CAR_Public/140402.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 65

                             Headlines


23ANDME INC: Falsely Advertises Saliva Collection Kits, Suit Says
AFFINION GROUP: Sued Over 19-Year-Old Illegal Membership Debits
ARCO MIDCON: Class Cert. Motion Denied in "Henke" Suit
ASSURANT INC: Faces Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Programs
AWALE INVESTMENTS: Intentionally Refused to Pay Wages, Suit Says

BALLY'S PARK: Court Certifies Class in Ex-workers' Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Reverse Mortgage Debts
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles MBS Cases for $9.5 Billion
BARCLAYS BANK: Accused of Manipulating WM/Reuters FX Rates
BBVA COMPASS: Court Approved $11.5-Mil Accord in "Anderson" Suit

BBVA COMPASS: "Vaughan" Case Stayed Pending 5th Cir. Decision
BBVA COMPASS: Garza Case Stayed Pending 5th Cir. Decision
CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Dismisses Some Claims in Hadley Suit
CIBER INC: Received Preliminary Okay of Settlement in Weston Suit
CR BARD: 2 Hernia Product Actions Pending as of Feb. 13

CR BARD: 9 Women's Health Product Actions Pending as of Feb. 13
DA VINE SUPERIOR: Withheld Tips Earned by Class, Suit Claims
EARTH FARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages and Costs
EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" Unfair Competition Suit Pending in C.D. Cal.
EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" Securities Action Still Pending in C.D. Cal.

EL PASO PIPELINE: Motion to Dismiss SNG Sale Complaint
ELI LILLY: Facing 55 Cases by 1,700 Claimants Over Darvon(R)
ELI LILLY: Faces 3 Canada Product Liability Actions Over Actos(R)
FACEBOOK INC: Interlocutory Appeal Bid in IPO Suit Denied
FIFTH THIRD: Class Cert. Bid in Hayden Suit Dismissed as Moot

FIRSTENERGY GENERATION: Court Excludes Experts' Testimonies
GARMIN LTD: Parties in "Katz" Suit Ordered to File Brief
GARMIN LTD: Contests All Counts in Defective Batteries Complaint
GENERAL MOTORS: To Use New Part Number for Ignition Switch
GENERAL MOTORS: Adds 971,000 Cars to Ignition Switch Recall

GENERAL MOTORS: Suits Over Defective Ignition Switches Pile Up
GENERAL MOTORS: Families of 2006 Wisconsin Crash Victims Sue
GENERAL MOTORS: Investigators Probe Switch Engineering Timeline
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Alli Diet Pill After Tampering Reports
GREYSTONE OWNER: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages

HECLA MINING: Suit Over Lucky Friday Mine Operations Dismissed
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: El-Hallani Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
LIFEGIFT ORGAN: Accused of Retaliation by Family Care Specialist
LOS ANGELES: Settlement Approval in "Carter" Suit Overturned
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Motions Currently Pending in "Prusak" Suit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in "Kiken" Securities Litigation
MEMPHIS, TN: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Contract Dispute
NTS INC: Has MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Complaints
OCEAN COUNTY: Bizzarro Plaintiffs Allowed to File Amended Suit
OLAMAR FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime & Spread of Hours Pay

OMNICARE INC: Completed Oral Argument in Securities Complaints
OMNICARE INC: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
PROTECT SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
RENATO CATALDO: Has Until May 2 to File Bid to Approve Settlement
RETAIL PROPERTIES: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Pending

SHIRAZ MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SLM CORPORATION: Faces Stockholder Class Suit Sues Over Spinoff
SM ENERGY: Expects Chieftain Certification Motion in 2015
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Court Names Lead Plaintiffs in Kansas Suit
TERRA-MEDICA INC: Recalls Homeopathic Drug Products

WAL-MART: Allegedly Sells Defective Steel-Toed Brahma Boots

* Arizona Mulls Bill for State Immunity From Fire Lawsuits


                             *********


23ANDME INC: Falsely Advertises Saliva Collection Kits, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Dilger, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. 23andMe, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00296-JAH-JMA (S.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) is a consumer
protection and false advertising class action.

23andMe, Inc. markets, advertises, sells, distributes, and
processes a 23andMe Saliva Collection Kit and Personal Genome
Service.  23andMe, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Mountain View, California.

Through this class action, the Plaintiff challenges the
Defendant's alleged unlawful and unfair business practice of
distributing its Product to the public without disclosing that
the products are not-FDA approved, misbranded, adulterated, and
not known to be accurate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
          555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 216-7380
          Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
          E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com
                  c.marker@rlollp.com

               - and -

          Bradley C. Buhrow, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          14646 North Kierland Boulevard, Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com


AFFINION GROUP: Sued Over 19-Year-Old Illegal Membership Debits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcella Diviacchi, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. Affinion Group, Inc. d/b/a Affinion Benefits
Group LLC d/b/a Affinion Group d/b/a Affinion Group Holdings,
Inc.; individually Century Bank and Trust Company d/b/a Century
Bank, individually and as class representative of similarly
situated entities, Case No. 1:14-cv-10283-NMG (D. Mass.,
February 7, 2014) asserts that the basis of the Plaintiff's
claims is an entitled "Benefits Package" and "Membership
Enrollment" and "Membership Agreement," which allegedly
constitute an unconscionable contract of adhesion that in
perpetuity grants the Defendants the right to make an electronic
debit from her Century checking account that has been taken every
month for a time that appears to go as far back as 19 years and
that has been taken without any proper or legal authority from
her, without notice to her, and without any proper authorization.

Affinion Group, Inc. is a foreign corporation in Massachusetts
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.  Affinion is a privately
held international corporation.  According to its Web site,
Affinion is "the global leader in the designing, marketing and
servicing of comprehensive customer engagement and loyalty
solutions that enhance and extend the relationship of millions of
consumers with many of the largest and most respected companies
in the world.

Century Bank and Trust Company is a Massachusetts Bank with a
principal place of business in Medford, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valeriano Diviacchi, Esq.
          DIVIACCHI LAW OFFICE
          111 Beach Street, #1A
          Boston, MA 02111-2532
          Telephone: (617) 542-3175
          Facsimile: (617) 542-3110
          E-mail: Val@diviacchi.com

Defendant Century Bank & Trust Company, doing business as Century
Bank, is represented by:

          Kevin M. McGinty, Esq.
          Mary H. Adams, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC
          One Financial Center, 42nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
          E-mail: kmcginty@mintz.com
                  mhadams@mintz.com


ARCO MIDCON: Class Cert. Motion Denied in "Henke" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Henry Edward Autrey denied a motion for class
certification filed in GLENN A. HENKE and LINDA KLUNER
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. ARCO MIDCON, L.L.C., MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY,
L.P., and WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C., Defendants, CASE NO.
4:10CV86 HEA, (E.D. Mo.).

In his March 12, 2014 Opinion, Memorandum and Order, a copy of
which may be accessed for free at http://is.gd/EJirm9from
Leagle.com, Judge Autrey held that (1) Plaintiffs have failed to
show that an ascertainable class exists, that they are members of
the class, and that they have standing; (2) Plaintiffs' claims
fail to satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1); (3)
Plaintiffs' claims fail to satisfy the commonality requirement of
Rule 23(a)(2); (4) Plaintiffs' claims fail to satisfy the
typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3); (5) Plaintiffs' claims
fail to satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4); (6)
Plaintiffs' proposed "testing class" does not primarily seek
final injunctive relief as required by Rule 23(b)(2); (7)
Plaintiffs' proposed "liability class" does not raise questions
of law or fact that predominate over individual issues, and is
not a superior method of adjudication as required Rule 23(b)(2);
(8) finally this Court declines to recognize Rule 23(c)(4) as a
separate avenue for certification where other requirements are
not met.


ASSURANT INC: Faces Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Programs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc., is a defendant in class actions in a number of
jurisdictions regarding its lender-placed insurance programs,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company and its subsidiaries lease office space and equipment
under operating lease arrangements. Certain facility leases
contain escalation clauses based on increases in the lessors'
operating expenses. At December 31, 2013, the aggregate future
minimum lease payments under these operating lease agreements
that have initial or non-cancelable terms in excess of one year
was $112,287.

In the normal course of business, letters of credit are issued
primarily to support reinsurance arrangements in which the
Company is the reinsurer. These letters of credit are supported
by commitments under which the Company is required to indemnify
the financial institution issuing the letter of credit if the
letter of credit is drawn. The Company had $17,343 and $19,760 of
letters of credit outstanding as of December 31, 2013 and 2012,
respectively.

During the first quarter of 2013, the Company and two of its
wholly owned subsidiaries in the Assurant Specialty Property
segment, American Security Insurance Company ("ASIC") and
American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida ("ABIC"), reached
an agreement with the New York Department of Financial Services
(the "NYDFS") regarding the Company's lender-placed insurance
business in the State of New York.  Under the terms of the
agreement, and without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, ASIC
made a $14,000 settlement payment to the NYDFS. In addition,
among other things, ASIC and ABIC agreed to modify certain
business practices in accordance with requirements that apply to
all New York-licensed lender-placed insurers of properties in the
state, and filed the Company's new lender-placed program and new
rates in New York. The Company also continues to respond to and
cooperate with other regulatory inquiries regarding its lender-
placed insurance business.

In addition, the Company is involved in a variety of litigation
relating to its current and past business operations and may from
time to time become involved in other such actions. In
particular, the Company is a defendant in class actions in a
number of jurisdictions regarding its lender-placed insurance
programs. These cases allege a variety of claims under a number
of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek premium refunds and other
relief. The Company continues to defend itself vigorously in
these class actions. The Company has accrued an estimated loss
for this litigation.

The Company said it may participate in settlements on terms that
it considers reasonable given the strength of its defenses.
However, the possible loss or range of loss resulting from such
litigation and regulatory proceedings, if any, in excess of the
amounts accrued is inherently unpredictable and involves
significant uncertainty.  Consequently, no estimate can be made
of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of the above-
mentioned accrual.

Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of any action, it
is possible that such outcome could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations or
cash flows for an individual reporting period.  However, based on
currently available information, management does not believe that
the pending matters are likely to have a material adverse effect,
individually or in the aggregate, on the Company's financial
condition.

Assurant, Inc. is a provider of specialized insurance products
and related services in North America and select worldwide
markets. The Company operates in four segments: Assurant
Solutions, Assurant Specialty Property, Assurant Health, and
Assurant Employee Benefits.  The products offered by the segments
include warranties and service contracts, pre-funded funeral
insurance, lender-placed homeowners insurance, manufactured
housing homeowners insurance, individual health and small
employer group health insurance, group dental, disability, and
life insurance and employee-funded voluntary benefits.


AWALE INVESTMENTS: Intentionally Refused to Pay Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Casimir, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Awale Investments, Inc. d/b/a Dunkin Donuts, Case No.
0:14-cv-60320-RSR (S.D. Fla., February 9, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Awale Investments, Inc., doing business as Dunkin Donuts, is a
corporation that regularly transacts business within Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Markel, Esq.
          THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
          3191 Grand Avenue, #1513
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 458-1282
          Facsimile: (786) 803-8069
          E-mail: David.Markel@markel-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Joseph Shahady, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          200 S. W. 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: jshahady@KOlawyers.com


BALLY'S PARK: Court Certifies Class in Ex-workers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In an opinion dated March 12, 2014, a copy of which may be
accessed for free at http://is.gd/Qk2Jzufrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification in Rosemary Clark and Patrick DeAngelis,
Plaintiff, v. Bally's Park Place. Inc., et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 10-6725, (D. N.J.).

This matter arose under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL),
N.J.S.A. Section 34:11-56a et seq. Defendant Bally's Park Place
owns and operates Defendant Bally's Casino and Hotel in Atlantic
City, New Jersey. Patrick DeAngelis is a former Dealer in the
Table Games Department at Bally's. The Plaintiff alleges that
Bally's requires its dealers to attend pre-shift meetings called
"Buzz Sessions." "Buzz Sessions" are bi-weekly meetings which
occur approximately 5 to 10 minutes before the start of a
dealer's scheduled shift. At the Buzz Sessions, dealers discuss
current promotions, events, and ways to deliver excellent
customer service and satisfaction. The Plaintiff alleged that the
Dealers are not paid for their required attendance at the Buzz
Sessions, in violation of the NJHWL.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

According to Judge Rodriguez, the Plaintiff's claims satisfy the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) because the proposed
members are numerous, Plaintiff adequately represents the
proposed class, and the claims are common and typical of each
potential class member. In addition, the claims predominate and
the Court finds that class certification is a superior method of
adjudicating the claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (b).


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Reverse Mortgage Debts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Alhassid, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similar situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Nationstar Mortgage
LLC (d/b/a Champion Mortgage), & John Doe Insurance Company, Case
No. 1:14-cv-20484-FAM (S.D. Fla., February 7, 2014) addresses a
multi-year scheme by a bank, insurer, and loan servicer of home
equity conversion mortgages ("reverse mortgages") on properties
in condominium owners associations.

The Defendants engaged in a scheme to increase their profits on
reverse mortgage debts they purchased for pennies on the dollar
by needlessly purchasing forced-placed property insurance
policies at super inflated rates and then sending the bill to the
elderly borrowers, all in an effort to place the reverse mortgage
loan in "default" status, Ms. Alhassid contends.

Sarah Alhassid is a resident of Aventura, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.  During all relevant times, she says she paid
condominium fees to Mystic Point Condo, which in turn contracted
with insurers to provide property insurance for her unit.

Bank of America, N.A. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in North Carolina.  Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, doing business as Champion Mortgage, is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Texas.  BOA
and Champion do business and hold and service reverse mortgage
loans with condominium owners throughout the United States.  John
Doe Insurance Company is an unknown insurance company that,
according to BOA, was paid $6,467 by BOA to provide force-placed
flood insurance covering the Plaintiff's property, beginning in
October 2009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reuven Herssein, Esq.
          Iris Herssein, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Goodman, Esq.
          Max M. Nelson, Esq.
          HERSSEIN LAW GROUP
          12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone No: (305) 531-1431
          Facsimile No: (305) 531-1433
          E-mail: reuven@hersseinlaw.com
                  iris@hersseinlaw.com
                  jeffrey@hersseinlaw.com
                  max@hersseinlaw.com

               - and -

          Geoff Hirshberg, Esq.
          HERSSEIN LAW GROUP
          650 SE 12th St., #101
          Dania Beach, FL 33004
          Telephone: (660) 287-4557
          E-mail: geoff@hersseinlaw.com

               - and -

          Maury L. Udell, Esq.
          BEIGHLEY, MYRICK & UDELL, P.A.
          66 West Flagler Street, 7th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305)-349-3930
          Facsimile: (305) 349-3931
          E-mail: mudell@bmulaw.com

Defendant Bank of America, N.A., is represented by:

          Christopher Stephen Carver, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT
          Suntrust International Center
          1 SE 3rd Avenue, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131-1714
          Telephone: (305) 982-5572
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: christopher.carver@akerman.com

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Champion
Mortgage, is represented by:

          Alan Graham Greer, Esq.
          Nathaniel Mark Edenfield, Esq.
          RICHMAN GREER, P.A.
          396 Alhambra Circle
          North Tower, 14th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 373-4000
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4099
          E-mail: agreer@richmangreer.com
                  nedenfield@richmangreer.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles MBS Cases for $9.5 Billion
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dunn, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that
Bank of America said on March 26 it has agreed to pay $9.5
billion in a settlement with the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
a deal that resolves one of the largest remaining mortgage-backed
securities cases the bank faced.

The accord ends claims that the Charlotte bank violated
securities law while selling mortgage bonds to mortgage giants
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Bank of America said it will pay
$6.3 billion in cash and repurchase about $3.2 billion in
securities at market value.

Bank of America does not admit liability or wrongdoing in the
settlement.

The settlement covers about $57.5 billion in mortgage-backed
securities sold by Bank of America and subsidiaries Countrywide
Financial and Merrill Lynch between 2005 and 2007.  The Federal
Housing Finance Agency is the regulator overseeing Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac.

It brings an end to one of the biggest remaining legal questions
hanging over Bank of America.  The Charlotte bank has spent more
than $60 billion in settlements and legal fees in the past five
years.  Some analysts had predicted this settlement could reach
as high as $11 billion.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency sued Bank of America and other
banks in 2011, alleging they misrepresented the quality of
mortgage-backed securities sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
that later went sour.  Bank of America and its subsidiaries had
sold the largest percentage of the securities.

The banks have steadily agreed to settlements with the regulator.
The agency announced a $5.1 billion settlement with JPMorgan
Chase in October 2013.  Morgan Stanley settled for $1.25 billion
in early 2014.

"This resolution represents a reasonable and prudent settlement
of these cases," FHFA director Mel Watt said in a statement on
March 26.  Mr. Watt is a former U.S. representative from
Charlotte.

"This settlement also represents an important step in helping
restore stability to our broader mortgage market and moving to
bring back the role of private firms in providing mortgage
credit."

The settlement will make a large dent in Bank of America's
first-quarter earnings, which are set to be released April 16.
The bank said the deal would reduce its pre-tax earnings by $3.7
billion, or 21 cents per share.

Bank of America earned $3.2 billion for shareholders in the
fourth quarter.

The settlement is not the end of legal inquires into Bank of
America's mortgage-backed securities.  The bank said it continues
to cooperate with investigations by the Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and other government agencies.


BARCLAYS BANK: Accused of Manipulating WM/Reuters FX Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Barclays Bank PLC; Citigroup, Inc.;
Citibank, N.A.; Deutsche Bank AG; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.;
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Holdings PLC; HSBC Bank PLC; HSBC Bank
USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.;
Lloyds Banking Group PLC; Lloyds Bank PLC; The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group PLC; UBS AG; and UBS Securities LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-00787-LGS (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2014) is an antitrust
and common law class action arising from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the foreign currency exchange market
through the manipulation of the WM/Reuters FX rates from January
1, 2003, to the present.

The WM/Reuters FX Rates are frequently used to provide
standardized exchange rates for contract terms for approximately
160 different currencies.  To minimize risks attendant to
transaction execution, customers in the FX market often request
that dealers execute their transactions on the basis of benchmark
rates calculated by WM/Reuters.

Barclays Bank PLC is a British public limited company with its
corporate headquarters in London, England.  Barclays is licensed
by the New York Department of Financial Services with a
registered address in New York City, and a foreign representative
office in Long Island City, New York.

The Defendants were engaged in FX trades used in the calculation
of the WM/Reuters Rates at all relevant times.  Together, several
of the Defendants have maintained an aggregate market share of
approximately 70%, according to a survey by the industry
publication Euromoney.  The Defendants were among the largest
currency dealers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Donald A. Migliori, Esq.
          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          John A. Ioannou, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          600 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  dmigliori@motleyrice.com
                  mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                  jioannou@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Matthew Van Tine, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332 3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  mvantine@millerlawllc.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq.
          Eric Foster Leon, Esq.
          Robert S. Khuzami, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NYC)
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4913
          Facsimile: (212) 446-6460
          E-mail: jserino@kirkland.com
                  eleon@kirkland.com
                  robert.khuzami@kirkland.com


BBVA COMPASS: Court Approved $11.5-Mil Accord in "Anderson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on August 7, 2013, granted final approval to an
agreement between Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA) and
Stephen T. Anderson to settle the lawsuit as a nationwide class
of consumer customers for $11.5 million, according to Amendment
No. 2 to Form 10 filed by BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. on
February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

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

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., is the holding company for Compass
Bank, which does business as BBVA Compass. The bank operates
nearly 700 branches in seven Sunbelt states. It provides standard
corporate and retail banking services such as deposit accounts,
credit cards, business and personal loans, and mortgages. BBVA
Compass also offers wealth management services such as securities
brokerage, mutual funds, insurance, annuities, pension fund
management, and investment advisory. Compass Bancshares is a
subsidiary of Spain-based banking giant Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria (BBVA).


BBVA COMPASS: "Vaughan" Case Stayed Pending 5th Cir. Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA) reported that Kevin
Vaughan's complaint is currently stayed pending a decision from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
regarding whether class action waivers violate employees'
collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations
Act, according to Amendment No. 2 to Form 10 filed by BBVA
Compass Bancshares, Inc. on February 19, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In February 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Kevin Vaughan, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Compass
Bank, wherein the plaintiff alleges the Company denied earned
wages, including overtime pay, to its MBOs, and discouraged MBOs
from entering more than 40 hours per workweek in the timekeeping
system. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary relief.

This case is currently stayed pending a decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding whether
class action waivers violate employees' collective bargaining
rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., is the holding company for Compass
Bank, which does business as BBVA Compass. The bank operates
nearly 700 branches in seven Sunbelt states. It provides standard
corporate and retail banking services such as deposit accounts,
credit cards, business and personal loans, and mortgages. BBVA
Compass also offers wealth management services such as securities
brokerage, mutual funds, insurance, annuities, pension fund
management, and investment advisory. Compass Bancshares is a
subsidiary of Spain-based banking giant Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria (BBVA).


BBVA COMPASS: Garza Case Stayed Pending 5th Cir. Decision
---------------------------------------------------------
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA) reported that the
Jacqueline Garza complaint is currently stayed pending a decision
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
regarding whether class action waivers violate employees'
collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations
Act, according to Amendment No. 2 to Form 10 filed by BBVA
Compass Bancshares, Inc. on February 19, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In May 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Jacqueline Garza, on behalf of
herself and similarly situated employees v. BBVA Bancomer USA,
Inc. and Compass Bank, wherein the plaintiff alleges the Company
denied overtime pay to its Assistant Branch Managers who were
allegedly improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay
mandates of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary relief.

This case is currently stayed pending a decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding whether
class action waivers violate employees' collective bargaining
rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., is the holding company for Compass
Bank, which does business as BBVA Compass. The bank operates
nearly 700 branches in seven Sunbelt states. It provides standard
corporate and retail banking services such as deposit accounts,
credit cards, business and personal loans, and mortgages. BBVA
Compass also offers wealth management services such as securities
brokerage, mutual funds, insurance, annuities, pension fund
management, and investment advisory. Compass Bancshares is a
subsidiary of Spain-based banking giant Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria (BBVA).


CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Dismisses Some Claims in Hadley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patrick J. Duggan entered an opinion and order on
March 13, 2014, a copy of which is available for free at
http://is.gd/HD66USfrom Leagle.com, in JAY HADLEY and LINDA
HADLEY, Plaintiffs, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC and TRW AUTOMOTIVE
HOLDINGS GROUP, Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 13-13665, (E.D.
Mich.),
granting in part and denying without prejudice in part motions to
dismiss the suit.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit against
Defendants, seeking to expedite the repair or replacement of
defective airbag system occupant restraint control modules
(airbag modules) in certain Jeep Liberty, Jeep Grand Cherokee,
and Dodge Viper vehicles. In addition to declaratory and
injunctive relief, Plaintiffs seek damages from Defendants
allegedly incurred as a result of the defect and/or the delay in
repairing the defect. Before the Court were the following motions
filed by Defendant Chrysler Group LLC (New Chrysler) on November
12, 2013:

   * to Dismiss brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
     12(b)(1) and (6);

   * alternatively to stay; and

   * to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1412.

Also pending before the Court was a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), filed by
Defendant TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation (TRW) on November
25, 2013.

Judge Duggan concluded that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims against New Chrysler and
TRW. As such, the Court is without authority to rule on the other
issues raised in Defendants' motions. Accordingly, ruled Judge
Duggan:

1. Chrysler Group LLC's motion to dismiss and TRW Automotive
   Holdings Group's Motion to Dismiss are granted in part and
   denied without prejudice in part in that the Court grants the
   motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
   only;

2. Chrysler Group LLC's motion to transfer is denied without
   prejudice;

3. Chrysler Group LLC's alternative motion to stay is denied as
   without prejudice.

Jay Hadley, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F Fata --
afata@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel
LLP & Patrick E. Cafferty -- PCafferty@CaffertyClobes.com --
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

Linda Hadley, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F Fata, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Patrick E. Cafferty, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Larry J. Saylor --
saylor@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., Defendant, represented by Arthur
Thomas O'Reilly -- aoreilly@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller &
Norman C. Ankers --nankers@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller.


CIBER INC: Received Preliminary Okay of Settlement in Weston Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary court approval has been obtained in a settlement
between Ciber, Inc., and plaintiffs that involved funds paid by
the Company's insurers being placed into a fund for the benefit
of the class in connection with the so-called Weston lawsuit,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "in October 2011, a putative securities class
action lawsuit, Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado against
Ciber and several of its current and former officers. In November
2013, we entered into a settlement among the lead plaintiff and
the defendants that involved funds paid by our insurers being
placed into a fund for the benefit of the class. The Court issued
preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to final approval
after the completion of certain events, including notice to the
putative class. We have not made any admission of liability or
wrongdoing by entering into this settlement. Notices to potential
class members has begun."

Ciber, Inc., is a provider of information technology (IT),
business consulting and outsourcing services. The Company is
engaged in solving complex IT and business issues across
industries, such as energy and utilities, telecommunications,
retail, healthcare, financial services, entertainment and
manufacturing. The Company operates in three segments:
International, North America and IT Outsourcing. Its offerings
are focused around a set of core competencies which include
Application Development and Management (ADM), Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP), Customer Relationship Management, Business
Intelligence and Data Warehousing, Managed Services, Testing and
Quality Assurance, Mobility Services and Digital Marketing. On
March 9, 2012, the Company sold its Federal division to CRGT,
Inc.


CR BARD: 2 Hernia Product Actions Pending as of Feb. 13
-------------------------------------------------------
As of February 13, 2014, two putative class actions in the United
States are pending against C. R. Bard, Inc., with respect to its
Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant
products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February
19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

As of February 13, 2014, approximately 480 federal and 320 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 950
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States are currently pending against the company with respect to
its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant
products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. One of the U.S.
putative class action lawsuits consolidated ten previously-filed
U.S. class action lawsuits. The putative class actions, none of
which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii)
compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial
finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In
the third quarter of 2013, a settlement was reached with respect
to the three pending putative Canadian class actions within
amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 295 of
the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately
430 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products.

In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and,
subsequently, other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in
federal courts nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

On June 30, 2011, the company announced that it had reached
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each
agreement was subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company
continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law
firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product
Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims
that do not settle, including through litigation.

The company said it cannot give any assurances that the
resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled,
including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class
action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the
company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.

The company's insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia
Product Claims has been exhausted. In the first quarter of 2013
the company recorded a non-cash charge of $25.0 million ($24.5
million after tax) to other (income) expense, net, for the write-
down of an insurance receivable related to a dispute with one of
its excess insurance carriers in connection with these claims.

C. R. Bard, Inc. (Bard) is engaged in the design, manufacture,
packaging, distribution and sale of medical, surgical, diagnostic
and patient care devices. As of December 31, 2011, the Company
sold a range of products to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities and alternate site
facilities on a global basis. The Company participates in the
markets for vascular, urology, oncology and surgical specialty
products. Bard also has a product group of other products.
Through subsidiaries and a joint venture, Bard markets its
products to customers in over 100 countries outside the United
States. The Company's principal international markets were in
Europe and Japan as of December 31, 2011. On November 10, 2011,
Bard acquired Medivance, Inc. On December 16, 2011, the Company
acquired Lutonix, Inc.


CR BARD: 9 Women's Health Product Actions Pending as of Feb. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of February 13, 2014, five putative class actions in the
United States and four putative class actions in Canada have been
filed against C. R. Bard, Inc., alleging personal injuries
associated with the use of certain of the Company's surgical
continence products for women, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

As of February 13, 2014, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 10,395 plaintiffs have been
filed or asserted against the company in various federal and
state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with
the use of certain of the company's surgical continence products
for women, including its Avaulta(R) line of products. In
addition, five putative class actions in the United States and
four putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the
company (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product
Claims").

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative
class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i)
medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive
damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or
(v) attorneys' fees. With respect to certain of these claims, the
company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to
defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product
defect liability.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "District
Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include
lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence products that
are manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial
in a state court was completed in July 2012 and resulted in a
judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. The
company has appealed this decision.

The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in
a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million. The
company intends to appeal the judgment. During the third quarter
of 2013, the company settled one MDL case and one New Jersey
state case. The amounts of the settlements are subject to
confidentiality requirements. In addition, during the third
quarter of 2013, one MDL case was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice. On January 16, 2014, the District Court ordered that
the company prepare 200 individual cases for trial, the timing
for which is currently unknown. The next MDL trial is scheduled
to occur in May 2014, with additional trials scheduled throughout
2014, some of which may be consolidated.

The company does not believe that any verdicts or settlements
entered to date are representative of potential outcomes of all
Women's Health Product Claims. The case numbers do not include
approximately 1,390 generic complaints involving women's health
products where the company cannot, based on the allegations in
the complaints, determine whether any of those cases involves the
company's women's health products. In addition, the case numbers
do not include approximately 2,195 claims that have been
threatened against the company but for which complaints have not
yet been filed.

While the company intends to vigorously defend the Women's Health
Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution
of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the
company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.

In connection with the Women's Health Product Claims, the company
was in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating
to an aggregate of $50 million of insurance coverage. In June
2013, the company settled this dispute with no change to the
amount of the insurance coverage or the related receivable.

C. R. Bard, Inc. (Bard) is engaged in the design, manufacture,
packaging, distribution and sale of medical, surgical, diagnostic
and patient care devices. As of December 31, 2011, the Company
sold a range of products to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities and alternate site
facilities on a global basis. The Company participates in the
markets for vascular, urology, oncology and surgical specialty
products. Bard also has a product group of other products.
Through subsidiaries and a joint venture, Bard markets its
products to customers in over 100 countries outside the United
States. The Company's principal international markets were in
Europe and Japan as of December 31, 2011. On November 10, 2011,
Bard acquired Medivance, Inc. On December 16, 2011, the Company
acquired Lutonix, Inc.


DA VINE SUPERIOR: Withheld Tips Earned by Class, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Dechert, individually, and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Da Vine Superior, LLC, d/b/a New Rebozo
Chicago, Josemanuel Lopez, individually, and Francisco Lopez,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00858 (N.D. Ill., February 7,
2014) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, including failing to pay minimum wages to, and
withholding tips rightfully earned from, Ms. Dechert and the
collective class she represents.

Da Vine Superior, LLC, doing business as New Rebozo Chicago, is
an Illinois limited liability company owned and operated within
Illinois.  New Rebozo owns and operates restaurants in Illinois.
Francisco Lopez is the owner of New Rebozo.  Josemanuel Lopez is
a manager of New Rebozo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
          JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES
          431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 939-2100
          E-mail: jac@wageandhour.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adrian Mendoza, Jr., Esq.
          Angela Marie Stinebrink, Esq.
          LILLIG & THORSNESS, LTD.
          1900 Spring Road, #200
          Oak Brook, IL 60523
          Telephone: (630) 571-1900
          E-mail: amendoza@lilliglaw.com
                  astinebrink@lilliglaw.com


EARTH FARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages and Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonita Bartles v. Earth Fare, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00015-CDL
(M.D. Ga., February 7, 2014) is brought to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates a chain of grocery stores in more than 30
cities within nine states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Jerilyn E. Gardner, Esq.
          FRIED & BONDER, LLC
          White Provision, Suite 305
          1170 Howell Mill Rd., NW
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 995-8808
          Facsimile: (404) 995-8899
          E-mail: ahead@friedbonder.com
                  jgardner@friedbonder.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan W. Yarbrough, Esq.
          84 Peachtree Rd., Suite 230
          Asheville, NC 28803
          Telephone: (828) 333-4218
          E-mail: jyarbrough@constangy.com

               - and -

          Alyssa K. Peters, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP
          PO Box 1975
          Macon, GA 31202
          Telephone: (478) 750-8600
          E-mail: amorris@constangy.com


EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" Unfair Competition Suit Pending in C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FT Holdings, Inc., on November 27, 2013, was a defendant in a
class action complaint alleging, among other things, violation of
the unfair competition law, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2013.

On November 27, 2013, a class action complaint entitled Li, et
al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a
putative class of all purchasers of one or more of the Company's
products against the Company and Jack Qin in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violation of the unfair
competition law, false advertising law, breach of express
warranty, breach of the Magnuson-Moss Act, and fraud.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, money damages and injunctive
relief.  The case is currently pending. The Company believes that
the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend
against them vigorously.

FT Holdings, Inc. is primarily an e-Business company.  The
Company's products are sold directly to customers through its
Website. The Company sells 27 different nutritional products
(some of which are oral sprays); 21 different personal care
products, protective automotive product; house cleaner and a flip
top portable drinking container that contains a filter to remove
impurities from the water. The Company's products include 2005
Zeolite Plus, 2006 Celprotect I, Cardio Support #3019, 3007
Cordyceps Sinensis, 2006-2007, Colostrum #3008. Its personal care
products include # 4029 Sunscreen UV, # 4030 Hair Remover, 4321,
Breast Cream #4007, Lifting Masque #4009 and Instant Whitening
Cream #4025. The Company's automotive products include FastTeam
Plus #1001, FastTeamPlus #1003 and MotorMax #1004.


EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" Securities Action Still Pending in C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
EFT Holdings, Inc., on November 27, 2013, was one of the
defendants in a class action complaint alleging, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, aiding and
abetting, constructive fraud, corporate waste and gift and gross
mismanagement, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2013.

On November 27, 2013, a class action complaint entitled Li, et
al. v. Qin, et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all
EFT affiliates who purchased EFT stock since January 1, 2008
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting,
constructive fraud, corporate waste and gift and gross
mismanagement. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
damages and the imposition of a constructive trust. The case is
currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted
are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

FT Holdings, Inc. is primarily an e-Business company. The
Company's products are sold directly to customers through its
Website. The Company sells 27 different nutritional products
(some of which are oral sprays); 21 different personal care
products, protective automotive product; house cleaner and a flip
top portable drinking container that contains a filter to remove
impurities from the water.  The Company's products include 2005
Zeolite Plus, 2006 Celprotect I, Cardio Support #3019, 3007
Cordyceps Sinensis, 2006-2007, Colostrum #3008. Its personal care
products include # 4029 Sunscreen UV, # 4030 Hair Remover, 4321,
Breast Cream #4007, Lifting Masque #4009 and Instant Whitening
Cream #4025. The Company's automotive products include FastTeam
Plus #1001, FastTeamPlus #1003 and MotorMax #1004.


EL PASO PIPELINE: Motion to Dismiss SNG Sale Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court denied El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.'s motion to
dismiss a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to the
Company of a 25% ownership interest in SNG, according to El Paso
Pipeline's Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "In May 2012, a unitholder of EPB filed a
purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging both
derivative and non-derivative claims, against us, and our general
partner and its board. We were named in the lawsuit as both a
"Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal Defendant." The
complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to us of a 25%
ownership interest in SNG. Defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is pending.
Defendants continue to believe this action is without merit and
intend to defend against it vigorously."

El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. owns and operates interstate
natural gas transportation and terminaling facilities.


ELI LILLY: Facing 55 Cases by 1,700 Claimants Over Darvon(R)
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that it
is a defendant in approximately 55 U.S. cases involving
approximately 1,700 claimants related to the analgesic Darvon and
related formulations of propoxyphene.

Eli Lilly and Company disclosed: "Along with several other
manufacturers, we have been named as a defendant in approximately
55 cases in the U.S. involving approximately 1,700 claimants
related to the analgesic Darvon and related formulations of
propoxyphene. Additionally, approximately 80 cases involving
approximately 225 claimants were recently dismissed and are on
appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Almost all of the active cases have
been consolidated in a federal multi-district litigation in the
Eastern District of Kentucky or are pending in a coordinated
state court proceeding in California. A putative class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana (Ballard, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.)
against Lilly and other manufacturers seeking to assert product
liability claims on behalf of U.S. residents who ingested
propoxyphene pain products and allegedly sustained personal
injuries. Lilly was dismissed from Ballard with prejudice on a
dispositive motion and the dismissal is now final and non-
appealable. We transferred the U.S. regulatory approvals and all
marketing rights to our propoxyphene products in 2002 to NeoSan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (an affiliate of aaiPharma, Inc.), which
subsequently transferred all such approvals and marketing rights
to Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. We believe these claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
sells products, in one business segment, pharmaceutical products.
The Company also has an animal health business segment. It
manufactures and distributes its products through facilities in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and 15 other countries. Its
products are sold in approximately 130 countries. The Company's
products include neuroscience products, endocrinology products,
oncology products, cardiovascular products, animal health
products and other pharmaceuticals. The Company's new molecular
entities (NMEs) are in Phase III clinical trial testing include
Dulaglutide, Edivoxetine, Empagliflozin-BI10773, Enzastaurin,
Ixekizumab, Necitumumab,, New insulin glargine product, Novel
basal insulin analog, Pomaglumetad Methionil, Ramucirumab,
Solanezumab and Tabalumab. In January 2014, acquired all
development rights for a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)
antibody.


ELI LILLY: Faces 3 Canada Product Liability Actions Over Actos(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company has been named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries Ltd., as defendant in three purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We have been named along with Takeda
Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates as a defendant
in product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes
medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S.
from 1999 until September 2006. In addition, we have been named
along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one
in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North
America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly
et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). We
promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. In general, plaintiffs in
these actions allege that Actos caused or contributed to their
bladder cancer. Under our agreement with Takeda, we will be
indemnified by Takeda for our losses and expenses with respect to
the U.S. litigation and other related expenses in accordance with
the terms of the indemnification agreement. We believe these
claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
sells products, in one business segment, pharmaceutical products.
The Company also has an animal health business segment. It
manufactures and distributes its products through facilities in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and 15 other countries. Its
products are sold in approximately 130 countries. The Company's
products include neuroscience products, endocrinology products,
oncology products, cardiovascular products, animal health
products and other pharmaceuticals. The Company's new molecular
entities (NMEs) are in Phase III clinical trial testing include
Dulaglutide, Edivoxetine, Empagliflozin-BI10773, Enzastaurin,
Ixekizumab, Necitumumab,, New insulin glargine product, Novel
basal insulin analog, Pomaglumetad Methionil, Ramucirumab,
Solanezumab and Tabalumab. In January 2014, acquired all
development rights for a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)
antibody.


FACEBOOK INC: Interlocutory Appeal Bid in IPO Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Sweet denied a motion for interlocutory
appeal filed by defendants in In IN RE FACEBOOK, INC., IPO
SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, MDL NO. 12-2389, (S.D.
N.Y.).  A copy of the March 7, 2014 Opinion & Order may be
accessed for free at http://is.gd/gsE25Xfrom Leagle.com.

Pursuant to the transfer order from the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the MDL Panel), entered on
October 4, 2012, 41 actions stemming from the May 18, 2012
initial public offering (IPO) of Facebook, Inc. are presently
before the Court.

The motion relates to the consolidated securities action brought
by Plaintiffs North Carolina Department of State Treasurer on
behalf of the North Carolina Retirement Systems; Banyan Capital
Master Fund Ltd.; Arkansas Teacher Retirement System; and the
Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association; and the Named
Plaintiffs' Jose G. Galvan and Mary Jane Lule Galvan against
Defendants Facebook, certain Facebook directors and officers (the
Individual Defendants), and underwriters of the IPO of Facebook
(the Underwriter Defendants).  The Defendants moved the Court to
amend and certify the Opinion and Order entered on December 12,
2013, In re Facebook. IPO Sec. & Derivative Litig., MDL No. 2389,
2013 WL 6665399 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2013), for interlocutory
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), which denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint alleging federal securities claims.

Judge Sweet held that an interlocutory appeal would not
materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation
and the issues involved do not involve controlling questions of
law.

Steven B. Singer, Esq. -- SSinger@bIbglaw.com -- John J. Rizio-
Hamilton, Esq. -- johnr@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMAN LLP, New York, NY,

Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- James W. Johnson,
Esq. -- jjohnson@labaton.com -- Louis Gottlieb, Esq., Thomas G.
Hoffman, Jr., Esq. -- thoffman@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW
LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Co-Lead Plaintiffs and the
Class.

By: Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Brant
W. Bishop, Esq. -- brant.bishop@kirkland.com -- KIRLAND & ELLIS
LLP, New York, NY,

By: Susan E. Engel, Esq. -- susan.engel@kirkland.com -- Kellen S.
Dwyer, Esq. -- kellen.dwyer@kirkland.com -- Bob Allen, Esq. --
bob.allen@kirkland.com -- KIRLAND & ELLIS LLP, Washington, DC.

By: Tariq Mundiya, Esq. -- maosdny@willkie.com -- Todd G.
Cosenza, Esq. -- tcosenza@willkie.com -- Sameer Advani, Esq. --
sadvani@willkie.com -- WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, New York,
NY.

By: Richard D. Bernstein, Esq. -- rbernstein@willkie.com --
Elizabeth J. Bower, Esq. -- ebower@willkie.com -- WILLKIE FARR &
GALLAGHER LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Facebook, Inc. and
Individual Facebook Defendants.

By: James P. Rouhandeh, Esq. -- rouhandeh@davispolk.com  --
Charles S. Duggan, Esq. -- gencoun@davispolk.com -- Andrew
Ditchfield, Esq. -- andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com -- DAVIS POLK
& WARDWELL LLP New York, NY, Attorneys for Underwriter
Defendants.


FIFTH THIRD: Class Cert. Bid in Hayden Suit Dismissed as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
In LORI HAYDEN, Plaintiff, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, INC., Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-824-H, (W.D. Ky.), Plaintiff, Lori
Hayden, a former Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) for Defendant,
Fifth Third Bank (Fifth Third), made two claims: (1) that Fifth
Third breached her payment contract by deducting uncollected
residential mortgage loan application fees as "charge-backs" from
her commissions; and (2) that Fifth Third enforced an unlawful
contractual provision by withholding earned commissions upon
cessation of her employment. Hayden sought to certify a class of
current and former MLOs aggrieved by the same practices.
Defendant moved for summary judgment.

District Judge John G. Heyburn, II found that Fifth Third is
entitled to summary judgment and Hayden's motion for class
certification is moot.

In a March 13, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/6Li83nfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Heyburn ordered that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be
sustained and Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class was denied as moot, as
were all remaining pending motions.

Lori Hayden, Plaintiff, represented by, Laurence John Zielke --
lzielke@zielkefirm.com -- The Zielke Law Firm & Nancy J. Schook
-- nschook@zielkefirm.com -- The Zielke Law Firm, and:

   James M. Bolus, Jr., Esq.
   Bolus Law Offices, Attorneys at Law
   600 West Main Street, Suite 500
   Louisville, Kentucky 40202
   Telephone: 502-584-1210
   Facsimile: 502-584-1212

Fifth Third Bank, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie J. Goetz-
Anderson -- jamie.goetz-anderson@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis PC, Scott A. Carroll -- CarrollS@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis LLP & Katharine C. Weber --
katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.


FIRSTENERGY GENERATION: Court Excludes Experts' Testimonies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (No. 08-1025) and Price
v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (No. 08-1030) were consolidated
for discovery.  The cases involve FirstEnergy's Bruce Mansfield
Power Plant, which is located along the Ohio River in
Shippingport, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs in each case allege
harm from air pollution discharged by Bruce Mansfield.  The
alleged pollution came in the form of "white rain," a chronically
discharged corrosive material, and "black rain," a dark-colored
sooty residue discharged on two occasions in 2006 and 2007.  The
white rain and black rain were deposited on the area surrounding
Bruce Mansfield, allegedly causing property damage and adverse
health effects. The named plaintiffs in Patrick are four couples
who make class-action claims for damages due to diminution of
property value and seek to enjoin the plant from operating until
it can prevent the white rain emissions.  In Price, 19 plaintiffs
seek monetary damages for adverse health effects and property
damage and seek injunctive relief.

The parties conducted extensive fact and expert discovery in
these cases.  The Defendant filed motions to limit or preclude
the testimony of 12 of the Plaintiffs' experts.  The Plaintiffs
filed motions to limit or preclude the testimony of seven of
defendant's experts.

In a memorandum opinion issued by Chief District Judge Joy
Flowers Conti on March 13, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/vAs00dfrom Leagle.com, the Court addressed two of
the plaintiffs' challenged geology and sampling experts -- Wayne
C. Isphording, PhD ("Isphording") and James R. Millette, PhD
("Millette").

The Court found that the expert testimony of Isphording and
Millette would not be helpful to the trier of fact.  Accordingly,
the Court granted the motions to exclude their testimony.

The cases are Patrick et al., Plaintiffs, v. FirstEnergy
Generation Corp., Defendant; and Price et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NOS.
08-1025, 08-1030, (W.D. Penn.).

GARY P. HUNT, Special Master, represented by Gary P. Hunt --
ghunt@tuckerlaw.com -- Tucker Arensberg.

DAVID AND RIKKI PATRICK, h/w, Plaintiff, represented by Deanna K.
Tanner -- dtanner@villarilaw.com -- Villari, Brandes & Kline,
P.C., Paul D. Brandes -- pbrandes@villarilaw.com -- Villari,
Brandes & Kline, P.C., Peter M. Villari --
pvillari@villarilaw.com -- Villari, Brandes & Kline, David B.
Kline -- dkline@villarilaw.com -- Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C.
& Douglas R. Blazey, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C..

EDWARD AND ROBIN KROBOT, h/w, Plaintiff, represented by Deanna K.
Tanner, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C., Paul D. Brandes, Villari,
Brandes & Kline, P.C., Peter M. Villari, Villari, Brandes &
Kline, David B. Kline, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C. & Douglas
R. Blazey, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C..

ERIC AND LORI MILNES, h/w, Plaintiff, represented by Deanna K.
Tanner, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C., Paul D. Brandes, Villari,
Brandes & Kline, P.C., Peter M. Villari, Villari, Brandes &
Kline, David B. Kline, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C. & Douglas
R. Blazey, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C..

JAMES and SHIRLEY BRUCE, Plaintiff, represented by Deanna K.
Tanner, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C., Paul D. Brandes, Villari,
Brandes & Kline, P.C., Peter M. Villari, Villari, Brandes &
Kline, David B. Kline, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C. & Douglas
R. Blazey, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C..

FIRSTENERGY GENERATION CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
Kathy K. Condo -- kcondo@babstcalland.com -- Babst Calland
Clements & Zomnir, Alana E. Fortna -- afortna@babstcalland.com --
Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C., Christopher M. Helms --
chelms@babstcalland.com -- Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir,
P.C. & Mark D. Shepard -- mshepard@babstcalland.com -- Babst,
Calland, Clements & Zomnir.


GARMIN LTD: Parties in "Katz" Suit Ordered to File Brief
--------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court has ordered Garmin Ltd., and Andrea Katz, the
plaintiff in a purported class action, to brief a dispositive
motion concerning whether Andrea Katz had legal standing at the
time she filed her second action alleging breach of contract and
unjust enrichment, among other things, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year end December 28,
2013.

On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lead
plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated. The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz
purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any
model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United
States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory
law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an
unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.

On January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the
lawsuit as a new action before the same court with the same
claims for relief as the earlier action and adding an additional
claim for unjust enrichment.

Garmin believes that plaintiff Andrea Katz's claims were mooted
prior to her re-filing her lawsuit.

On February 4, 2014, the court ordered the case to be transferred
to the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
Garmin sought reconsideration of that order.  On February 13,
2014, the court ordered the parties to brief a dispositive motion
concerning whether Andrea Katz had legal standing at the time she
filed her second action. The transfer to Utah has been stayed by
the court pending ruling on these two motions. No class has been
certified at this time. Although there can be no assurance that
an unfavorable outcome of this litigation would not have a
material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity, or
financial position, Garmin believes that the claims in this
lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this
action.

Garmin Ltd. (Garmin) is a provider of navigation, communication
and information devices and applications, which are enabled by
global positioning system (GPS) technology. Garmin designs,
develops, manufactures and markets a diverse family of hand-held,
portable and fixed-mount GPS-enabled products and other
navigation, communications and information products for the
automotive/mobile, outdoor, fitness, marine, and general aviation
markets. Garmin has four segments: Automotive/Mobile, Aviation,
Marine, Outdoor and Fitness. In September 2012, its subsidiary
acquired Nexus Marine AB, a designer and manufacturer of
instrumentation for the sailing and yachting market.


GARMIN LTD: Contests All Counts in Defective Batteries Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. on February 7,
2014, filed an answer contesting all the remaining counts in a
complaint alleging that lithium-ion batteries in certain Garmin
products are defective, according to Garmin Ltd. Form 10-K filed
on February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action
complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc.
and Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas.  Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in
certain Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of
the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty
of merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach
of express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the
batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's
warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification,
a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of
injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin
products, and an award of attorneys' fees.

On September 18, 2013 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin
Ltd. as a defendant without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the
plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. On November 1,
2013 the remaining Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for declaratory
relief and the prayer for a declaration that the batteries are
defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other substantive
counts. No class has been certified at this time.

On February 7, 2014 Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA,
Inc. filed an answer contesting all the remaining counts in the
complaint.

"Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome
of this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on
our operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.

Garmin Ltd. (Garmin) is a provider of navigation, communication
and information devices and applications, which are enabled by
global positioning system (GPS) technology. Garmin designs,
develops, manufactures and markets a diverse family of hand-held,
portable and fixed-mount GPS-enabled products and other
navigation, communications and information products for the
automotive/mobile, outdoor, fitness, marine, and general aviation
markets. Garmin has four segments: Automotive/Mobile, Aviation,
Marine, Outdoor and Fitness. In September 2012, its subsidiary
acquired Nexus Marine AB, a designer and manufacturer of
instrumentation for the sailing and yachting market.


GENERAL MOTORS: To Use New Part Number for Ignition Switch
----------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Thompson and Ben Klayman, writing for Reuters, report
that General Motors Co said on March 27 the replacement ignition
switch it has ordered to use in a massive passenger car recall
will bear a new part number, a step that "eliminates any
potential confusion about which part to use in the repair," a
spokesman said.

GM spokesman Jim Cain said changing the part number is "standard
procedure" for a new factory run, as GM tries to bring in about
1.6 million vehicles globally that have faulty ignition switches.
The problem has been linked to at least 12 deaths.

Reuters reported on March 26 that GM faced another potential risk
-- this time in the spare parts market -- because the defective
switch carries the same part number as a working version that
followed after critical design changes were made by GM and its
supplier Delphi Automotive in late 2006.

The part, known as GM 10392423 and Delphi D14611, is still
available to repair shops and suppliers in the vast spare parts
market.  GM said it is responding to the issue.

Without knowing the manufacturing date or taking the switch
apart, parts purchasers would have no way of knowing whether it
was the flawed design or the later version with a tighter
internal spring.

GM has warned that in the recalled models, the weight of a heavy
key ring can cause the ignition to move from "drive" to the
"accessory" or "off" position, which causes airbags and other
systems to malfunction.

Mr. Cain said production of new parts, made by Delphi, is under
way, and the companies have added a second production line to
have enough parts to complete the recall.  GM estimates there are
1.4 million vehicles still in use.

"We expect to have about 60,000 available on or about April 7,"
he said.  GM expects the recall will not be completed until
October.

Delphi has said the replacement part cost is between $2 and $5
per switch, and the parts swap can be done in minutes.


GENERAL MOTORS: Adds 971,000 Cars to Ignition Switch Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that General Motors is adding 971,000 cars to its
ignition switch recall, which began in February with 1.6 million
vehicles and has been linked to a dozen deaths.

The recall, which now totals 2,591,665 cars, includes all model
years of the Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet HHR, Saturn Ion, Saturn
Sky, Pontiac G5 and Pontiac Solstice made from 2003-2011.

Older versions of those cars, dating from 2003-2007, were
recalled in February.

GM said the newer models made after 2007 were equipped with a
redesigned ignition switch, but that some of those cars might
have been repaired with older replacement parts that may be
faulty.  The expanded recall includes 824,000 cars in the United
States and 971,000 globally, GM said.

GM also is recalling all the replacement ignition switches that
have been sent to U.S. aftermarket distributors, the spare parts
market.  About 95,000 faulty switches were sold to dealers and
parts wholesalers.

Reuters reported that it was still possible to purchase GM brand
ignition switches manufactured by Delphi Automotive carrying the
same parts number as the product at the center of the February
recall.  These switches may not be defective, but it is nearly
impossible to tell unless they are taken apart or the
manufacturing history is checked.

GM said on Feb. 28 that no deaths or injuries have been linked to
faulty ignition switches in the newer models that have been added
to the recall.  GM Chief Executive Mary Barra said on Feb. 28
that "we are taking no chances with safety" in replacing the
ignition switches on all 2.6 million cars.  Some of the newer
cars could have faulty replacement ignitions that could be
switched from "run" to "accessory," shutting down the engine and
disabling the cars' power steering, power brakes and airbags.

GM had said on Feb. 27 that the replacement ignition switch it
has ordered from Delphi to use in the recall will bear a new part
number that "eliminates any potential confusion about which part
to use in the repair."  The spokesman on Feb. 28 said GM decided
to recall all the replacement parts currently in stock at U.S.
parts distributors "out of an abundance of caution."

Separately, General Motors has told dealers to stop selling some
2013 and 2014 Chevrolet Cruze compact cars but won't say why.


GENERAL MOTORS: Suits Over Defective Ignition Switches Pile Up
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Friend, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that class-
action lawsuits against General Motors are beginning to pile up
over the automaker's handling of defective ignition switches in
1.6 million small cars worldwide.  About 235,000 of those cars
were sold in Canada, and at least two separate law firms are
seeking to represent people who are looking for compensation,
adding to several other suits in the United States.

Merchant Law Group LLP has filed claims against the Detroit-based
auto maker in Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan, saying that GM
knowingly misled customers about safety issues by hiding its
knowledge of the ignition problems.

Law firm Sutts, Strosberg LLP, based in Windsor, Ont., which also
handles many class action cases, recently posted a message in a
local newspaper seeking GM vehicle owners.

Class action lawsuits are intended to provide legal
representation for relatively large number of plaintiffs seeking
compensation for the same problem -- such as a defective product
purchased in a certain period.

Merchant Law Group seeks to represent and compensate people
across Canada for defects in various models of small cars with
the defective switch, used between about 2003 and 2007.  Its
plaintiffs include two women who "now drive their vehicles with
extreme caution, fearing that they could experience a sudden,
unintended engine shutdown, and risk bodily harm."

"General Motors had a duty to design, manufacture, and market
vehicles that were reasonably safe for their intended uses, and
to provide true and accurate information to the public," its
court filing said.

General Motors said on Feb. 27 it doesn't comment on matters
before the courts.  Typically, upfront costs of such suits are
borne by the law firm handling the suit and the lawyers are
compensated with a share of a negotiated settlement or court-
imposed penalty, if any.  When it comes to massive vehicle
recalls, the number of claimants can soar -- but some cases can
take years to resolve.

GM announced in February that ignition switches in older models
of the Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac G5s, Saturn Ion, Chevrolet HHR,
Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky need to be repaired.  Those are
the vehicles that form the basis of the Canadian suits against
General Motors.

The new head of GM has apologized saying the company took too
long to notify owners about the needed repairs. The company has
acknowledged it learned about the problem switches at least 11
years ago, yet it failed to recall the cars until February.

Chief executive Mary Barra, who took the leadership role in mid-
January, said the company takes responsibility for mishandling
the defect and would do what's right for customers.  GM also
announced it was hiring a new head of global safety.  Ms. Barra
stopped short of saying the company would compensate families
killed in crashes caused by faulty ignition switches.   That
number is likely to rise above the 12 currently cited by the
company as GM and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration review accident reports and consumer complaints.

"I am very sorry for the loss of life that occurred, and we will
take every step to make sure this never happens again," Ms. Barra
said on March 25.

An internal investigation is underway and will take about seven
months to complete.  In the meantime, the company has not
contacted the families, she said.

In Ontario, the Merchant Law Group filing names both Christina
Duquette and Jessica Schaafsma as lead representative plaintiffs
in the action.  None of their allegations has been tested in
court.  Duquette alleges she experienced two sudden engine
shutdowns in her 2006 Pontiac G5 while driving, with both
instances between 2011 and 2013.  The documents said Ms.
Schaafsma, who is an expectant mother, has considered buying
another vehicle to replace her 2005 Chevrolet Cobal LS to ensure
the safety of her child.

On March 24, GM issued a new recall of 1.5 million larger
vehicles, including 70,437 in Canada, because their side air
bags, front centre air bags and seat belts may not work properly
if drivers ignore a warning light on their dashboard.


GENERAL MOTORS: Families of 2006 Wisconsin Crash Victims Sue
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News' Leslie Dyste and The Associated Press report that the
families of three teenagers killed or injured in a 2006 Wisconsin
car crash are suing General Motors, alleging that the company was
negligent in designing its small cars and committed fraud by not
disclosing facts about the defects.  They claim the automaker
didn't warn drivers about a faulty part in its small cars.

Natasha Weigel, who was 18, and Amy Rademaker, who was 15, died
after the October 2006 crash in Saint Croix County involving a
2005 Chevrolet Cobalt compact car with a faulty ignition switch.
The car's driver, Megan Phillips, suffered permanent brain
damage, according to a statement from the families' law firm.

The girls were in a 2005 Chevy Cobalt, which was one of the 1.6
million cars recalled for faulty ignition switches.

ABC's 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS investigation one month after the crash
found the airbags failed to deploy.  It learned that the faulty
ignition switch can not only cut off steering and brake power,
but can also disable the air bags.

The lawsuit -- which was filed on March 21 in Hennepin County
where the car was purchased -- claims GM hid the defect for more
than a decade.  It seeks more than $50,000 each for Phillips and
the families of Weigel and Rademaker.

GM would not comment directly on the lawsuit but said it's
focused on "ensuring the safety and peace of mind of our
customers involved in the recall."

Under the terms of its bankruptcy, GM is not liable for legal
claims from crashes that occurred before it left bankruptcy
protection in July of 2009.  Such claims would go to a trust
formed to settle claims against the old company.  Lawyers,
though, are researching whether they can prove that GM knew about
the ignition switch problem during the bankruptcy but didn't
disclose it to the court.  In that case, the new GM might be
liable for older claims.

CEO Mary Barra has admitted that GM took too long to recall the
cars and apologized to the families of those killed in crashes.
The company said the ignition switches can wear from heavy,
dangling keys.  If the key chains are bumped or people drive on
rough surfaces, the switches can suddenly change from the "run"
position to "accessory" or "off."

On Feb. 13, GM announced the recall of more than 780,000
Chevrolet Cobalts and Pontiac G5s (model years 2005-2007).  Two
weeks later it added 842,000 Ion compacts (2003-2007), and
Chevrolet HHR SUVs and Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky sports
cars (2006-2007).  The recalled cars have the same ignition
switches.

Ms. Barra said she expects all the cars to be repaired by
October.


GENERAL MOTORS: Investigators Probe Switch Engineering Timeline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Beech, Richard Cowan, Julia Edwards, Ben Klayman and Jessica
Dye, writing for Reuters, report that among the most critical
unanswered questions in General Motors' mounting crisis over a
defective ignition switch that led to crashes and at least 13
deaths is who, eight years ago, approved a change in the part for
new vehicles and why that didn't lead to a recall of older cars
to fix the problem.

Among the evidence that investigators inside and outside of the
company will need to reconcile is the company's timeline of the
switch's engineering, which describes an unnamed GM engineer
approving the design change, and the deposition of a senior
switch engineer, Ray DeGiorgio, who said he was not aware of it.

GM declined to discuss the matter beyond its timeline or to make
Mr. DeGiorgio available for an interview.  Mr. DeGiorgio referred
Reuters to GM, which has presented no evidence to suggest that he
was the executive approving the design change.  Delphi
Automotive, which made the part for GM, also declined to comment.

However, Delphi told U.S. congressional investigators last week
that GM approved the original part in 2002, despite the fact it
did not meet GM specifications, according to congressional aides
on Sunday.

GM CEO Mary Barra was due to testify to Congress last week on the
recall.  Lawmakers have requested documents from GM and could
call other executives for further hearings.

The availability of the fix in 2006 raises the question of
whether the no 1 U.S. automaker could have recalled older models
sooner and saved lives.

GM on March 28, almost eight years later, increased the recall by
nearly one million to 2.6 million vehicles, spanning models years
between 2003 and 2011. It has also increased the confirmed
fatalities to 13 from 12.

GM's timeline, as prepared for federal regulators, says that "the
GM design engineer responsible for the ignition switch" in six
recalled vehicles approved an ignition switch design change on
April 26, 2006.  The change was made to the portion of the switch
that holds the ignition key in place as it clicks between off,
accessory and on positions, called the detent plunger and spring.

GM switches in Chevrolet Cobalts and other models were prone to
being jostled into accessory mode while cars were moving, often
by something as small as additional keys hanging off a key ring.
That would shut off engines and disable power steering, power
brakes and airbags, which led to many crashes. Pressure from the
new, tighter spring on a slightly longer plunger resisted bumps
and keeps the engine running.

"We certainly did not approve a detent plunger design change,"
Mr. DeGiorgio said last April in a deposition taken by
plaintiff's attorney Lance Cooper.  Mr. DeGiorgio identified
himself as the "main responsible engineer" for the ignition
switch in the Cobalt and the Saturn Ion, which is also part of
the recall.

Cooper's clients, the family of Brooke Melton, sued GM after the
young woman died in the 2010 crash of a 2005 Chevy Cobalt.  They
settled with GM.

Mr. DeGiorgio recalled GM bringing ignition switch design in-
house around the time the 2005 model Cobalt was being developed,
but it still worked closely with its supplier, Delphi Automotive,
which made the switch. Suppliers alert GM to any changes and then
must test and validate the redesigned part.

"Revalidation would mean that you have to go through the same
procedures that we had done previously," he said.  "My point here
is changing the spring would have required a revalidation by the
supplier for the new spring," he said. "That was never brought to
my attention."

When asked if anyone else at GM was aware of the change GM
adopted in 2007 models, he said, "I am not aware about this
change."

In the deposition, Mr. DeGiorgio questioned whether the old
switch was dangerous.  The weekend before he testified he drove
his son's 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt around their neighborhood to try
to replicate conditions that contributed to the accidents.

In the moving car, he coaxed the ignition switch into the
"accessory" position, disabling power assist systems. He had no
trouble safely maneuvering his son's car to the side of the road,
he said.

"You definitely can control the car . . . That's not an issue,"
he testified, reflecting GM's official position until the recall.

                            Hidden Fix

Attorney Cooper only became aware of the ignition change after
hiring an engineering consultant, Mark Hood, who found the change
in the spring.

Neither GM nor Delphi changed the part number when they
redesigned the switch, GM has said.  Experts say that is contrary
to industry practice and made it all the more difficult for
investigators including Hood to understand what originally went
wrong.

Retired GM executives familiar with the automaker's longstanding
engineering, manufacturing and purchasing processes say that even
minor changes in a car's basic components must be thoroughly
documented.

Internal records should show if the changed ignition switch was
tested and validated by GM engineers, they say.

"In the auto world, with safety and health issues involved, you
can't willy-nilly just be making changes without a paper trail,"
said R. Bick Lesser, who previously worked as an engineer at
Packard Electric, which became Delphi-Packard. Packard was a GM
supplier for wire harness electrical systems.

"If it is not there, this would be a total breakdown of the
system," said Lesser, who wrote a book on the division's
relationship with GM.

Congressional investigators are still gathering records from the
companies and say they are prepared to probe the company's
manufacturing controls.

"It is critical that all potential problems are identified and
fixed as soon as possible so we can keep Americans safe," said
Representative Fred Upton, a member of the House energy and
commerce subcommittee that was to hear testimony from Ms. Barra
on March 25.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Alli Diet Pill After Tampering Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nanci Hellmich, writing for USA TODAY, reports that obesity
experts say the recall of the over-the-counter fat-blocking diet
pill Alli is a setback for dieters.

The maker of Alli (pronounced AL-eye) is voluntarily recalling
all the weight loss products from U.S. and Puerto Rico retailers
because it believes that some packages of the product were
tampered with and may contain product that is not authentic.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare said it received
inquiries from consumers in seven states about bottles of
Alli that contained tablets and capsules that were not the
weight-loss product.  Alli, a non-prescription version of the
drug orlistat, prevents about 25% of fat from being absorbed by
the intestines.

This is a real setback for patients and doctors who are trying to
manage weight to improve health, said obesity researcher
Donna Ryan, professor emeritus at the Pennington Biomedical
Research Center in Baton Rouge.  "From a patient perspective, it
is a loss. Patients say the medication works.  It helps them
avoid tempting high-fat meals and snacks.

"From a doctor's perspective, this is the only over-the-counter
medication that had evidence published in peer-reviewed journals
to support efficacy and safety," Ms. Ryan said.  "Everything else
on the shelf next to it has simply a claim and almost all have no
effect whatsoever.  There is four-year data to support this
medication as being effective in preventing weight regain."

Patrick O'Neil, director of the Weight Management Center at the
Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, said,
"Hopefully this problem will be resolved quickly so dieters can
feel safe using the product again."

GSK is conducting an investigation of the tampered products, and
is working with the Food and Drug Administration on the retailer-
level recall.

"Safety is our first priority," said Deborah Bolding, a
spokeswoman for the company.  "We want people to look at the Alli
they have at home on their medicine shelf and make sure it's
authentic.

"If they think they have a product that has been tampered with,
we'd like them to call us at 800-671-2554 and get the product
back to us.  We'll make it easy for them to get it back to us.
If that product has in fact been tampered with, it will be part
of the investigation," Ms. Bolding said.

Alli is a turquoise blue capsule with a dark blue band imprinted
with the text "60 Orlistat," she said.  It is packaged in a
labeled bottle that has an inner foil seal imprinted with the
words: "Sealed for Your Protection."  Consumers should confirm
any Alli in their possession matches this description.  Pictures
of the product are available on the company's website,
www.myalli.com.

A range of tablets and capsules of various shapes and colors were
reported to be found inside bottles, Ms. Bolding said, and some
bottles were missing labels and had tamper-evident seals that
were not authentic.  These tampered products were purchased in
retail stores.

Alli is offered in a 60-milligram dose and is supposed to be
taken up to three times a day with meals.  Those meals should
contain no more than 15 to 20 grams of fat or the dieter risks
side effects such as an urgent need to go to the bathroom, gas or
loose stools.

Motivated dieters who are eating better and exercising can expect
to drop a little more weight if they take the drug.  The Alli
label says that for every five pounds a person loses on his or
her own, Alli will increase that loss by another two to three
pounds. The medication costs between $50 to $70, depending on the
pill count of the package.

Orlistat is sold in a larger dose by prescription as Xenical by
Roche Holding AG.


GREYSTONE OWNER: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabin Iulius Margaian, Edwin M. Marius, Freddy A. Martinez,
Segundo A. Prado, and Hiran Santiago Jr., individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Greystone Owner
LLC; R.A. Cohen & Associates, Inc.; Robert A. Cohen; and Neil
Gewirtz; jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00800-TPG
(S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to (i) unpaid
wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which the
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs overtime premium pay; (ii)
liquidated damages; and (iii) attorney's fees and costs of the
action.

Greystone Owner LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.
R.A. Cohen & Associates, Inc., is a New York business
corporation.  The Individual Defendants are owners, shareholders,
officers, or managers of the Defendant Corporations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway Ste. 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


HECLA MINING: Suit Over Lucky Friday Mine Operations Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on November 5, 2013, dismissed with prejudice the
complaint against Hecla Mining Company, alleging that the Company
omitted certain material information related to operational
issues at the Lucky Friday mine, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of our officers, one
of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from October 26,
2010 through and including January 11, 2012, asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought, among
other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the
complaint alleged that Hecla, under the authority and control of
the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading
statements and allegedly omitted certain material information
related to operational issues at the Lucky Friday mine. The
complaint alleged that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus
purportedly harming investors who purchased shares during that
time.

A second suit was filed on February 14, 2012, alleging virtually
identical claims. These complaints were consolidated into a
single case, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by
the Court (Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et
al. v. Hecla Mining Company et al., Case No. 12-0042 (D. Idaho)),
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on October 16,
2012. In January 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

On September 26, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, and on November 5, 2013, the Court issued a final order
dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.

Hecla Mining Company is engaged in discovering, acquiring,
developing, producing, and marketing silver, gold, lead and zinc.
The Company operates in two segments: the Greens Creek unit and
the Lucky Friday unit.  Its wholly-owned subsidiary is Hecla
Alaska LLC.  The Company produces zinc, lead and bulk
concentrates at its Greens Creek unit and lead and zinc
concentrates at its Lucky Friday unit, which it sells to custom
smelters on contract, and unrefined gold and silver bullion bars
(dore) at Greens Creek, which are sold directly to customers or
further refined before sale to precious metals traders.


HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: El-Hallani Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gerald E. Rosen dismissed without prejudice
the case captioned ALI EL-HALLANI, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, NO. 13-CV-12983, (E.D.
Mich.).

A copy of the March 13, 2014 opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/q0CPkYfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Ali El-Hallani and Mark Manuaeel filed their three-
count Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendant Huntington
National Bank on October 14, 2013. Plaintiffs generally allege
that Defendant closed their respective bank accounts due to their
race, ethnicity, and/or religious affiliation in violation of 42
U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982, and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil
Rights Act, M.C.L. Section 37.2201 et seq. They brought the
purported class action on behalf of Defendant's past, present,
and future customers. Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

Accordingly, Judge Rosen granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint by no later
than 21 after entry of the order; otherwise, the Court will enter
a judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

Ali El-Hallani, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Nabih H. Ayad, Esq.
   Nabih H Ayad & Associates PC
   2200 N Canton Center Rd
   Canton MI 48187
   Telephone: (734) 983-0500

          - and -

   Kassem M. Dakhlallah, Esq.
   United Law Group, P.C.
   23400 Michigan Ave. Suite 110
   Dearborn, MI 48124
   Telephone: 313-846-6400
   Facsimile: 313-846-6400

Mark Manuaeel, Plaintiff, represented by Kassem M. Dakhlallah,
United Law Group, P.C. & Nabih H. Ayad, Nabih H. Ayad Assoc..

Huntington National Bank, Defendant, represented by:

   David E. Plunkett, Esq.
   Ernest J. Essad, Jr., Esq.
   May A. Saad, Esq.
   Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C.,
   380 North Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
   Birmingham, Michigan 48009
   Telephone: (248) 642-0333
   Facsimile: (248) 642-0856


LIFEGIFT ORGAN: Accused of Retaliation by Family Care Specialist
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Trant v. LifeGift Organ Donation Center, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00313 (S.D. Tex., February 9, 2014) seeks compensatory, punitive,
liquidated and actual damages, and costs and attorney's fees due
to the Defendant's alleged continuing acts of retaliation against
the Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

On August 30, 2012, Ms. Trant says she opted into the lawsuit
titled Lekosha Ivy on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly
Situated v. LifeGift Organ Donation Center, No. 4:12-cv-00587, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.  In that case, she states, the Ivy
Plaintiffs presented claims for failure to pay overtime wages in
accordance with the requirements of the FLSA.  She remains the
only person from the Ivy Lawsuit still employed by the Defendant.

Since the time of her consent to join the Ivy Lawsuit, the
Defendant has engaged in continuous retaliatory acts against her,
including denial of promotions, harassing and baseless
disciplinary actions, and false accusations, Ms. Trant alleges.

Ms. Trant is a resident of Brazoria County, Texas, and is
presently employed by the Defendant as a family care specialist.

Houston, Texas-based LifeGift Organ Donation Center is a not-for-
profit organ and tissue donation agency, which recovers organs
and tissues for individuals needing transplants in 109 Texas
counties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LaShawn A. Williams, Esq.
          L.A. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 600
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 622-9171
          Facsimile: (855) 418-5391
          E-mail: lwilliams@lawilliamslegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carole Elaine Howard, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          1401 McKinney, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-4260
          Facsimile: (713) 308-4132
          E-mail: ehoward@jw.com


LOS ANGELES: Settlement Approval in "Carter" Suit Overturned
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
One, on March 13, 2014, reversed an order granting class
certification and approving final settlement in SAUNDRA CARTER et
al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant and Respondent; MARK WILLITS et al., Objectors and
Appellants, NO. B241060.  A copy of the Order is available at
http://is.gd/4JI1WXfrom Leagle.com.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.
Section 12132; the ADA), Section 504 the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. Section 794 et seq.; Section 504), the Unruh
Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, Section 51 et seq.), and the
California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, Section 54) prohibit
discrimination against disabled individuals and require that
public entities eliminate impediments to disabled access to
public facilities.

This class action litigation involves allegations that the City
of Los Angeles violated these statutes. After the parties
conditionally agreed to certify a non opt-out class, settle the
litigation for injunctive relief only, and release all claims for
statutory damages, the trial court certified the class and
approved the settlement, finding it to be fair and reasonable.
Appellants contend the settlement was meager and inadequate and
the non opt-out provision violated due process.

The Calif. Appeals Court disagreed with the first contention but
agree with the second. Therefore, the Appeals Court reversed the
order granting class certification and approving final
settlement.

The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

For Objectors and Appellants, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky,
Guy B. Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Goldstein,
Borgen, Dardarian & Ho -- ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com -- Linda M.
Dardarian, and:

   Jose R. Allen, Esq.
   Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
   2an Francisco, CA 941 11
   Telephone: (4 15) 984-6400
   Facsimile: (41 5) 984-2698

Sarah Colby as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Objectors and
Appellants.

Arias Ozzello & Gignac, Mark Arias -- marias@aogllp.com -- Mikael
H. Stahle -- mstahle@aogllp.com -- Alfredo Torrijos --
atorrijos@aogllp.com; Law Offices of Morse Mehrban --
Morse@Mehrban.com -- Morse Mehrban for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.

Michael N. Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney, Gary G. Geuss, Chief
Assistant City Attorney, Laurie Rittenberg, Assistant City
Attorney; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, David Raizman
-- david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com -- Dennis Depalma --
dennis.depalma@ogletreedeakins.com -- Benjamin Ikuta --
benjamin.ikuta@ogletreedeakins.com; Drinker Biddle & Reath,
Christopher F. Wong -- Christopher.Wong@dbr.com -- for Defendant
and Respondent City of Los Angeles.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Motions Currently Pending in "Prusak" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions filed in a putative class action lawsuit alleging that
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., willfully violated the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendments to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act in connection with electronically printed
credit card receipts, are currently pending before the Court,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

On August 30, 2012, Jaroslaw Prusak, a purported customer
("Prusak"), filed a putative class action lawsuit, which was
subsequently amended, against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Prusak
alleges that the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act in connection with electronically printed credit card
receipts provided to certain of its customers.  Prusak, for
himself and the putative class, seeks statutory damages of no
less than $100 and no more than $1,000 per violation, punitive
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. Prusak has
filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class and
the parties have each filed motions seeking summary judgment with
regard to matters at issue in the case. Those motions are
currently pending before the Court.  Although the Company
believes it has defenses to the claims asserted and has opposed
the motion to certify the class, no assurances can be given of
any particular result. Given the uncertainty inherent in any
litigation, the current stage of the case and the legal standards
that must be met for, among other things, class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in "Kiken" Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in a securities
class action lawsuit alleging that the Company failed to disclose
material adverse facts about its business, operations, and
prospects, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February
19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken filed a securities
class action lawsuit, which was subsequently amended, in the
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, its founder, Chief Executive Officer and
President, and Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the
"Defendants"). In the complaint, Kiken alleges that the
Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects. In particular, Kiken alleges
that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions
related to the Company's compliance with the federal Lacey Act
and the chemical content of its wood products. In addition to
attorney's fees and costs, Kiken seeks to recover damages on
behalf of himself and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period at
allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm
as a result.

The Company disputes Kiken's claims and intends to defend the
matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification and success
on the merits, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.


MEMPHIS, TN: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Contract Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------
El Espada Timothy Lee Matthews, Individually, and On Behalf Of
Edna Faulkner Matthews Individually As Class Representative Of
All Others Similarly Situated v. City of Memphis, Case No. 2:14-
cv-02094-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn., February 7, 2014) alleges breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


NTS INC: Has MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------
NTS Inc., on February 19, 2014, entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve the claims asserted in the litigation
seeking, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief against North Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of T3 North Intermediate Holdings, LLC, pursuant to an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 20, 2013, by and among
NTS, Holdings and Merger Sub.  Holdings and Merger Sub are
affiliates of Tower Three Partners LLC.

According to NTS Inc.'s Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2014, six complaints
styled as class actions and relating to the Merger were filed in
Nevada state court (Eighth Judicial District, Clark County)
against NTS, its officers and directors, Tower Three, Holdings
and Merger Sub.  On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated
Amended Complaint") alleging that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith, fair
dealing, loyalty and full and candid disclosure in connection
with the process surrounding the Merger and that Tower Three,
Holdings and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty. The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks,
among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
against the Merger.

On February 19, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into
a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting an agreement
in principle to resolve the claims asserted in the litigation
(the "Settled Claims").  The MOU provides, among other things,
that Plaintiffs will withdraw their motion for preliminary
injunction and will not seek to enjoin consummation of the Merger
or any transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval. If the settlement is
finally approved, the Settled Claims will be dismissed with
prejudice. As part of the settlement, the defendants in the
litigation deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the
disclosures in the Proxy Statement were inadequate, but NTS has
agreed to provide certain supplemental disclosures. The
settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting of
NTS stockholders or the Merger, or the amount of consideration to
be paid in the Merger.

The defendants believe that no further disclosure is required
under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to
minimize the expense of defending such action, NTS has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make the supplemental
disclosures related to the Merger.  NTS and the other named
defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to
deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the
commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the
wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in the
litigation, and expressly maintain that, to the extent
applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their
fiduciary and other legal duties and are providing these
supplemental disclosures solely to seek to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation, to put to rest claims relating
to the Merger that have been or could have been asserted, and to
avoid any possible delay to the closing of the Merger that might
arise from further litigation.  Nothing in the Form 8-K report
must be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/lrHAwl

NTS Inc., formerly Xfone, Inc. is a holding and managing company
providing, through its subsidiaries, integrated communications
services, which include voice, video and data over its Fiber-To-
The-Premise (FTTP) and other networks.  The Company has
operations in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana and it also serves
customers in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
The Company provides telecommunication products/services,
including retail services, Wholesale Services and Internet Based
Customer Service. The Company's divisions include Customer
Service Division, Operations Division, Administration Division
and Marketing Division.


OCEAN COUNTY: Bizzarro Plaintiffs Allowed to File Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joel A. Pisano granted a motion to lift the stay
and for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint in the case
style as, EDWARD BIZZARRO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OCEAN COUNTY,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-5665 (FLW), (D. N.J.).  A
copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated March 13, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/tNQ5aMfrom Leagle.com,

Plaintiffs Edward Bizzarro, Richard Wright and April Wedding, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed the
motion to lift the stay and for leave to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint to conform their complaint to the requirements of
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, 132
S.Ct. 1510 (2012).  Defendants Ocean County, Theodore J. Hutler,
Jr. and Sandra Mueller opposed the Plaintiffs' request.

Judge Pisano found that Plaintiffs' claims are comprised of
sufficient factual allegations, which when accepted as true and
viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, raise
Plaintiffs' right to relief above the speculative level.
Moreover, the Court found that Plaintiffs have included
sufficient detail to put Defendants on notice of the precise
violations being alleged. As a result, the Court found that
Plaintiffs' proposed Fourth Amended Complaint would survive a
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and is not
futile.

EDWARD BIZZARRO, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM A. RIBACK --
ribacklaw@aol.com -- WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC & LAUREN PLEVINSKY,
WILLIAM RIBACK LLC, and:

   CARL D. POPLAR, Esq.
   ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, Esq.
   SETH R. LESSER, Esq.
   KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
   Two International Drive, Suite 350
   Rye Brook, NY 10573
   Telephone: 914 934 9200
   Facsimile: 914 934 9220

RICHARD WRIGHT, Individually and on behalf of a Class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by CARL D. POPLAR,
ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER,
LLP, WILLIAM A. RIBACK, WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC & LAUREN PLEVINSKY,
WILLIAM RIBACK LLC.

APRIL WEDDING, Plaintiff, represented by CARL D. POPLAR, ELMER
ROBERT KEACH, III, SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP,
WILLIAM A. RIBACK, WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC & LAUREN PLEVINSKY,
WILLIAM RIBACK LLC.

OCEAN COUNTY, Defendant, represented by MARY JANE LIDAKA --
mjlidaka@bskb-law.com -- BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC &
GARRICK RONALD SLAVICK -- gslavick@bskb-law.com -- BERRY
SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.

THEODORE J. HUTLER, JR., Defendant, represented by MARY JANE
LIDAKA, BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC & GARRICK RONALD
SLAVICK, BERRY SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.

SANDRA MUELLER, Defendant, represented by MARY JANE LIDAKA,
BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC & GARRICK RONALD SLAVICK,
BERRY SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.

OCEAN COUNTY, Counter Claimant, represented by MARY JANE LIDAKA,
BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC & GARRICK RONALD SLAVICK,
BERRY SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.

THEODORE J. HUTLER, JR., Counter Claimant, represented by MARY
JANE LIDAKA, BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC & GARRICK
RONALD SLAVICK, BERRY SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.

SANDRA MUELLER, Counter Claimant, represented by MARY JANE
LIDAKA, BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC & GARRICK RONALD
SLAVICK, BERRY SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.

OCEAN COUNTY, Counter Claimant, represented by MARY JANE LIDAKA,
BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC & GARRICK RONALD SLAVICK,
BERRY SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.

THEODORE J. HUTLER, JR., Counter Claimant, represented by MARY
JANE LIDAKA, BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC & GARRICK
RONALD SLAVICK, BERRY SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.

SANDRA MUELLER, Counter Claimant, represented by MARY JANE
LIDAKA, BERRY, SAHRADNIK, KOTAZ & BENSON, PC & GARRICK RONALD
SLAVICK, BERRY SAHRADNIK KOTZAS & BENSON.


OLAMAR FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime & Spread of Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benito Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Olamar Food Corp. d/b/a Associated Supermarket,
Anthony Espinal, and Nelson Polanco, Case No. 1:14-cv-00781-AT
(S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid
overtime wages and spread of hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Olamar Food Corp. is a New York corporation that owns and
operates Associated Supermarket, a supermarket located in New
York City.  The Individual Defendants are owners, officers or
agents of Associated Supermarket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Jessica N. Tischler, Esq.
          BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
          E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com
                  tischler@bwp-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stuart Alan Weinberger, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & WEINBERGER, LLP
          630 Third Avenue, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 867-9595
          Facsimile: (212) 949-1857
          E-mail: Stuart575@aol.com

               - and -

          Eric Scott Tilton, Esq.
          ERIC S. TILTON, P.L.L.C.
          193 E. Main Street
          Babylon, NY 11702
          Telephone: (516) 287-0197
          E-mail: erictiltonlaw@gmail.com


OMNICARE INC: Completed Oral Argument in Securities Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument have been completed before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in connection with class action
complaints against Omnicare Inc., alleging violations of federal
securities laws, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
February 19, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10,
2007 through August 5, 2010 against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with alleged false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's compliance with federal
and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations.

On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as
is referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Plaintiffs allege
substantially the same violations of federal securities law as
are alleged in the Ansfield complaint.

Both complaints seek unspecified money damages. The court has
appointed lead counsel and a consolidated amended complaint was
filed on May 11, 2012. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
July 16, 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims with prejudice. On
April 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit appealing the
District Court's order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
The parties completed oral argument before the Sixth Circuit on
January 30, 2014. The Company believes that the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this
action.

Omnicare, Inc. is a healthcare services company. The Company
operates in two primary businesses: Long-Term Care Group (LTC)
and Specialty Care Group (SCG). Through LTC, Omnicare provides
pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy and ancillary services to
long-term care facilities, as well as chronic care facilities and
other settings. SCG provides commercialization services for the
biopharmaceutical industry in addition to end-of-life
pharmaceutical care management for hospice care agencies. At
December 31, 2011, LTC provided its pharmacy services in 47
states in the United States, the District of Columbia and in
Canada. In September 2012, Five Star Quality Care, Inc. sold its
pharmacy business to Omnicare.


OMNICARE INC: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc., on October 4, 2013, filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in connection with
a complaint that contained claims, among other things, for
compensatory damages and injunctive relief, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock
from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all
purchasers who bought their shares in the Company's public
offering in December 2005.

The complaint contained claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5) and Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged
that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its earnings (and failed
to file GAAP-compliant financial statements) by engaging in
improper generic drug substitution, improper revenue recognition
and overvaluation of receivables and inventories; (ii) failed to
timely disclose its contractual dispute with UnitedHealth Group
Inc.; (iii) failed to timely record certain special litigation
reserves; and (iv) made other allegedly false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, prospects and compliance
with applicable laws and regulations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the district court
dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On
October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally
affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. However, the
appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On July 14, 2011, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
to file a third amended complaint.  This complaint asserts a
claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
all purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005
public offering.  The new complaint alleges that the 2005
registration statement contained false and misleading statements
regarding Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable
laws and regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of
violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with
three of Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two
of its suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant
services.

On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the
district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the
docket. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May
23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed
and remanded in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.
On June 6, 2013, the Company petitioned the Court of Appeals for
a rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc was
denied on July 23, 2013.  On October 4, 2013 the Company filed a
petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court.

Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) is a healthcare services company. The
Company operates in two primary businesses: Long-Term Care Group
(LTC) and Specialty Care Group (SCG). Through LTC, Omnicare
provides pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy and ancillary
services to long-term care facilities, as well as chronic care
facilities and other settings. SCG provides commercialization
services for the biopharmaceutical industry in addition to end-
of-life pharmaceutical care management for hospice care agencies.
At December 31, 2011, LTC provided its pharmacy services in 47
states in the United States, the District of Columbia and in
Canada. In September 2012, Five Star Quality Care, Inc. sold its
pharmacy business to Omnicare.


PROTECT SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D'Juan Gunn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Protect Security, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00353-TWT
(N.D. Ga., February 7, 2014) seeks declaratory relief, along with
liquidated and actual damages, attorney's fees and costs for the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay federally mandated overtime
wages to the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Protect Security LLC is a Georgia corporation and a private
employer engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marcus G. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          1418 Dresden Drive, Suite 240
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Telephone: (404) 842-0333
          E-mail: mkeegan@keeganfirm.com


RENATO CATALDO: Has Until May 2 to File Bid to Approve Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig issued a memorandum and order
on March 13, 2014, granting the parties in THEODORE J. HELLMAN,
Plaintiff, v. RENATO CATALDO, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
4:12CV02177 AGF, (E.D. Mo.), up to and including, Friday, May 2,
2014, to file their motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The stay previously entered in the matter remains in full force
and effect, Judge Fleissig added.

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

Theodore J. Hellmann, Plaintiff, represented by Gerald D. Wells,
III -- jwells@faruqilaw.com -- FAVARO AND BUZEK, Michael J. Hynes
-- mhynes@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI AND FARUQI, LLP, Robert J. Gray
-- rbarnett@wc.com -- CONNOLLY AND WELLS, LLP, Deborah S.
Davidson -- ddavidson@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND LEWIS & Evan
D. Buxner -- BUXNER@WALTHER-GLENN.COM -- WALTHER/ZWIBELMAN LAW
ASSOCIATES.

Renato Cataldo, Defendant, represented by Charles C. Jackson --
charles.jackson@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND LEWIS, Christopher
A. Smith -- chris.smith@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL,
LLP, Deborah S. Davidson, MORGAN AND LEWIS & Matthew A. Russell -
- marussell@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND LEWIS.

James J. Abel, Defendant, represented by Charles C. Jackson,
MORGAN AND LEWIS, Christopher A. Smith, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP,
Deborah S. Davidson, MORGAN AND LEWIS & Matthew A. Russell,
MORGAN AND LEWIS.

Dale E. Heins, Defendant, represented by Charles C. Jackson,
MORGAN AND LEWIS, Christopher A. Smith, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP,
Deborah S. Davidson, MORGAN AND LEWIS & Matthew A. Russell,
MORGAN AND LEWIS.

Rose O'Brien, Defendant, represented by Charles C. Jackson,
MORGAN AND LEWIS, Christopher A. Smith, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP,
Deborah S. Davidson, MORGAN AND LEWIS & Matthew A. Russell,
MORGAN AND LEWIS.

Jane Nelson, Defendant, represented by Charles C. Jackson, MORGAN
AND LEWIS, Christopher A. Smith, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP, Deborah S.
Davidson, MORGAN AND LEWIS & Matthew A. Russell, MORGAN AND
LEWIS.

Karen Staten, Defendant, represented by Charles C. Jackson,
MORGAN AND LEWIS, Christopher A. Smith, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP,
Deborah S. Davidson, MORGAN AND LEWIS & Matthew A. Russell,
MORGAN AND LEWIS.


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, Retail Properties of America, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss shareholder complaints alleging, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duty remains pending before the
court, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 19,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Retail Properties of America disclosed: "In 2012, certain of our
shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits against us and
certain of our officers and directors, which are currently
pending in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
Illinois. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that our
directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties to our
shareholders and, as a result, unjustly enriched our Company and
the individual defendants. The lawsuits further allege that the
breaches of fiduciary duty led certain shareholders to acquire
additional stock and caused our shareholders to suffer a loss in
share value, all measured in some manner by reference to our 2012
offering price when we listed our shares on the NYSE. The
lawsuits seek unspecified damages and other relief. Based on our
review of the complaints, we believe the lawsuits to be without
merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously. While the
resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty,
we believe, based on currently available information, that the
final outcomes of these matters will not have a material effect
on our consolidated financial statements. On April 19, 2013, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the shareholder complaints,
which remain pending before the court."

Retail Properties of America, Inc., formerly Inland Western
Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. is a fully integrated, self-
administered and self-managed real estate company that owns and
operates shopping centers. The Company is an owner and operator
of shopping centers in the United States. As of December 31,
2011, its retail operating portfolio consisted of 259 properties
with approximately 3.6 million square feet of gross leasable area
(GLA), was diversified across 35 states and includes power
centers, community centers, neighborhood centers and lifestyle
centers, as well as single-user retail properties. The Company's
retail properties are located in retail districts.


SHIRAZ MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Mokrane, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Shiraz Management, LLC, d/b/a Hilton Palm Beach
Airport, Case No. 9:14-cv-80200-KAM (S.D. Fla., February 9, 2014)
arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act over unpaid overtime
wages.

Shiraz Management, LLC, doing business as Hilton Palm Beach
Airport, is a corporation that regularly transacts business
within Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Markel, Esq.
          THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
          3191 Grand Avenue #1513
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 458-1282
          Facsimile: (786) 803-8069
          E-mail: David.Markel@markel-law.com


SLM CORPORATION: Faces Stockholder Class Suit Sues Over Spinoff
---------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 19,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that on January 28, 2014, a
stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its
Board of Directors.  The complaint is captioned William McCrady
v. SLM Corporation et al., C.A. No. 9285-VCL.  Plaintiff purports
to bring the complaint on behalf of a class of the holders of the
Company's Series B Preferred Stock in connection with the
Company's plan to separate its existing business into two public
companies, SLM BankCo, which will retain the consumer banking
business, and NewCo, which will retain the education loan
management business.

According to the Company, "the complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that our Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties to the Series B Preferred stockholders and an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing in structuring the
proposed Spin-Off, given that the holders of Series B Preferred
Stock will not receive an interest in NewCo and, according to
Plaintiff, the Spin-Off will fundamentally and inequitably alter
the Series B Preferred stockholders' original investment. The
complaint seeks declaratory relief and unspecified compensatory
and recissory damages, as well as costs and Plaintiff's attorneys
fees. We believe that the lawsuit is entirely without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously."

SLM Corporation (Sallie Mae) is a holding company. It operates in
three business segments: Consumer Lending, Business Services and
FFELP Loans.  The Company's primary business is to originate,
service and collect loans it makes to students and their families
to finance the cost of their education. It uses Private Education
Loans to mean education loans to students or their families that
are non-federal loans and loans not insured or guaranteed under
the previously existing Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP). It also provides servicing, loan default aversion and
defaulted loan collection services for loans owned by other
institutions, including the United States Department of Education
(ED), as well as processing capabilities to educational
institutions and 529 college-savings plan programs.


SM ENERGY: Expects Chieftain Certification Motion in 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
SM Energy Company expects Chieftain Royalty Company to file a new
motion for class certification in the first half of 2015,
according to SM Energy's Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

On January 27, 2011, Chieftain filed a Class Action Petition
against the Company in the District Court of Beaver County,
Oklahoma, claiming damages related to royalty valuation on all of
the Company's Oklahoma wells. These claims include breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment,
tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and conversion, based
generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production
costs. The Company removed this lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on February
22, 2011. The Company responded to the petition and denied the
allegations. The district court did not rule on Chieftain's
motion to certify the putative class, and stayed all proceedings
until the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
issues its rulings on class certification in two similar royalty
class action lawsuits. On July 9, 2013, the Tenth Circuit issued
its opinions, reversing the trial courts' grant of class
certification and remanding the matters to the trial courts for
those cases. The district court presiding over the Company's case
subsequently lifted its stay, and the Company expects Chieftain
to file a new motion for class certification in the first half of
2015.

This case involves complex legal issues and uncertainties; a
potentially large class of plaintiffs, and a large number of
related producing properties, lease agreements and wells; and an
alleged class period commencing in 1988 and spanning the entire
producing life of the wells. Because the proceedings are in the
early stages, with substantive discovery yet to be conducted, the
Company is unable to estimate what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows. The Company is still evaluating the claims, but
believes that it has properly paid royalties under Oklahoma law
and has and will continue to vigorously defend this case. On
December 30, 2013, the Company sold a substantial portion of its
assets that were subject to this matter, and the buyer assumed
any such liabilities related to such properties.

SM Energy Company (SM Energy) is an independent energy company.
The Company is engaged in the acquisition, exploration,
development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and
natural gas liquids (referred to as oil, gas, and NGLs) in
onshore North America. The Company's operations are focused on
five operating areas in the onshore United States. In December
2011, the Company closed on its acquisition and development
agreement with Mitsui E&P Texas LP (Mitsui), an indirect
subsidiary of Mitsui & Co. Ltd., which transferred 12.5% of its
working interest in certain non-operated oil and gas assets in
South Texas. In December 2013, SM Energy Co announced that it had
closed its previously announced Anadarko Basin divestiture
package.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Court Names Lead Plaintiffs in Kansas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on February 5, 2014, entered an order naming two
lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Spirit AeroSystems
Holdings, Inc., seeking certification of a class of all persons
other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 19, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The named
plaintiff, who alleges that he is a purchaser of Holdings
securities, alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations and
omissions in the Company's public disclosures about the
circumstances underlying the Company's accrual of $590.0 million
in forward loss charges in the third quarter of 2012.  The
lawsuit seeks certification of a class of all persons other than
defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5, 2011
and October 24, 2012, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages
on behalf of the putative class.

On February 5, 2014 the Court entered an order naming two lead
plaintiffs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these allegations, and management believes the resolution of this
matter will not materially affect the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or liquidity.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (Holdings) is an independent
non- original equipment manufacturer (OEM) aircraft parts
designers and manufacturers of commercial aerostructures. The
Company operates in three segments: Fuselage Systems, which
includes forward, mid and rear fuselage sections; Propulsion
Systems, which includes nacelles, struts/pylons and engine
structural components, and Wing Systems, which includes wing
systems and components, flight control surfaces and other
miscellaneous structural parts. The Company is an independent
supplier of aerostructures to The Boeing Company (Boeing). In
addition, it is an independent suppliers of aerostructures to
Airbus S.A.S. (Airbus).


TERRA-MEDICA INC: Recalls Homeopathic Drug Products
---------------------------------------------------
Tim Sandle, writing for Digital Journal, reports that
Terra-Medica, Inc. is voluntarily recalling its homeopathic drug
products in liquid, tablet, capsule, ointment, and suppository
forms due to a chemical mix-up during manufacturing.

The products affected are 56 lots of Pleo-FORT, Pleo-QUENT, Pleo-
NOT, Pleo-STOLO, Pleo-NOTA-QUENT, and Pleo-EX.  Pleo Homeopathic
drug products are used as homeopathic drugs and have a label
stating "Distributed by SANUM USA Corp."  The affected products
were distributed nationwide through health care practitioners,
who may have sold the products through websites.

The reason for the recall is because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has determined that these products have the
potential to contain penicillin or derivatives of penicillin,
which may be produced during the fermentation process.

The risk, MPR notes, is that in patients who are allergic to
beta-lactam antibiotics, even at low levels, exposure to
penicillin can result in a range of allergic reactions from mild
rashes to severe and life-threatening anaphylactic reactions.


WAL-MART: Allegedly Sells Defective Steel-Toed Brahma Boots
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to Freidin, Dobrinsky, Brown & Rosenblum, P.A., the
work boots, advertised as Brahma Boots "The Name To Trust," have
failed to live up to their purpose of providing an affordable,
durable boot.  Sold by Wal-Mart stores in Florida and throughout
the United States for $25, the boots appeared to be an
affordable, durable work boot.  The marketing materials for these
boots note:

   -- A steel toe
   -- Leather materials
   -- Goodyear welt
   -- Oil-resistant soleplate
   -- Electric shock-resistant sole and heel

According to reports for many who purchased the Wal-Mart Brahma
Boot, however, the shoe was less than what it appeared.  Instead
of withstanding hard work and offering important foot protection
on a jobsite, the boots have disintegrated, often within days or
weeks of purchase.

Frustrated owners of defective Brahma Boots have posted reviews
of their experiences with the boots.  One noted that the boot
fell apart and that the sole separated from the rest of the shoe
after a week of use.  Another person related that the boots fell
apart after stepping into a puddle.  A third questioned whether
the boots live up to their advertised promise of quality
materials and construction.

The Goodyear Welt

There are many issues with the Wal-Mart Brahma Boot.  The boot is
defective; it does not stand up to normal wear and tear that one
should be able to expect of a steel-toed work boot.  One
particular issue is with the advertised Goodyear welt.

What Is A Goodyear Welt?

Among shoemakers, the Goodyear welt designates a specific type of
shoe construction that involves stitching a strip of leather to
the bottom of the shoe.  The Goodyear welt is known as a mark of
quality among shoes; use of the Goodyear welt during construction
has improved comfort, durability and reparability of shoes.

Is There A Goodyear Welt On Wal-Mart's Brahma Boots?

Despite advertising that the steel-toed Brahma work boots use the
Goodyear welt, the soles of the shoe are actually glued to the
boot rather than stitched.  In fairness, many shoes with Goodyear
welts also use glue, but it is coupled with actual stitching.

In the Wal-Mart Brahma Boots, there is no actual stitching of the
welt to the outsole.  The boots are advertised to be of a quality
that they are not.  The stitching visible on the Brahma Boot is
cosmetic.  It does not attach the outside of the boot to the sole
as a true Goodyear welt would.

What Are Your Options If You Purchased A Defective Wal-Mart
Brahma Boot?

More than 2 million pairs of the defective and falsely advertised
Brahma Boot were sold at Wal-Mart stores in Miami and South
Florida and elsewhere in the United States before the big-box
retailer discontinued production.  That is more than $50 million
in sales of defective work boots for Wal-Mart.


* Arizona Mulls Bill for State Immunity From Fire Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Strid Galvan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Arizona legislators are considering a bill that would grant the
state immunity from millions of dollars of lawsuits similar to
those filed after last year's deadly Yarnell Hill Fire.

The Senate appropriations committee on March 25 unanimously
approved a bill that would require the state Land Department to
take measures to prevent fires like the one that claimed 19
firefighters last year.  The bill also would remove liability
from the state and state employees who fail to carry out those
measures and whose negligence results in another fire.

The Yarnell Hill Fire destroyed more than 100 homes in an area
northwest of Phoenix.  All but one of the 20 Hotshots on a
Prescott-based firefighting crew died June 30 when flames
overtook their position near Yarnell.

In January, the city of Prescott denied more than 100 damage
claims seeking $662 million for property owners and relatives of
deceased firefighters.

"This is a small attempt and a small move in the direction of
forest safety and the protection of our state lands," Rep. Brenda
Barton, R-Payson, said.

But opponents say the bill would unjustly get the state off the
hook in future instances of negligence.

Claims against several governmental agencies for losses from the
Yarnell Hill Fire allege that that firefighting efforts were
negligent and reckless, and they refer frequently to a workplace
safety report that resulted in citations against the State
Forestry Division.  The division is contesting the citations.

While state officials have declined to comment on the claims,
Prescott has said the city is not liable for the deaths or
property losses.

"If state employees or the state are irresponsible, if there is
gross negligence, all those things -- they ought to be held
liable and accountable for it," said Sandy Bahr, director of the
Grand Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club.


                             *********

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  * * *