CAR_Public/140324.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 58

                             Headlines


ADVANCED BIONICS: Sells Defective Cochlear Implants
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Transvaginal Mesh Litigation Ongoing
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 2,300 Prowler 500 HDX Due to Fire Risk
APPLE REIT: Sued by Shareholders in Virginia Over Merger Issue
AVID DATING: Dating Web Site's Policy Unfair to Men, Member Says

BEDZ KING: To Voluntarily Recall About 2,900 Bunk Beds
BRAMAN MOTORS: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
BRISTOL-MYERS: Hawaii AG Files Suit Over Plavix Health Risks
BRISTOL-MYERS: Plavix Suit Remanded to West Virginia
CHECKCARE GROUP: Illegally Debits Bank Accounts, Suit Claims

CHOICE HOTELS: Hotel Booking Antitrust Suit Dismissed
CORSICANA BEDDING: Production Workers Seek to Recover OT Wages
CREDIT BUREAU: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CUYAHOGA COUNTY: Class Cert. Denial in Musial Suit Overturned
CUSTOM MECHANICAL: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "EMASCO" Suit

EL NUEVO BOHIO: Class Seeks Payment of Overtime and Minimum Wages
FANNIE MAY: Recalls Assorted Chocolates Due to Undeclared Peanuts
FITBIT: Kicks Off Refund Program After Activity Tracker Recall
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Accessibility Barriers
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging FDCPA Violations

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 1.5 Million Additional Vehicles
GENERAL MOTORS: U.S. Congress to Probe Recall Over Ignition Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: CEO to Testify April 1 Over Ignition Problem
GEORGE'S INC: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Misbranding
GLASS CATERING: Recalls 181,620 Pounds Salad Due to E. Coli

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Officers Hid Bribery & Kickbacks, Suit Says
HITACHI KOKI: Recalls 115,000 Grass Trimmers Due to Fire Risk
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Plum Set Due to Incorrect Component
INDYMAC MBS: Supreme Court to Hear Pension Plans' Securities Suit
INFINITY LEGAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

KKR FINANCIAL: Faces "Bushey" Merger-Related Suit in California
MACY'S WEST: "Fuentes" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Faces Suits Over Alleged RESPA Violations
MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over OS in Canada
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Faces "Zweig" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Unlawfully Suspends/Reduces HELOC, Suit Says
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Refused to Dismiss Monopoly-Related Suit
RESER'S FINE: Expands Recall of Various Meat Products
RESER'S FINE: Recall of Meat Products Due to Listeria Expanded
PLAYTEX MFG: Recalls Breast Pump Power Adapters

RITE OF PASSAGE: "Shiller" Action Wins Class Status
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls 28,400 Circuit Breakers
SIMPLY NATURAL: Recalls Choco Bars Due to High Milk Protein Levels
SPRINT/UNITED: Sued for Failing to Provide Meal & Rest Periods
SUPERTEX INC: Being Sold to Microchip for Too Little, Suit Says

TARGET CORP: Sued by First Choice Credit Union Over Data Breach
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Broccoli Salad Kits Due to Listeria
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid in NBL Flooring's Suit Denied
TULVING COMPANY: Sued for Not Delivering $46,500 Worth of Coins
US BANK: "Horneland" Class Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida

VCG HOLDING: Exotic Dancers Sue Over Misclassification of Workers
WESTMINSTER MINT: Accused of Selling Counterfeit Coins in Minn.
YIA'S AUTO SALES: Court Certifies Class in "Pha" Suit
ZOLTEK COMPANIES: Court Okays Stipulation in Shareholder Lawsuit


                             *********


ADVANCED BIONICS: Sells Defective Cochlear Implants
---------------------------------------------------
Michael Kosnar and Lisa Myers, writing for NBC News, report that a
manufacturer of amazing medical devices known as cochlear
implants, which restore hearing to the deaf, sold defective
implants to young children and adults for years -- even after
learning that a significant number of the devices had failed,
according to documents obtained by NBC News.

Advanced Bionics, the second largest manufacturer of cochlear
implants in the world, had issues with its HiRes 90K implant
almost from the beginning, when those failed devices were found to
have excessive moisture inside.

The effects of that decision to continue selling the implants is
being felt to this day by people like Grace Bagadiong.  Grace
suffers from an undiagnosed condition that has left her unable to
walk, use her arms or even breathe on her own.  But there's one
ailment her parents thought they could fix: By age 3, Grace was
completely deaf.  Doctors proposed a cochlear implant to restore
Grace's hearing, and her parents quickly agreed -- unaware of the
complications that surgery would bring.

"They said 'Well we can get her to hear if you want her to.' And I
was like 'OK, let's do it tomorrow,'" said Cherie Bagadiong, mom
to Grace, now 11.

Grace received the HiRes 90K in 2005.  But just three months after
Grace had the surgery, her parents received a startling letter:
The device inside Grace's skull was being recalled after numerous
failures, including some patients who reported painful shocks to
the head.

"I was hot.  I was livid.  They recalled it less than three months
after it was put in my kid's head," Cherie Bagadiong said.  "They
had to have known there was issues going on at the time it was
implanted in my kid's head."

An NBC News Investigation reveals the company did know and
internal documents show a disturbing timeline of events all taking
place even before Grace received her implant:

January 2003 - Advanced Bionics engineer warns that a key
component of the implant "may be vulnerable for a potential leak."

March 2004 - Advanced Bionics executive admits the company hadn't
conducted a key test "that mimics the human body."

August 2004 - FDA inspection finds 237 explanted devices with high
levels of moisture.

September 2004 - Advanced Bionics HiRes 90k is recalled due to
"unexplained moisture" causing some implant failures.

November 2004 - Advanced Bionics HiRes 90k is returned to the
market.

February 2005 - FDA sends warning letter to Advanced Bionics.

February 2005 - Advanced Bionics company president states "product
failures continue to occur at an alarming rate."  He says the
company is "in significant danger of losing all of our key
accounts in NYC ie NYU and Beth Israel because of failed devices."

Summer 2005 - Advanced Bionics continues to receive reports of
failed implants due to excessive moisture.

Despite all those warning signs, children like Grace received
implants throughout 2005 and into 2006.

Another issue: Advanced Bionics didn't tell anyone that it was
selling the device with a different version of that key component
than when it was originally approved by the FDA, a direct
violation of government regulations.

Unlike a conventional hearing aid, a cochlear implant is placed
into the skull and an electrode is inserted into the cochlea,
establishing a connection with nerve endings.  The problem with
the HiRes 90K was that moisture was entering the implant, causing
electrical failure.

After the first recall in 2004, Advanced Bionics said it changed
its manufacturing process, but the failures continued.  Its second
recall came in 2006, by then 4,000 devices had been implanted --
including Grace's.

Even with her implant, Grace was not progressing like other
children with similar devices.  It was finally determined that the
device had failed, like the others, due to excessive moisture.

"To know that there was a problem and not do anything about it and
then to allow that to be put in my kid's head, it's making my
blood boil right now," Grace Bagadiong's mother Cherie said.

"Time and time again they had the chance to fix something wrong,
even before it got to us.  And then even after it got to us.  And
it seemed like they chose not to," added Grace's father, Nolan
Bagadiong.

Dr. Arun Gadre, a professor of otolaryngology and head and neck
surgery at the University of Louisville, removed a defective HiRes
90K from then 8-year-old Breanna Sadler, who suffered severe
electric shocks inside her head due to excessive moisture in the
device and was thrown to the ground, convulsing and vomiting.

Dr. Gadre says he's angry that small children were forced to
undergo multiple, traumatic surgeries.

"I think those human beings made a terrible decision," he said.
"When you start putting profits before people, because that's the
only way I can interpret this, if you start putting profits before
people it never comes to a good end.  There's no way that that
could ever come to a good end."

Advanced Bionics paid a $1.1 million settlement to the FDA in
2008, denying any liability.  Eleven months ago, a Kentucky jury
found that Advanced Bionics recklessly disregarded patient safety
in Breanna's case and ordered it to pay more than $7 million.  It
then settled Breanna's case, Grace's case and some others.

In some cases the defective implant wound up causing irreversible
damage to the patient's ears.

Dick Thomas, 63, was implanted with a HiRes 90K after a minor
stroke left him deaf.  He says at first it improved his hearing,
but five years later it failed and was found to have more than 100
times the allowable limit of moisture in it.  A second implant
also failed because of complications caused by scar tissue from
the first surgery, necessitating a third surgery and implant,
which he says barely works.

Mr. Thomas said he was forced to retire, and his relationship with
his wife Rosalie has been strained by their lack of communication.

"I've been done a great injustice. This shouldn't have happened,"
Mr. Thomas said.  "It's just terribly frustrating to me."

Internal documents before a meeting with the FDA in 2006 said the
company "failed to put into place an effective quality system."
Yet when NBC News visited the company last December, officials
denied any wrongdoing at all, saying it tested the products
according to industry standards.

Advanced Bionics Vice President of Marketing Tracey Kruger said
the device was left on the market because it took two years to
figure out the cause of the problem.

Grace's parents say since getting a new cochlear implant made by a
different company, she has made dramatic improvements in her
hearing and speech.

The company says as soon as it understood the source of the
problem, it stopped manufacturing the device and started a
voluntary recall.

"You know Advanced Bionics has always put the safety and well
being of our patients first.  We went through the process that we
thought was appropriate to identify the cause of this issue and we
dealt with it as quickly as we possibly could in order to ensure
the safety and well being of our patients," said Tracey Kruger
Vice President of Marketing for Advanced Bionics.

Today, Advanced Bionics is under new ownership and says it has a
better than 99 percent reliability rate.

"People here really get that we make cochlear implants that go
inside people's heads," said Advanced Bionics Vice President Jim
Robinson.  "People get that as a culture here. And the quality of
that and the importance of that is something we really take to
heart."

Howard Samuels, 53, was implanted with two HiRes90k's.  He says
the implants have enabled him to continue his career as an
electrical engineer and reconnect with his family.

"I can't even begin to describe how profound the difference is in
my life," said Mr. Samuels.  "Hearing loss is not just about what
you can hear and what you cannot hear, it's about connecting with
people."

But the success stories are no consolation for Grace's parents.
They say since getting a new cochlear implant made by a different
company, she has made dramatic improvements in her hearing and
speech.  But they get emotional when they speak of their
daughter's surgeries and lost early years, a critical time in her
development that she will never get back.

"They knew, they knew and they could have helped us prevent that
with our kid," Cherie Bagadiong said.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Transvaginal Mesh Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Al Brayton, Esq., at Brayton Purcell LLP reports that surgical
mesh was first approved by the FDA in the 1950s to repair hernias.
In the 1990s, the product was expanded to treat pelvic organ
prolapsed and stress urinary incontinence conditions, particularly
for women post childbirth.  However, thousands of women have
suffered injuries from transvaginal mesh.  Many had to undergo
additional surgical procedures, such as blood transfusions and
draining, to correct the problems from the defective medical
device.

As of March 20, roughly 40,000 lawsuits have been filed against
various manufacturers of the defective transvaginal mesh device.
And, according to the most recent reports, 3,000 additional
lawsuits are filed every single month.  Defendant manufacturers
include American Medical Systems, Ethicon, C.R. Bard, Boston
Scientific, and Cook Medical Systems, among others.

                         Case consolidation

However, due to the number of lawsuits, many of these cases have
been consolidated into what's known as multidistrict litigation.
MDL, as it's also referred to, occurs when there are so many cases
that involve similar issues, or common questions of fact, that
they are often combined and tried under one judge.  This reduces
the stress and time of trying a case one by one.

Presently, there are six different MDL consolidations regarding
the transvaginal mesh device -- many are pending in West Virginia
federal court.

           Current status of transvaginal mesh lawsuits

Various manufacturers have agreed to settle product defect claims
and compensate injured victims and their families.

American Medical Systems, for instance, not too long ago agreed to
settle a cluster of cases for a reported $54.5 million.  According
to recent information, AMS will likely soon agree to a global
settlement of roughly 6,000 cases currently awaiting trial.  Last
September, other manufacturers including C.R. Bard, Boston
Scientific, Endo, and Cook Medical Systems, among others, were
collaborating to possibly settle thousands of other similar cases
awaiting trial.

However, transvaginal mesh multidistrict litigation is still
pending for thousands of victims.  MDL-2326 against Boston
Scientific, MDL-2324 against American Medical Systems, and MDL-
2327 against Ethicon (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) are all
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia.  All trials are expected to take place sometime
this year.

As the outcome of these cases continue to unfold, the decision to
continue with litigation or settle is likely to become more
apparent.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 2,300 Prowler 500 HDX Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Arctic Cat, announced voluntary recall of about 2,300 Arctic Cat
Prowler 500 HDX. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell
a recalled consumer product.

Fuel can leak from the fuel fitting at the throttle body of the
vehicle, posing a fire hazard.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes Model Year 2014 Arctic Cat Prowler 500 HDX
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV). The two-seat vehicles come
in four colors: green, red, vibrant red metallic or emerald green
metallic. The vehicles have "Arctic Cat" printed on each side of
the hood and on the cargo box tail gate, "500" printed on each
side of the front fenders and "HDX" printed on each side of the
rear cargo box.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/J82Xnj

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Arctic Cat dealers nationwide from August 2013 to January 2014
for between about $11,000 and $12,400.

Consumers should stop using the recalled Prowlers immediately and
contact an Arctic Cat dealer to schedule a free repair.  Arctic
Cat is contacting all known owners of the Prowlers directly.


APPLE REIT: Sued by Shareholders in Virginia Over Merger Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
DCG&T f/b/o Jack Battaglia/IRA; Jack Battaglia and DCG&T f/b/o
Lori Battaglia/IRA v. Glade M. Knight, Michael S. Waters, Robert
M. Wily, Bruce H. Matson, James C. Barden and Does 1-10, and Apple
Reit Nine, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00067-REP (E.D. Va., January 31,
2014) is a shareholder class action and derivative action
asserting claims on behalf of the public common shareholders of
Apple REIT Nine for damages threatened by the close of the
impending merger of Apple REIT Seven and Apple REIT Eight with
A-9.

The Plaintiffs are shareholders of A-9.

Apple REIT Nine, Inc. was formed in 2007 and is focused on the
ownership and operation of extended stay and limited service
hotels and other income producing real estate.  A-9 is a Virginia
corporation headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of A-9.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, Esq.
          SANDS ANDERSON PC
          1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804)783-7248
          Facsimile: (804)783-7291
          E-mail: jgeiger@sandsanderson.com

               - and -

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 855-6066
          Facsimile: (732) 726-4735
          E-mail: dlapinski@wilentz.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles William McIntyre, Jr., Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP (DC)
          2001 K Street NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20006-1040
          Telephone: (202) 857-1742
          E-mail: cmcintyre@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Flannagan Edwards, Esq.
          Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr., Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          901 E Cary St.
          Richmond, VA 23219-4030
          Telephone: (804) 775-1000
          Facsimile: (804) 775-1061
          E-mail: eedwards@mcguirewoods.com
                  jmcmahan@mcguirewoods.com


AVID DATING: Dating Web Site's Policy Unfair to Men, Member Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Mark Lewis v. Avid
Dating Life Inc., et al., Case No. BC526665, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-00763-DMG-MRW to the proceeding.

Mr. Lewis, an alleged member of a dating Web site operated by
Avid.  He alleges that the Web site does not allow men to
communicate with women through the Web site unless they purchase
credits, but allows women to communicate with men through the Web
site without payment, in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
and the Gender Tax Repeal Act, among other laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julie Mehrban, Esq.
          MEHRBAN LAW CORPORATION APC
          15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 694-8331
          Facsimile: (206) 337-4255
          E-mail: julie@mehrbanlaw.com

               - and -

          Morse Mehrban, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MORSE MEHRBAN APC
          15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-2251
          Telephone: (424) 274-1237
          Facsimile: (206) 202-3834
          E-mail: morse@mehrban.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David William Nelson, Esq.
          Kevin D. Rising, Esq.
          BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904
          Telephone: (310) 284-3770
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          E-mail: dnelson@btlaw.com
                  kevin.rising@btlaw.com


BEDZ KING: To Voluntarily Recall About 2,900 Bunk Beds
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Bedz King is voluntarily
recalling about 2,900 bunk beds because the height of one of the
posts is too high. Children's clothing could get caught on that
post, potentially choking them.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on March 20 that
the bunk beds have a protruding corner post that exceeds the 5
millimeters allowed by industry standard. No injuries have been
reported.

The Bedz King bunk beds with a side ladder were sold from 2011
through 2013 for between $350 and $750.

Consumers should contact Bedz King for a free repair kit if they
have the recalled item.  The Arlington, Texas company is also
emailing buyers.


BRAMAN MOTORS: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ayure, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Braman Motors, Inc., a for profit Florida corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20399-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 31, 2014) seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff works as an automobile
salesperson at Braman.

Braman Motor, Inc., is a Florida corporation owned and operated by
Norman Braman.  The Company operates numerous automobile
dealership locations, which operate under substantially the same
pay plan, using various fictitious names owned by the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 665-9211
          Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Hawaii AG Files Suit Over Plavix Health Risks
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that Hawaii's attorney general is suing the makers of a widely
prescribed blood thinner that he says a significant portion of the
state's population has difficulty metabolizing.

Attorney General David Louie filed a lawsuit on March 19 against
the manufacturers and distributors of Plavix, marketed to work
similarly to aspirin to prevent a stroke or heart attack.  Mr.
Louie alleges the manufacturers failed to disclose that Plavix has
"diminished or no effect" on people of East Asian or Pacific
Islander descent because they metabolize it poorly.  He said the
drug puts them at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and other
complications.  He wasn't aware of any deaths as a result.

The suit names Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis as
defendants.  In a joint statement, the companies said they won't
comment on pending litigation.

"Plavix is one of the most studied medicines with over a decade of
real-world experience in patients with acute coronary syndrome,
recent stroke, recent heart attack and peripheral arterial disease
(PAD)," the statement said.  "Plavix has been prescribed to more
than 115 million patients worldwide, including more than 50
million in the United States."

But Mr. Louie said the drug is ineffective for a significant
portion of Hawaii's population.  He said more than 1 million
Plavix prescriptions have been issued in Hawaii since 1998, when
the drug first started being marketed. It's estimated that the
manufacturers made tens of millions in profits from those sales,
including at the state's expense through Medicaid, Louie said.

Hawaii is the fifth state attorney general to file a lawsuit
claiming unfair and deceptive marketing of Plavix, after
Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia and California, said
Richard Fried of the Honolulu law firm the attorney general's
office hired to handle the lawsuit.

To work effectively, Plavix must be broken down by a particular
liver enzyme.  But the Food and Drug Administration says 2 to 14
percent of people in the U.S. have low levels of the enzyme,
preventing them from successfully processing Plavix.  The
likelihood of being a non-responder varies by race, according to
the FDA.

Plavix's "diminished effectiveness is especially prevalent among
Hawaii consumers," the suit said.

According to 2010 Census data, Asians constitute nearly 39 percent
of Hawaii's population; Pacific Islanders make up 10 percent; and
nearly 24 percent of people in Hawaii are of mixed race.

Sanofi said last year that the U.S. Justice Department was
investigating its disclosures to the FDA about different responses
to Plavix.  The company provided no additional details but said it
was cooperating with the probe.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Plavix Suit Remanded to West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
Accused of falsely marketing Plavix as superior to aspirin to sell
it for about 100 times more, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-
Aventis must defend themselves in state court, reports Rose
Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw Jr. filed the
complaint in the Circuit Court of Marshall County on Dec. 28,
2012, saying that the drugmakers advertise that the brand-name
blood thinner is of finer quality than its generic counterpart for
certain indicated usages.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and two Sanofi
subsidiaries allegedly charge about 100 times more for Plavix
despite knowing that the brand-name heart medicine works no better
than aspirin.  On behalf of the Public Employees Insurance Agency,
West Virginia seeks up to $5,000 for each willful violation of the
West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act and Insurance Fraud
Act.  Such funds would reimburse member-employees for excessive
insurance payments for Plavix, according to the complaint.

After the drugmakers removed the case to the Northern District of
West Virginia, the action was consolidated with other Plavix suits
facing multidistrict litigation in New Jersey.

West Virginia countered that the federal court lacks diversity
jurisdiction because the suit is filed under parens patriae --
literally "parent of the country," which lets a state sue as the
guardian of its citizens for a public interest.

Bristol-Myers and Sanofi countered that West Virginia is only a
nominal party in suit, and that the real party is its public
insurance agency, a citizen of the state.  They also said that the
case is a removable "class action" under the Class Action Fairness
Act, and that disputed federal issues plague the matter.

U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson said on Feb. 26 that West
Virginia's Northern District Court must remand the case to
Marshall County.

"I find that the state is the real party in interest in this
enforcement action," the unpublished ruling states.  "I do not
find convincing defendants' argument that the complaint
'overwhelmingly' seeks to vindicate the specific interests of
[Public Employees Insurance Agency] PEIA, not the state in
general.  The fact that the state, on behalf of PEIA, also seeks
recovery of prescription drug costs expended by PEIA does not
undermine the state's broader interest in its case."

Case law does not preclude the state from bringing consumer-
protection claims concerning an industry highly regulated by the
federal government, the ruling states.

"The 'degree of federal regulation' in the pharmaceutical industry
does not bar the state's claims in the present case because the
[Consumer Credit Protection Act] CCPA claims asserted against
defendants are complementary to any federal regulations," Wolfson
wrote.

The fact that the state is seeking the remedy of injunctive relief
"alone supports the position that the state is the only real party
in interest," the judge added.

The drugmakers failed to show "substantial" federal issues, the
judge found, relying on a 2005 decision in Grable & Sons Metal
Products Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing.

"Other than the fact that plaintiff's claims may implicate the
[Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] FDCA -- that is, the FDCA may be
consulted or analyzed in establishing certain elements of the
state law claims -- that in and of itself is not substantial under
Grable to support federal question jurisdiction," Wolfson wrote.

She added: "Taking the pleadings as a whole, I am satisfied that
the state has concrete interests and a substantial stake in the
litigation; put simply, the benefits of the remedies that the
state has sought flow to the state as a whole," Wolfson wrote.

Sanofi-Aventis reported more than $45.7 billion in revenue 2013,
whereas Bristol-Myers reported $17.621 billion in net sales in
2012.

The case is State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw,
Jr., Attorney General v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-01603-FLW-TJB, in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.


CHECKCARE GROUP: Illegally Debits Bank Accounts, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Rawlins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Checkcare Group, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:14-cv-00136-R-JPR (C.D.
Cal., January 31, 2014) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
other remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the
Defendant debiting the Plaintiff and the putative Class members'
bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining authorization
for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from their accounts,
thereby, violating the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

The Checkcare Group, LLC, is a company headquartered in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.  The Company is a business entity whose principle
purpose is to provide electronic check processing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          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
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


CHOICE HOTELS: Hotel Booking Antitrust Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane J. Boyle issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
on February 18, 2014, dismissing the case captioned In re: ONLINE
TRAVEL COMPANY (OTC) HOTEL BOOKING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-3515-B, (N.D. Tex.).

Defendants, who include major U.S. hotel chains and online travel
agencies (OTAs) in the United States, jointly move to dismiss this
putative class action brought by consumers claiming they paid
inflated prices on hotel rooms booked online. Defendants first
challenged the Consolidated Amended Complaint's three antitrust
law claims, which charge Defendants with engaging in an industry-
wide conspiracy to uniformly adopt resale price maintenance
agreements, containing most favored nation clauses, in an effort
to eliminate price competition among hotel room booking websites.
Defendants also sought to dismiss the Complaint's state consumer
protection law claim, which alleges that Defendants deceptively
published "best price" or "lowest price" guarantees on their
websites while knowing that "best" price was the same fixed rate
offered across all hotel booking websites.

To survive this motion, the Complaint's factual allegations (taken
as true) must plausibly establish the essential elements of each
claim. Because Judge Boyle found that the Complaint failed to
plausibly allege (1) a price-fixing conspiracy for the three
antitrust law claims and (2) proximate causation for the consumer
protection law claim, the Court granted the Defendants' Joint
Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice all four counts
of the Complaint.

The Court also found supplemental motions filed by Choice Hotels
and Sabre Holdings moot in light of the Complaint's dismissal.

"If Plaintiffs wish to file a second consolidated amended
complaint in an effort to overcome the deficiencies warranting
dismissal stated herein, they must do so by moving for leave to
amend within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order," said
Judge Boyle.  "This motion shall be accompanied by a synopsis no
longer than fifteen (15) pages explaining why the amendments
overcome the deficiencies stated herein. If Defendants wish to
respond, they must do so within fourteen (14) calender days of
Plaintiffs' motion by filing a joint responsive brief no longer
than fifteen pages (15). No further briefing will be permitted.
The Court will only extend these deadlines and page-length
limitations if the requesting party moves for leave and shows good
cause."

"Should Plaintiffs move for leave to amend, the Court will
determine whether or not the repleadings are "futile" in light of
the deficiencies warranting dismissal stated in this Order. In
reviewing such a motion, the Court will only consider arguments
concerning the deficiencies stated herein. Should Plaintiffs
overcome these deficiencies, the Court will address the issues it
deferred consideration of in this Order and request further
briefing, if necessary, at that time," added Judge Boyle.

A copy of the ruling may be accessed for free at
http://is.gd/C1zvRNfrom Leagle.com.


CORSICANA BEDDING: Production Workers Seek to Recover OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cristobal Pascual, David Jimenez, and Oscar Parra, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Corsicana
Bedding, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00008-HSM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.,
January 31, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages allegedly owed to
the Plaintiffs by the Company under federal law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has failed to pay its
mattress factory production employees for all time worked,
including failing to pay them the overtime wages they are owed
under the law.

Corsicana Bedding, Inc. is a Texas Corporation headquartered in
Corsicana, Texas.  The Company maintains a production facility in
Shelbyville, Tennessee.  The Company is in the business of
manufacturing and selling mattresses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          R. Andrew Free, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
          217 Second Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  afree@barrettjohnston.com


CREDIT BUREAU: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Haari A. Navon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., doing
business as Chase Receivables, Case No. 1:14-cv-00712-WFK-RLM
(E.D.N.Y., January 31, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CUYAHOGA COUNTY: Class Cert. Denial in Musial Suit Overturned
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
reversed a trial court judgment denying class certification in
MUSIAL OFFICES, LTD. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, and CROSS-APPELLEE,
v. COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, and CROSS-
APPELLANTS, NO. 99781. 2014-Ohio-602.

Plaintiff-appellant, Musial Offices, Ltd. appealed the denial of
its motion for class certification in its case against defendants-
appellees, Cuyahoga County, to recoup overpaid property taxes. In
a cross-appeal, Cuyahoga County challenged the trial court's
determination that Musial established certain requirements for
class certification. The county also asserted the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to hear Musial's claims.

In a journal entry and opinion, released and journalized on
February 20, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/MwCJ2Vfrom Leagle.com, the Ohio Appeals Court found
that the trial court had jurisdiction and reversed the trial
court's judgment denying class certification.

Musial's claims for recovery of overpaid taxes are not barred by
the statute of limitations, held the Ohio Appeals Court.

The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to
certify the class and proceed on the merits of the class action.
The Ohio Appeals Court further ordered that plaintiff-appellant
recover from defendants-appellees costs taxed.

Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- James S.
Timmerberg -- jtimmerberg@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein
Co., L.P.A., 60 South Park Place, Painesville, Ohio 44077, Thomas
D. Robenalt, Mellino Robenalt, L.L.C., 19704 Center Ridge Road,
Rocky River, Ohio 44114, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT and
CROSS-APPELLEE.

Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, BY: Brian R.
Gutkoski, John F. Manley, David G. Lambert, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorneys, The Justice Center, 8th Floor, 1200 Ontario Street,
Cleveland, Ohio 44113, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND
CROSS-APPELLANTS.


CUSTOM MECHANICAL: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "EMASCO" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange granted a motion for
summary judgment filed by plaintiffs in EMCASCO INSURANCE COMPANY
and EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. CUSTOM
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, INC., CUSTOM MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OF
WISCONSIN, LLC, CUSTOM MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, LLC and CE DESIGN
LTD., Defendants, and CE DESIGN LTD., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,
v. EMCASCO INSURANCE COMPANY and EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-11-1494-M,
(W.D. Ok.).  Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

Plaintiffs filed this declaratory action seeking judgment on the
availability of insurance coverage under certain policies of
insurance issued to Custom Mechanical Equipment, Inc.  EMCASCO
issued Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policies to
Custom.

On November 10, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit (the
underlying case) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
challenging Custom, CMEOW and CME's (Custom Entities) practice of
faxing unsolicited advertisements. In the underlying case, the
Defendant alleged that on April 18, 2008, the Custom Entities sent
a telephone facsimile to defendant as well as sent similar
telephone facsimiles to other recipients without having permission
to do so. The Defendant asserted claims in the underlying case
against the Custom Entities for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), common law conversion, and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practice Act (ICFA).

On June 23, 2011, the court in the underlying case entered an
Order Preliminarily Approving the Class Action Settlement, and
Approving the Class Action Settlement Notice, and on September 19,
2011, entered the Final Approval of Settlement and Judgment.
Judgment was entered against the Custom Entities in the amount of
$1,276,000.00.

Plaintiffs contend that CMEOW and CME do not qualify as "insureds"
on the subject policies, and that they "necessarily never had any
coverage obligations to CMEOW and CME in the underlying case."

The Court finds that it is irrelevant whether plaintiffs have
coverage obligations to CME or CMEOW, said Judge Miles-LaGrange.
She pointed out that the court in the underlying case entered
judgment "on Counts I, II, and III of the First Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Custom Entities, jointly and
severally, in the total amount of $1,276,000.00."  The court in
the underlying case further found that:

The Judgment shall be satisfied only through the proceeds of
Defendants' insurance policies and against Defendants' insurers.
. . . The  court in the underlying case found the Custom Entities
jointly and severally liable, and Custom assigned its rights
under the subject policies to defendant. As a result, due to the
joint and several liability judgment, if plaintiffs are found to
be responsible to indemnify defendant on behalf of Custom,
plaintiffs would be responsible for the entire amount.

In addition, Judge Miles-LaGrange ruled that as of matter of law,
the ICFA claim in the underlying case did not trigger a duty for
plaintiffs to defend the underlying case.

A copy of the District Court's February 18, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/jC0ul8from Leagle.com.


EL NUEVO BOHIO: Class Seeks Payment of Overtime and Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Leonel Hernandez and Yudelka Garcia, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. El Nuevo Bohio, Inc. d/b/a El
Nuevo Bohio Restaurant, and Ramon Fernandez, individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00652-VSB (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2014) is brought for
damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants' alleged
violations the Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them by the
overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

El Nuevo Bohio, Inc., doing business as El Nuevo Bohio Restaurant
is a New York corporation with its principal place of business
located in Bronx, New York.  Ramon Fernandez owns and operates the
Restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
          Alexander Todd Coleman, 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: mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com

               - and -

          Cherice Patrice Vanderhall, Esq.
          L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA AND CONTINI, LLP
          1001 Franklin Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 298-4011
          Facsimile: (516) 294-8202
          E-mail: cpvanderhall@hotmail.com


FANNIE MAY: Recalls Assorted Chocolates Due to Undeclared Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. ("Fannie May") is recalling
89.08 cases of its 14.0 oz., rectangle box of spring wrapped
assorted chocolates because the box includes one piece of candy
that contains peanuts, a known allergen, and the food ingredient
label on the box did not state that the product contained peanuts.
Fannie May decided to recall the products after this was
discovered during an internal review of product.

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

The recalled product is a 14.0 oz., rectangular gift box measuring
9 1/2" by 7" in size that contains 24 pieces of assorted
chocolates including one caramel/peanut candy. The light purple
with spring flowers-wrapped rectangular-shaped box contains an
orange-striped band. In the center of the orange-striped band is a
white rectangle with a picture of 5 chocolate pieces and the name
"Fannie May", product type "Assorted Chocolates", and product
description "rich dark & milk chocolates & pastels with an
assortment of decadent fillings" in brown lettering on the band
around the box. Also, the front-bottom of the orange-striped band
states "NET WT. 14 OZ. (396g)". The back of the box has a full
nutritional label which also states: "This product has been
produced on equipment shared with peanuts, tree nuts, soybeans,
milk, eggs and wheat".

The item is identified as SKU #75032 with the UPC number on the
label of 0 52745 72804 6. Lot information on this product is 14058
or 14059.

The box of candy looks like this:

     http://is.gd/FKTrN0

Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. determined that the 89.08
cases of chocolates were available for sale beginning March 3 in
specific retailers in seven (7) states: Michigan, Minnesota,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin and Arizona. Retailers that
sold the product include, but are not limited to, Walgreens,
Hallmark Gift Shops, CVS and other independent retailers.
To date there has been no incidences, nor have there been any
reported illnesses.

This voluntary recall does not affect any other products from
Fannie May Chocolates.

Consumers that have purchased the Fannie May 14.0 oz. rectangular
spring box of assorted chocolates are urged to dispose of the
product.

Fannie May is working in cooperation with the FDA. Information on
the product recall can be found on the home page of the Company's
website located at: www.fanniemay.com. Consumers with questions
may contact a dedicated customer service representative at the
Company by dialing 330-494-0833 Extension 193, Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. -- 5:30 p.m. EST or email
customerservice@fanniemay.com


FITBIT: Kicks Off Refund Program After Activity Tracker Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Velazco, writing for Engadget, reports that Fitbit kicked
off a refund program last month after learning its Force activity
tracker caused skin irritation in a "small percentage" of users.

According to the official recall notice from the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission, the company received around 9,900
reports of skin irritation and around 250 reports of blistering.
The notice also points out that the recall affects about 1 million
of the wearables in the United States and about 28,000 more in
Canada.  So what happens next? Well, the CPSC's stance is clear:
contact the company and take the money.

"Whether you hear about this recall from the CPSC or Fitbit
directly, take advantage of the refund right away," CPSC
communications director Scott Wolfson told Engadget.  "It's
actually somewhat rare for firms that we deal with to provide a
refund, especially a full refund."

The Commission also wants the company to inform as many of its
customers of the recall as possible, and it doesn't seem thrilled
with what Fitbit has accomplished so far.  At time of writing,
Fitbit's popular Twitter (77,700 followers) and Facebook (250,000
likes) accounts make no mention of the recall.  That's not to say
Fitbit is just sitting around though: a representative confirmed
to Engadget that it'll email all Force owners "over the next few
weeks" to make sure they're aware of the situation.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Accessibility Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First Commonwealth Financial Corporation d/b/a First
Commonwealth Bank, Case No. 2:14-cv-00145-JFC-CRE (W.D. Pa.,
January 31, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, in connection
with alleged accessibility barriers at various properties owned
and managed by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff has a mobility disability and is limited in the
major life activity of walking.  The Plaintiff has familial
spastic paraparesis, which has caused him to be paralyzed and
dependent upon a motorized wheelchair for mobility.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, doing business as First
Commonwealth Bank, is headquartered in Indiana, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Plaza, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alisa N. Carr, Esq.
          Dylan B. Spadaccino, Esq.
          LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL, LLC
          525 William Penn Place, 28th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-1600
          E-mail: acarr@leechtishman.com
                  dspadaccino@leechtishman.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Brown, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Forster & Garbus LLP, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00711-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., January 31, 2014) is brought pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 1.5 Million Additional Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hirsch, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
General Motors Co. will recall 1.5 million vehicles and take a
$300-million charge against its earnings to pay for repairs as
part of a initiative to be more responsive to problems with its
cars.

The recalls include nearly 1.2-million 2008-13 Buick Enclave and
GMC Acadia sport-utility vehicles, 2009-13 Chevrolet Traverse SUVs
and 2008-10 Saturn Outlook SUVs for an air bag problem.

Additionally the automaker recalled 303,000 Chevrolet Express and
GMC Savana vans from the 2009-14 model years and 63,900 Cadillac
XTS sedans from the 2013 and 2014 model years.

The recalls come as GM faces numerous probes and intense criticism
for not moving fast enough to fix an ignition switch problem in
Chevrolet Colbalts and other small sedans that the car company
says has been linked to 12 fatal crashes and outside analysts say
could be responsible for as many as 303 deaths.

GM recalled the vehicles only last month even though documents
demonstrate that the automaker knew about the problem for more
than a decade.

The announcement "underscores the focus we're putting on the
safety and peace of mind of our customers.  We are conducting an
intense review of our internal processes and will have more
developments to announce as we move forward," said Mary Barra,
GM's chief executive.

"I asked our team to redouble our efforts on our pending product
reviews, bring them forward and resolve them quickly," Ms. Barra
said.

Ms. Barra is pursuing a smart strategy in getting the automaker to
quickly review safety issues, said Kaitlin Wowak, a University of
Notre Dame management professor who researches supply chain risks
and disruption.

"Maybe GM learned its lesson and realized they have to take action
when consumers are potentially at risk?" Ms. Wowak said.  "The
airbag recall gives GM an opportunity to show consumers they are
willing to take action before consumers are harmed.  It is also a
chance for Mary Barra to show the world what she is made of."

GM is calling back the SUVs to repair wiring under the driver's
seat that can crimp and cause a "service air bag" warning light to
trigger on the dash.  Ignoring the warning light will eventually
disable the side impact restraints, which include driver and
passenger seat-mounted side air bags, front center air bag and the
seat belt pretensioners, GM said.

Dealers will remove the driver and passenger side air bag wiring
harness connectors and splice and solder the wires together.  The
vans need to be fixed because they don't comply with a federal
safety requirement designed to protect passengers who are not
wearing seat belts and who might hit their heads on the instrument
panel in a crash.  The material on the instrument panel is too
hard.  GM will replace it with material that softens the blow for
passengers who have not fastened their seat belts.

In the XTS, GM said it will fix a corrosion problem in the brake
booster electronics that could cause an engine compartment fire.
GM is aware of two engine compartment fires in unsold vehicles at
dealerships and two cases of melted components.

GM said it knows of no injuries or accidents caused by the issues
behind this latest set of recalls.

Last month's ignition switch recall affected about 1.6 million
cars, including the 2003-07 Saturn Ions, 2006-07 Chevrolet HHRs,
2006-07 Pontiac Solstices, 2006-07 Saturn Sky models, and 2005-07
Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 models.  The cars all share the
same ignition component; none of them remains in production.

The faulty switch makes it possible for a heavy key chain or
driver's knee to knock the ignition key out of the "run" position
while the car is on the road.  This disables safety systems such
as the power steering, anti-lock brakes and air bags.

Internal documents submitted by GM to NHTSA show the automaker was
aware of the issue as early as 2001, when it surfaced on a
prototype Saturn Ion.  The problem was first noticed in production
models in 2004, the documents show.

NHTSA and GM have come under heavy fire from lawmakers and safety
advocates for not acting sooner.  The Department of Justice and
committees in the U.S. House and Senate have opened investigations
in the matter.  GM is likely to face at least a $35-million civil
fine.

Meanwhile, the Center for Auto Safety, an independent watchdog
group, announced on March 13 that it had commissioned a report by
Friedman Research.  The study used raw data from fatal accident
reports in which the air bags didn't deploy in two of the six
models affected by this GM recall.

Based on the data, the Center for Auto Safety said 303 front-seat
deaths had been caused by the non-deployment of air bags in the
cars.

GM responded by calling the analysis "pure speculation," saying
it's too early to tell just how many of those deaths were tied to
the faulty ignitions.  The automaker said it expects to take a
charge of approximately $300 million in the first quarter
primarily for the cost of the repairs for the three latest safety
actions and the ignition switch recall.


GENERAL MOTORS: U.S. Congress to Probe Recall Over Ignition Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro, writing for Reuters, report that
the U.S. congressional investigation into General Motors Co
automobile defects will bring aggressive scrutiny to a company
with powerful lobbying clout and strong ties on Capitol Hill.

GM's recall of 1.6 million vehicles, due to an ignition-switch
problem linked to 12 fatalities, has put the Detroit automaker in
Congress' cross hairs, with potentially dramatic hearings kicking
off in April.

GM Chief Executive Mary Barra is scheduled to testify on April 1
to a U.S. House of Representatives panel investigating the
ignition problem.  In what could be a preview of such testimony,
Ms. Barra on March 17 declared in a video that "something went
wrong with our process" and "terrible things happened."

The handling of the defect by GM, which first noticed it in 2001,
and federal regulators is the top priority of the powerful House
Energy and Commerce Committee, according to aides.

Congressional investigations into consumer safety issues always
have the potential of becoming a public relations nightmare for
companies at the center of the probes.

In early 2010, for example, Congress looked into sudden,
unintended acceleration problems Toyota owners had been reporting
for years, which were linked to five deaths.

"I . . . was praying to God to please help me," testified one
Toyota owner, who said her Lexus 350 ES had accelerated out-of-
control.  "I thought it was my time to die."

Before it was all over, Toyota sales fell, its reputation suffered
and Congress toughened regulations.  Just last week, the company
agreed to a record $1.2 billion penalty stemming from a Justice
Department criminal investigation that could provide guideposts
for the GM probe.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will have broad powers to
investigate the actions of GM and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, including the ability to subpoena witnesses
and documents.  The panel has also invited NHTSA acting
Administrator David Friedman to testify at the April 1 hearing.

The session is the first in what will likely be a series of
congressional hearings.

GM customers could have dramatic stories to tell, since the
ignition issue turned off engines and disabled airbags in cars
moving at high speed, resulting in deadly accidents.

One committee aide said nearly a dozen of the panel's
investigators were working on finding out why flawed ignitions in
older Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other GM models were
allowed to stay in the cars for so long with owners uninformed.

"The broad question the committee wants to answer is, 'Is this a
problem that could have been prevented or detected any earlier
than it was?'" said one House Energy and Commerce aide.

GM has long had allies in Congress, most notably Michigan
Representative John Dingell, the former committee chair. But the
hearings will not be the first time the auto giant has been
roughed up by lawmakers.

In 2012, a House of Representatives committee looked into an
unrelated safety issue: Car battery fires in GM's new hybrid
electric car, the Chevrolet Volt.  In 2008, GM, Ford Motor Co and
Chrysler executives were taken to task by some members of Congress
when they flew corporate jets from Detroit to Washington to
testify in favor of a government bailout.

GM's allure may have suffered so much from its subsequent
government takeover that only four members of Congress, out of
535, owned the company stock in 2012, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics.

Five CEOs ran GM during the period of more than a decade since the
ignition problem first appeared.

Some aides also warn that what might appear in hindsight to be
inexcusable missteps by GM and federal regulators could have been
complex and hard-to-define problems as they were unfolding.

GM AND FRED

The House hearings will be run by Michigan Representative Fred
Upton, a Midwesterner with an unassuming demeanor, who sometimes
tells reporters, "Just call me Fred."

As chairman, Upton has aggressively challenged President Barack
Obama's administration on its Obamacare health plan and guided his
committee through a tough investigation of the Solyndra solar-
panel company, which filed for bankruptcy in 2011 after receiving
$528 million in loans from the federal government.

Upton also played an important role in the 2000 congressional
investigation of Ford's SUV rollover problems associated with
Firestone-made tires.

After emotional hearings, Congress quickly toughened the
industry's recall process.

Teaming up with Upton is the committee's senior Democrat,
Representative Henry Waxman, a dogged legislator who has taken on
the U.S. tobacco industry, helped enact Obama's landmark
healthcare law and won passage of a sweeping climate change bill
in the House in 2009.

Also senior on the Energy and Commerce Committee is the "dean" of
the House, Representative John Dingell of Michigan, who was the
panel's top Democrat from 1981 to 2008 and is widely seen as GM's
staunchest ally in Congress.

"He was a very, very strong chairman.  He protected the
prerogatives of Detroit and the automobile industry," said
Democratic Representative Eliot Engel of New York, also a longtime
member of the committee.

But Dingell's star power faded after Mr. Waxman wrested away the
committee chairmanship in 2009.  Mr. Waxman remained the lead
Democrat on the committee after Republicans took control of the
House in 2011.  The 87-year-old Dingell recently announced his
retirement later this year after a record 59 years in office.

Dingell's wife, Debbie, who has deep family ties to GM, intends to
run for her husband's congressional seat.

INVESTIGATION, THEN LEGISLATION?

Joan Claybrook, a former National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration head and president emeritus of the watchdog group
Public Citizen, said that "from time to time," Congress had proven
it can be tough on the U.S. auto industry.

She noted that during the Ford/Firestone investigation, Congress
demanded that the companies "submit all sorts of documents they
didn't want to submit" and made them public.

Ms. Claybrook and fellow consumer advocate Ralph Nader said in
separate telephone interviews that the scope and aggressiveness of
Congress' investigation of GM would depend in part on sustained
public outrage and pressure to act.

"The public is mad as a hornet about this GM coverup," she said.

Nader, who wants GM to set up a victims' compensation fund, said
the hearings would help "keep the fire under the seat of the
Justice Department" as it pursues a criminal probe.

Republicans, who control the House, will not want to ally with GM
on a safety problem that has enraged the public, added Nader, who
won fame in the 1960s by taking on GM and championing safety
issues in his book "Unsafe at Any Speed".

If House lawmakers or Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat who
also plans to hold hearings in April in her Commerce Committee
panel, decide legislation is needed, GM's lobbyists are sure to
respond.

With 87,000 hourly and salaried workers in 60 plants scattered
across the United States, GM and its employees are an important
constituency for lawmakers.

GM spent nearly $9 million last year on an army of lobbyists whose
job is to promote the company's interests in Congress and
throughout the federal government.  One registered lobbyist, Emily
Porter, is a former adviser to House Speaker John Boehner.

Asked about GM's sway with Congress, veteran Democratic
Representative John Larson of Connecticut told Reuters: "It always
makes it problematic for Congress" because so many of the
company's jobs are located in lawmakers' home districts.

Still, House Energy and Commerce aides insist GM will get no
favorable treatment.  "You have one hearing and you see where the
evidence takes you" before deciding next steps, said one aide.


GENERAL MOTORS: CEO to Testify April 1 Over Ignition Problem
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cowan, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors Co
Chief Executive Mary Barra is scheduled to testify on April 1 to a
U.S. House of Representatives panel investigating the company's
long-running problem with defective ignition switches that have
been linked to 12 deaths, the committee said on March 20.

House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders also said they had
invited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration acting
Administrator David Friedman to testify at the hearing.  This will
be the first in what could be a series of hearings by the House
panel that began an investigation after GM's decision to recall
1.6 million of its vehicles because of the ignition problem that
first surfaced more than a decade ago.

While the defect problem began long before Barra and Friedman
entered their current positions, their testimony, said committee
Chairman Fred Upton, "will be essential to getting answers about
what went wrong."

The hearing will be conducted by the panel's Oversight and
Investigations subcommittee.


GEORGE'S INC: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------
George's Inc., a Springdale, Ark. establishment, is recalling
approximately 29,200 pounds of seasoned raw, chicken breast strips
due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced. The products are formulated with soy protein, a known
allergen, and monosodium glutamate (MSG). However, the product was
released with a label for George's boneless skinless breast pieces
with rib meat, which does not declare soy or MSG on the label.

The products subject to recall bear the label:

     40 lb. bulk cartons of "GEORGE'S BONELESS SKINLESS BREAST
     PIECES W/RIB MEAT" with case code 4790.

The products were produced and packaged from Dec. 21 through Dec.
23, 2013, and were sold to distributors in Tennessee and Iowa for
further distribution. The recalled products bear the establishment
number "P-13584" below the USDA Mark of Inspection and "Packed on"
date in the format of "mm/dd/yy" on the carton label.

The problem was discovered after the company received a customer
complaint of incorrectly labelled product. The customer noticed
that the product they received appeared to be seasoned, when it
was labelled as being simply boneless, skinless breast pieces. The
company's investigation found that the mislabelling occurred when
the George's label was mistakenly applied to allergen containing
products packaged nearby. FSIS and the company have received no
reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare
provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Ali Perry
at (479) 927-7256. Media with questions about the recall should
contact Glen Balch at (479) 927-7105 or Dirk Lemmons at (479) 927-
7106.

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


GLASS CATERING: Recalls 181,620 Pounds Salad Due to E. Coli
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glass Onion Catering, a Richmond, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 181,620 pounds of ready-to-eat salads and
sandwich wrap products with fully-cooked chicken and ham that may
be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The company announced that the products are being recalled in
conjunction with other foods regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). A full list of products being recalled will
be available on FDA's website at:
www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/Recalls/default.htm

Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number "P-34221"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. FSIS products subject to
recall include:

     * 12 oz. packages of "delish pan pacific chop salad"
     * 13.4 oz. packages of "delish California style grilled
       chicken salad"
     * 9.9 oz. packages of "delish uncured applewood smoked
       ham & cheese wrap"
     * 10.5 oz. packages of "delish grilled chicken caesar wrap"
     * 10.9 oz. packages of "delish southwestern chicken wrap"
     * 11.5 oz. packages of "delish greek brand low-calorie
       grilled chicken wrap"
     * 9.9 oz. packages of "delish white chicken club wrap"
     * 11.2 oz. packages of "delish asian style chicken wrap"
     * 13.4 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Southwestern
       Style White Chicken Wrap with Chimichurri Sauce"
     * 10.5 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Asian Style
       White Chicken Wrap with Mango Vinaigrette"
     * 9.9 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Grilled White
       Chicken Caesar Wrap with Caesar Dressing"
     * 10.7 oz. packages of "super fresh Foods California Grilled
       Chicken Salad, Low Fat Mendocino Mustard Dressing"
     * 10.7 oz. packages of "Lunch Spot Southwestern Style
       Chicken Wrap, Chile & Lime  Dressing"
     * 9.2 oz. packages of "super fresh Foods Pan Pacific
       Chopped Chicken Salad, Ginger Soy Dressing"
     * 10.7 oz. plastic containers of "TRADER JOE'S Field
       Fresh Chopped Salad with Grilled Chicken."
     * 11 oz. plastic containers of "TRADER JOSE'S MEXICALI
       SALAD with Chili Lime Chicken."

The products were produced between Sept. 23 and Nov. 6, 2013 and
shipped to distributions centers intended for retail sale in
Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah and
Washington. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will
be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS began monitoring a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses on
Oct. 29, 2013 then was notified by FDA on Nov. 6, 2013 that
California authorities had reported case-patients consuming pre-
packaged salads with grilled chicken. Working in conjunction with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), FDA, the
California Department of Public Health, the Washington State
Department of Health, and the Arizona Department of Health
Services, FSIS has determined that there is a link between the
grilled chicken salads and the illness cluster. Twenty-six case-
patients have been identified in three states with
indistinguishable E. coliO157:H7 PFGE (genetic fingerprint)
patterns with illness onset dates ranging from Sept 29, 2013 to
Oct. 26, 2013. Based on epidemiological information, 15 case-
patients reported consumption of ready-to-eat pre-packaged salads
prior to illness onset. A traceback investigation determined Glass
Onion Catering was the supplier of the products implicated in the
outbreak.

While uncommon to find E. coli O157:H7 in a poultry product, FSIS
will continue its investigation in conjunction with the FDA to
identify the source of the contamination. FSIS continues to work
with the CDC, FDA and state public health partners on this
investigation and will provide updated information as it becomes
available.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people
recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur
among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-
years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor,
and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms
should seek emergency medical care immediately.

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

FSIS and the company are concerned that some products may be in a
consumer's refrigerators. Because this is a ready-to-eat product,
FSIS advises all consumers to destroy the product.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Tom Atherstone, company president, at (510) 236-8905.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. 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


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Officers Hid Bribery & Kickbacks, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that officers of Hewlett-Packard
concealed the misrepresentation of its internal controls to allow
widespread bribery, kickbacks and other illegal behavior, a class
claims.

The case is AJ Copeland v. Leo Apotheker; Margaret Whitman;
Raymond Lane; Marc Andreesen, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


HITACHI KOKI: Recalls 115,000 Grass Trimmers Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hitachi Koki U.S.A., announced a voluntary recall about 115,000
units of grass trimmers.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The grass trimmers can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards to
the consumer.  No injuries reported.

The recall involves twelve models of Hitachi Koki and Tanaka-brand
hand-held grass trimmers. The gasoline-powered trimmers have
either a green engine cover (Hitachi) or orange (Tanaka). The
Hitachi or Tanaka logo is printed on the circular plate on the
starter pull housing. Model and serial numbers are also located on
the circular plate. Trimmers included in the recall have one of
the following model numbers and have a serial number that begin
with J, P or a number:

  Brand          Model Number
  -----          ------------
Hitachi          CG22EAB(SLP)
                 CG22EAD(SLP)
                 CG22EAS(SLP)
                 CG24EASP(SL)
                 CG27EASP(SL)

Tanaka           TCG22EAB(SLP)
                 TCG22EAD(SLP)
                 TCG22EAS(SLP)
                 TCG24EASP(SL)
                 TCG27EASP(SL)
                 TCG40EAS(LP)
                 TCG40EAS(P)

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/gM2XFy

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at Lowes, Sears and other home improvement and building supply
stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com from March 2010 through
November 2013 for between $300 and $800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled grass
trimmers and contact Hitachi Koki U.S.A. for instructions on how
to return the product for a free repair.


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Plum Set Due to Incorrect Component
--------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), announced a nationwide recall of two
lots of Hemoset Dual Channel Plum Sets (list number 11241-03, lot
numbers 28005-5H and 34100-5H). Hospira identified that an
incorrect set component was supplied and used during the
manufacturing process of the impacted product lots. There have
been no related customer reports received to date and Hospira is
conducting this recall as a precautionary measure. Hospira
previously distributed an Urgent Medical Device Recall notice to
customers regarding this issue Feb. 25, 2014, detailing
instructions on how to handle affected product.

The recalled Hemostat Dual Channel Plum Set is designed to
administer blood and blood products via the Plum(TM) infusion
pump. If the Plum infusion pump is used with the affected product,
the blood product will be delivered at its intended dosage and
there is no risk of over-delivery. If the affected product is
removed from the Plum infusion pump and used in a gravity
infusion, there is a risk that over-delivery may occur. In a
gravity delivery, the correct lower lid dispenses 15 drops per mL
and the incorrect lower lid found dispenses 10 drops per mL. If a
caregiver does not realize that each drop contains more volume, it
is possible that over-delivery could occur. Over-delivery of blood
products in the populations at greatest risk (e.g. neonates,
patients with heart and/or kidney failure, and other patients with
conditions associated with susceptibility to volume overload) may
result in injuries that require medical intervention. These
injuries are expected to fully resolve with medical intervention.

The recall blood sets impacted were distributed to U.S. healthcare
and veterinary facilities from May 2013 through Dec. 2013.
Customers should check inventory and immediately quarantine any
affected product. In addition, customers should inform potential
users of this product in their organizations of this notification.
Hospira has identified the non-conforming material and corrected
the issue.

Affected product should be returned to Stericycle, which can be
contacted at 1-888-240-4282 (M-F, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET). For medical
inquiries, please contact Hospira Medical Communications at 1-800-
615-0187. This phone number is available 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) 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

The recall was being conducted with the knowledge of the FDA.

Hospira, Inc. -- http://www.hospira.com/-- is the world's leading
provider of injectable drugs and infusion technologies, and a
global leader in biosimilars. Through its broad, integrated
portfolio, Hospira is uniquely positioned to Advance Wellness(TM)
by improving patient and caregiver safety while reducing
healthcare costs. The company is headquartered in Lake Forest,
Ill., and has approximately 17,000 employees.


INDYMAC MBS: Supreme Court to Hear Pension Plans' Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
pension plans denied standing to sue IndyMac for allegedly
deceiving them as to mortgage pass-through certificates can take
their case to the Supreme Court, the justices said March 10, 2014.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, the original jurist to dismiss
the claims for lack of standing, had defined such certificates "a
type of mortgage-backed security that entitles its owner to a
portion of the revenue stream generated by an underlying pool of
residential mortgage loans."

"IndyMac Bank originated or acquired the individual mortgage loans
that underlie the certificates," he wrote.  "The loans then were
transferred to IndyMac MBS, which bundled them into groups, or
pools.  The pools were transferred to issuing trusts, which
created the certificates.  The issuing trusts then transferred the
certificates to IndyMac MBS which, in turn, sold them to the
specific underwriters for each offering.  After the certificates
were rated by rating agencies, the underwriters offered them to
investors."

In separate lawsuits, the Police and Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit and the Wyoming State Treasurer and the Wyoming
Retirement System had hoped to represent a class of those who
bought certificates in some of the 106 offerings.

After consolidating the actions and naming the Wyoming entities
lead plaintiff, Kaplan refused to consider claims arising from the
purchase of securities that the Wyoming entities had not bought.

The Detroit PFRS and other asserted members of the class, none of
which were named as plaintiffs, moved to intervene so that they
could assert claims on behalf of the certificates they purchased,
but they had already missed the three-year statute of repose in
Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933.

In a bid to toll the statute, the intervenors cited the 1974
Supreme Court opinion in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.

In 2011, Kaplan dismissed that argument as well as the alternative
theory that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(c) would let
the intervenors "relate back" the proposed amended complaint.

This led to an unsuccessful appeal in the 2nd Circuit by Detroit
Retirement, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement System aka
LACERA and the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
aka PERS.

Per its custom the Supreme Court issued no comment in granting
PERS a writ of certiorari March 10, 2014.

The case is Public Employees' Retirement v. Indymac MBS, Inc., et
al., Case No. 13-640, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


INFINITY LEGAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ricah L. Norman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Infinity Legal Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00713-ARR-RER (E.D.N.Y., January 31, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KKR FINANCIAL: Faces "Bushey" Merger-Related Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Bushey, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, Paul M. Hazen, Craig J.
Farr, Tracy Collins, Robert L. Edwards, Vincent Paul Finigan, R.
Glenn Hubbard, Ross J. Kari, Ely L. Licht, Deborah H. Mcaneny,
Scott C. Nuttall, Scott Ryles, Willy Strothotte, KKR & Co. L.P.,
KKR Fund Holdings L.P., and Copal Merger Sub LLC, Case No. 4:14-
cv-00495-CW (N.D. Cal., January 31, 2014) is brought on behalf of
the public stockholders of KKR Financial Holdings LLC ("KFN")
against the Defendants to enjoin a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which KFN will be acquired by KKR & Co. L.P., KKR Fund Holdings
L.P., and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Copal Merger Sub LLC.

KFN is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California.  The Company, together with its subsidiaries, operates
as a specialty finance company with expertise in a range of asset
classes.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.

KKR & Co. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.  KKR Fund
Holdings is an exempted limited partnership formed under the laws
of the Cayman Islands.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of KKR Fund Holdings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: rsg@classcounsel.com
                  jrn@classcounsel.com
                  lew@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com


MACY'S WEST: "Fuentes" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Victor Fuentes, et al. v. Macy's
West Stores Inc., et al., Case No. BC528221, was removed from the
Superior Court State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-00790-ODW-FFM to the proceeding.

The case alleges labor law violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Wren Taylor, Esq.
          Joseph M. Lovretovich, Esq.
          JML LAW APLC
          25102 Oxnard Street
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 610-8800
          Facsimile: (818) 610-3030
          E-mail: ctaylor@jmllaw.com
                  jml@jmllaw.com

               - and -

          Jon D. Henderson, Esq.
          Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
          Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-0205
          Facsimile: (626) 795-3096
          E-mail: hendersonj2004@gmail.com
                  mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
                  thomaswfalvey@gmail.com

Defendant Macy's West Stores Inc. is represented by:

          Cristina D. Hernandez, Esq.
          GONZALEZ SAGGIO & HARLAN LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 930
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 440-0022
          Facsimile: (626) 628-1725
          E-mail: cristina_hernandez@gshllp.com

Defendant Joseph Eletto Transfer Inc. is represented by:

          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 460
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Faces Suits Over Alleged RESPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to face lawsuits alleging
violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, according to the company's financial
report for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2013, filed as an
exhibit to its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2014.

Consumers continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders
and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including
MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the
anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly
known as FCRA. MGIC's settlement of class action litigation
against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled
the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA
in December 2004, following denial of class certification in June
2004.  Since December 2006, class action litigation has been
brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their
captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.
Beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage
lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant
in 12 lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S.
District Courts. Seven of those cases have previously been
dismissed without any further opportunity to appeal. The
complaints in all of the cases allege various causes of action
related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the
mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated RESPA by
paying excessive premiums to the lenders' captive reinsurer in
relation to the risk assumed by that captive.

MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegations in the lawsuits.  There can be no
assurance that the company  will not be subject to further
litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such
litigation, including the lawsuits mentioned, would not have a
material adverse effect on the company.

In 2013, the U.S. District Court approved a settlement with the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that resolved a federal
investigation of MGIC's participation in captive reinsurance
arrangements in the mortgage insurance industry. The settlement
concluded the investigation with respect to MGIC without the CFPB
or the court making any findings of wrongdoing. As part of the
settlement, MGIC agreed that it would not enter into any new
captive reinsurance agreement or reinsure any new loans under any
existing captive reinsurance agreement for a period of ten years.
MGIC had voluntarily suspended most of its captive arrangements in
2008 in response to market conditions and GSE requests. In
connection with the settlement, MGIC paid a civil penalty of $2.65
million and the court issued an injunction prohibiting MGIC from
violating any provisions of RESPA.


MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over OS in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
In its Jan. 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013,
Microsoft Corporation gave updates of lawsuits filed by purchasers
of its PC operating system and certain other software products
between 1999 and 2005.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of the company's PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005.

The company obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all
claims made in the United States. Under the settlements, generally
class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be
reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral
computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that
the company may issue varies by state. The company will make
available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that
are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the
state). The total value of vouchers the company  ultimately issue
will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are
issued vouchers. The company  estimate the total remaining cost of
the settlements is approximately $400 million, all of which had
been accrued as of December 31, 2013.

The Company also said three similar cases pending in British
Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In
March 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as
a class action. In April 2011, the British Columbia Court of
Appeal reversed the class certification ruling and dismissed the
case, holding that indirect purchasers do not have a claim. The
plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Canadian Supreme Court. In
October 2013, the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated part of
the British Columbia case, which is now proceeding. The other two
actions were inactive pending action by the Supreme Court on the
British Columbia case.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Faces "Zweig" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
Richard Zweig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Bank of America, Corp., Case No.
7:14-cv-00647-VB (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2014) seeks to redress the
Defendants' alleged systematic failure to timely present to the
county clerks of New York State proof that mortgages have been
satisfied.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Reston,
Virginia.  MERS is a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCORP Holdings,
Inc., a privately held corporation that owns and manages the MERS
System.  MERS serves as a mortgagee in the land records for loans
registered on the MERS System, including mortgages registered in
New York.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Calabasas, California.  Countrywide is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Countrywide Financial Corporation, which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation, a publicly
traded company.  Bank of America is a multinational banking and
financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina, and incorporated in Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, PACKMAN, NEALON, SCIALABBA & BAKER P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 517-5000
          Facsimile: (914) 517-5055
          E-mail: gblankinship@mpnsb.com
                  jfrei-pearson@mpnsb.com
                  tgarber@mpnsb.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott Harris Kaiser, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP (NY)
          1290 Avenue of Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 541-1195
          Facsimile: (212)-541-13
          E-mail: scott.kaiser@bryancave.com


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Unlawfully Suspends/Reduces HELOC, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Principal Financial Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00718 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2014)
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful suspensions and
reductions of the Plaintiff's and its other customers' home equity
lines of credit.

Principal and Nationstar falsely claimed that the customer's home
had significantly declined in value when, in reality, it had not,
Mr. Padilla alleges.  In doing so, he contends, the Defendants
broke their contractual obligations and promises with their HELOC
account holders -- the intended result of which has been to
collectively deny the Class members their bargained-for access to
millions of dollars worth of affordable credit.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.  Principal provides banking
services and financial services for both individuals and
businesses.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Lewisville, Texas.  Nationstar is a real estate
services company engaged primarily in the servicing of residential
mortgage loans for others as well as the origination and selling
or securitization of single-family conforming mortgage loans to
government-sponsored entities or other third-party investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          Gregory W. Jones, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 267-1906
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  gbarbakoff@siprut.com
                  gjones@siprut.com

Defendant Principal Financial Group, Inc. is represented by:

          Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
          Daniel Robert Thies, Esq.
          Eric Stephen Mattson, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (CHICAGO)
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-2030
          E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com
                  dthies@sidley.com
                  emattson@sidley.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Refused to Dismiss Monopoly-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of labs can advance a class action accusing Quest
Diagnostics of conspiring to monopolize the biological-testing
market, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory (RDL), Pacific Breast
Pathology Medical Corporation (PBP), Hunter Laboratories and
Surgical Pathology Associates (SPA) first filed the antitrust
complaint in November 2012 against Aetna, Blue Shield of
California Life & Health Insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association, and Quest Diagnostics.

They accused the defendants of conspiring to corner the market on
diagnostic testing in five major markets: routine clinical lab
testing, anatomic pathology testing, specialty rheumatologic
testing, advanced lipid testing and specialty breast pathology
testing.  Licensing agreements between the groups effectively
block independent labs from providing services, they say.

Quest alone has an estimated $562 million annual revenue and a 76
percent share of physicians offices, according to a Feb. 6 order
dismissing some claims from the second amended complaint (SAC).

U.S. District Judge William Orrick said Quest CEO Steve Rusckowski
all but admitted his company's intention of squeezing out other
service providers.

"In a June 2012 investor presentation . . . Rusckowski stated that
health insurers 'want to narrow their networks' and 'there should
be more consolidation in the volumes around fewer suppliers of
laboratory testing services and that plays nicely into what we are
all about and what this industry is all about,'" the ruling
states.  "He further states 'we do have an opportunity with some
of our health plan partners to help them narrow the network.
We're working together with the health plans to get more volume
and they see an opportunity in their cost structure, and we see an
opportunity with our volumes to do that with them.'"

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco dismissed the
plaintiff's original complaint with leave to amend in July 2013.
He refused to stay discovery before the filing of the first
amended complaint (FAC) on Aug. 9.

In that order, the court dismissed with prejudice Hunter's causes
of action against Quest for all claims prior to the effective date
of a settlement agreement between them.  The court, according to
Orrick, denied Quest's motion to dismiss Hunter, (PBP) and (SPA's)
claims under California's Unfair Practice Act (UPA) and the
unlawful and unfair prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL).  The remaining causes of action were dismissed with leave
to amend.

Orrick had said on Oct. 18 that it would be "fair and just to
allow them to amend their allegations one more time."

The SAC against all defendants, filed in August 2013, asserted
violations of California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition
Law, as well as intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage, and bilateral conspiracies to restrain trade and
monopolize in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  They also
bring a claim for violation of California's Unfair Practices Act
against Quest.

"Quest's motion to dismiss Hunter, PBP, and SPA's second cause of
action under the 'unlawful' and 'unfair' prongs of the UCL and
third cause of action is denied," Orrick concluded.  "Having
reviewed the SAC's new allegations concerning RDL related to the
plaintiff's UPA cause of action, and finding the claims plausible,
Quest's motion to dismiss RDL's second cause of action under the
'unlawful' and 'unfair' prongs of the UCL and third cause of
action is also denied.  Because plaintiffs have had three
opportunities to plead, and the court concludes that further
pleading would be futile, the defendants' motions to dismiss all
other causes of action are granted with prejudice."

The case is Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc., et al. v.
Aetna, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12cv05847WHO, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.


RESER'S FINE: Expands Recall of Various Meat Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Reser's Fine Foods, a Topeka, Kan. establishment, is expanding its
recall of chicken, ham and beef products to include all products
produced between Sept. 5 and Oct. 9, 2013. This is in addition to
the 22,800 pounds of product recalled on Oct. 22, 2013. The
products are being recalled due to possible contamination with
Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The company announced that these products are being recalled in
conjunction with other foods regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). A full list of products being recalled can
be found on FDA's website here:

     http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm372345.htm

Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number "EST.
13520" or "P-13520" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Only
products made at this Topeka, KS facility, also designated by the
plant code #20 after the code date, are affected by this recall.
No other Reser's facilities are involved in this action.

A lsit of:

   * Products subject to this expansion of the recall; and
   * Products that were previously recalled on Oct. 22, 2013,

is available at http://is.gd/sTjKfE

The products were distributed to retailers and distributors
nationwide.

The problem was discovered through microbiological testing by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. A trace back investigation and
follow-up testing by FDA at the facility determined there was
potential cross contamination of products with Listeria
monocytogenes from product contact surfaces. Upon further review,
the company determined that products produced on additional dates
should be recalled. FSIS and the company have not received reports
of illnesses due to consumption of these products. Anyone
concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the 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/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Reser's Fine Foods Consumer Hotline at 1-888-257-7913 (8 a.m.
-- 8 p.m. Eastern Time).

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smart phone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-
674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. To
report a problem with a meat, poultry or processed egg product to
FSIS at any time, visit http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


RESER'S FINE: Recall of Meat Products Due to Listeria Expanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reser's Fine Foods, a Topeka, Kan. establishment, is expanding its
recall of chicken, ham and beef products to include all products
produced between Oct. 10 and Oct. 25, 2013. The company previously
expanded its recall on Oct. 26, 2013, to include product produced
between Sept. 5 and Oct. 9, 2013. This is in addition to the
22,800 pounds of product recalled on Oct. 22, 2013. The products
are being recalled due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The company announced that these products are being recalled in
conjunction with other foods regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). A full list of products being recalled in
this expansion can be found on FDA's website:

     http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm373511.htm

Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number "EST.
13520" or "P-13520" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Only
products made at the Topeka, Kansas salad facility, also
designated by the plant code #20 after the code date "Use By Nov
03 13 #20" are affected by this recall. No other Reser's
facilities are involved in this action.

A list of:

   * Products subject to this recall expansion;
   * Products subject to the previous expansion on Oct. 26, 2013;
   * Products that were previously recalled on Oct. 22, 2013,

is available at http://is.gd/yxeEeD

The products were distributed to retailers and distributors
nationwide.

The problem was discovered through microbiological testing by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. A traceback investigation and
follow-up testing by FDA at the facility determined there was
potential cross contamination of products with Listeria
monocytogenes from product contact surfaces. Upon further review,
the company determined that products produced on additional dates
should be recalled. FSIS has not received reports of illnesses due
to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
illness should contact a healthcare provider. The Nov. 4 expansion
of this recall was initiated by the firm out of an abundance of
caution after learning of the potential contamination of non-food
contact surfaces with Listeria monocytogenes.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the 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/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Reser's Fine Foods Consumer Hotline at 1-888-257-7913 (8 a.m.
-- 10 p.m. Eastern Time).

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov."Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-
674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. To
report a problem with a meat, poultry or processed egg product to
FSIS at any time, visit http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


PLAYTEX MFG: Recalls Breast Pump Power Adapters
-----------------------------------------------
Playtex Manufacturing, Inc. announced a recall of certain AC/DC
power adapters that are used with the Playtex(R) Nurser Deluxe
Double Electric Breast Pump.  Consumer safety is a primary
objective of Playtex and we are taking this action out of an
abundance of caution. The casing on some adapters may become loose
and separate, resulting in a potential for electric shock.
No injuries have been reported to date.

The affected adapters were manufactured from November 2012 through
July 2013. The product can be identified by product serial number
(P12324-XXXX through P13205-XXXX). Alternatively, the product can
be identified by adapter production code (1241 through 1324). The
adapters were sold along with the Playtex Nurser Deluxe Double
Electric Breast Pump. The adapters were not sold separately.
The Playtex Nurser Deluxe Double Electric Breast Pump was sold at
nationwide, specialty and online retailers. Playtex is notifying
its retail partners to return any remaining products with affected
AC/DC adapters.

Consumers who have purchased an affected product should contact
Playtex for a replacement by calling 1-888-207-1492 from 8 a.m. to
6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at
www.playtexproducts.com. Consumers should immediately discontinue
use of the adapter if it shows signs of separating.

This recall is specific to certain AC/DC adapters sold with the
Playtex Nurser Deluxe Double Electric Breast Pump, and is being
conducted in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

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


RITE OF PASSAGE: "Shiller" Action Wins Class Status
---------------------------------------------------
In JEFFERY SCHILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RITE OF PASSAGE, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-0576-HRH, (D. Ariz.), District Judge H.
Russel Holland granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a collective action of current and former coach
counselors who worked at Canyon State Academy between March 20,
2010 and the present who were required to sleep or stay on the
premises overnight without pay.

The Defendant was ordered to produce a list of all current and
former coach counselors meeting the class definition. The Court
also directed the parties to submit a jointly revised proposed
notice. If the parties cannot agree as to the notice, they may
request a telephonic conference with the court, said Judge
Holland.  The Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply was
denied.

Plaintiffs in this case are former or current "coach counselors"
employed at defendant's Canyon State Academy location in Queen
Creek, Arizona. They assert a Fair Labor Standards Act overtime
claim on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated individuals,
claiming that they should have been paid for their sleep time.
More specifically, plaintiffs contend that they should have been
paid for the hours between midnight and 6 a.m. when they were
required to be on the Canyon State Academy site. Plaintiffs
Jeffery Schiller, Chris Washington and David Teran all aver that
they were not paid for the hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. on the
nights that they were required to stay at Canyon State Academy.
The Defendant contends that the "continuous shift" exemption in 29
C.F.R. Section 785.22 applies to the group living coach counselors
and thus, it was generally not required to pay the group living
coach counselors for their sleep time.

The named plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a
collective action, for court-authorized notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs, and for expedited discovery.

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


SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls 28,400 Circuit Breakers
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Schneider Electric USA Inc., of Palatine, Ill., announced a
voluntary recall of about 28,400 Square D branded, molded case F
and K frame circuit breakers. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The circuit breaker can fail to trip when an overload occurs,
posing the risk of fire, burn and electric shock.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Square D brand models FA, FH, FI and FY one-,
two- and three-pole circuit breakers rated 15 to 100 amps, and
model KI two- and three-pole circuit breakers rated 110 to 250
amps. The F model breakers were manufactured May 8, 2013 through
June 10, 2013 and have date codes 13193 through 13241. The K
models were manufactured May 2, 2013 through June 21, 2013 and
have date codes 13184 through 13255. The date codes are YYWWD
format (example: 13184 = year 2013, week 18, day of the work week
4/ Thursday). The circuit breakers have a yellow label with the
words "Square D" or the Square D logo. Model information can be
found on the faceplate.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/DzYHJ4

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Authorized Schneider Electric distributors nationwide such as
Border States Electric Supply, Crescent Electric Supply Co.,
Dealers Electric Supply Co., Graybar Electric Co., Rexel, W.W.
Grainger from May 2013 to June 2013 for between $200 and $9,260.

Consumers should immediately check to see if they have the
recalled circuit breakers. Consumers with uninstalled products
will receive a replacement. Installed products will be replaced at
no charge to the customer with an allowance of up to $300 per site
to cover labor costs.


SIMPLY NATURAL: Recalls Choco Bars Due to High Milk Protein Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply Natural Foods, LLC of Commack, N.Y., is voluntarily
recalling its 85g (3oz) Simply Lite Dark Chocolate Bar, because
FDA testing indicated that bars from certain lots contained high
levels of milk protein, while the label of the product stated that
it may contain traces of milk. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to milk protein may risk serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.
Simply Lite Dark Chocolate Bar was distributed in Indiana, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia,
California, Washington, New York and Florida for sale to consumers
in retail stores.

The product is packaged in plastic foil packaging containing 85gms
(3oz) of dark chocolate with the product name of "Simply Lite Dark
Chocolate," with the lot numbers 01182015A and 01192015A.
No illnesses or injury of any sort have been reported to date and
this recall is being initiated in an excess of caution.

The recalled was initiated after it was discovered that the Simply
Lite Dark Chocolate Bar was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of high levels of milk protein. The current
packaging states that "The product may contain traces of milk,"
wherein greater levels, in excess of trace amounts, of the milk
protein have been discovered through analytical testing.
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a
source of chocolate having greater than trace amounts.

Consumers who have purchased Simply Lite Dark Chocolate Bars from
the affected lots are urged to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
company toll free at 1-866-923-1549, Monday -- Friday, 9:00 am --
5:00 pm, ET.


SPRINT/UNITED: Sued for Failing to Provide Meal & Rest Periods
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sprint/United Management Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00327-LKK-AC (E.D. Cal., January 31, 2014) is a collective and
class action complaint against the Company to challenge its
alleged policies and practices of failing to: (1) authorize,
permit or make available to its non-exempt hourly employees, who
work in retail stores, meal and rest periods to which they are
entitled by law; and (2) pay its non-exempt hourly employees, who
work in retail stores, for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, Sprint/United Management
Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Corporation and
does business in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Aidan Chowning Poppler, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  cpoppler@schneiderwallace.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP (LOS ANGELES)
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8295
          Facsimile: (310) 310-8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com


SUPERTEX INC: Being Sold to Microchip for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Directors are selling Supertex too cheaply through an unfair
process to Microchip Technology, for $33 a share or $376 million,
investors claim in Santa Clara County Court, according to
Courthouse News Service.


TARGET CORP: Sued by First Choice Credit Union Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Choice Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a
class of all similarly situated financial institutions v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00146-AJS (W.D. Pa., January 31,
2014) arises from the security breach at Target stores in late
2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD.
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: bsweet@dscslaw.com
                  ekilpela@dscslaw.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Alexandra L. Koropey , Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  akoropey@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert R. Leight, Esq.
          John R. Brumberg, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          301 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-2000
          Facsimile: (412) 263-4222
          E-mail: RRL@Pietragallo.com
                  JRB@Pietragallo.com


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Broccoli Salad Kits Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms Maryland, Inc. in Jessup, Md. and Taylor Farms Texas
Inc. in Dallas are recalling approximately 22,849 pounds of
broccoli salad kit products due to concerns about possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination in the salad dressing, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. The salad dressing in the packets is the
subject of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall (see items
DRSG. BROCCOLI RESER 18/18z).

The salad kits were shipped to distributors and retail locations
(delis) for consumer purchase in Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia. The company is
recalling these products in addition to the 5,084 pounds of
similar products that were recalled on Oct. 25, 2013.

The products listed below are being recalled as part of this
expansion:

     * 6.06-lb. boxes labelled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH
       WITH BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310151,
       produced on Oct. 14 through Oct. 24, 2013.

     * 12.13-lb. boxes labelled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH
       WITH BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310153,
       produced Oct. 14 through Oct. 24, 2013.

     * 6.33-lb boxes labelled "Kit, Broc PPC" with case code
       5900067, produced Oct. 15 through Oct. 20, 2013.

The products listed below were announced as part of the recall on
Oct. 25, 2013:

     * 6.06-lb. boxes labelled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH
       WITH BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310151,
       produced on Oct. 21 and Oct. 22, 2013.

     * 12.13-lb. boxes labelled "TAYLOR FARMS BROCCOLI CRUNCH
       WITH BACON AND DRESSING" with the case code 310153,
       produced Oct. 21 through Oct. 23, 2013.

Case labels bear the establishment number "EST. 34522" or "EST.
34733" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Retail consumers and
the general public will not typically see the boxes and labels,
because the product is typically unboxed by retailers (such as
deli counters and restaurants) and the kit used to make salads for
retail sale.  The boxes and labels would be more likely to be seen
by distributors and retailers.

Taylor Farms informed FSIS that salad dressing subject to an FDA
recall was contained in the salad kits produced on the dates
listed above.  FSIS, FDA and the company have received no reports
of illnesses associated with consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare
provider.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the 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/recalls

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall should
contact Taylor Farms Customer Services at 866-508-7048 between the
hours of 9-5 Pacific Time.

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


TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid in NBL Flooring's Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe denied a motion for class
certification filed in NBL FLOORING, INC., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUMBULL INSURANCE
CO., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4398, (E.D. Penn.).

NBL Flooring alleged that Trumbull improperly charged it for
workers' compensation insurance in breach of their contract for
insurance.  NBL sued on its own behalf and on behalf of other
Pennsylvania companies that purchased workers' compensation
policies from Trumbull and moved the Court to certify a class.

In his February 12, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/mQtTrzfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Rufe held that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that class
certification is appropriate in this case. The Court particularly
noted that the Plaintiff has failed to prove the requirements of
commonality and predominance. While there are questions common to
the class, the Court found that individual issues will predominate
in the assessment of both liability and damages. Accordingly, the
Motion for Class Certification was denied.


TULVING COMPANY: Sued for Not Delivering $46,500 Worth of Coins
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Newport Beach coin and precious metals dealer scammed thousands
of customers by accepting money for pricey coins it never
delivered, a class action claims in Federal Court, reports Dan
McCue at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Victor Hannan sued The Tulving Company and Hannes
Tulving Jr., in San Francisco Federal Court.

Hannan claims that in January he agreed to buy 2,000 "2014
American Eagle 1-Ounce Silver Coins" from Tulving, at $23.25 per
coin -- a total of $46,500.  Hannan says he trusted the
information on Tulving's Web site, which said "that over the last
thirty years, Tulving Company 'has bought and sold over 1.1
million individual coins,' and that from 1999 through March 30,
2013, Tulving Company bought and sold in excess of $2.1 billion in
precious metals."

The Web site claimed that in 2012, Tulving "sold more than $350
million in precious metals," according to the lawsuit.  Based on
this purported track record, Hannan says, he became a Tulving
customer and completed several purchases of precious metals within
the past three years.  He expected this transaction to be no
different.

On Jan. 15, he says, he placed his order for the American Eagle
silver coins, wired Tulving the money, and received an e-mail
confirmation of the transfer the next day.  However, "Despite
Tulving Company's assurances of prompt delivery of the silver
coins that plaintiff purchased, Tulving Company has failed to ship
the silver coins.  Instead, Tulving Company appears to have ceased
operations and has stopped responding to emails or phone calls,"
according to the complaint.

Hannan says that it appears, from media reports and complaints to
the state attorney general's Web site, that "Tulving Company
appears to have failed to fulfill hundreds or thousands of paid
orders for precious metals, including plaintiff's order."  Hannan
claims that Feb. 28, both the attorney general's Web site and the
popular investment Web site The Street have reported that Tulving
Company has ceased operations.

Hannan seeks restitution, a restraining order and preliminary
injunction freezing Tulving Company's assets, and damages for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud and
violations of state and federal laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karl Kronenberger, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
          E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com


US BANK: "Horneland" Class Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Horneland v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Case No.
12-CA-1117, was transferred from the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and
for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00527-JSM-TGW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, PA
          320 W Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251-8800
          Facsimile: (813) 251-5042
          E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com

               - and -

          James D. Clark, Esq.
          CLARK & MARTINO, PA
          3407 W Kennedy Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33609-2905
          Telephone: (813) 879-0700
          Facsimile: (813) 879-5498
          E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          JEEVES LAW GROUP, PA
          954 First Ave N
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          Facsimile: (727) 822-1499
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jack C. McElroy, Esq.
          Suzanne Youmans Labrit, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
          4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 229-8900
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8901
          E-mail: jmcelroy@shutts.com
                  slabrit@shutts.com

               - and -

          Peter H. Levitt, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
          201 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415-9447
          Facsimile: (305) 415-9847
          E-mail: plevitt@shutts-law.com


VCG HOLDING: Exotic Dancers Sue Over Misclassification of Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Apple, individually and on behalf of a group of similarly
situated individuals and Amanda Sheer, individually and on behalf
of a group of similarly-situated individuals v. VCG Holding Corp.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00114-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill., January 31, 2014) is
brought on behalf of a class of female employees, who worked as
exotic dancers for the Defendant at nightclubs they operated in
Illinois.

The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendant misclassified them and
all other members of the Class as independent contractors, as
opposed to employees.  As a result, the Plaintiffs contend, the
Defendant failed to pay them the minimum wages and other benefits
that they were entitled to under federal and state law.

VCG Holding Corp. is a Colorado corporation.  VCG owns and
operates business establishments where live nude and semi-nude
dance entertainment is presented to adult members of the general
public.  VCG maintains ownership, recruitment, management, and
operational interests in multiple nightclubs featuring exotic
dancing by the Class members, including PT's Brooklyn, PT's
Centreville, and PT's Sports.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neil Smith, Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, LLC
          225 S. Meramec, Suite 532
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-4400
          Facsimile: (314) 725-8006
          E-mail: neil@smithlawfirm.com


WESTMINSTER MINT: Accused of Selling Counterfeit Coins in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Westminster Mint, Bullion
International, et al., sell counterfeit silver coins: the American
Silver Eagle and the Canadian Timber Wolf, a class action claims
in Minnesota Federal Court.


YIA'S AUTO SALES: Court Certifies Class in "Pha" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted a motion for class
certification in BOR PHA and NOU LEE, Plaintiffs, v. YIA YANG; YIA
YANG dba YIA'S AUTO SALES; YIA YANG dba PLATINUM FINANCIAL; YIA'S
AUTO SALES, INC.; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 3
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-01580-TLN-DAD,
(E.D. Cal.).

The Court certified a class defined as "all consumers who, within
4 years prior to filing of this action: (a) purchased a motor
vehicle at Yia's Auto Sales; (b) who, as part of that transaction,
entered into an agreement subject to California's Rees-Levering
Automobile Sales Finance Act, Civil Code [Section]2981, et seq.;
and (c) whose contract misstates the applicable interest rate."
The class is certified for purposes of Plaintiffs' First, Second,
Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action as alleged in
their Third Amended Complaint.

The Court further certified a subclass of consumers who meet all
of the requirements of the class definition and who also "are of
Hmong race, ancestry, or national origin."  The Court certified
this subclass with respect to Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action
as alleged in their Third Amended Complaint.

"Insomuch as Plaintiffs seek to certify a class for purposes of
their Seventh Cause of Action, Plaintiffs are permitted leave to
refile a motion or stipulation . . . Plaintiffs are ordered to
meet and confer with Defendant Great American prior to filing the
motion or stipulation," ruled Judge Nunley.

The Court appointed Plaintiffs Bor Pha and Nou Lee as class
representatives, and the law firm of Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg,
LLP as class counsel.

Plaintiffs were directed to prepare a proposed class notice
consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).

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


ZOLTEK COMPANIES: Court Okays Stipulation in Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agreements in In Re: Zoltek Companies, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Cause No. 13-SL-CC-3419  were memorialized in a
stipulated Order and Judgment entered by the Court on January 17,
2014, according to the company's Jan. 22, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
(the "Definitive Proxy Statement") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by the Company on December 11,
2013, a total of 13 purported class actions arising out of the
execution of the Merger Agreement were filed in the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri against the Company and the
Company's directors by purported shareholders of the Company. All
but one of the lawsuits also named Parent and/or Merger Sub as
defendants. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri
consolidated the actions under the caption In Re: Zoltek
Companies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Cause No. 13-SL-CC-3419,
on November 26, 2013 (the "Consolidated Action").

The Consolidated Action alleges, among other things, that (1) each
of the Company's directors breached his fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders in connection with approval of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, (2) the
Company, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company's
directors in such breaches of their fiduciary duties, and (3) the
Company failed to disclose certain material information in the
Definitive Proxy Statement. The Consolidated Action seeks, among
other things, injunctive relief preventing the parties from
completing the Merger and directing the Company directors to
account to the Company and the purported class for all damages
suffered as a result of the breaches of fiduciary duties and
awards of attorneys' fees and expenses for the plaintiffs.

On January 15, 2014, (1) the parties agreed to withdraw certain
pending discovery motions; (2) the lead plaintiffs agreed not to
pursue injunctive or other relief to delay the Special Meeting or
the consummation of the Merger; (3) the Company agreed not to
oppose a motion to be filed by the plaintiffs after the Special
Meeting and consummation of the Merger for leave to further amend
the amended petition in the Consolidated Action; and (4) the
Company agreed to furnish the lead plaintiffs copies of certain
minutes of meetings of the Board of Directors, presentations made
by Company management and the Company's financial advisor, and
confidentiality agreements executed by parties participating in
the Company's strategic alternatives evaluation process. These
agreements were memorialized in a stipulated Order and Judgment
entered by the Court on January 17, 2014.


                             *********

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  * * *