CAR_Public/140320.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 20, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 56

                             Headlines


ABBOTT: Recalls Blood Glucose Meters Due to Erroneous Test Results
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: "Fox" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
AVMED INC: Judge Approves $3MM Data Breach Class Action Settlement
BMC-USA: Recalls 1,311 Stromer ST1 Electric Bicycles
COCA COLA: "Ambriz" Suit Transferred From N.D. to C.D. California

COMMUNITY ASPHALT: Removed "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. Florida
CONN'S INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
CONRAN SHOP: Recalls 28 Pondicherry Dining Tables Due to Lead
COOK MEDICAL: Faces "Tasker" Suit Over Inferior Vena Cava Filter
CREMINELLI FINE: Recalls 101 Pounds Pork Due to Mislabelling

DAVID'S CAFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DOLE FRESH: Recalls Bagged Salad Due to Listeria Risk
ELPIDA MEMORY: May 5 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
FAIRBRIDGE FARM: Court Allows Child Abuse Claims to Proceed
FRAN'S FRYERS: Recalls Poultry Products Due to Lack of Inspection

GARMIN LTD: Sued by Purchaser of Garmin Forerunner 610 Watches
GE FUNDING: May 6 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
GOOGLE INC: Faces "Imber-Gluck" Suit Over Game App Purchases
GRANT & WEBER: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Cal. Suit Claims
GREATBATCH INC: Corrects Instructions for Cup Impactors

HANDY WASH: Fails to Pay Drivers' Back Wages, Suit Claims
HC SCHAU: Recalls Tomato Basil Bread Due to Undeclared Pine Nuts
IRIDIUM SERVICES: Bus Driver Sues for Unpaid Overtime & Damages
JON BURGE: Loyola Dean to Investigate Inmates' Abuse Complaints
K12 INC: Accused of Issuing Misstatements Over Student Enrollment

KING CITY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Civil Rights Violations
LOCKPORT BEEF: Sued for Not Paying OT Wages for All Hours Worked
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Class Action in Calif.
MEDTECH PRODUCTS: Removed "Manier" Suit to S.D. California
MERAN ENTERPRISE: Sued for Violating FLSA and IL Minimum Wage Law

MOBILEPOWER LLC: Recalls Multi-Function Power Packs
MT. GOX: Bankruptcy Protection Temporarily Halts Class Action
NORWALK MUNICIPAL: Sued for Allegedly Running "Debtors Prisons"
NU SKIN: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action in Utah
OREGON FREEZE: Recalls Kirkland Sliced Fruit Due to Salmonella

OUTLINE OAKCREST: Class Seeks Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages
PFIZER INC: Faces "Joyce" Suit in Virginia Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Faces "Martin" Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Faces "Sheneman" Suit in Va. Over Lipitor Drug
RATTLE N HUM: Accused of Violating FLSA's Overtime Provisions

SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls VPRIV Due to Barium Sulfate
SIRIUS XM: Recorded Telephone Calls Without Consent, Suit Claims
SNI NATIONAL: Recalls All Kratom Products
SOUHUR SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
SWAGAT RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says

TJX COMPANIES: Recalls Gardeners Eden Light-Up Decorations
TOURIST PROMOTIONS: Sued for Failing to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA
TRANSPORT WORKERS: Sued Over American Air's Equity Distribution
UNITED NATIONS: Faces New Suit Over Role in Haiti Cholera Epidemic
UNITED STATES: Catholic Organization Sue to Block HHS Mandate

VISTEON CORP: "Pierce" Class Granted $314,000 in Legal Costs
VOLKSWAGEN: 3rd Cir. Okays Attorneys Fees Award in Class Action
WESTERN UNION: Faces "Garavaglia" Securities Suit in Colorado
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Nova Scotia Court Certifies Hip Implant Suit

* Class Action Attorney Bound to Fee Agreement, 7th Cir. Says
* ISS Lists Top 12 Securities Class Action Settlements for 2013


                             *********


ABBOTT: Recalls Blood Glucose Meters Due to Erroneous Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott is voluntarily conducting a recall for the FreeStyle(R)
Blood Glucose Meter and the FreeStyle Flash(R) Blood Glucose
Meter.  These two meters have not been in production since 2010.

Other Abbott Diabetes Care meters are not affected by the recall.

When used with the Abbott FreeStyle test strips, the FreeStyle
Blood Glucose Meter and the FreeStyle Flash Blood Glucose Meter
may produce mistakenly low blood glucose results. Abbott began
notifying users on Feb. 19, 2014, immediately after the issue was
discovered.

This voluntary recall does not apply to any other Freestyle brand
blood glucose monitoring systems -- Freestyle Lite(R), Freestyle
Freedom Lite(R) or Freestyle InsuLinx(R) systems can continue to
be used with the Freestyle test strips.

Abbott recommends the following actions for people with meters
affected by this recall:

     * Immediately contact Abbott Diabetes Care at 1-888-345-5364
to obtain a replacement meter.

     * If you have access to an alternative glucose meter,
immediately discontinue use of the affected meter and take the
necessary steps to continue to monitor your blood sugar with the
alternative meter.

     * If the only meter available to you is an affected meter,
continue to test your blood glucose as recommend by your doctor
while you wait for your replacement meter. When using an affected
meter, take the following precautions to reduce the chance of a
false reading:

        -- As stated in the product insert, perform a quality
control solution test to confirm that your meter is working
correctly. Do not use a test strip vial if control solution
results are not within the expected range.

        -- Contact your health care provider immediately if your
blood glucose result(s) are not consistent with your diabetes
history, how you feel, or if you think your results are not
accurate (higher or lower than expected). Symptoms of high blood
sugar include excessive thirst, excessive urination, blurred
vision, weakness, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. If you are
experiencing any of these symptoms or are not feeling well,
contact your health care professional immediately.

For users of the OmniPod(R) Insulin Management System with the
built-in FreeStyle Blood Glucose Meter, please refer to the
previously sent letter for Abbott recommended actions or visit
https://www.abbottdiabetescare.com/press-room/2014/2014-b.html

For more information, please visit
www.abbottdiabetescare.com/press-room

Abbott Diabetes Care, based in Alameda, Calif., is a leader in
developing, manufacturing and marketing glucose monitoring systems
designed to help people better manage their diabetes. Additional
information about Abbott Diabetes Care may be found at
www.abbottdiabetescare.com

Abbott is a global healthcare company devoted to improving life
through the development of products and technologies that span the
breadth of healthcare. With a portfolio of leading, science-based
offerings in diagnostics, medical devices, nutritionals and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, Abbott serves people in more than
150 countries and employs approximately 69,000 people.
Visit Abbott at www.abbott.com and connect with us on
Twitter@AbbottNews


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: "Fox" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ann Fox v. Asset Acceptance,
LLC, Case No. 3:13-CV-00922-DMS-BGS, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California at San
Diego to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Los Angeles).  The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          369 South Doheny Drive, Suite 415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashley R. Fickel, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 457-1850
          E-mail: afickel@dykema.com

               - and -

          Edward D. Totino, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
          E-mail: edward.totino@dlapiper.com


AVMED INC: Judge Approves $3MM Data Breach Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP disclosed that on February 21, a
federal judge in the Southern District of Florida approved a
$3 million data breach class action settlement agreement between
AvMed, Inc. and plaintiffs.  This case arose from a December 2009
theft of two unencrypted laptops storing the personal information
of persons receiving healthcare coverage through AvMed.  This
settlement is significant because, for the first time, plaintiffs
in a data breach case who did not suffer actual damages are
permitted to claim a share of the settlement funds.  Whether this
approach serves as a model for future settlements is not clear.

Under the agreement's terms, AvMed will establish a $3 million
fund to pay the following:

   * Class members whose personal information was actually on the
stolen laptops, but who have not suffered identity theft, can
receive $10 for each year they paid AvMed for health insurance
coverage before the December 2009 incident, up to a maximum
recovery of $30.  This relief is intended to compensate class
members for that portion of their premiums that plaintiffs contend
AvMed should have devoted to adequate data protection protocols
and procedures.  This group comprises the "Premium Overpayment
Settlement Class."

   * Those class members who actually suffered identity theft will
be reimbursed for the amount of any proven monetary loss that is
shown by that member to have occurred "more likely than not" as a
result of the December 2009 breach.  Members of this class may
also claim under the Premium Overpayment Settlement Class.  The
parties have allocated $250,000 to cover identity theft claims by
this sub-class.

   * An incentive award of $10,000 to be split evenly among the
two class representatives (for their efforts in serving as class
representatives).

   * Attorneys' fees and costs for the plaintiffs' class
attorneys, in the amount of $750,000.
   * The costs of sending notices to the settlement classes as
well as all costs of settlement administration.

AvMed will retain the right to contest any submitted claims before
a designated special master.  This is particularly critical to
those claims for identity theft damages because the claimants will
be required to demonstrate, as noted above, that their alleged
damages were "more likely than not" proximately caused by the
December 2009 data breach.  Specifically, this is the very
standard that they would have had to meet at trial and is the
standard that plaintiffs continue to find the most difficult to
meet.  Therefore, it remains to be seen how this portion of the
agreement will be applied practically.  The difficulties facing
potential claimants are belied by the fact that only $250,000 of
the $3,000,000 fund is allocated for this segment.

In addition to creating the settlement fund, AvMed had agreed to
implement the following data security steps before the settlement
was even approved by the court:

     * Conduct mandatory security awareness and training programs
for all employees;

     * For those employees whose responsibilities include the
accessing of information on AvMed laptops, conduct additional
mandatory training on appropriate laptop use and security;

     * Upgrade all company laptops with additional security
mechanisms (including GPS tracking technology);

     * Implement full disk encryption technology on all company
desktops and laptops so that the data stored on these devices is
encrypted at rest;

     * Implement new password protocols;

     * Implement physical security upgrades at AvMed facilities
and offices; and

     * Review and revise written policies and procedures.

These seven steps are all efforts that any company handling
sensitive information (whether it is personal data of customers or
internal propriety data relating to research and development,
marketing or human resources) should be implementing now -- and if
they are not doing so, they should start immediately.

Additionally, the significance of this agreement lies with the
allocation of a fixed amount ($10 per year) targeted to funds that
allegedly should have been devoted to data security investment by
the defendant (typically arising from claims for unjust
enrichment).  Plaintiffs have pleaded this unjust enrichment
theory in other data breach cases throughout the United States
over the years without success.  It remains to be seen whether
this agreement will be the foundation for future claims based on
these theories.

Finally, even though this particular case was directed against a
healthcare industry actor, it would appear to be translatable to
any other business sector handling third-party sensitive data, but
especially those handling personal data (whether health or
financial).

Therefore, while it is not clear whether this approach to
settlement will ultimately take off, it is very clear that all
businesses handling any sensitive third-party data should be
examining their IT systems and related data security policies and
protocols in an effort to: (i) identify security weaknesses; and
(ii) remedy those weaknesses so as to minimize the risks of a data
breach or other similar mishap.


BMC-USA: Recalls 1,311 Stromer ST1 Electric Bicycles
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with
BMC-USA, of Boston, announced voluntary recall of about 1,300 in
the U.S. and 11 in Canada Stromer ST1 electric bicycles. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The bicycle fork can break, posing a crash and injury hazard to
the rider.

BMC has received one report of a fork breaking, resulting in minor
scrapes and bruises to the rider.

This recall involves all 2013 Stromer ST1 women's and men's pedal-
assist electric bicycles, models M33 Elite and P48 Platinum. The
bikes were sold in three colors; black, red and white. They have
an integrated lithium battery located inside the down tube, motor
on the rear hub and a three-button LCD system display on the
handlebars. "Stromer" is printed on the top tube of the bicycle
frame and on the seat and chain guard. The fork's serial numbers
for the recalled bikes start with: ST1S2F, ST1S2G, ST1S2H, ST1S2I,
ST1S2J, ST1S3A, ST1S3B, ST1S3C, ST1S3D and ST1S3E. The serial
number is etched at the bottom of the rear fork.

Picture of the recalled product are available at:

     http://is.gd/pigu3O

The recalled products were manufactured by MyStromer AG, of
Switzerland and sold online from January 2012 to May 2013 for
between $3,500 and $4,000.

User should stop using the recalled bicycle and take it to an
authorized Stromer dealer and will receive a free replacement fork
and have it installed at no cost.

Consumer contact: BMC-USA at (800) 819-4262 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ET Monday through Friday, online at www.stromer.ch and click on
Fork Recall for more information, or email andrew.gelles@bmc-
switzerland.com for more information.


COCA COLA: "Ambriz" Suit Transferred From N.D. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Daniel Ambriz v. Coca Cola
Company, et al., Case No. 4:13-CV-03539-JST, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00715-
SVW-FFM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay him
and all other similarly situated individuals for all vested
vacation pay, failed to provide them with meal periods, failed to
provide them with rest periods, failed to pay premium wages for
unprovided meal and rest periods, failed to pay at least minimum
wages for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages, failed
to provide them with accurate written wage statements, and failed
to timely pay them all of their final wages following separation
of employment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Hayley DeAnn Clair Schwartzkopf, Esq.
          Adrienne Alayne Herrera, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  hayley@setarehlaw.com
                  adrienne@setarehlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lena Kae Sims, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: lsims@littler.com

               - and -

          Jennifer B. Robinson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          333 Commerce Street, Suite 1450
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 383-3374
          Facsimile: (615) 383-3323
          E-mail: jenrobinson@littler.com


COMMUNITY ASPHALT: Removed "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Gonzalez v. Community
Asphalt Corp., Case No. 14-00318-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-20354-CMA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anisley Tarragona, Esq.
          Christine Lynne Wilson, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          E-mail: Anisley.Tarragona@JacksonLewis.com
                  wilsonc@jacksonlewis.com


CONN'S INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Conn's,
Inc. on March 11 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of a class comprising all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock
and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options between
April 3, 2013 and February 19, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888)
773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

Conn's operates specialty retail locations in Texas, Louisiana,
Arizona, Oklahoma and New Mexico, offering home appliance,
furniture and mattress, consumer electronics and home office
products.  The Company also provides in-house credit options for
its customers in addition to third-party financing programs and
third-party rent-to-own payment plans.  The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was increasing its business and
financial results by using underwriting and collections practices
that, despite defendants' statements to the contrary, weakened the
Company's portfolio quality and left it vulnerable to substantial
increases in bad debt; (2) the Company was experiencing rising
delinquencies at a substantially different rate than it was
representing; (3) the Company's credit segment practices
substantially threatened the Company's financial performance; and
(4), as a result of the above, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a
reasonable basis.

On February 20, 2014, Conn's announced that its credit segment
provision for bad debts as a percentage of the average outstanding
portfolio balance was expected to exceed previously issued
full-year fiscal 2014 guidance, and that the percentage of its
customer portfolio balance 60-plus days delinquent at January 31,
2014 was 8.8% -- an increase of 30 basis points from October 31,
2013. As a result of this news, the price of Conn's shares
declined $23.91 per share, or nearly 43%, to close at $31.89 per
share on February 20, 2014, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than May 5, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael
Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York,
New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


CONRAN SHOP: Recalls 28 Pondicherry Dining Tables Due to Lead
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Conran Shop, announced a voluntary recall of about 28 units
Dining Tables. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell
a recalled consumer product.

The lacquer paint on the furniture can contain excessive levels of
lead, a violation of the federal lead paint standard.

There has been one reported incident of elevated lead levels in
the table.

The wood tables have a table top wrapped in brass. The brass has
been coated with zinc to give it a green patina, and then coated
with a clear matte lacquer. The tables are about 78 inches long,
36 inches wide and 29 inches tall and have four legs made of teak
wood. The table top is made of acacia wood and has either four or
six panels of zinc-patinated brass nailed to it.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/6OomoR

The recalled products were manufactured by Goel Exports, of New
Delhi, in India, and sold at The Conran Shop inside ABC Carpet &
Home at 888 and 881 Broadway in New York from August 2009 to July
2011 for about $1,500.

The user should stop using the recall table and contact The Conran
Shop for a full refund and to arrange for the table to be picked
up. The Conran Shop is contacting consumers directly.


COOK MEDICAL: Faces "Tasker" Suit Over Inferior Vena Cava Filter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Tasker v. Cook Medical Incorporated a/k/a Cook Medical,
Inc.; Cook Incorporated; Cook Group, Inc.; and William Cook Europe
APS, Case No. 1:14-cv-00139-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 30, 2014)
is an action for damages relating to the Defendants' development,
testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging, labeling,
preparing, distribution, marketing, supplying, and selling the
alleged defective product sold under the name "inferior vena cava
filter."

Cook Medical Incorporated is an Indiana Corporation based in
Bloomington, Indiana.  Cook Incorporated is the parent company of
Cook Medical and is an Indiana Corporation also based in
Bloomington.  Cook Group, Inc. is the parent company of Cook
Medical and Cook Incorporated, and is an Indiana Corporation also
based in Bloomington.  William Cook Europe APS is based in
Bjaeverskov, Denmark, and regularly conducts business in the state
of Indiana.

The Cook Entities develop, manufacture, sell and distribute
medical devices for use in various medical applications, including
endovascular cardiology, and surgical products throughout the
United States and around the world.  Cook's products include the
Gunther Tulip Vena Cava Filter and the Cook Celect Vena Cava
Filter, which are used for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary
embolism via placement in the vena cava.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. Freiberg, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERIC W. NESSLER
          & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          536 North Bruns Lane, Suite One
          Springfield, IL 62702
          Telephone: (800) 727-8010
                     (217) 698-0202
          Facsimile: (217) 698-0203
          E-mail: freiberglaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Troy Brenes, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: tbrenes@lopezmchugh.com


CREMINELLI FINE: Recalls 101 Pounds Pork Due to Mislabelling
------------------------------------------------------------
Creminelli Fine Meats, LLC, a Salt Lake City, Utah, establishment,
is recalling 31 pieces (approximately 101 pounds) of fully-cooked-
not-shelf-stable,  ready-to-eat pork roast products because they
were produced under the wrong Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) plan and for mislabeling, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

     * 3-4-lb. packages of "Creminelli Artisan Deli Porchetta
Seasoned Boneless Pork Roast"

Each package bears the establishment number "34644" inside the
USDA mark of inspection. The products were sold exclusively
through internet sales to 28 customers, who have been identified
by the company. These products were delivered to customers between
Oct. 15, 2013 and Nov. 15, 2013. These products were not
distributed to retail stores or restaurants, and other products
produced by the company are not impacted.

The problem was discovered by the Kansas State Department of
Agriculture during routine surveillance. The product is being
recalled because the company was using a HACCP plan for a
different category of ready-to-eat products.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the
recall can contact the company at (801) 428-1820 or
info@creminelli.com

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:

     http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


DAVID'S CAFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milton Pineda v. David's Cafe, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20361-UU
(S.D. Fla., January 30, 2014) is brought on behalf of the
Company's similarly situated employees to recover overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

David's Cafe, Inc., owns and operates a restaurant and maintains a
corporate office in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          2501 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 100
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 921-9994
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


DOLE FRESH: Recalls Bagged Salad Due to Listeria Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Dole Fresh Vegetables is voluntarily recalling a limited number of
cases of bagged salad.  The products being recalled are Dole
Italian Blend (UPC 7143000819), Fresh Selections Italian Style
Blend (UPC 1111091045), Little Salad Bar Italian Salad (UPC
4149811014) and Marketside Italian Style Salad (UPC 8113102780)
coded A058201A or B, with Use-by date of March 12, 2014 due to a
possible health risk from Listeria monocytogenes. Dole Fresh
Vegetables is coordinating closely with regulatory officials.

The product code and Use-by date are in the upper right-hand
corner of the package; the UPC code is on the back of the package,
below the barcode. The salads were distributed in 15 U.S. states
(Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia) and 3 Canadian
provinces (New Brunswick, Ontario & Quebec).

No illnesses have been reported in association with the recall.
This precautionary recall notification is being issued due one
sample of Dole Italian salad which yielded a positive result for
Listeria monocytogenes in a random sample test conducted by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Although product is 1 day past its Use-By date and it is highly
unlikely that any product is still available at retail, retailers
should check their inventories and store shelves to confirm that
none of the product is mistakenly present or available for
purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories. Dole Fresh
Vegetables customer service representatives are already contacting
retailers and are in the process of confirming that the recalled
product is being removed from the stream of commerce.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause foodborne
illness in a person who eats a food item contaminated with it.
Symptoms of infection may include fever, muscle aches,
gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea. The illness
primarily impacts pregnant women and adults with weakened immune
systems. Most healthy adults and children rarely become seriously
ill.

No other salads are included in the recall. Only the specific
Product Codes, UPC codes and March 12, 2014 Use-by date identified
above are included in the recall. Consumers who have any remaining
product with these Product Codes should not consume it, but rather
discard it. Retailers and consumers with questions may call the
Dole Food Company Consumer Response Center at (800) 356-3111,
which is open 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (PT) Monday - Friday.


ELPIDA MEMORY: May 5 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are class action settlements involving DRAM, a memory part
that is sold by itself or as part of electronic devices such as
computers, printers, and video game consoles.

The lawsuits claim that the Defendants fixed the price of DRAM
causing individuals and businesses to pay more for DRAM and DRAM-
containing devices.  The Defendants deny that they did anything
wrong.

Who is included in the Settlements?

Individuals and businesses that:

   * Purchased DRAM or a device containing DRAM anywhere in
     the U.S. between 1998 and 2002,

   * For their own use or for resale.

Purchases made directly from a DRAM manufacturer are not included
(see the list of manufacturers at www.DRAMclaims.com or by calling
1-800-589-1425).

What do the Settlements provide?

The combined Settlements total $310 million.  The amount of money
you will receive depends on the type and quantity of electronic
devices you purchased and the total number of claims made.

Eligible individuals and businesses are expected to get a minimum
$10 payment and perhaps much more.  Large purchasers could recover
many thousands of dollars.

How can I get a payment?

Claim online or by mail by August 1, 2014.  The simple online
Claim Form only takes 3-5 minutes for most individuals.

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions.
If you want to keep your right to sue the Defendants yourself, you
must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by May 5, 2014.
If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the
Settlements by May 5, 2014.

The Court will hold a hearing on June 25, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
to consider whether to approve the Settlements and a request
for attorneys' fees up to 25% of the Settlement Fund, plus
reimbursement of costs and expenses.  You or your own lawyer
may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.

The Defendants are:

Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc. ("Elpida");
Hitachi, Ltd. ("Hitachi");

Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.,
presently known as SK hynix Inc. and SK hynix America Inc.
("Hynix");

Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America
Corp. ("Infineon");

Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.
("Micron");

Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA,
Inc. ("Mitsubishi");

Mosel-Vitelic Corp., Mosel-Vitelic (USA), Inc. ("Mosel");
Nanya Technology Corp., Nanya Technology Corp. USA, Inc.
("Nanya");

NEC Electronics America, Inc., presently known as Renesas
Electronics America, Inc. ("NEC");

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
("Samsung");

Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
("Toshiba"); and

Winbond Electronics Corp., Winbond Electronics Corporation
America, Inc. ("Winbond")

For More Information:

1-800-589-1425 www.DRAMclaims.com
Text: "DRAM" to 96000
(You may receive notifications via text. Message & Data rates may
apply.)


FAIRBRIDGE FARM: Court Allows Child Abuse Claims to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorna Knowles, writing for ABC News, reports that after years of
technical legal arguments, the state's Supreme Court has granted
65 plaintiffs the right to sue the NSW Government, as well as the
Commonwealth and the Fairbridge Foundation.

Among the claims is that former governor-general Sir William Slim
molested boys during visits to the Fairbridge Farm School in the
1950s.  The plaintiffs say they suffered serious psychological
injury as a result of abuse at the school in Molong between 1938
and 1974.  They are among about 1,200 children sent to the school
as part of a post-war program to resettle poor children from
Britain in the colonies.  But instead of the oranges and sunshine
they were promised, many of the children say they were bashed and
sexually and emotionally abused.

Roop Sandhu, a lawyer with Slater and Gordon, is representing the
former child migrants in the class action.  Mr. Sandhu says the
recent court judgment is a landmark decision because it is the
first time a court has granted child migrants the right to sue the
State Government.  But he says the most humane approach now would
be to settle the case out of court.


FRAN'S FRYERS: Recalls Poultry Products Due to Lack of Inspection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fran's Fryers, a Milford, Texas, establishment, is recalling
approximately 251 pounds of various raw poultry products because
they were produced without the benefit of federal inspection, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The following Fran's Fryers products are subject to recall:

     * 2-lb. packages of "Boneless Dark 2# Chicken Leg Meat"
     * 2-lb. and 5-lb. packages of "Chicken Breast Tenders"
     * 3-lb. and 5-lb. packages of "Chicken Bone In Breast"
     * 5-lb. package of "Ground Turkey 5#"
     * 5-lb. packages of "Cut Up Fryer"
     * 5-lb. packages of "Whole Fryers"

Each package bears the establishment number "P 20784" inside the
USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced on November
11, 2013, and shipped to retail establishments in Texas.

The problem occurred due to a miscommunication between the company
and FSIS inspection program personnel assigned to the
establishment regarding the need for inspection coverage on the
federal holiday. The company produced product without the presence
of inspection program personnel.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
health care provider.

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

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the
recall can contact the plant manager, Brady Sweet, at (972) 493-
5305.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


GARMIN LTD: Sued by Purchaser of Garmin Forerunner 610 Watches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Katz on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated v. Garmin Ltd., Muhlentalstrasse 2, 8200 Schaffhausen,
Switzerland; and Garmin International, Inc., 1200 East 151st
Street, Olathe, KS, 66062, Case No. 1:14-cv-00678 (N.D. Ill.,
January 30, 2014) involves conduct by the Defendants arising out
of their design, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale and
service of the Garmin Forerunner 610 watches.

Garmin Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Switzerland, with its principal place of business in
Schaffhausen, Switzerland.  Garmin International, Inc., a
subsidiary of Garmin Ltd., is a Kansas corporation headquartered
in Olathe, Kansas.  Garmin carried on, had and continues to have
substantial business contact with the state of Illinois.  The
world's only Garmin retail location is located on the "Magnificent
Mile" (Michigan Avenue) in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          Mark Bryan Goldstein, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  lrhandelman@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com
                  mgoldstein@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Heideman, Esq.
          Noel J. Nudelman, Esq.
          Tracy Reichman Kalik, Esq.
          HEIDEMAN NUDELMAN & KALIK, P.C.
          1146 19th Street, NW 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202)463-1818
          Facsimile: (202)463-2999

The Defendants are represented by:

          Russel Bruce Duffield, Esq.
          Jena M. Valdetero, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 602-5087
          Facsimile: (312) 372-7068
          E-mail: bruce.duffield@bryancave.com
                  jena.valdetero@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Palazzolo, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
          One Metropolitan Square
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2321
          E-mail: tjpalazzolo@bryancave.com


GE FUNDING: May 6 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Municipal Derivative Transactions
from January 1, 1992 to August 18, 2011

You Could Get a Payment for a Class Action Settlement.

A proposed Settlement has been reached with GE Funding Capital
Market Services, Inc., Trinity Funding Co., LLC and Trinity Plus
Funding Co., LLC (collectively, "GE"), in a class action lawsuit
that alleges price-fixing in the sale of municipal derivatives
transactions by GE and other companies.  The case, In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950, No. 08-02516, is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

                Who Is Included In the Settlement?

This Settlement includes all state, local and municipal government
entities, independent government agencies, quasi-government, non-
profit and private entities that purchased:

(1) Municipal derivative transactions through negotiation,
competitive bidding or auction, from any Alleged Provider
Defendant or brokered by any Alleged Broker Defendant,

(2) Any time from January 1, 1992 through August 18, 2011 in the
United States and its territories or for delivery in the United
States and its territories.

The Defendants and Co-Conspirators are listed in the detailed
notice available on the Settlement website.

                 What Does the Settlement Provide?

GE agree to a settlement amount of $18.25 million.  This
Settlement is only a partial settlement of the lawsuit because it
only affects the claims against GE.  The lawsuit is continuing
against other Defendants, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia/Wells Fargo,
and JPMorgan have already settled.  GE will provide
reasonable cooperation, including discovery cooperation, to Class
Plaintiffs' Counsel in the litigation that will continue against
the other Defendants.

                         What Do I Do Now?

* Remain in the Settlement.  To remain in the Settlement Class and
participate in the Settlement, you do not have to do anything
now.  If the Court approves the Settlement, you give up the
right to sue GE for the claims and issues in this case.  The
Settlement Agreement specifically Paragraph1(bb), which is
available at www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.com describes in
more detail the legal claims that you give up if you stay in the
Class.  If you remain the Settlement Class, you still have the
right to exclude yourself from any other settlements with other
defendants reached in this lawsuit.  Claim forms are not available
now.  Register on the Settlement website to receive a claim form
when it becomes available.

* Exclude yourself from the Settlement.  If you do not want to
remain the Settlement Class, you must exclude yourself.  You must
send a written request for exclusion by first-class mail,
postmarked no later than May 6, 2014 to the Settlement
Administrator.  The detailed notice available on the Settlement
website describes the information you are required to include in
your request for exclusion.  If you exclude yourself, you cannot
participate in the Settlement, but you retain your rights to use
GE on your own for the claims in this lawsuit.

NOTE: You may receive similar notices regarding proposed
settlements with other Defendants (i.e., Bank of America).
However, if you wish to exclude yourself from the GE settlement,
you must send a separate and specific notice with regard to the GE
settlement.

* Object or Comment on the Settlement.  If you remain in the
Settlement Class and want to object to or comment on the GE
Settlement or any part of it, you must file an objection with the
Court and deliver a copy to Class Counsel and GE no later than
May 6, 2014.

   When Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve the Settlement?

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

The Court has appointed the law firms of Hausfeld LLP; Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP; and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. to serve as
Class Counsel and represent all Class Members.  If you want to be
represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own
expense.  You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing but are not required to.  If you want to be heard by the
Court, you must file a written notice of your intention to appear
with the Court and deliver a copy to the Class Counsel and GE no
later than May 6, 2014.  The Court may change the time and date of
the hearing.  Any change will be posted on the Settlement website.

                       Get More Information

For more information on this lawsuit, your rights, or to obtain a
list of defendants, call or visit the Settlement website listed
below or write to Municipal Derivatives Settlement, c/o Rust
Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2500, Faribault, MN 55021-9500.

For more information: 1-877-310-0512
www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Imber-Gluck" Suit Over Game App Purchases
------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. on March 10 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of parents whose minor children
downloaded a free or modestly priced game app on the Google Play
App Store, and then racked up unauthorized charges for in-app game
currency without the parents' knowledge or authorization.  The
lawsuit, captioned Imber-Gluck v. Google Inc., No. 5:14-cv-01070
(N.D. Cal.), was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and is brought on behalf of all
persons in the United States who paid for an unauthorized purchase
of game currency made by their minor children through the Google
Play App Store.

Specifically, the case alleges that the Google Play App Store
permits users to browse and download games either free or at a
minimal cost.  Among the thousands of Apps offered in the Google
Play App Store are many games targeted at children.  Although
there are numerous games that are offered for free or at a nominal
cost, many are designed to induce purchases of what Google refers
to as "In-App Purchases" or "In-App Content" that provide in-game
currency to facilitate playing the game as it was designed to be
played.  These games are engineered to be highly addictive and
require the purchase of in-game currency at times to continue
playing.  The games frequently permit the purchase of in-game
currency in large amounts as much as $100 per purchase or more.

Although Google requires users to authenticate their accounts by
entering a password prior to purchasing and/or downloading a game
or buying in-game currency, once the password is entered, Google
permits the user of a device to make additional purchases for up
to thirty minutes without re-entering the password.  This practice
is designed to enable children to purchase in-game currency
without parental permission and without having to enter a
password.  The purchases are then billed directly to the parent or
guardian.

This lawsuit follows Apple's $32.5 million settlement in January
2014 with the Federal Trade Commission over similar allegations,
as well as a private class action lawsuit that Apple settled in
2013 with its customers, in which Berger & Montague, P.C. was also
involved.  The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted final approval to the Apple
settlement on October 18, 2013.  Unlike Google, Apple changed its
practices so that its users must enter their password to make all
in-App purchases.

"Google has unfairly profited by marketing free or low-cost games
to children and by permitting them to easily rack up charges for
worthless in-game currency, by failing to incorporate reasonable
controls such as simply requiring the entry of a password," said
Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague, P.C.,
one of the attorneys representing Plaintiff.  "Google is certainly
aware that its primary competitor, Apple, has taken steps to end
this unfair practice, and Google should do the same."

"This practice is widespread, has been condemned by the Federal
Trade Commission and is being investigated by the European Union's
consumer protection officials," said Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. of Del
Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd, LLC, who also represents the plaintiff.  "A
company of Google's size and sophistication either is or should be
aware that it is permitting unauthorized charges by minor
children. We look forward to vindicating the rights of consumers
victimized by Google's policies in this regard."

Parents and guardians of children who purchased in-game currency
from the Google Play App Store without permission may obtain
additional information about the class action lawsuit by calling
Patrick F. Madden at (215) 875-3035, or by email at pmadden@bm.net

This case is being prosecuted by the class action law firms,
Berger & Montague, P.C., Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC, Carpenter
Law Group, and the Patterson Law Group, APC. Berger & Montague,
P.C. -- http://www.bergermontague.com-- consists of over 50
attorneys who represent plaintiffs in complex and class action
litigation.  The firm has played lead roles in major cases for
over 40 years resulting in recoveries of billions of dollars for
its clients and the classes they represent.


GRANT & WEBER: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Cal. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Camacho, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Grant & Weber and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 5:14-cv-00192-JAK-PJW (C.D. Cal.,
January 30, 2014) seeks damages and other equitable remedies
resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the Company in
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

Grant & Weber is engaged in a consumer debt buying and
recovery/collection business.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Paul Mankin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN IV
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com


GREATBATCH INC: Corrects Instructions for Cup Impactors
-------------------------------------------------------
Greatbatch, Inc. initiated a voluntary field corrective action for
all Standard Offset Cup Impactors after an internal review
determined that the sterilization recommendation in the
Instructions for Use for the product did not meet requirements for
sterility assurance, which has the potential to result in surgical
infection.  No incidents have been reported during clinical use of
the product, nor have there been any reported adverse events.
Greatbatch has developed new sterilization recommendations that
meet acceptable sterility assurance levels (AAMI ST79 standard)
and provided them to affected customers. Customers who have this
product should immediately begin utilizing the new sterilization
instructions.

The company has informed the FDA of this action, which impacts all
Standard Offset Cup Impactors manufactured and distributed from
2004 to 2013 as follows:

Name of Product: Standard Offset Cup Impactor
Quantity: 4889

   Catalog Number   Part Number    Part Name
   --------------   -----------    ---------
MIMP3100320            T12121      Impactor / M8 x 1
MIMP3100ADM01          T16604      Impactor notched connection
MIMP3100CH14           T11340      Impactor / M8 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T10281      Impactor / M10 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T10287      Impactor / M10
MIMP3100CHA04          T10491      Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA04          T10507      Impactor / M8 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T10600      Impactor / 3/8 - 32 UNEF
MIMP3100CHA04          T10604      Impactor / M6
MIMP3100CHA04          T10861      Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA04          T12230      Impactor / 7/16 - 20 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T12288      Impactor / M10 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T12305      Impactor JMM Q3
MIMP3100CHA04          T12391      Impactor / M10
MIMP3100CHA04          T12699      Impactor / M10
MIMP3100CHA04          T13344      Impactor / 7/16 - 20 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T13722      Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T13999      Impactor / M10
MIMP3100CHA04          T14155      Impactor / M10
MIMP3100CHA04          T15752      Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T15949      Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T16117      Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T16427      Impacteur
MIMP3100CHA04          T16611      Impactor / 5/16 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T16661      Impactor / M10 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T16829      Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA04          T17062      Impactor / 3/8 - 16 UNC
MIMP3100CHA04          T17203      Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T17238      Impactor / 7/16 - 20 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T17321      Impactor / M10
MIMP3100CHA04          T6318       Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T7821       Impactor / M6
MIMP3100CHA04          T8042       Impactor / 3/8 - 16 UNC
MIMP3100CHA04          T8043       Impactor / 5/16 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T8044       Impactor Biomet ES
MIMP3100CHA04          T8087       Impactor / M7 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T8088       Impactor / 3/8 - 32 UNEF
MIMP3100CHA04          T8093       Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA04          T8095       Impactor / M6
MIMP3100CHA04          T8143       Impactor / 1/4 - 28 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T8177       Impactor / 1/4 - 28 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T8184       Impactor / 3/8 - 16 UNC
MIMP3100CHA04          T8277       Impactor / M6
MIMP3100CHA04          T8310       Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T8333       Impactor / M8 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T8468       Par la generation des textes
MIMP3100CHA04          T9109       Impactor / M10
MIMP3100CHA04          T9196       Par la generation des textes
MIMP3100CHA04          T9205       Impactor / M10 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T9316       Impactor / M6
MIMP3100CHA04          T9348       Impactor / M10 x 1
MIMP3100CHA04          T9360       Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA04          T9556       Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA04          T9557       Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T9747       Impactor / M14 x 1.5
MIMP3100CHA04          T9894       Impactor / M10
MIMP3100CHA04          T9954       Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA04          T9955       Impactor / 1/4 - 28 UNF
MIMP3100CHA04          T9999       Impactor / M10 x 0.75
MIMP3100CHA041         T12861      Impactor / 5/16 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA042         T13480      Impactor / M10 x 1
MIMP3100CHA05          T8487       Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA08          T10243      Impactor / M14 x 1.5
MIMP3100CHA09          T10484      Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHA10          T10753      Impactor / M14 x 1.5
MIMP3100CHA10          T13642      Impactor / M14 x 1.5
MIMP3100CHA12          T11209      Impactor / M8
MIMP3100CHA14          T14384      Impacteur
MIMP3100CHA17          T15311      Impacteur
MIMP3100CHA60          T15822      Impactor notched connection
MIMP3100CHA62          T16934      Impactor / 3/8 - 24 UNF
MIMP3100CHAN043        T12767      Impactor JMM Q3

Greatbatch Inc. distributed Standard Offset Cup Impactors to
customers in the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium,
China, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Customers with questions may contact the company via telephone at
763-951-8235. Customers may also contact the company via e-mail at
FieldActionCenter@greatbatch.com  Adverse reactions or quality
problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported
to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either
online, by regular mail or by fax.

     * Complete and submit the report online:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm

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

Greatbatch, Inc. (NYSE: GB) provides top-quality technologies to
industries that depend on reliable, long-lasting performance. The
company develops and manufactures critical medical device
technologies for the cardiac, neuromodulation, vascular and
orthopaedic markets; and batteries for high-end niche applications
in the portable medical, energy, military, and other markets.
Additional information is available at www.greatbatch.com


HANDY WASH: Fails to Pay Drivers' Back Wages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Maria G. Pena v. Handy Wash, Inc. d/b/a Independent Drivers
Association, Zuni Transportation, Inc., and Jorge Azor, Case No.
1:14-cv-20352-CMA (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2014) is brought on
behalf of a class of similarly situated drivers to require the
Defendants to pay back wages owed to the Plaintiff and their other
drivers, which the Defendants failed to pay in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Handy Wash, Inc., doing business as Independent Drivers
Association, is a Florida for-profit corporation that conducts its
for-profit paratransit business in Florida.  Zuni Transportation,
Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation that conducts its for-
profit paratransit business in Florida.  Jorge Azor is the owner
and operator of Handy Wash and of Zuni for the relevant time
period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


HC SCHAU: Recalls Tomato Basil Bread Due to Undeclared Pine Nuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
HC Schau and Son of Woodridge Illinois is recalling 3,422
individual 8oz units of 'Fresh To Go Tuscan Style Combo on Tomato
Basil Bread' because it may contain undeclared Pine Nuts (tree
nuts).

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

Product was distributed in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin through
7-Eleven retail stores.

The product is sold individually in an 8oz pack and is identified
as 'Fresh To Go Tuscan Style Combo on Tomato Basil Bread' with the
UPC number: 52548548322.

Only packs marked with the following 'Best-by' dates are affected:

2/28/14, 3/1/14, 3/2/14, 3/3/14, 3/4/14

To date there have been no reported illnesses associated with the
affected products.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through a review
of production records that the products were prepared using Sun
Dried Tomato Pesto that contained Pine Nuts. Subsequent
investigation has identified that the incorrect Pesto was supplied
to the company. The product labeling does not indicate the
presence of Pine Nuts.

Consumers who have bought the affected product and are allergic or
sensitive to Pine Nuts should not consume the product and dispose
of it.

Consumers with questions may contact the manufacturer on 978-716-
2531 -- 9am to 5pm EST, Monday to Friday.


IRIDIUM SERVICES: Bus Driver Sues for Unpaid Overtime & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Varnel St. Ange, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Iridium Services Corp. and Igor Komsky, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00657-FB-LB (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2014) alleges that pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act the Plaintiff is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated
damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs.

Iridium Services Corp. is a New York domestic business corporation
headquartered in Douglaston, New York.  Igor Komsky, is the
Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of Iridium.  The Defendants
hired the Plaintiff to work as a bus driver for their bus service
company in Douglaston.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com

               - and -

          Barry Janay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BARRY E. JANAY
          90 Broad St., 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 756-8501
          Facsimile: 1-855-374-2884


JON BURGE: Loyola Dean to Investigate Inmates' Abuse Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rummana Hussain, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that to
finally bring closure to numerous police torture claims, the chief
judge of the Criminal Courts has appointed the dean of Loyola
University Law School to identify legitimate complaints of
incarcerated men who said they were viciously beaten and forced to
confess by disgraced former Area 2 Cmdr. Jon Burge and his
underlings.

Judge Paul Biebel Jr. on March 12 ruled against alleged police-
abuse victims who had sought class-action status for the purpose
of conducting evidentiary hearings.  But Judge Biebel said
David N. Yellen's pro bono work to help some men get their day in
court offers a "remedy to an unfortunate chapter in Chicago
history."

With the help of law students and the imprisoned men's attorneys,
Mr. Yellen, as a court-appointed "special master," will find those
who have "valid claims" against Mr. Burge and his colleagues and
never got the chance to speak out.

Once the men are identified, Judge Biebel said he will assign
attorneys to them at no charge to help them put together their
post-conviction petitions.

Noting that the Illinois Torture Relief Inquiry Commission may not
have the money or other resources to fully investigate the claims,
Judge Biebel, in his eight-page ruling, said, "There must be a
vehicle to address these painful issues stemming from the Burge-
related misconduct. The individuals who are still incarcerated as
a result of his wrongdoing deserve resolution."

Judge Biebel also noted that the "adjudication of the claims of
torture are particularly ripe" given that charges against
Stanley Wrice -- who spent three decades behind bars for a rape he
said he was forced to confess -- were dropped in December.

Locke Bowman, one of the attorneys who had sought the class-action
petition, said he was "pleased and gratified" by Judge Biebel's
appointment of Mr. Yellen, an expert in criminal law who served as
an adviser on white-collar crime for Bill Clinton's transition
team.

"This is a great moment in the history of Cook County.  It is the
moment when we started to get to the end of the Burge scandal,"
said Bowman, the director of the Roderick MacArthur Justice Center
at Northwestern University's Law School.

Mr. Yellen's appointment "is sagacious.  It is judicious.  It is
wise and thoughtful.  This is exactly the direction in which we
need to head and this is a procedure that promises to get us
there."

Joey Mogul, an attorney with the People's Law Office, said so far,
15 to 25 incarcerated men have torture claims against Mr. Burge
and his detectives.  But there could be more, she said.

"These men have languished behind bars far too long and this is
the opportunity for us to provide them their due process and for
them to get their day in court," Mr. Mogul said.

Mr. Burge, fired from the Chicago Police department in 1993 after
decades on the force, is serving a 4 1/2-year federal prison
sentence for lying about torturing and abusing suspects.


K12 INC: Accused of Issuing Misstatements Over Student Enrollment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, Individually
And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. K12, Inc.,
Nathanial A. Davis, Ronald J. Packard, Timothy L. Murray, Harry T.
Hawks, and James J. Rhyu, Case No. 1:14-cv-00108-AJT-JFA (E.D.
Va., January 30, 2014) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of investors who acquired K12 common stock.

The Plaintiff contends that the case involves material
misstatements and omissions about K12 regarding its
"unprecedented" student enrollment and growth prospects for fiscal
2014, including compliance with state regulations governing
enrollment.  The Plaintiff asserts that the revelation of the
truth about K12's enrollment and compliance practices caused a
staggering 38.4% drop in the price of K12 common stock and
significant investor losses on the last day of the Class Period.

K12 is a technology-based education company incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.  K12 is one of
the largest private education management organizations in the
United States.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of K12.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                  eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

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


KING CITY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Civil Rights Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Pasko, writing for KION, reports that lawyers filed a
federal class action lawsuit against King City and police officers
in the wake of the arrest of six officers.  The suit alleges that
civil rights violations were committed against several community
members.

"This lawsuit provides at least some relief for the many residents
of King City who were subject to serious civil rights violations,"
said attorney Blanca E. Zarazua.

She and fellow attorney Fernando Chavez filed the suit in U.S.
District Court.

"It's quite amazing that in 2014, Latinos continue to suffer the
types of injustices which occurred decades ago, and which the
Civil Rights Act of 1983 sought to correct," said Mr. Chavez, the
son of renowned labor leader and civil rights activist Cesar
Chavez.

The two attorneys plan to hold a press conference at City Hall
Thursday afternoon to discuss the lawsuit.

The six police officers arrested last month face charges ranging
from embezzlement to illegal possession of firearms.  Some of the
officer have been accused of being part of an apparent scheme to
impound cars and and have them towed.  The alleged scheme
apparently targeted Latino residents.


LOCKPORT BEEF: Sued for Not Paying OT Wages for All Hours Worked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Singer, and Alyson Singer, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v.
Lockport Beef, LLC, Orland Beef, LLC, Romeoville Beef, LLC,
Elmhurst Beef, LLC, Motto Brothers, LLC, and Michael Motto,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00670 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the
class overtime wages for all hours worked.  The Plaintiffs also
allege that the Defendants made unlawful deductions from their
wages.

Lockport Beef, LLC, Orland Beef, LLC, Romeoville Beef, LLC,
Elmhurst Beef, LLC and Motto Brothers, LLC are Illinois limited
liability companies operating a restaurant.  The Corporate
Defendants all do business as, and market themselves to the public
as "Pops Italian Beef and Sausage."  Michael Motto is an owner or
manager of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL LTD.
          Two Prudential Plaza
          180 North Stetson, Suite 3150
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 540-1230
          Facsimile: (312) 540-1231
          E-mail: acaffarelli@cslaw.com
                  bmanewith@cslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gary R. Clark, Esq.
          Brian A. Hartstein, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          300 N. LaSalle St., Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 715-5000
          E-mail: gary.clark@quarles.com
                  brian.hartstein@quarles.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed
under 3:14-cv-01160, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired MagnaChip
securities between January 30, 2013 and March 11, 2014, both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased MagnaChip securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 12, 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.

MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation designs and manufactures
analog and mixed-signal semiconductor products for high-volume
consumer applications.  MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation
provides its products and services to consumer electronics OEMs,
subsystem designers, and contract manufacturers through a direct
sales force, as well as through a network of authorized agents and
distributors in the United States, Korea, Taiwan, China, Japan,
Hong Kong, and Macau.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked adequate
controls over financial reporting; (ii) the Company was improperly
recognizing revenues; (iii) the Company's prior financial
statements required restatement; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On Jan. 27, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company
announced that it would postpone its fourth quarter 2013 earnings
release and investor conference call, previously scheduled for
Tuesday, January 28, 2014, to provide additional time for the
Company to complete its review of its financial results for the
fourth quarter and full year 2013.  On this news, MagnaChip
securities declined $1.41 per share, or over 8%, to close at
$16.16 per share on January 28, 2014.

On March 11, 2014, the Company issued a press release announcing
the need to restate its prior financial statements, as well as
identifying material weaknesses in its internal controls.  On this
news, the Company's shares fell as much as $1.83, or about 13%, to
as low as $12.50 in intraday trading on March 11, 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.


MEDTECH PRODUCTS: Removed "Manier" Suit to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Manier, et al. v. Medtech
Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2013-00081762-CU-BT-CTL, was
removed from the San Diego Superior Court, Central Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
00209-GPC-NLS to the proceeding.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege claims against the
Defendants arising out of the sale of Murine Ear Drops for Earache
Relief, a homeopathic eardrop medicine intended for earache
relief.  The claims include alleged violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law
and the California False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Katherine Elaine Hertel, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          333 S. Hope St., 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-2600
          Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
          E-mail: kate.hertel@alston.com

               - and -

          Lisa R. Bugni, Esq.
          ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          E-mail: lisa.bugni@alston.com


MERAN ENTERPRISE: Sued for Violating FLSA and IL Minimum Wage Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernardo Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Meran Enterprise, Inc.,
d/b/a Asahi Japanese Restaurant, Yong S. Lee, individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00702 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2014) seeks redress for
the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Mr. Lopez contends that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' earned minimum
wage, and their failure to pay him and the class overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Meran Enterprise, Inc., doing business as Asahi Japanese
Restaurant, is an Illinois corporation.  Yong S. Lee is the
President of Meran Enterprise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


MOBILEPOWER LLC: Recalls Multi-Function Power Packs
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MobilePower LLC, of Bluffton, S.C., announced a voluntary recall
of about 9,800 Mobile Power Instant Boost 500 power packs.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The power packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Mobile Power has received 13 reports of smoke and fire coming from
the power packs. No injuries have been reported

The recall involves Mobile Power Instant Boost 500, 6-in-1 Power,
multi-function power packs with model number 2013, QVC SKU# V31873
and serial number MPC-060512-25. The model and serial numbers are
located on the back panel on a white label next to the inverter
fan. Mobile Power Instant Boost 500 is printed on the front of the
units. The power packs can supply AC or DC power and can recharge
by either plugging into an electrical outlet or a DC accessory
port or cigarette lighter port in your vehicle. They have two A/C
outlets, a USB port, car battery jumper cables, and an air hose
outlet to inflate tires. The power packs weigh 20 lbs., are black
and blue color and measure about 9 inches tall, 10 inches wide and
8 inches long.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/cr2adc

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at QVC
from October 2012 through December 2012 for about $97.
MobilePower LLC, of Bluffton, S.C. is the manufacturer and
importer.  QVC Inc., of West Chester, Pa. is the distributor.

The user should stop using the recalled power packs immediately
and contact QVC for instructions to return the units for a free
replacement.  Mobile Power and QVC are contacting customers
directly.


MT. GOX: Bankruptcy Protection Temporarily Halts Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that Mt. Gox, once the
world's largest bitcoin exchange, received U.S. bankruptcy
protection on March 10 to temporarily halt U.S. legal action
against the Japanese company by traders who allege the operation
was a fraud.

Judge Harlin Hale in Dallas granted temporary bankruptcy
protection to Mt. Gox, which had filed for bankruptcy protection
in Japan in February.  Attorneys for Mt. Gox said without
bankruptcy protection the company would be irreparably harmed by a
proposed class action in Chicago federal court and a breach of
contract case in Seattle federal court.

Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy in Japan last month after it said it
may have lost 750,000 of its customers' bitcoins as part of an
attack by hackers.

The plaintiff leading the Chicago lawsuit was scheduled on
March 11 to ask a federal judge to freeze Mt. Gox's U.S.-based
servers and other computer equipment and to set up a trust over
Mt. Gox's assets.  Mt. Gox's founder, Mark Karpeles, was scheduled
to be deposed later this month in the Seattle lawsuit.

The attorney leading the class action blasted the bankruptcy as a
ruse.

"This case involves a massive fraud," said Steven Woodrow, an
attorney leading the class action, told Judge Hale.  "They claim
incredibly that they will preserve assets and protect assets by
entrusting the servers and other property to Mr. Karpeles.
Respectfully, your honor, that is the definition of the fox
guarding the henhouse."

Mt. Gox said in papers filed with the Dallas court that the
hacking attack was the subject of an intense investigation that
indicated so far the bitcoins were lost as a result of a flaw in
the software algorithm that underlies bitcoin, the digital
currency.

An attorney for Coinlab Inc, which sued Mt. Gox in Seattle for
breaching a contract last year, said her client was troubled by
what appeared to be fraudulent behavior by Mr. Karpeles in the
days leading up the U.S. bankruptcy filing.

"We don't have proof yet but we do have concerns about the
movement of hundreds of millions of dollars in bitcoins over the
weekend, moved by Mr. Karpeles," said Jane Pearson --
pearj@foster.com -- an attorney with Foster Pepper.

Mt. Gox's attorney, David Parham, denied there was any fraud and
said he believed Mr. Karpeles and Mt. Gox were complying with the
Japanese bankruptcy proceeding.

The Chapter 15 filing allows Mt. Gox to ask the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to recognize its foreign bankruptcy and to assist in the
Japanese proceedings by protecting its U.S.-based assets.

Judge Hale's order protects Mt. Gox's U.S. assets until April,
when the parties will return to court and Mt. Gox will seek a
permanent stay of U.S. litigation.  Judge Hale said his order
staying litigation did not apply to non-debtors, presumably
Mr. Karpeles.

Mr. Karpeles was named in a proposed class action filed in late
February by Gregory Greene, an Illinois resident.  The lawsuit
proposes to represent all U.S. residents who paid a trading fee to
Mt. Gox and those who had bitcoins or other currency with the
exchange when it halted bitcoin withdrawals on February 7.

Mr. Greene is seeking to recoup millions of dollars lost when the
mtgox.com website went down and prevented traders from selling as
bitcoin prices plummeted.

Mt. Gox is also defending a lawsuit in federal court in Seattle by
CoinLab Inc for breach of contract.  CoinLab is seeking damages of
$75 million from Mt. Gox.

Mt Gox's tangled web of shell corporations brings turns the
spotlight back to an issue U.S. law enforcement authorities have
perennially raised with Congress.  Several states, including
Delaware, where Mr. Karpeles had at least two registered
corporations, let foreigners register new corporations without
ever setting foot in the United States, relying instead on agents
to act as conduits for the companies' owners.

The agents send along documents like lawsuits and other business
communications addressed to the companies but keep no records
themselves.  They do not keep track of who the company's true
beneficial owner may be.  When investigators want to find out more
about these companies' activities, the only information they can
get from the agents is contact information for whatever overseas
entity has been designated to receive correspondence about the
company.

Such is the structure of Mutum Sigillum, a company Mr. Karpeles
registered in Delaware.  He used it to interact with a U.S. bank
through Dwolla, an online payment network. Real money passed
through Mutum Sigillum (which means "worthless little symbol" in
Latin) but it left almost no paper trail in the United States.

It was registered in Delaware by Vincent Allard, a French Canadian
lawyer who for the past 13 years has been living in Dover,
Delaware and, along with his daughter, running a business acting
as a registered agent for Delaware corporations.

Mr. Allard specializes in creating companies for people from
Francophone countries, since he speaks French.

When reached by phone on March 5, Mr. Allard said he had not heard
of Mt. Gox's bankruptcy in Japan and would nevertheless have
almost nothing to offer investigators if any were to come
knocking.  He was not in the office Monday and did not immediately
respond to a request by email for comment on the Texas filing.

Representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other
law enforcement agencies have been lobbying Congress for years to
pass a bill that would prohibit states from allowing the
incorporation of shell companies without better documentation and
more oversight.

The Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act,
introduced in 2011 by Sen. Carl Levin, is before the Senate
Judiciary Committee awaiting a markup.

The bill would require states to record the identities of the
beneficial owners of corporations they register and keep a
corresponding driver's license or passport number, or a copy of a
foreign passport on hand, ready to turn over to law enforcement
officials if necessary.

The case is Mt. Gox Co Ltd, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Texas, No. 14-31229.


NORWALK MUNICIPAL: Sued for Allegedly Running "Debtors Prisons"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Jackson, writing for Sandusky Register, reports that the
lawsuit filed against Norwalk Municipal Court, former judge
John Ridge and the city of Norwalk seeks class action status and
claims the court jailed defendants for nonpayment of fines without
bothering to hold hearings on whether the defendants could afford
to pay the money.

Ohio's branch of the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the
practice and accused Norwalk's municipal court and other municipal
courts of essentially running "debtors prisons" that put the poor
in jail without paying attention to their rights.

The Ohio Supreme Court responded to the concerns by issuing
guidelines a few weeks ago to all of Ohio's judges.  The lawsuit,
filed in federal court in Toledo and assigned to U.S. District
Judge James Carr, must overcome the traditional reluctance of the
courts to allow governments to be sued.  That issue will be one of
Judge Carr's first decisions in the case.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Joshua Ward, of Huron; Jeremiah
Stover, of Sandusky; Larry Thornsberry, of Norwalk; and Tammy
Dewiel, of Collins.

The attorney who filed the lawsuit, John Gold, of Sandusky, has
received permission to file an amended lawsuit.

On March 11, Mr. Gold said he'll likely drop the city of Norwalk
as a defendant but pursue his lawsuit against Judge Ridge and the
municipal court.  The city's only involvement appears to be that
its police officers served warrants, as they were bound by law to
do, Mr. Gold said.

Court filings by attorneys for the defendants argue the plaintiffs
have no right to sue.  A memo from Toledo attorney Teresa Grigsby
says municipal courts can't be sued and there's no evidence
Norwalk city officials directed Ridge's actions.

A separate memo from Cincinnati attorney Brian Spiess says federal
courts lack jurisdiction over state courts, and Ridge can't be
sued.

Mr. Gold said he believes he's found case law that suggests Ridge
and Norwalk's municipal court aren't immune from lawsuits.  He
said a decision from Judge Carr isn't likely until at least three
months after the amended lawsuit is turned in.

Judge Ridge retired as Norwalk's municipal judge at the end of
2012, but remained on the job until May 2013, when Gov. John
Kasich appointed Judge Eric Weisenburger as Judge Ridge's
replacement.  Mr. Weisenburger then won election in fall 2013.

Judge Ridge maintains his law license but is not in private
practice, Mr. Spiess said.


NU SKIN: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action in Utah
------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on March 11 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. between July 10, 2013 and
January 14, 2014, inclusive.

Kessler Topaz reminds Nu Skin shareholders that they may, no later
than March 24, 2014, move the Court for appointment as a lead
plaintiff of the Class.  If you are a member of this class, you
may view a copy of the Complaint or request information about this
class action online at
http://www.ktmc.com/cases_details.php?id=179

Nu Skin is a global direct-sales company which distributes anti-
aging personal skin care products and nutritional supplements
under the Nu Skin and Pharmanex brands in 53 international
markets, including Greater China, North Asia, the Americas,
Europe, the Asia Pacific region, the Middle East, and Africa.  Nu
Skin reported global revenue of $2.2 billion for fiscal 2012.
Sales in Mainland China accounted for a significant portion of the
Company's total revenue prior to, and during, the Class Period.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Nu Skin
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.  More
specifically, the Complaint charges Nu Skin and certain of its
executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose or indicate that: (i)  the
Company's operations in China were based on pyramid selling
schemes in violation of People's Republic of China ("PRC") law;
(ii) the Company's revenues would be significantly impacted when
such practices came to light; (iii) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On January 15, 2014, a leading Chinese newspaper, People's Daily,
reported that Nu Skin operates an illegal pyramid scheme in China,
that it employs unlawful and immoral business practices in
violation of PRC law, and that it sells more products than the
Chinese government allows.  On this news, shares of the Company's
stock fell $21.24 per share, or over 15.5 percent, to close on
January 15, 2014 at $115.23 per share.

On January 16, 2014, China's State Administration for Industry and
Commerce reported that it would investigate Nu Skin after the
People's Daily report.  Nu Skin also independently confirmed that
the Company's business practices were under investigation by
Chinese authorities, and disclosed that it had initiated a review
of the relevant business segments and that "there will likely be a
negative impact on China revenue" as it worked through the
"evolving situation."  On this news, shares of the Company's stock
fell an additional $30.43 per share, or over 26.4 percent, to
close on January 16, 2014 at $84.80 per share.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) toll free at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this class action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/cases_details.php?id=179

Members of the class may, no later than March 24, 2014, move the
Court to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as
a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that
the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts
throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for
additional information about participating in this action, please
visit http://www.ktmc.com


OREGON FREEZE: Recalls Kirkland Sliced Fruit Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc. of Albany, OR has voluntarily recalled
59,780 cases of Kirkland Signature Real Sliced Fruit, produced
exclusively for Costco Wholesale Stores. In cooperation with
Costco, the company issued the recall after determining the
product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Precautionary recall measures began on Saturday, March 8, 2014.
Consumers who may have purchased the product were contacted by
phone and US Mail, and a letter regarding the voluntary recall was
posted on the Costco website. Furthermore, the affected product
was removed from Costco floors. No confirmed cases of Salmonella
poisoning from consumption of this product have been reported at
this time, Any Kirkland Signature Real Sliced Fruit that is
currently available for purchase has been rigorously tested and is
safe for consumption. No other products made by Oregon Freeze Dry,
Inc. are affected.

Kirkland Signature Real Sliced Fruit is sold in a red and white
case containing 20 pouches of freeze-dried snacks. Consumers who
have purchased Kirkland Signature Real Sliced Fruit with the
following "Best Before Dates," listed on the upper left corner of
the front panel of the case, are urged to return the product to
the place of purchase for a full refund.

Best Before Date: FEB 14 2015 - MAR 11 2015 (which reads FEB142015
- MAR112015)

Customers with questions may contact the company at recall@ofd.com
or 1-888-641-2933 (this line is staffed Monday through Friday,
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time).

Cases of the potentially contaminated Kirkland Signature Real
Sliced Fruit were distributed to Costco Wholesale stores in the
following locations: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Puerto Rico.

Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc. is issuing the recall as a proactive
safety precaution. Salmonella, is an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.
Based in Albany, OR, Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc. is the largest
diversified food freeze dryer in the world, with the ability to
freeze dry over 400 different food and pharmaceutical products.

With over 50 years of experience, Oregon Freeze Dry has served the
US military in every theater of combat since 1967, had its food on
every Apollo mission, and fed explorers and adventurers in the
most demanding environments in the world. Oregon Freeze Dry is
committed to strict quality control, with experience processing
under SQF (Level 2) and a variety of regulatory requirements,
including USDA and FDA.


OUTLINE OAKCREST: Class Seeks Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Bolivar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Outline Oakcrest Arms, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-20375-UU (S.D. Fla.,
January 30, 2014) seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages or
prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorney's fee and costs from the Defendant.

Outline Oakcrest Arms, LLC is a Florida limited liability company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          The Yankee Clipper Law Center
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Joyce" Suit in Virginia Over Lipitor Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchelle Joyce, 11205 Cloverdale Street, Fredericksburg, Virginia
22407 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York
10017, Case No. 3:14-cv-00061-JAG (E.D. Va., January 30, 2014) is
an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate
result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and
medical practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Kopstein, Esq.
          KOPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          8633 Cross Chase Court
          Fairfax Station, VA 22039
          Telephone: (301) 552-3330
          Facsimile: (301) 552-2170
          E-mail: dkopstein@cox.net

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  LCraig@myadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen Edward Noona, Esq.
          Mark Edward Warmbier, Esq.
          KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
          150 W Main St., Suite 2100
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 624-3239
          Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
          E-mail: senoona@kaufcan.com
                  mewarmbier@kaufcan.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Chmiel, Esq.
          KAUFMAN & CANOLES PC (RICHMOND)
          Two James Center, Suite 1400
          1021 E Cary St.
          PO Box 27828
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 771-5791
          Facsimile: (804) 771-5777
          E-mail: mbchmiel@kaufcan.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Martin" Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
---------------------------------------------------------
Mari-Lynn Martin and John Martin, 301 Harvest Lane, Seven Hills,
Ohio 44131 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New
York 10017, Case No. 1:14-cv-00198-PAG (N.D. Ohio, January 30,
2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and
medical practitioners.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Knabe, Esq.
          BROWN & SZALLER
          14222 Madison Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 228-7200
          Facsimile: (216) 228-7207
          E-mail: knabe@lawandhelp.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  LCraig@myadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie A. Callsen, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS - CLEVELAND
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-2286
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: jcallsen@tuckerellis.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Sheneman" Suit in Va. Over Lipitor Drug
----------------------------------------------------------
Patsy M. Sheneman, 4057 Uline Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304
v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00062-HEH (E.D. Va., January 30, 2014) is an
action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result
of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and
medical practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Kopstein, Esq.
          KOPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          8633 Cross Chase Court
          Fairfax Station, VA 22039
          Telephone: (301) 552-3330
          Facsimile: (301) 552-2170
          E-mail: dkopstein@cox.net

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  LCraig@myadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen Edward Noona, Esq.
          Mark Edward Warmbier, Esq.
          KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
          150 W Main St., Suite 2100
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 624-3239
          Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
          E-mail: senoona@kaufcan.com
                  mewarmbier@kaufcan.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Chmiel, Esq.
          KAUFMAN & CANOLES PC (RICHMOND)
          Two James Center, Suite 1400
          1021 E Cary St.
          PO Box 27828
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 771-5791
          Facsimile: (804) 771-5777
          E-mail: mbchmiel@kaufcan.com


RATTLE N HUM: Accused of Violating FLSA's Overtime Provisions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Morales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Rattle N Hum, Inc., and Joseph Donagher, in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-00615-UA
(S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2014) is a civil action for damages and
equitable relief based upon alleged violations committed by the
Defendants of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: (i) the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Acts and the New
York Labor Law, (ii) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish
employees with wage statements containing specific categories of
accurate information on each pay day, and (iii) and any other
claims.

Rattle N Hum, Inc., is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in New York City.  The Company is a
bar/restaurant located in Manhattan.  Joseph Donagher is the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls VPRIV Due to Barium Sulfate
----------------------------------------------------------
Shire Pharmaceuticals announced the initiation of a voluntary
recall in the United States of one batch, packaged into three
lots, of VPRIV due to the presence of visible particulate matter,
identified as stainless steel and barium sulfate. The particulate
matter was found in a small number of vials in the three packaged
lots of VPRIV. A Shire investigation identified the particulate
matter root cause as the third party supplier fill finish process.

Shire believes the safety risk to patients is very low. If
infused, there is a possibility of rare but serious adverse events
associated with particulate containing barium sulfate. Shire
believes this health risk was and continues to be mitigated by the
package insert's required visual inspection of the reconstituted
VPRIV product and by administration of VPRIV through an in-line
low protein-binding filter. The product is being recalled and
should not be used.

Importantly, there have been no reported adverse events or
customer complaints associated with the use of these lots. To
ensure that patients are not exposed to foreign particles during
administration, Shire is reinforcing recommendations of the
approved package insert in order to mitigate any risk: (1) visual
inspection of the reconstituted VPRIV product should be done prior
to administration and (2) VPRIV should be administered through an
in-line low protein-binding filter. The safety profile of VPRIV
remains unchanged.

VPRIV is a hydrolytic lysosomal glucocerebroside-specific enzyme
indicated for long-term enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) for
pediatric and adult patients with type 1 Gaucher disease. VPRIV is
supplied as a sterile, preservative-free, lyophilized powder in
single-use vials, for intravenous use. This voluntary recall is
limited to the following packaged lots: FEW13-001, FEW13-002, and
FED13-006. These lots were distributed nationwide to hospitals,
infusion clinics, patients, and home health agencies in the United
States and all have the same NDC code (54092-701-04) and same
expiration date of 10/15 (Oct 2015).

Shire has notified patients, hospitals, infusion clinics, and home
health agencies via letter not to use product from the recalled
lots. Customers should locate and remove all affected product from
their facility and/or residence. Affected product should be
returned by contacting Shire at 1-888-899-9293 (Monday through
Friday between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm Eastern Time). Shire
has significant quantities of VPRIV to replace any affected
product. Shire does not anticipate any disruption in supply as a
result of this voluntary recall.

Unaffected lots of VPRIV can continue to be used according to the
instructions for use.

Consumers or health care providers with questions regarding this
recall can call Shire at 1-888-899-9293 (Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm Eastern Time). Consumers
should contact their physician or health care provider if they
have experienced any problems that may be related to using this
drug product.

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

     * Complete and submit the report online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

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

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

At Shire, patient safety is of the highest priority and corrective
and preventative actions have been implemented to prevent
reoccurrence.


SIRIUS XM: Recorded Telephone Calls Without Consent, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iman Reza, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00129-BRO-AN
(C.D. Cal., January 30, 2014) is brought for damages, injunctive
relief, and other available remedies resulting from the alleged
illegal actions of Sirius for recording telephone conversations of
the Plaintiff without his knowledge or consent, in violation of
California's Invasion of Privacy Act.

Sirius is a corporation whose primary corporate address is in New
York.  Sirius provides various consumer credit products and
advertises those products through the use of telephone calls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John A. Vogt, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-3939
          Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
          E-mail: javogt@jonesday.com


SNI NATIONAL: Recalls All Kratom Products
-----------------------------------------
SNI National is voluntarily recalling all Kratom products,
including Kratom XL 4 Pack, Maeng Da Kratom 10 Pack, Max Kratom 20
Pack, and Bali Kratom 40 Pack, from distributors and retail
locations. These products contain Kratom (Mitragyna Speciosa).

Kratom is a botanical that qualifies as a dietary ingredient under
section 201(ff)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

When marketed as a dietary ingredient, FDA considers kratom to be
a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information
to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not
present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.
Furthermore, scientific literature discloses serious concerns
regarding the toxicity of Kratom in multiple organ systems.
Consumption of Kratom can lead to a number of health impacts,
including respiratory depression, nervousness, agitation,
aggression, sleeplessness, hallucinations, delusions, tremors,
loss of libido, constipation, skin hyperpigmentation, nausea,
vomiting, and severe withdrawal signs and symptoms.

The recalled was initiated after the US Food and Drug
Administration discovered that the product was distributed as a
dietary supplement when, in fact, the primary ingredient did not
fall under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as having all
the information necessary to deem it as a safe ingredient.

SNI National has to date not received any complaints or been made
aware of any illness or adverse effects stemming from the sale of
these products.

SNI National did not manufacture the products in question, but did
re-package and re-label it for sale to wholesalers and
distributors who further distributed the products.

The products are packaged in clamshell, zip sealed packets and
green pill bottles, 4, 10, 20, and 40 count. The products can be
identified by their bright green packaging and label which states
that it contains Kratom. The products were sold to wholesale
distributors in the following states: Alabama, California,
Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Florida, Oklahoma, Idaho, Colorado,
Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Ohio. The products were further
distributed by those entities. SNI National has completely
terminated distribution.

SNI National is notifying its distributors and customers by Phone
Call or Email, and is arranging for immediate return of all
recalled products. Consumers, Distributors and retailers that have
purchased or are selling these products should discontinue use or
distributing them and return them to place of purchase, or discard
them.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact SNI
National at (1-801-388-4690) or Kratomrecall@gmail.com  Monday-
Friday 10:00 am to 2:00 pm Mountain Standard Time.

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

     * Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

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



SOUHUR SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Gilberto Hernandez, on his own behalf and others similarly
situated v. Souhur Services Corporation, a Florida Corporation,
Case No. 6:14-cv-00157-GKS-KRS (M.D. Fla., January 30, 2014) is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the
Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Souhur Services Corporation is a Florida Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


SWAGAT RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Hanif v. Swagat Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Sapphire Indian
Cuisine, Satis Chandra Aurora, and Sandip Dashi, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00578-RMB (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2014) alleges that in violation
of federal and New York State labor laws, the Defendants, inter
alia, have failed to pay the Plaintiff the minimum wage and
overtime wages.

Swagat Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Sapphire Indian
Cuisine, is a restaurant that specializes in Indian cuisine and is
located at 1845 Broadway, in New York.  Sapphire is co-owned and
managed by Satis Chandra Aurora and Sandip Dashi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212)847-8315
          Facsimile: (646) 520-3236
          E-mail: canderson@gslawnv.com


TJX COMPANIES: Recalls Gardeners Eden Light-Up Decorations
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The TJX Companies Inc., of Framingham, Mass., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,600 units Gardeners Eden(TM) light-up
autumn decorations. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Exposed wiring near the battery box can lead to a short circuit,
posing a fire hazard.

TJX has received two reports of units overheating. The firm has
received no reports of injury or property damage.

This recall involves autumn 2013 Gardeners Eden decorative wreaths
and Chinese Lantern plant arrangements. The wreaths are made of
dried twigs held together with wire and twine. They are decorated
with silk leaves, foam berries, papier-mache pumpkins and gourds
in autumn colors or silk leaves and papier-mache Chinese Lantern
fruit. The plant arrangements are made of twigs with papier-mache
Chinese Lantern fruit held together with wire and twine. LED
lights are in the pumpkins, gourds and Chinese Lantern fruit. The
LED lights are powered by three AA batteries contained in a black
plastic battery box. Style numbers are on the price tags attached
to hangtags on the products. The following wreaths and Chinese
Lantern arrangements are being recalled:

   Product        Style Number                  Store
   -------        ------------                  -----
Wreath               585738                     T.J. Maxx
Chinese Lantern      585755

Wreath               805496                     Marshalls
Chinese Lantern      805509

Wreath               667661, 667689, 676074     HomeGoods
Chinese Lantern      686740

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/RzU4b8

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at TJ
Maxx, Marshalls and HomeGoods stores from about August 2013 to
September 2013 for between $25 and $30.  Dalian Guangsheng Arts &
Crafts Co. Ltd. is the manufacturer.

User should stop using the recalled products and remove the
batteries and return the decorations to any TJ Maxx, Marshalls or
HomeGoods store for a full refund.


TOURIST PROMOTIONS: Sued for Failing to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vianne Biggs v. Tourist Promotion Services, LLC and Azeem Asaria,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00032 (S.D. Tex., January 30, 2014) is brought
against the Defendants for failing to pay overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and wages pursuant to the
Texas Labor Code.

Tourist Promotion Services, LLC has an office and does business in
the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division.  Azeem Asaria
is an owner/officer/director/manager of Tourist Promotion
Services, LLC.  The Defendants are in the hotel and hospitality
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clark Woodson III, Esq.
          601 East Myrtle
          Angleton, TX 77515
          Telephone: (979) 849-6080
          E-mail: clark@woodsonlaborlaw.com


TRANSPORT WORKERS: Sued Over American Air's Equity Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Powell, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO,
Local Union No. 502, Local Union No. 512, Local Union No. 513,
Local Union No. 514, Local Union No. 541, Local Union No. 542,
Local Union No. 567, Local Union No. 568, Local Union No. 570,
Local Union No. 571, Local Union No. 572, Local Union No. 574,
Local Union No. 575, Local Union No. 576, and Local Union No. 591,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00375-B (N.D. Tex., January 30, 2014) arises out
of the exclusion of certain members of the Transport Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO ("TWU") from an equity distribution by the
American Airlines Group, Inc. to TWU.

In August 2012, the TWU settled certain disputes with American
Airlines and American Eagle, which were in Chapter 11 bankruptcy
via a Letter Agreement.  The Letter Agreement concluded the
parties' agreed modifications to the collective bargaining
agreements between American and TWU.  Two of these modifications
were (1) an agreed Reduction in Force ("RIF"); and (2) an award of
equity in the American Airlines Group, Inc. when it emerged from
Bankruptcy (the "TWU Equity" in "New American").  The RIF
prevented involuntary furloughs; certain employees were enticed to
take early separation ("Early Separation") instead.  The TWU
Equity stemmed from a so-called "Me, Too" provision in the
collective bargaining agreements that required New American to
give the TWU equal treatment to the other unions that also
received equity in New American.

Rather than simultaneously effectuate the Early Separation and TWU
Equity programs, the TWU Locals required him and the proposed
class to immediately decide whether to enroll in Early Separation,
Mr. Powell says.  He contends that it was not until August 2013
that the Defendants informed the persons, who took Early
Separation that the Defendants had decided to deny him and the
proposed class their previously-vested rights to the TWU Equity.
He brings this action for himself and for a proposed class of TWU
members, who enrolled in Early Separation to enjoin distribution
of any of the undistributed TWU Equity, and require distribution
of the TWU Equity to the proposed class.

TWU International is an unincorporated United States labor union
that represents, for purposes of the Railway Labor Act, over
200,000 members and retirees, primarily in commercial aviation,
public transportation, and passenger railroads.  Included in the
union's membership are approximately 26,000 workers at American.
The Local Unions are unincorporated associations and labor
organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith R. Verges, Esq.
          Ryan K. McComber, Esq.
          FIGARI & DAVENPORT, LLP
          3400 Bank of America Plaza
          901 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 939-2000
          Facsimile: (214) 939-2090
          E-mail: keith.verges@figdav.com
                  ryan.mccomber@figdav.com


UNITED NATIONS: Faces New Suit Over Role in Haiti Cholera Epidemic
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caribbean Journal reports that a new lawsuit filed on March 11 in
Federal court in Brooklyn seeks compensation from the United
Nations for its alleged role in bringing cholera to Haiti.

The lawsuit comes after the United States government wrote a
letter charging that the United Nations has absolute immunity from
suit under the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention.  The letter
said the UN had not "waived" immunity.

The new suit alleges that the UN, in fact, waived immunity in the
2004 agreement establishing the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti
(MINUSTAH).  The suit pointed to a provision in the 2004 agreement
addressing third-party claims for personal injury, illness or
death "arising from or directly attributed to" MINUSTAH, which
provided for compensation from the UN.

"With all respect to the US government, anyone who thinks UN
immunity is settled law in a case like this is sorely mistaken,"
said Dr. Tim Howard, one of the lead attorneys in the suit.
"Under both the UN convention and US statutes, immunity expressly
waived cannot be unwaived.  And the United Nations clearly and
expressly waived its immunity from liability long before it caused
this disaster."

Cholera in Haiti has led to the deaths of more than 8,000 people
in the country, an epidemic that continues today.

The suit comes after Gustvao Gallon, the UN's independent expert
on human rights, recently urged the UN to "compensate victims
fully."

"The public perception is that the UN is immune from legal action
for its breaches of international legal standards," Dr. Howard
said.  "The public perception is wrong.  This will be a highly
public battle, but we're confident we are going to win.  The law
is on our side, the facts are on our side, but most importantly,
justice for human rights is on our side.  The world will know the
craven manner with which the UN has run away from the devastation
it has caused, and the court will respond, since it is clearly
within its power to do so."

The complaint was filed by attorneys Stanley Alpert (New York),
James Haggerty (New York), Dr Tim Howard (Florida) and Richard
Daynard (Massachusetts).


UNITED STATES: Catholic Organization Sue to Block HHS Mandate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Sadowski, writing for Catholic News Service, reports that a
coalition of nearly 200 Catholic dioceses, agencies and businesses
has asked a federal court in Oklahoma to block enforcement of a
Department of Health and Human Services mandate that it says would
force its members to violate their religious beliefs.

Under the banner of the recently formed Catholic Benefits
Association, the entities contended in a class action lawsuit
filed March 12 that the mandate's requirement that they provide
health insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs, abortifacients,
surgical sterilizations and related counseling is contrary to the
First Amendment's free exercise, establishment and free speech
clauses.

The mandate -- under rules issued by HHS -- requires nearly all
employers to provide such coverage for their employees in their
company health plan.  It includes a narrow exemption for some
religious employers that fit certain criteria.

The lawsuit said the regulations under the Affordable Care Act are
discriminatory because some religious entities and ministries are
exempt while others are not.  The lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeks a
preliminary injunction to block the mandate as it applies to
association members.

Named as defendants were Kathleen Sebelius, HHS secretary; Thomas
E. Perez, secretary of the Department of Labor; Jacob J. Lew,
secretary of the Department of the Treasury; and each of those
departments.

The array of plaintiffs are the Catholic Benefit Association and
its subsidiary, the Catholic Insurance Co., both incorporated in
Oklahoma; the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City; Catholic Charities of
the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City; All Saints Catholic School in
Norman, Okla.; Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore; the
Archdiocese of Baltimore; Villa St. Francis Catholic Care Center,
Inc. in the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kan.; and Good Will
Publishers in Gastonia, N.C.

Attorney L. Martin Nussbaum -- MNussbaum@LRRLaw.com -- a partner
in the law firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber, represents the plaintiffs.
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., he has represented archdioceses
and dioceses and various Catholic and religious entities in legal
matters largely revolving around religious freedom concerns for
more than a decade.

Archbishop Lori, chairman of the association's board of directors,
said the new organization offered Catholic entities the best
option to legally challenge the mandate.

"The CBA gives a vehicle for many dioceses that would not find it
opportune to bring suit to do so in a manner that has a higher
possibility of success.  That's very important.  I also think it
is a further expression of our desire to promote and defend
religious freedom not just in the abstract but indeed in a very
real issue that affects Catholic employers and Catholic
employees," he told Catholic News Service March 12.

"We will understand how to help Catholic employers to obtain
morally sound insurance in the most cost effective and least
disruptive way," he added.

In a statement released as the lawsuit was filed, Archbishop Paul
S. Coakley of Oklahoma City said Catholic entities across the
country objected to the mandate.

"We as Catholics, regardless of the corporate structure within
which we work, cannot in good conscience provide employees with
insurance that covers contraception, abortifacients and
sterilization, which undermine the dignity of the human person and
the sanctity of human life and also jeopardizes the physical and
mental health of those who use them in untold ways," the statement
said.

"It is my prayer that the courts will recognize that the federal
government has no clear and compelling public interest that
justifies burdening our free exercise of religion by requiring us
to pay for conscience-violating drugs and procedures," it said.

Robert M. Gallaher, CEO of Good Will Publishers, said that his
company readily joined the lawsuit.

As the lone private company among the plaintiffs, the company
represents "thousands of Catholic business owners whose religious
liberty is at stake," he said in a statement.

"If we cease providing health insurance we'll harm our employees
and incur a tax of $375,000 per year," Mr. Gallagher also told the
Catholic News Herald, newspaper of the Diocese of Charlotte, N.C.
"If we maintain a plan that does not offer contraception,
sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, we'll face penalties in
excess of $6 million per year."

Mr. Nussbaum told CNS the Catholic Benefits Association was formed
in January after months of discussions.  Its subsidiary, the
Catholic Insurance Co., was incorporated shortly before the
lawsuit was filed.

Mr. Nussbaum declined to comment about the case but said the new
Catholic association and insurance company were started in
response to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and the
ongoing legal cases challenging the HHS mandate filed by numerous
religious organizations.

The Catholic Benefits Association is comprised of Catholic
employers "committed to providing life-affirming health coverage
consistent with Catholic values," the organization's website said.

"This is an extremely viable option to provide good quality health
care at competitive prices that is compliant with Catholic
teaching," Mr. Nussbaum said of the association's insurance
component.

Four archbishops make up the association's board of directors:
Archbishop Coakley, Archbishop Lori, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput
of Philadelphia and Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle.

In addition to allowing Catholic entities to offer health care
coverage in line with church teaching, the association also will
provide legal advocacy to protect the religious liberty of its
members, the website said.

The association charges monthly dues of 50 cents per employee with
a maximum cost of $2,000 per month. The association also adds what
the website describes as a "litigation fee" of $1 per covered
employee for legal work related to lawsuit against the HHS
mandate. Again, the maximum cost is $2,000 monthly for an
association member.

"If the litigation is successful, that fee may be partially
refundable," the website said.

The association's insurance component is described on the website
as an association captive, stop-loss insurance company. The
arrangement allows members of the association that offer health
care coverage through an insurance carrier or self-funded medical
plans to take advantage of stop-loss insurance for unexpected
costs they may incur.

Joining such an association allows members to take advantage of
reduced costs for the same benefit package offered to employees.
Having headquarters in Oklahoma gives the association additional
tax advantages, the website said.

The association also allows Catholic entities to join without
taking advantage of the insurance component.

In a column in the March 7 issue of The Colorado Catholic Herald,
newspaper of the Diocese of Colorado Springs, Mr. Nussbaum hinted
at some of the arguments that would be part of the lawsuit.  He
wrote that regulations governing implementation of the Affordable
Care Act "includes a seldom noted system of discriminatory
religious classifications."  He said the health insurance law
creates four classes of organizations religiously opposed to the
mandate: those excused, those who direct a third party to provide
insurance coverage, those who are protected under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act and those that must provide the coverage
or pay fines up to $36,000 per employee annually.

Mr. Nussbaum carefully constructed his argument, outlining how the
religious freedom of organizations falling into each
classification was being violated even as the government
determined that other religious entities met criteria for being
exempt from the mandate.

"There is a word for this classification system: discrimination,"
Nussbaum wrote.  "It is the government choosing religious winners
and losers -- a practice discredited by 1,600 years of Western
history and forbidden in America as an establishment of religion."


VISTEON CORP: "Pierce" Class Granted $314,000 in Legal Costs
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action, DARRYL and SHARON PIERCE On Behalf Of
Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
VISTEON CORPORATION, and VISTEON SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, No.
1:05-cv-01325-LJM-DKL (S.D. Ind.), District Judge Larry J.
McKinney in Indianapolis ruled that the Plaintiffs' Motion for an
Award of Statutory Attorney's Fees and Costs to the Class and
Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs to Class Counsel is granted
in part and denied in part.  The Class and Class Counsel are
awarded $302,780 in statutory attorney's fees and $11,444 in
costs.  The parties are ordered to show cause on or before March
18, 2014, why the Court should not entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and against Visteon.  A copy of the Court's March 11,
2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/yHxFhXfrom Leagle.com.

On June 25, 2013, the Court entered its Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law after a Bench Trial by written submissions on
Plaintiffs Darryl and Sharon Pierce's, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated, claims against Defendants Visteon
Corporation and Visteon Systems, LLC, under the Consolidated
Omnibus Reconciliation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(c), which is part
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  Therein, the
Court awarded each member of the class $2,500 in statutory
damages, or a total of $1,852,500 to be shared equally amongst the
Class members; and their reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Sec. 1132(g).


VOLKSWAGEN: 3rd Cir. Okays Attorneys Fees Award in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
appeals court has decided that a magistrate judge was justified in
calculating the amount of attorneys fees she decided in a case
against Volkswagen and Audi.

The case against Volkswagen and Audi had already been before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit twice, according to
the decision.

In 2010, then-Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey certified a class, approved a
settlement and awarded attorneys fees in a products liability suit
concerning alleged defects in cars manufactured by Volkswagen,
Audi and related entities.

"We reversed and remanded because the class could not be certified
under the parties' prior settlement agreement, given our
determination that the representative plaintiffs were not adequate
to represent the interests of the entire class," the decision
states.

On remand, and after changes to the settlement agreement, the
magistrate judge re-certified the class, re-approved the
settlement and re-awarded attorneys fees.  This time, the
settlement placed all class members on equal footing, essentially
eliminating the adequacy defect.

Two class members, David Murray and Jennifer Murray, appealed,
challenging primarily the magistrate judge's determination that
federal law, as opposed to New Jersey law, applied to the
calculation of attorneys fees.  Another class member,
Peter Braverman, appealed the magistrate judge's refusal to allow
him to intervene in the proceedings on remand, as well as the
Murrays' challenge of attorneys fees.

The appeal relates to a class action settlement regarding several
models of Volkswagen and Audi vehicles that allegedly had
defectively designed sunroofs that leaked.

The district court approved the parties' request to refer the case
to a magistrate judge to conduct all settlement proceedings and
enter final judgment, according to the decision.

After the case was referred, the parties requested certification
of a settlement class consisting of two different groups: A
reimbursement group, which was entitled to make initial claims to
an $8 million reimbursement fund for certain reimbursable repairs;
and a residual group, which was only permitted to make claims
after the reimbursement group's claims were fulfilled, as long as
value remained in the fund.

The settlement agreement also provided certain inspection,
modification and repair services for roof drainages, along with
preventative maintenance information.

On Aug. 3, 2010, after preliminary approval of the settlement, the
magistrate judge held a fairness hearing to determine the value of
the settlement and attorneys fees, and she issued an order
certifying the class, approving the settlement and granting the
representative plaintiffs' fee petition.

The magistrate judge determined the settlement had a value of
$69,277,430, including a combined value of $46,725,244 for service
work performed on class vehicles, $1,443,299 for direct
reimbursements, $8 million for the reimbursement fund and
$13,108,887 for the damage that would be prevented by the
preventative-maintenance information.

In determining class counsel's fee award, Judge Shwartz applied
federal law, found that the fee should be based on the percentage-
of-recovery method and awarded class counsel fees in the amount of
$9,207,248.19, according to the decision.

Following final approval of the class settlement, two groups of
objectors appealed, raising a host of issues, and the appeals
court reversed the certification order and remanded for further
proceedings.

On remand, the parties revised the settlement agreement to allow
all affected class members to make initial claims to the
reimbursement fund, and the plaintiffs then filed a motion for
final approval of the revised settlement agreement.

That agreement provided the balance of $3 million plus
accumulating interest will remain available for a period of five
years to be paid to class members through Volkswagen's goodwill
program for further water-damage claims.  Any amount that remains
in the fund after five years will be donated, with the district
court's approval, to an appropriate U.S. research or charitable
institution for general advancement of new automotive
technologies.

Five members filed objections, and two sets of objections were
overruled and those objectors did not appeal. However, the other
three, which were filed by the appellants in this action, were
also overruled.

"Because the magistrate judge was justified in performing a
percentage-of-recovery analysis in calculating attorney's fees
under both federal and New Jersey law, she did not abuse her
discretion in doing so," the decision states.

Mr. Braverman pointed to nothing in the record to "suggest any
conflict of interest between the plaintiffs and class counsel.
Thus, even if Mr. Braverman properly preserved his argument, the
denial of his motion to intervene was not an abuse of discretion,"
the decision says.

The appeal was assigned to Circuit Judges Kent A. Jordan, Thomas
I. Vanaskie and Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case numbers: 13-1123,
13-1124


WESTERN UNION: Faces "Garavaglia" Securities Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
Norma A. Garavaglia, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. The Western Union Company, Hikmet Ersek and
Scott T. Scheirman, Case No. 1:14-cv-00278-MSK-BNB (D. Colo.,
January 30, 2014) is a securities class action on behalf of all
persons, who purchased the securities of Western Union between
February 7, 2012, and October 30, 2012, inclusive, for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants are liable for making false statements, or failing
to disclose adverse facts known to them about Western Union, the
Plaintiff contends.

Western Union is engaged in money movement and payment services.
Hikmet Ersek is the Chief Executive Officer, President and a
director of Western Union.  Scott T. Scheirman is the Chief
Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and a director of
Western Union.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Dyer III, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 810
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764
          Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
          E-mail: bob@dyerberens.com
                  jeff@dyerberens.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Franklin Graham, Esq.
          Hille von Rosenvinge Sheppard, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP-CHICAGO
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com
                  hsheppard@sidley.com

               - and -

          Holly Stein Sollod, Esq.
          Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART, LLP-DENVER
          P.O. Box 8749
          555 17th Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80201-8749
          Telephone: (303) 295-8085
          Facsimile: (303) 295-8261
          E-mail: hsteinsollod@hollandhart.com
                  mjsmith@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Mark Villanueva, Esq.
          JEFFREY M. VILLANUEVA, P.C.
          1755 Blake Street #225
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-7525
          Facsimile: (303) 295-7511
          E-mail: jeff@jmvpclaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Peter Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP-NEW YORK
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

Movant Universal Investment Gesellschaft m.b.H. is represented by:

          Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLC-MT. PLEASANT
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: cmoriarty@motleyrice.com

Movants Musicians' Pension Fund of Canada, Plymouth County
Retirement System and Norfolk County Retirement System are
represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com

Movants Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust, and UA
Local 13 Pension Fund & Employers Group Insurance Funds are
represented by:

          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP-SAN DIEGO
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Nova Scotia Court Certifies Hip Implant Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Fraser, writing for Herald News, reports that the Nova
Scotia Supreme Court has certified the national class-action
lawsuit a Halifax man is leading against an American corporation
whose artificial hip broke inside him two years after the surgery.

Already about 30 applicants want to join Ken Taylor's suit against
Wright Medical Technology Canada Ltd., Wright Medical Technology
Inc. and Wright Medical Group Inc., which make the metal implant
that fractured in his left hip in 2009.

When the Halifax law firm Wagners first filed the case in
September 2011 on behalf of Mr. Taylor, about 10 others already
had contacted the law firm with similar stories.  Once someone
undergoes hip replacement surgery, the individual can expect the
new joint to last about 10 years, orthopedic surgeon Mike Dunbar
said in an interview after the case was initially filed.  That
figure, however, depends on how old and how active the recipient
is and whether that person is at a healthy weight.

In Mr. Taylor's case, the artificial hip had to be repaired within
26 months, said his lawyer, Raymond Wagner.

The class action will cover anyone in Canada who received a Wright
Profemur Hip Implant System after February 2001 and had the joint
break.

There have been class actions launched in other provinces against
companies who make similar implants -- the British Columbia Court
of Appeal upheld the certification of a class action against
Zimmer of Canada Ltd. in January 2013.  The Vancouver law firm
Klein Lyons collected applicants through to December.

"These metal-on-metal products have had a rough ride since their
introduction," Mr. Wagner said.

"There's a number of other class actions (and) we represent people
who have . . . used these types of products that have not held up
to the rigors of day-to-day life."

He said damages in similar cases range from $100,000 to $500,000
depending on the amount of income lost, associated health-care
costs and the extent of injuries.

Research submitted by the plaintiffs found about 633 records of
fractures in the firm's Profemur artificial hips, said the
certification decision of Justice Michael Wood of Nova Scotia
Supreme Court.

However, a senior manager at Wright Medical Technology gave
evidence that about 350 of the 265,000 units that were sold broke.
About 33 of those were in Canada.

Mr. Wagner has heard from potential plaintiffs in British Columbia
and Ontario, as well as one in the Yukon.  The rest are in
Atlantic Canada.

Only about half of those had actually seen their replacement joint
break, Mr. Wagner said.

But others have lost work or had to curb their lifestyle because
of what they allege could be a faulty replacement.

"Of course, the recommendation, in some cases, from their doctor
(is) not to stress their limb, because of the fear of a premature
fracture," Mr. Wagner said.

"(And with) these fractures that are happening in (about) three
years . . . people have to (have) revision surgery prematurely and
the reality is (the second surgery) doesn't take as well as the
initial placement.

"So the lifespan of the product is much lessened and it involves
further surgeries and further complications."

Wright Medical Technology Inc. can still appeal the certification.

If the lawsuit goes forward, Mr. Wagner hopes it would go to trial
next year or in 2016.


* Class Action Attorney Bound to Fee Agreement, 7th Cir. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an attorney
in a fee-allocation dispute is bound to a final agreement,
according to three circuit judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

On Aug. 29, 2011, a district court approved an Illinois class
action settlement in fiber-optic cable litigation and awarded
attorneys fees and expenses.  The $3.54 million attorneys fees
award was deposited in to an escrow account, and the attorneys
agreed to pursue mediation -- with the assistance of a court-
appointed special master if necessary -- to reach a division of
fees for the Illinois settlement and for other settlements
nationwide.

Once the fee-division question was resolved, the court would order
the disbursement of the funds held in escrow.

The plaintiffs lawyers had coalesced into three main groups for
purposes of the fee dispute, Arthur Susman, the "48-Firm Group"
and William Gotfryd, a former collaborator with Susman who later
asked to be treated separately in the fee-division process.

The first attempt to resolve the fee-division issue occurred in
2006, when all the lawyers, except Susman and Gotfryd, agreed to
submit the issue of attorneys fees to binding arbitration at a
future claim, according to the decision.  This resulted in a 2011
proposal binding on the 48-Firm Group as to the fee allocation
within that group, but this proposal did not address Gotfryd and
Susman and did not bind them.

"The parties continued to attempt to resolve the situation through
mediation after the district court so ordered, but a global
agreement was not readily forthcoming," the decision says.

On June 11, 2012, the mediators made one final effort to resolve
the dispute and have the entire fee fight settled.  They offered a
final "Mediators' Proposal" awarding each lawyer or group of
lawyers a certain percentage of the national gross fees.  The
proposal was blind in the sense that each firm received an email
listing only the percentage of the fee allocation that it would
receive.

After a long history of disagreement, the mediators recognized
that the prospects for agreement would likely be improved if the
parties were only offered a chance to think about their absolute,
rather than relative, awards.  The proposal was a take-it-or-
leave-it offer with no more negotiations, according to the
decision.

Everyone accepted the proposal, which allocated 87 percent of the
fees to the 48-Firm Group, 8.5 percent to Gotfryd and 4.5 percent
to Susman.  The proposal contained only the fee-division
percentages and a condition that the percentages were subject to a
pro rata reduction for an arbitrated award to a fourth attorney,
Seth Litman, to be determined after the agreement was finalized.

On July 2, a draft written agreement was circulated via email, and
it included the approved fee-division terms and several additional
enforcement-related provisions.

The written agreement provided that the mediators, now working in
the capacity of arbitrators, were authorized to arbitrate any
disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement; deem any
lawyers fees forfeited if the lawyer failed to cooperate in
implementing the agreement in the state-specific settlements; and
adjust normal arbitration rules to further the goal of expediency,
according to the decision.

The process of revising and approving the agreement moved quickly
and, for the most part, without controversy.  One of the mediators
responded right away, urging the lawyers to get everything signed
up that day if possible.

Within two hours of the initial circulation, Susman responded with
a suggestion that two minor points be clarified and the changes
were made immediately.  Other adjustments were made pursuant to
comments from the other parties.

On July 6, a final draft was circulated and the lawyers began to
sign the agreement.  Most signed and returned the July 6 draft
immediately, a few others signed on July 9 and 10 and the last,
except for Susman, signed on July 12, according to the decision.

On July 11, the lawyer in charge of the drafting process emailed
Susman and reminded him to sign the document.  However, the
following day, Susman emailed back, saying he was "not now in
position to sign up" and needed to deal with "some loose ends on
our part."

The lawyers and mediators later discovered the "loose ends"
mentioned referred to an expense dispute between Susman and
Gotfryd, and Susman cryptically told the drafting lawyer that the
timing of his signature was "not in his hands," the decision says.
The drafter passed the information along to the mediators.

On July 13, one of the mediators emailed Susman asking him to help
"dot all the 'i's' and cross all the 't's' by signing the last
agreement," and suggested that he defer resolution of any
remaining issues he had on the side.  He also reminded Susman that
the Litman fee issue was deferred for future arbitration and also
noted that the agreement could not be finalized without Susman's
signature.

On July 17, Susman responded to the email and acknowledged his
prior approval of the fee-allocation proposal, but said that he
could not approve the written agreement because of an ongoing
disagreement with Gotfryd and because "there are obligations in
the proposed agreement which were really not a part of the
original mediators' proposal and which were not part of our
understanding of our acceptance" of the proposal.

When the Litman arbitration was completed on July 19 and on
July 20, the lawyers filed a motion asking the district court to
hold that Susman was bound by the written agreement
notwithstanding his failure to sign and to order the distribution
of their agreed-upon percentages from the settlement escrow.

The lawyers submitted evidence about the unanimous approval of the
mediators' fee-division proposal and the circumstances surrounding
the drafting and approval process that had produced the final
written agreement.  After hearing the argument, the district court
granted the motion.

The judge held that Susman is bound by the final written agreement
and entered an order disbursing the escrow funds to the various
attorney groups according to the percentages in the agreement,
according to the document.

Susman appealed, and while his appeal has been pending,
fee-allocation orders have been entered and fees distributed in
several other state settlements in accordance with the agreement.
Susman has not objected to the distributions, but continues to
maintain that he is not bound by the written agreement.

"Indeed, when pressed at oral argument, Susman identified the
expense dispute with Gotfryd as the reason he objected to the
written agreement," the decision states.  "He also acknowledges on
appeal that he considers himself bound by the fee-allocation
percentages, and indeed he has been accepting distributions
pursuant to the agreement."

"If his real complaint is the size of his share whether in
relative terms, once he saw all the numbers, or because the
expense dispute with Gotfryd made him change his mind about the
allocation's fairness -- then his reliance on a tardy objection to
the arbitration and hold-harmless provisions in the written
agreement is hard to explain as anything other than a sham."

Susman cannot re-open the fee division now, and he claims he is
not trying to, but neither can he get out of the other terms in
the written agreement by way of a late objection when the
circumstances reasonably suggest that he manifested as assent to
be bound, the decision states.

"The district court was intimately familiar with the parties'
course of conduct during the fee dispute and carefully reviewed
the evidence before finding that Susman is bound by the written
agreement despite his failure to sign.  Given the parties' lengthy
relationship and course of dealings, the district court reasonably
construed Susman's silence as an assent to be bound," the decision
says.

The appeal was assigned to Circuit Judges William Joseph Bauer,
Richard Posner and Diane S. Sykes.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case number: 12-3036


* ISS Lists Top 12 Securities Class Action Settlements for 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Ciccatelli, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that
building on the industry's most comprehensive databases on
securities class action litigation, ISS Securities Class Action
Services Top 100 Settlements Semi-Annual Report for 2H 2012
identifies the largest securities class action settlements filed
after the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, ranked by the total value of the settlement fund.  The
report provides the settlement date, filing court, settlement
fund, and identifies the key players for each settlement.

These days, more than 1,700 clients rely on ISS to help them make
informed corporate governance decisions.  ISS is a known provider
of proxy advisory and corporate governance solutions to financial
market participants. Its 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.

Here are all 12 securities 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, in a statement.

This year's data was broken down using charts and graphs of
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.


                             *********

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.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, 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  * * *