CAR_Public/140403.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 66

                             Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
ACE HARDWARE: Recalls LED Work Lights Due to Fire Hazard
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeals Montana Court Ruling to US Supreme Court
ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Class Cert Ruling in Age Bias & ERISA Suits
AMERICA ONLINE: Dispute Over Class Action Attorney Fees Settled

AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Pension Plan Suits
AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Ontario Securities Lawsuit Stayed
APPLE INC: Retail Workers Seek Stay of Bag Check Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles FHFA's RMBS Claims for $9.5 Billion
BEDZ KING: Recalls 2,900 Beds With Side Ladder

CAPITAL ONE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dist. Court Ruling in "Vargas" Case
CASH STORE: Settles Investor Class Actions for C$9.45 Million
CENTEX HOMES: Recalls Solar Saver Roof Panels Due to Fire Risk
CHASE INVESTMENT: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Baumann" Suit
COLGATE PALMOLIVE: April 4 Hearing on Class Action Settlement

COSTAR GROUP: Show Cause Hearing in LoopNet Suit Moved to May 13
CREDIT PAYMENT: Suit Over Text Spam Gains Class Action Status
CYNOSURE INC: Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in "Weitzner" Suit
DENTSPLY INT'L: Court Rejected Cavitron(R) Plaintiffs' Claims
DENTSPLY INT'L: Filed Objection to Class Certification Bid

DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Court Narrows Claims in "Polinovsky" Case
EBAY INC: Bid for Initial OK of "Zepeda" Settlement Due May 27
ENTEGRIS INC: Lawsuit Could Delay Pending Merger With ATMI Inc.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Case Remanded to 9th Cir. Original Panel
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Tailgate Litigation

FORD MOTOR CREDIT: "Agrawal" Suit Remanded to Trial Court
G4S: Manus Island Expat Security Guards Mull Class Action
GANZ USA: Recalls Grumpy Cat Stuffed Animal Toys
GENERAL MOTORS: NHTSA Misses Telltale Signs of Defective Ignition
GNC HOLDINGS: Not Required to Pay Hydroxycut Settlement

GNC HOLDINGS: Defendant in 3 Class Suits as of February 14
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Sought in Collusion Suit
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over False Thermostat Claims
GOOGLE INC: Seeks to Discredit Plaintiff Expert in No Poach Suit
GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Conspiracy Claims to Move Forward

HARRY'S FARMERS: Recalls Wild Gulf Amberjack Due to Illness
HELADOS LA TAPATIA: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Listeria Risk
HJ HEINZ: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Advertising
ICE LA TAPATIA: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Listeria Risk
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Bed Canopies Over Strangulation Risk

IKO INDUSTRIES: Select Board Mulls Shingles Class Action
INTERNAP NETWORK: Insurer Paid $9.5MM Settlement in Fraud Suit
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: $36-Mil Settlement Hearing on June 23
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder ERISA Suit Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Defendant in 9 Federal Antitrust Lawsuits

JPMORGAN CHASE: Defends Forex Manipulation Suits Since Nov. 2013
JPMORGAN CHASE: $6.05BB Accord in Bank Fee Suit Okayed in Dec.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Defendant in Currency Manipulation Lawsuits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Paid $218-Mil Settlement to Madoff Plaintiffs
JPMORGAN CHASE: Subsidiary Named as Defendant in MF Global Suits

JPMORGAN CHASE: Defendant in MBS Purchasers Lawsuits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in MBS Offering Lawsuit Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Facing Suit Over Mortgage Foreclosure Protocol
MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Denied Employees' Bid for Class Cert.
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit

MINGA TRADE: Recalls 135 Wooden Flipping Acrobat Toys
NEW JERSEY: Lawyers Say Christie Has No Role in Lane Closings
NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 990,000 Cars & Sport Utility Vehicles
NVR INC: Jury Ruled Against Plaintiff in Overtime Wage Complaint
PARKERS FARM: Spreads Products Recalled Due to Listeria Risk

POM WONDERFUL: Class in Juice Health Claims Suit Decertified
RANCHO FEEDING: FSIS Completed All Checks Related to Recalls
TARGET CORP: Lawyers Argue on Alternative Jurisdictions for Suits
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Broccoli Salad Due to Listeria Risk
TOYOTA MOTOR: To Pay $1.2BB Penalty Over DOJ Wire Fraud Charge

UNITED HEALTHCARE: California Court Stays TCPA Class Action
UNITED STATES: Northern Islanders Mull Class Action v. Military
UNITED STATES: Klayman Files Motion for NSA Class Certification
UNITED VENDING: "Eyamie" Dismissed From TCPA Class Action
VALLEY PRUNE: Arce Suit Plaintiffs Get OK to Amend Complaint

VERA DESIGNS: Recalls Bear Ring Rattles and Bunny Toys
WAGNER WELLNESS: Court Tosses TCPA Class Action Dismissal Bid
WELLPOINT INC: Motion for Summary Judgment Under Advisement
WELLPOINT INC: Defending 11 Out-Of-Network Reimbursement Suits
YAHOO INC: Seeks Dismissal of E-mail Scanning Class Action


                             *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report that a
Pennsylvania state judge on March 24 granted preliminary approval
to a $575,000 class action settlement to resolve allegations that
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. had violated the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act with its overtime wage policy.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Jacqueline Allen signed
off on the deal between lead plaintiff Paul Oliver and the
retailer, which creates a class of 702 Pennsylvania employees who
were subject to the so-called fluctuating workweek model of
calculating overtime wages between 2009 and 2014.

"Based on plaintiff's counsel's review and analysis of the
relevant payroll data, the $403,750.00 in available class member
payouts will enable each participating class member to recover
(free and clear of attorneys' fees) over 50 percent of his/her
alleged unpaid overtime during the class period," attorneys for
the class said in the motion for the settlement filed in
February.

Mr. Oliver sued Abercrombie in November 2012, alleging that the
retailer, which operates at least 44 stores in the state, relies
on an overtime calculation that violated the PMWA.  The state law
requires that employees receive overtime wages that are at least
one-and-a-half times the regular rate.

Ordinarily, employees who work overtime must receive 1.5 times
the pay they get for regular hours.  But under a fluctuating
workweek schedule, nonexempt employees get paid a fixed amount
per week and receive half their hourly wage for each hour of
overtime.  While the system is allowed under the Federal Labor
Standards Act, Oliver said that the PMWA requires that all
employees receive overtime payments of at least time-and-a-half.

The settlement in the case would cover all Pennsylvania
Abercrombie employees who received overtime at any time between
late November 2009 and the beginning of January 2014.  The motion
said the class included 196 individuals.  Individual payouts from
the settlement, according to court records, will range from as
low as $7 to more than $4,000.

Mr. Oliver would receive an addition $7,500 for first coming
forward with the claims.  Class counsel, meanwhile, would receive
$163,750 in fees and litigation expenses.  Judge Allen scheduled
a fairness hearing on the settlement for April 9.

Mr. Oliver's suit was one of several that followed a federal
judge's August 2012 decision that the fluctuating workweek method
violated Pennsylvania law.

In Foster et al. v. Kraft Foods Global Inc., U.S. District Judge
Cathy Bissoon denied summary judgment to Kraft after finding that
the PMWA explicitly prohibits any overtime policies that provide
less than time-and-a-half wages.

Mr. Oliver's counsel, Winebrake & Santillo LLC, negotiated a
$500,000 settlement with a subsidiary of Genesco Inc. in December
for another class action suit stemming from alleged PMWA
violations, again in reference to a floating overtime system.
That settlement is scheduled for a fairness hearing in May.

Mr. Oliver is represented by Peter Winebrake, R. Andrew Santillo
and Mark J. Gottesfeld of Winebrake & Santillo LLC.

Abercrombie & Fitch are represented by Michael Puma --
mpuma@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and by
Mark Knueve -- maknueve@vorys.com -- of Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease LLP.

The case is Oliver v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., case number
121102571 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.


ACE HARDWARE: Recalls LED Work Lights Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ace Hardware, of Oak Brook, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of
about 15,000 LED Work Lights. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The cord bushing inside the light base could fail, allowing the
cord wiring to pull out of the base, exposing bare wire and
presenting a shock and fire hazard.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes the Ace Clamp-On LED Work Light measuring 3
inches wide by 2.5 inches deep and 2.25 inches high. It has a
silver plastic lamp head with black rubber sides and eight LED
lights on one side; a black plastic cube-shaped lamp base sized
1.75 inches wide by 2.25 inches deep by 2 inches high, a 6-foot
black cord; and silver clamp with black rubber grips. The
recalled units are stamped with the model number "DC004" and date
code "08/13" on the back of the light base.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

   http://is.gd/tdjUNS

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
Ace Hardware retail stores and other hardware stores nationwide
and online at www.acehardware.com from September 2013 to December
2013 for between $10 and $22.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled clamp lights
and return them to the local Ace Hardware store for a full
refund.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appeals Montana Court Ruling to US Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation on January 30, 2014, timely filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court
seeking review of the Montana Supreme Court's decision on a class
action lawsuit asserting unfair claims adjustment, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in
Montana state court challenging aspects of its claim handling
practices in Montana. The plaintiff alleges that the Company
adjusts claims made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a
manner that unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to
claimants who were represented by attorneys. In January 2012, the
court certified a class of Montana claimants who were not
represented by attorneys with respect to the resolution of auto
accident claims. The court certified the class to cover an
indefinite period that commences in the mid-1990's. The certified
claims include claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief
and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. Injunctive relief
may include a claim process by which unrepresented claimants
could request that their claims be readjusted. No compensatory
damages are sought on behalf of the class. The Company appealed
the order certifying the class. In August 2013, the Montana
Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the lower
court's order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification
and remanded the case for trial.

The Company petitioned for rehearing of the Montana Supreme
Court's decision, which the Court denied. On January 30, 2014,
the Company timely filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Montana Supreme
Court's decision. To date no discovery has occurred related to
the potential value of the class members' claims. The Company has
asserted various defenses with respect to the plaintiff's claims,
which have not been finally resolved. In the Company's judgment a
loss is not probable.

The Allstate Corporation (Allstate) is a holding company for
Allstate Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted
principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life
Insurance Company and their affiliates. It is engaged,
principally in the United States, in the property-liability
insurance, life insurance, retirement and investment product
business. Allstate's primary business is the sale of private
passenger auto and homeowners insurance. The Company also sells
several other personal property and casualty insurance products,
select commercial property and casualty coverages, life
insurance, annuities, voluntary accident and health insurance and
funding agreements. It conducts its business primarily in the
United States. Allstate has four business segments: Allstate
Protection, Allstate Financial, Discontinued Lines and Coverages
and Corporate and Other. In October 2011, the Company acquired
Esurance and Answer Financial from White Mountains Insurance
Group.


ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Class Cert Ruling in Age Bias & ERISA Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation is waiting for the Court's determination
with respect to two class actions alleging retaliation and age
discrimination; and violations of ERISA, including a worker
classification issue, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
on February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the
Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999.
Although these cases have been pending for many years, they
currently are in the early stages of litigation because of
appellate court proceedings and threshold procedural issues.

     * These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging
retaliation under federal civil rights laws ("EEOC I") and a
class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging
retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act ("ADEA"), breach of contract and ERISA
violations ("Romero I"). In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and
Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and
order that, among other things, certified classes of agents,
including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release,
for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that
the release was voidable at the option of the release signer. The
court also ordered that an agent who voided the release must
return to Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent]
in exchange for signing the release." The court also stated that,
"on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims
of age discrimination." The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court
to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order and in
January 2007, the judge denied their request. In June 2007, the
court reversed its prior ruling that the release was voidable and
granted the Company's motions for summary judgment, ruling that
the asserted claims were barred by the release signed by most
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ("Third Circuit"). In July
2009, the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in the Company's favor and remanded the cases to
the trial court for additional discovery, including additional
discovery related to the validity of the release and waiver. In
its opinion, the Third Circuit held that if the release and
waiver is held to be valid, then all of the claims in Romero I
and EEOC I are barred. Thus, if the waiver and release is upheld,
then only the claims in Romero I asserted by the small group of
employee agents who did not sign the release and waiver would
remain for adjudication. In January 2010, following the remand,
the cases were assigned to a new judge for further proceedings in
the trial court. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint
on July 28, 2010. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make
whole relief," including back pay, compensatory and punitive
damages, liquidated damages, lost investment capital, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable relief, including reinstatement to
employee agent status with all attendant benefits for up to
approximately 6,500 former employee agents. Despite the length of
time that these matters have been pending, to date only limited
discovery has occurred related to the damages claimed by
individual plaintiffs, and no damages discovery has occurred
related to the claims of the putative class. Nor have plaintiffs
provided any calculations of the putative class's alleged back
pay or the alleged liquidated, compensatory or punitive damages,
instead asserting that such calculations will be provided at a
later stage during expert discovery. Damage claims are subject to
reduction by amounts and benefits received by plaintiffs and
putative class members subsequent to their employment
termination. Little to no discovery has occurred with respect to
amounts earned or received by plaintiffs and putative class
members in mitigation of their alleged losses. Alleged damage
amounts and lost benefits of the approximately 6,500 putative
class members also are subject to individual variation and
determination dependent upon retirement dates, participation in
employee benefit programs, and years of service. Discovery
limited to the validity of the waiver and release is closed. The
parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with respect to
the validity of the waiver and release on April 8, 2013, and are
awaiting the Court's determination. At present, no class is
certified.

     * A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by
former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA,
including a worker classification issue ("Romero II"). These
plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent
contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. Romero II
was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the subject
of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded
to the trial court in 2005. In June 2007, the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal with the Third Circuit. In July 2009, the Third Circuit
vacated the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded
the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and
directed that the case be reassigned to another trial court
judge. In its opinion, the Third Circuit held that if the release
and waiver is held to be valid, then one of plaintiffs' three
claims asserted in Romero II is barred. The Third Circuit
directed the district court to consider on remand whether the
other two claims asserted in Romero II are barred by the release
and waiver. In January 2010, following the remand, the case was
assigned to a new judge (the same judge for the Romero I and EEOC
I cases) for further proceedings in the trial court. On April 23,
2010, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs
seek broad but unspecified "make whole" or other equitable
relief, including losses of income and benefits as a result of
their decision to retire from the Company between November 1,
1999 and December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the
challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all
attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands of
former employee agents, and attorney's fees and costs. Despite
the length of time that this matter has been pending, to date
only limited discovery has occurred related to the damages
claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no damages discovery has
occurred related to the claims of the putative class. Nor have
plaintiffs provided any calculations of the putative class's
alleged losses, instead asserting that such calculations will be
provided at a later stage during expert discovery. Damage claims
are subject to reduction by amounts and benefits received by
plaintiffs and putative class members subsequent to their
employment termination. Little to no discovery has occurred with
respect to amounts earned or received by plaintiffs and putative
class members in mitigation of their alleged losses. Alleged
damage amounts and lost benefits of the putative class members
also are subject to individual variation and determination
dependent upon retirement dates, participation in employee
benefit programs, and years of service. As in Romero I and EEOC
I, discovery limited to issues relating to the validity of the
waiver and release is closed. The parties filed cross motions for
summary judgment with respect to the validity of the waiver and
release on April 8, 2013, and are awaiting the Court's
determination. At present, class certification has not been
decided.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be decided and, if decided in favor of the Company, would
preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I and EEOC I and may
also preclude damages from being awarded in Romero II. In the
Company's judgment a loss is not probable. Allstate has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.

The Allstate Corporation (Allstate) is a holding company for
Allstate Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted
principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life
Insurance Company and their affiliates. It is engaged,
principally in the United States, in the property-liability
insurance, life insurance, retirement and investment product
business. Allstate's primary business is the sale of private
passenger auto and homeowners insurance. The Company also sells
several other personal property and casualty insurance products,
select commercial property and casualty coverages, life
insurance, annuities, voluntary accident and health insurance and
funding agreements. It conducts its business primarily in the
United States. Allstate has four business segments: Allstate
Protection, Allstate Financial, Discontinued Lines and Coverages
and Corporate and Other. In October 2011, the Company acquired
Esurance and Answer Financial from White Mountains Insurance
Group.


AMERICA ONLINE: Dispute Over Class Action Attorney Fees Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Lakin, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that Chicago lawyer Phil Bock can't collect $1,214,831.50 on a
Lakin Law Firm class action to which he contributed nothing but a
useful plaintiff, Fifth District appellate judges ruled March 17.
The appellate judges ruled that St. Clair County Circuit Judge
Andrew Gleeson correctly resolved a dispute between Bock and Paul
Weiss of Chicago by awarding Mr. Bock $50,000.

Mr. Bock, Mr. Weiss's firm, and the Lakins had split fees three
ways in other class actions, but Mr. Bock failed to show that the
arrangement fit the case at hand.  He didn't help his cause by
omitting the Lakins from his suit.

Justice Stephen Spomer wrote, "The Lakin Law Firm is the third
entity allegedly entitled to a one third share of the fees."

"However, Bock has not sought fees from the Lakin Law Firm, and
the Lakin Law Firm is not a party to this appeal," Justice Spomer
wrote.

Mr. Weiss's lawyer, Kevin Hoerner of Belleville, had argued that
if Mr. Bock was correct about belonging to a joint venture, the
Lakins owed him as much as Weiss did.

"Rather, Bock claims the entire amount of its supposed joint
venture share from Freed & Weiss and nothing from Lakin who
presumably was paid one half of the fees owed to Bock,"
Mr. Hoerner wrote in 2011.

"Bock knows that Lakin will not support his claim of a joint
venture, and that in fact no joint venture ever existed.  Bock's
failure to make any claim against the Lakin firm is a reasonable
inference that no joint venture existed, and this court may draw
that inference."

Mr. Bock, Mr. Weiss and the Lakins filed many class actions
together, but Mr. Weiss and the Lakins acted without Mr. Bock
when they sued America Online in St. Clair County, in 2003.

Their client, Dawn O'Leary, claimed America Online billed for
internet services she hadn't requested.

In 2004, Mr. Bock, Mr. Weiss and the Lakins sued America Online
in Madison County.  Their client, Rosa White, claimed America
Online charged her for "credit alert."  Mr. Bock was responsible
for securing White as client.

According to Mr. Hoerner's brief, firms defending America Online
approached the group about a national settlement of billing
disputes through the O'Leary action.

All parties signed a settlement in 2005, but a federal multi
district judge in California signed an injunction against it.

Freed and the Lakins opened negotiations with plaintiff lawyers
in the California court, according to Mr. Hoerner, and a new
settlement resulted in six months.  The agreement provided $4.5
million in fees for O'Leary's lawyers and $3.5 million for
lawyers in the California court.

From $4.5 million, Mr. Weiss and the Lakins calculated a net of
$3,644,494.40.

Mr. Weiss delivered a $50,000 check to Mr. Bock, who didn't cash
it.

Judge Gleeson held two hearings in 2010, and asked for further
briefs.

For Mr. Bock, Bob Sprague of Belleville cited five cases where
they split fees three ways.

"Absent an express agreement as to fee division cooperating
attorneys are presumed to intend an equal division," Mr. Sprague
wrote.  "The Rosa White and other cases had to be joined into the
O'Leary case or AOL would not settle.

"The attorneys undertook to jointly pursue the case against AOL
when they joined the O'Leary and White cases together."

He wrote that Mr. Weiss planned to cheat Mr. Bock from the
beginning.

For Mr. Weiss, Mr. Hoerner wrote that Mr. Bock admitted that he
had no expenses, reviewed no documents, and didn't communicate
with counsel for America Online.  He wrote that in cases where
Bock received a third, he was in the cases from the beginning and
he had expenses and effort.

Judge Gleeson first ruled that Mr. Weiss didn't owe Mr. Bock
anything, but later he ruled that Weiss owed Bock $50,000.

Mr. Bock appealed, and Mr. Weiss filed a cross appeal against the
$50,000 award.

Justice Spomer and Justices Thomas Welch and Melissa Chapman
found ample evidence to support Judge Gleeson's conclusion that
no joint venture existed.

"With regard to Bock's contention that the trial court's decision
was based on legal error, we first note that this claim is not
well articulated in Bock's briefs," Justice Spomer wrote.

The Justices held that Mr. Weiss must pay Mr. Bock $50,000,
because he told him he would and he had in fact presented the
check.


AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Pension Plan Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of February 20, 2014, discovery is ongoing on the purported
class action complaints against American International Group,
Inc., asserting claims on behalf of participants in certain
pension plans sponsored by AIG or its subsidiaries, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these eight
actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II. On September 4, 2012, lead plaintiffs' counsel
filed a second consolidated amended complaint. The action
purports to be brought as a class action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on
behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit
plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG
Common Stock. In the second consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan participants
and their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to offer the
AIG Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans after it
allegedly became imprudent to do so. The alleged ERISA violations
relate to, among other things, the defendants' purported failure
to monitor and/or disclose certain matters, including the
Subprime Exposure Issues.

On November 20, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint. On May 24, 2013, the
parties informed the Court of a mediation scheduled for August
21-22, 2013, and requested that the Court defer consideration of
defendants' motions pending the outcome of the mediation. On the
same day, the Court granted the parties' request, terminating
defendants' motions without prejudice to reinstatement on request
following the August mediation, if necessary. On August 26, 2013,
the parties informed the Court that the mediation did not result
in a resolution of the action, and defendants requested that the
Court reinstate their motions to dismiss. On September 4, 2013,
the Court reinstated defendants' motions to dismiss.

As of February 20, 2014, discovery is ongoing, and the Court has
not determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or
scope of any class. As a result, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
company. The Company provides a range of property casualty
insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage
insurance and other financial services to customers in more than
130 countries. It diverse offerings include products and services
that help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage
risks and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues
primarily from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal
life insurance and investment products, and income from
investments. Its segments include AIG Property Casualty and AIG
Life and Retirement. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the
Chartis segment was renamed AIG Property Casualty and the
SunAmerica segment was renamed AIG Life and Retirement.


AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Ontario Securities Lawsuit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
As of February 20, 2014, the purported class action against
American International Group, Inc., asserting violation of the
Ontario Securities Act has been stayed, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG
and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the
application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a
statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through
September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and
forum non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a
hearing on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of
Canada in a pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van
Breda 2012 SCC 17 (Van Breda). On April 18, 2012, the Supreme
Court of Canada clarified the standard for determining
jurisdiction over foreign and out-of-province defendants, such as
AIG, by holding that a defendant must have some form of "actual,"
as opposed to a merely "virtual," presence to be deemed to be
"doing business" in the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada
also suggested that in future cases, defendants may contest
jurisdiction even when they are found to be doing business in a
Canadian jurisdiction if their business activities in the
jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter of the
litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as
the Court finds appropriate. As of February 20, 2014, the Court
has not determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted
plaintiff's application to file a statement of claim, no merits
discovery has occurred and the action has been stayed. As a
result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
company. The Company provides a range of property casualty
insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage
insurance and other financial services to customers in more than
130 countries. It diverse offerings include products and services
that help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage
risks and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues
primarily from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal
life insurance and investment products, and income from
investments. Its segments include AIG Property Casualty and AIG
Life and Retirement. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the
Chartis segment was renamed AIG Property Casualty and the
SunAmerica segment was renamed AIG Life and Retirement.


APPLE INC: Retail Workers Seek Stay of Bag Check Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
attorneys want to stall an employment class action filed last
year against Apple Inc. in the Northern District of California
until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether hourly workers must
be compensated for work-related security screenings.

The lawyers, who seek to represent thousands of Apple retail
workers, contend the tech giant stiffed employees by not paying
wages for time spent waiting in bag check lines after they
clocked out.  For named plaintiff Amanda Frlekin, a full-time
Apple employee working in Los Angeles until 2013, those bag
checks added up to $1,500 in unpaid hours and overtime, according
to the complaint.

In March, the Supreme Court agreed to review a similar case,
Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk, in which the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held employers must pay
workers for time spent in mandatory screening procedures.
Counsel in Ms. Frlekin's case filed a motion on March 25 asking
U.S. District Judge William Alsup to stay the proceedings until
the Supreme Court rules.

"The ultimate decision to be rendered by the court on the issue
of compensability, will be largely -- if not solely -- determined
by the Supreme Court's guidance and ruling in Busk," states the
motion filed by Kimberly Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com --
of The Kralowec Law Group in San Francisco along with New York
attorneys Lee Shalov and Brett Gallaway --
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com -- of McLaughlin & Stern and Louis
Ginsberg of the Law Firm of Louis Ginsberg.

Representing Apple are Littler Mendelson attorneys Julie Dunne --
jdunne@littler.com -- Lara Strauss -- lstrauss@littler.com -- and
Michael Leggieri -- mleggieri@littler.com -- out of San Diego,
and Todd Boyer -- tboyer@littler.com -- Karin Cogbill --
kcogbill@littler.com -- and Nicolas Kelsey -- nkelsey@littler.com
-- out of San Jose.

Even before plaintiffs asked to pause the case, the Ninth
Circuit's 2013 ruling in Busk cast a shadow over the litigation,
with plaintiffs claiming the decision strongly favored their
position and defense lawyers countering that Apple's bag check
practices do not resemble those at Integrity Staffing, where
every employee was "funneled" through a common security
procedure.

According to Apple's lawyers, the putative class could cover more
than 37,000 current and former Apple store workers.  Judge Alsup,
who is presiding over the litigation in San Francisco federal
court, has yet to rule on whether the case can proceed as a
collective action.

Attorneys in the Apple class action are not the only ones with
their eyes on the Supreme Court case.  Several national business
groups filed amici curiae briefs urging the Supreme Court to
review the Ninth Circuit's decision in Busk, warning of the
damage that could be done to businesses if employers must start
paying workers for mandatory security checks.

The question emerges from the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, amended by the 1947 Portal-to-
Portal Act.  The measure states employers do not have to pay
wages for time spent traveling to and from work, or any other
preliminary and postliminary activities.  On those grounds, a
federal judge in Nevada dismissed a class action filed by two
Integrity Staffing employees who sought compensation for security
screenings after work.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding the mandatory security
screenings were an integral part of employees' jobs, and
therefore subject to compensation.  That ruling has immediate,
detrimental implications, according to a joint brief filed by
Proskauer Rose on behalf of the Retail Litigation Center Inc.,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Society for Human Resource
Management and the National Association of Manufacturers.

"It would require thousands of employers to modify their time-
keeping systems or eliminate security screening altogether,"
according to the brief.  "The latter option is untenable in
today's world.  The former option cannot be achieved overnight or
without considerable cost."


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles FHFA's RMBS Claims for $9.5 Billion
------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
federal and state litigation stemming from the 2008 financial
crisis continues to keep corporate attorneys and C-suites busy,
and now it's Bank of America's turn to settle up.   The bank on
March 26 agreed to pay more than $9.5 billion to settle unrelated
claims by the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the New York
attorney general stemming from the economic meltdown.

The housing agency deal -- $6.3 billion in cash plus $3.2 billion
in purchasing residential mortgage-backed securities at fair
market value -- settles claims alleging the bank falsely
represented that mortgage loans sold to the FHFA complied with
agency standards.

The bank also reached a deal to settle a 2010 lawsuit brought by
the New York Attorney General's Office against it and two former
executives for misrepresenting facts to shareholders during the
merger with Merrill Lynch & Co. in 2008.  The bank agreed to pay
$15 million to cover New York's cost of the investigation and
litigation, and to continue its corporate governance reforms.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also reached a deal with
former CEO Kenneth Lewis over the misrepresentations, which
included failing to disclose Merrill's growing losses.  The deal
with Lewis bars him from serving as an officer or director of a
public company for three years, and requires him to pay $10
million to the state.

Mr. Lewis' lawyer, Bruce Yannett of Debevoise & Plimpton, said in
a statement that "Mr. Lewis consistently has made clear that the
bank relied on experienced legal counsel -- both inside the bank
and at a prestigious law firm -- with regard to what needed to be
disclosed to shareholders.  Mr. Lewis is pleased to put this
matter behind him and to move on with his life."

The Attorney General's Office released a statement saying the
case "represents one of the first successful attempts by law
enforcement to hold accountable a CEO or individual at a major
institution since the financial crisis."

It said the office intends to file a summary judgment motion
against the remaining defendant, former chief financial officer
Joe Price.

Mr. Schneiderman said in the statement that the "settlement
demonstrates a major victory in our continued commitment to
applying the law equally to individuals, as well as corporations.
I would hope this closes one chapter of our ongoing efforts to
ensure the frauds that occurred in and around the financial
crisis are not forgotten."

BofA released its own statement noting, without comment, the
settlement with the New York AG's office.  Spokesman Lawrence
Grayson said the bank would have no further comment on that.
But the statement highlighted the FHFA settlement, saying, "The
FHFA settlement resolves one of the most significant remaining
pieces of [mortgage-related] securities litigation facing the
company. With this settlement, Bank of America has now resolved
approximately 88 percent of the unpaid principal balance" of all
residential mortgage-backed securities cases against it.

BofA's statement acknowledged that the bank still faces inquiries
and investigations, and may be subject to penalties and fines, by
the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys general and other
government members of a financial fraud enforcement task force.
It is still party to civil litigation brought by the DOJ and
other government agencies regarding mortgage-related matters.

The statement added, "The company continues to cooperate with,
and has had preliminary discussions about, a potential resolution
of these matters" with the government agencies involved.


BEDZ KING: Recalls 2,900 Beds With Side Ladder
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bedz King, of Arlington, Texas, announced voluntary recall of
about 2,900 Beds with Side Ladder. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A protruding corner post on the bunk beds exceeds the 5mm allowed
by industry standard, posing an entrapment hazard.

No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Bedz King bunk beds with a side ladder. The
beds were sold in twin over twin, twin over full and full over
full combinations and four colors; white, espresso, honey and
cappuccino.  Affected models include BK 150SL, BK 151SL, BK
950SL, BK 951SL and BK 975SL.  Model information and "Bedz King"
are printed on labels attached to the top headboard.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/bOqY2S

The recalled products were manufactured in Brazil and sold at
BunkBedKing.com from July 2011 to October 2013 for between $350
and $750.

Consumers should immediately check to see if they have the
recalled bunk bed and contact Bedz King for a free repair kit and
to confirm a physical address for delivery of the kit. Bedz King
is contacting known consumers directly by email.


CAPITAL ONE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dist. Court Ruling in "Vargas" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ibelka Vargas appealed from the judgment of the District Court
dismissing her complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  In 2012, Ms. Vargas brought a
putative class action against Defendants-Appellees Capital One
Financial Advisors; Countrywide Bank; Countrywide Financial
Corporation; Bank of America, NA; IBM Lender Business Process
Services, Inc.; and Seterus.  She alleged that the Lenders
engaged in discriminatory residential mortgage loan practices in
violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et
seq.; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1691;
and 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982.

The District Court's dismissal rested on its determination that
res judicata and a class settlement agreement barred Ms. Vargas's
claims.

"We have reviewed Vargas's remaining arguments on appeal, and
find them to be without merit," ruled the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit. For this reason, the Second Circuit
affirmed the August 16, 2013 judgment of the District Court.

A copy of the District Court's March 13, 2014 Summary Order
is available at http://is.gd/mFS7dtfrom Leagle.com.

The case is IBELKA VARGAS, AND THE CLASS OF THOSE PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
ADVISORS, AKA GREENPOINT SAVINGS BANK, AKA GREENPOINT MORTGAGE
FUNDING, COUNTRYWIDE BANK, COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AKA
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., IBM LENDER BUSINESS PROCESS
SERVICES, INC., SETERUS, BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 13-3262.

Phillip Jaffe -- phillip@bizmelocal.com -- New York, NY., for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

ANAND S. RAMAN -- anand.raman@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, DC, for Capital One
Financial Advisors, Christine Burke Cesare --
cbcesare@bryancave.com -- and Scott Harris Kaiser --
scott.kaiser@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, New York, NY, for
Countrywide Bank, Countrywide Financial Corporation, AKA
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Bank of America, NA, Allison J.
Schoenthal -- allison.schoenthal@hoganlovells.com -- and Courtney
Colligan -- courtney.colligan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells
US LLP, New York, NY, for IBM Lender Business Process Services,
Inc. and Seterus, for Defendants-Appellees.


CASH STORE: Settles Investor Class Actions for C$9.45 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Store Financial on March 31 disclosed that it has reached an
agreement to settle investor class actions.  The proposed
settlement provides for a payment in the amount of approximately
Cdn $9.45 million (all-inclusive) by the Company's insurers.

The proposed settlement is subject to the fulfillment of
customary conditions including, among other things, the parties
entering into a definitive settlement agreement, court approvals,
approval of parties other than the Company, and the fulfillment
of conditions relating to the number of opt-outs from the
proposed settlement.  There is no assurance that these conditions
will be fulfilled.

The proposed settlement includes no admission of liability by the
Company or any of the settling defendants, and the Company
continues to deny any such liability or damages.


CENTEX HOMES: Recalls Solar Saver Roof Panels Due to Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Centex Homes, of Rialto, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 240 homes Solar Save(R) roof panels. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Two incidents in which roof fires originated in or near the
recalled roof panels have been reported. These incidents involve
homes sold by Centex. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Open Energy 34 watt (OE-34) Solar Panel
energy systems sold under the brand name Open Energy SolarSave
Roofing Tiles. SolarSave panels replace conventional roof tiles
and provide solar power to the building. This recall involves all
brown, terracotta and gray OE-34 SolarSave roof tiles installed
on new homes sold by Centex Homes ("Centex"). This recall does
not include any other solar panels, except for the OE-34 model,
installed on homes sold by Centex.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/ITAfYW

The recalled products were manufactured in Open Energy
Corporation, Inc. and Applied Solar, Inc., of Solana Beach,
Calif., which this business is no longer operating.

Centex has contacted directly customers impacted by the recall
and performed free installations of new solar panels. Owners of
homes with qualifying solar energy systems who have not been
contacted by the company should turn off their solar energy
systems immediately and contact Centex to schedule the
installation of free replacement panels.


CHASE INVESTMENT: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Baumann" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BAUMANN, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORP., a Delaware corporation; JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK NA; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-55644, is a civil action filed in
California state court under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code Sections
2698-2699.5, and then removed to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  PAGA authorizes
aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, to
recover civil penalties from their employers for violations of
the Labor Code. See Arias v. Super. Ct., 209 P.3d 923, 929-30
(Cal. 2009). The sole question presented on appeal is whether the
district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this removed
action.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, March 13,
2014, entered an opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/DmUMCTfrom Leagle.com, stating that In Urbino v.
Orkin Services, 726 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2013), potential PAGA
penalties against an employer may not be aggregated to meet the
minimum amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a). The remaining issue in this appeal is whether a district
court may instead exercise original jurisdiction over a PAGA
action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d), 1453, 1711-15.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court could not exercise
jurisdiction over this removed PAGA action under CAFA. And
because, in light of Urbino, there was also no federal subject
matter jurisdiction under Section 1332(a), Baumann's motion to
remand should have been granted.

Against this backdrop, the Ninth Circuit reverses with
instructions to grant that motion.

For Plaintiff-Appellant:

   Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
   Marc Primo, Esq.
   Ryan H. Wu, Esq.
   Initiative Legal Group APC
   1800 Century Park East, Mezzanine
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Telephone: 310-556-5637
   Facsimile: 301-861-9051

Carrie A. Gonell -- cgonell@morganlewis.com --(argued) and John
A. Hayashi -- jhayashi@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Irvine, California; Samuel S. Shaulson --
sshaulson@morganlewis.com -- New York, New York; and Alison B.
Willard -- awillard@morganlewis.com -- San Francisco, California,
for Defendants-Appellees.

Allen Graves -- agraves@gravescarley.com --(argued) and Elizabeth
Sullivan -- esullivan@gravescarley.com -- The Graves Firm,
Pasadena, California, for Amicus Curiae Stacy Thompson.

George W. Abele -- georgeabele@paulhastings.com -- and Melinda A.
Gordon -- melindagordon@paulhastings.comv -- Paul Hastings LLP,
Los Angeles, California; Robin S. Conrad, Kate Comerford Todd,
and Shane B. Kawka, National Chamber Litigation Center,
Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae California Employment Law
Council and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.


COLGATE PALMOLIVE: April 4 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing for a motion for preliminary approval of
a class action settlement, class certification and appointment of
class counsel is scheduled for April 4, 2014, according to
Colgate-Palmolive Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman,
et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income
Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum
accrual requirements, were transferred to the Southern District
of New York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re
Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation.

The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy
minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for
age discrimination. The relief sought includes recalculation of
benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

In October 2013, the parties executed a settlement agreement
under which the Plan would pay approximately $40 million after
application of certain offsets to resolve the litigation. The
settlement agreement is subject to court approval. On December
16, 2013, a motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement, class certification and appointment of class counsel
was approved and a final approval hearing is scheduled for April
4, 2014.

The Company and the Plan intend to contest this action vigorously
should the settlement not be approved and finalized.

Colgate-Palmolive Company (Colgate) is a consumer products
company whose products are marketed in over 200 countries and
territories throughout the world. It operates in two segments:
Oral, Personal and Home Care and Pet Nutrition. Oral Care
business products include Colgate Total, Colgate Sensitive Pro-
Relief, Colgate Max Fresh, Colgate Optic White and Colgate
Luminous White toothpastes, Colgate 360o manual toothbrushes and
Colgate and Colgate Plax mouth rinses. Colgate's Oral Care
business also includes dental floss and pharmaceutical products
for dentists and oral health professionals. Its Personal Care
products also include Palmolive, Softsoap and Sanex brand shower
gels, Palmolive, Irish Spring and Protex bar soaps and Speed
Stick, Lady Speed Stick and Sanex deodorants and antiperspirants.
It sells liquid hand soap under the Palmolive, Protex and
Softsoap brands. Colgate, through its Hill's Pet Nutrition
segment (Hill's), manufactures pet nutrition products for dogs
and cats.


COSTAR GROUP: Show Cause Hearing in LoopNet Suit Moved to May 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, CoStar Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, LoopNet Inc., the
Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the LoopNet Board") and/or the
Company were named as defendants in three purported class action
lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet stockholders challenging
LoopNet's proposed merger with the Company.  The stockholder
actions alleged, among other things, that (i) each member of the
LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties to LoopNet and its
stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet to the Company,
(ii) the merger did not maximize value to LoopNet stockholders,
(iii) LoopNet and the Company made incomplete or materially
misleading disclosures about the transaction and (iv) LoopNet and
the Company aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of the LoopNet Board. The
stockholder actions sought class action certification and
equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation of
the merger. The parties stipulated to the consolidation of the
actions, and to permit the filing of a consolidated complaint. In
June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement
of this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company
of approximately $200,000. On March 20, 2013, the California
Superior Court declined to grant preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement and issued an order scheduling a hearing on
June 11, 2013 to show good cause why the case should not be
dismissed.

CoStar disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013, that shortly before the hearing
plaintiffs filed a third supplemental submission in support of
their motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement,
and the Court rescheduled the show cause hearing for February 11,
2014, and then rescheduled it again for May 13, 2014.

CoStar Group, Inc. (CoStar) is a provider of information,
analytics and marketing services to the commercial real estate
industry in the United States and United Kingdom. The Company's
suite of online service offerings includes information about
space available for lease, comparable sales information, tenant
information, information about properties for sale, Internet
marketing services, analytical capabilities, information for
clients' Websites, information about industry professionals and
their business relationships, data integration and industry news.
Its service offerings span all commercial property types,
including office, industrial, retail, land, mixed-use,
hospitality and multifamily. In April 2012, the Company completed
the acquisition of LoopNet, Inc.


CREDIT PAYMENT: Suit Over Text Spam Gains Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellis Smith, writing for Chattanooga Times Free Press, reports
that a Chattanooga-based payday lender accused of spamming
thousands of Americans with unwanted text messages suffered a
setback as a lawsuit against his businesses gained class-action
status.

Payday lender Carey V. Brown continued to say that his companies
did no wrong.  Mr. Brown may have lost much of his payday empire
in a battle with federal and state regulators last fall, but that
hasn't stopped lawyers in Nevada from pressing a civil class-
action lawsuit against his companies, specifically Credit Payment
Services, Leadpile and the shuttered MyCashNow.com website.

Those companies allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by spamming consumers with random text messages
that contained offers for payday loans, a type of loan that
carries a high interest rate and must be paid off after two weeks
to avoid mounting fees.

Consumer advocates say that payday loans trap people in a cycle
of debt as the loans roll over and the fees eventually grow
higher than the original loan.  Payday lenders say they are
providing a service for poor Americans who need a financial
bridge from one payday to the next, in order to avoid more
serious consequences, such as missing a car payment or having the
electricity turned off.

But the attorneys in this case don't take issue with Brown's
loans, they're upset with the way they say he solicited customers
using millions of robo-dial text messages that, in some cases,
would have cost the recipients money to receive.  The texts
contained links that redirected recipients to websites controlled
by Brown and others.

After denying two motions to dismiss the lawsuit, U.S. District
Judge Andrew Gordon has granted class certification to all
individuals who received a spam text message between Dec. 5,
2011, through Jan. 11, 2012, from one of three specific telephone
numbers.

Mr. Brown on March 27 denied that his companies had anything to
do with the unwanted text messages from phone numbers 330-564-
6316, 808-989-5389 or 209-200-0084.

"None of my companies have ever sent any spam, nor would we
tolerate spam," Mr. Brown said.

Reporters have previously located blog posts on the website of
Leadpile, one of the companies named in the lawsuit and
controlled by Brown, praising text-message spamming as "an
interesting and productive way to generate leads or more
business, including branding awareness."

In a post titled "SMS and Lead-gen in a Lead Exchange," Leadpile
marketing director Eugen Ilie demonstrated how a single spam text
message sent to thousands of mobile phone users can bring more
than 6,400 sets of eyeballs to a company's website.

Judge Gordon, who joined the bench in Nevada in 2013 after being
nominated by U.S. President Barack Obama, found that there were a
"downhill" series of contractual relationships that started with
Mr. Brown's companies and rippled toward the group that did the
alleged spamming.

The benefits of the text messages, in this case leads for
potential payday customers, flowed back "uphill" toward the
companies controlled by Brown, Gordon wrote in his reasoning
behind the ruling.

Mr. Brown has claimed that the actual spammer was an individual
located in Ohio -- information that he has given to the attorneys
in the case.  But for some reason, that person is not being sued,
he said.

"There are some unscrupulous attorneys trying to drum up some
money for themselves," Mr. Brown said.


CYNOSURE INC: Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in "Weitzner" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex affirmed a judgment
entered in ARI WEITZNER, M.D., P.C., vs. CYNOSURE, INC., NO.
13-P-264.

Ari Weitzner, M.D., P.C., brought a class action complaint in
Massachusetts Superior Court for injunctive relief and damages
against the defendant, Cynosure, Inc.  A judge denied class
certification and subsequently entered judgment on the merits of
Mr. Weitzner's individual claims.  Mr. Weitzner appealed. He
contended (1) that the judge wrongly denied certification of the
proposed class of plaintiffs, and (2) that the judge should not
have adjudicated the merits of his individual claims because the
Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over allegations of damages
below the level of $25,000.

"In the present circumstances the judge exercised sound
discretion to retain jurisdiction and to resolve the case," ruled
the Mass. Appeals Court.  "The claims had been pending in the
Superior Court for more than seven years; the judge who denied
class certification and entered judgment had become familiar with
the facts and the applicable law; Cynosure had offered to confess
judgment; and the remaining issues of liability and damages were
straightforward. The judge acted with sensible efficiency and
fairness. Full and final judgment was proper."

A copy of the March 13, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/yk4Wdsfrom Leagle.com

Todd C. Bank -- TBlaw101@aol.com -- (Christopher J. Marino with
him) for the plaintiff.

Richard M. Zielinski -- rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com -- for the
defendant.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Court Rejected Cavitron(R) Plaintiffs' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court on January 22, 2014, issued its
decision in the Cavitron(R) case in favor of Dentsply
International Inc., and rejected all of the plaintiffs' claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it
for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims. The class that was certified is
defined as California dental professionals who, at any time
during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14,
2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic
scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their
patients, which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for
Use that "Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement
for all types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in
September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco
Superior Court issued its decision in the Company's favor,
rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims.

DENTSPLY International Inc. (DENTSPLY) is a designer, developer,
manufacturer and marketer of a range of dental products. The
Company operates in four segments, all of which are primarily
engaged in the design, manufacture and distribution of dental
products in four principal categories: dental consumables, dental
laboratory products, dental specialty products and consumable
medical device products. DENTSPLY conducts its business in over
120 foreign countries, principally through its foreign
subsidiaries. It operates in Canada, the European market, which
includes Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, and the United
Kingdom. It also has a market presence in Central and South
America, South Africa and Pacific Rim. It has also established
marketing activities in Moscow, Russia. On August 31, 2011, the
Company acquired Astra Tech AB. In November 2013, the Company
acquired QAHR, a direct dental selling organization with
headquarters in Hong Kong and operations also in mainland China.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Filed Objection to Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International Inc., has objected and filed its brief
against a motion for class certification related to the case
filed by the Center City Periodontists, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell
Goldman as a named class representative). The case was filed by
the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California. The
Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint
seeks damages and asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of
contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the
potential uses of the product because it cannot assure the
delivery of potable or sterile water. Following dismissal of the
case for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second
complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice,
Center City Periodontists. The Company's motion to dismiss this
new complaint was denied and the case will now proceed under the
name "Center City Periodontists." The Court subsequently granted
the Company's Motion and dismissed plaintiffs' New Jersey
Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach
of express warranty claim. The plaintiffs have moved to have the
case certified as a class action, to which the Company has
objected and filed its brief.

DENTSPLY International Inc. (DENTSPLY) is a designer, developer,
manufacturer and marketer of a range of dental products. The
Company operates in four segments, all of which are primarily
engaged in the design, manufacture and distribution of dental
products in four principal categories: dental consumables, dental
laboratory products, dental specialty products and consumable
medical device products. DENTSPLY conducts its business in over
120 foreign countries, principally through its foreign
subsidiaries. It operates in Canada, the European market, which
includes Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, and the United
Kingdom. It also has a market presence in Central and South
America, South Africa and Pacific Rim. It has also established
marketing activities in Moscow, Russia. On August 31, 2011, the
Company acquired Astra Tech AB. In November 2013, the Company
acquired QAHR, a direct dental selling organization with
headquarters in Hong Kong and operations also in mainland China.


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Court Narrows Claims in "Polinovsky" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Pavel and Ilona Polinovsky and Hans-Peter Baumeister
filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned PAVEL POLINOVSKY,
and ILONA POLINOVSKY, and HANS-PETER BAUMEISTER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA, AG, Defendant, CASE NO. 11 CV 780, (N.D.
Ill.) for Deutsche Lufthansa's alleged failure to comply with
Regulation No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and European
Council ("EU 261" or "the Regulation").

The Regulation requires airlines to compensate passengers for
certain delayed or cancelled flights departing from or arriving
in the European Union. Plaintiffs initially filed their complaint
asserting a breach of contract claim against Lufthansa and
alleging EU 261 was incorporated into Lufthansa's General
Conditions of Carriage. The Court found that Lufthansa expressly
incorporated EU 261 in its Conditions of Carriage. The Plaintiffs
later amended their complaint to add Count II alleging a
violation directly under EU 261. Lufthansa moved to dismiss Count
II pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).

District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, in her Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated March 12, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/jWcQ1vfrom Leagle.com, granted Lufthansa's motion.

"[T]he Court finds that EU 261 does not create a private right of
action enforceable outside the EU. Lufthansa's motion is
therefore granted and Count II of Plaintiffs' complaint is
dismissed with prejudice," ruled Jduge Coleman.


EBAY INC: Bid for Initial OK of "Zepeda" Settlement Due May 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court on February 24, 2014, denied plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement
agreement in MOISES ZEPEDA, MICHAEL SPEAR, RONYA OSMAN, BRIAN
PATTEE, CASEY CHING, DENAE ZAMORA, MICHAEL LAVANGA, and GARY
MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE
NOS. 10-CV-02500 SBA, 10-CV-1668 SBA, (N.D. Cal.).  The order
permitted the Plaintiffs to resubmit an amended motion for
preliminary approval within 30 days.

The Plaintiffs and defendants PayPal, Inc. and eBay Inc. have
reengaged in active settlement negotiations in light of the
Order, and a mediation session between the parties was scheduled
for March 24, 2014, before the Honorable Edward A. Infante
(Ret.).

The parties require additional time to conduct settlement
negotiations, and accordingly, additional time to prepare an
amended motion for preliminary approval.

For this reason, the parties stipulated that the Plaintiffs have
until May 27, 2014, to file an amended motion for preliminary
approval. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong approved the
stipulation on March 12, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/bLXwwWfrom Leagle.com

STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, JULIA B. STRICKLAND --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- DAVID W. MOON -- dmoon@stroock.com --
BENJAMIN T. POTTER -- bpotter@stroock.com -- Los Angeles, CA,
Attorneys for Defendants, PAYPAL, INC. and EBAY INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MOISES ZEPEDA, MICHAEL SPEAR, RONYA
OSMAN, BRIAN PATTEE, CASEY CHING, DENAE ZAMORA, MICHAEL LAVANGA
and GARY MILLER:
   Mark M. Todzo, Esq.
   LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
   503 Divisadero Street
   San Francisco, CA 94117
   Telephone: 415 913-7800
   Facismile: 415 759-4112


ENTEGRIS INC: Lawsuit Could Delay Pending Merger With ATMI Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Entegris, Inc.,
and its subsidiary, Atomic Merger Corporation, on behalf of
ATMI's stockholders that could delay ATMI's pending merger with
the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Failure to complete our pending merger with
ATMI, Inc. (ATMI) could have a materially adverse effect on our
financial condition and results and could negatively impact our
stock price.

"On February 4, 2014, we entered into an agreement and plan of
merger pursuant to which we agreed to acquire ATMI. We will incur
significant transaction costs relating to the merger, including
legal, accounting, financial advisory, regulatory and other
expenses. In general, these expenses are payable by us whether or
not the merger is completed. If the merger is not completed under
specific circumstances provided in the agreement and plan of
merger, we may be required to pay ATMI a termination fee of $100
million. The payment of such transaction costs or termination
fees could have an adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows. In addition, we could be
subject to litigation in the event the merger is not consummated,
which could subject us to significant liability for damages and
result in the incurrence of substantial legal fees. The current
market price of our stock may reflect an assumption that the
pending merger will occur and failure to complete the merger
could result in a decline in our stock price.

"A putative class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
ATMI's stockholders relating to the pending merger which names us
and our subsidiary, Atomic Merger Corporation, as defendants. If
these actions or similar actions that may be brought are
successful, the merger with ATMI could be delayed or prevented."

Entegris, Inc. is a global developer, manufacturer and supplier
of products and materials used in processing and manufacturing in
the semiconductor and other high-technology industries. For the
semiconductor industry, the Company's products maintain the
purity and integrity of critical materials used by the
semiconductor manufacturing process. For other high-technology
applications, its products and materials are used to manufacture
flat panel displays, light emitting diodes, high-purity
chemicals, photoresists, fuel cells, solar cells, gas lasers,
optical and magnetic storage devices, fiber optic cables and
critical components for aerospace, glass manufacturing and
biomedical applications. It designs, manufactures and markets its
products through three business segments: contamination control
solutions segment, microenvironments segment and specialty
materials segment. In April 2013, it acquired Jetalon Solutions
Inc.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Case Remanded to 9th Cir. Original Panel
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit en banc panel on
January 29, 2014, remanded the case against Express Scripts
Holding Company alleging rights to sue as a private attorney
general under California law, to the original Ninth Circuit
three-judge panel to either consider the federal constitutional
issues or remand the case to the district court, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Case No.021327)
(filed December 12, 2002), was filed against ESI and NextRX LLC
f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC and several other
pharmacy benefit management companies by several California
pharmacies as a putative class action, alleging rights to sue as
a private attorney general under California law.

Plaintiffs allege that ESI and the other defendants failed to
comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code
Section 2527 to provide California clients with the results of a
bi-annual survey of retail drug prices. On July 12, 2004, the
case was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action. On June 2, 2006,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court's opinion on standing and remanded the case to
the district court. The district court's denial of defendants'
motion to dismiss on first amendment constitutionality grounds
was appealed to the Ninth Circuit as discussed further below.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, but that
motion has not been briefed pending the outcome of the appeal.

On July 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss. On August 16, 2011, ESI
filed a petition for rehearing en banc requesting the Ninth
Circuit reconsider its ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss,
which was granted on October 31, 2011. On June 6, 2012, an en
banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
decision certifying the question of constitutionality of
California Civil Code Section 2527 to the California Supreme
Court, requesting the Supreme Court of California to consider the
issue and make a ruling. On July 18, 2012, the California Supreme
Court granted the certification request. On December 19, 2013,
the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Code
Section 2527 does not infringe upon state constitutional free
speech protections.

On December 23, 2013, the Company provided notice of that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and requested the Ninth Circuit to decide whether
California Civil Code Section 2527 violates the federal
constitution's free speech protections. On January 14, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Ninth Circuit to strike
our request to rule on the federal constitutional issues and
instead adopt the California Supreme Court's decision. On January
29, 2014, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel issued a ruling
vacating the prior panel opinion and remanded the case to the
original Ninth Circuit three-judge panel to either consider the
federal constitutional issues or remand the case to the district
court.

Express Scripts Holding Company is the largest PBM company in the
United States, offering a full range of services to its clients,
which include managed care organizations, health insurers, third-
party administrators, employers, union-sponsored benefit plans,
workers' compensation plans and government health programs.


FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Tailgate Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg granted in part and denied in part
Defendant Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
second consolidated amended complaint in IN RE FORD TAILGATE
LITIGATION, NO. 11-CV-2953-RS, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the March
12, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/xuTN3Sfrom
Leagle.com.

This putative class action involves 30 named plaintiffs from 25
states who seek to represent a nationwide class of millions of
current and former owners or lessees of Ford vehicles. Plaintiffs
allege that due to faulty manufacturing and/or design, the Ford
vehicles at issue are defective in that the applique panel on the
rear liftgate of the vehicles is prone to cracking, thereby
posing a safety hazard.  The alleged defect is referred to as the
"Cracked Tailgate Problem."  None of the named plaintiffs alleges
the panel on his or her vehicle exhibited any cracking during the
vehicle's warranty period. Defendants moved for partial dismissal
of plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Judge Seeborg ruled that Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty
claims arising under state law, as well as other state tort
claims are dismissed without leave to amend. The Plaintiffs'
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim is dismissed with leave to
amend, as are the majority of plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claims. The motion to dismiss is denied as to certain of
plaintiffs' consumer protection and deceptive trade practices
claims.


FORD MOTOR CREDIT: "Agrawal" Suit Remanded to Trial Court
---------------------------------------------------------
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SUDESH
AGRAWAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, NO. 96413, 2014-Ohio-920, is before
the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County on
remand from the Ohio Supreme Court for further review of a
decision released December 15, 2011.

On review of appellant Ford Motor Credit Company's proposition of
law that [c]laims for breach of contract, fraud, and
nondisclosure involving a standardized contract cannot be
certified as a class action when individualized inquiries are
necessary to determine (a) whether each claimant's contract was
actually violated or misrepresented, and (b) whether each
claimant suffered economic harm as a result, the Ohio Supreme
Court reversed the Appeals Court's decision based on their recent
holding in Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 137 Ohio
St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-4733, 999 N.E.2d 614.

in an opinion dated March 13, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/k4oVpPfrom Leagle.com, Presiding Judge Frank D.
Celebrezze, Jr., reversed the judgment of the trial court
granting class certification and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings in accordance with the holding in
Cullen.

Irene C. Keyse-Walker -- ikeyse-walker@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis, L.L.P., 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100, Cleveland, Ohio
44113-7213; Brett K. Bacon -- bbacon@frantzward.com  -- Gregory
R. Farkas -- gfarkas@frantzward.com -- Colleen C. Murnane --
cmurnane@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward, L.L.P., 127 Public
Square, 25th Floor, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1999; Thomas M. Byrne -
- tom.byrne@sutherland.com -- Stacey M. Mohr --
stacey.mohr@sutherland.com-- Valerie S. Sanders --
valerie.sanders@sutherland.com -- Sutherland Asbill & Brennan,
L.L.P., 999 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3996,
Loren L. Alikhan -- lalikhan@omm.com -- Jonathan Hacker --
jhacker@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., 1625 Eye Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008, Attorneys for Appellant.

Anand N. Misra -- misraane@misralaw.com -- The Misra Law Firm,
L.L.C., 3659 Green Road, Suite 100, Beachwood, Ohio 44122, Robert
S. Belovich, 9100 South Hills Boulevard, Suite 300, Broadview
Heights, Ohio 44147, Attorneys for Appellee.


G4S: Manus Island Expat Security Guards Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Liam Cochrane, writing for ABC News, reports that expatriate
security guards at the Manus Island detention centre are planning
legal action against their employer G4S for alleged misleading
recruitment.

The guards say they were promised an $8,000 bonus for completing
a 12-month stint working on Manus Island, despite G4S knowing at
the time the company had lost the contract to Transfield
Services/Wilson Security and it would be impossible for staff to
earn the bonus.

A G4S employee told the ABC some people gave up long-term jobs to
join G4S, thinking their employment would be ongoing.  The
employee spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their
job.

A website called Manus Class Action has been established and a
linked Twitter account says it went live on March 16.  The
website says potential issues include termination of contracts,
bonuses, recruitment, duty of care to staff and entitlements for
injuries.

The ABC has been told approximately 100 G4S employees or former
employees are in discussions about legal action, but cannot
confirm that information.  The company declined to address the
specific claim about bonuses, but did email the ABC with a
response to the prospect of a class action.

"G4S is not aware of any current or former employees pursuing
legal action with respect to aspects of their contracts as stated
in your questions," wrote a G4S spokesman on March 26.

G4S was in charge of security when violent riots occurred at the
centre on February 16-18 and were due to hand over operations to
Wilson Security on March 28.  Expatriate guards worked with
locally-hired Papua New Guinean guards, who have been blamed by
witnesses for much of the violence.  In the days after the
violent riots that left Iranian Reza Barati dead, several
expatriate G4S guards left Manus Island, telling the ABC they had
quit or been dismissed for challenging management.


GANZ USA: Recalls Grumpy Cat Stuffed Animal Toys
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ganz USA LLC, Marietta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 8,200 Plush Grumpy Cat stuffed animal toys. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The stuffed animals' eyes can detach, posing a choking hazard to
young children.

Ganz Stuffed Toys has received six reports of the eyes detaching
from the Grumpy Cat toys.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves three styles of plush Grumpy Cat stuffed
animal toys by Ganz. They include an 8-inch Grumpy Cat in laying
position, a 5-inch long sitting Grumpy Cat and a 4-inch Grumpy
Cat key clip. The toys are multi-colored in white with dark
brown, light brown and gray fur material. Grumpy Cat toys have
blue crystal eyes with the eye lids half closed, a down-turned
mouth and white whiskers. This toy is labeled for ages 3 and
older. The Grumpy Cat key chain has a black plastic key clip at
the top of the cat's head. The recalled toys have batch numbers
86754 or 224861, and model numbers printed on the sewn-in label
located near the tail of the cat.

The recalled toys model and batch numbers are:

    Description         Model      Batch 1   Batch 2
    -----------         -----      -------   -------
Grumpy Cat 8" Laying    HGC12974   86754     224861
Grumpy Cat 5" Sitting   HGC12982   86754     224861
Grumpy Cat Key Clip     HGC12983   86754     224861

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/tG6dcQ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Gift, drug and toy stores including hospitals, museums and gift
shops nationwide from December 2013 through January 2014 for
about $8 to $10.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Ganz for a free replacement Grumpy Cat
product of equivalent value or a full refund.


GENERAL MOTORS: NHTSA Misses Telltale Signs of Defective Ignition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph B. White, Jeff Bennett and Siobhan Hughes, writing for The
Wall Street Journal, report that the federal agency that
regulates vehicle safety in 2007 came close to discovering
defective ignition switches in certain General Motors Co. could
disable air bags, but the agency missed telltale signs and
there's no evidence to date the auto maker provided all the data
to complete the picture.

As Congress gears up investigations and hearings in response to
GM's recall of 1.6 million vehicles, the central questions are
did regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration fail to aggressively pursue clues that could have
identified defective ignition switches? Did GM fail to provide
all it knew? Or did both occur?

It is clear that some at GM knew switches on some Chevrolet
Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other cars were prone to slipping out of
the "on" position while in operation.  When that happens, power
is cut to the air bags, steering and brakes.  GM has linked a
dozen fatalities to accidents in which the air bags in recalled
vehicles failed to deploy.

NHTSA officials, lawmakers, federal prosecutors and lawyers for
accident victims are still gathering recall data and records to
understand what happened.  But documents made public so far show
an agency dependent on auto makers for the data and the context
needed to tell whether an equipment failure is an isolated event
or a dangerous trend that requires a safety recall.

NHTSA says it processes 40,000 consumer complaints a year, and
says its defect investigations have led to 929 recalls covering
55 million vehicles during the past seven years.

"Each potential recall investigation is unique and dependent on
the data gathered in each case," the agency said.  "NHTSA uses a
number of tools and techniques to gather and analyze data and
look for trends that warrant a vehicle safety investigation and
possibly a recall."

The agency's role is coming under scrutiny from legislators and
its own executives.  Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx
ordered a review to determine whether the agency could do more to
improve its analysis of the data it collects.

Between 2005 and 2007, the NHTSA commissioned three special
investigations of crashes involving two 2005 Cobalts and a Saturn
Ion.  In each case, the air bags had not deployed as expected in
a frontal crash.

The agency was concerned at the time not about ignition switches,
but about how then-new smart air bags were performing, according
to agency documents.  These new smart systems were supposed to
cut the risk that passengers would get hurt by the explosive
deployment of the air bags.

In two of the reports NHTSA commissioned on now-recalled GM cars,
the possibility that the air bags didn't fire because the cars'
ignitions had slipped out of the "on" position wasn't
highlighted.

A third report, delivered in April 2007, notes that a readout
from the vehicle's event data recorder, or black box, showed that
the ignition of the 2005 Cobalt was in "accessory" mode, not
"on," when the car hit a clump of trees.  A 15-year-old front-
seat passenger was killed in the crash, and an 18-year-old
passenger sitting in a back seat later died of her injuries.
None of the occupants wore a seat belt, the report states.

"NHTSA had a team of contractors came out and investigate the
accident about three or four months after the crash," said
Tom Kerns, the father-in-law of the car's driver.  "They dropped
the ball with me and the families of the girls that were killed."
He said he was told to file a complaint on NHTSA's website when
contacting the agency thereafter.

"When Megan [the car's driver] awoke from her three-week coma,
she told me the car shut off; there were no headlights before the
car crashed," Mr. Kerns said.  His attempt to speak with GM
executives was rebuffed.  "I was just one facet of those out
there who tried to get a response and were turned away," Mr.
Kerns said.

According to NHTSA's report on the accident, "It is possible the
ignition switch could have been knocked to the "accessory
position following the crash," the report states.  The same
report takes note of a GM service bulletin warning drivers could
knock the key out of the on position, especially if they had a
heavy key chain. At least six complaints about this were logged
with the NHTSA at the time.

But the report concludes: "It's not known what role, if any, this
may have played in the non-deployment of the air bags."  The air
bag system software may have calculated that the initial impact
was too soft to fire the bags, the investigators wrote.

The report said it wasn't clear to investigators if the air bag
system was designed to work when the key was switched from "on"
to "accessory."  That analysis "was beyond the scope of this
investigation," it continued.

Less than a month before that report was filed, on March 29,
2007, a NHTSA official had asked a group of GM employees about a
different crash involving a 2005 Cobalt in which the air bags
didn't fire, and the ignition was in "accessory" mode.  GM,
according to its chronology, never furnished an explanation and
didn't make any ignition-switch reports in 2008.

GM's legal staff had opened a file on that crash in September
2005, according to a GM chronology.  GM engineers had known since
2004 that there were problems with the Cobalt's ignition switch
assembly, and in 2006 the design of that assembly was changed
without changing the identifying number of the part, according to
GM's chronology. Who authorized that change isn't yet clear.

But at that March 2007 meeting, as yet unnamed GM employees told
the regulators they didn't know about the accident the company's
lawyers had documented.

GM says after that 2007 NHTSA meeting, it assigned an engineer to
track accidents in which Cobalt air bags didn't deploy.  That
review had found 10 such accidents, and according to black box
data from nine of them, GM knew that in four of the crashes the
cars' ignitions were in the accessory position.

Two years later, in May 2009, GM engineers and employees of
sensor supplier Continental AG analyzed electronic readouts from
black boxes obtained from cars involved in 14 front-impact
crashes.  In seven of those cases, the data showed the car was in
the "accessory" mode.

Whether or when GM informed NHTSA about the 2007 and 2009
findings from the analyses of data recorders is unclear.  GM's
publicly disclosed chronology doesn't mention that it shared data
with NHTSA from its post March 2007 investigation, or the May
2009 meeting involving Continental.  The GM chronology reports no
action on the ignition issue in 2008.

NHTSA has suggested in a document that it doesn't have the data
that GM generated in 2007 and 2009.  In a March 4 order, the
agency's chief counsel demanded that GM provide by April 3 all
documents related to the 2007 NHTSA meeting and the 2007 and 2009
analyses of black box data that followed.  Those are among 107
questions that NHTSA posed to GM.

A House Energy and Commerce Committee aide said that GM had
submitted an initial round of documents and was expected to
submit more before the hearing.

"Yes the auto makers submit technical service bulletins to NHTSA
when there is an issue but NHTSA is outmanned and outgunned when
it comes to identifying problems," said Allan Kam who was NHTSA's
senior attorney from 1997 through 2000.  "When you have a stack
of service bulletins but not enough people to sit down and go
through them, it's hard to spot trends and issues."

Transportation Secretary Foxx, in congressional testimony earlier
this month, suggested that agency officials didn't know all of
what GM knew about the problems with ignition switches used on
2005-2007 Chevrolet Cobalts, 2003-2007 Saturn Ions and other
related models.

"It is our belief that had we known there was an issue, that
might have changed the outcome of those initial crash
investigations," Mr. Foxx said.

A GM spokesman said, "We are fully cooperating with NHTSA and we
welcome the opportunity to help the agency have a full
understanding of the facts.  In addition to getting NHTSA the
information they need, we are doing what we can now to ensure our
customers' safety and peace of mind.  We want our customers to
know that today's GM is committed to fixing this problem in a
manner that earns their trust."

On March 25, Senators Edward Markey (D., Mass.) and Richard
Blumenthal (D., Conn.), proposed legislation to require auto
makers to submit accident reports or other records associated
with vehicle fatalities to federal regulators, who would then be
required to automatically make the documents public.

Congress last considered such proposals more than three years ago
when a government regulator linked safety problems with Toyota
Motor Corp. to at least five deaths.  But the effort withered in
Congress.

NHTSA has proposed a total budget of $851 million for the 2015
fiscal year.  Of that, $10.6 million would go to safety defect
investigations -- the same as last year, and about 8% more than
was spent for that activity in 2010.  The largest share of
NHTSA's budget is spent on traffic safety grants to states.

Some lawmakers, and safety groups such as the Center for Auto
Safety, have criticized NHTSA for not spotting the GM ignition
problem sooner.

Sen. Dean Heller (R., Nev.), the top Republican on the Senate
Commerce Committee subcommittee that oversees consumer-safety
issues, said on March 25 he wants to know whether regulators went
easy on General Motors because the U.S. government had taken over
the company to preserve its jobs and prevent its demise.

"I would hate to think that because of the bailout, which I
didn't support, was the reason NHTSA didn't move forward on
this," Mr. Heller said in an interview.  "That's the question
that needs to be answered."

Some lawmakers have suggested it could also be time to give
vehicle safety regulators authority to seek tougher criminal
penalties if auto makers don't supply information in a timely
way.  Toyota in March agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle
criminal fraud charges the Justice Department was prepared to
pursue after gathering evidence that Toyota officials withheld
information about defects related to sudden acceleration.  NHTSA
had already levied its maximum fine in the matter: $66 million.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, (R.-
Mich.) will have an important role.  His committee is
investigating the GM case, and Mr. Upton was a lead author of the
last major piece of auto safety legislation to pass Congress, the
Tread Act.  That was enacted after a scandal over deadly
accidents ultimately linked to defective Firestone tires mounted
on Ford Motor Co. Explorer sport utilities.  The Tread Act
required auto makers to notify NHTSA within five days of
potentially dangerous defects, among other provisions.

"We want to find out who dropped the ball," Mr. Upton said in a
recent interview with radio station WDET in Detroit.


GNC HOLDINGS: Not Required to Pay Hydroxycut Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc., is not required to pay under the current
agreement to settle the consolidated class action suits related
to Hydroxycut, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "As of December 31, 2013, there were 73
pending lawsuits related to Hydroxycut in which we had been
named: 67 individual, largely personal injury claims and six
putative class action cases, generally inclusive of claims of
consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of
warranty.

"The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated pretrial proceedings of many of the pending actions
in the Southern District of California (In re: Hydroxycut
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087). The
parties in the consolidated class actions reached a settlement,
but the Court denied approval of that settlement in October 2013.
The parties have since reached a revised settlement, which
remains subject to Court approval. We are not required to make
any payments under the current settlement agreement.

"In May 2013, the parties to the individual personal injury cases
signed a Master Settlement Agreement, under which we are not
required to make any payments. The Master Settlement Agreement
required the individual plaintiffs to sign and deliver a release
by September 23, 2013. Certain Plaintiffs failed to comply with
this requirement and were afforded additional time to comply by
the Court. On February 10, 2014, the Court entered an order to
show cause compelling the remaining non-compliant plaintiffs to
present evidence as to why their claims should not be dismissed.
Once all of the releases have been signed (or the Court has
dismissed the claims of any remaining non-compliant plaintiffs),
the settlement will be funded and the cases dismissed.

"We currently expect that the dismissals will be entered by the
end of March 2014. Following resolution of the individual
personal injury cases and the settlement of the consolidated
class action suits, all of the Hydroxycut claims currently
pending against us will be resolved without any payment by us."

GNC Holdings, Inc. (GNC) is a holding company. The Company is a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products. The
Company has three segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. Corporate retail store operations are
located in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and in
addition the Company offers products domestically through
GNC.com, LuckyVitamin.com and www.drugstore.com. Franchise stores
are located in the United States and 54 international countries,
including distribution centers where retail sales are made. The
Company operates its primary manufacturing facilities in South
Carolina and distribution centers in Arizona, Pennsylvania and
South Carolina. The Company manufactures the majority of its
branded products, but also merchandises various third-party
products. It sells products through a worldwide network of more
than 8,100 locations operating under the GNC brand name. In
October 2013, the Company acquired A1 Sports Limited.


GNC HOLDINGS: Defendant in 3 Class Suits as of February 14
----------------------------------------------------------
As of February 14, 2014, GNC Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in
three putative class action cases that are in the early stages,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "As of February 14, 2014, we were named in
the following three putative class action cases:

     * Michael Campos, Jennifer Southwick, and others v. USPLabs,
LLC and GNC Corp., United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Case No. 13CV2891 DMS BLM), filed
December 5, 2013

     * Richard Carlson, Brianne Nicole Payne v. USPLabs, LLC and
GNC Corp., United States District Court for the Northern District
of Florida (Case No. 4:13-cv-00627-RH-CAS), filed November 13,
2013

     * Sandeep Barot v. USPLabs, LLC. and General Nutrition
Center Holdings, Inc., United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Case No. 14-cv-00562), filed February 3,
2014

According to the Company: "The proceedings associated with these
cases, which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in
the early stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these
matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. We
are contractually entitled to indemnification by our third-party
vendor with regard to these matters, although our ability to
obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against us is
dependent upon the creditworthiness of our vendor and/or its
insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses
available to its insurer."

GNC Holdings, Inc. (GNC) is a holding company. The Company is a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products. The
Company has three segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. Corporate retail store operations are
located in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and in
addition the Company offers products domestically through
GNC.com, LuckyVitamin.com and www.drugstore.com. Franchise stores
are located in the United States and 54 international countries,
including distribution centers where retail sales are made. The
Company operates its primary manufacturing facilities in South
Carolina and distribution centers in Arizona, Pennsylvania and
South Carolina. The Company manufactures the majority of its
branded products, but also merchandises various third-party
products. It sells products through a worldwide network of more
than 8,100 locations operating under the GNC brand name. In
October 2013, the Company acquired A1 Sports Limited.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Sought in Collusion Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Josh Kosman, writing for New York Post, reports that former
shareholders seeking billions from the most powerful private
equity firms in a bombshell collusion case were expected to seek
class-action status on March 27, The Post has learned.

Massachusetts federal court judge William Young is expected to
rule on the matter within a few months.  If class action status
is granted, pressure on the PE firms to settle will grow and,
sources said, talks on a possible deal could follow.  A November
trial is scheduled.

KKR, Bain Capital, Silver Lake Partners, Blackstone Group,
Carlyle Group, TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs agreed from 2004 to
2008 not to jump one another's signed deals, allowing the firms
to underpay on eight buyouts worth $170 billion, it is alleged.
The firms have denied the accusations and have succeeded in
getting some former charges dismissed.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over False Thermostat Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a class
action was filed on March 26 against Google over its thermostat
advertisements.  The suit says Nest Labs, which was purchased by
Google earlier this year for $3.2 billion, falsely claims its
thermostats reduce energy use, violating California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law, and breaching the product's warranty.

"Defendant's practice of promising energy and cost savings and
then delivering an exorbitantly expensive defective thermostat is
of no benefit to consumers," wrote lawyers at Bursor & Fisher in
a complaint filed in San Francisco federal court.

Its thermostats are silver disks with LCD screens that can be
controlled by a smart phone.  They can be programmed to help
users save up to 20 percent on their electric bills, according to
the company's website.  But the thermostat's bells and whistles
cause it to heat up, so it reads the ambient air temperature as
several degrees too warm, according to the complaint.  The
thermostat therefore keeps the air conditioner running longer
than necessary, inflating the user's electric bill.

Plaintiff attorneys estimate Nest Labs sells about 100,000 Nest
Thermostats per month for about $250 each, according to the
complaint signed by Bursor & Fisher's Annick Persinger --
apersinger@bursor.com

The complaint includes several negative product testimonials from
the Nest Labs website and Amazon.com.

"There seems to be a major design flaw in this product," one user
wrote.  "It fails at the most basic level of thermostat
functionality, which is the measuring of room temperature!"
A Nest Labs representative declined comment via email.  Attorneys
at Bursor & Fisher didn't respond to telephone messages.


GOOGLE INC: Seeks to Discredit Plaintiff Expert in No Poach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that with a
trial date approaching, lawyers in the Silicon Valley "no poach"
class action battled on March 27 to show the other side's expert
witnesses are anything but.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, presiding over the hearing in San
Jose federal court, didn't seem thrilled with witnesses offered
by either side.

"I just don't see a lot of expertise here," she said, adding,
"Both sides are summarizing a lot of the evidence and passing it
off as expert opinion."

Last October, Judge Koh certified a class of some 64,000
employees who claim they were harmed by illegal agreements among
Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc., Intel Corp. and
other technology companies to not recruit each other's employees.
Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar have already settled for a combined
$20 million and a trial for the remaining four defendants is set
for May.

Judge Koh wrapped up the hearing with the promise she would rule
very soon on a motion for summary judgment filed by the defense,
and the Daubert motions filed by both sides. The defense strategy
hinges on discrediting a key plaintiff witness, UCLA economics
and statistics professor Edward Leamer.

In a 120-page report filed in 2012, Mr. Leamer sought to prove
the anti-recruitment agreements among the defendants did, in
fact, suppress employee compensation.  He argued his analysis
also can quantify by how much employee compensation was reduced.
Defense counsel not only contend that Mr. Leamer's research is
flawed and should be discarded, but argue that without Mr.
Leamer, plaintiffs' entire case falls apart.

"Without Dr. Leamer's expert report and testimony, plaintiffs
have no evidence of classwide impact or damages and cannot prove
the essential elements of their antitrust claim," counsel for
Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel wrote in a joint motion for
summary judgment.

Mr. Leamer claims each plaintiff was affected equally by every
agreement that made up a web of alleged antirecruitment pacts, an
assertion which makes no sense, according to O'Melveny & Myers
partner George Riley -- griley@omm.com -- who represents Apple.
An Apple employee could not be affected by an agreement between
Intel and Google, he told Judge Koh.

"There's no rational basis for that at all," Mr. Riley said.  "It
makes no sense."

Judge Koh asked plaintiffs attorneys to answer the questions
raised by the defense, and appeared to listen intently to their
answers.  Arguing for plaintiffs, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein partner Brendan Glackin defended Mr. Leamer.

"He's putting his professional reputation on the line here behind
these statements," Mr. Glackin said.  "He doesn't just earn money
by helping defendants."


GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Conspiracy Claims to Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh ruled on March 28 that plaintiffs have
provided enough evidence to move forward with claims that four of
the nation's largest technology companies conspired to drive down
employee wages through a web of agreements not to recruit each
other's workers.

It should be up to a jury to decide whether that conspiracy
existed, Judge Koh concluded, denying motions for summary
judgment filed in January by Google Inc., Adobe Systems Inc.,
Intel Corp. and Apple Inc.

Judge Koh cited evidence that the companies knew of each other's
agreements, that high-level executives were involved in
establishing and policing the accords, and that defendants shared
confidential information they would otherwise have been expected
to hold close.  That evidence, she wrote, "tends to exclude the
possibility that defendants acted independently."

For instance, Google circulated an email comparing its bonus plan
with those at Apple and Intel, Judge Koh stated.  Intel's former
CEO Paul Otellini, who serves on Google's board of directors,
subsequently shared the same information, according to Judge
Koh's order, saying that he "lifted it from Google."

"A reasonable jury could infer that this confidential information
could be shared safely by competitors only because the anti-
solicitation agreements squelched true competition," Judge Koh
stated.  Google, Adobe, Intel and Apple are accused of brokering
illegal agreements not to recruit each other's employees.  A
trial is set for May.

Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, initially named in the suit, have
settled with plaintiffs for a combined $20 million.  Settlement
talks with the remaining defendants are ongoing, the parties
confirmed at a hearing on March 27.

For the purpose of its summary judgment motion, Google,
represented by Mayer Brown and Keker & Van Nest, conceded it
entered into three separate agreements not to cold-call employees
working for Apple, Intuit and Intel, but argued that each pact
was individual and not part of an industrywide conspiracy.
"Even after extensive discovery, plaintiffs have been forced to
concede that there is no direct evidence to support this
extravagant claim," Mayer Brown attorneys Lee Rubin --
lrubin@mayerbrown.com -- Edward Johnson --
wjohnson@mayerbrown.com -- Donald Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com --
and Anne Selin -- aselin@mayerbrown.com -- stated in Google's
motion for summary judgment.

In their opposition brief, plaintiffs' lawyers called the
position "far-fetched."

"It is no defense that defendants' conspiracy consisted of a
network of unlawful bilateral agreements," wrote attorneys at
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and the Joseph Saveri Law
Firm. "It is well-established that a single conspiracy may be
comprised of -- or implemented through -- individual agreements,
communications or understandings."

Kelly Dermody, a partner with Lieff Cabraser, and Joseph Saveri
both said they look forward to presenting their case to a jury.

"It's just good to reach milestones like this in the case,"
Ms. Dermody said, "and move on to the next thing."

Mr. Rubin directed comments on the March 28 ruling to Google.


HARRY'S FARMERS: Recalls Wild Gulf Amberjack Due to Illness
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harry's Farmers Market is recalling the following Wild Gulf
Amberjack due to five reported customer illnesses. This product
was sold through March 15, 2014 in the fresh seafood case only at
the Harry's Farmers Market 70 Powers Ferry Road SE in Marietta,
GA 30067. The products are:

     Wild Gulf Amberjack fillet
     Wild Gulf Amberjack portion
     Wild Whole Amberjack

The cause of the illness is unknown at this time but an
investigation is ongoing. Customers reporting illness have
experienced itching, diarrhea and vomiting. Anyone experiencing
such symptoms should seek medical attention.

Customers who have purchased this product at the Harry's Farmers
Market in Marietta should discard it and may bring in their
receipt for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact 512-542-0060 Monday to
Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm CDT.


HELADOS LA TAPATIA: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Listeria Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Helados La Tapatia, Inc., of Fresno, California, is voluntarily
recalling all ice cream products, popsicles, fruit bars/cups and
bolis due to a possible health risk from Listeria monocytogenes.
Helados La Tapatia, Inc., is coordinating closely with regulatory
officials.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The products were distributed in Arizona, California, Nevada,
Washington, Guam and Canada in retail stores. The products are
sold under the brand names of Helados La Tapatia and Icesations.
The recall was the result of a routine inspection program by the
U.S. FDA which revealed the presence of the bacteria on certain
food processing equipment. No illnesses have been reported to
date.

A separate UPC Inventory of the products and their UPC codes is
provided.

The production of the products has been suspended while FDA and
the company continue to investigate the source of the problem.
Consumers who have purchased the Helados La Tapatia or Icesations
products are urged to return the products to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-559-441-1105 Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m.-
5:00 p.m. (PDT); Saturday, 9:00a.m.- 5:00p.m. (PDT). After March
20, 2014, a toll free number (1-855-893-1171) will be available.
Consumers can also contact the company at
helatapatia@sbcglobal.net


HJ HEINZ: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit as been filed
against H.J. Heinz after consumers claim it violated state and
federal laws by advertising its white vinegar as  "all natural"
when it was not.  The products, the suit contents, are actually
made with genetically modified corn and are not natural at all.

H.J. Heinz Company markets, advertises and distributes Heinz
Distilled White Vinegar, which it prominently advertises as "all
natural," according to a complaint filed March 17 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Debbie Banafsheha claims Heinz violated California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Heinz deceptively labels its products as "all natural" and by
consistently labeling of the products as "all natural," the
defendant ensured that all consumers purchasing the products
would be exposed to its "all natural" claim, according to the
suit.

Ms. Banafsheha claims food derived from genetically modified
organisms is not natural and Heinz's representations were false,
deceptive, misleading and unfair to consumers, who were injured
in fact by purchasing products that the defendants had claimed
were "all natural."

The defendant's conduct is unfair in that it offends established
public policy and/or is immoral, unethical, oppressive,
unscrupulous and/or substantially injurious to the plaintiff and
class members.

Ms. Banafsheha claims the defendant's actions and practices
constitute "fraudulent" business practices in violation of the
UCL because, among other things, they are likely to deceive
reasonable consumers.

The plaintiff relied on the defendant's representations and
omissions, and, as a direct and proximate result of the
defendant's violations, the plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
lost money because she purchased the products and paid the price
she paid believing them to be all natural when they were not.

Ms. Banafsheha and each member of the class formed a contract
with the defendant at the time the plaintiff and the other
members of the class purchased one or more of the products.  Ms.
Banafsheha claims the defendant breached the terms of its
contract, including the express warranties, with the plaintiff
and the class by not providing the product that could provide the
benefits promised.  As a result of Heinz's breach of its
contract, the plaintiff and the class have been damaged in the
amount of the purchase price of any and all of the products they
purchased, according to the suit.

Ms. Banafsheha is seeking for this action to be certified as a
proper class action, certifying the class as requested and
designating her as class representative and her counsel as class
counsel; and actual and punitive damages with pre- and post-
judgment interest.  She is being represented by Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Robert Ahdoot --
RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Theodore W. Maya --
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- and Bradley K. King --
bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson.

The case has been assigned to District Judge John F. Walter.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number: 2:14-cv-02023


ICE LA TAPATIA: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Listeria Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Ice La Tapatia, Inc. of Fresno, California, is recalling all
products from ice cream, popsicles, fruit bars / fruit cups and
pens because of a possible risk to health of Listeria
monocytogenes . Ice La Tapatia, Inc., is coordinating closely
with regulatory officials.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in infants, young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although
healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages in
pregnant women.

The products were distributed in Arizona, California, Nevada,
Washington, Guam and Canada retail stores a1. The products are
sold under the trade names and Ice La Tapatia Icesations. No
illnesses have been reported to date. The remove was the result
of a program of routine inspection by the FDA revealed the
presence of bacteria in certain food processing equipment.
One UPC separate inventory of products and their UPC codes are
provided.

The recall product has been suspended while FDA and the company
continue to investigate the source of the problem. It urges
consumers who have purchased the Ice La Tapatia or Icesations
products regrezen products to the place of purchase for a full
refund.


IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Bed Canopies Over Strangulation Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced
a voluntary recall of about 255,000 in the United States, 7,000
in Canada and 2.6 million worldwide Bed Canopies. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

An infant or young child can get entangled at the neck in the
canopy's fabric, posing a strangulation hazard.

There have been nine reports worldwide of children getting
entangled in the bed canopies, including one in the U.S.
involving a 7-month-old girl who pulled the canopy's fabric into
her crib and wrapped it around her neck several times.

The recall involves IKEA children's bed canopies. The canopies
are made out of mesh fabric and hang from the ceiling onto a
child's crib or bed. They measure about 7 ft. long and about 2
ft. in diameter. The canopy's name is printed on the washing
instructions label sewn onto the bottom of the fabric.

   Canopy Name        Article Number     Description
   -----------        --------------     -----------
BARNSLIG Boll         201.078.30         Red pointed canopy
                                         top with white mesh
                                         fabric

FABLER                201.308.78         White pointed canopy
                                         top with multicolored
                                         dots and upside-down
                                         triangles sewn on the
                                         white mesh fabric

HIMMEL-Blue           901.376.40         Blue pointed canopy top
                                         with blue mesh fabric

HIMMEL-Blue/White     201.758.38         Blue pointed canopy top
                                         with white mesh fabric
                                         and white clouds

HIMMEL-Green          701.376.41         Green pointed canopy top
                                         with green leaves and
                                         green mesh fabric

HIMMEL-Pink           101.376.39         Pink pointed canopy top
                                         with pink mesh fabric

KLAMMIG               928.165.95         Yellow canopy attached
                                         to a stand which is
                                         clamped to the frame of
                                         a crib.

LEGENDARISK           600.506.81         White canopy with golden
                                         ribbon at the top and
                                         crowns printed on sheer
                                         white fabric

MINNEN
Bed Canopy Set        900.877.58         White canopy with golden
                                         swirl decorations
                                         printed on the edge of
                                         the fabric

MINNEN Brodyr         501.076.78         White pointed canopy top
                                         with green leaf
                                         decorations sewn on the
                                         sheer white fabric

TISSLA                902.367.15         Light pink pointed
                                         canopy with pink lace
                                         and sequins sewn on the
                                         sheer light pink fabric


The recalled products were manufactured in Czech Republic,
Estonia, Lithuania and Vietnam and sold online at www.ikea-
usa.com from August 1996 through March 2014 for between $10 and
$30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled children's
bed canopies and return them to any IKEA store for a full refund.


IKO INDUSTRIES: Select Board Mulls Shingles Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Hayden James, writing for Monadnock Ledger-Transcript, reports
that the Select Board met on March 24 and spoke with Bill
Goodwin, a library trustee, about the state of the library roof
and possible involvement in a class action lawsuit already taking
place against a shingle manufacturer.

According to Mr. Goodwin, IKO Industries made the shingles, which
were used in work done to the roof in 2000 and are already
showing significant signs of decay.  Mr. Goodwin and the board
were not sure how to become involved in the lawsuit, but said
they would be looking into it.

During the discussion, members of the board and Mr. Goodwin
exchanged ideas about what could be done to discover the full
extent of damages to the roof.

At Town Meeting, voters okayed $30,000 for a new library roof and
chimney repairs, but Mr. Goodwin said he didn't want to do
anything too time consuming or invasive before knowing the full
extent of the problem.  His suggestion was to spot-cut the roof
in areas to determine if the membrane is still intact, and to see
if the material beneath it had been exposed to moisture causing
rot.

At this time, Mr. Goodwin said he believes that nothing will need
to be done to the membrane.  The best option he added would be to
look at the roof from the top down to determine if moisture had
gotten beneath the shingles and caused ice damming during the
winter.

"The roof was put on in 2000, and it's showing fairly serious
curling and cracking," said Mr. Goodwin.  "We haven't experienced
any water damage so far, but we want to be sure that we get
things replaced before anything does happen."

"Basically we need to determine, with more investigative work, if
the problems are short-term or long-term," he added.

Select Board Chair Sterling Abrams asked that Mr. Goodwin return
to the board with an update on the status of the roof in about
two months, when the snow has melted.  The board moved on to sign
the official documents for the new tanker truck at the Fire
Department, which was approved by voters at Town Meeting for a
cost of up to $375,000.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Insurer Paid $9.5MM Settlement in Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on December 4, 2013, approved the settlement of a
putative securities fraud class action lawsuit and Internap
Network Services Corporation's insurance carrier paid $9.5
million to stockholders in the class, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2013.

On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against us and our former chief executive
officer in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and Stephen
Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P.
DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF. On August 5, 2013,
the parties entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.
The court approved the settlement on December 4, 2013. As part of
the settlement, the insurance carrier paid $9.5 million to
stockholders in the class. The settlement required no direct
payment by us. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we
recorded $9.5 million as litigation expense, net of $9.5 million
insurance recovery, in "Other, net" in the consolidated statement
of operations and comprehensive loss, resulting in no impact to
our financial condition or results of operations. The payment and
recovery were settled during the year ended December 31, 2013.

Internap Network Services Corporation (Internap) provides
intelligent information technology (IT) Infrastructure services
that combine performance and platform flexibility. The Company
operates in Data Center Services Segment and IP Services Segment.
The Company offers a range of services spanning colocation,
hosting and cloud services. The Company offers two types of
hosting solutions: Agile hosting and custom hosting offerings,
both of which the Company delivers from within its data centers
utilizing its high-performance network. The Company engineers its
Agile hosting offering for customers seeking speed of deployment,
scalability, on-demand usage and self-provisioning capability.
These solutions are application programming interface (API)
driven and are used for supporting rapid scale-out applications.
Effective November 27, 2013, Internap Network Services Corp
acquired iWeb Group Inc.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: $36-Mil Settlement Hearing on June 23
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court has scheduled a hearing on June 23, 2014, to
consider final approval of the $36.0 million settlement agreement
which relates to the combination of the Company, which at the
time was named Safety Components International, Inc., and a
company formerly known as International Textile Group, Inc.,
according to International Textile's Form 8-K dated filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2014.

International Textile Group, Inc. is a party, as a nominal
defendant only, to a consolidated class action lawsuit and
related derivative action (together, the "Consolidated Action"),
which consolidated three factually identical lawsuits filed in
2008 and 2009 under the caption In re International Textile
Group, Inc. Merger Litigation, pending in the Court of Common
Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina (the "Court"), C.A. No.
2009-CP-23-3346. The Consolidated Action relates to the
combination of the Company, which at the time was named Safety
Components International, Inc., and a company formerly known as
International Textile Group, Inc. ("Former ITG"), which occurred
in late 2006 (the "Merger"). The Consolidated Action names as
defendants, among others, certain individuals who were officers
and directors, and certain stockholders, of Former ITG or the
Company at the time of, and an entity which was an independent
financial advisor to the Company in connection with, the Merger
(the "Non-Company Defendants"). The plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Class Action contend that certain of the Non-Company
Defendants breached certain fiduciary duties, and have also made
related claims, in connection with the Merger.

On February 19, 2014, the Company, as a nominal defendant, the
plaintiffs and the Non-Company Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement relating to the Consolidated
Action. The Settlement Agreement, which was preliminarily
approved by the Court on February 19, 2014 and remains subject to
the final approval of the Court, provides, among other things,
that in settlement of the Consolidated Action, (i) certain of the
Non-Company Defendants will make an aggregate $36.0 million cash
payment thereunder (the "Cash Settlement"), which includes a
$16.0 million cash payment from the independent financial advisor
and its insurers and a $20.0 million cash payment from other Non-
Company Defendants and their insurers, (ii) $21.9 million in
principal and accrued interest of the Company's senior
subordinated notes (which are designated as "senior subordinated
notes -- related party" on the Company's balance sheets and have
a maturity date of June 6, 2015), held by certain affiliates of
the Company (the "Affiliates"), will be cancelled, together with
all additional interest that accrues on such notes from December
31, 2013 through the effective date of the Settlement Agreement
(collectively, the "Cancelled Notes"), and (iii) 10,315,727
shares of the Company's Series A convertible preferred stock (the
"Series A Preferred Stock"), having a liquidation value of $257.9
million as of December 31, 2013, and 11,488 shares of the
Company's Series C preferred stock (the "Series C Preferred
Stock"), having a liquidation value of $11.5 million as of
December 31, 2013, in each case together with any additional
shares of Series A Preferred Stock and Series C Preferred Stock
that accrue with respect to such shares through the effective
date of the Settlement Agreement (collectively, the "Cancelled
Preferred Stock"), all of which are held by the Affiliates, will
be cancelled on the effective date of the Settlement Agreement.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had a total of $163.5
million in aggregate principal and accrued interest of senior
subordinated notes outstanding, and had outstanding shares of
Series A Preferred Stock with an aggregate liquidation value of
approximately $337.0 million, and of Series C Preferred Stock
with an aggregate liquidation value of approximately $126.0
million.

If the Settlement Agreement receives final approval by the Court,
the Cancelled Notes and the Cancelled Preferred Stock will be
cancelled, and the Company's respective obligations, and the
Affiliates' respective rights, thereunder will be terminated,
effective as of December 31, 2013. The Company expects that when
such cancellations take effect following final approval of the
Settlement Agreement, they will not have an impact on the
Company's consolidated statements of operations but will have an
impact on its consolidated balance sheet by reducing the
Company's long-term debt and stockholders' deficit, by the amount
of the Cancelled Notes, and by reducing the aggregate liquidation
value of the Series A Preferred Stock and the Series C Preferred
Stock by the respective values of the Cancelled Preferred Stock.
The Company cannot determine the amount of cash, if any, from the
Cash Settlement that may be available for use by the Company
after such funds are applied in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement to pay fees and expenses of various legal and other
advisors in connection with the Consolidated Action.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
Company expects that the claims administrator will soon commence
distribution of the required notices relating to the proposed
settlement of the Consolidated Action. The Court has scheduled a
hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement Agreement on
June 23, 2014, and the Company anticipates that, if approved, the
Settlement Agreement would take effect in the third quarter of
2014.

International Textile Group, Inc. (ITG) is a diversified textile
manufacturer. The Company has operations principally in the
United States, China, and Mexico. The Company's segments include
bottom-weight woven fabrics, commission finishing, narrow fabrics
and all other. The Company is a diversified producer of denim
fabrics and the better denim fabrics for products distributed
through department stores and specialty retailers. The Company is
a wool manufacturers and commission printers and finishers in
North America, and is a developer, marketer and manufacturer of
other fabrics and textile products. In September 2011, the
Company acquired the remaining 49% interest in Cone Denim
(Jiaxing) Limited. On March 31, 2011, the Company sold certain
assets related to its jacquard fabrics business. The Company's
manufacturing complex in Vietnam was idled in January 2012.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder ERISA Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
shareholder purported class action is pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company is responding to a consolidated shareholder purported
class action, a consolidated purported class action brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and shareholder
derivative actions that have been filed in New York state court
and the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, as well as shareholder demands and government
investigations, relating to losses in the synthetic credit
portfolio managed by the Company's Chief Investment Office
("CIO"). The Company continues to cooperate with ongoing
government investigations, including by the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the
State of Massachusetts. The purported class actions and
shareholder derivative actions are in early stages with
defendants' motions to dismiss pending.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defendant in 9 Federal Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., said in its Form 10-K filed on February 20,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the Company is a
defendant in nine purported class actions (all consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York) filed on behalf of purchasers and sellers of CDS and
asserting federal antitrust law claims. Each of the complaints
refers to the ongoing investigations by the EC and DOJ into the
CDS market, and alleges that the defendant investment banks and
dealers, including the Company, as well as Markit and/or ISDA,
collectively prevented new entrants into the CDS market, in order
to artificially inflate the defendants' OTC revenues.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defends Forex Manipulation Suits Since Nov. 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., said in its Form 10-K filed on February 20,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that since November 2013, a
number of class actions have been filed in the United Stated
District Court for the Southern District of New York against a
number of foreign exchange dealers, including the Company, for
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and unjust
enrichment based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign
exchange rates reported on the WM/Reuters service.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: $6.05BB Accord in Bank Fee Suit Okayed in Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., reports that in December 2013, the Court
approved the $6.05 billion cash settlement to class plaintiffs in
complaints alleging, among other things, conspiracy to set the
price of credit and debit card interchange fees, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints relating to interchange in several
federal courts. The complaints alleged that Visa and MasterCard,
as well as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit
and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in
violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and
exclusive dealing. All cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
pretrial proceedings.

The parties have entered into an agreement to settle those cases,
for a cash payment of $6.05 billion to the class plaintiffs (of
which the Company's share is approximately 20%) and an amount
equal to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period
of eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the
end of the opt-out period. The agreement also provides for
modifications to each credit card network's rules, including
those that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions. The
rule modifications became effective in January 2013. In December
2013, the Court issued a decision granting final approval of the
settlement. A number of merchants have filed notices of appeal.
Certain merchants that opted out of the class settlement have
filed actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the
Company and other banks.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defendant in Currency Manipulation Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., is one of the defendants in a series of
class actions alleging that it submitted artificially low or high
currency rates, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant along with other banks
in a series of individual and class actions filed in various
United States District Courts in which plaintiffs make varying
allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later,
defendants either individually or collectively manipulated the
U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR rates by
submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs
allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other
financial instruments whose values are impacted by changes in
U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, or Euroyen TIBOR and assert a
variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble
damages.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related purported class actions have been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2013, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions
to dismiss the claims, including dismissal with prejudice of the
antitrust claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. In
September 2013, certain plaintiffs filed amended complaints and
others sought leave to amend their complaints to add additional
allegations. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended
complaints and have opposed the requests to amend. Those motions
remain pending.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of plaintiffs who
purchased or sold exchange-traded Euroyen futures and options
contracts. The action alleges manipulation of Yen LIBOR.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Paid $218-Mil Settlement to Madoff Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., has agreed to pay $218 million to the
Madoff class action plaintiffs, as well as attorneys' fees, in
exchange for a release of all damages claims relating to BLMIS,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

In January 2014, certain of the Company's bank subsidiaries
entered into settlements with various governmental agencies in
resolution of investigations relating to Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS"). The Company and certain of
its subsidiaries also entered into settlements with several
private parties in resolution of civil litigation relating to
BLMIS.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. entered into a Deferred Prosecution
Agreement (the "DPA") with the United States Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York (the "U.S. Attorney") in
which it agreed to forfeit $1.7 billion to the United States as a
non-tax-deductible payment. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. also
consented, subject to the terms and conditions of the DPA, to the
filing by the U.S. Attorney of an Information charging the bank
with failure to maintain an adequate anti-money laundering
program, and a failure to file a suspicious activity report in
the United States in October 2008 with respect to BLMIS, in
violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. Pursuant to the DPA, the U.S.
Attorney will defer any prosecution of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
for a two-year period and will dismiss the Information with
prejudice at the end of that time if the bank is in compliance
with its obligations under the DPA. The DPA has been approved by
the court.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, N.A.
and Chase Bank USA, N.A., have also consented to the assessment
of a $350 million Civil Money Penalty by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") in connection with various
Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering deficiencies, including in
relation to the BLMIS fraud. In addition, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. has agreed to the assessment of a $461 million Civil Money
Penalty by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN")
for failure to detect and adequately report suspicious
transactions relating to BLMIS. The FinCEN penalty, but not the
OCC penalty, has been deemed satisfied by the forfeiture payment
to the U.S. Attorney.

Additionally, the Company and certain subsidiaries, including
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., have agreed to enter into settlements
with the court-appointed trustee for BLMIS (the "Trustee") and
with plaintiffs representing a class of former BLMIS customers
who lost all or a portion of their principal investments with
BLMIS. As part of these settlements, the Company and the bank
have agreed to pay the Trustee a total of $325 million.

Separately, the Company and the bank have agreed to pay the class
action plaintiffs $218 million, as well as attorneys' fees, in
exchange for a release of all damages claims relating to BLMIS.
The settlements with the Trustee and the class action plaintiffs
are subject to court approval. BLMIS customers who did not suffer
losses on their principal investments are not eligible to
participate in the class action settlement, and certain customers
in that category have stated that they intend to pursue claims
against the Company.

Also, various subsidiaries of the Company, including J.P. Morgan
Securities plc, have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed
in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising out of the liquidation
proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma
Limited (together, "Fairfield"), so-called Madoff feeder funds.
These actions seek to recover payments made by the funds to
defendants totaling approximately $155 million. Pursuant to an
agreement with the Trustee, the liquidators of Fairfield have
voluntarily dismissed their action against J.P. Morgan Securities
plc without prejudice to re-filing. The other actions remain
outstanding.

In addition, a purported class action was brought by investors in
certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a
motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims
against the Company and certain subsidiaries to an already
pending purported class action in the same court. The allegations
in these complaints largely track those raised by the Trustee.
The Court dismissed these complaints and plaintiffs have
appealed. In September 2013, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
The plaintiffs have petitioned the entire Court for a rehearing
of the appeal and the Court has deferred decision pending a
ruling by the United States Supreme Court on a potentially
related issue.

The Company is a defendant in five other Madoff-related investor
actions pending in New York state court. The allegations in all
of these actions are essentially identical, and involve claims
against the Company for, among other things, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. The
Company has moved to dismiss these actions.

Additionally, a shareholder derivative action has been filed in
New York state court against the Company, as nominal defendant,
and certain of its current and former Board members, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty for failure to maintain effective
internal controls to detect fraudulent transactions.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Subsidiary Named as Defendant in MF Global Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s subsidiary, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC has
been named as one the defendants in a number of purported class
actions alleging that the offering documents contained materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding MF
Global, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February
20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company has responded to inquiries from the CFTC relating to
the Company's banking and other business relationships with MF
Global, including as a depository for MF Global's customer
segregated accounts.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC has been named as one of several
defendants in a number of purported class actions filed by
purchasers of MF Global's publicly traded securities asserting
violations of federal securities laws and alleging that the
offering documents contained materially false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding MF Global. The actions have
been consolidated before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Discovery is ongoing.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment. Effective January 7,
2014, JPMorgan Chase & Co acquired an undisclosed minority stake
in Chi-X Global Holdings LLC. In March 2014, Aurora Oil & Gas Ltd
announced that JPMorgan Chase & Co and its affiliates has ceased
to be substantial shareholder of Aurora Oil & Gas. In March 2014,
Slater & Gordon Ltd announced that JPMorgan Chase & Co and its
affiliates has ceased to be substantial shareholder of the
Company.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defendant in MBS Purchasers Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is named as one of the defendants in a
number of purported class action suits on behalf of purchasers of
mortgage-backed securities, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

JPMorgan Chase and affiliates (together, "JPMC"), Bear Stearns
and affiliates (together, "Bear Stearns") and Washington Mutual
affiliates (together, "Washington Mutual") have been named as
defendants in a number of cases in their various roles in
offerings of mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"). These cases
include purported class action suits on behalf of MBS purchasers,
actions by individual MBS purchasers and actions by monoline
insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and
interest for particular tranches of MBS offerings. There are
currently pending and tolled investor and monoline insurer claims
involving MBS with an original principal balance of approximately
$74 billion, of which $67 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or
Washington Mutual as issuer and $7 billion involves JPMC, Bear
Stearns or Washington Mutual solely as underwriter. The Company
and certain of its current and former officers and Board members
have also been sued in shareholder derivative actions relating to
the Company's MBS activities, and trustees have asserted or have
threatened to assert claims that loans in securitization trusts
should be repurchased.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in MBS Offering Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a defendant in three purported class
actions brought against JPMC and Bear Stearns as issuers of
mortgage-backed securities (and, in some cases, also as
underwriters of their own MBS offerings) in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New
York.  The Company has reached an agreement in principle to
settle one of these purported class actions, pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  Motions to dismiss have largely been denied in the
remaining two cases pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, which are in various
stages of litigation.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Facing Suit Over Mortgage Foreclosure Protocol
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

The Attorney General of Massachusetts filed an action against the
Company, other servicers and a mortgage recording company,
asserting claims for various alleged wrongdoings relating to
mortgage assignments and use of the industry's electronic
mortgage registry. The court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the action, which remains
pending.

The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures. The
plaintiffs have moved for class certification.

Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed in New York
Supreme Court against the Company's Board of Directors alleging
that the Board failed to exercise adequate oversight as to
wrongful conduct by the Company regarding mortgage servicing.
These actions seek declaratory relief and damages. In October
2012, the Court consolidated the actions and stayed all
proceedings pending the plaintiffs' decision whether to file a
consolidated complaint after the Company completes its response
to a demand submitted by one of the plaintiffs under Section 220
of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

In February 2014, the Company entered into a settlement with the
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York, the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"), the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and
the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") resolving
claims relating to the Company's participation in federal
mortgage insurance programs overseen by FHA, HUD and VA. Under
the settlement, JPMorgan Chase will pay $614 million and agree to
enhance its quality control program for loans that are submitted
in the future to FHA's Direct Endorsement Lender program. This
settlement releases the Company from False Claims Act, FIRREA and
other civil and administrative liability for FHA and VA insurance
claims that have been paid to JPMorgan Chase since 2002 through
the date of the settlement.

The Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York is conducting an investigation
concerning the Company's compliance with the Fair Housing Act
("FHA") and Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") in connection
with its mortgage lending practices. In addition, two
municipalities are pursuing investigations into the impact, if
any, of alleged violations of the FHA and ECOA on their
respective communities. The Company is cooperating in these
investigations.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase) is a financial holding
company. The Company is engaged in investment banking, financial
services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management and private
equity. One of the Company's principal operating subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom is J.P. Morgan Securities plc. JPMorgan
Chase's activities are organized into four business segments, as
well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Company's consumer business
is the Consumer & Community Banking segment.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Denied Employees' Bid for Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on January 7, 2014, denied the motion for class
certification of a putative class action complaint alleging that
certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock are subject to
vesting requirements under the ERISA, as amended, according to
Marriott International, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on February 20,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott
employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action
complaint against us and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"),
alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock
granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees
for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances
more rapid than those set forth in the awards. The plaintiffs
seek damages, class attorneys' fees and interest, with no amounts
specified. The action is proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division) and
Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman are the current
named plaintiffs. The parties completed limited discovery
concerning Marriott's defense of statute of limitations with
respect to Mr. Bond and Mr. Steigman and completed discovery
concerning class certification. We opposed plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and sought summary judgment on the issue of
statute of limitations in 2012. On August 9, 2013, the court
denied our motion for summary judgment on the issue of statute of
limitations and deferred its ruling on class certification. We
moved to amend the court's judgment on our motion for summary
judgment in order to certify an interlocutory appeal, which was
denied. On January 7, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, and issued a Scheduling Order for full
discovery of the remaining issues in this case."

"We and the Stock Plan have denied all liability, and while we
intend to vigorously defend against the claims being made by the
plaintiffs, we can give you no assurance about the outcome of
this lawsuit. We currently cannot estimate the range of any
possible loss to the Company because an amount of damages is not
claimed, there is uncertainty as to the number of parties for
whom the claims may be pursued, and the possibility of our
prevailing on our statute of limitations defense on appeal may
significantly limit any claims for damages."

Marriott International, Inc., is a diversified hospitality
company. It is a lodging company with more than 3,700 properties
in 73 countries and territories. It operates and franchises
hotels, including Marriott, The Ritz-Carlton, JW Marriott,
Bulgari, EDITION, Renaissance, Autograph Collection, AC Hotels by
Marriott, Courtyard, Fairfield Inn & Suites, SpringHill Suites,
Residence Inn, TownePlace Suites, ExecuStay, and Marriott
Executive Apartments brand names. It operates in four segments:
North American Full-Service Lodging, which includes the Marriott
Hotels & Resorts; North American Limited-Service Lodging, which
includes the Courtyard; International Lodging, which includes the
Marriott Hotels & Resorts, and Luxury Lodging, which includes The
Ritz-Carlton.


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff on January 16, 2014, filed a consolidated and
amended complaint against Maxwell Technologies, Inc., alleging
that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding
its financial performance, which slightly adjusted the class
period to April 29, 2011 to March 19, 2013, and removed a former
officer as a defendant, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers. These
actions were entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013),
Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686
(S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April
11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No.
13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013).  The complaints
alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding its financial performance and business prospects and
overstated the Company's reported revenue. The complaints purport
to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints seek
unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions
to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead
plaintiff and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a written
order consolidating the case under the heading In re Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16, 2014,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint
which slightly adjusted the class period to April 29, 2011 to
March 19, 2013, and removed a former officer as a defendant.

At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether
there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred
nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the
Company has not accrued an amount for any potential loss
associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a
material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of
operation.

Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (Maxwell) develops, manufactures and
markets energy storage and power delivery products for
transportation, industrial, information technology and other
applications and microelectronic products for space and satellite
applications. The Company focuses on three lines of products:
Ultracapacitors, High-Voltage Capacitors and Radiation-Mitigated
Microelectronic Products. Its ultracapacitor products provide
energy storage and power delivery solutions for applications in
multiple industries, including transportation, automotive,
information technology, renewable energy and industrial
electronics. Its CONDIS high-voltage capacitors are designed and
manufactured to perform reliably for decades in all climates. Its
radiation-hardened microelectronic products for satellites and
spacecraft include single board computers and components, such as
high-density memory and power modules.


MINGA TRADE: Recalls 135 Wooden Flipping Acrobat Toys
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Minga Trade, of Lake Geneva, Wis., announced a voluntary recall
of about 135 Wooden flipping acrobat toys.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The paint on the wooden flipping acrobat toys contains excessive
levels of lead, which is prohibited under federal law.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall flipping acrobat toys are made of painted wood and are
8.5 inches tall. The toys consist of two rectangular wooden
sticks connected by a wood crosspiece near one end and a coyote,
super hero, woodpecker or yellow bird wooden cartoon character
suspended by nylon string at the other end.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/QRL6yK

The recalled products were manufactured in Peru and sold at
Independent children's stores and gift shops nationwide from
September 2008 through May 2013 for about $6.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled flipping acrobat
toys away from children and return them to Minga Fair Trade
Imports for a full refund or credit towards a replacement
product.


NEW JERSEY: Lawyers Say Christie Has No Role in Lane Closings
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the firm N.J. Gov. Chris Christie
tasked with investigating his administration's possible
complicity in the Bridgegate scandal, issued a 360-page report on
March 27 that cleared the governor's office and laid blame
squarely on a former aide and a Port Authority staffer.

At a press conference at the firm's New York offices, partner
Randy Mastro said Gov. Christie had "no knowledge beforehand" of
the plan to close access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in
Fort Lee last September and "played no role whatsoever" in
executing that plan.

The plan was hatched by Port Authority staffer David Wildstein
and carried out with the help of the governor's deputy chief of
staff, Bridget Kelly, Mastro said.  He called the ulterior motive
unclear but said the scheme was a product of "bizarre personal or
political animus" against Fort Lee by Mr. Wildstein.

Other key figures, former Port Authority Deputy Executive
Director Bill Baroni and former Christie campaign manager Bill
Stepien, came out relatively unscathed.  The report found they
knew in advance about the lane closures but apparently believed
them to be related to a legitimate traffic study.

Mr. Mastro deflected suggestions that he might have been biased
in his investigation because of his former close relationship
with New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Christie ally.

"It serves no one's best interest . . . certainly not mine or my
law firm's interest . . . to have done anything other than to try
to get to the truth here," Mr. Mastro said, referring to himself
as a "proud Democrat" and "fiercely independent."

"Our law firm was retained by the Office of the Governor . . . a
public office, and we have an obligation to that public office,"
Mr. Mastro added, claiming he'd be obligated to report any
evidence averse to Gov. Christie, whom he met for the first time
when the firm was retained.

The 10-week probe, conducted by Mr. Mastro and four other former
federal prosecutors at Gibson Dunn -- Reed Brodsky, Alexander H.
Southwell, Debra Wong Yang and Avi Weitzman -- included
interviews of 70 people, including the governor.

Not interviewed were Mr. Wildstein, Ms. Kelly, Mr. Stepien or
David Samson, Port Authority chairman and partner at Wolff &
Samson in West Orange.  The first three have invoked their Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Samson declined
to be interviewed, Mr. Mastro said.

Speculation that the closures were ordered as political
retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat who
declined to endorse Gov. Christie in the November 2013
gubernatorial race, was not borne out by the evidence, the report
said.  It found Gov. Christie's office was aware beginning in
March 2013 that no endorsement would be forthcoming, but Mr.
Sokolich maintained a good relationship with the administration
and remained under Gov. Christie's consideration for an honorary
appointment.

The firm said Mr. Wildstein apparently had a vendetta against
Fort Lee -- possibly stemming from perceived special treatment
because of its local access to the bridge -- and raised that
issue as far back as 2010.  In August 2013, Mr. Wildstein began
communicating with Kelly about the proposed closures, which he
ultimately ordered -- without notice to Fort Lee and despite
internal Port Authority emails warning they would yield a traffic
nightmare, according to the report.

During the closures and afterwards, Ms. Kelly and Mr. Wildstein
continued to communicate in messages that have become well-known
since their public exposure in January, including Ms. Kelly's
response of "Good" when told that Sokolich was fuming over the
traffic, the report stated.

The firm found that they also attempted to cover their tracks
-- Mr. Wildstein, by insisting to Gov. Christie staffers that a
legitimate traffic study was conducted, with Ms. Kelly's and
others' knowledge, and ultimately resigning in December; and
Kelly, by lying about her involvement and attempting to have at
least one damning email message deleted.

The firm said Gov. Christie, for his part, demanded answers about
the lane-closure debacle from his entire staff, including
Ms. Kelly, who didn't step forward and also lied about her
involvement under questioning by Chief of Staff Kevin O'Dowd.
Gov. Christie fired her and cut ties with Mr. Stepien after the
communiques became public on Jan. 8.

Gov. Christie also didn't recall a supposed conversation with
Mr. Wildstein about the lane closures during a 9/11 memorial
event, according to the report.

The report also addressed Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer's allegations
of a Christie administration conspiracy to coerce her into
advancing a stalled real estate project pursued by the
Rockefeller Group, a private developer, in exchange for Hurricane
Sandy aid. Zimmer claimed that high-ranking officials, including
Lieut. Gov. Kimberly Guadagno, conveyed the quid pro quo as a
"direct message" from Gov. Christie.

The firm said Zimmer's allegations are demonstrably false in
material respects and contradicted by other accounts, including
her own prior statements.  On Jan. 11, a week before first making
her allegations, she told the press that, while disappointed with
Hoboken's Sandy aid, "I don't think it was retaliation and I
don't have any reason to think it's retaliation," the report
noted.

The firm discredited the handwritten notebook that Zimmer offered
as corroboration for her account, noting that it was, by her own
admission, written a few days after the events it purported to
chronicle and that "its most inflammatory statements appear to
have been added even later, written across the top and down the
side of pages."

The firm said its investigation found that the conspiracy alleged
by Zimmer could not have been effectuated, in view of the
Christie administration's "objective and transparent" and
formula-driven process for allocating Sandy aid, which is subject
to federal oversight.  "In other words, the threats that Mayor
Zimmer has alleged were neither carried out, nor could they have
been," the firm concluded.

The report also made numerous recommended changes, including
appointments of a chief ethics officer and an ombudsman in the
governor's office, and commission of a bi-state study of the Port
Authority.

Mr. Stepien's lawyer, Kevin Marino of Marino, Tortorella & Boyle
in Chatham, says the report "confirms" his client's lack of
involvement in the stunt.

"I'm left with a single question: why did the governor sever ties
with Bill Stepien?" Mr. Marino said, adding that Christie and his
advisors "ought to have the courage to step forward now . . . and
say 'we made a mistake.'"

Mr. Wildstein's lawyer, Alan Zegas of Chatham, didn't return a
call.

Neither did Baroni or Kelly's lawyer, Michael Critchley of
Critchley, Kinum & Vazquez in Roseland.

Gov. Christie's office, in a release, highlighted parts of the
report, but spokesman Michael Drewniak didn't respond to an email
seeking comment.


NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 990,000 Cars & Sport Utility Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bennett, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Nissan Motor Co. said on March 26 it is recalling about 990,000
cars and sport-utility vehicles sold in the U.S. to repair faulty
air-bag software that could cause the safety devices not to work
in a crash.

In some cases, software may incorrectly classify an occupied
passenger seat as empty, thereby deactivating the air bags which
could result in injuries, the company said in a notification
letter sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Nissan will notify customers who can begin taking
their cars into dealerships for repairs some time after mid-
April.

The auto maker said it first spotted the problem in February 2013
and issued a fix.

Nissan's move comes in the wake of lawmaker and regulator anger
over General Motors Co.'s admitted mishandling of its faulty-
ignition-switch recall. The auto maker recalled 1.6 million
vehicles --.3 million in the U.S. -- in February after finding
that the switch could move from the "on" position to "accessory"
position thereby cutting power to the steering, brakes and air
bags in Chevrolet Cobalts and other models.  The problem was
first discovered in 2004 but the auto maker never acted.  Twelve
deaths have been linked to the problem.

Toyota Motor Co. and the Justice Department agreed on a $1.2-
billion settlement to close a criminal probe into whether the
auto maker handled cases of sudden acceleration properly.

Nissan's recall covers mostly 2013 and 2014 Infinity, Pathfinder,
Leaf, Altima and Sentra models.  The auto maker said it first
spotted the problem in February 2013 and issued a fix.  The
problem reappeared in June through September, with the auto maker
monitoring the issue to see if there was a trend.  NHTSA also
contacted Nissan with several complaints about the sensor.
Nissan continued to investigate until it determined that a safety
defect did exist, leading to the recall notice.


NVR INC: Jury Ruled Against Plaintiff in Overtime Wage Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in the trial on the so-called Tracy case, alleging that
the Company incorrectly classified its sales and marketing
representatives as being exempt from overtime wages, ruled on
October 23, 2013, in favor of NVR, Inc., that the plaintiff was
an exempt outside salesman, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against us in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court in
Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that we incorrectly classified our
sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from overtime
wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit
filed on October 29, 2004 by another former employee in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
captioned Tracy v. NVR, Inc. The lawsuits filed in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been
stayed pending further developments in the Tracy action.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other
fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages. While
the suits were filed as purported class actions, none of them
have been certified as such.

On April 29, 2013, the Western District of New York ruled that
the claims asserted in the Tracy case were not appropriate for
class action treatment and dismissed a number of individuals who
had filed consents to join that action from the case. The trial
on the remaining individual plaintiff's claims was held in
October 2013. On October 23, 2013, the jury in that trial ruled
in our favor that the plaintiff was an exempt outside salesman.

NVR, Inc. (NVR) is a homebuilder in the United States. The
Company is engaged in the construction and sale of single-family
detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings. To serve
customers of its homebuilding operations, NVR also operates a
mortgage banking and title services business. It conducts its
homebuilding activities directly. Its mortgage banking operations
are operated primarily through a wholly owned subsidiary, NVR
Mortgage Finance, Inc. (NVRM). Its homebuilding operations
include the construction and sale of single-family detached
homes, townhomes and condominium buildings under four trade
names: Ryan Homes, NVHomes, Fox Ridge Homes and Rymarc Homes. The
Ryan Homes, Fox Ridge Homes, and Rymarc Homes products are
marketed primarily to first-time homeowners and first-time move-
up buyers. The Ryan Homes product was sold in 25 metropolitan
areas as of December 31, 2011. On December 31, 2012, the Company
acquired all the assets of Heartland Homes Inc.


PARKERS FARM: Spreads Products Recalled Due to Listeria Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is recalling
consumers to avoid eating certain peanut butter, cheese, salsa,
and spreads produced by Parkers Farm Acquisition, LLC of Coon
Rapids, Minnesota, after state agriculture department product
sampling determined some of the finished products to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes bacteria.

There have been no reports of illness associated with consumption
of the products. Parkers Farm Acquisition, LLC is cooperating
with the MDA investigation and has issued a voluntary recall of
all products with the "sell by" dates listed below. Consumers who
have purchased these products are urged to return them to the
place of purchase or discard them.

The list of recalled products includes:

     16-ounce Parkers peanut butter in square plastic containers
(tub with snap-on lid), including creamy, crunchy, honey creamy
and honey crunchy varieties with a sell by date before 3/20/2015;
34-ounce Parkers peanut butter in round plastic containers (tub
with snap-on lid), including creamy and crunchy varieties with a
sell by date before 3/20/2015;

     12-ounce Parkers spreads in round or square plastic
containers (tub with snap-on lid), including jalape¤o and pimento
varieties with a sell by date before 9/20/2014;

     8-ounce and 16-ounce Parkers cold pack cheese in round
plastic containers (tub with snap-on lid), including sharp
cheddar, bacon, onion, smoked cheddar, Swiss almond, horseradish,
garlic, port wine, and "Swiss & cheddar" varieties with a sell by
date before 3/20/2015;

     16-ounce Parkers salsa in round plastic containers (tub with
snap-on lid), including hot, mild, garlic, and fire-roasted
varieties with a sell by date before 7/20/2014;

     10-ounce Parkers cheese balls or logs (plastic overwrap),
including sharp cheddar, port wine, ranch, and "smokey bacon"
varieties with a sell by date before 3/20/2015;

     10-ounce Happy Farms cheese balls (plastic overwrap),
including sharp cheddar and port wine varieties with a sell by
date before 3/20/2015;

     16-ounce Happy Farms cold pack cheese in round plastic
containers (tub with snap-on lid), including sharp cheddar and
port wine varieties with a sell by date before 3/20/2015;

     8-ounce Central Markets cold pack cheese in round plastic
containers (tub with snap-on lid), including sharp cheddar, port
wine, horseradish, and Swiss almond varieties with a sell by date
before 3/20/2015;

     12-ounce and 20-ounce Hy-Top cheese spread in round plastic
containers (tub with snap-on lid), including pimento and jalape¤o
varieties with a sell by date before 9/20/2014;

     8-ounce Amish Classic cold pack cheese in round plastic
containers (tub with snap-on lid), including sharp cheddar, port
wine, and Swiss almond varieties with a sell by date before
3/20/2015;

     14-ounce Say Cheez beer cheese in round plastic container
(tub with snap on lid), including regular and hot varieties with
a sell by date before 3/20/2015;

     10-ounce Win Schuler original variety cheese balls or logs
(plastic overwrap) with a sell by date before 3/20/2015;
8-ounce,12-ounce, and 14-ounce Bucky Badger cheese spreads (tub
with snap-on lid) including cheddar, port wine, bacon, garlic,
horseradish, jalape¤o, and Swiss almond varieties with a sell by
date before 3/20/2015; and

     5-pound foodservice products including cold pack cheese
foods, cheese spreads and peanut butter with a sell by date
before 3/20/2015.

The products are distributed nationwide under the Parkers Farm,
Parkers, Happy Farms, Central Markets, Hy-Top, Amish Classic, Say
Cheez, Win Schuler, and Bucky Badger labels. These products were
sold at several retail stores including but not limited to Hy-
Vee, Cub, Rainbow, Byerly's, Lunds, Target, Whole Foods, Price
Chopper, Nash Finch, Costco, ALDI, Wal-Mart, and Brookshire
stores. Consumers with questions can contact the company at (800)
869-6685 or the website: www.parkersfarm.com

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially serious disease
marked by fever, severe headache, neck stiffness, and nausea.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis, but it can sometimes
cause fatal infections in infants, the elderly, and those with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis can also lead to
miscarriages and stillbirths in pregnant women.

Any consumers who believe they may have become ill after eating
the products should contact their health care provider.


POM WONDERFUL: Class in Juice Health Claims Suit Decertified
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that POM Wonderful LLC scored a rare win on March 25 in its
battle over health claims tied to its pomegranate juice after a
federal judge decertified a nationwide class of consumers.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson found that the two damages
models on which the plaintiffs relied failed to support a class
action.  Giving full refunds would ignore any other benefits that
consumers may have gotten from drinking POM's juice, he wrote.  A
second theory, based on the allegedly inflated price consumers
paid for POM's juice, failed to explain how the company's health
claims caused any damages, he added.

He also raised concerns about the practical effects of proceeding
as a class action.

"Here, Plaintiffs acknowledge that, based on the volume of
product sold, every adult in the United States is a potential
class member," he wrote.  "These millions of consumers paid only
a few dollars per bottle, and likely made their purchases for a
variety of reasons.  No bottle, label, or package included any of
the alleged misrepresentations. Few, if any, consumers are likely
to have retained receipts during the class period, which closed
years before the filing of this action."

As a result, he concluded, "there is no way to reliably determine
who purchased Defendant's products or when they did so."

During a hearing earlier this month, plaintiffs lawyer Behram
Parekh -- bvp@KirtlandPackard.com -- of counsel to Los Angeles-
based Kirtland & Packard, argued that consumers would not have
paid as much for POM's juice but for the alleged
misrepresentations that it prevents heart disease, erectile
dysfunction and certain cancers.

Judge Pregerson, who previously had certified the class, had
appeared skeptical about that argument.

"It was the right result, and we are very happy with it," said
Rob Six, spokesman for POM's parent company, Roll Global.
Parekh did not respond to requests for comment.

The class action is one of several court battles facing POM over
its health claims.  POM is set to offer oral arguments on April
21 before the U.S. Supreme Court in a trademark infringement case
against The Coca-Cola Co., whose Minute Maid subsidiary marketed
a pomegranate-flavored juice.


RANCHO FEEDING: FSIS Completed All Checks Related to Recalls
------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 20, 2014, FSIS has completed all checks
(effectiveness checks and disposition verification checks) for
recalls 002-2014 and 013-2014 regarding Rancho Feeding
Corporation.  FSIS has determined that based on the number of
successful checks where businesses were notified of the recall
and removed affected products from commerce that the recall
activities were effective.

There will be no further additions to the distribution list.
Because of widespread interest in both of these recalls, however,
FSIS has decided to temporarily leave the recall releases and
distribution lists in the "active" section of the recalls
website, rather than moving it to the "archive" section, as is
usual policy, in an effort to continue to make the information as
accessible as possible.

Background

FSIS inspection personnel were present at Rancho Feeding
Corporation during normal operations, as required by law.

At this time, USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) is
conducting an investigation into activities at the facility.
FSIS is partnering with OIG on the investigation and is unable to
comment further while the investigation is ongoing.

Any meat product that is processed without the full benefit of
inspection is considered unwholesome and unfit for human
consumption. Therefore, FSIS requested, and the establishment
agreed to conduct a Class I recall of all products, including
whole carcasses, produced from Jan. 1, 2013 through Jan. 7, 2014.

FSIS has received no reports of illness from consumption of these
products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

Many of the carcasses that were the subject of the recall were
shipped to other establishments where they were processed into
smaller cuts and sold. Some of this meat was included in
processed products, such as frozen entrees.

As part of the recall process, FSIS personnel track down the
distribution of the product. Because this recall occurred at the
source -- the slaughter establishment -- FSIS has followed the
path of the recalled product as the cuts were sold for processed
food.

Additional Resources

The recall release for Recall 013-2014 is available on the FSIS
website.

The distribution list for Recall 013-2014 also is available on
the FSIS website.

Inspection 101 provides an overview of how agency inspectors and
veterinarians oversee the safe production of meat, poultry and
egg products that enter commerce.


TARGET CORP: Lawyers Argue on Alternative Jurisdictions for Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Minnesota is one obvious place to coordinate approximately
100 lawsuits filed over Target Corp.'s data breach, but a divided
gathering of plaintiffs lawyers argued on March 27 for
alternative jurisdictions in Illinois, California, Louisiana and
Colorado.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard
arguments on that point during hearings in San Diego.  Although
attorneys awaiting seats packed the hallway outside the courtroom
two hours before the Target hearing began, the panel asked few
questions.  Its members appeared focused on where the potential
witnesses and any additional defendants are located.

The panel typically issues rulings several weeks following its
hearings.

The session came one day after Target chief financial officer
John Mulligan testified in Washington before a Senate committee
about the breach.

On Dec. 19, Target announced that hackers had compromised debit
and credit card transactions at its stores across the country.
The breach potentially affected 110 million customers who made
purchases between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15.  The U.S. Secret Service,
the Department of Justice and congressional officials have
launched investigations.

Plaintiffs lawyers immediately moved to coordinate a flurry of
litigation.

Most of the cases have been brought on behalf of consumers
alleging that Target failed to protect their data despite being
aware of the risk as early as 2007.  More than a dozen cases were
brought on behalf of banks and credit unions forced to reimburse
debit and credit card holders for fraudulent charges.

The cases have been stayed pending the panel's decision.

Supporting Minnesota during the hearing was Target's lead
counsel, Rebekah Kaufman -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- chairwoman of
the consumer litigation and class action practice at Morrison &
Foerster.  Although cases have been filed in 39 districts, she
said, there was a "substantial connection" to Minnesota, where
the company's information-technology department and most of its
witnesses and documents are located at its Minneapolis
headquarters.  She noted that 24 cases already have been assigned
to U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson.
Also supporting that state was plaintiffs attorney Karl
Cambronne, a partner at Minneapolis-based Chestnut Cambronne, who
argued that more than 20 cases brought by banks invoke a
Minnesota statute governing how retailers should retain customer
data to avoid identity theft.  He added that five derivative
shareholder actions against Target have been filed in Minnesota.

But the litigation had a decidedly California feel, with San
Diego plaintiffs firms Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon and Casey Gerry
Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield hosting a conference the day
before on the litigation.

In arguing for California, Aashish Desai of the Desai Law Firm in
Costa Mesa, Calif., cited a report released on March 25 by the
U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
finding that Target missed numerous opportunities to prevent the
breach.  The report, released ahead of the hearing at which Mr.
Mulligan testified, implicated Fire Eye Inc., a Milpitas, Calif.,
firm that provided malware protection to Target, Mr. Desai said.
"This will be a major component witness," Mr. Desai said.

Chicago attorney Robert Clifford, a partner at Clifford Law
Offices, claiming to represent a coalition of firms with 43 cases
against Target, pushed for the Northern District of Illinois,
where U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman is overseeing many of
the cases.  He cited a lawsuit filed on March 24 against a new
defendant, Chicago's Trustwave Holdings Inc., which provided
security services to the retailer.  Furthermore, he said,
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan was spearheading
investigations for her fellow attorneys general.

Other lawyers argued for districts in Louisiana and Colorado,
noting that the breach affected customers across the country.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TOYOTA MOTOR: To Pay $1.2BB Penalty Over DOJ Wire Fraud Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Secretary of
Transportation Anthony Foxx, U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York Preet Bharara, Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) Calvin L. Scovel III, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Acting
Administrator David Friedman and Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) Deputy Assistant Director Joe Campbell on March 19
announced a criminal wire fraud charge against Toyota Motor
Corporation, an automotive company headquartered in Toyota City,
Japan, that designs, manufactures, assembles, and sells Toyota
and Lexus brand vehicles.  The charge is that TOYOTA defrauded
consumers in the fall of 2009 and early 2010 by issuing
misleading statements about safety issues in Toyota and Lexus
vehicles.

The Department of Justice also announced a deferred prosecution
agreement with TOYOTA under which the company admits that it
misled U.S. consumers by concealing and making deceptive
statements about two safety issues affecting its vehicles, each
of which caused a type of unintended acceleration.  The
admissions are contained in a detailed statement of facts
attached to the agreement.  The agreement, which is subject to
judicial review, requires TOYOTA to pay a $1.2 billion financial
penalty -- the largest penalty of its kind ever imposed on an
automotive company, and imposes on TOYOTA an independent monitor
to review and assess policies, practices and procedures relating
to TOYOTA's safety-related public statements and reporting
obligations.  TOYOTA agrees to pay the penalty under a Final
Order of Forfeiture in a parallel civil action also filed on
March 19 in the Southern District of New York.

The criminal charge is contained in an Information ("the
information") alleging one count of wire fraud.  If TOYOTA abides
by all of the terms of the agreement, the Government will defer
prosecution on the information for three years and then seek to
dismiss the charge.

"Rather than promptly disclosing and correcting safety issues
about which they were aware, Toyota made misleading public
statements to consumers and gave inaccurate facts to Members of
Congress," said Attorney General Eric Holder.  "When car owners
get behind the wheel, they have a right to expect that their
vehicle is safe.  If any part of the automobile turns out to have
safety issues, the car company has a duty to be upfront about
them, to fix them quickly, and to immediately tell the truth
about the problem and its scope. Toyota violated that basic
compact.  Other car companies should not repeat Toyota's mistake:
a recall may damage a company's reputation, but deceiving your
customers makes that damage far more lasting."

"Safety is our top priority," said Transportation Secretary
Anthony Foxx.  "Throughout this recall process, NHTSA
investigators worked tirelessly to make sure that Toyota recalled
vehicles with defects causing unintended acceleration, and to
determine when they learned of it, and . . . they succeeded in
this effort in spite of extraordinary challenges.  [The]
penalties follow NHTSA's own record civil penalties of more than
$66 million -- together, they send a powerful message to all
manufacturers to follow our recall requirements or they will face
serious consequences."

"Toyota stands charged with a criminal offense because it cared
more about savings than safety and more about its own brand and
bottom line than the truth," said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for
the Southern District of New York.  "In its zeal to stanch bad
publicity in 2009 and 2010, Toyota misled regulators, misled
customers, and even misstated the facts to Congress.  The tens of
millions of drivers in America have an absolute right to expect
that the companies manufacturing their cars are not lying about
serious safety issues; are not slow-walking safety fixes; and are
not playing games with their lives.  Companies that make
inherently dangerous products must be maximally transparent, not
two-faced.  That is why we have undertaken this landmark
enforcement action.  And the entire auto industry should take
notice."

"To the families and friends of those who died or were injured as
a result of these incidents, I offer my deepest sympathies for
your loss and my highest admiration for the strength you
demonstrate every day," said DOT Inspector General Calvin L.
Scovel III.  "As is true for Secretary Foxx and DOT, safety is
and will remain the highest priority of my office.  The OIG is
committed to working with our law enforcement and prosecutorial
partners in pursuing those who commit criminal violations of the
Department of Transportation's or related laws. The efforts of
this dedicated multi-agency team and the agreement reached with
Toyota must serve as a clarion call to all auto manufacturers of
the need to always be as vigilant and forthcoming as possible to
keep the public safe."

According to the allegations in the information, as well as other
documents filed in Manhattan federal court, including the
Statement of Facts:

In the fall of 2009, TOYOTA deceived consumers and its U.S.
regulator, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
("NHTSA"), by claiming that it had "addressed" the "root cause"
of unintended acceleration in its vehicles through a limited
safety recall of eight models for floor-mat entrapment, a
dangerous condition in which an improperly secured or
incompatible all-weather floor mat can "trap" a depressed gas
pedal causing the car to accelerate to a high speed.  Such public
assurances deceived customers and NHTSA in two ways:  First, at
the time the statements were made, TOYOTA knew that it had not
recalled some cars with design features that made them just as
susceptible to floor-mat entrapment as some of the recalled cars.
Second, only weeks before these statements were made, TOYOTA had
taken steps to hide from NHTSA another type of unintended
acceleration in its vehicles, separate and apart from floor-mat
entrapment: a problem with accelerators getting stuck at
partially depressed levels, known as "sticky pedal."

Floor-Mat Entrapment: A Fatal Problem

TOYOTA issued its misleading statements, and undertook its acts
of concealment, against the backdrop of intense public concern
and scrutiny over the safety of its vehicles following a widely
publicized Aug. 28, 2009 accident in San Diego, Calif., that
killed a family of four.  A Lexus dealer had improperly installed
an incompatible all-weather floor mat into the Lexus ES350 in
which the family was traveling, and that mat entrapped the
accelerator at full throttle.  A 911 emergency call made from the
out-of-control vehicle, which was speeding at over 100 miles per
hour, reported, "We're in a Lexus . . . and we're going north on
125 and our accelerator is stuck . . . there's no brakes . . .
we're approaching the intersection . . . Hold on . . . hold on
and pray . . . pray."  The call ended with the sound of the crash
that killed everyone in the vehicle.

The San Diego accident was not the first time that TOYOTA had
faced a problem with floor-mat entrapment.  In 2007, following a
series of reports alleging unintended acceleration in Toyota and
Lexus vehicles, NHTSA opened a defect investigation into the
Lexus ES350 model (the vehicle involved in the 2009 San Diego
accident), and identified several other Toyota and Lexus models
it believed might likewise be defective.  TOYOTA, while denying
to NHTSA the need to recall any of its vehicles, conducted an
internal investigation in 2007 which revealed that certain Toyota
and Lexus models, including most of the ones that NHTSA had
identified as potentially problematic, had design features
rendering entrapment of the gas pedal by an all-weather floor mat
more likely.  TOYOTA did not share these results with NHTSA.  In
the end, the Company negotiated a limited recall of 55,000 mats
(no vehicles) -- a result that TOYOTA employees touted internally
as a major victory:  "had the agency . . . pushed for recall of
the throttle pedal assembly (for instance), we would be looking
at upwards of $100 million + in unnecessary costs."

Shortly after TOYOTA announced its 2007 mat recall, company
engineers revised internal design guidelines to provide for,
among other things, a minimum clearance of 10 millimeters between
a fully depressed gas pedal and the floor.  But TOYOTA decided
those revised guidelines would only apply where a model was
receiving a "full model redesign" --  something each Toyota and
Lexus model underwent only about once every three to five years.
As a result, even after the revised guidelines had been adopted
internally, many new vehicles produced and sold by TOYOTA --
including the Lexus ES350 involved in the 2009 San Diego accident
-- did not comply with TOYOTA's 2007 guidelines.

After the fatal and highly publicized San Diego accident, TOYOTA
agreed to recall eight of its models, including the ES350, for
floor-mat entrapment susceptibility.  Thereafter, as part of an
effort to defend its brand image, TOYOTA began issuing public
statements assuring customers that this limited recall had
"addressed the root cause of unintended acceleration" in its
U.S.-sold vehicles.

As TOYOTA knew from internal testing it had completed by the time
these statements were made, the eight-model recall had not in
fact "addressed the root cause" of even the floor-mat entrapment
problem.  Models not recalled -- and therefore still on the road
-- bore design features rendering them just as susceptible to
floor-mat entrapment as those within the recall population.  One
engineer working at a TOYOTA facility in California had concluded
that the Corolla, a top-selling car that had not been recalled,
was among the three "worse" vehicles for floor-mat entrapment.
In October 2009, TOYOTA engineers in Japan circulated a chart
showing that the Corolla had the lowest rating for floor-mat
entrapment under their analysis.  None of these findings or this
data were shared with NHTSA at the time.

The Sticky Pedal Problem

What is more misleading, at the same time it was assuring the
public that the "root cause" of unintended acceleration had been
"addressed" by the 2009 eight-model floor-mat entrapment recall,
TOYOTA was hiding from NHTSA a second cause of unintended
acceleration in its vehicles: the sticky pedal.  Sticky pedal, a
phenomenon affecting pedals manufactured by a U.S. company ("A-
Pedal Company") and installed in many Toyota brand vehicles in
North America as well as Europe, resulted from the use of a
plastic material inside the pedals that could cause the
accelerator pedal to become mechanically stuck in a partially
depressed position.  The pedals incorporating this plastic were
installed in, among other models, the Camry, the Matrix, the
Corolla, and the Avalon sold in the United States.

The sticky pedal problem surfaced in Europe in 2008.  There,
reports reflected instances of "uncontrolled acceleration" and
unintended acceleration to "maximum RPM," and customer concern
that the condition was "extremely dangerous."

In early 2009, TOYOTA circulated to European Toyota distributors
information about the sticky pedal problem and instructions for
addressing the problem if it presented itself in a customer's
vehicle.  These instructions identified the issue as "Sudden RPM
increase/vehicle acceleration due to accelerator pedal sticking,"
and stated that should a customer complain of pedal sticking, the
pedal should be replaced with pedals manufactured by a company
other than A-Pedal Company.  Contemporaneous internal TOYOTA
documents described the sticky pedal problem as a "defect" that
was "[i]mportant in terms of safety because of the possibility of
accidents."

TOYOTA did not then inform its U.S. regulators of the sticky
pedal problem or conduct a recall.  Instead, beginning in the
spring of 2009, TOYOTA quietly directed A-Pedal Company to change
the pedals in new productions of affected models in Europe, and
to plan for the same design changes to be rolled out in the
United States (where the same problematic pedals were being used)
beginning in the fall of 2009.  The design change was to
substitute the plastic used in the affected pedal models with
another material and to change the length of the friction lever
in the pedal.

Meanwhile, the sticky pedal problem was manifesting itself in
U.S. vehicles.  On or about the same day the San Diego floor-mat
entrapment accident occurred, staff at a U.S. TOYOTA subsidiary
in California sent a memorandum to staff at TOYOTA in Japan
identifying as "critical" an "unintended acceleration" issue
separate and apart from floor-mat entrapment that had been
identified in an accelerator pedal of a Toyota Matrix vehicle in
Arizona.  The problem identified, and then reproduced during
testing of the pedal on Sept. 17, 2009, was the sticky pedal
problem.  Also in August, the sticky pedal problem cropped up in
a U.S. Camry.

On Sept. 9, 2009, an employee of a U.S. TOYOTA subsidiary who was
concerned about the sticky pedal problem in the United States and
believed that TOYOTA should address the problem prepared a
"Market Impact Summary" listing (in addition to the August 2009
Matrix and Camry) 39 warranty cases that he believed involved
potential manifestations of the sticky pedal problem.  This
document, which was circulated to TOYOTA engineers and, later, to
staff in charge of recall decisions in Japan, designated the
sticky pedal problem as priority level "A," the highest level.

By no later than September 2009, TOYOTA recognized internally
that the sticky pedal problem posed a risk of a type of
unintended acceleration -- or "overrun," as Toyota sometimes
called it -- in many of its U.S. vehicles.  A September 2009
presentation made by a manager at a U.S. TOYOTA subsidiary to
TOYOTA executives gave a "current summary of O/R [overrun] types
in NA [North American] market" that listed the three confirmed
types as: "mat interference" (i.e., floor-mat entrapment),
"material issue" (described as "pedal stuck and . . . pedal slow
return/deformed") and "simultaneous pedal press" by the consumer.
The presentation further listed the models affected by the
"material issue" as including "Camry, Corolla, Matrix, Avalon."

Hiding Sticky Pedal from NHTSA and the Public

TOYOTA had by this time developed internal plans to implement
design changes for all A-Pedal-Company-manufactured pedals in
U.S. Toyota models to address, on a going-forward basis, the
still-undisclosed sticky pedal problem that had already been
resolved for new vehicles in Europe.  On Oct. 5, 2009, TOYOTA
engineers issued to A-Pedal Company the first of the design
change instructions intended to prevent sticky pedal in the U.S.
market.  This was described internally as an "urgent" measure to
be implemented on an "express" basis, as a "major" change --
meaning that the part number of the subject pedal was to change,
and that all inventory units with the old pedal number should be
scrapped.

On Oct. 21, 2009, however, in the wake of the San Diego floor-mat
entrapment accident, and in the midst of TOYOTA's discussions
with NHTSA about its eight-model entrapment recall, engineers at
TOYOTA and the leadership of TOYOTA's recall decision group
decided to cancel the design change instruction that had already
been issued and to suspend all remaining design changes planned
for A-Pedal Company pedals in U.S. models.  U.S. TOYOTA
subsidiary employees who had been preparing for implementation of
the changes were instructed, orally, to alert the manufacturing
plants of the cancellation.  They were also instructed not to put
anything about the cancellation in writing.  A-Pedal Company
itself would receive no written cancellation at this time;
instead, contrary to TOYOTA's own standard procedures, the
cancellation was to be effected without a paper trail.

TOYOTA decided to suspend the pedal design changes in the United
States, and to avoid memorializing that suspension, in order to
prevent NHTSA from learning about the sticky pedal problem.

In early November 2009, TOYOTA and the leadership of a U.S.
TOYOTA subsidiary became aware of three instances of sticky pedal
in U.S. Corollas.  Shortly thereafter, the leadership of the
recall decision group within TOYOTA discussed a plan to finally
disclose the sticky pedal problem to NHTSA.  The recall decision
group was aware at this time not only of the problems in the
three Corollas in the United States but also of the problems that
had surfaced in a Matrix and a Camry in August 2009 and been
reproduced through testing in September 2009.  The group was also
familiar with the sticky pedal problem in Europe, the design
changes that had been implemented there, and the cancellation and
suspension of similar planned design changes in the United
States.  Knowing all of this, the group's leadership decided that
(a) it would not disclose the September 2009 Market Impact
Summary to NHTSA; (b) if any disclosure were to be made to NHTSA,
it would be limited to a disclosure that there were some reports
of unintended acceleration apparently unrelated to floor-mat
entrapment; and (c) NHTSA should be told that TOYOTA had made no
findings with respect to the sticky pedal problem reflected in
the reports concerning the three U.S. Corollas, and that the
investigation of the problem had just begun.

On Nov. 17, 2009, before TOYOTA had negotiated with NHTSA a final
set of remedies for the eight models encompassed by the floor-mat
entrapment recall, TOYOTA informed NHTSA of the three Corolla
reports and several other reports of unintended acceleration in
Toyota model vehicles equipped with pedals manufactured by A-
Pedal Company.  In TOYOTA's disclosure to NHTSA, TOYOTA did not
reveal its understanding of the sticky pedal problem as a type of
unintended acceleration, nor did it reveal the problem's
manifestation and the subsequent design changes in Europe, the
planned, cancelled, and suspended design changes in the United
States, the August 2009 Camry and Matrix vehicles that had
suffered sticky pedal, or the September 2009 Market Impact
Summary.

TOYOTA's Misleading Statements

After the August 2009 fatal floor-mat entrapment accident in San
Diego, several articles critical of TOYOTA appeared in U.S.
newspapers.  The articles reported instances of TOYOTA customers
allegedly experiencing unintended acceleration and the authors
accused TOYOTA of, among other things, hiding defects related to
unintended acceleration.

On Nov. 25, 2009, TOYOTA, through a U.S. subsidiary, announced
its floor- mat entrapment resolution with NHTSA.  In a press
release that had been approved by TOYOTA, the U.S. subsidiary
assured customers: "The safety of our owners and the public is
our utmost concern and Toyota has and will continue to thoroughly
investigate and take appropriate measures to address any defect
trends that are identified."  A spokesperson for the subsidiary
stated during a press conference the same day, "We're very, very
confident that we have addressed this issue."

In truth, the issue of unintended acceleration had not been
"addressed" by the remedies announced.  A-Pedal Company pedals
which could experience stickiness were still on the road and
still, in fact, being installed in newly-produced vehicles.  And
the best-selling Corolla, the Highlander, and the Venza -- which
had design features similar to models that had been included in
the earlier floor-mat entrapment recall -- were not being
"addressed" at all.

Again, on Dec. 23, 2009, TOYOTA responded to media accusations
that it was continuing to hide defects in its vehicles by
authorizing a U.S. TOYOTA subsidiary to publish the following
misleading statements on the subsidiary's website: "Toyota has
absolutely not minimized public awareness of any defect or issue
with respect to its vehicles.  Any suggestion to the contrary is
wrong and borders on irresponsibility.  We are confident that the
measures we are taking address the root cause and will reduce the
risk of pedal entrapment."   In fact, TOYOTA had "minimized
public awareness of" both sticky pedal and floor-mat entrapment.
Further, the measures TOYOTA had taken did not "address the root
cause" of unintended acceleration, because TOYOTA had not yet
issued a sticky pedal recall and had not yet recalled the
Corolla, the Venza, or the Highlander for floor-mat entrapment.

TOYOTA's False Timeline

When, in early 2010, TOYOTA finally conducted safety recalls to
address the unintended acceleration issues it had concealed
throughout the fall of 2009, TOYOTA provided to the American
public, NHTSA and the United States Congress an inaccurate
timeline of events that made it appear as if TOYOTA had learned
of the sticky pedal in the United States in "October 2009," and
then acted promptly to remedy the problem within 90 days of
discovering it.  In fact, TOYOTA had begun its investigation of
sticky pedal in the United States no later than August 2009, had
already reproduced the problem in a U.S. pedal by no later than
September 2009, and had taken active steps in the months
following that testing to hide the problem from NHTSA and the
public.

This case is being handled by the Office's Securities and
Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Bonnie
Jonas, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division and Assistant U.S.
Attorney Sarah E. McCallum are in charge of the prosecution, and
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sharon Cohen Levin, Chief of the Money
Laundering and Asset Forfeiture Unit is responsible for the
forfeiture aspects of the case.

                           *     *     *

Robert W. Wood of Wood LLP, a contributor for Forbes, says
Toyota's deal is a record in several ways.

First, it resolves a record criminal probe of an automaker.  It
is the largest financial penalty of its kind ever imposed on an
auto company, said Attorney General Eric Holder.  Second, the
dollars are big.  Toyota will pay a record $1.2 billion to settle
the criminal probe.  Third, Toyota admitted that it misled
consumers about two problems that caused cars to accelerate while
drivers were trying to do the reverse.

Finally, Toyota Agreed to Forego Tax Deduction for $1.2 Billion
Settlement With DOJ.  Deducting the settlement would have made
taxpayers bear 35% of the cost.  Toyota's road has been tortured.
It initially denied that it knew about a defect causing sudden
acceleration. However, an FBI investigation revealed internal
company documents that discussed the problems.

Under a deferred prosecution agreement, an independent monitor
will review Toyota's policies, practices and procedures.
Moreover, it says "Toyota agrees that it will not claim, assert,
or apply for a tax deduction or tax credit with regard to any
federal, state, local, or foreign tax for any fine or forfeiture
paid pursuant to this Agreement."  Tax deductions for business
expenses are normal, since our system taxes net income, not
gross.

But some deductions rub some people the wrong way, and this one
is worth $420 million.  Toyota posted a $5.2 billion profit in
its last quarter alone, according to the AP.  A legal settlement
can often be deducted unless it is paid to the government and
penal in nature. But since standards are fuzzy, companies often
find a way to deduct some of all of the settlement.

In Toyota's case, the DOJ pushed to make it clear that the
company would not claim a deduction.  Other recent examples of
such prohibitions involved Steve Cohen's SAC Capital and JP
Morgan Chase. But whether settlement non-deductibility should be
explicit has become controversial.

The IRS has found that unless agencies specifically prohibit it,
companies typically deduct entire settlements.  A 2005 GAO report
recommended that agencies institute clear rules around the tax
treatment of settlements.  The Truth in Settlements Act (S. 1898
-- fact sheet) was introduced in January.  A separate bill that
would restrict write offs on settlements (S. 1654) was introduced
in November and has a House counterpart (HR 3445).

U.S. PIRG's research report, "Subsidizing Bad Behavior: How
Corporate Legal Settlements for Harming the Public Become
Lucrative Tax Write-Offs," contains a fact sheet on settlement
deductions, plus fact sheets on settlement in Wall Street
scandals, consumer rip offs, and health care scams.

Tax language in settlement agreements doesn't bind the IRS, but
it goes a long way toward avoiding tax disputes.  Explicit
provisions about taxes may become more common.  At the very
least, explicit provisions impact an important financial term and
avoid confusion.

After all, despite punitive sounding names, some fines and
penalties are viewed as remedial rather than penal in nature.
That would make them deductible. That is precisely why some
defendants insist that their settlement agreement confirms that
the payments are not penalties and are remedial. Toyota
presumably couldn't do that here.  Indeed, the shoe was on the
other foot with DOJ's insistence on no-deduction language.

General Motors may find itself in a similar position, as it is
clearly next in line.  GM is being investigated over how it
handled an ignition switch failure linked to a numerous deaths.
GM last month recalled more than 1.6 million vehicles 13 years
after first noticing the issue.  Whenever that is resolved, it
might look like a Toyota knockoff.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: California Court Stays TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel E. Brewer, Esq. -- Daniel.Brewer@dbr.com -- at Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP reports that the Eastern District of
California recently granted a motion to stay proceedings under
the primary jurisdiction doctrine in Matlock v. United Healthcare
Servs., Inc., No. 13-2206, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37612 (E.D. Cal.
Mar. 20, 2014).  It stayed the proceedings until the FCC rules on
United Healthcare's expedited petition to clarify the definition
of "called party" under the TCPA's prior express consent
provision.

United Healthcare contacts specific individuals using an
artificial or prerecorded voice to convey healthcare-related
information, such as vaccine reminders.  In this case, United
Healthcare called a patient to remind him about a flu
vaccination, but the patient had switched carriers and had his
cell phone number reassigned to a different person.  That person
-- the Plaintiff in this case -- alleged that the call violated
the TCPA because United Healthcare did not have the "prior
express consent of the called party."

United Healthcare sought to stay the proceedings until the FCC
resolved its expedited petition requesting clarification of prior
express consent requirement in the recycled number context and
asking the FCC to confirm that there is a good faith exception to
liability under the TCPA when a call is placed for informational
purposes as opposed to telemarketing. It pointed out that another
entity, ACA, filed a similar petition with the FCC. (ACA's
petition was highlighted in a previous post discussing pending
petitions before the FCC.)

In granting the motion to stay, the court acknowledged that
courts have reached conflicting decisions as to the meaning of
"called party." Id. at *3 (citing Cellco P'ship v. Wilcrest
Health Care Mgmt., Inc., 2012 WL 1638056 at *7 (D.N.J. May, 8,
2012) ("called party" is the intended recipient of the call), and
Soppett v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637 (7th Cir.
2012) ("called party" is the current cell phone subscriber). It
further noted that public comments are due as to United
Healthcare's petition at the end of March.

The court found that the stay is warranted because "(1)
Defendant's petition is already before the FCC and comments are
due in the near future; (2) judicial economy weighs against
issuing a decision that may be undermined by an anticipated
ruling of the regulatory body; (3) the violation alleged in this
case is not ongoing so Plaintiff will suffer no further damages
during a stay; and (4) this case is in the early stages of
litigation, such that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by any
delay."

In fact, the Plaintiff barely contested any of these factors.
Instead, he argued that "called party should correctly be
interpreted to mean the subscriber to the phone line or the
actual recipient of the call."  The court highlighted that his
argument ignored the contrary authority.

This decision adds to the list of courts staying cases under the
primary jurisdiction doctrine until the FCC clarifies the
uncertain terms in the TCPA.


UNITED STATES: Northern Islanders Mull Class Action v. Military
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Camacho, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that former
residents of the Northern Islands and those who have ties to the
area are threatening to file a class action lawsuit against the
U.S. military if the planned militarization of Pagan pushes
through.

This consensus was made following a two-hour town hall meeting on
March 26 at the Carolinian Utt in Garapan where those who
attended also said they feel neglected.

"We are mostly looking at getting the focus together and pushing
the interest they [Northern Islands] have for islands in the
north.  Because nothing is being done for the folks of the
Northern Islands," said Jerome Aldan of the Northern Islands
Mayor's Office.

He pointed out that Commonwealth laws also apply to the Northern
Islands because they are part of the CNMI, yet "it seems like
they treat the Northern Islands differently and are excluded from
all these privileges . . . privileges like homesteads."

"For many years the Northern Island folks are lost.  They don't
know what is going on and how to get their lands back prior to
being exiled here to Saipan after the volcanic eruption,"
Mr. Aldan added.

The Northern Islands Mayor's Office earlier said that in the past
20 years alone, 18 applications for land for agricultural
homestead for the Northern Islands have remained pending with the
Department of Public Lands.

Mr. Aldan said that a census conducted in 1969 showed that Pagan
was home to 49 residents.  The oldest resident was born in 1903
while the youngest was born in 1968.

Saipan and Northern Islands Municipal Council adviser William
Torres, who also made a presentation at the meeting, said that
just recently the House of Representatives passed House Bill 18-
108 to force DPL to issue homesteads to residents of the Northern
Islands.


UNITED STATES: Klayman Files Motion for NSA Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2014, Larry Klayman, a former federal prosecutor and
the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, announced
that he and the other plaintiffs in the National Security Agency
(NSA) class action lawsuit he filed (Case No. 1:14-cv-00092) in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia have filed a
motion to certify the class.  A copy of the motion and the
complaint can be found at www.freedomwatchusa.org

This request for class action certification was made to the
Honorable Richard J. Leon, who last December 16, 2013 ruled that
the NSA and other Government Defendants had egregiously violated
the constitutional rights of millions of Americans by collecting
and accessing their telephonic metadata. (See Case No. 1:13-cv-
00851).  This new class action suit expands the allegations of
constitutional violations to include the NSA's collection of
Internet metadata, social media and its spying on overseas phone
calls under its PRISM program.  The suit also includes the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a defendant, as well as its
director, which has been conducting similar illegal surveillance
on American citizens.  Just recently, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a
former proponent of this illegal spying loudly and hypocritically
complained when she learned that the CIA had been spying on her
and her congressional colleagues.  And, just on March 26, former
President Jimmy Carter revealed that he no longer uses the phone
or Internet, but does all of his confidential communications by
mail.  "Such is the damage to free speech rights that have been
wreaked on the American people," stated Larry Klayman.

This class action suit is the first one filed and the first to
ask for class action certification. It is moving through the
courts much faster than the lawsuit filed by Senator Rand Paul,
which is limited to only telephonic metadata.  And Mr. Klayman
and the other plaintiffs have also asked the Supreme Court to
immediately review Judge Leon's prior ruling, as "One day that
our constitutional rights are violated is one day too much.  When
even a former president is too scared to use the phone or
Internet, then it's clear that we are living in a police state.
This must be ended immediately," added Mr. Klayman.


UNITED VENDING: "Eyamie" Dismissed From TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
PALDO SIGN AND DISPLAY COMPANY and SABON, INC., individually and
as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED VENDING AND MARKETING, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1896, (N.D. Ill.), asserts that
defendants allegedly sent unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C.
Section 227. At issue are two motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint. Defendant Tyler Eyamie filed a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)
for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants Nicholas Chomakos
and Laura Chomakos, proceeding pro se, also have filed a motion
to dismiss.

In a March 11, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/yn5tQlfrom Leagle.com, District
Judge John W. Darrah granted Mr. Eyamie's Motion, and denied
Nicholas and Laura Chomakos's Motion.

Mr. Eyamie is dismissed as Defendant, held Judge Darrah.  He
added that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently provided Nicholas and
Laura Chomakos with fair notice of their claims that companies
controlled by them were responsible for sending unsolicited
faxes. Although both Chomakos deny that they sent any faxes, they
also admit that they used a marketing company that could have
sent faxes on their behalf. The Chomakos' Motion does not
demonstrate that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. Their
Motion, instead, more closely approximates an Answer to
Plaintiff's SAC, Judge Darrah concluded.


VALLEY PRUNE: Arce Suit Plaintiffs Get OK to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR ARCE and CESAR RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY PRUNE, LLC;
TAYLOR BROTHERS FARMS, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, NO. 12-
CV-02772 JAM-CMK, (E.D. Cal.) is before the Court on Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants
opposed the request.

District Judge John A. Mendez, in an order dated March 12, 2014,
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend saying the Plaintiffs must file their Amended
Complaint within 20 days from the date of the Order.  The
Defendants should file their responsive pleading within 20 days
from the date the Amended Complaint is filed.

A copy of the rulung is available at http://is.gd/ixtYqEfrom
Leagle.com


VERA DESIGNS: Recalls Bear Ring Rattles and Bunny Toys
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bear Ring Rattles and Bunny stuffed animal toys, of Fort Wayne,
Ind, announced voluntary recall of about  98,000 Bear Ring
Rattles and Bunny Stuffed Toys. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pom-pom tail can detach from the body of the bear rattle and
the bunny, causing a choking hazard to young children.

Vera Bradley has received two reports that the pom-pom tail
detached from the product. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves all Vera Bradley Bear Ring Rattles and Bunny
stuffed animal toys.  The products are made of cotton and fleece.
The bear ring rattle has a white teddy bear head, arms attached
to an O-shaped body with a green, blue, brown and pink crisscross
pattern design rattle. The bear ring rattle measures about 4.25
inches in diameter. The bunny is 10 inches tall from the top of
its head to the bottom of its foot and was sold in three printed
patterns. The "Bunny in Lilli Bell" has green vines with pink and
orange flowers on the body, limbs and the back of the ears. The
"Bunny in Lola" has a crisscross geometric pattern on the arms,
legs and ears of the white headed bunny with a floral print body.
The "Bunny in Tutti Frutti" has a green with a pink and yellow
floral printed pattern fabric covering whole body. All of the
recalled rattles and bunnies have a white pom-pom tail on the
back of the item. The name Vera Bradley is marked on a tag
attached to each item along with the following serial numbers:

     Item               Pattern            Serial No.
     ----               -------            ----------
     Bunny              Lola             007590013357145
     Bunny              Lillie Bell      0000630012803140
     Bunny              Tutti Frutti     0000630012803142
     Bear Ring Rattle   Lola             007590013234135

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/URBuDl

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
Vera Bradley retail stores, department stores and specialty gift
shops and online at www.verabradley.com and other online stores
from September 2012 to January 2014 for between $12 and $19.

Consumers should immediately take them away from young children
and stop using these recalled products and return them to Vera
Bradley for a full refund.


WAGNER WELLNESS: Court Tosses TCPA Class Action Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gregory A. Presnell denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned NEUROCARE INSTITUTE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, P.A.,
Plaintiff, v. WAGNER WELLNESS INC., ROBERT WAGNER, APRIL WAGNER,
ROBERT REMLER, PATRICIA FREDETTE-HUFFMAN and COASTAL FAMILY
PRACTICE, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 6:13-CV-896-ORL-31DAB, (M.D.
Fla.).

Defendant Patricia Fredette-Huffman M.D. and Coastal Family
Practice, LLC filed the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

The Complaint alleges that between July 31 and September 5, 2012,
the Plaintiff received five unsolicited facsimile advertisements
in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Section 227. While the original complaint said little
about the Fredette-Huffman Defendants' relationship to these
faxes, the Second Amended Class Action Complaint includes
additional information about these Defendants' relationship to
each other and their purported role in the faxed advertisements.

The Fredette-Huffman Defendants argued that the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint does not sufficiently allege their role in
this purported TCPA violations. However, the allegations are
sufficiently clear that the faxes were sent either by or on
behalf of Fredette-Huffman, ruled Judge Presnell.

"As to Coastal, the allegations are less clear, however, they can
be viewed as asserting that Fredette-Huffman's action of sending
the faxes was undertaken for Coastal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
has sufficiently pled a TCPA violation against the Fredette-
Huffman Defendants," he added.

A copy of the District Court's March 13, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/c4zjfyfrom Leagle.com.


WELLPOINT INC: Motion for Summary Judgment Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., reports that its motion for summary judgment in
connection with a certified class action filed as a result of the
2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., has
been taken under advisement, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are defending a certified class action
filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance
Companies, Inc., or AICI. The lawsuit names AICI as well as
Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc., and is captioned
Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of
Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of AICI from
a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company
pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the
fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its
Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or
Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in
the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that AICI
distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross motions for summary
judgment were granted in part and denied in part on July 26,
2006, with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by
co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or the State.

"The court also denied our motion for summary judgment as to
plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005. The State appealed the
denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme Court. We filed a
cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On May 11, 2010,
the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the
State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under sovereign
immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case was remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was granted on December 15, 2011. We and the
plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment on
January 24, 2013. Argument on the renewed motions was held on
April 19, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment. The court deferred a final ruling on
our motion for summary judgment, instead requesting supplemental
argument which occurred on November 7, 2013. The matter was taken
under advisement. We intend to vigorously defend the Gold
lawsuit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined."

WellPoint, Inc. (WellPoint) is a health benefit company in terms
of medical membership in the United States. The Company manages
its operations through three segments: Commercial, Consumer, and
Other. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), an association of
independent health benefit plans. The Company offers a spectrum
of network-based managed care plans to the large and small
employer, individual, Medicaid and senior markets. Its managed
care plans include preferred provider organizations (PPOs);
health maintenance organizations (HMOs); point-of-service plans
(POS) plans; traditional indemnity plans and other hybrid plans,
including consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs); and hospital only
and limited benefit products. In February 2014, WellPoint sold
its online contact lens retail subsidiary 1-800 CONTACTS to
private equity firm Thomas H. Lee Partners.


WELLPOINT INC: Defending 11 Out-Of-Network Reimbursement Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., is currently a defendant in 11 putative class
actions relating to out-of-network reimbursement that were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 20, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are currently a defendant in eleven
putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON,
reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates
Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed
in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on
behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services
for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the
American Medical Association, four state medical associations,
OON physicians, chiropractors, clinical psychologists,
podiatrists, psychotherapists, the American Podiatric
Association, California Chiropractic Association and the
California Psychological Association on behalf of a putative
class of all physicians and all non-physician health care
providers. The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints
alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust
Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON
reimbursement database called Ingenix and in our use of non-
Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies."

"We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those
amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in
part and denied in part by the Court. The most recent pleading
filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we
filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In
July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying
in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal
anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed
in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that
the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix
methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-
disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also
dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with
prejudice. The only claims that remain after the court's decision
are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on
Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion
to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in
part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that
one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted
administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based
on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are
back in the case. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification in November 2013.

"The plaintiffs seek the following classes: (1) a subscriber
ERISA class as to OON claims processed using the Ingenix database
as the pricing methodology; (2) a physician provider class as to
OON claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a non-physician provider
class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a provider
ERISA class as to OON claims processed using non-Ingenix pricing
methodologies; (4) a California subscriber breach of
contract/unfair competition class; and (5) a subscriber breach of
implied covenant class for all WellPoint states except
California.

"We deposed all of the plaintiffs' class certification experts.
Our response to the class certification is due in February 2014.
Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or
the Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the medical
doctors and doctors of osteopathy and certain medical
associations based on prior litigation releases, which was
granted in 2011. The Florida Court ordered the plaintiffs to
dismiss their claims that are barred by the release. The
plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking
the court to find that these claims are not barred by the
releases from the prior litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss
the declaratory judgment action, which was granted. The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but
the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians have not yet
dismissed their claims. The Florida Court found the enjoined
physicians in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. The
barred physicians are paying the sanctions and have appealed the
Florida Court's sanctions order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral argument on that appeal
occurred in October 2013. We intend to vigorously defend these
suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined."

WellPoint, Inc. (WellPoint) is a health benefit company in terms
of medical membership in the United States. The Company manages
its operations through three segments: Commercial, Consumer, and
Other. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), an association of
independent health benefit plans. The Company offers a spectrum
of network-based managed care plans to the large and small
employer, individual, Medicaid and senior markets. Its managed
care plans include preferred provider organizations (PPOs);
health maintenance organizations (HMOs); point-of-service plans
(POS) plans; traditional indemnity plans and other hybrid plans,
including consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs); and hospital only
and limited benefit products. In February 2014, WellPoint sold
its online contact lens retail subsidiary 1-800 CONTACTS to
private equity firm Thomas H. Lee Partners.


YAHOO INC: Seeks Dismissal of E-mail Scanning Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360,
report that plaintiffs in a proposed class action accusing Yahoo
Inc. of illegally reading, copying and analyzing emails in order
to make money on targeted advertising asked a federal judge on
March 26 to reject the company's bid to evade the suit, saying
the federal Wiretap Act applies to their claims.

Six different cases, each making similar allegations against
Yahoo, were consolidated in January, and earlier this month the
company said the case should be dismissed because the Wiretap Act
does not apply to the claims made in the consolidated complaint.
The plaintiffs, who sent emails to Yahoo users from other
accounts, say the company unlawfully intercepts the contents of
their emails and those of other nonusers.

In a brief opposing Yahoo's motion, the plaintiffs take issue
with the company's claim that, under the Ninth Circuit's 2002
holding in Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., the Stored
Communications Act -- not the Wiretap Act -- applies once an
email hits an electronic communication service provider's servers
for delivery.  The company says the same rationale dooms the
plaintiffs' claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Yahoo says that once an email hits its servers, the message is no
longer an electronic communication capable of being intercepted
for the purposes of either act.  But the plaintiffs said they
actually contend that Yahoo intercepts its users' incoming and
outgoing emails while they are in transit.

"Not only are the Ninth Circuit cases Yahoo cites factually
distinguishable because they involve electronic communications
that have already arrived at their destination, [but] subsequent
circuit courts have [also] carefully examined the legislative
history of the statute and concluded that Congress intended the
Wiretap Act to apply to electronic communications throughout
their transmission from sender to recipient," the plaintiffs said
in an opposition brief.

They say that accepting Yahoo's argument would require the court
to find that emails shift in and out of the Wiretap Act's
protection during their journey from sender to recipient, which
would run afoul of the statute's plain language and its
legislative history.

It would be inappropriate to dismiss the case at this point, the
plaintiffs say, because Yahoo does not disclose when or how it
scans its users' incoming and outgoing email, so that will be an
issue that will be the subject of discovery and expert opinion.

A similar issue has been raised in a lawsuit over Google Inc.'s
Gmail, which is also pending in the same court.

"Like Google, Yahoo treats the technology it uses to scan users'
email as a closely guarded secret, one plaintiffs are not yet
privy to.  For purposes of this motion, however, the court must
accept as true plaintiffs' allegation that Yahoo scans emails
while they are in transit between plaintiffs and Yahoo Mail
users," the brief said.

The plaintiffs also said there was no reason to assume that the
California Supreme Court would interpret the CIPA any
differently, and claimed the state's Legislature intended it to
provide more stringent privacy protections than the Wiretap Act,
so those claims should survive as well.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel C. Girard --
dcg@GirardGibbs.com -- Amanda M. Steiner -- as@GirardGibbs.com --
Matthew B. George -- mbg@GirardGibbs.com -- and Jennifer L.
McIntosh -- jlm@girardgibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs LLP and
Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Frederic S. Fox --
ffox@kaplanfox.com -- and David A. Straite --
dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Yahoo is represented by Rebekah Kaufman and Robert Petraglia --
rpetraglia@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP and Marc
Zwillinger -- marc@zwillgen.com -- and Jacob Sommer --
jake@zwillgen.com -- of ZwillGen PLLC.

The consolidated case is In re: Yahoo Mail Litigation, number
5:13-cv-04980, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


                             *********

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  * * *