CAR_Public/140408.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 69

                             Headlines


ACXIOM CORP: Sued for Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
ADVANCED FINISHING: Antitrust Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
AGILYSYS INC: Hearing to Approve Labor Suit Accord Set for May
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Reduced Reimbursements
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: UGI Sued for Alleged Unfair Trade Practice

APPLE INC: Judge Certifies Class in E-Book Price-Fixing Suit
AVX CORP: Suit Over Pollution in Myrtle Beach Factory Continues
BARCLAYS BANK: Manipulated WM/Reuters FX Rates, Suit Claims
BEST MOVERS: Sued for Not Paying Minimum Wage for Hours Worked
BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles

BOTTLE KING: New Jersey Man Obtains Class Action Settlement
CANADA: Court Tosses Challenge to Day Scholars Class Suit
DENNY'S CORP: Faces Overtime Class Action in Houston
EAGLE MATERIALS: Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Suit in Discovery
ENVY NAILS: Manicurists File Class Action Over Wage Violations

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Loritz" Securities Case Stayed
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: "Hernandez" Suit Stayed After Chapter 11
FORD MOTOR: Court Enters Protective Order in "Jenelle Ford" Suit
GALILEE MEMORIAL: More People Join Body Piling Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: CEO Deflects Hard Questions in Recall Probe

GENERAL MOTORS: Avoided Switch Redesign for Cost Reasons
GENERAL MOTORS: Sen. McCaskill Points Out "Culture of Cover-Up"
GENERAL MOTORS: Announces Two More Vehicle Recalls
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Move to Coordinate Ignition Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: May Set Up Funds to Compensate Recall Victims

GILBERT G. LUNDSTROM: Court Awards Atty. Fees in ERISA Suits
GREEN JACOBSON: District Court Dismisses "Oetting" Suit
H B RESTAURANT: Class Is Entitled to Overtime Wages, Chef Says
HALIBURTON COMPANY: Provides Updates on Macondo Well Incident MDL
HULU: Faces Class Action Over Violation of Automatic Renewal Law

HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Securities Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
KIRBY INLAND: Faces Suit for Violation of Oil Pollution Act
KIWIBANK: 800+ Customers Have Joined Suit Over Excessive Fees
KODIAK OIL: Removed "Lawyer" Suit to North Dakota Federal Court

KTMC TURNAROUND: Sued by Workers in Texas Over Unpaid Travel Time
LONG BEACH COLLEGE: Sued for Misusing Student Body's Money
MADISON COUNTY, IL: Not Liable for Bathon Tax Scam, Attorney Says
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Judge Tosses Dealers' Class Action
MCGRAW HILL: "Reese" Plaintiff Renews Appeal Over Case Dismissal

MEDORA HOLDINGS: Misleads "Popcorners" Consumers, Suit Claims
METRO GOLDWYN: Faces "Buck" Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties
MIAMI, FL: Removed "Castro" Suit to S.D. Florida
MIAMI, FL: Removed "Rodriguez" Suit to S.D. Florida
MONITRONICS INT'L: Faces "Bennett" Class Suit in S.D. Alabama

MV TRANSPORTATION: Improperly Paid Paratransit Drivers, Suit Says
NEWFOUNDLAND: Moose-Vehicle Class Action Set to Start
NU SKIN: Faces Class Action Over Running Pyramid Scheme in China
NUTRO COMPANY: Removed "Monteleone" Suit to N.J. District Court
NY SECURE: Faces Class Action Over Constitutionality of Act

PATENT HEALTH: Middleton Suit Parties May Amend Complaint
PFIP LLC: Sued for Sending Ads/Messages Without Prior Consent
PFIZER INC: Faces "Banas" Suit in Mississippi Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Faces "Dario" Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Faces "Harris" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug

PFIZER INC: Faces "Pountney" Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
RAYMOND JAMES: $62MM Accord Okayed in Regions Shareholders' Suit
RI EDUCATION BOARD: Accused of Violating EAHCA in Rhode Island
SLM STAFFING: Fails to Pay Workers for All OT Wages, Suit Claims
SPRINT CORP: Investor Suit Obtains Class Action Status

ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL: Settles Class Actions Over Unnecessary Stents
STERLING JEWELERS: Removed "Tapia" Class Suit to N.D. California
TARGET CORP: Trustmark Nat'l Bank Withdraws From Class Action
TOTAL WIRELESS: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
UGI CORP: No Class Certified Yet in Unfair Trade Practice Lawsuit

UNIVERSAL CITY NISSAN: Fails to Give Copy of Consumer Report
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Fails to Secure Medical Records, Suit Says
VISTEON CORP: Court Awards Atty. Fees and Costs in "Pierce" Suit
WAZE: Faces Class Action Over Intellectual Property Violation
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Investors

* Governor Scott Walker Signs Bill on Asbestos-Related Suits


                             *********


ACXIOM CORP: Sued for Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation is facing a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by a
nationwide classes of persons who requested a consumer file and
subsequently alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
according to the company's Feb. 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 16, 2012, a putative class action styled Henderson, et
al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems, a
former subsidiary of the Company that was sold to another company
in fiscal 2012, and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., a Colorado
corporation and subsidiary of the Company.  The action seeks to
certify nationwide classes of persons who requested a consumer
file from any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were the
subject of an Acxiom report sold to a third party that contained
information not obtained directly from a governmental entity and
who did not receive a timely copy of the report; who were the
subject of an Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the
hire/no hire decision on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010
forward,  disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete
the investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007 forward,
were the subject of an Acxiom report for which no permissible
purpose existed. The complaint alleges various violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act and seeks injunctive relief, an
unspecified amount of statutory, compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company intends to
vigorously dispute the allegations.


ADVANCED FINISHING: Antitrust Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insulate SB, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Advanced Finishing Systems,
Inc.; Airtech Spray Systems; Barnhardt Manufacturing Company;
C.H. Reed, Inc.; C.J. Spray Inc.; Coast Industrial Systems, Inc.;
Coatings Holdings, Ltd.; Demilec (USA), LLC; Dove Equipment Co.,
Inc.; Endisys Fluid Delivery Systems; Golden State Paint
Corporation; Graco, Inc.; Graco Minnesota, Inc.; Jack De Mita;
Intech Equipment & Supply, LLC; Marco Group International, Inc.
(Marco); MCC Equipment & Service Center; Specialty Products,
Inc.; Spray Foam Nation (registered under Energy Independence
Inc.); Spray Foam Systems, LLC; Spray-Quip, Inc.; and Ultimate
Linings, Ltd.; Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-2664 ADM/SER, (D. Minn.)
is a putative antitrust class action against Graco, a
manufacturer of fast-set equipment used to install foam
insulation, and against dozens of Graco's alleged distributors.
Insulate alleges Graco acquired two of its closest competitors in
the fast-set equipment market to gain significant market share
and eliminate competition, which allowed Graco to raise the
prices of its fast-set equipment products and reduce product
options after the acquisitions.

Graco, Inc. and Graco Minnesota filed a motion to dismiss and
motion to stay discovery. The Distributor Defendants filed
motions to dismiss, and Plaintiff Insulate SB filed a motion for
expedited discovery.

In a March 11, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by
District Judge Ann D. Montgomery, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/gpu0ejfrom Leagle.com, the Court granted Defendants
Graco, Inc. and Graco Minnesota, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss;
Distributor Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and Defendant Spray
Foam Nation's Motion to Dismiss.  The Court denied Defendant
Graco, Inc. and Graco Minnesota, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Discovery;
and Insulate SB's Motion for Expedited Discovery.

All claims in Plaintiff Insulate SB, Inc.'s Complaint are
dismissed with prejudice.

Christopher A. Nedeau, Esq. -- cnedeau@nossaman.com -- Veronica
L. Harris, Esq. -- vharris@nossaman.com -- and Natasha Saggar
Sheth, Esq. -- nsaggarsheth@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP, San
Francisco, CA, and Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. --
ralockridge@locklaw.com -- Karen H. Riebel, Esq. --
khriebel@locklaw.com -- and Eric N. Linsk, Esq. --
rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.,
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff Insulate SB, Inc.

On behalf of Defendants Graco Inc., and Graco Minnesota, Inc.:

   Stephen P. Safranski, Esq.
   Anne M. Lockner, Esq.
   Kellie Lerner, Esq.
   George D. Carroll, Esq.
   Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Esq.
   ROBINS KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI, LLP
   800 LaSalle Avenue
   2800 LaSalle Plaza
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
   Telephone: (612)349-8500
   Facsimile: (612)339-4181

Lewis A. Remele, Jr., Esq. -- lremele@bassford.com -- and
Christopher R. Morris, Esq. -- cmorris@bassford.com -- Bassford
Remele P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants Advanced
Finishing Systems, Inc.; Airtech Spray Systems; C.H. Reed, Inc.;
C.J. Spray Inc.; Coast Industrial Systems, Inc.; Coatings
Holdings, Ltd.; Demilec (USA), LLC; Engineered Distribution
Specialties, LLC (identified in the Complaint as Endisys Fluid
Delivery Systems); Golden State Paint Corp.; Intech Equipment &
Supply, LLC; Marco Group International, Inc.; MCC Equipment &
Service Center; Specialty Products, Inc.; Spray Foam Systems,
LLC; Spray-Quip, Inc.; and Ultimate Linings, Ltd.

On behalf of Defendant Barnhardt Manufacturing Company, Jeanne
Welch Sopher, Esq. -- jwsopher@rawle.com -- and Kevin M. Ward,
Esq. -- kward@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP, Pittsburgh, PA,
and:

   Elizabeth M. Sorenson Brotten, Esq.
   Foley & Mansfield, PLLP,
   250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1200
   Minneapolis, MN 55401
   Telephpone: 612-338-8788
   Facsimile: 612-338-8690

Barry A. O'Neil, Esq. -- barry@lommen.com -- Lommen, Abdo, Cole,
King & Stageberg, PA, Minneapolis, MN; and L. Pahl Zinn, Esq. --
pzinn@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Detroit, MI,
on behalf of Defendant Spray Foam Nation.


AGILYSYS INC: Hearing to Approve Labor Suit Accord Set for May
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing for a settlement reached in a labor
suit filed against Agilysys, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California is set for May 20,
2014, according to the company's Feb. 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging violations of federal
and state wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining
primarily to pay for missed meals and rest periods and failure to
reimburse business expenses.  On January 9, 2014, the court
issued its preliminary approval of a settlement of the lawsuit
pursuant to which the company would pay a gross settlement in the
amount of approximately $1.5 million.  This amount was accrued at
March 31, 2013 and remains recorded within "Accrued liabilities"
on the company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. The final approval
hearing for the settlement has been set for May 20, 2014.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Reduced Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Allstate Insurance reduced its insurance reimbursements
under Florida personal injury policies without informing health
care providers of the change, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

Randy Rosenberg, a chiropractor with his own practice, sued
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company for the class of
medical services providers.

"This putative class action lawsuit involves a straightforward
question of law that is applicable to each member of the class
that is related to the 2008 changes to the Florida 'no-fault'
insurance coverage regime," the complaint begins.

The Florida law originally required insurers to pay 80% of
reasonable charges filed under a personal injury policy.  But in
2008, the Legislature added an option for an insurer to pay 200
percent of Medicare costs for the same services, usually a lower
figure.

Rosenberg says: "Allstate immediately shifted to the new
methodology but did not change its policy language or otherwise
give notice of Allstate's use of the new methodology, and Florida
law is clear that Allstate breached the contract of insurance by
failing to amend its contract language or otherwise give notice
of the use of the new methodology.  This lawsuit seeks to enforce
the agreement and seeks a declaration declaring Allstate's use of
the alternate methodology unlawful, and thereby requiring
Allstate to pay claims under the 80 percent of reasonable charges
methodology."

The complaint claims that the law's amendment "does not permit
defendants to limit reimbursements based on the Medicare fee
without providing notice in its policy of an election to use the
Medicare Fee Schedules as the sole basis for calculating
reimbursements."

Rosenburg also says that before 2008, "there was no
individualized assessment of reasonableness in this claims
payment process," but Allstate simply accepted the billed
charges, with few exceptions.

He seeks class certification, an injunction and damages for
breach of contract and breach of implied covenant.

He is represented by Jeffrey Leon with the Complex Litigation
Group in Highland Park.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: UGI Sued for Alleged Unfair Trade Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia stayed a suit
alleging violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade
Practice Act by UGI Corp., according to Amerigas Partners, L.P.'s
Feb. 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, West Virginia, against UGI Corp., an insurance subsidiary
of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and
their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters. In this
lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of
the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act,
negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The
Court has not certified the class and, in October 2008, stayed
the lawsuit pending resolution of a separate, but related class
action lawsuit filed against AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County,
which was settled in Fiscal 2011.


APPLE INC: Judge Certifies Class in E-Book Price-Fixing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has granted certification of a class of
consumers in antitrust litigation asserting that Apple Inc.
conspired with publishers to fix the price of electronic books.
The ruling on March 28 came ahead of a damages trial set for this
summer against Apple over the alleged conspiracy aimed at
devouring Amazon.com's hold on a $9.99 price point for e-books.

In a related order on March 28, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote
in the Southern District of New York also struck the opinions of
one of Apple's damages experts and most of those of a second
expert.
"Virtually all class members paid inflated prices for e-books as
a result of a centralized price-fixing conspiracy, and they have
proffered a sophisticated damages model to reliably determine
damages," Judge Cote wrote of the class plaintiffs in her
certification order.  "If certification were not appropriate
here, no antitrust class action could be certified."

Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, co-lead plaintiffs counsel in the class action, said he
was pleased with the rulings.  The consumer plaintiffs are
seeking to recover $280 million, which, when trebled under
federal antitrust law, adds up to $840 million.

"In particular, we're pleased with the companion order which
struck one of Apple's experts entirely and struck most of the
other expert," he said.  "So when we go to trial, Apple has very
little to argue about."

Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet declined to comment.

Lawyers in the class action settled their claims against the five
publishers alleged to be part of the conspiracy: Penguin Group
Inc., Hachette Book Group (USA), HarperCollins Publishers LLC,
Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC (which does business as Macmillan) and
Simon & Schuster Inc.  On Dec. 9, Judge Cote awarded Hagens
Berman and Cohen Milstein more than $11.2 million in attorney
fees and costs associated with those settlements.

In a related case brought by the U.S. Justice Department and
attorneys general in 31 states, the District of Columbia and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Judge Cote last year found that
"evidence is overwhelming that Apple knew of the unlawful aims of
the conspiracy and joined the conspiracy with the specific intent
to help it succeed."  Judge Cote is overseeing the multidistrict
litigation over all e-book antitrust litigation.

Apple has appealed that judgment, which followed a bench trial,
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In the class action, Mr. Berman and co-lead plaintiffs counsel
Kit Pierson -- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- co-chairman of the
antitrust practice group at Washington's Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, called the consumer action a "textbook case for certifying
a class" in an Oct. 11 motion for certification.  The proposed
class action would include tens of millions of consumers in 23
states and territories who are not covered by the attorneys
general actions and who purchased e-books on any device between
April 1, 2010, and May 21, 2012.

Apple, in a Nov. 15 filing opposing certification, argued that
the class plaintiffs couldn't prove damages.  "Like the e-books
themselves, each of the many millions of e-book purchases has its
own distinctive story that must be considered separately," wrote
Apple's attorney, Theodore Boutrous -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -
- co-chairman of the appellate and constitutional law group at
Los Angeles-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Judge Cote disagreed.  In granting class certification, she also
rejected Apple's numerous arguments seeking to exclude the
plaintiffs' damages expert's opinions.


AVX CORP: Suit Over Pollution in Myrtle Beach Factory Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation still faces a suit alleging migration of certain
pollutants from the company's property at Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina factory negatively affected property values, according
to the company's Feb. 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in the South Carolina
State Court by certain individuals as a class action with respect
to property adjacent to its Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory,
claiming property values have been negatively impacted by alleged
migration of certain pollutants from the company's property.
Based on the company's estimate of potential outcomes, the
company accrued approximately $350 with respect to this case as
of December 31, 2013.


BARCLAYS BANK: Manipulated WM/Reuters FX Rates, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aureus Currency Fund, L.P., Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital
Inc., BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America Inc.,
Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., Citigroup Forex, Inc, Credit
Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche
Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Goldman, Sachs & Co, HSBC
Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Lloyds Banking Group PLC,
Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, UBS AG, UBS
Securities LLC, and John Doe Nos. 1-50, Case No. 1:14-cv-00825-
LGS (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2014) alleges that the Defendants, in
violation of the Sherman Act and common law, conspired, combined,
or contracted to fix and restrain trade in, and intentionally
manipulate, the foreign currency exchange market through the
manipulation of the WM/Reuters FX rates during the period of at
least January 1, 2003, through the present.

The WM/Reuters FX rates are published hourly for 160 currencies
and half-hourly for the 21 most-traded currencies.  Introduced in
1994, the WM/Reuters foreign exchange rates are used by fund
managers to compute the day-to-day value of their holdings and by
companies such as FTSE Group and MSCI that maintain indexes of
stocks and bonds.

Barclays Bank PLC is a United Kingdom public limited company
headquartered in London, England.  Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays
Capital Inc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Barclays PLC and
engage in investment banking, wealth management, and investment
management services.

During the Class Period, the Defendants and their co-conspirators
transacted substantial business involving WM/Reuters-based
financial instruments in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of
interstate commerce, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY, 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
                  drichards@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Manuel John Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: dominguez@cohenmilstein.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert S. Khuzami, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 15th St NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005-5765
          Telephone: (202) 879-5065
          E-mail: robert.khuzami@kirkland.com


BEST MOVERS: Sued for Not Paying Minimum Wage for Hours Worked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martinus Rolle, Individually and on behalf of All others
similarly situated who Consent to their inclusion v. Best Movers
of America, Inc., and Shirley Baruk Carfati , individually, Case
No. 0:14-cv-60321-UU (S.D. Fla., February 10, 2014) alleges that
the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the
putative collective class minimum wages for each hour worked.

Best Movers of America, Inc. is a Florida corporation
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  Shirley Baruk Carfati
has been a day-to-day manager and supervisor of Best Movers.
Best Movers is in the business of providing both in-state and
out-of-state moving services to both commercial and non-
commercial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          Dale J. Morgado, Esq.
          FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
          100 North Biscayne Boulevard
          29th Floor, Suite 2902
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 222-7850
          Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
          E-mail: aortiz@fmlawgroup.us
                  dmorgado@fmlawgroup.us


BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Beverly Hills Hotel
stiffs workers for overtime, five workers say in a class action
in Superior Court in Los Angeles.


BOTTLE KING: New Jersey Man Obtains Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Horowitz, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that a class
action against Bottle King was settled.

On March 17, 2012, Eric Nelson made a purchase at the Bottle King
store on Route 10 in Roxbury.  What might have seemed like an
ordinary St. Patrick's Day activity turned into a court battle
when Nelson noticed the expiration date of his MasterCard was
printed on his receipt.  Mr. Nelson, who at the time was living
in Mine Hill but has since moved to Hoboken, said he was aware
there were laws to keep the expiration date off the receipt.  He
contacted an attorney.

The lawsuit resulted in a proposed class-action settlement that
will provide a 20 percent discount on a purchase of up to $200 at
any of Bottle King's 14 New Jersey stores.  A store receipt from
the period between April 20, 2008, and Oct. 10, 2012, containing
a credit card number or expiration date, will be required to get
the discount.

Mr. Nelson's attorney, David DiSabato of Mendham, said that
before the rise of high-tech thievery, full credit card numbers
and expiration dates were routinely printed on receipts.  But
under an amendment to New Jersey's Fair Credit Reporting Act that
went into effect in 2004 and was modeled on a similar federal
law, those numbers may not be printed on receipts.

"In order to prevent identity theft and bank fraud, that was
outlawed," Mr. DiSabato said, noting that now stores may print
out only the final five digits of a credit card.

Credit card numbers, and expiration dates, "should not be
floating around on restaurant tables and in a restaurant's
dumpster,"
Mr. DiSabato said.

The settlement has won preliminary approval from Judge Donald
Coburn in Superior Court in Morristown and is being published as
a legal notice in The Star-Ledger.  The judge will conduct a
hearing on the fairness of the settlement on May 9.

Mr. Nelson, who declined to be interviewed, has more to gain from
the lawsuit than a 20 percent discount, Mr. DiSabato said.

For his leading role in preventing possible identity theft,
Mr. Nelson will receive "an incentive award as the class
representative," Mr. DiSabato said.  "That makes it worthwhile
for him to bring it to the court's attention."

Mr. DiSabato said he doesn't know how much the award will be.
Judge Coburn will decide that.

Mr. DiSabato praised Bottle King for being "very cooperative in
taking responsibility for this.  Immediately, they stopped"
printing the expiration dates, he said.

The problem occurred when Bottle King changed software companies,
said Ken Friedman, president of Allied Management, the company
that operates the Livingston-based Bottle King.  Although the
previous software firm had been removing expiration dates and
full credit card numbers, "the new software company didn't take
out the expiration date," Mr. Friedman said.

Bottle King has stores in Chatham, Dumont, Glen Ridge, Glen Rock,
Hillsborough, Hillsdale, Livingston, Mansfield, Middletown,
Morris Plains, Parsippany, Ramsey and Wayne, as well as in the
Ledgewood section of Roxbury.


CANADA: Court Tosses Challenge to Day Scholars Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CoastReporter.net reports that in a decision released late in
February, a three-judge panel of Canada's Federal Court of Appeal
unanimously dismissed the federal government's latest challenge
in the proposed day scholars class action lawsuit.

The federal government has been seeking to have the lawsuit
stopped in Federal Court, which would have forced the plaintiffs
to start again in the B.C. Supreme Court.

The Tk'emlups te Secwepemc Indian Band and the Sechelt Indian
Band, on behalf of the Bands and Band members, launched the day
scholars class action lawsuit against Canada in 2012 to seek
compensation for those Band members who attended Indian
residential schools, but who did not live at the schools.  The
federal government has yet to defend the lawsuit, but has taken
various steps to attempt to slow down the process of
certification.

In its latest move, the federal government brought claims against
various religious organizations, a move which would have shifted
the whole lawsuit to the B.C. Supreme Court, leading to an
increased delay before certification. Justice Harrington of the
Federal Court denied the motion, the appeal of which was the
current court proceeding.

Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Marc Noel determined that
there was no problem with the Federal Court maintaining
jurisdiction over any claims brought by Canada against the
churches.  He found that at the heart of both the main claim and
any third party lawsuits was "the honor of the Crown, the
heightened duty which is cast on the Crown in its dealings with
Aboriginal peoples."

This honor of the Crown will play a central role in the future
steps of this litigation.  The Federal Court of Appeal has
clearly recognized that what is at issue in the day scholars
class action is whether the heightened duty of Canada and the
honor of the Crown created an obligation by Canada to protect the
language and culture of Canada's Aboriginal populations, and
whether any failure to live up to that duty must be compensated.

"It is time for Canada to stop trying to tie this litigation up
in procedural knots, and to allow this to move forward to
certification.  The Federal Court of Appeal and Justice
Harrington in the Federal Court agree that this matter is
important and needs to move forward quickly," said Sechelt Indian
Band Chief Garry Feschuk in a news release.


DENNY'S CORP: Faces Overtime Class Action in Houston
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that 11 Denny's outlets stiff
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court in
Houston.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Suit in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated suit alleging conspiracy
of Eagle Materials Inc. with other wallboard manufacturers to fix
the price for drywall sold in the United States, according to the
company's Feb. 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum
Company LLC ("American Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum
conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for
drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal
antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state
law. The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard
manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the
announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases,
output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to
American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include
CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North
America, Georgia-Pacific LLC, Temple Inland Inc. and PABCO
Building Products LLC. The plaintiffs in these class action
lawsuits bring claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or
indirect purchasers of wallboard during various periods from 2008
to present for unspecified monetary damage (including treble
damages) and in some cases injunctive relief in various United
States district courts, including the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina, North Carolina
and the Northern District of Illinois. On April 8, 2013, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and
consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. On July
29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the
complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to
increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses
to plaintiffs' claims.

While American Gypsum's production of written discovery is
substantially complete, discovery is ongoing. Due to the fact
that these claims remain in a preliminary phase, the company is
unable to assess the likelihood or amount of potential loss
relating to the claims, or whether such losses, if any, would
have a material impact on the company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows. American Gypsum denies the
allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend itself
against these claims.


ENVY NAILS: Manicurists File Class Action Over Wage Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Beekman, writing for New York Daily News, report that
manicurists are fighting back against a tough-as-nails
businesswoman who runs her mani-pedi empire with an iron fist.
The manicurists, who filed an amended class-action complaint in
February in Manhattan Federal Court, claim Anna Do has cheated
hundreds of workers out of millions of dollars in wages.  They
want customers to know that the Envy Nails owner allegedly flouts
the law by paying her employees as little as $5 a day and keeps
them under her thumb by spying on them from her home via
surveillance cameras in her more than 50 nail salons in
Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx.

"The average I made during the winter was $80 a week,"
Minerva Lopez, who quit her job with Envy Nails in December 2012,
said through a Spanish interpreter.  "Sometimes I didn't have
enough money to eat.  I would drink a coffee in the morning and
at night eat something very small -- a can of tuna or some rice."

Ms. Lopez, Nora Cacho and Lorena Hernandez, who initially sued
last year, worked at Envy Nails from 2006 to 2012.  They should
know that most people who work in nail salons are mistreated and
abused.  They claim they toiled six days a week from 9:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. while making no hourly wage and no overtime.  They say
they earned commissions that amounted to as little as $3 for each
$10 manicure.  The women were paid in cash off the books and --
even with tips -- they made less than the minimum wage, their
lawsuit claims.

"Envy Nails has perfected the art of exploiting immigrant
workers," said Lloyd Ambinder, lawyer for the plaintiffs.

In a survey by the National Employment Law Project, more than 36%
of nail, beauty and hair salon workers in New York City reported
minimum-wage violations.

Vincent Wong, lawyer for Envy Nails, declined to comment.  Ms. Do
and Envy Nails have denied the allegations in court papers.  Ms.
Do instructs her manicurists to identify themselves as
independent contractors when government inspectors visit, said
Ms. Cacho.

But the plaintiffs claim they were employees, not contractors.
"Envy Nails avoids paying payroll tax, Social Security
withholdings, workers' compensation and disability insurance
. . . . The workers and the taxpayers are both being ripped off,"
Mr. Ambinder said.

The chain keeps its manicurists on their toes by fining them for
minor infractions and by monitoring its ubiquitous surveillance
cameras, said Ms. Lopez, 48.

"The cameras look at you every second," Ms. Lopez said, calling
the surveillance "traumatic."

Ms. Lopez and Ms. Cacho, 43, Mexican immigrants who live in
Jackson Heights, Queens, said most Envy Nails workers are new
arrivals from Mexico and Ecuador.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Loritz" Securities Case Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently stayed in the consolidated securities suit
the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption, lead docket
number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, according to the company's Feb. 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska,
R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of
certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf
filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named
defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013.  On June 4,
2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially
similar action in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those
who purchased the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April
24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and
Louis E. Martinez.  On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson
consolidated these cases under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies,
Inc. caption, lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed
Sandra Weitsman and James Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the
putative class of former Exide stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered
Lead Plaintiffs to file their consolidated amended complaint on
or before August 23, 2013. On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Company, without
prejudice, to re-file at a future date. Lead Plaintiffs have
indicated that they intend to pursue their claims against the
individual defendants during the pendency of Exide's bankruptcy
and may seek to reinstate their claims against the Company when
it emerges from bankruptcy.

On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous
deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip
A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly,
Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D'Appolonia, David S. Ferguson,
John O'Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi. In the Consolidated
Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period
June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013. In addition, Lead Plaintiffs
purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company's senior
secured notes during the period August 8, 2011 through May 24,
2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that certain public statements made
by the Company and its officers during these periods were
materially false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended
Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought.
Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to
vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to dismiss all
claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge Wilson
granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, without
prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file their
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January 30,
2014. On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical
in every material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an
amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against
them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants
intend to file a motion to dismiss all claims against them on or
before February 13, 2014 and briefing on their motion is expected
to be complete by March 13, 2014. Discovery is currently stayed
pursuant to the discovery-stay provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: "Hernandez" Suit Stayed After Chapter 11
------------------------------------------------------------
A case filed against Exide Technologies, Inc. over the release of
allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the Company's
facility located in Vernon, California is stayed after the
company's voluntary petition for reorganization, according to the
company's Feb. 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and
medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los
Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or
neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of
the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the
Company's facility located in Vernon, California. On June 10,
2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization
pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the
District of Delaware, and the case is stayed.


FORD MOTOR: Court Enters Protective Order in "Jenelle Ford" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
To expedite the flow of discovery material, facilitate the prompt
resolution of disputes over confidentiality, adequately protect
material entitled to be kept confidential, and ensure that
protection is afforded only to material so entitled, and based on
good cause, Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal approved a
stipulated protective order in JENELLE FORD and BARRY FORD, h/w,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-100, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-08335-PSG-SS, (C.D.
Cal.).

A copy of the March 10, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/9a0m9Ffrom Leagle.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class.

   RUBEN HONIK, Esq.
   KEVIN W. FAY, Esq.
   GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
   1515 Market Street, Suite
   1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Telephone: (215)985-9177

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class:

   Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
   Stephanie Mazepa, Esq.
   Milstein Adelman LLP
   One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
   San Francisco, CA 94520
   Telephone: 415-773-2833

JOAN S. DINSMORE -- jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRWOODS
LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina.  ASHLEY R. FICKEL --
afickel@dykema.com
-- DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP, Los Angeles, California.  JANET L.
CONIGLIARO -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.  J. TRACY WALKER IV -- twalker@mcguirewoods.com
-- MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, Richmond, VA, Attorneys for Defendant FORD
MOTOR COMPANY.


GALILEE MEMORIAL: More People Join Body Piling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
WMC-TV reports that more people are joining the Galilee Memorial
Gardens Cemetery body piling lawsuit.

While no amount of money could undo the agony felt by families
with loved ones buried in the cemetery, Attorney Howard Manis
hopes a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit will offer some
closure.

"The class action is seeking damages in the amount of $200
million and that is based on the anticipated size of the class,"
said Mr. Manis.

Mr. Manis represents the family of Renisha Johnson, killed in
2011 and buried in Galilee.  The Johnson's were one of the first
families to come forward with questions about their daughter's
missing remains.  Her case is specifically mentioned in the
arrest affidavit of 21-year-old Corey Taylor, who was arrested on
March 28.  At least 150 families have come forward with
complaints against the cemetery, and in a phone interview, Mr.
Manis says that number continues to grow.

"By no means is that the size of the class.  We think that the
class may be as great as 1,500 to 2000 based on the information
we received as to the number of funerals that were being held
every Saturday and Sunday out at the cemetery," noted Mr. Manis.

The state ordered Galilee to stop burials in 2011 but according
to the class action lawsuit, the cemetery continued business as
usual.

The district attorneys office is heading this investigation and
the cemetery still an active crime scene.

Mr. Taylor was arrested on March 28 and charged with theft of
property and the abuse of a corpse.  In a detailed affidavit,
investigators say Mr. Taylor used a computer in the cemetery
office to produce a list that showed three to four bodies were
buried in one grave.  The report suggests he even served as a
witness, noting that "Taylor was also present when Robert Savage
aka "Juicy" crushed caskets with the wheel of a backhoe in effort
to make room for multiple caskets."

The owner of the cemetery, Jemar Lambert, is in jail with no
bond.


GENERAL MOTORS: CEO Deflects Hard Questions in Recall Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
General Motors CEO Mary Barra, on the job less than three months,
calmly answered or deflected tough questions from a congressional
committee on April 1 about faulty parts responsible for at least
13 deaths and the recall of 2.6 million cars.

Ms. Barra frustrated lawmakers by fending off questions, saying
she was awaiting the results of an internal GM investigation.
She didn't know why GM waited more than a decade to recall cars
it knew had defective ignition switches.  She didn't know who was
responsible for the decisions that delayed the recall.

But experts on corporate damage control said she didn't have much
choice and gave her high marks for her performance on the hot
seat.

"Barra's rope-a-dope is the best of GM's bad options today," said
Washington crisis management consultant Eric Denzenhall.  "There
isn't a corporate lawyer in the country that's going to allow her
to engage in freelance speculation about things she doesn't know
yet.  No, that's not satisfying to the public and media, but the
alternative is much worse."

Ms. Barra apologized for GM's slowness in warning customers about
the problems and promised to change the automaker's culture to
put a new emphasis on safety.  "Barra held her ground, claiming
that today's General Motors is a different company from the one
whose corporate culture allowed this issue to fester for a
decade," said Jack Nerad, executive editorial director Kelley
Blue Book.

Ken and Jayne Rimer, whose daughter died in a 2006 accident after
a faulty switch prevented airbags from deploying, found Barra's
testimony incomplete.  For Ms. Barra "not to have any answers"
after about three months as CEO was unsatisfactory, Ken Rimer
said in the hallway outside the hearing room.  "It surprised me
how unprofessional that was," he said.

Congressional appearances can be a minefield for CEOs.  In 2008,
automaker CEOS drew public scorn for flying corporate jets to
Washington to ask for a government bailout.  And Wall Street CEOs
were battered in hearings after the financial crisis.

But some lawmakers appeared somewhat more sympathetic to
Ms. Barra, who was thrust into a crisis after becoming the first
woman CEO of a major automaker in January.  In 33 years at GM,
Ms. Barra worked in engineering, communications and human
resources.  She's a second-generation GM employee: Her father was
a GM die maker for four decades.

Not everything went smoothly for the new CEO on April 1, who flew
commercial to the hearing.  Ms. Barra struggled to explain how GM
could continue to use parts that didn't meet its own
specifications.  When she tried to draw a distinction between
parts that didn't meet specs and those that were defective and
dangerous, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said: "What you just
answered is gobbledygook."

Dan Hill, president of a Washington firm that advises clients on
public relations and crisis management, said Ms. Barra erred by
contrasting today's safety-conscious GM with the belt-tightening
GM that sought bankruptcy protection in 2009.  "Barra threw the
old GM under the bus by saying that the previous company that she
grew up in and held executive positions in was based on a 'cost
culture' as opposed to a 'customer first' culture,"  Mr. Hill
said, noting that the implicit criticism of her predecessors
could be used as ammunition in lawsuits against GM.

But some corporate image experts praised Ms. Barra for seizing
the initiative by announcing that GM has hired Kenneth Feinberg -
- who handled the fund for the victims of 9/11, the Boston
Marathon bombing and the BP oil spill -- to explore ways to
compensate victims of accidents in the GM cars.  Ms. Barra didn't
commit GM to setting up such a fund.

"She didn't make mistakes," says Gene Grabowski, a crisis
management consultant who helps executives prepare for
congressional testimony.  "That's how you survive a hearing."


GENERAL MOTORS: Avoided Switch Redesign for Cost Reasons
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lienert, Marilyn Thompson and Simon Gardner, writing for
Reuters, report that General Motors Co. in 2005 decided not to
change an ignition switch eventually linked to the deaths of at
least 13 people because it would have added about a dollar to the
cost of each car, according to an internal GM document provided
to U.S. congressional investigators.

The U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce released the
documents on April 1 as lawmakers asked CEO Mary Barra why GM
failed to recall 2.6 million cars until more than a decade after
it first noticed a switch problem that could cut off engines and
disable airbags, power steering and power brakes.

Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette cited a 2005 GM document
that she said showed a cost of 57 cents per fix.

Ms. DeGette did not release the document, and Reuters was unable
to get a copy.  However, Reuters obtained what appeared to be a
separate document, a series of 2005 emails between GM engineers
debating whether to make a change to the ignition switch.  The
change would have cost an extra 90 cents per unit and additional
tooling costs of $400,000, one email showed.  Those tooling costs
typically are amortized over several years.

Ms. Barra said she found the concept of turning down the change
because of tooling costs "very disturbing.  That is not the way
we do business in the New GM."

In the email exchange, one of the engineers, John Hendler, said
his team was prepared to continue using a switch that was made by
Delphi Automotive and approved by GM, even though Delphi told the
automaker in early 2002 that the switch did not meet GM's
performance specifications.

Mr. Hendler said the cars, including the Chevrolet Cobalt and
Saturn Ion, which were recalled this year, would continue using
the old switch "until the piece cost can be eliminated or
significantly reduced," and targeted a new switch for 2009
models. Reuters was unable to contact Mr. Hendler.

Another GM executive, Lori Queen, who had responsibility for the
development of GM's small cars, responded, "I'm not sure it's ok
to wait." She did not explain herself in the email.  Queen did
not return a call seeking comment.  A General Motors spokesman
said the company was still investigating the recall and would
review all relevant documents.

Representatives repeatedly questioned Ms. Barra about GM's
weighing of costs even in safety situations.  Ms. Barra said that
was no longer the case, and that the company since its 2009
bankruptcy was changing from a "cost culture" to one focused on
customers.

                          Empty Blanks

In the early 2000s, GM, like the other Detroit automakers was
under intense cost pressure, in the face of competition from
overseas rivals and a legacy of high labor costs.  Those and
other financial issues eventually led to GM's 2009 bankruptcy.

GM did change the ignition switch, in 2006, but the process did
not comply with the company's own rules, documents and testimony
show.

Parts maker Delphi told congressional investigators last week
that the redesigned switch on the 2007 models was harder to move
out of position, but the force required to turn the switch was
"still below GM's original specifications," according to a
timeline released by the investigators.

A separate, April 26, 2006, document called a "validation sign-
off", authorized changes to the switch, including a new spring,
designed to increase the force required to move the switch.

The document showed that the part number did not change, when
redesigned, an issue which GM said hampered its own internal
investigation.

"It is inconceivable," Ms. Barra said, when asked about the
design change without a corresponding change in part number.  "It
is not our process."

Moreover, several fields on the document marked as "required" are
left blank or with "N/A", including purchase order number and
"validation engineer".

The document has the signature of GM "lead engineer"
Ray DeGiorgio, who could not be reached for comment.  In a 2013
deposition in a suit against GM, DeGiorgio had said he was
unaware of a change in the part.

A retired GM manager familiar with the automaker's engineering
and manufacturing procedures said that another manager would have
had to sign off on the part, by company policy, given Mr.
DeGiorgio's relatively low seniority.  "So who approved a design
change without a part number change?"

Ms. Barra confirmed that Mr. DeGiorgio is still employed by the
company and said she has not yet heard his explanation for
signing the 2006 document.

The redesigned ignition switch was installed on 2007 Chevrolet
Cobalts and Saturn Ions in late 2006, GM has said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sen. McCaskill Points Out "Culture of Cover-Up"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Raasch, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
after two days of tough congressional questioning of
General Motors CEO Mary Barra, the GM ignition key problem defect
blamed on at least 13 deaths has now become a full-blown
Washington firestorm.

One of the deaths happened in suburban St. Louis in 2009,
Sen. Claire McCaskill said on April 2 during a hearing of a
commerce subcommittee she chairs.  In that hearing, where
Ms. Barra was grilled so harshly that Sen. McCaskill offered
something of an apology, some senators raised the possibility of
criminal prosecution.

Sen. McCaskill, D-Mo., also suggested that an industrywide
examination of airbag deployment in all cars might be necessary,
given the questions raised about the GM controversy.

Congress' role in the controversy could drag on for months.
Ms. Barra promised to return to Sen. McCaskill's committee later
to answer questions she said she could not before her company
completed an internal investigation.

GM has said that a faulty switch, which can move the ignition
from "run" to "accessory" if pulled by a heavy key chain or
knocked with the driver's knee, can cause the engine to shut down
and cut power to steering, brakes and air bags.  The defect has
been connected to at least 13 deaths and dozens of accidents.

GM has recalled 2.6 million cars, including the Chevrolet Cobalt
and Saturn Ion, and has offered loaner vehicles while it fixes
the recalled cars.

In a tough, three-hour session on April 2, Sen. McCaskill and
other senators went after GM for what Sen. McCaskill termed as a
"culture of cover-up."  As she did before a House panel on
April 1, Ms. Barra answered many of the questions by deferring to
an internal investigation she had ordered and declaring that GM's
conduct had been "unacceptable."  "I am deeply sorry," she said,
referring to the victims.

Ms. Barra, who has been with GM for 33 years, became CEO in
January.  She said again on April 2 that she did not learn of the
faulty ignition problem until Jan. 31.  GM survived bankruptcy
after a 2009 taxpayer bailout.

Much of the senators' ire stemmed from revelations that GM used
the same part number for its original, faulty ignition switch as
it did with one it redesigned in 2006.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said he believed there was
"incontrovertible" evidence that GM knew about the safety defect
but "concealed it from the courts and the United States."

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., playing off Barra's continuous
contention that GM's actions had been "unacceptable," said: "It
goes beyond unacceptable.  I believe this is criminal."

Sen. McCaskill produced a document on April 2 that she said
showed that one GM engineer knew of the problem eight years
before the company issued recalls -- and then testified in later
lawsuits that he did not.

That employee is still with the company, Ms. Barra told
Sen. McCaskill during the hearing.

The document "is not a smoking gun, it is a raging inferno,"
Sen. McCaskill told reporters afterward.

Sen. McCaskill said she was also further disturbed that it took a
plaintiff's attorney's suing GM, not the company itself, to bring
the ignition problem to light.

"What we don't know yet is how many people knew about the
changing of the defective part and hiding that change behind
using the same part number," Sen. McCaskill said after the
hearing.  "It may have been isolated to a small number of
engineers that were trying to cover themselves.  It was a culture
of . . . covering up the problem as opposed to being accountable
for the mistakes they have made."

Asked directly by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., if she would
allow her children drive a Cobalt, Ms. Barra said she would as
long as the ignition key was not attached to a heavy key chain.

Other senators, frustrated when Ms. Barra said she would wait for
her internal investigation before answering some questions,
expressed skepticism about her vow to change a GM culture that
had produced the problem.

"If this is the new GM leadership, it is pretty lacking,"
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said.

Several senators questioned why the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration decided not to push for deeper
investigations when it learned about the problem in 2007 and
again in 2010.  Sen. McCaskill said a stagnant budget for the
NHTSA over the past decade might be one reason.

Sen. McCaskill told Ms. Barra that the tough treatment she got is
"coming from the right place" -- concern for the victims.

"You have a great company and an enormous responsibility to get
this right," Sen. McCaskill said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Announces Two More Vehicle Recalls
--------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher and Dee-ann Durbin, writing for The Associated Press,
report that General Motors announced two more recalls on March
28, bringing to 4.8 million the number of cars, trucks and SUVs
the automaker has called back for repairs in the past month.

The string of recalls, topped by an ignition switch problem in
compact cars now linked to 13 crash deaths, has embarrassed the
company and sidetracked its new CEO, who started work just over
two months ago.  GM has admitted knowing about the switch problem
a decade ago, yet it didn't recall any cars until February.  The
recall delay has brought two congressional investigations and
probes by the Justice Department and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.

Late on March 28, GM announced it would recall 490,000 late-model
pickup trucks and SUVs because transmission oil cooling lines
weren't secured properly in their fittings.  Transmission oil can
leak from a fitting and hit hot surfaces, causing fires, the
company said in a statement.  GM said it knows of three fires and
no injuries.

The recall affects Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500 pickup
trucks from the 2014 model year, as well as 2015 Chevrolet
Suburban and Tahoe SUVs and the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL SUVs.  All
have six-speed automatic transmissions.

The Silverado is GM's top-selling vehicle and an important profit
center for the company.  The GMC Sierra also is among GM's top
sellers.

Dealers will inspect the transmission oil cooling line fittings
and make sure they're securely seated, at no cost to owners.

Also on March 28, GM announced the recall of 172,000 Chevrolet
Cruze compact cars because the right front axle shaft can
fracture and separate while being driven.

The recall affects cars from the 2013 and 2014 model years
equipped with 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder gasoline
engines.

If a shaft fractures, the wheels would lose power without warning
and the cars would coast to a stop.

GM says it has warranty reports of several dozen shaft fractures.
It is not aware of any crashes or injuries.

Dealers will replace the shafts free of charge.

The recall allows dealers to resume selling affected Cruzes.  GM
issued a stop sale order on the cars on March 27.  The recall
also covers about 2,500 replacement shafts used to fix manual
transmission Cruzes that were recalled last September.

In all, GM has recalled 4.8 million vehicles since last month,
two million more than the company sold last year in the U.S. In
addition to the recalls announced on March 28, they include:

- 2.6 million small cars because their ignition switches can
move from the "run" to the "accessory" or "off" position, which
causes the car to stall and disables the air bags and power
steering.  The recall includes the Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet
HHR, Pontiac G5, Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Ion and Saturn Sky from
the 2003-2011 model years.

- 1.18 million SUVs because their side air bags, front center
air bags and seat belt pretensioners might not deploy if drivers
ignore an air bag warning light on their dashboard. The recall
includes the Buick Enclave and GMC Acadia (2008-2013); Chevrolet
Traverse (2009-2013); and Saturn Outlook (2008-2010)

- 303,000 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana vans (2009-2014)
because the material on the instrument panel might not adequately
protect unbelted passengers' heads in a crash.

- 63,900 Cadillac XTS sedans (2013-2014) because a plug in the
brake assembly can get dislodged and short, increasing the risk
of an engine compartment fire.

GM also said on March 28 that it has found another death
attributed to the ignition switch recalls, bringing the company's
count to 13. The additional fatality happened in 2013 and
involved a 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt in Quebec, Canada.  The company
didn't give further details of the crash.

GM says dealers will start getting replacement ignition switches
on April 7, but it will take until October to repair all of the
vehicles.  CEO Mary Barra says they are safe as long as drivers
remove everything from their key rings.  Weight on the rings can
wear down the inside of the switches, causing them to slip out of
the run position.

Trial lawyers, however say the cars should be parked because the
ignitions can slip out of the run position on bumpy roads.


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Move to Coordinate Ignition Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a prominent plaintiffs firm has moved to coordinate the
rapidly growing tide of lawsuits filed over General Motors
Corp.'s ignition switch recalls, which expanded on March 28 to
include more recent vehicle models.

The March 24 motion was filed before the U.S. Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation by Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
-- the firm that obtained a $1.6 billion consumer class action
settlement over Toyota Motor Corp.'s sudden-acceleration recalls.
The motion seeks to consolidate the lawsuits before U.S. District
Judge James Selna of the Central District of California, who
approved the 2012 settlement while overseeing more than 300
lawsuits filed against Toyota following its 2009 and 2010 recalls
for problems with floor mats and stuck accelerator pedals.

"We think that one of the things the MDL panel would be
interested in is assigning to a jurist who has not only the MDL
experience but has experience in class-wide auto defect
litigation," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens
Berman.

The motion cites four federal lawsuits filed on behalf of GM
consumers, one of them on March 14 by Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in
Corpus Christi, Tex.  That case was the first brought against GM
over the recalls.  Additional lawsuits have been brought in the
Eastern District of Michigan; GM is based in Detroit.

Since then, at least five more class actions have been filed,
alleging that consumers lost value on their vehicles following
the recalls.  Most claim that GM knew about the defects for a
decade but failed to tell consumers or federal regulators; some
assert that the recalls haven't fixed the problems.

Two lawsuits have been filed in state courts in Alabama and
Minnesota on behalf of individuals who died in accidents
attributed to the ignition switch defects.

GM announced a recall in February that now includes more than 1.6
million vehicles, saying that the defects might cause engines to
stall and prevent air bags from deploying in crashes.  The
defects have been linked to a dozen deaths.

On March 28, GM expanded its recall, which initially covered
various models made between 2005 and 2007, to include 824,000
cars made between 2008 and 2011.

In the multidistrict litigation against Toyota, Berman was co-
chairman of the committee for the consumer class actions while
Robinson, managing partner of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro
Davis Inc. in Newport Beach, Calif., was co-chairman of the
committee for the personal injury and wrongful death cases.


GENERAL MOTORS: May Set Up Funds to Compensate Recall Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that General Motors Corp.'s hiring of noted claims attorney
Kenneth Feinberg has raised the possibility that it might set up
a fund to compensate victims of accidents linked to its recent
recalls.  But the announcement, made by CEO Mary Barra during
testimony before

Congress has done little to placate the plaintiffs bar.
Prominent litigators said Ms. Barra was evasive and provided
little new information about GM's handling of ignition switch
defects that prompted recalls of 2.6 million vehicles.

"I was extremely disappointed in the CEO's statement generally,"
said Jere Beasley, founding shareholder of Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis & Miles, whose Montgomery, Ala., firm has filed
lawsuits against GM.  "I've never seen a more clear-cut case of
liability where the CEO admits liability, in effect apologies and
says, 'Bad things happened.'"

GM's recalls cover a wide range of vehicles with defective
ignition switches that might cause engines to stall and prevent
air bags from deploying in crashes.  The defects have been linked
to 13 deaths.

Although she had already apologized for the recalls, Ms. Barra's
House and Senate committee testimony on April 1 and April 2
marked the first time the company publicly addressed GM's
potential legal liability for defects that, according to
lawsuits, the company had known about for the past decade.  Under
a provision of its bankruptcy, GM was absolved of liability for
accidents that occurred before its 2009 filing.  But several
prominent consumer groups led by Public Citizen called on GM to
waive that shield and establish a trust fund for victims of the
defects, according to a letter they sent on April 1 to Ms. Barra.

Plaintiffs lawyers expect GM to set up such a fund.
"I would trust GM is not foolish and they will waive the
bankruptcy defense," said Stephen Sheller --
sasheller@sheller.com -- founding partner of Sheller P.C. in
Philadelphia, who has at least two prospective cases involving
accidents that occurred following the bankruptcy.  "They need to
make amends.  That's one of the key things they absolutely need
to do."

Mr. Feinberg, who administered compensation programs for victims
of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and the Boston Marathon
bombing last year, said in a prepared statement on April 1 "My
mandate from the company is to consider the options for dealing
with issues surrounding the ignition switch matter, and to do so
in an independent, balanced and objective manner based upon my
prior experience."

But when asked during the congressional hearings whether GM
planned to set up a compensation fund, Ms. Barra refused to be
specific.

Lawyers with suits against GM said that hiring Feinberg gives
them little assurance.  The attorney came under fire from the
plaintiffs bar over delays in paying claims under BP PLC's $20
billion compensation fund following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon
oil spill.

Plaintiffs lawyers, many of whom work for contingency fees, would
prefer to see their cases remain in court.  They already have
mobilized an effort to consolidate the GM litigation for pretrial
purposes before a single judge.

In the BP case, said Elizabeth Cabraser, whose firm has filed a
class action against GM, independent court oversight was lacking
when Mr. Feinberg, managing partner of Washington's Feinberg
Rozen, was in charge of oil spill claims.

"Retaining Ken Feinberg is a good sign that somebody is very,
very serious about being innovative and creative and proactive to
resolve this," said Ms. Cabraser, a partner at San Francisco's
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.  "But it's also going to take
proactive court action. It's going to have to take ongoing
pressure and action from consumers as well."

Consumers, in fact, have filed the bulk of the lawsuits against
GM over the recalls.  They allege their cars lost value due to
the undisclosed defects.  Whether a compensation fund would
include damages for consumers, as opposed to accident victims
alone, remains unclear.

"As the information continues to emerge day by day, it's clear
that GM has a serious problem with all of its consumers, and we'd
like to think that when they ultimately understand they'll need
to step up and take responsibility it will include compensating
the consumers they lied to for so many years about the defects in
these cars," said Adam Levitt, a director in the Chicago office
of Wilmington's Grant & Eisenhofer, who leads the firms consumer
practice group.


GILBERT G. LUNDSTROM: Court Awards Atty. Fees in ERISA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN E. BREDTHAUER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GILBERT G. LUNDSTROM,
et al., Defendants. RONALD A. LAIRD, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GILBERT G. LUNDSTROM, et al., Defendants. SUSAN BARKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SAMUEL P. BAIRD, et al., Defendants, NOS.
4:10CV3132, 4:10CV3139, 8:10CV326, (D. Neb.) is before the court
on a Stipulation of Class Counsel and Rick D. Lange, Chapter 7
Bankruptcy Trustee of TierOne Corporation.  In the Stipulation
and Order entered February 28, 2013, and the Order and Final
Judgment entered March 4, 2013, that resolved these consolidated
ERISA class action cases, it was contemplated that the Trustee
would perform certain duties to effectuate the Settlement and
would incur fees and costs for doing so that would be paid from
the Settlement Fund with the approval of Class Counsel and the
District Court.

Class Counsel and the Trustee stipulate that the Trustee and his
general counsel, Rembolt Ludtke, LLP, and his special counsel,
Matthew Borror, and PenChecks, Inc., are entitled to compensation
from the assets of the portion of the Net Settlement Fund that
were paid to the TierOne Corporation Employee Stock Option Plan
(the ESOP) as follows: $10,255 for time spent or anticipated to
be spent by the Trustee and his general counsel, Remboldt Ludtke,
LLP; $18,987.50 for time spent or anticipated to be spent by
Matthew Borror, special ERISA counsel; and an amount yet to be
determined amount for PenChecks for future missing
participant/default IRA and related services.

In an order dated March 11, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/cgRniZfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Joseph F.
Bataillon approved the compensation sought and ordered payments
to be made from the assets of the portion of the Net Settlement
Fund that was paid to the TierOne Corporation Employee Stock
Option Plan.

Specifically:

1. The Trustee and his general counsel, Rembolt Ludtke LLP, are
   entitled to compensation from the assets of the portion of the
   Net Settlement Fund paid to the TierOne Corporation ESOP in
the
   amount of $10,255 for time spent or anticipated to be spent in
   the future.

2. The Trustee's special counsel, Matthew Borror, is entitled to
   compensation from the assets of the portion of the Net
   Settlement Fund paid to the ESOP in the amount of $18,987.50
   for time spent or anticipated to be spent in the future.

3. PenChecks is entitled to compensation in an amount as yet to
be
   determined from the assets of the ESOP for PenChecks for
future
   missing participant/default IRA and related services in
   accordance with the agreement attached to the stipulation as
   Exhibit B, which the Trustee is authorized to execute and
   deliver.


GREEN JACOBSON: District Court Dismisses "Oetting" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carol E. Jackson dismissed the case captioned
DAVID P. OETTING, Plaintiff, v. GREEN JACOBSON, P.C., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13-CV-1148 (CEJ), (E.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff's motions to stay proceedings and supplement the
motion to stay were denied.

This is an action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary
duty, arising from In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation,
No. 4:99-md-1264 (CEJ). The Plaintiff in this action, David P.
Oetting, was a lead plaintiff and class representative of the
NationsBank Classes certified in the BankAmerica case.
Defendants, Green Jacobson P.C. and three of its lawyers, Martin
Green, Joe Jacobson, and Jonathan Andres, were lead counsel for
the NationsBank Classes.  Oetting alleged that lead counsel
committed legal malpractice and breached their fiduciary duties
in a variety of ways.  He sought certification of a class --
specifically, the former NationsBank Class -- to pursue these
claims.

A copy of the Court's March 11, 2014 Memorandum and Order is
available at http://is.gd/IzRXksfrom Leagle.com


H B RESTAURANT: Class Is Entitled to Overtime Wages, Chef Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guo Qing Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. H.B. Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Hunan
Balcony, and Jenny Wu, Case No. 1:14-cv-00813-CM (S.D.N.Y.,
February 10, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants
are entitled to (i) unpaid wages for overtime work for which they
did not receive overtime premium pay, and (ii) liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Wang was employed by the Defendants as a chef at Hunan
Balcony from November 2011 to December 17, 2013.

H.B. Restaurant Group, Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in New York City.  Hunan Balcony is a restaurant
owned by H.B. Restaurant Group, Inc., and located in New York
City.  Jenny Wu is an owner, officer, shareholder, and manager of
Hunan Balcony.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen Brian Irwin, Esq.
          Thomas E. Berinato, Esq.
          123-40 83 Ave.
          Kew Gardens, NY 11412
          Telephone: (718) 874-8423
          Facsimile: (718) 874-6843
          E-mail: sbirwin@live.com


HALIBURTON COMPANY: Provides Updates on Macondo Well Incident MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company provided updates regarding the Multi-district
Litigation it faces relating to the Macondo well incident in its
Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have been filing lawsuits
relating to the Macondo well incident. Generally, those lawsuits
allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution
and contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax
revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability
to engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2)
wrongful death or personal injuries. The company is named along
with other unaffiliated defendants in more than 1,800 complaints,
most of which are alleged class actions, involving pollution
damage claims and at least eight personal injury lawsuits
involving four decedents and at least 10 allegedly injured
persons who were on the drilling rig at the time of the incident.
At least six additional lawsuits naming the company and others
relate to alleged personal injuries sustained by those responding
to the explosion and oil spill.

The pollution complaints generally allege, among other things,
negligence and gross negligence, property damages, taking of
protected species, and potential economic losses as a result of
environmental pollution, and generally seek awards of unspecified
economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these pollution cases have
brought suit under various legal provisions, including the OPA,
the CWA, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the ESA, the
OCSLA, the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act,
general maritime law, state common law, and various state
environmental and products liability statutes. Furthermore, the
pollution complaints include suits brought against the company by
governmental entities, including all of the coastal states of the
Gulf of Mexico, numerous local governmental entities, the Mexican
State of Yucatan, and the United Mexican States.

The wrongful death and other personal injury complaints generally
allege negligence and gross negligence and seek awards of
compensatory damages, including unspecified economic damages, and
punitive damages. The company retained counsel and is
investigating and evaluating the claims, the theories of
recovery, damages asserted, and the company's respective defenses
to all of these claims.

Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits described in federal and
state courts throughout the United States. Except for a
relatively small number of lawsuits not yet consolidated, the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered all of the
lawsuits against the company consolidated in the MDL proceeding
before Judge Carl Barbier in the United States Eastern District
of Louisiana.

Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed
by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation
Action). In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its
liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to
the value of the rig and its freight. While the Limitation Action
has been formally consolidated into the MDL, the court is
nonetheless, in some respects, treating the Limitation Action as
an associated but separate proceeding. In February 2011,
Transocean tendered the company, along with all other defendants,
into the Limitation Action. As a result of the tender, the
company and all other defendants are being treated as direct
defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the plaintiffs had
sued the company and the other defendants directly. In the
Limitation Action, the judge intends to determine the allocation
of liability among all defendants in the hundreds of lawsuits
associated with the Macondo well incident, including those in the
MDL proceeding that are pending in his court. Specifically, the
judge intends to determine the liability, limitation,
exoneration, and fault allocation with regard to all of the
defendants in a trial, which to date has occurred in two phases.
The company does not believe that a single determination of
liability in the Limitation Action is properly applied,
particularly with respect to gross negligence and punitive
damages, to the hundreds of lawsuits pending in the MDL
proceeding.

The defendants in the proceedings described have filed numerous
cross claims and third party claims against certain other
defendants. Claims against the company seek subrogation,
contribution, indemnification, including with respect to
liabilities under the OPA, and direct damages, and allege
negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent conduct, willful
misconduct, fraudulent concealment, comparative fault, and breach
of warranty of workmanlike performance. Additional civil lawsuits
may be filed against the company. In addition to the claims
against the company, generally the defendants in the proceedings
described, including the company, filed claims, including for
liabilities under the OPA and other claims similar to those
described, against the other defendants. The company's claims
against the other defendants seek contribution and
indemnification, and allege negligence, gross negligence and
willful misconduct. Several of the parties have settled claims
among themselves, and claims against some parties have been
dismissed. The company has also filed an answer to Transocean's
Limitation petition denying Transocean's right to limit its
liability, denying all claims and responsibility for the
incident, seeking contribution and indemnification, and alleging
negligence and gross negligence.

Judge Barbier has issued an order, among others, clarifying
certain aspects of law applicable to the lawsuits pending in his
court. The court ruled that: (1) general maritime law will apply,
and therefore all claims brought under state law causes of action
were dismissed; (2) general maritime law claims may be brought
directly against defendants who are non-"responsible parties"
under the OPA with the exception of pure economic loss claims by
plaintiffs other than commercial fishermen; (3) all claims for
damages, including pure economic loss claims, may be brought
under the OPA directly against responsible parties; and (4)
punitive damage claims can be brought against both responsible
and non-responsible parties under general maritime law. As
discussed, with respect to the ruling that claims for damages may
be brought under the OPA against responsible parties, the company
has not been named as a responsible party under the OPA, but BP
Exploration has filed a claim against the company for
contribution with respect to liabilities incurred by BP
Exploration under the OPA.

The rulings in the court's order remain subject to each
applicable party's right to appeal. Certain parishes in Louisiana
are currently appealing the dismissal of their state law claims
under the order.

In April 2012, BP announced that it had reached definitive
settlement agreements with the PSC to resolve the substantial
majority of eligible private economic loss and medical claims
stemming from the Macondo well incident. The PSC acts on behalf
of individuals and business plaintiffs in the MDL. According to
BP, the settlements do not include claims against BP made by the
DOJ or other federal agencies or by states and local governments.

In addition, the settlements provide that, to the extent
permitted by law, BP will assign to the settlement class certain
of its claims, rights, and recoveries against Transocean and the
company for damages, including BP's alleged direct damages such
as damages for clean-up expenses and damage to the well and
reservoir. The company does not believe that its contract with BP
Exploration permits the assignment of certain claims to the
settlement class without the company's consent. The MDL court has
since confirmed certification of the classes for both settlements
and granted final approval of the settlements. The company
objected to the settlements on the grounds set forth, among other
reasons.

The MDL court held, however, that the company, as a non-settling
defendant, lacked standing to object to the settlements but noted
that it did not express any opinion as to the validity of BP's
assignment of certain claims to the settlement class and that the
settlements do not affect any of the company's procedural or
substantive rights in the MDL. BP has been challenging certain
provisions of its settlement of economic loss claims in the MDL
court and before the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The company is unable to predict at this time the effect
that the settlements, or any challenge, modification, or
overturning of the settlements, may have on claims against the
company.

The MDL court has dismissed: (1) claims by or on behalf of
owners, lessors, and lessees of real property that allege to have
suffered a reduction in the value of real property even though
the property was not physically touched by oil and the property
was not sold; (2) claims for economic losses based solely on
consumers' decisions not to purchase fuel or goods from BP fuel
stations and stores based on consumer animosity toward BP; and
(3) claims by or on behalf of recreational fishermen, divers,
beachgoers, boaters and others that allege damages such as loss
of enjoyment of life from their inability to use portions of the
Gulf of Mexico for recreational and amusement purposes. In
dismissing those claims, the MDL court also noted that the
company is not liable with respect to those claims under the OPA
because it is not a "responsible party" under OPA. A group of
plaintiffs appealed the order, but the Fifth Circuit dismissed
the appeal.

The first phase of the MDL trial, which concluded in April 2013,
covered issues arising out of the conduct and degree of
culpability of various parties allegedly relevant to the loss of
well control, the ensuing fire and explosion on and sinking of
the Deepwater Horizon, and the initiation of the release of
hydrocarbons from the Macondo well. At the conclusion of the
plaintiffs' case, the company and the other defendants each
submitted a motion requesting the MDL court to dismiss certain
claims. In March 2013, the MDL court denied the company's motion
and declined to dismiss any claims, including those alleging
gross negligence, against BP, Transocean and the company. In
addition, the MDL court dismissed all claims against M-I Swaco
and claims alleging gross negligence against Cameron
International Corporation (Cameron). In April 2013, the MDL court
dismissed all remaining claims against Cameron, leaving BP,
Transocean, and the company as the remaining defendants with
respect to the matters addressed during the first phase of the
trial.

Also in March 2013, the company advised the MDL court that the
company recently found a rig sample of dry cement blend collected
at another well that was cemented before the Macondo well using
the same dry cement blend as used on the Macondo production
casing. In April 2013, the company advised the MDL parties that
the company recently discovered some additional documents related
to the Macondo well incident. BP and others have asked the court
to impose sanctions and adverse findings against the company
because, according to their allegations, the company should have
identified the cement sample in 2010 and the additional documents
by October 2011. BP also reasserted its previous allegations that
the company destroyed evidence relating to post-incident testing
of the foam cement slurry on the Deepwater Horizon. The MDL court
has not ruled on the requests for sanctions and adverse findings.
The company believe that the discoveries were the result of
simple misunderstandings or mistakes and do not involve any
material evidence, and that sanctions are not warranted.

When the company's plea agreement with the DOJ was announced in
July 2013, BP filed a motion requesting that the MDL court re-
open the evidence for phase one of the MDL trial to take into
account the company's guilty plea and re-urging their request for
sanctions. After the plea was entered, the PSC and the States of
Alabama and Louisiana (as coordinating counsel for the states
involved in the MDL) filed a motion likewise seeking to admit the
guilty plea agreement and other court filings into evidence and
asking that the MDL court use that evidence as a basis for
assessing punitive damages against the company. The company filed
replies opposing both motions and setting forth the company's
position that the deleted post-incident computer simulations were
not evidence, were not relevant, and in any event were re-
created. The MDL court has not ruled on the motions.

The second phase of the MDL trial was split into two parts, with
testimony presented in October 2013. The first part covered
attempts to collect, control, or halt the flow of hydrocarbons
from the well, while the second part covered the quantification
of hydrocarbons discharged from the well. The parties submitted
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, post-trial
briefs and responses during December 2013 and January 2014.

According to a stipulation and post-trial filings, BP contends
that 2.45 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of
Mexico and the DOJ contends that a total of 4.2 million barrels
were released. The MDL court has not issued a ruling on the
questions that were the subject of the first two phases of the
trial, although those rulings could be issued at any time.

Subsequent proceedings would be held to the extent triable issues
remain unresolved by the first two phases of the trial,
settlements, motion practice, or stipulation. Although the DOJ
participated in the first two phases of the trial with regard to
BP's conduct and the amount of hydrocarbons discharged from the
well, the MDL court anticipates that the DOJ's civil action for
the CWA violations, fines, and penalties will be addressed by the
court in a third phase of the trial to the extent necessary.
Damages for the cases tried in the MDL proceeding, including
punitive damages, are expected to be tried following the issuance
of the MDL court's rulings regarding the phases of the trial
described. Under ordinary MDL procedures, such cases would,
unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in the courts
from which they were transferred into the MDL. It remains
unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation
Action will have on where these matters are tried. The judge has
indicated that he intends for the State of Alabama's OPA
compensatory damages claims against BP be tried as a test case.

               Oral Argument in AMSF Case in March

Meanwhile, oral argument was scheduled to be held on March 5,
2014 before the Supreme Court in the securities suit Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) initiated an investigation in connection with the company's
change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction
projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed,
approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against the
company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants
several of the company's present or former officers and
directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and
the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard
Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and
served upon the company in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et
al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the
Fund). The company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of
2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the company's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the company file its
motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in
which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to
certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some
of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.
In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions
of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on
that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court
ordered that the case proceed against the company's CEO and the
company.

In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and the company's response was filed in November
2007. The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued
an order November 3, 2008 denying the motion for class
certification. The Fund appealed the district court's order to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed
the district court's order denying class certification. On May
13, 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court. In January 2011, the Supreme Court granted
the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal. The Court heard
oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June
2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to
prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. The
Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation
requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for
further consideration of the company's other arguments for
denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit returned the case
to the district court, and in January 2012 the court issued an
order certifying the class. The company filed a Petition for
Leave to Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted. In
April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the
District Court's order certifying the class.

The company filed a writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court seeking an appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision. In
November 2013, the Supreme Court granted the company's writ. Oral
argument is scheduled to be held before the Supreme Court on
March 5, 2014. Fact discovery in this case has resumed.


HULU: Faces Class Action Over Violation of Automatic Renewal Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hulu violates California's
automatic renewal law in its Hulu Plus accounts, a class action
claims in Superior Court in Los Angeles.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Securities Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
referred a securities suit filed against Hyperdynamics
Corporation to the magistrate judge for a conference regarding
lead plaintiff issue, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against the company and the company's chief executive officer
alleging that the company made false and misleading statements
that artificially inflated the company's stock prices. The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
misrepresented the prospects and progress of the company's
drilling operations, including the company's drilling of the
Sabu-1 well and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of
the Republic of Guinea.  The lawsuit seeks damages based on
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
although the specific amount of damages is not specified.  On
June 1 and June 4, 2012, a number of parties made application to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff, and a lead plaintiff
was appointed by the Court.  On April 22, 2013, the lead
plaintiff appointed by the Court filed a motion to withdraw as
lead plaintiff.

On June 12, 2013 the Court accepted the withdrawal of the lead
plaintiff and appointed a new lead plaintiff to represent the
class. On August 13, 2013, the newly appointed lead plaintiff
also filed a motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff. On December 5,
2013 the Court appointed another plaintiff as lead plaintiff, and
on January 22, 2014 the Court referred the matter to the
magistrate judge for a conference regarding the lead plaintiff
issue.


INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicklaus Lauer, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Innovative Electrical Services LLC, Chez
Degennaro, and Anthony Bartolomeo, jointly and severally, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00868-KBF (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2014) alleges that
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former
employees of the Defendants are entitled to (i) unpaid wages from
the Defendants for overtime work for which the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiff and the Class overtime premium pay; (ii)
liquidated damages; and (iii) attorney's fees and costs of the
action.

Innovative Electrical Services LLC is a New York business
corporation with its office in Bronx County.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, shareholders, officers, or managers of
Innovative.  The Defendants are in the business of electrical
construction and are located in Yonkers, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony Michael Rainone, Esq.
          BRACH EICHLER, L.L.C.
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-5700
          Facsimile: (973) 228-7852
          E-mail: arainone@bracheichler.com


KIRBY INLAND: Faces Suit for Violation of Oil Pollution Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that an oil spill in Galveston Bay has shut down the Houston Ship
Channel, a crucial route for the oil and gas industry, and will
have far-reaching impacts for people who depend on the bay to
make a living, stakeholders claim in a federal class action.

A tanker barge collided with a ship March 22, 2014, afternoon and
spilled up to 168,000 gallons of heavy ship oil, prompting the
Coast Guard to close the Houston Ship Channel as cleanup crews
scrambled to contain the oil with booms.

Fishing guides, bait shop and restaurant owners filed the class
action March 24, 2014, against the barge owner, Kirby Inland
Marine, and the ship owner, Cleopatra Shipping Agency Ltd.

The class seeks damages under the Oil Pollution Act, which
Congress passed in 1990 in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil
spill.  March 24, 2014, marked the 25th anniversary of the Exxon
Valdez disaster, set off when an Exxon oil tanker hit a reef in
Prince William Sound, Alaska and spilled up to 750,000 gallons of
oil.

In the new lawsuit, lead plaintiff fishing guide Sammy Flores
says the spill has "already caused tremendous damage to Galveston
Bay."

"It is unknown how long marine traffic will be stopped," the
complaint states.  "Coast Guard officials have reported that this
is 'an extremely serious spill' and that 'This is persistent oil.
It's a large quantity.  It will spread.  People should be aware
of that.'

"The marine fuel oil that was released is a heavy crude and
highly polluting oil that does not evaporate quickly making it
particularly harmful to the environment and difficult to clean
up," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek class certification and punitive damages for
negligence, gross negligence, trespass, nuisance and violations
of The Oil Pollution Act.

They are represented by Sean O'Rourke with the Simon-O'Rourke Law
Firm of Houston.

As of March 24, 2014, the Coast Guard had not reopened the
Houston Ship Channel.

"There are 46 outbound vessels and 47 inbound vessels in the
queue for transit in the Port of Houston," the Coast Guard said
in a statement.  "The Port of Texas City has 5 inbound and 3
outbound vessels in the queue awaiting transit.  Once the channel
has been determined safe to navigate, and transiting vessels will
not spread oil contaminants, a prioritization list will be
established to determine the entry order of vessels."

Bill Gilmer, director of the Institute for Regional Forecasting
at the University of Houston's Bauer College of Business, told
Houston's National Public Radio affiliate that the ship channel
closure could drive up gas prices.  Houston's refineries depend
on imported crude oil.


KIWIBANK: 800+ Customers Have Joined Suit Over Excessive Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
MSN NZ reports that Kiwibank customers were being urged to sign
up to class action alleging the state-owned bank charges
excessive fees as a deadline approached.

The Fair Play on Fees campaign is taking legal action against
Kiwibank as well as Australian-owned giants ANZ, ASB, BNZ and
Westpac, saying they have charged New Zealanders an excessive
$1 billion in fees over six years.  Fair Play on Fees lawyer
Andrew Hooker says Kiwibank customers had until midnight March 31
to register for inclusion in the case.

"While we'd like to represent everyone who has been charged these
fees, the lack of a class-action regime in New Zealand means that
people need to sign up if they want receive any compensation
through the case," he said.

Mr. Hooker says more than 800 Kiwibank customers have registered
since the case was issued in November, taking the total number of
participants to almost 7000.

The campaign has previously cited the example of Auckland couple
Leanne and Sydney Briggs, who were hit with more than 100 default
fees worth nearly $2000 in six-and-a-half years with Kiwibank,
despite transferring money to cover payments.  Mrs. Briggs was
once charged $10 plus interest for being two cents overdrawn on a
mortgage payment.


KODIAK OIL: Removed "Lawyer" Suit to North Dakota Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Lawyer, et al. v. Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA)
Inc. was removed from the County of Williams, North Dakota, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota
(Northwestern).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-
cv-00014-DLH-CSM to the proceeding.

Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. is a Colorado corporation
headquartered in Denver, Colorado.  The Defendant is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp, a Yukon Territory
company also based in Denver at the same address.  The Defendant
is the operator of two oil wells classified as "horizontal" wells
known as the P Alexander 155-99-16-11-2-1H Well and the P
Alexander 155-99-16-11-2-1H3 Well, both of which are located in
Williams County, North Dakota.

The Plaintiffs each own mineral interests from which oil and gas
are being produced from the P Alexander 1H Well and the P
Alexander 1H3 Well, and each of them is entitled to royalties
from production from the P Alexander 1H Well and the P Alexander
1H3 Well.

The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to sue for and
recover royalties for flared gas from the P Alexander 1H Well and
the P Alexander 1H3 Well.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derrick L. Braaten, Esq.
          Lindsey R. Nieuwsma, Esq.
          BAUMSTARK BRAATEN LAW PARTNERS
          109 N. 4th Street, Suite 100
          Bismarck, ND 58501
          Telephone: (701) 221-2911
          Facsimile: (701) 221-5842
          E-mail: derrick@baumstarkbraaten.com
                  lindsey@baumstarkbraaten.com

               - and -

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-6092
          E-mail: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

               - and -

          Cody L. Balzer, Esq.
          BALZER LAW FIRM, PC
          1302 Cleveland, Ave.
          Loveland, CO 80537
          Telephone: (970) 203-1515
          E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
          TARLOW & STONECIPHER, PLLC
          1705 West College Street
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 586-9714
          E-mail: mkelly@lawmt.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick B. McRorie, Esq.
          James E. Dallner, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE LLP
          950 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 931-3226
          E-mail: pmcrorie@lathropgage.com
                  jdallner@lathropgage.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Abrams, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE, LLP
          2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2618
          Telephone: (816) 292-2000
          E-mail: mabrams@lathropgage.com


KTMC TURNAROUND: Sued by Workers in Texas Over Unpaid Travel Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrett Ray Armstrong, et al. v. KTMC Turnaround Group, LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00078-RC (E.D. Tex., February 10, 2014) is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are Jerrett Ray Armstrong, Mario Vicente Acevedo,
Zach Marwan Achkar, Rolland Craig Allen, Patricia Andrade, Freddy
A. Araica, Elizabeth Ann Arguello, Ricky Arnaud, Jesse Askew,
Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishnapilla, Cory Lynn Baldwin, Carroll
Henry Ballard, Daniel T. Ball, K.E. Barker, Weldon Barker, Bruce
Barnard, Lafayet Barrera-Gonzalez, Larry Basco, Richard Wayne
Bell, Anthony Joseph Berg II, Christopher Bergeaux, Kimberly
Bergeaux, Rosalio Lugo Blanco, Brandon M. Bolton, James L.
Brantley, Randy Glenn Britnell, Kenneth Budwine, Jr., Eric
Butler, Aliber Marroquin Cantu, Juan L. Cantu-Garcia, Julio Cesar
Cantu, Sergio Marroquin Cantu, Cleon Carraway, Juan Jose
Carrillo, Mario Serrano Carrillo, Michael P. Carrier, Oscar
Torres Castillo, Rafael Ceja, Jr., James Kenneth Chaney, Sr.,
Carl Alan Clark, Vicki A. Clark, Eddie Alberto Colon, Jose
Antonio Compean, Jr., Manuel Cordero III, Carlos Cordova, Martin
Coronado Acuna, James Franklin Costlow, Michael Crim, David Cruz,
Doel Pastor Cruz-Rivera, Jason Clyde Darrell, Brian Allan Davis,
Michael Earl Davis, David Garcia Delacruz, Sergio Antonio Delfin,
Omar A. Delgadillo, Louis Joseph Deshotel, Shawna Donzaile Dodd,
Lawrence Dufrain, Kevin Wayne Duhon, Dennis Joseph Duplantis,
Gene Ross East, Christopher Elizondo, Ben D. Ellis, Mauricio
Castro Estrada, Jorge Falcon, Troy Favorite, Joseph Fazio,
Gregory Donnell Fleming, Raul Flores-Regino, Sheila Anderson
Folse, Michael Alvin Freeman, Eliseo Garcia, Erick Garcia, Jesus
Alonzo Garcia, Jose Gilberto Garcia, Juan Pablo Garcia, Guadalupe
Benjamin Garza, Zaragoza Tijerina Garza, Olin Gilbert, Ramiro
Gonzalez, Jr., Leonard Jacob Goudeau, Jordan Alexander Grant,
John Kerri Gray, April Johnson-Green, Chris Grote, Adan Guerrero,
Manuel Jose Gutierrez, Maximiano Sanchez Gutierrez, Charles L.
Hagebusch III, Milton Hardin, Darin Kevin Hargrove, Travis
Trinord Harris, Jeremy Dermon Hawkins, Mildred Marie Hayes, Ruben
D. Hernandez, Daniel Glen Hester, Joseph Randall Holcomb, Colby
Alan Howell, John Daniel Howell II, Andy Hudson, Rocky Dean
Hudson, David William Huff, Willie Daniel Hunter II, Clarence
Melvin Ingle III, Keith Ingle, Randy Ingle, Trenton Tyler Ingle,
Christopher Lee Jackson, Dustin David James, Julius Joseph Janca,
Jr., Francisco Jarquin, Agustin Miguel Jimenez, Martin David
Johnson, Dale Winford Jones, Jarvis Dequan Jones, Jeremiah Casey
Jones, Magda G. Kelly, Randy Dewayne Kelsoe, Gerald J. Kinchen,
Tammy Renee Knight, Robert Keither Lamar, Justin Ryan Lambright,
Lewis Carl Lambert, Glenn Garette Landry, David Louis Langley,
Robert J. Lawler, Jr., Javetta Leather, Mayolo Benitez Leon,
David A. Loera, David Acosta Loera, Jesus Magallon, Leslie D.
Mancil, Michael Aaron Mann, Roland Arnold Mann, Jr., Variath D.
Marottikudy, Erick Rios Marroquin, Anthony Daniel Mayo, Peter L.
Mccarthy, Ronald Mcfarlin, Walter Joseph Mcfarland, Chase Michael
Mcmains, Larry Wayne Meeks, Rebecca Fortenberry Meeks, Javier H.
Mendez Gonzalez, Robert James Mendoza, David William Meyers,
Devan Mitchem, Kristopher Montalvo, Justin Scott Moussette,
Tyrone Nash, Ramon Humberto Natal, Lynn Todd Neuman, Jack G.
Oppert, Jr., Anibal Ruben Ortiz, Daniel Ozuna, Nelson O. Pacheco-
Ramos, Varghese Vembi Pappukunju, Joey Lynn Parks, Kent Parks,
Douglas E. Peach, Rolando Perez, Jace Picou, Jorge Armando Pinon,
Edgar Omar Portillo, Dulcey Ann Prine, Jesus Puente, Jr., Jesus
G. Puente, Sr., Natividad Quintanilla, Richard Morgan Radford,
Violeta Sentiol Ramirez, Lee R. Ramos, Thomas Rayborn, James I.
Rayer, Jr., Hugo Mariano Raymundo, Arthur Lee Richards, Marco
Antonio Rivera, Oscar Armando Rivera, Leroy Robinson, Jr., Jose
Gavito Rodriguez, Pedro Rodriguez, Pedro Rodriguez, Jr., James C.
Rogers, Marvin Romero, Eulalio Pasillas Salas, Jose Reynaldo
Salinas, Julio C. Salinas-Garza, Juan A. Sanchez-Rodriguez,
Victor Manuel Sanchez-Martinez, Alejandro Sandoval Garcia,
Zachary Schaver, Sam Boudreaux Scott, Ethelwoldo Segarra, Usiel
Sernon, Jerry Leon Shane, Claude Douglas Shute, Ronald Ray Sims,
Fermah Smith, Carlos Alberto Solis, Edward Allen Sonnier, Milton
Spears, Kenneth Spencer, Jr., Donanthony Spitaleri, Jonathan Neil
Stanton, Cherrie Steptoe, Ralphel T. Steptoe, Ricky Lee Stokes,
Vernie Sutton, Jeffrey C. Swarner, Waylon Michael Symmank,
Cassandra Marie Tait, James V. Taylor, Mark Tolbert, Daniel
Eschevarria Torres, Joel Echevarria Torres, Kevin Townley, Miguel
A. Trejo, Lupe Trevino, Susan Trevino, Douglas Edward Tubbs,
Jeffery Arnold Tullar, Cynthia Renee Turner, Wesley Turner, Mario
Cruz Urbano, Alvaro Valencia, Luis Angel Vargas, Reji Kileekkal
Varughese, James Vaughn, Kunhikrishnan K. Veetil, Antonio Gerardo
Velazquez, Hector Hernandez Velazquez, Hector Jimenez Vera, Jason
Wayne Verrett, Elson Dennis Vidrine, Jesus Villarreal, Juan C.
Villatoro, Pablo Villeda-Cabriales, Walter Douglas Wackenreuter,
James Earl Wade, Anthony L. Ward, Spencer Mcgarrett Washington,
William Warren Wesberry, Jr., Rose Mary Whitehead, Malcolm Ryan
Wilburn, Carl Wilkerson, Sr., Bo Williams, Kevin Lane Williams,
II, Leia Culpepper Williams, John Lee Winkelmann, Davy Howard
Wolfe, II, Jody Woodruff, Heidi C. Wymer, Bradley Farris
Yarborough, Adrian Young, David Harrison Young, Ruben Zamora,
Dalton Joseph Antoine, Julio Cesar Castillo-Honorato, Carlos L.
Gomez, Jeremy Ryan Gulley, Charles A. Lacy, Jr., Alexis Yuri
Lobo, Jerry Dale Massey, Erwin Haroldo Morales, Gerardo Vazquez
Ortega, Guadalupe Ortega, Jose Luis Quezada Mora, Alejos
Rodrigeuz-Tamez, Kevin Thomas, John Garcia, Jr., Pedro Pena
Perez, Monica Owens Sherman, Robin Keith Boul, Joshua Caleb
Miller, Oscar F. Reyes, Jose Javier Sanches, Homero Monreal,
Varkey Kolackal Johnson, Richard Wiltz, Jr., Varghese Paily
Kulianickal, and Sadashivanachary Janardhananachary.

During various time periods, the Plaintiffs performed work at the
Motiva Port Arthur, Texas SBU2 Crude Expansion Project.  The
Plaintiffs disclosed that they were required by the Defendants to
report for work at a certain location whereupon the Plaintiffs
were to get on a bus and be transported to the Motiva facility,
and would be taken back by bus to the original point of
departure.  The Plaintiffs allege that the time they were forced
to be on the buses is compensable under the FLSA and not excluded
by the Portal-to-Portal Act.

KTMC Turnaround Group, LLC, a Texas domestic corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Werner, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
          801 Laurel Street
          P. O. Box 26005
          Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000
          Facsimile: (409) 833-8236
          E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark William Frasher, Esq.
          FRASHER FIRM
          345 N. 10th Street
          Beaumont, TX 77702
          Telephone: (409) 833-5900
          Facsimile: (888) 342-6684
          E-mail: mfrasher@frasherfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wyatt David Snider, Esq.
          Russell W. Heald, Esq.
          SNIDER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Century Tower
          550 Fannin, Suite 111
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 924-9595
          Facsimile: (409) 924-0808
          E-mail: wyatt@sniderlawfirm.com
                  russ.heald@lewisbrisbois.com


LONG BEACH COLLEGE: Sued for Misusing Student Body's Money
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Long Beach City College unlawfully seized and converted million
of dollars of Associated Student Body funds under the bogus
pretext that the student government had embezzled, a former ASB
officer claims in a class action.

Named plaintiff Jason Troia estimates that the Associated Student
Body's revenue was $6 million in 2011 alone.  He sued Long Beach
City College and Long Beach City College Auxiliary Inc., in
Superior Court.

Serving 25,000 students, the student government earns money
through a campus book store, food courts and cafeterias, ticket
sales and credit card services, the 19-page lawsuit states.

Troia, a former trustee of the student government, says the ASB
donated a portion of its revenue for the school's phone
registration system, a push for a $440 million bond measure to
qualify the school for state matching funds, and for the school's
planetarium.

But in 2009, the defendant school district, "without a shred of
evidence," falsely accused the student government's cabinet
members of embezzling funds from the Associated Body Inc., the
company that controlled the body's revenues and assets, Troia
says.

The school used those trumped-up allegations to take control of
the student government, according to the complaint.

"It threatened the ASB cabinet student members with, among
others, lower grades, delayed graduation and more difficult
transfer of credits to a four-year university," the complaint
states.  "Under such duress, coercion and undue influence, LBCCD
[Long Beach City College District] forced the then ASB Cabinet to
dissolve the ASB corporation and relinquish all operations and
financial controls to LBCCD."

Troia says the district forced the student government to sign
documents ceding control of its operations to the school.  The
Memorandum of Understanding stripped the body of its independence
and gave the school oversight of its finances, Troia says.

He claims that the district replaced Associated Body Inc. with
defendant LBCC Auxiliary - a "pure fiction, and in reality a
shadow" of the college district.

The district "single-handedly selected and controlled all of LBCC
Auxiliary's employees despite the fact that they were paid by ASB
funds: In short, LBCCD fully absorbed, acquired and took control
of ASB," the complaint states.

Troia claims the college district used the student body's money
to buy real estate and secure commercial loans to pay off the
school's bad investments.

Using the money that way violated the Memorandum of
Understanding, Troia claims.

Alleging breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and seeking a constructive trust, Troia
seeks restitution, punitive damages, costs and an accounting.

Troia is represented by Sang Park with Carlin & Buchsbaum --
info@CarlinBuchsbaum.com --of Long Beach.

Long Beach City College did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.


MADISON COUNTY, IL: Not Liable for Bathon Tax Scam, Attorney Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Fitzgerald, writing for News-Democrat, reports that
Madison County taxpayers have been hurt once already because of
the tax-buying scam organized by imprisoned ex-Treasurer
Fred Bathon.

Now Tom Gibbons, the county state's attorney, wants to keep
county taxpayers from paying a second time.  Mr. Gibbons is
asking a Madison County judge to dismiss the county and various
current elected leaders named as defendants from the combined
class action lawsuit that resulted when three separate class
actions were merged a few weeks ago.

Mr. Gibbons had already succeeded in getting the county dismissed
as a defendant from one of the class action lawsuits before all
three were combined.  Now he wants to do the same thing for the
newly merged lawsuit.

"And so we're going to look to enforce that order and that
finding uniformly," Mr. Gibbons said, "so that the taxpayers
aren't on the hook for any more legal fees, and certainly aren't
on the hook for any damages here."

Don Weber, one of the plaintiff attorneys in the newly combined
class action lawsuit, agreed that Madison County taxpayers
shouldn't pay for the misdeeds of Mr. Bathon and his co-
conspirators.  So far, those co-conspirators consist of a group
of three tax buyers who've pleaded guilty to helping Mr. Bathon
rig the tax auctions, forcing property owners to pay millions of
dollars in excessive interest fees on late tax bills during the
years of the scam -- 2005 to 2009.

"I believe that the tax buyers and Fred Bathon have enough money
to make restitution without resorting to making the taxpayers pay
for it," Weber said.

What's more, "The federal convictions obviously help this lawsuit
on the issue of liability," Mr. Weber said.

Mr. Weber noted that the county has $2 million in insurance bonds
to cover claims arising from misconduct of Mr. Bathon and other
public officials.  In addition, the tax buyers who conspired with
Mr. Bathon had accrued significant profits because of their
misdeeds.

Makanda businessman Barrett Rochman, 71, who was sentenced to 16
months in federal prison for his role in Mr. Bathon's scheme,
alone netted $1 million in profits from the four years he took
part in the scheme, according to federal prosecutors.

One way or another, "I believe the victims will be compensated
through our lawsuit," Mr. Weber said.

Mr. Bathon, 59, in January began serving a 30-month sentence at a
federal prison camp in Terre Haute, Ind., after pleading guilty
to rigging the bidding on delinquent property tax liens for
10,000 property owners from 2005-09 in exchange for campaign
donations.  Three of Mr. Bathon's biggest campaign donors -- tax
buyers Scott McLean, John Vassen and Rochman -- acknowledged
conspiring with Mr. Bathon in return for Mr. Bathon agreeing to
award them the winning bids on late tax liens at the maximum
interest rate of 18 percent.

Mr. McLean, whose tax-buying business is based in East St. Louis,
and Mr. Vassen, of Belleville, were sentenced in February to
prison terms of 18 months and two years, respectively.  A key
issue in the federal prosecutions of Mr. Bathon and the three tax
buyers has centered on the question of how to set up a
restitution system for their victims.

Federal prosecutors have argued for more than a year that setting
up such a system would be impractical.  Why? Because of the
complexity and scope of the problem of trying to determine the
financial losses suffered by thousands of individual Madison
County property owners.

U.S. District Judge David Herndon, who oversaw the sentencings of
Mr. Bathon and the three tax buyers, sided with the federal
government.  During Mr. Rochman's sentencing hearing, Mr. Herndon
said he believed that "at this point the victims will not be
compensated with any degree of certainty."

But both Madison County Treasurer Kurt Prenzler and attorney John
Rogers, who represented Mr. Rochman, have both stated that
setting up a restitution system would be a relatively
straightforward process.

Mr. Gibbons, the county state's attorney, said he believed such a
restitution system could be set up, too.

Mr. Weber, the plaintiff attorney, agreed that the level of
damages owed to victims could be calculated accurately on a
reasonable basis.


MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Judge Tosses Dealers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Automotive News, reports that a group
of aspiring dealers who paid for the right to distribute Mahindra
vehicles in the United States and didn't get refunds when the
Indian company scrapped its U.S. sales plans won't be able to
pursue collective relief.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. in Atlanta ruled March 14
that a class-action suit is inappropriate because the plaintiffs'
relationships with Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and its exclusive
distributor, Global Vehicles U.S.A. Inc., "varied greatly."

Global Vehicles U.S.A. spent several years putting together a
U.S. franchise to sell a compact diesel pickup truck built in
India. But the deal fell apart in 2010.  The company has ceased
operations.

About 20 dealers had filed their own lawsuits before the ruling,
and about 30 more have expressed interest in doing the same, said
plaintiffs' lawyer Stuart Talley of Sacramento, Calif.

Letters have been sent to all prospective dealers explaining
their options, Mr. Talley said.  He predicted that 100 or more
will sue separately in their own states.

In a statement, Mahindra called the decision "a significant
achievement for Mahindra in defense of these claims" and said the
company "remains convinced that the dealer claims brought against
it in this and other suits have no merit."

According to Judge Thrash's decision, Mahindra began marketing
SUVs and light trucks for entry to the U.S. market in 2006 and
collected about $32 million in appointment or franchise fees from
about 340 dealers.

Prospective dealers paid varying amounts ranging up to $250,000,
court papers show.  The suit claims the Indian automaker promised
to start vehicle delivery in 2009 but canceled its plans and
terminated its dealer agreements in 2010.

The suit seeks restitution and damages on behalf of the would-be
dealers.  The plaintiffs sought class-action treatment for four
claims, including violations of the Automobile Dealers Day in
Court Act and Georgia franchise law.

In denying class-action status, Judge Thrash found insufficient
"commonality" among the dealers and said "individual
determinations" are necessary to resolve claims.

"The 340 potential class members signed a myriad of additional
documents ranging from letters of intent to informational
memoranda to background authorizations," and not all signed
dealer sales and service agreements, he said.  "Additionally,
potential class members in some states were unable to enter into
agreements concerning Mahindra vehicles before Mahindra's
vehicles were certified in the United States."

Judge Thrash also cited differences in franchise fees and store-
renovation costs that dealers incurred.  In addition, he said,
some dealers had a prior relationship with Global's predecessor
for rights to sell Cross Lander vehicles manufactured by a
Romanian company, another unsuccessful deal.

Judge Thrash's ruling appears to make pursuing claims against
Mahindra more difficult.

In court papers, the dealers argued that separate suits will be
"cost-prohibitive" because "in almost every instance the cost of
litigation and collection will far exceed the amount that any
individual dealer could obtain.  The time and expense of
litigating this case in an international setting simply cannot be
overstated."

Mr. Talley said the way to cover such high expenses is "getting
lots of dealers" to sue.  "If there are 50 to 100, it makes sense
to fly to India and around the world to take depositions.  The
goal is to accumulate enough individual dealers to share the
costs."


MCGRAW HILL: "Reese" Plaintiff Renews Appeal Over Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit filed against McGraw Hill
Financial, Inc. before the District Court for the Southern
District of New York is pursuing a renewed appeal in relation to
the dismissal of the case, according to the company's Feb. 7,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 28, 2007, a putative shareholder class action titled
Reese v. Bahash was filed in the District Court for the District
of Columbia, and was subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York. The Company and its CEO and former CFO were
named as defendants in the suit, which alleged claims under the
federal securities laws in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions made by the defendants relating
to the Company's earnings and S&P's business practices. On April
2, 2012, the District Court entered judgment granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissing all claims asserted
against the Defendants in their entirety and, on December 20,
2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal in its entirety. Plaintiff sought to be
relieved from the judgment dismissing the case and for permission
to file an amended complaint. The Court denied these requests in
their entirety on September 24, 2013. Plaintiff is pursuing an
appeal from the Court's decision.


MEDORA HOLDINGS: Misleads "Popcorners" Consumers, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karisa Nguyen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Medora Holdings, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00618-PSG
(N.D. Cal., February 10, 2014) accuses the Company of misleading
consumers about the characteristics, qualities, and nature of its
popped corn chip products sold under the "Popcorners" brand name
by labeling the products "ALL NATURAL."

Medora Holdings, LLC, is a New York limited liability company
headquartered in Middleton, New York.  The markets its Products
to consumers and sells its Products to distributors throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
                  krichman@reeserichman.com


METRO GOLDWYN: Faces "Buck" Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that the daughter of a late Hollywood producer sued MGM, claiming
it miscalculates home video revenue, shortchanging her and other
profit participants of royalties, in a class action in Los
Angeles Superior Court.

Joan Buck seeks her fair share of home video revenue from the
1965 comedy "What's New, Pussycat?", produced by her late father,
Jules Buck.

Buck claims that MGM fails to properly account for income derived
from the sale of movies on home video, including VHS tapes, DVDs,
laser discs, video-on-demand, digital downloads and streaming.

MGM "engages in a common and systematic practice of paying less
revenue than it receives by including only 20 percent of said
revenue when calculating the amount payable to the profit
participants," the lawsuit states.

Buck says the studio takes the remaining 80 percent for itself.

Before studios such as MGM established their own in-house home
video department or subsidiaries, independent video distributors
paid a flat 20 percent royalty to the studios from home video
sales.  The studios, in return, paid profit participants based on
this 20 percent royalty, the complaint states.

"However, after the studios established their own home video
divisions, they continued the practice of only reporting 20
percent of actual receipts to profit participants, as if the
profits earned by these divisions were not their own and not
subject to eventual disbursement to the profit participants as
well," Buck says in the complaint.

MGM has been handling its own home video distribution to
wholesalers and retailers throughout the world since 1999, yet
continues to pay profit participants based on 20 percent of the
revenue, instead of 100 percent, the complaint states.

Buck says she is entitled to 10 percent of 100 percent of MGM's
gross receipt home video revenue for "What's New, Pussycat?",
pursuant to 1964 distribution and financing agreements.

"What's New, Pussycat?" was a comedy written by Woody Allen and
starring Allen, Peter Sellers and Peter O'Toole.  Its title song
was nominated for an Academy Award in 1966 and Allen was
nominated for a Writers Guild of America award for "Best Written
American Comedy," also in 1966.

Buck seeks punitive damages for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant, money had and received, unfair competition and
conversion.  She also seeks an order forcing MGM to abide by its
profit participation agreements by including 100 percent of
income when calculating each class member's cut of the profits.

In January 2013, five class actions similar to Buck's were filed
in Los Angeles Superior Court, against Paramount, Sony, Fox,
Universal Studios and Warner Bros.  All of the plaintiffs are
represented by Neville Johnson with Johnson & Johnson, who also
represents Buck.

Consumers spent $18.2 billion in home entertainment in 2013, 50
percent of which was spent on streaming and digital downloads,
according to the Digital Entertainment Group's year-end report.

Accounting tricks are so prevalent in the movie world that
"Hollywood accounting" has come to be a slang term for accounting
sleight of hand.


MIAMI, FL: Removed "Castro" Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Castro, et al. v. City of Miami,
et al., Case No. 13039124CA01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-20504-WJZ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Armando Aguirre Ortiz, Esq.
          Dale James Morgado, Esq.
          R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
          FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
          100 N. Biscayne Blvd., 29th Floor, Suite 2902
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 222-7850
          Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
          E-mail: aortiz@ffmlawgroup.com
                  dmorgado@fmlawgroup.us
                  erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com

Defendant City of Miami is represented by:

          Kevin Renard Jones, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF MIAMI
          444 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 945
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
          E-mail: krjones@miamigov.com

The rest of the Defendants are represented by:

          Robert David Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN AND LEVINSON, P.A.
          10059 NW 1st Court
          Plantation, FL 33324-4000
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
          E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com


MIAMI, FL: Removed "Rodriguez" Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Rodriguez, et al. v. City of
Miami, et al., Case No. 13038942CA01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-20499-FAM to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Armando Aguirre Ortiz, Esq.
          Dale James Morgado, Esq.
          R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
          FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
          100 N. Biscayne Blvd., 29th Floor, Suite 2902
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 222-7850
          Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
          E-mail: aortiz@ffmlawgroup.com
                  dmorgado@fmlawgroup.us
                  erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com

Defendant City of Miami is represented by:

          Diana Vizcaino, Esq.
          Kevin Renard Jones, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF MIAMI
          444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-1833
          Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
          E-mail: dvizcaino@miamigov.com
                  krjones@miamigov.com

Defendants City of Miami General Employees and Sanitation
Employees Retirement Trust and Board of Trustees of the City of
Miami General Employees and Sanitation Employees Retirement Trust
are represented by:

          Adam Phillip Levinson, Esq.
          Paul A. Daragjati, Esq.
          Robert David Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON, P.A.
          10059 NW 1 Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
          E-mail: adam@robertdklausner.com
                  paul@robertdklausner.com
                  bob@robertdklausner.com

Defendants Carlos Migoya, Former Miami City Manager; Sandra
Elenberg; and Irma I. Saldana, Assistant to the Plan
Administrator, are represented by:

          Adam Michael Foslid, Esq.
          Hilarie Bass, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0553
          Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
          E-mail: foslida@gtlaw.com
                  bassh@gtlaw.com


MONITRONICS INT'L: Faces "Bennett" Class Suit in S.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Monitronics International, Inc. and G/B Marketing,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00054-B (S.D. Ala., February 10, 2014) is
brought under the Communications Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com

               - and -

          John R. Cox, Esq.
          9786 A Timber Circle
          Spanish Fort, AL 36527
          Telephone: (251) 517-4753
          E-mail: federalcourt.notices.jrclegal@gmail.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
          P. O. Box 1206
          Mobile, AL 36633
          Telephone: (251) 432-9212
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: kriemer01@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diane Babb Maughan, Esq.
          Crawford S. McGivaren, Jr., Esq.
          CABANISS, JOHNSTON, GARDNER, DUMAS & O'NEAL
          P.O. Box 830612
          Birmingham, AL 35283-0612
          Telephone: (205) 716-5241
          E-mail: dbm@cabaniss.com
                  csm@cabaniss.com

               - and -

          Ian David Rosenthal, Esq.
          CABANISS, JOHNSTON, GARDNER, DUMAS & O'NEAL
          P. O. Box 2906
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 415-7300
          Facsimile: (251) 415-7350
          E-mail: idr@cabaniss.com


MV TRANSPORTATION: Improperly Paid Paratransit Drivers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Diabate, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00857-NIQA
(E.D. Pa., February 10, 2014) is brought on behalf of MV's hourly
paratransit drivers/employees in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant routinely fails to pay
her and the Class properly in accordance with federal and state
wage and hour laws.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, MV Transportation, Inc., is a
corporation engaged in providing paratransit services nationally
and locally, including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  MV
operates under agreements with third parties to provide
paratransit services to elderly or disabled individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Rubinsky, Esq.
          Amy Galer, Esq.
          Brian R. Brotman, Esq.
          BRODIE & RUBINSKY
          121 S. Broad Street, Suite 800
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-4545
          Telephone: (215) 925-1470
          E-mail: rubinsky@brodierubinsky.com
                  agaler@brodierubinsky.com
                  b.dilks-brotman@brodierubinsky.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert William Pritchard, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Dominion Tower, 26th Floor
          625 Liberty Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201-7628
          E-mail: rpritchard@littler.com

               - and -

          Sarah Bryan Fask, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Three Parkway, Suite 1400
          1601 Cherry St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3000
          Facsimile: (267) 402-3131
          E-mail: sfask@littler.com


NEWFOUNDLAND: Moose-Vehicle Class Action Set to Start
-----------------------------------------------------
Josh Pennell, writing for The Telegram, reports that the unique
moose-vehicle class-action lawsuit being handled by Ches Crosbie
was set to start on April 1, and the case has the potential to
break new ground in the land of the law.

Mr. Crosbie said he doesn't know of any cases in Canada like it,
but there have been some in the U.S. that involved allegations
that wildlife fencing should have been in place.  In some cases,
the plaintiff won, Mr. Crosbie said.  They were individual cases
and not class action such as the one he is handling.

"The case really is a case for experts. It's a common issues
trial," said Mr. Crosbie.

At the hearing there would be experts in their respective fields
called to the stand such as Bob Cuff, a Newfoundland historian
who would explain the history of moose on the island.  The case
would start, though, with some people who have been directly
affected by a moose-vehicle collision.

"It's just to put a human face on the problem or the scope of the
problem," Mr. Crosbie said.

Jennifer Pilgrim, who is a plaintiff witness, lost her husband in
a moose-vehicle collision in 2009.  Ben Bellows, another main
plaintiff, is quadriplegic as the result of a moose-vehicle
accident in 2003.  The case isn't dealing with particular
injuries or individual compensations, though.

"The questions are questions like, 'Is the government negligent?
Is there a defense of core policy decision?' Because if the
government can prove that what was done or not done was a matter
of core policy decision, then they have a good defense.  Also,
we're looking at causation," said Mr. Crosbie.

Causation deals with where collisions happen.  There are moose-
vehicle collisions all over the island, but they also happen in
areas of concentrated collisions.

"For any individual class member, there remains the issue of, was
there a particular accident at a position on the highway which
should have been fenced?"

Nobody is suggesting the entire TCH should be fenced off,
Ms. Crosbie added, but there are areas that may be proven to be
of higher risk.  Also, if an accident took place in a location
where collisions are a rarity, the government can argue the area
wouldn't have been fenced anyway and wouldn't have prevented a
collision.

"So that's where the argument based on (moose) density becomes
very important," Ms. Crosbie said.

The Save Our People Action Committee formed in 2009 by survivors
of moose-vehicle collisions to highlight the problem of moose on
the highways in Newfoundland and Labrador.  It has a goal to
reduce the moose-vehicle collision rate by 50 per cent or more
over five years.

"Can that be done by reduction of the population of moose, at
least in the areas adjacent to the major road? That's the
question.  And if we can show that that is feasible then we may
be able to prove that independently of where the fencing might be
put, the probabilities favor that none of these people would have
been in a collision," Ms. Crosbie said.

Although the case may seem complicated, Ms. Crosbie said it's not
bad on a relative scale.  He compares it to a malpractice trial
he just finished that had 12 doctors testify.

"Compared to that it's not complicated.  It's not complex in
terms of the evidence."

If Ms. Crosbie and his group win, the result could carry quite a
bit of clout, though.

"The challenge is in the law because if we succeed it will be new
law.  We are pushing back the frontiers of the law, for sure,"
Ms. Crosbie said.


NU SKIN: Faces Class Action Over Running Pyramid Scheme in China
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders accuse Nu Skin
Enterprises of costing them money by running a pyramid scheme in
China, in a securities fraud class action in Federal Court in
Salt Lake City.


NUTRO COMPANY: Removed "Monteleone" Suit to N.J. District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Monteleone v. The Nutro
Company, et al., Case No. ESX-L-9885-13, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00801-ES-JAD to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of dog food
products manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold by the
Defendants nationwide, except California.  Damian Monteleone
alleges that the Defendants falsely claimed that their dog food
products are or were a source of live microbial spores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2532
          Facsimile: (973) 337-1911
          E-mail: psiachos@gordonrees.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen J. DeFeo, Esq.
          BROWN & CONNERY LLP
          360 Haddon Avenue
          PO Box 539
          Westmont, NJ 08108
          Telephone: (856) 854-8900
          Facsimile: (856) 858-4967
          E-mail: sdefeo@brownconnery.com

               - and -

          David A. Forkner, Esq.
          Brian Co Rabbitt, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          72512 Street N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: brabbitt@wc.com
                  dforkner@wc.com


NY SECURE: Faces Class Action Over Constitutionality of Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
challenges the constitutionality of New York's Secure Ammunition
and Firearm Enforcement Act.


PATENT HEALTH: Middleton Suit Parties May Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss a first amended complaint in DRAGAN VASIC, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PATENT HEALTH, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company, ARTHUR
MIDDLETON CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., an Ohio Corporation, WALGREEN,
CO., an Illinois Corporation, and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendants,
CASE NO. 13CV849 AJB (MDD), (S.D. Cal.).  A a copy of the March
10, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/tFRZ2mfrom
Leagle.com

Defendants Arthur Middleton Capital Holdings, Inc. and Patent
Health, LLC's filed the motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b),
12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6).

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint in its entirety for failure to comply with Rule
9(b). However, because it appears the Plaintiff may be able to
remedy this deficiency, the Court provided the Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend or correct the deficiencies no later than
April 8, 2014.  No new parties or claims may be added without
leave of Court.


PFIP LLC: Sued for Sending Ads/Messages Without Prior Consent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Taylor individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. PFIP, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-10300-GAO
(D. Mass., February 10, 2014) asserts that PFIP, LLC violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending promotional text
messages to individuals without securing prior consent.

PFIP, LLC is a New Hampshire limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Newington, New Hampshire.  The
Company that operates a franchise of fitness centers known as
Planet Fitness.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Scott O'Connell, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          900 Elm Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Telephone: (603) 628-4087
          Facsimile: (603) 628-4040
          E-mail: soconnell@nixonpeabody.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Banas" Suit in Mississippi Over Lipitor Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Banas, 285 Highway 371, Marietta, Mississippi 38856 v.
Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00021-NBB-DAS (N.D. Miss., February 10, 2014) is an
action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate
result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Lampkin, II, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: james.lampkin@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard, Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
                  vic@feazell-tighe.com
                  eleeza@feazell-tighe.com

               - and -

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


PFIZER INC: Faces "Dario" Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Cathy M. Dario, 1240 Colburn Street, Toledo, Ohio 43609 v. Pfizer
Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No.
3:14-cv-00266-JJH (N.D. Ohio, February 10, 2014) is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known
chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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


PFIZER INC: Faces "Harris" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonita P. Harris, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation;
and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-01030-MMM-VBK (C.D. Cal.,
February 10, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies,
and medical practitioners.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
          Matthew Ramon Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ McHUGH LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
                  mlopez@lopezmchugh.com

               - and -

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


PFIZER INC: Faces "Pountney" Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Margaret G. Pountney and Richard R. Pountney, 5690 Great Northern
Boulevard, North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East
42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 1:14-cv-00265-JG
(N.D. Ohio, February 10, 2014) is an action for damages suffered
by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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


RAYMOND JAMES: $62MM Accord Okayed in Regions Shareholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee approved a $62 million settlement of a class action
filed on behalf of shareholders of Regions Financial Corporation
and investors who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the
Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex, according to Raymond James
Financial, Inc.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions, have
been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state
courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions and investors who
purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan
Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds"). The Regions Funds were
formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity
which was at one time a subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan
affiliates, but an entity which was not part of the company's
Morgan Keegan acquisition (see further information regarding the
Morgan Keegan acquisition in Note 3 on pages 123 - 124 of the
company's 2013 Form 10-K).

The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that
the Regions Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts relating to the activities of the funds.

In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee approved the settlement of the class action
and the derivative action regarding the closed end funds for $62
million and $6 million, respectively. No class has been
certified. Certain of the shareholders in the funds and other
interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and
individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class
action lawsuits.

The SEC and states of Missouri and Texas are investigating
alleged securities law violations by MK & Co. in the underwriting
and sale of certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action was
brought by the Missouri Secretary of State in April 2013, seeking
monetary penalties and other relief. In November 2013, the state
dismissed this enforcement action and refiled the same claims as
a civil action in the Circuit Court for Boone County, Missouri. A
civil action was brought by institutional investors of the bonds
on March 19, 2012, seeking a return of their investment and
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. A class action was
brought on behalf of retail purchasers of the bonds on September
4, 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
These actions are in the early stages. These matters are subject
to the indemnification agreement with Regions.


RI EDUCATION BOARD: Accused of Violating EAHCA in Rhode Island
--------------------------------------------------------------
K.S. through her parent C.S. on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated v. Rhode Island Board of Education by and
through its Chair Eva-Marie Mancuso; Eva-Marie Mancuso, in her
offical capacity as Chair of the RI Board of Education; Warwick
School Committee, as a representative of a class of Local
Educational Agencies similarly situated by and through its Chair
Bethany A. Furtado; and Bethany A. Furtado, in her official
capacity as Chair of the Warwick School Committee, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00077-S-LDA (D.R.I., February 10, 2014) alleges violations of
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE
          395 Smith Street
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 864-5877
          Facsimile: (401) 354-7464
          E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com

               - and -

          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: jkim@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Paul Alston, Esq.
          ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
          1001 Bishop Street, #1800
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 524-1888
          E-mail: palston@ahfi.com

Defendants Rhode Island Board of Education and its chair, Eva-
Marie Mancuso, are represented by:

          Paul V. Sullivan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN SIGNORE WHITEHEAD & DELUCA LLP
          86 Weybosset Street, Suite 400
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 861-9900
          Facsimile: 861-9977
          E-mail: psullivan@swdlawfirm.com

Defendants Warwick School Committee and its chair, Bethany A.
Furtado, are represented by:

          Jon M. Anderson, Esq.
          EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
          2800 Financial Plaza
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 274-9200
          Facsimile: (401) 276-6611
          E-mail: janderson@edwardswildman.com


SLM STAFFING: Fails to Pay Workers for All OT Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Walter, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated
v. SLM Staffing, LLC & Senior Living Management Corp., Case No.
0:14-cv-60330-JEM (S.D. Fla., February 10, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants failed to compensate employees for all overtime wages
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SLM Services, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company.
Senior Living Management Corp. is a Florida corporation.  The
Defendants share a principal place of business at in Coconut
Creek, Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3487
          E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Deborah Elizabeth Frimmel, Esq.
          WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY & FORD, P.A.
          390 N Orange Avenue, Suite 1000
          P.O. Box 2753
          Orlando, FL 32802-2025
          Telephone: (407) 843-3939
          Facsimile: (407) 649-8118
          E-mail: dfrimmel@wickersmith.com


SPRINT CORP: Investor Suit Obtains Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Davis, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that an
investor lawsuit brought against Sprint Corp. five years ago has
won court approval as a class action case.

Several individual and institutional investors had sued in U.S.
District Court in Kansas City, Kan., in 2009 citing problems
dating back to Sprint's 2005 merger with Nextel.

In a ruling, U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren held that
investors who owned Sprint shares and bonds during the period in
question share enough common elements to be treated as a group.
They don't have to sue separately.

"We are disappointed with the court's decision," Sprint
spokeswoman Stephanie Vinge Walsh said in an email.  "However,
this is not a ruling on the merits of the underlying case but
simply that the case can proceed as a class action."

The lawsuit names as defendants Sprint Nextel Corp., its former
chief executive officer Gary D. Forsee, its former chief
financial officer Paul N. Saleh who served as interim CEO after
Forsee's departure, and its former controller William G. Arendt
who served as acting chief financial officer.

Investors complained that between Oct. 26, 2006, and Feb. 27,
2008, the company and top officials falsely claimed the merger
between Sprint and Nextel was generating significant benefits.
They cited press releases, conference calls with analysts and
investors as well as company filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Sprint was claiming billions of dollars in savings from the
merger, a better mix of customers from changes in credit
standards, and progress in combining the companies' wireless
networks, the investors said.

"Plaintiffs claim that Sprint's true condition was not revealed
until after Dan Hesse was named CEO of Sprint on December 8,
2007. This was two months after Sprint's board of directors
forced defendant Forsee to resign as the company's CEO and
chairman," Judge Melgren said in a 27-page memorandum and order.

Judge Melgren's order noted that "in a little more than six
months, Sprint's stock price dropped almost 70 percent" from
$23.25 to less than $7.15.

In addition to individuals, the investors that sued included the
PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund, Skandia Life
Insurance Co. and the West Virginia Investment Management Board.


ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL: Settles Class Actions Over Unnecessary Stents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that court documents show that
settlements have been reached in two class-action lawsuits over
unnecessary artery stents placed in patients at a Towson
hospital.

The former owner of St. Joseph Medical Center tells The Daily
Record that agreements have been reached to resolve the cases.
Federal and city courts in Baltimore still must give formal
approval.  The settlements will include Catholic Health
Initiatives Inc., St. Joseph and former cardiologist Mark Midei,
who performed many of the stent operations.

Terms of the settlements were not disclosed.

In 2010, the hospital notified more than 500 patients that they
may have been given unnecessary stents.  Mr. Midei's medical
license was revoked in 2011.


STERLING JEWELERS: Removed "Tapia" Class Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Tapia v. Sterling
Jewelers Inc., et al., Case No. M125887, was removed from the
Superior Court of the state of California for the County of
Monterey to the U.S. District Court for the California Northern
District (San Jose).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:14-cv-00624-HRL to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts claims for, among other things, failure to
pay overtime compensation and failure to provide meal and rest
periods.

Signet Jewelers Limited is a foreign company not incorporated in
any state in the United States, with its headquarters in Bermuda
and its operations based out of the United Kingdom.  Sterling
Jewelers, Inc. is a subsidiary of Signet and is an Ohio
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com


TARGET CORP: Trustmark Nat'l Bank Withdraws From Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kirk, writing for PCWorld, reports that one of the two
banks suing Target and security vendor Trustwave over
responsibility for one the largest data breaches in history has
pulled out of the lawsuit.

Trustmark National Bank, of New York, filed a notice of dismissal
of its claims on March 28 in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  It had joined Green Bank of Houston in the
class-action suit, which claims Target and Trustwave failed to
stop the theft of 40 million payment card details and 70 million
other personal records.

The suit may have wrongly named Trustwave as one of Target's IT
security contractors.  After the suit was filed on March 24,
Trustwave said it would not comment on pending litigation and
customarily does not identify its customers.  Many agreements
with IT vendors and customers are confidential.

But on March 29, Trustwave's Chairman and CEO Robert J. McCullen
added more clarity by writing a letter on its website saying
Target did not outsource its data security or IT obligations to
the company.

"Trustwave did not monitor Target's network, nor did Trustwave
process cardholder data for Target," Mr. McCullen wrote.

Lawyers for Trustmark and Green Bank did not respond to an email
asking for comment.  It was unclear if Green Bank might take
similar action or amend the suit.  Trustmark could refile the
suit and drop Trustwave as a plaintiff.

The lawsuit was notable for its aim to widen the circle of
responsibility for a data breach, which burden banks with the
cost of reissuing cards.  The suit, which asks for a jury trial,
seeks unspecified compensatory and statutory damages.  It was not
clear from the class-action suit why the bank thought Trustwave
was a supplier for Target, although the company has a large
business advising companies on compliance issues related to
payment card data.

The suit alleged that Trustwave scanned Target's network on
Sept. 20, 2013, and told Target no vulnerabilities were found.
It further maintained that Trustwave failed to bring Target's
systems up to industry standards.

Card companies such as Visa and MasterCard require vendors to
comply with PCI-DSS, which is a set of recommendations for
preventing the loss of cardholder data.

Both Target and Neiman Marcus confirmed malicious software on
their point-of-sale (POS) systems intercepted data after payment
cards were swiped while it was briefly held unencrypted in the
device's memory.


TOTAL WIRELESS: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin DeClue, Behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Total Wireless Communication Services, Inc., an Oklahoma
corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80211-DMM (S.D. Fla., February 10,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours
in a given work week but he was not paid time and one half his
hourly rate for all overtime worked.

Total Wireless Communication Services, Inc., is an Oklahoma
corporation headquartered in Grove, Oklahoma.  The Company
provides wireless construction and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Straub, Esq.
          CHARLES D. STRAUB, P.A.
          6033 Walnut Hill Drive
          Lake Worth, FL 33467
          Telephone: (561) 308-3003
          Facsimile: (561) 642-5189
          E-mail: cds@straublaw.net


UGI CORP: No Class Certified Yet in Unfair Trade Practice Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia has not yet
certified a class in a suit filed against UGI Corporation for
alleged violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade
Practice Act, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Harrison County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance
subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General
Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters. In
this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of
the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act,
negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The
Court has not certified the class. The company believes it has
good defenses to the claims in this action.


UNIVERSAL CITY NISSAN: Fails to Give Copy of Consumer Report
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose H. Lozano-Rivera, individually, and on behalf of the
putative class v. Universal City Nissan, Inc., a California
Corporation; Employee Relations, Inc.; a California Corporation;
and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-01010-RGK-PJW (C.D.
Cal., February 10, 2014) accuses the Company of violating the
Fair Credit Reporting Act for failing to provide consumers with a
copy of their consumer report as well as a reasonable opportunity
to dispute the information whenever it seeks to take adverse
employment action in whole or in part on the basis of the
information disclosed in their consumer report.

Universal City Nissan is a California corporation that regularly
conducts business in Los Angeles, California.  Employee
Relations, Inc. is a California corporation that regularly
conducts business in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devin H. Fok, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN H. FOK
          PO Box 7165
          Alhambra, CA 98102-7165
          Telephone: (310) 430-9933
          Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
          E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua Eunsuk Kim, Esq.
          A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
          PO Box 875288
          Los Angeles, CA 90087
          Telephone: (323) 563-3575
          Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
          E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Fails to Secure Medical Records, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Carsten, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. University of Miami, a Florida not-for-profit
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-20497-KMW (S.D. Fla., February 10,
2014) is a consumer class action lawsuit brought against the
Defendant for its alleged failure to adequately safeguard and
secure the medical records and other personally identifiable
information, including names, dates of birth, social security
numbers, billing information and other highly confidential health
information, of the Plaintiff and Class Members, and to address
the damage caused as a result.

University of Miami is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with
its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  University of
Miami operates a medical school and health care system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alfred John Saikali, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2400
          Miami, FL 33131-4332
          Telephone: (305) 358-5171
          Facsimile: (305) 358-7470
          E-mail: asaikali@shb.com


VISTEON CORP: Court Awards Atty. Fees and Costs in "Pierce" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In DARRYL and SHARON PIERCE On Behalf Of Themselves And All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VISTEON CORPORATION,
and VISTEON SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, NO. 1:05-CV-01325-LJM-DKL,
(S.D. Ind.), District Judge Larry J. McKinney issued a ruling on
March 11, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/yHxFhXfrom Leagle.com, granting in part and denying
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Statutory
Attorney's Fees and Costs to the Class and Motion for Attorney's
Fees and Costs to Class Counsel. The Class and Class Counsel were
awarded $302,780.00 in statutory attorney's fees and $11,444.97
in costs.


WAZE: Faces Class Action Over Intellectual Property Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Appelberg, writing for Haaretz, reports that one of the
founders of Waze declared eight years ago that he could not
foresee a situation in which his company would demand payment for
use of maps derived in part from Freemap, an open-source mapping
project which he was involved in at the time.

A class action suit was filed against Waze, the Israeli traffic
navigation app that was sold last year to Google for a billion
dollars, alleging that the company violated intellectual property
rights in its use of maps developed Freemap.

This declaration was made by Ehud Shabtai, Waze's chief
technology officer, who also started Freemap and designed most of
its software.

The lawsuit, filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Waze,
its founders -- Shabtai, Amir Shinar, Gili Shinar and Uri Levine
-- and a Google subsidiary in Israel, claims that Waze's
technology is based partly on the work of the Freemap programming
community, which is therefore entitled to half of the company's
intellectual property at the time of its sale.  It also claims
that Waze broke a commitment to leave its program, maps and
information open to the public.

"I don't see the maps as something that belongs to me, but rather
to the community," Mr. Shabtai wrote in 2006, in an online
response to a Linmagazine website article on Freemap, "so I don't
envision a situation in which I would demand payment or royalties
for the use of this information."

Mr. Shabtai's statement surfaced in connection with a filing of
supplementary information by the lawyer for Roy Gorodish, the
lead plaintiff in the class action suit.  Mr. Gorodish claims
that in addition to Mr. Shabtai, others also contributed
significantly to the development of Freemap's software.  The
defendants then adapted it as part of the Waze app and sold it to
Google, without telling the Internet giant that its program and
maps belong to the community.  Mr. Gorodish estimates that Waze's
intellectual property was worth $128 million at the time of the
sale, of which he says the community is entitled to $64 million.

"At this stage, I don't have a business model that will enable
the project to finance itself," Mr. Shabtai wrote in 2006.  "I
hope to find a way of funding the project and preserving its
'openness' to the greatest extent possible.  All of you of course
are invited to contribute to the project to map the country and
develop mapping/navigational software. [Signed] Ehud Shabtai."

For his part, Yitzhak Aviram, Gorodish's lawyer, says the online
letter demonstrates that at the time, Mr. Shabtai did not believe
he had a right to the maps.  When the lawsuit was filed, Waze had
not yet seen the statement and could therefore not comment.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip, writing for Courthouse News Service reports that
Weight Watchers misled investors in a "desperate attempt to boost
the share price" so its executives could cash out their holdings
at inflated prices, shareholders claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Vlad Kalika sued Weight Watchers International,
ex-CEO David Kirchhoff, current CEO James Chambers, and senior
executives Ann Sardini and Nicholas Hotchkin.  Weight Watcher's
controlling shareholder, Artal Group S.A., and its CEO Raymond
Debbane also are named as defendants.

Weight Watchers describes itself as the world's leading provider
of weight management services, with a global network of company-
owned and franchise operations that sell products and services
for billions of dollars a year.

Artal Group, a foreign private equity company, bought more than
half of Weight Watchers' outstanding common stock from the H.J.
Heinz Co. in September 1999.

Artal, a subsidiary of Dutch company Stichting
Administratiekantoor Westend, owns about 52 percent of the Weight
Watchers outstanding shares, controlling the majority of the
voting power.  As of January 2013, Weight Watchers had
approximately 55 million outstanding shares of common stock,
according to the lawsuit.

Debbane, Artal's CEO and director, has been the chairman of
Weight Watchers' Board of Directors since the 1999 acquisition.

Kalika, who bought Weight Watchers common stock between Feb. 14,
2012 and Oct. 30, 2013, says Weight Watchers and Artal executives
were involved in a massive share buyback scheme to maximize
profits for themselves at the expense of other shareholders.

He claims the defendants had access to confidential company
information, participated in its management, and drafted and
reviewed the statements that misled investors, or at least failed
to warn investors about their inaccuracy.

Kalika seeks to represent hundreds of thousands of stock buyers
who allegedly were defrauded during the class period.

"On Feb. 14, 2012, Weight Watchers announced results for Q4 2011
and full-year 2011, and provided full-year 2012 earnings
guidance," the complaint states.  "The company provided a 2012
earnings guidance range of between $4.20 and $4.60 per share.  In
the same release, Weight Watchers announced that it planned to
launch a 'modified Dutch auction' tender offer the following week
for up to $720 million of its common stock with a price range
between $72 and $83 per share, for a total of 8.78 million
shares, and that it separately had agreed to purchase shares held
by Artal at the same price paid in the tender offer so that
Artal's percentage ownership interest in the company after the
tender offer and the share repurchase would be substantially
equal to its then-current level of 52 percent.

"If the tender offer was fully subscribed, the company would
repurchase a total of approximately $1.5 billion of its common
stock collectively through the tender offer and Artal repurchase.
The company took on an additional $1.5 billion of debt in order
to accomplish this.  The program would reduce the total number of
outstanding Weight Watchers shares from 74 million to 57 million,
a 23 percent reduction. On Feb. 14, 2012, Weight Watchers common
stock was trading at $79 per share.

"The tender offer closed on March 22, 2012.  Earlier that month,
defendants Kirchhoff and Sardini exercised large quantities of
options in the $42-53 per share range.  On March 16, 2012, they
sold large quantities of Weight Watchers shares on the open
market for $80-82 per share.  On March 22, they also tendered
shares to the company for $82 per share.  Kirchhoff received
gross proceeds on shares sold of approximately $6.5 million and
Sardini received gross proceeds on shares sold of approximately
$4.4 million.  On April 9, 2012, per the terms of the tender
offer, Artal Holdings sold 9.5 millions shares at $82 per share,
for total proceeds of $779 million.

"Shortly after the tender offer closed, the company reported bad
news.  On May 2, 2012, the company announced its results for Q1
2012 -- the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2012, just nine days
after the tender offer closed -- and revised its full-year 2012
earnings guidance that it had previously provided on Feb. 14,
2012.  Specifically, the company announced that it expected to
earn $4.60 to $4.80 per share for the year, and although this was
an increase from its previous forecast of $4.20 to $4.60 per
share, the update included a $.50 to $.55 per share benefit from
the recently completed tender offer.  Thus, without the benefit
from the tender offer, the company would have missed its EPS
guidance significantly -- guiding down to the $4.05 to $4.25 or
$4.10 to $4.30 per-share range. Kirchhoff obliquely attributed
the disappointing results to 'execution issues.'  On this news,
Weight Watchers shares plunged 18 percent, from $76.01 to $62.29.

"The defendants would have had visibility into these 'execution
issues' during the time they were making the tender offer.
Specifically, the officer defendants knew, or were reckless in
not knowing, of these negative developments when they sold their
shares into the tender offer on March 22, 2012.  The Artal
defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, of these
negative developments when they sold Artal's shares on April 9,
2012, after the quarter had already closed.

"On the earnings call after the May 2, 2012 announcement, at
least two analysts questioned the timing of the tender offer,
suggesting the company could have bought stock back at a lower
price after reporting the quarter.

"Timothy Green, a financial writer for the stock blog The Motley
Fool, called the company's tender offer 'the most absurd share
buyback program I've seen.  Loading up the company with debt to
repurchase shares at an inflated price is a terrible idea, plain
and simple.'  On Jan. 11, 2013, Green analyzed Weight Watchers'
financial position at the end of 2011, before the massive
buyback. He determined the fair value of Weight Watchers stock at
the end of 2011, just prior to the share buyback, was $60 per
share. '[O]ne thing is clear: $82 per share certainly wasn't
cheap.'

"Green explained the harm of the share buyback inflicted on
Weight Watchers' shareholders: 'This is what happens when you
overpay for your own shares - you hurt the common shareholder.
The people who accepted the tender offer for $82 per share made
out like bandits, as the [then] current share price is around $60
per share.  Those who stayed saw the real value as well as the
market value of their shares fall.  This reeks of a desperate
attempt to boost the share price which in the end did exactly the
opposite.'

"Michael Olson, also a financial writer for The Motley Fool,
specifically criticized the share buyback as an attempt by Artal
to cash out: 'Artal Group, a private equity firm, owns 44 percent
of shares, and effectively controls the board.  You might argue
that last summer's tender offer was a cash-out for its private
equity owners, and it wouldn't be unreasonable.'

"The officer defendants and the Artal defendants thus engaged in
a 'desperate attempt to boost the share price' of Weight Watchers
so they could cash out their own holdings, while at the same time
omitting material information from the market that they had a
duty to disclose.

"Defendants continued to conceal material information from
investors after the May 2, 2012 disclosure of missed earnings.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to the market that
Weight Watchers was losing customers to weight-loss applications
('apps') that were available for free on smartphones, tablets and
the Internet."

Kalika claims ex-CEO Kirchhoff downplayed the toll that
competition from free fitness-tracking apps was taking on Weight
Watchers' recruiting efforts, and repeatedly dismissed analysts'
concerns during earnings conferences.

It was not until Oct. 30, 2013 that Weight Watchers acknowledged
"the steep declines in recruitment" caused by a "wave of free
apps," Kalika says.

At that point, the company indefinitely suspended the regular
dividend it had paid to investors since 2006, which caused the
stock price to fall another 19 percent after a steady decline
throughout 2013, according to the lawsuit.

Kalika claims Weight Watchers hid its declining income for months
and failed to tell investors the company was not on track to
achieve the projected financial goals.  He seeks class
certification and compensatory damages for securities violations.

Kalika is represented by Samuel Rudman with Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd of Melville, N.Y.

A spokeswoman for Weight Watchers declined to comment on the
lawsuit.


* Governor Scott Walker Signs Bill on Asbestos-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
WSAU reports that despite strong opposition from some military
veterans groups and Democrats, Governor Scott Walker signs
legislation dealing with asbestos-related lawsuits.

Under the new law, cancer victims filing asbestos-exposure
lawsuits against an existing company would have to disclose
claims or potential claims against asbestos compensation trust
funds. Military veterans opposed to the legislation (AB-19) say
it would "delay and deny justice to victims exposed to asbestos,"
especially veterans.

Jason Johns is the State legislative officer with the Military
Order of the Purple Heart.  He's the executive director of
Wisconsin Asbestos Victims Network, a coalition of veterans
groups who had been speaking out against asbestos legislation.
Those groups -- Wisconsin American Legion, Veterans of Foreign
Wars and the Military Order of the Purple Heart -- say the law
eliminates accountability for corporations who knowingly exposed
veterans and Wisconsin workers to deadly asbestos.

Veterans make up 30 percent of all mesothelioma-related deaths,
Johns explains, but only 8 percent of the population, so the
measure disproportionately affects veterans.  "In all my years at
the Capitol, I have never seen a bill more devastating to
veterans," he says.

Asbestos was prevalent in military ships, barracks and vehicles.
It was also common in many factories, shipyards and plants where
veterans worked upon their return home.

In a statement, Gov. Walker says the bill is about "ensuring
transparency in the lawsuit process to stop trial lawyers from
double dipping."  He insists the measure does not prevent victims
from filing claims and will ensure the solvency of the asbestos
trust.

The governor quietly signed the heavily-lobbied legislation into
law on March 27 along with 28 other bills.  Gov. Walker also
issued one partial veto and one full veto.

Wisconsin Civil Justice Council supports the legislation, saying
the measure assures that defendants pay only their fair share of
any damages they caused.  The group disputes claims the law would
delay justice or prevent victims from being compensated.


                             *********

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  * * *