/a
Unilever Home & Personal Care USA.


UNILEVER US: Recalls 20-Count Boxes of Popsicles
------------------------------------------------
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 www.foodallergy.org


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Accused of Violating Labor Laws in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported in February that Urban Outfitters
stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor laws, a class
action claims in California Superior Court.


VIRGINIA: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Court Ruled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutionally interferes
with couples' right to marry, reported Annie Youderian at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling dated
February 13, 2014.

"The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's marriage laws
unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the
fundamental freedom to choose to marry," U.S. District Judge
Arenda Wright Allen wrote.  "Government interests in perpetuating
traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and
favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this
country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the
private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and
family."

Two couples challenged the state's laws as a violation of their
due process and equal protection rights under the U.S.
Constitution.

Proponents of the laws argued that the state has the right to
define marriage according to the will of its citizens, who in 2004
voted for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union
between "one man and one woman."  They also cited tradition,
federalism, and "responsible procreation" and "optimal child
rearing" as justifications for the same-sex marriage ban.

Allen was not convinced.

"Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as
heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving,
intimate and lasting relationships," she wrote in her 41-page
ruling.  "Such relationships are created through the exercise of
sacred, personal choices -- choices, like the choices made by
every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government
interference."

Allen blocked the state from denying same-sex marriage licenses or
refusing to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere.  She
stayed her ruling, however, pending the state's appeal.

Claire Gastanaga, executive director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Virginia, lauded February 13's ruling, saying
the judge was "right to strike down this sweeping and
discriminatory ban."

The ACLU filed a separate class action last August on behalf of
same-sex couples in Virginia.  Allen's ruling does not affect the
federal class action.  Attorneys in that case recently filed a
motion for summary judgment, which is still pending.

The case is Bostic, et al. v. Rainey, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
00395-AWA-LRL, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Norfolk Division.


WELLS FARGO: Ursomano Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Fladell Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Patrick Ursomano, Giovanni Canonico, and Ursula
Canonico brought a proposed class action against Wells Fargo Bank
N.A., Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc., Assurant, Inc., and American
Security Insurance Company, alleging unfair business practices
related to "force-placed" hazard insurance.  The case is captioned
PATRICK URSOMANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-4381 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay all
proceedings in the action, until settlement proceedings conclude
in a related action, Fladell v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., et al,
pending in the Southern District of Florida.

In a February 19, 2014 Order, a copy of which is may be accessed
at http://is.gd/7LPtuCfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Edward M.
Chen granted the request and stayed all proceedings in this action
until further notice.

The hearing on the Defendants' motions to dismiss and the case
management conference that was set for February 27, 2014 was
vacated. A status conference is set for March 20, 2014 at 10:30
a.m. at which time the parties will address the appropriateness of
continuing the stay in light of the specifics of the Fladell
proposed settlement. A joint status conference statement was to be
filed by March 13, 2014.


WP CAREY: TRO Request in Lawsuit Over CPA 16 Merger Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
denied a motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the
vote of Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated's
stockholders on January 24, 2014 to approve or reject a merger
with W. P. Carey, according to CPA 16 - Global's Jan. 13, 2014
Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

According to W. P. Carey Inc.'s Jan. 13, 2014 Form 8-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission:

On December 31, 2013, Ira Gaines ("Gaines") and entities
affiliated with Gaines commenced a purported class action (Ira
Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property Associates 16-Global
Incorporated, Index. No. 650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)
against W. P. Carey, WPC REIT, CPA:16 - Global, and the directors
of CPA:16 - Global. The complaint alleges (i) that the Merger is
unfair to CPA:16 - Global stockholders, (ii) breaches of fiduciary
duty by the individual defendants, all of whom are members of the
board of directors of CPA:16  --  Global, (iii) that the entity
defendants aided and abetted the directors in breaching their
fiduciary duties, and (iv) that the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus relating contained inadequate disclosure
about certain matters.

The complaint demands (i) that a class be certified and plaintiffs
named as class representatives, (ii) supplemental disclosures to
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, be issued (iii) the Merger
be rescinded if it is consummated, (iv) damages be awarded, and
(v) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and other costs be reimbursed.

On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue a
temporary restraining order on January 17, 2014 enjoining the vote
of the stockholders of CPA:16 - Global pending the completion of
expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction hearing.

W. P. Carey believes that these claims are without merit, and
intends to defend the case vigorously.


ZICAM LLC: Response to "Melgar" Suit Due Today
----------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. signed an initial stipulation
and order extending the time for defendants to respond to the
class action complaint captioned YESENIA MELGAR, on Behalf of
Herself and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZICAM LLC
and MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-00160-
MCE-AC, (E.D. Cal.).

The parties and their counsel stipulated that the deadline for
Defendants' response to the Complaint is extended to March 18,
2014.

The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint in the Eastern
District of California on January 21, 2014 under Case No. 2:14-cv-
00160-MCE-AC.  The Defendants' response to the Complaint was due
February 18, 2014.

A copy of the District Court's February 18, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/IsBY3Ffrom Leagle.com.

ALAN J. LAZARUS -- alan.lazarus@dbr.com -- WILLIAM A. HANSSEN --
william.hanssen@dbr.com -- SALLY F. WHITE -- sally.white@dbr.com -
- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, San Francisco, CA. Attorneys for
Defendants ZICAM LLC and MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC.

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com --
Sarah N. Westcot -- swestcot@bursor.com -- Annick M. Persinger --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Julie A. Luster, Attorneys for Plaintiff
YESENIA MELGAR


ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION: Court Did Not Certify Class in Labels Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California refused to certify a class in the lawsuit commenced by
Kimberly S. Sethavanish.

Ms. Sethavanish alleges that the Defendant's nutrition bars, which
bear on their labels the statement "All-Natural Nutrition Bars,"
are not all-natural and, hence, misleadingly labeled.

Zoneperfect Nutrition Company manufactures, distributes, and sells
nutrition bars through walk-in and online retailers.

The case is Kimberly S. Sethavanish, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Zoneperfect Nutrition Company,
Case No. 3:12-cv-02907-SC, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.


* Oregon Senate Votes Against Class Action Bill
-----------------------------------------------
Harry Esteve, writing for The Oregonian, reports that after a
contentious, partisan debate the Oregon Senate quashed an attempt
to allocate unclaimed damage awards from class action lawsuits to
the state's Legal Aid services.

The bill died, as expected, when Sen. Betsy Johnson, a Democrat
from Scappoose joined all Republicans in voting against it.  That
resulted in a 15-15 tie, which killed the bill.

Republicans were miffed that they even had to vote on the bill,
calling it a naked political move aimed at giving Democrats
campaign fodder.

The concern, expressed openly by several Republican senators, is
that they will now be painted as wanting to help Big Oil and Big
Tobacco -- both targets of class action suits in Oregon -- instead
of the average or low-income voter.

Democrats, naturally, took exception.

At issue was House Bill 4143, which would have required any
unclaimed damage awards to be collected by the state and given to
Legal Aid instead of being returned to the company that lost a
class action suit, as is the practice now.

The bill passed the House, but never appeared to stand a chance in
the Senate because of Johnson's opposition.


* Seven of 25 Largest Class Action Settlements Approved in 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seven of the 25 largest class action settlements since passage of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 were approved
in 2013, according to a new report released by the Securities
Class Action Services unit of Institutional Shareholder Services
Inc.

The Top 100 Class Action Settlements Semi-Annual Report also noted
that 12 settlements from 2013 made the top 100 list.  Below is a
list of all 12 class action settlements for 2013, ranked by the
total value of the settlement fund.

-- Bank of America Corporation            $2,425,000,000
-- American International Group, Inc.     $1,009,500,000
-- Citigroup Bonds                          $730,000,000
-- Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.           $636,218,000
-- Citigroup, Inc.                          $590,000,000
-- Countrywide Financial Corp.              $500,000,000
-- Adelphia Communications Corp.            $478,725,000
-- Schering-Plough Corp.                    $473,000,000
-- Bernard L. Madoff Investment
    Securities LLC                           $219,857,694
-- Merck & Co., Inc.                        $215,000,000
-- Pharmacia Corp.                          $164,000,000
-- Federal National Mortgage Association    $153,000,000

"Last year ranked as an active one for securities class-action
settlements, with 12 making our Top 100 settlements list.  This
ties 2009 and 2006, which both saw 12 settlements added to the Top
100, as the biggest year for additions to the list since the
passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,"
said J. Scott Berniker, Executive Director and Head of Securities
Class Action Services at ISS.

The Top 100 Class Action Settlements Semi-Annual report identifies
the largest securities class action settlements filed after the
passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
ranked by total value of the settlement fund.  Charts and graphs
break down the data by settlements represented by institutional
lead plaintiff, institutional lead plaintiff participation, most
frequent lead counsel, lead counsel participation, most frequent
claims administrator, claims administrator participation,
restatements, the number of settlements that were added to
Securities Class Action Services' top 30 SEC disgorgements, and
the top 30 SEC disgorgements.

To download a copy of the report and for further information on
ISS' Securities Class Action Services division, please visit the
company's website at http://www.issgovernance.com/scas

                            About ISS

ISS, founded in 1985 as Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.,
-- http://www.issgovernance.com-- is the world's leading provider
of proxy advisory and corporate governance solutions to financial
market participants.  ISS' services include objective proxy
research and analysis, end-to-end proxy voting and distribution
solutions, turnkey securities class-action claims management, and
reliable governance data and modeling tools.  More than 1,700
clients rely on ISS' expertise to help them make informed
corporate governance decisions.  ISS is located in financial
centers worldwide and is a subsidiary of MSCI Inc., a leading
provider of investment decision support tools to investors
globally.


                             *********

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  * * *