CAR_Public/140409.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 70

                             Headlines


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: No Ruling Yet to Unify Suits Over Marketing
21ST CENTURY FOX: Motion to Dismiss "Wilder" Stock Suit Filed
ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Faces Suit Over Cheating Lessors of Royalties
APPLE INC: Accord in Ipad Unlimited Data Plan Litigation Approved
APPLE INC: Class Certification Granted on Conspiracy Complaint

AT&T INC: Court Approves Accord in iPad Unli Data Plan Litigation
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Settlement in Suit Over Epocrates Merger Okayed
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Moves to Dismiss Suit by Epocrates Shareholders
BARCLAYS BANK: Manipulated WM/Reuters Rates, "Value" Suit Claims
CAR-BER TESTING: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act

CARRIER IQ: Judge Denies Arbitration in Smartphone's Complaint
EBAY INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Block" Class Action
EOS CCA: Dist. Court Dimisses "Hawk" Class Action With Prejudice
ESPN: Faces Suit Over Violation of Video Privacy Protection Act
EXPEDIA INC: Still Faces Consolidated Suit Over Room Price Cuts

EXPEDIA INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Hotel Occupancy Tax Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Tex. City Wants to Amend Calculation of Penalties
EXPEDIA INC: Approval Hearing Held in New Mex. Hotel Tax Lawsuit
EXPEDIA INC: Appeal v. Nixing of N.Y. Hotel Tax Suit Pending

EXPEDIA INC: Certification of Arkansas Hotel Tax Suit Affirmed
EXPEDIA INC: Citizen-Taxpayers' Suit in Arkansas Now Terminated
EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Certify Suit by Colo. Town Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Files Motion to Junk Claims in Suit by Ill. City
EXPEDIA INC: Hearing Held in Canadian Consumer Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Fate of "Frank" Suit v. Hotwire Still to be Decided
EXPEDIA INC: Wash. Securities Suits Unified, Lead Plaintiff Named
EXPEDIA INC: Faces "Friedman" Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court
EXPEDIA INC: Tex. Court Yet to Rule in Suit Over IHG Room Price
FUSION-IO INC: Faces Securities Lawsuits in California Court

G P INDUSTRIAL: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Travel Time
GENTILE'S FINE: Class Are Entitled to Unpaid Wages, Suit Claims
GOOGLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Android Consumer Privacy Suit
HAWAII: Judge Grants Order to Cut Residents' Health Benefits
LEHIGH VALLEY: Servers Sue Under FLSA and Pa. Minimum Wage Act

LINKEDIN CORP: Bid to Toss Suit Over 2012 Hacking Incident Denied
LVNV FUNDING: McMahon Dismissal Reversed, Delgado Ruling Affirmed
MADISON SQUARE: Suit Over Hockey Games Airing in Discovery Stage
MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Bogus Underwear Claims
MAXIMUS INC: Sued by Boise Project Former Trainers, Supervisors

NEWS CORP: Files Motion to Dismiss "Wilder" Securities Lawsuit
NEWS CORP: Minn. Consumer Settlement of E-Book Suit Approved
NEWS CORP: HarperCollins Settlement in AGs Lawsuit Approved
NEWS CORP: Canadian Consumers Sue Over HarperCollins E-Books Sale
NEWS CORP: Suit v. HarperCollins Over DRM Protection Dismissed

NEWS CORP: Suit Over In-Store Marketing Services in Discovery
NTS REALTY: Has Accord to Settle Merger-Related Litigations
ORBITAL INSULATION: Faces Suit Alleging FLSA Violations in Texas
PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MoU to Settle Merger Lawsuits
PROTECTION ONE: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling in "Jaquez" Suit

PYRAMID HOTELS: Removed "Vitale" Class Suit to S.D. California
RMF NOOTER: Class Alleges Violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES: "Fariasantos" Suit Dismissal Bid Tossed
STATE FARM: 7th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Golden" Class Action
SWISHER HYGIENE: Agrees to Pay $5.5 Million to Settle U.S. Suit

TETON: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in Texas
TJX COMPANIES: Merchandising Managers Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
TOWERS WATSON: Accord in Suit by Former Towers Perrin Approved
TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS: Privacy Class Action Dismissed
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Court Yet to Rule on Bid to Junk Stock Suit

UNION PACIFIC: No Hearing Yet in Suit Over Rail Fuel Surcharge
VAN RU CREDIT: Final Hearing on "Ritchie" Suit Deal Set for July
WAL-MART: 5th Cir. Reinstates "Odle" Gender-Bias Suit

* CPSC Says ASTM Needs to Make Stiffer Standards


                             *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: No Ruling Yet to Unify Suits Over Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
There has been no ruling on plaintiff's motion to consolidate
lawsuits filed against 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. over certain post-
transaction marketing practices entered into by its subsidiaries,
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. 29, 2013.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as
defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the
Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act among other statutes, and for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-
transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's
subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party
vendors.  On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without
prejudice.  The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012,
dismissing the case in its entirety. This case was subsequently
refiled in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010.  In each case, plaintiffs
seek to have the respective case certified as a class action and
seek restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess
of $5.0 million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases
were consolidated with a third case previously pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in
which the Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A
consolidated amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on
September 7, 2012, purporting to assert claims substantially
similar to those originally asserted.  The Company moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 7, 2012,
which was subsequently refiled at the direction of the Court on
January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action").  On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action
filed on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action.  The
Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine. On June 13, 2013 the court issued an order in the Frank
Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to
the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the
Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.
On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants
filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting
that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

There has been no ruling on (1) plaintiff's motion to
consolidate, (2) the order to show cause, (3) the motion for
clarification, or (4) the Company's motion seeking to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint. Oral argument thereon
was held on September 25, 2013, but no ruling has yet been
issued.


21ST CENTURY FOX: Motion to Dismiss "Wilder" Stock Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the shareholder suit Wilder v. News Corp., et al.
have filed motions to dismiss the complaint which are pending,
according to Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff
brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading
statements were issued regarding the NoW Matter. The suit names
as defendants the Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and
Rebekah Brooks, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission for
damages sustained, and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued
an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead
plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel.
Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing
that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31,
2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31,
2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group
Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15,
2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the complaint which are pending.


ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Faces Suit Over Cheating Lessors of Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Access Midstream Partners
and Chesapeake Energy Corp. inflated oil and gas collection and
transportation costs to cheat lessors of billions of dollars in
royalties, a class action RICO complaint claims in Federal Court
in Scranton, Pa.


APPLE INC: Accord in Ipad Unlimited Data Plan Litigation Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte issued an order approving the
settlement in In Re Apple and AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan
Litigation ALL CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS, CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02553 RMW,
(N.D. Cal.), and dismissed claims of settlement class members
with prejudice. A copy of the March 11, 2014 ruling is available
at http://is.gd/QXdaKofrom Leagle.com.

The Stipulation of Settlement was entered into by and among
defendant Apple Inc., plaintiffs Adam Weisblatt, Joe Hanna, David
Turk, Colette Osetek and Aaron Friedman, as individuals and as
"Class Representatives".

The Court approved the settlement as set forth in the Agreement,
in all respects as fair, reasonable, adequate, and just to, and
in the best interests of, the Settlement Class Members.

The Settlement Class as finally certified is defined as:  All
United States residents who purchased or ordered an Apple iPad
with 3G capability (iPad 3G) in the United States on or before
June 7, 2010. The Settlement Class excludes Apple; any entity in
which Apple has a controlling interest; Apple's directors,
officers, and employees; Apple's legal representatives,
successors, and assigns; and wholesalers, resellers, retailers
and distributors.

The Court also held that the payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses in the total amount of $1,500,000 to Class Counsel is
consistent with applicable law and is fair, reasonable and
justified under the circumstances of the case.

The payment of service awards in the amount of $1,000 to each of
the Class Representatives, to compensate them for their efforts
and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class, is fair,
reasonable, and justified.

Class Counsel:

   Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
   Roger N. Heller, Esq.
   LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
   275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Telephone: 415-956-1000
   Facsimile: 415-956-1008


APPLE INC: Class Certification Granted on Conspiracy Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian writing for Courthouse News Service reports that
a federal judge on certified a class action accusing Apple of
conspiring with five major publishers to fix the prices of e-
books sold between April 2010 and May 2012.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said the plaintiff
e-book buyers "have more than met their burden to establish each
of the requirements" of proceeding as a class action.

"This is a paradigmatic antitrust class action," she wrote.
"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.  If certification were not appropriate here, no
antitrust class action could be certified."

In August 2011, consumers filed the first of several antitrust
class actions against Apple and publishers Simon & Schuster,
Macmillan, Penguin, Hachette and HarperCollins.  The lawsuits
were consolidated in January 2012, and the plaintiffs sought
class certification before upcoming trial for damages.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice and a slew of states and
U.S. territories filed separate antitrust lawsuits accusing Apple
and the same five publishers of colluding to fix e-book prices.

The publishers settled those claims for a total of $166 million.
E-book customers have begun to receive account credits from those
settlements, Amazon says in an FAQ section on its website.
(Amazon was not a party to the lawsuits.)

Amazon says customers will receive $3.17 for each New York Times
bestseller bought between April 1, 2010 and May 21, 2012, and 73
cents for other e-books. Minnesota customers will receive
slightly more per e-book, because their settlement was negotiated
separately.

Apple, which decided not to settle, proceeded to a bench trial
last June. Judge Cote found that Apple had played a central role
in orchestrating the price-fixing conspiracy.

The tech giant wanted to avoid having to compete with Amazon's
$9.99 price point for e-books, Cote said, so it struck
distribution deals with each of the five publishers.  The
agreements allegedly allowed the publishers to raise the prices
of new and bestselling e-books to $12.99 or $14.99, and gave
Apple a 30 percent commission on each e-book sale.

In ruling on class certification, Judge Cote noted that the
prices of all e-books sold by the defendant publishers went up by
an average of 18.6 percent after the deals were made, while the
prices of some bestsellers increased by more than 40 percent.
She rejected Apple's argument that the lawsuit should not proceed
as a class action because the damages model used by the
plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Roger Noll, is flawed.

After conducting a "rigorous analysis" of Noll's model, Cote
said, she "finds it capable of reliably estimating class members'
damages."

Cote granted class certification and refused to exclude Noll's
opinions.  She also struck much of Apple's response to the motion
for class certification, saying it went "well beyond the scope of
Noll's addition of a finer-grained analysis."

The plaintiffs' trial for damages is scheduled for later this
year.


AT&T INC: Court Approves Accord in iPad Unli Data Plan Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted final approval of a
settlement in In Re Apple and AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan
Litigation ALL CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS, CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02553 RMW,
(N.D. Cal.). A copy of the March 11, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/OZpszzfrom Leagle.com.

The Stipulation of Settlement was entered into by and among
defendant AT&T Mobility LLC (ATTM), plaintiff Joe Hanna, as an
individual and as "Class Representative".

The Court approved the settlement as set forth in the Agreement
and found that the settlement is in all respects fair,
reasonable, adequate, and just to, and in the best interests of,
the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members.

The ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class as finally certified is
defined as: All persons in the United States who purchased or
ordered an Apple iPad 3G on or before June 7, 2010 but who did
not sign up for or purchase an ATTM data plan for that iPad 3G at
any time. Excluded from this Class are Apple; ATTM; any entity in
which ATTM or Apple has a controlling interest; ATTM and Apple's
directors and officers; Apple's employees; and ATTM and Apple's
legal representatives, successors, and assigns.

Class Counsel was awarded $17,219.55 as reimbursement for their
litigation expenses reasonably attributable to the claims against
ATTM in this case, with such expense portion paid pursuant to the
terms of the Agreement.

Class Counsel was awarded attorneys' fees to be calculated
pursuant to the following formula: one-third (1/3) of the total
aggregate dollar value of Data Plan Benefits redeemed by ATTM
Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members, up to a maximum
attorneys' fee award of $232,780.45 for the ATTM Settlement
(i.e., for a maximum total award of $250,000 for attorneys' fees
and expenses for the ATTM Settlement).  This attorneys' fees
portion will be calculated, and paid by ATTM to Class Counsel,
within 30 days following the conclusion of the time period during
which Data Plan Benefits may be redeemed.

Class Counsel:

   Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
   Roger N. Heller, Esq.
   LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
   275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Telephone: 415-956-1000
   Facsimile: 415-956-1008


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Settlement in Suit Over Epocrates Merger Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Mateo County Superior Court granted final settlement
approval to a suit filed over a merger between Epocrates, Inc.
and one wholly owned subsidiary of Athenahealth, Inc., according
to Athenahealth's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

On January 11, 2013, a complaint captioned Bushansky v.
Epocrates, Inc., et al., Case No. 519078, was filed in San Mateo
County Superior Court (the "Court") on behalf of a putative class
of Epocrates' shareholders against Epocrates and each member of
the Epocrates board of directors. This complaint challenged the
proposed merger between Epocrates and one of the company's wholly
owned subsidiaries. On January 25, 2013, a similar complaint was
filed in the Court captioned DeJoice v. Epocrates, et al., Case
No. 519461. This second complaint made similar allegations
against Epocrates and each member of the Epocrates board of
directors and included a claim against the company for aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. On January 31, 2013, the
Bushansky complaint was amended to include additional
allegations. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
Epocrates directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly
agreeing to sell Epocrates at an unfair and inadequate price,
failing to take steps to maximize the sale price of Epocrates,
and making material omissions to the preliminary proxy statement
dated January 25, 2013. The complaints sought to enjoin the
merger, other equitable relief, and monetary damages. On March 5,
2013, Epocrates and the plaintiffs signed a memorandum of
understanding in which the parties agreed to enter into a
stipulation of settlement whereby the plaintiffs and all class
members would release all claims related to the merger in
exchange for Epocrates filing a supplement to its definitive
proxy statement regarding the merger with the SEC, which would
include additional disclosures regarding the merger agreement,
and an agreement to negotiate in good faith regarding the amount
of attorneys' fees and expenses for which plaintiffs may seek
approval from the Court. On October 4, 2013, the court granted
final settlement approval including a grant of fees and expenses
in the amount of $335,000 to plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement
has no material impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Moves to Dismiss Suit by Epocrates Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Athenahealth, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the shareholder suit
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13cv0945, according to
Athenahealth's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13cv0945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
certain of its former officers and directors. The complaint
asserts claims under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased
Epocrates stock in its Initial Public Offering and claims under
sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between the
February 2, 2011, IPO and August 9, 2011. The complaint alleges
that Epocrates made false or misleading statements with respect
to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical clients were awaiting
guidance from the Food and Drug Administration on the use of
advertising and social media, which caused the clients to delay
spending on marketing and negatively impacted Epocrates' sales
and revenue growth. The complaint seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
plaintiff's costs, attorneys' fees, and such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On December 9,
2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.


BARCLAYS BANK: Manipulated WM/Reuters Rates, "Value" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Value Recovery Fund LLC and Augustus International Master Fund,
L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Barclays Bank PLC; Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Deutsche
Bank AG; HSBC Holdings PLC; HSBC Bank PLC; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.;
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Royal Bank
of Scotland PLC; UBS AG; and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00867-LGS (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2014) action concerns the
Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme to manipulate the
benchmark foreign exchange rates ("WM/Reuters Rates") used to set
the value of trillions of dollars of investments.

The Defendants engaged in a coordinated scheme to manipulate and
make artificial WM/Reuters Rates, which adversely affected the
Plaintiffs and Class members, who traded foreign currencies
referencing WM/Reuters Rates or who traded at or around the
period in which the manipulative conduct took place.

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

The Defendants were engaged in foreign exchange trades used in
the calculation of the WM/Reuters Rates at all relevant times.
The Defendants are international companies that compete across a
wide range of activities in the banking and financial services
markets.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          Vincent Roger Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP (NYC)
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                  vcappucci@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP (NJ)
          30 Columbia Turnpike
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (212) 894-7207
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.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


CAR-BER TESTING: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrett Ray Armstrong, et al. v. Car-Ber Testing Texas, LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00065-MAC (E.D. Tex., February 10, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is one of the numerous lawsuits filed under the FLSA and
consolidated under Case No. 1:12cv228 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas.  On February 10, 2014, the
lawsuit was severed from the Consolidated Case, filed by the
Plaintiffs against a particular employer, and reassigned to the
docket of Judge Marica Crone, still in the Eastern District of
Texas.

According to the complaint, 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.

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.

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:

          Ethan Dennis Carlyle, Esq.
          James Michael Cleary, Jr., Esq.
          MARTIN DISIERE JEFFERSON & WISDOM, LLP - HOUSTON
          808 Travis, 20th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 632-1731
          Facsimile: (713) 222-0101
          E-mail: carlyle@mdjwlaw.com
                  cleary@mdjwlaw.com


CARRIER IQ: Judge Denies Arbitration in Smartphone's Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Smartphone manufacturers cannot force consumers to arbitrate
claims that Carrier IQ collects personal information and sends it
to Sprint, AT&T and other companies, a federal judge ruled.

Carrier IQ and various telecoms were hit in 2011 with a raft of
class actions alleging that it used a device called IQRD to
access smartphones while hiding its presence and subverting
standard operating system functions or other applications.

A consolidated amended class action in the Northern District of
California alleges violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Stored Communications Act,
as well as multiple federal and state-law warranty and consumer-
protection claims.

While Carrier markets the device as capable of measuring
performance and user experience while not affecting the devices,
consumers say the so-called rootkit software actually decreases
battery life and overall performance while increasing data use
and recording all keystrokes, messages, media, and location
statistics and other information.

The defendants tried to force the class to arbitrate claims based
on user agreements with wireless carriers, but U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen ruled that the agreements did not apply because
the class made them with the wireless carriers, not the device
manufacturers or Carrier.  In fact, the class allegedly did not
know Carrier existed at the time.

"Generally, one who is not a signatory to an agreement has not
right to enforce it," the 24-page opinion states.

Citing the 9th Circuit's emphasis on the "narrow" nature of the
doctrine of equitable estoppel, Chen said the defendants "have
failed to point to any case law, federal or state, indicating the
contrary."

Moreover, "each of the arbitration agreements refers to a
customer making an agreement with the wireless carrier and not
any other person or entity," the judge added.

There is also no reason to apply a California law that lets
nonsignatories compel arbitration if the other party is relying
on the terms of the contract to assert their claims, the court
found.  In this case, the class is asserting its claims for
violation of state and federal laws, and not for violating the
terms of their agreement with wireless carriers, according to the
ruling.

The defendants failed to show as well that the class "should not
be able to avoid arbitration simply by taking the tactical
strategy of not naming the wireless carriers with whom they would
clearly be required to arbitrate."

"The problem here is that plaintiffs' unlawful
interception/transmission claims asserted herein are not
predicated on allegations that defendants colluded or otherwise
acted in concert with the wireless carriers," Chen wrote.
"Plaintiffs' claims are based on interception for and transmittal
to persons or entities other than the wireless carriers, whether
it is [Carrier] itself, the [device manufacturer] defendants,
Google, application vendors or developers."

It is worth emphasizing that the complaint alleges that "private
information was being collected beyond the scope of what wireless
carriers wanted -- such information was not needed in order for
the wireless carriers to maintain service to their customers and
diagnose problems in providing service," Chen noted.

The court additionally refused to force arbitration of breach-of-
warranty claims.

Shana Scarlett with Hagens Berman Shopol Shapiro in Berkeley
represents the class, which includes "people who communicated
with said smart phones and whose electronic communications were
intercepted by defendants Carrier IQ . . . called IQRD, without
the individual's authorization."

Other named defendants are HTC Corporation, Huawei Devices, LG
Electronics, Motorola Mobility, Pantech Wireless and Samsung.
Motorola Mobility did not join the motion to compel arbitration.

They are represented by Rodger Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- of
Fenwick & West in Mountain View.

Neither side replied immediately to a request for comment.


EBAY INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Block" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco
affirmed the district court's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal
of Marshall Block's diversity putative class action, alleging
that ebay.com's Automatic Bidding system breached two provisions
of eBay's User Agreement in violation of California law.  The
panel held that Block failed to state a claim for breach of
contract because under California law the two challenged
provisions in the User Agreement did not constitute enforceable
promises by eBay. The panel also held that Block failed to state
a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law and failed to
state a claim for intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage.

Block argues that the Automatic Bidding system breaches two
provisions of eBay's User Agreement, violates California's Unfair
Competition Law, and constitutes intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage.

The case is, MARSHALL BLOCK, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EBAY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 12-16527 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-06718-CRB (9th
Cir.).

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Jerome Farris
and Stephen Reinhardt, and Senior District Judge Paul C. Huck, of
the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida, sitting by
designation.  Judge Farris wrote the opinion.

Counsel to Plaintiff-Appellant:

     Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
     THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
     12707 High Bluff Drive
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: (858) 350-4342
     Fax: (858) 430-3719
     E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

Counsel to Defendant-Appellee:

     John Charles Dwyer, Esq.
     COOLEY LLP
     Palo Alto -- Hanover Campus
     3175 Hanover Street
     Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
     Tel: 650 843 5228
     Fax: 650 849 7400
     E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com

          - and -

     Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
     Benjamin F. Chapman, Esq.
     Cooley LLP
     San Diego, CA,
     101 California Street, 5th Floor
     San Francisco, California 94111-5800
     Tel: 415 693 2181
     Fax: 415 693 2222
     E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com


EOS CCA: Dist. Court Dimisses "Hawk" Class Action With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge C. Darnell Jones, II, granted defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)
in LAUREN HAWK v. EOS CCA, CIVIL NO. 13-1964, (E.D. Penn.).

The Plaintiff filed this one-count putative Class Action
Complaint on April 12, 2013, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 (FDCPA). The
gravamen of the Plaintiff's Complaint is a debt collection letter
she received from Defendant, which Plaintiff claims failed to
effectively convey the Validation Notice required by 15 U.S.0
Section 1692(g).

According to Judge Jones, "[t]he least sophisticated debtor,
being under the obligation to read the entire letter, would
undoubtedly see the capitalized direction to see the reverse side
of the document. There is no "condition" of disputing a debt in
the all caps portion of the letter. The least sophisticated of
consumers, which is "bound to read collection notices in their
entirety," would understand that the Validation Rights are
available to all consumers, not just those who dispute the debt.
Lesher v. Law Offices Of Mitchell N. Kay, PC, 650 F.3d 993, 997
(3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Viewed from the perspective
of the least sophisticated debtor, Plaintiff's reading of the
letter is unreasonable. As such, Judgment shall be granted in
favor of Defendant EOS, CCA."

The action is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Court's March 10, 2014 Memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/kkiUlnfrom Leagle.com


ESPN: Faces Suit Over Violation of Video Privacy Protection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
claims ESPN violates the Video Privacy Protection Act by
disclosing viewers' personally identifiable information to third
parties, including a record of every video clip viewed on the
WatchESPN Channel.


EXPEDIA INC: Still Faces Consolidated Suit Over Room Price Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer cases against Expedia, Inc. over discounts on IHG hotel
rooms have been consolidated and are currently pending in federal
court, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In July 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading ("OFT"),
the competition authority in the United Kingdom, issued a
Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia and Booking.com
entered into separate agreements with InterContinental Hotels
Group PLC ("IHG") that restricted each online travel company's
ability to discount the price of IHG hotel rooms. The OFT limited
its investigation to a small number of companies, but has stated
that the investigation is likely to have wider implications for
the industry within the United Kingdom. The parties have proposed
to address the OFT's concerns by offering commitments and, on
January 31, 2014, the OFT announced that it had formally accepted
the commitments offered by the parties, with no finding of fault
or liability. The commitments provide the parties to the OFT's
case (i.e. IHG, Booking.com and Expedia) with the right to
provide non-public discounts on the rate offered for room only
hotel accommodation bookings at UK hotels to eligible European
Economic Area resident members of the parties' membership
programs (which must meet certain minimum criteria). In addition,
the commitments require Expedia and Booking.com to modify their
"most favored nations" clauses, as relevant, so as not to apply
to any discounting activities described in the preceding
sentence. The commitments will be binding on the parties through
January 31, 2016. Since July 2012, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits, which refer to the OFT's Statement of
Objections, have been initiated in the United States by consumer
plaintiffs alleging claims against the online travel companies,
including Expedia, and several major hotel chains for alleged
resale price maintenance for online hotel room reservations. The
cases have been consolidated and are currently pending in federal
court.


EXPEDIA INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California state court entered final judgment in favor of the
online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., in the
litigation relating to hotel occupancy taxes, according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of online
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire. City
of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693
(Superior Court, Los Angeles County). The complaint alleges that
the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing to pay
hotel occupancy taxes. The complaint seeks certification of a
statewide class of all California cities and counties that have
enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on
or after December 30, 1990. The complaint alleges violation of
those ordinances, violation of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and common-law conversion. The
complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants
are subject to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to
consumers and imposition of a constructive trust on all monies
owed by the defendants to the government, as well as
disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties. On April 18,
2013, the trial court held that the online travel companies are
not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the city of Los
Angeles. On January 8, 2014, the court entered final judgment in
favor of the online travel companies.


EXPEDIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Hotel Occupancy Tax Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the litigation against Expedia, Inc. over hotel
occupancy taxes filed a Petition for Rehearing and Petition for
Rehearing en Banc after the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a trial court ruling that back taxes are not due,
according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On November 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,
Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia filed a purported
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia. City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., No. 4:05-CV-249 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division). The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay to the counties and cities the
hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances.
The complaint asserts claims for violation of excise and sales
and use tax ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition
of a constructive trust, declaratory relief and injunctive
relief. The complaint seeks damages and other relief in an
unspecified amount. On May 9, 2006, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. On May 10, 2007,
the court stayed the litigation, concluding that the plaintiffs
must exhaust their administrative remedies before continuing to
litigate their tax claims. On July 10, 2009, the court lifted the
stay of the litigation. The court granted in part plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. On July 9, 2012, the court held
that past taxes are not due to counties and cities in the State
of Georgia. Based on prior Georgia Supreme Court precedent, the
parties entered a settlement for remittance of taxes going
forward, and on August 16, 2012 the court approved the
settlement. On December 13, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled in favor of the online travel companies and upheld
the trial court ruling that back taxes are not due. On January 3,
2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Petition for
Rehearing en Banc.


EXPEDIA INC: Tex. City Wants to Amend Calculation of Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to amend the judgment regarding calculation of penalties
for historical damages in a suit over hotel occupancy taxes
against Expedia, Inc. companies, remain pending, according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia. See City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., SA06CA0381 (United States District Court, Western District
of Texas, San Antonio Division). The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations
taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserts
claims for violation of that ordinance, common-law conversion,
and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On October 30,
2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that defendant online
travel companies "control hotels," and awarding approximately $15
million for historical damages against the Expedia companies. The
jury also found that defendants were not liable for conversion or
punitive damages. On April 4, 2013, the court entered a final
judgment holding the online travel companies liable for hotel
occupancy taxes to counties and cities in the statewide class.
The online travel companies have filed a motion for judgment as a
matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The cities
have filed a motion to amend the judgment regarding calculation
of penalties. These motions remain pending.


EXPEDIA INC: Approval Hearing Held in New Mex. Hotel Tax Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing was held for a settlement reached in a
suit filed against online travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Hotwire and Expedia, for alleged failure to pay to the city hotel
accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances,
according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico filed a putative
statewide class action in state court against a number of online
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. City
of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-
06-0549 JC/RLP (United States District Court, District of New
Mexico). The case was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006.
The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances. The complaint asserts claims for violation of those
ordinances, conversion, and declaratory judgment. The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and
disgorgement. The court certified the class on July 7, 2009. On
March 29, 2013, the court denied the city of Gallup's claim that
the online travel companies collected taxes that have not been
remitted to the city and dismissed the city's remaining claims in
the case and entered final judgment on April 2, 2013. The parties
reached a settlement in principle, which, on October 4, 2013, the
court preliminarily approved. A hearing before the court for
final approval of the settlement took place on November 19, 2013.


EXPEDIA INC: Appeal v. Nixing of N.Y. Hotel Tax Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' appeal against a certification order and a prior
order denying a motion to dismiss litigation against Expedia,
Inc. over hotel occupancy taxes, remains pending, according to
the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York filed a
putative statewide class action in federal court against a number
of online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia. Nassau County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., (United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to
pay hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to
certain New York cities, counties and local governments in New
York. The complaint asserts claims for violations of those
ordinances, as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
and imposition of a constructive trust, and seeks unspecified
damages. The county subsequently dismissed its case on May 13,
2011 on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and re-filed
in state court. County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (In
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau).
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the refilled state court
case. On June 13, 2012, the court denied the online travel
companies' motion to dismiss. On November 27, 2012, plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification. On April 11, 2013, the
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The
online travel company defendants have appealed both the court's
certification order and its prior order denying their motion to
dismiss. Defendants sought a stay of proceedings in the trial
court pending resolution of their appeals to the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second
Judicial Department. The Appellate Division denied that request
on June 3, 2013. Defendants' appeal remains pending.


EXPEDIA INC: Certification of Arkansas Hotel Tax Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Circuit
Court of Jefferson, Arkansas to certify a suit filed against
online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., over hotel
occupancy taxes, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc.,
Hotels.com, and Hotwire. Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, and others similarly
situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al. CV-2009-946-5 (In the Circuit
Court of Jefferson, Arkansas). The complaint alleges that
defendants have failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel
tax occupancy ordinances. The court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On
February 19, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Defendants appealed the class certification
decision, and on October 10, 2013 the Arkansas Supreme Court
affirmed that decision.


EXPEDIA INC: Citizen-Taxpayers' Suit in Arkansas Now Terminated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case filed by two citizens representing a proposed class of
all citizen-taxpayers in the State of Arkansas against online
travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., is now terminated,
according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 22, 2011, two citizens representing a proposed class
of all citizen-taxpayers in the State of Arkansas brought suit
against a number of online travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire. McAllister v. Hotels.com, et
al., Case No. CV 2011-125-2 (Circuit Court of Saline County
Arkansas). The complaint includes claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief. On May 22, 2013, the court granted the online
travel companies' motion for reconsideration of the court's
February 6, 2012 denial of their motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal of the
lawsuit. On June 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Arkansas Supreme Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs later
moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal and, on January 9,
2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted that motion and
dismissed the appeal, thereby terminating the case.


EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Certify Suit by Colo. Town Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado to certify a class
in a suit it brought against a number of online travel companies,
including Expedia, Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 25, 2011, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado brought suit
on behalf of itself and other home rule municipalities against a
number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia
and Hotwire. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel
Company, LLC, Case No. 2011CV420 (District Court, Summit County,
Colorado). The complaint includes claims for declaratory
judgment, violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil
conspiracy and unjust enrichment. The online travel companies
have filed a motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2012, the court
granted in part and denied in part the online travel companies'
motion to dismiss. On December 12, 2012, plaintiff moved for
class certification. That motion remains pending.


EXPEDIA INC: Files Motion to Junk Claims in Suit by Ill. City
-------------------------------------------------------------
Online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' common law claims in the suit City of
Bedford Park, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division,
according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 5, 2013, a group of Illinois municipalities (City of
Warrenville, Village of Bedford Park, City of Oakbrook Terrace,
Village of Oak Lawn, Village of Orland Hills, City of Rockford
and Village of Willowbrook) filed a putative class action in
Illinois federal court against a number of online travel
companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. City of
Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com, Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 1:13-cv-02586 (USDC, N. D. Ill., Eastern Division). The
complaint seeks certification of a class of all Illinois
municipalities (broken into four alleged subclasses) that have
enacted and collect a tax on the percentage of the retail rate
that each consumer occupant pays for lodging, including service
costs, denominated in any manner, including but not limited to
occupancy tax, a hotel or motel room tax, a use tax, a privilege
tax, a hotel or motel tax, a licensing tax, an accommodations
tax, a rental receipts tax, a hotel operator's tax, a hotel
operator's occupation tax, or a room rental, lease or letting
tax. The complaint alleges claims for relief for declaratory
judgment, violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil
conspiracy, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive
trust, damages and punitive damages. On July 8, 2013, the
plaintiff municipalities voluntarily dismissed their federal
court lawsuit and filed a similar putative class action lawsuit
in Illinois state court. City of Bedford Park, et al. v. Expedia,
Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division). The online travel companies removed the case to
federal district court. On September 13, 2013, the online travel
companies filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' common law
claims.


EXPEDIA INC: Hearing Held in Canadian Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice scheduled a hearing on a
motion filed by Expedia, Inc. for summary judgment on the
remaining claims in the case Magill v. Expedia Canada Corporation
and Expedia.ca, CV-09-381919-00LP for March 26, 2014, according
to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On June 26, 2009, a class action suit against Expedia Canada
Corporation was filed in Ontario, Canada, alleging that
disclosures related to "taxes and service fees" were deceptive.
See Magill v. Expedia Canada Corporation and Expedia.ca, CV-09-
381919-00LP (Ontario Superior Court of Justice). The complaint
asserts claims under the Competition Act and Consumer Protection
Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment, restitution,
constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement and breach of
contract. It seeks damages in the amount of CA$50 million for the
class as well as interest, fees and alternate damages measures.
On September 24, 2010, the court added Expedia, Inc. as a
defendant and dismissed many of the plaintiff's claims with leave
to amend. The class period was also limited. The plaintiff filed
an amended statement of claim on January 7, 2011. A class
certification hearing took place from January 15-17, 2013 and the
court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for
class certification. On May 8, 2013, the court dismissed Expedia
Canada Corporation from the lawsuit. On June 7, 2013, Expedia,
Inc. filed a notice of motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims in the case. The court has scheduled a hearing
on that motion for March 26, 2014.


EXPEDIA INC: Fate of "Frank" Suit v. Hotwire Still to be Decided
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court has yet to determine whether the suit Frank, et al. v.
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-01721-SRU
may be separately maintained, consolidated with Miller, et al. v.
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-00396-VLB, or
dismissed, according to Expedia, Inc.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On September 12, 2012, a putative class action suit was filed in
federal district court in Connecticut against a number of credit
card companies and e-commerce companies, including Hotwire.
Miller, et al. v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-
CV-00396-VLB (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut). The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to
adequately apprise consumers that they were providing their
credit card information to Trilegiant Corporation, which offered
membership in discount or other services programs through
promotions appearing on the e-commerce defendants' websites. The
complaint asserts claims against Hotwire for violation of RICO,
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, state consumer
protection statutes and for unjust enrichment. On December 7,
2012, Hotwire filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court
held a hearing on that motion on September 25, 2013 and took the
matter under advisement. On December 5, 2012, a similar putative
class action suit was filed in federal district court in
Connecticut against a number of credit card companies and
e-commerce companies, including Hotwire. Frank, et al. v.
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-01721-SRU
(U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut). The court has yet
to determine whether the Frank action may be separately
maintained, consolidated with Miller, or dismissed.


EXPEDIA INC: Wash. Securities Suits Unified, Lead Plaintiff Named
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two securities cases against Expedia, Inc. will proceed as one
case, and the Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago
will serve as the lead plaintiff, according to the company's Feb.
7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 27, 2013, a purported shareholder class action,
Manriquez v. Expedia, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01535, was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against Expedia, Inc., and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
Since then, a second lawsuit containing substantially similar
allegations has been filed, Thomas v. Expedia, et al., Case No.
2:13-cv-01735 (Western District Washington). The complaints
generally allege that the Company misrepresented or failed to
disclose adverse information relating to its commercial
relationship with TripAdvisor and the financial performance of
Hotwire. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seek damages in an unspecified amount.
The plaintiffs seek to bring the actions on behalf of a class of
shareholders who, in the aggregate, purchased Expedia common
stock between July 27, 2012 and July 25, 2013. On October 28,
2013, the Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago filed a
motion for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of selection of counsel. On January 3, 2014, the court
granted the motion. The two filed cases will proceed as one case,
and the Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago will
serve as the lead plaintiff.


EXPEDIA INC: Faces "Friedman" Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder lawsuit Friedman v. Expedia, Inc. et al. was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to
the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On December 13, 2013, a putative derivative class action was
filed by a purported shareholder in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware. Friedman v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No.
9161-CS. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duties on behalf of Expedia, and against certain current and
former members of the board of directors for allegedly exceeding
their authority under the Company's shareholder-approved 2005
Stock and Annual Incentive Plan. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and damages.


EXPEDIA INC: Tex. Court Yet to Rule in Suit Over IHG Room Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas has yet to rule on a motion by online travel companies,
including Expedia, Inc., to dismiss a consolidated suit related
to the Statement of Objections of the United Kingdom Office of
Fair Trading, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In July 2012, the OFT, the competition authority in the United
Kingdom, issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia
and Booking.com entered into separate agreements with
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC ("IHG") that restricted each
online travel company's ability to discount the price of IHG
hotel rooms.

Since August 20, 2012, more than thirty putative class action
lawsuits, which refer to the OFT's Statement of Objections, have
been initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs
alleging claims against the online travel companies, including
Expedia, and several major hotel chains for alleged resale price
maintenance for online hotel room reservations, including but not
limited to violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection statutes and common law tort claims,
such as unjust enrichment. The cases have been consolidated and
transferred to Judge Boyle in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. On July 1,
2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss that complaint. A
hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss took place on
December 17, 2013.


FUSION-IO INC: Faces Securities Lawsuits in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Fusion-Io, Inc. faces three putative class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, 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.

Beginning on November 19, 2013, the Company and certain of its
current and former officers were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Denenberg v. Fusion-io, Inc. et.
al; Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc. et. al;
Marriott v. Fusion-io, Inc. et. al). Two of the complaints are
allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion-io
common stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, and
one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
between January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints
generally allege violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs on behalf of the putative class.


G P INDUSTRIAL: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Travel Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrett Ray Armstrong, et al. v. G P Industrial Contractors, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00079-RC (E.D. Tex., February 10, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is one of the numerous lawsuits filed under the FLSA and
consolidated under Case No. 1:12cv00228 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  On February 10, 2014,
the lawsuit was severed from the Consolidated Case, filed by the
Plaintiffs against a particular employer, and reassigned to the
docket of Judge Marica Crone, still in the Eastern District of
Texas.

According to the complaint, 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.

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.

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:

          Carl A. Parker, Esq.
          THE PARKER LAW FIRM
          The Littlefield Building
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701-3665
          Telephone: (409) 985-8814
          Facsimile: (409) 985-2833
          E-mail: cparker714@aol.com


GENTILE'S FINE: Class Are Entitled to Unpaid Wages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheikh Tidiane Sarry, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated v. Gentile's Fine Foods Corp., James
Gentile and Anthony Gentile, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:14-cv-00877-PAC (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2014) alleges under the
Fair Labor Standards Act that the Plaintiff and the proposed
class are entitled to (i) unpaid wages from the Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive any compensation, as
required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Gentile's Fine Foods Corp. is a New York domestic corporation
headquartered in New York City.  The Individual Defendants own,
operate and control the day-to-day operations and management of
Gentile's Fine Foods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


GOOGLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Android Consumer Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted in part and denied in
part, a motion to dimiss the case captioned IN RE GOOGLE ANDROID
CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION, NO. 11-MD-02264 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

In this complaint, Plaintiffs Kendrick Cochran, Nicholas
Lawrence, Beverly Julia Levine Hillman-Seidner, Joan Smith,
Phillip Hall, and Maritsa Urias alleged that Google "gained and
allowed third parties to have unauthorized access to, and engaged
in unauthorized use of," their mobile devices, which use Google's
Android Operating System (AOS). Plaintiffs bring claims for
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. section
1030 (the CFFA Claim) and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code
sections 17200, et seq. (the UCL Claim).  Google, Inc. filed a
motion to dismiss.

The Court granted, among other things, Google's motion to dismiss
the CFAA Claim. This is Plaintiffs' third iteration of the
complaint, and the Court concludes that any further attempts to
amend this claim would be futile.  The Court also granted, in
part, and denied, in part, Google's motion to dismiss the UCL
claim.

The Court ordered the parties to appear for a case management
conference on April 18, 2014 at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5,
Second Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. The parties'
joint case management statement are due by no later than April
11, 2014.

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


HAWAII: Judge Grants Order to Cut Residents' Health Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull writing for Courthouse News Service reports that Hawaii
can go ahead and cut health benefits for residents of Pacific
Islands where nuclear weapons were once tested, the 9th Circuit
ruled.

The decision removes an injunction that had stood in the way of
the state offering significantly reduced health care to residents
of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, where the military
tested bombs in the 1940s and 1950s.

Under a Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the United
States, natives of the island nations qualify as nonimmigrants,
and were until the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 eligible for
Medicaid benefits.

Hawaii stepped in to cover the islanders until 2010, when the
state, facing budget problems, limited them to no more than 10
days of hospital care per year, 12 outpatient visits per year,
six mental health visits and a maximum of four medication
prescriptions per month.

Tony Korab led a group of islanders, many of whom have persistent
and serious health conditions they say are related to the bomb
tests, in a class action against the state's new program, called
Basic Health Hawaii (BHH).  They alleged that the cut in benefits
violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Though U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright granted an
injunction in Honolulu and ordered Hawaii to reinstate the old
benefits, a divided appeals panel found that the state had merely
done what Congress allowed.

"The basic flaw in the proposition is that Korab is excluded from
the more comprehensive Medicaid benefits, which include federal
funds, as a consequence of congressional action," Judge M.
Margaret McKeown wrote for the majority. "Congress has plenary
power to regulate immigration and the conditions on which aliens
remain in the United States, and Congress has authorized states
to do exactly what Hawai'i has done here-determine the
eligibility for, and terms of, state benefits for aliens in the
narrow third category, with regard to whom Congress expressly
gave states limited discretion.  Hawai'i has no constitutional
obligation to fill the gap left by Congress's withdrawal of
federal funding for COFA Residents."

Judge Richard Clifton argued in dissent that states cannot use
budget woes to justify discrimination.

"The state could provide to them the same benefits it provides to
citizens," he wrote. "It had, in fact, provided the same benefits
to COFA Residents for fourteen years, until budgetary woes
motivated the state to try to save money, by exercising an option
given to it by Congress.  But the state's fiscal condition does
not provide the compelling justification required under the Equal
Protection Clause to justify unequal treatment of aliens."


LEHIGH VALLEY: Servers Sue Under FLSA and Pa. Minimum Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ford and Elisabeth Yuscavage, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees v. Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00227-JMM (M.D. Pa., February 10, 2014)
seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group, Inc. is a corporate entity
registered to do business in Pennsylvania.  The Company owns and
operates 19 Red Robin restaurants in Eastern Pennsylvania.  The
Company employs hundreds of Servers, whose primary duty includes
waiting on restaurant customers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


LINKEDIN CORP: Bid to Toss Suit Over 2012 Hacking Incident Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that LinkedIn may be liable for fraud after hackers infiltrated
its system in 2012 and posted about 6.5 million user passwords on
the Internet, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, Calif., refused to
dismiss a class action accusing the business-networking site of
fraud under California's Unfair Competition Law.

Users had argued that they upgraded to premium memberships after
reading LinkedIn's privacy policy, which states that their
information "will be protected with industry standard protocols
and technology."

On June 9, 2012 -- three days after the breach -- LinkedIn
announced that it would uprgrade its password encryption method
to provide an extra layer of protection.  Had LinkedIn disclosed
its lax security practices at the time, users insisted in their
lawsuit, they never would have bought premium memberships.

LinkedIn countered that its privacy policy applies to both paying
and non-paying members, so the policy cannot be considered a
"material inducement" for premium upgrades.  "Under no plausible
theory can this single sentence in the privacy policy that
applies to all LinkedIn members be considered an 'inducement' to
the purchase of a premium subscription, the 'advertisement' of
premium services, or an 'effective marketing technique' for
premium service," the company argued.

But Judge Davila said lead plaintiff Khalilah Wright "has alleged
a plausible explanation for why [the privacy policy] is likely to
deceive the public."  She and other users claimed that LinkedIn's
method of encrypting passwords before the breach, a process
called "hashing," fell below industry standards at the time.

Hashing generates a string of numbers or letters for each
password.  Wright argued that most companies use at minimum a
two-layered approach, in which they add binary digits to the
password, known as "salting," and then hash the salted password.

Davila said Wright's allegations "are specific to support her
conclusion that LinkedIn's representation was false."

"She alleges that LinkedIn used a particular security practice,
is specific about what that security practice entailed, alleges
that LinkedIn's practice fell below the 'bare minimum' security
practice in LinkedIn's industry, and she is specific about what
that 'bare minimum' security practice entails," he wrote.

However, he dismissed Wright's second and third claims, for
unfair competition and breach of contract, explaining that they
fall within his previous dismissal of the first amended
complaint, as Wright herself concedes.

"[A]llowing for further amendment would be futile," Davila wrote.


LVNV FUNDING: McMahon Dismissal Reversed, Delgado Ruling Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In SCOTT MCMAHON, individually and on behalf of a class,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al., Defendants-
Appellees; and JUANITA DELGADO, individually and on behalf of a
class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, et
al., Defendants-Appellants, NOS. 12-3504, 13-2030, the underlying
question presented by these two appeals relates to the
circumstances under which a dunning letter for a time-barred debt
could mislead an unsophisticated consumer to believe that the
debt is enforceable in court, and thereby violate the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.

After oral argument in these cases, the United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an opinion dated March 11, 2014,
holding that efforts to collect time-barred debts can violate the
statute.  A copy of the opinion is available at
http://is.gd/SBrOkLfrom Leagle.com.

"In Delgado, we face a variant on that issue; it concerns the
effect of a settlement offer in the dunning letter. McMahon
raises a question of possible mootness in the wake of the
defendants' effort to buy out the putative named plaintiff. We
conclude that McMahon is not moot, and thus that the district
court's dismissal of the action must be reversed. In Delgado,
which is before the court on an interlocutory appeal based on 28
U.S.C. [Section 1292(b), the district court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss. We affirm that decision," the
Seventh Circuit held.


MADISON SQUARE: Suit Over Hockey Games Airing in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to
dismiss a consolidated suit against The Madison Square Garden
Company over the television and online distribution of live
hockey games, 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 March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the National Hockey League and certain NHL member clubs,
regional sports networks and cable and satellite distributors.
The complaints, which are substantially identical, primarily
assert that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements
entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs
to provide certain territorial and other exclusivities with
respect to the television and online distribution of live hockey
games, violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The
complaints seek injunctive relief against the defendants'
continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble damages,
attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On July 27,
2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss and the
case is now in the discovery phase.


MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Bogus Underwear Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Maidenform and Wacoal pushed
underwear with bogus claims that minerals in it would improve
one's figure, and that caffeine in it would dissolve fat, a class
action claims in Federal Court.


MAXIMUS INC: Sued by Boise Project Former Trainers, Supervisors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maximus, Inc. faces a suit in the U.S. District Court for Idaho
by current and former trainers and supervisors at the MAXIMUS
Federal health care project, 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 January 2014, MAXIMUS was named a defendant in Norton et al.
v. MAXIMUS in the U.S. District Court for Idaho. The plaintiffs
in this purported class action are current and former trainers
and supervisors at the MAXIMUS Federal health care project in
Boise. They allege the Company willfully misclassified them as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and failed to
pay them overtime, and they seek to establish a nationwide class
covering the company's Federal health care operations. The
plaintiffs allege compensatory and punitive damages of at least
$5 million. MAXIMUS denies liability and will contest the matter
vigorously.


NEWS CORP: Files Motion to Dismiss "Wilder" Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in Wilder v. News Corp., et al. have filed their
motions to dismiss, which are pending, 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 July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of 21st Century Fox's common stock between March 3,
2011 and July 11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Wilder Litigation"). The
plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading
statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail
interception at The News of the World. The suit named as
defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and
Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for
damages sustained and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff in the litigation and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July
3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended
consolidated complaint was to be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon
filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which
among other things, added as defendants the Company's subsidiary,
NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited),
and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February
15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants have filed their motions to
dismiss, which are pending.

The Company's management believes these claims are entirely
without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. The
Company will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain
payments made by the Company that relate to, or arise from, the
U.K. Newspaper Matters, including the Wilder Litigation.


NEWS CORP: Minn. Consumer Settlement of E-Book Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Denise L. Cote in the Southern District of New York
granted final approval of the Minnesota consumer settlement of a
suit related to the decisions by certain publishers, including
HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., to sell their e-books, according
to News Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Commencing on August 9, 2011, 29 purported consumer class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York and for the Northern District of California, which
related to the decisions by certain publishers, including
HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), to sell their
e-books pursuant to an agency relationship. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the various class actions to
the Honorable Denise L. Cote in the Southern District of New
York. On January 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, again alleging that certain named defendants,
including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust and unfair
competition laws by virtue of the switch to the agency model for
e-books. The actions sought as relief treble damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees. As a result of the settlement
agreement with the Attorneys General, consumers in all states
other than Minnesota were ultimately barred from participating in
these class actions. On June 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion
for preliminary approval of a settlement with HarperCollins,
among others, for a class of consumers residing in Minnesota,
which was the only state that did not sign onto the settlement
agreement with the Attorneys General. On December 6, 2013, Judge
Cote granted final approval of the Minnesota consumer settlement,
which did not have a material impact on the results of operations
or the financial position of the Company.

Additional information about In re MDL Electronic Books Antitrust
Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-md-02293 (DLC), can be found on
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER).


NEWS CORP: HarperCollins Settlement in AGs Lawsuit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Denise L. Cote in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York gave final approval to the
settlement HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. entered into to settle
a lawsuit that arose out of state Attorneys General
investigation, according to News Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 state Attorneys
General led by Texas and Connecticut (the "AGs") filed an action
against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western
District of Texas. On April 26, 2012, the AGs' action was
transferred to Honorable Denise L. Cote in the Southern District
of New York. On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second amended
complaint. As a result of a memorandum of understanding agreed
upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins was
not named as a defendant in this action. Pursuant to the terms of
the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered into a
settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut and Ohio
on June 11, 2012. By August 28, 2012, 49 states (all but
Minnesota) and five U.S. territories had signed on to that
settlement agreement. On August 29, 2012, the AGs simultaneously
filed a complaint against HarperCollins and two other publishers,
a motion for preliminary approval of that settlement agreement
and a proposed distribution plan. On September 14, 2012, Judge
Cote granted the AGs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement and approved the AGs' proposed distribution
plan. Notice was subsequently sent to potential class members,
and a fairness hearing took place on February 8, 2013 at which
Judge Cote gave final approval to the settlement. The settlement
is now effective, and the final judgment bars consumers from
states and territories covered by the settlement from
participating in the class actions.


NEWS CORP: Canadian Consumers Sue Over HarperCollins E-Books Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer class actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of
British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the
decisions by certain publishers, including HarperCollins
Publishers L.L.C., to sell e-books, according to News Corp.'s
Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, five purported consumer class
actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia,
Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the decisions by certain
publishers, including HarperCollins, to sell their e-books in
Canada pursuant to an agency relationship. The actions seek as
relief special, general and punitive damages, injunctive relief
and the costs of the litigations. While it is not possible to
predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of
these class actions, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with
applicable antitrust and competition laws and intends to defend
itself vigorously.

In July 2012, HarperCollins Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
HarperCollins, learned that the Canadian Competition Bureau
("CCB") had commenced an inquiry regarding the sale of e-books in
Canada. HarperCollins currently is cooperating with the CCB with
respect to its inquiry. While it is not possible to predict with
any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the inquiry,
HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust
and competition laws.


NEWS CORP: Suit v. HarperCollins Over DRM Protection Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the motion to dismiss a case alleging that certain named
defendants in the book publishing and distribution industry,
including HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., violated the antitrust
laws by virtue of requiring digital rights management protection,
according to News Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 15, 2013, a purported class of independent bricks-
and-mortar bookstores filed an action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York entitled The Book House of
Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc, et. al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et. al.,
which relates to the digital rights management protection ("DRM")
of certain publishers', including HarperCollins', e-books being
sold by Amazon.com, Inc. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on
March 21, 2013. The case involves allegations that certain named
defendants in the book publishing and distribution industry,
including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of
requiring DRM protection. The action seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On April
1, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and
on December 5, 2013, the Court granted the motion in its
entirety. Additional information about The Book House Of
Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc. et. al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et. al., Civil
Action No. 1:13-cv-01111-JSR, can be found on PACER.

The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost
of the unresolved HarperCollins matters. During the fiscal years
ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, the legal and professional fees and
settlement costs incurred in connection with these matters were
not material, and as of December 31, 2013, the Company did not
have a material accrual related to these matters.


NEWS CORP: Suit Over In-Store Marketing Services in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The NAM Group answered federal and state antitrust claims and
discovery is proceeding in a case filed by purchasers of in-store
marketing services and free-standing insert ("FSI") coupons,
according to News Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 16, 2013, in connection with a pending action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
in which The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company and Foster
Poultry Farms (with Foster Poultry Farms as proposed class
representative on behalf of putative classes of purchasers)
alleged various claims under federal and state antitrust law
against News Corporation, News America Incorporated ("NAI"), News
America Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM FSI"), and News America
Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM In-Store Services" and,
together with News Corporation, NAI and NAM FSI, the "NAM
Group"), plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint, with plaintiffs The Dial Corporation, Henkel
Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company,
L.P., Foster Poultry Farms, Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC,
BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum Brands, Inc. asserting the same
federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on
behalf of the two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs'
purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert
("FSI") coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees. On September 24, 2013, the NAM
Group's motion to transfer the action to the Southern District of
New York was granted by the district court judge. On October 24,
2013, on consent of the parties, plaintiffs filed their third
amended complaint. The NAM Group answered the complaint on
November 12, 2013, and discovery is proceeding.

In a parallel action, NAM FSI and NAM In-Store Services filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz
Company, H.J. Heinz Company L.P. and Foster Poultry Farms,
seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs did not violate
federal or state antitrust laws and for damages for breach of
contract. On August 28, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.


NTS REALTY: Has Accord to Settle Merger-Related Litigations
-----------------------------------------------------------
NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership, entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, that provides for the
full and complete compromise, settlement, release and dismissal
of the action Stephen J. Dannis, et al. v. J.D. Nichols, et al.
as well as the class action lawsuit pending in the Delaware Court
of Chancery under the consolidated case caption of In re NTS
Realty Holdings Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 8302-VCP, according to the company's Feb. 7,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On February 4, 2014, NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership,
together with the other defendants in the class action lawsuit,
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release (the "Settlement") with the plaintiffs in
the class action (the "Kentucky Action") captioned, Stephen J.
Dannis, et al. v. J.D. Nichols, et al., Case No. 13-CI-00452,
pending in Jefferson County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky (the "Court") against the Company, NTS Realty Capital,
Inc., the company's managing general partner ("Realty Capital"),
each of the members of the board of directors of Realty Capital,
NTS Realty Partners, LLC and NTS Merger Parent, LLC ("Parent").
On February 5, 2014, the Court signed an order granting its
preliminary approval of the Settlement.

Subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth in the
Settlement, the Settlement provides for the full and complete
compromise, settlement, release and dismissal of the Kentucky
Action as well as the class action lawsuit pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery under the consolidated case caption of
In re NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership Unitholders
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 8302-VCP (the "Delaware Action" and
with the Kentucky Action, the "Actions").

Under the Settlement, it is expected that: (1) NTS Merger Sub,
LLC ("Merger Sub") will merge with and into the Company pursuant
to the terms of a merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") to be
entered into among the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and Realty
Capital; and (2) as consideration for the settlement and release
of the claims asserted in the Actions, at the closing of the
merger, all of the company's limited partnership units ("Units"),
other than those Units owned by the company's founder and the
Chairman of Realty Capital, J.D. Nichols, the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Realty Capital, Brian F. Lavin, and certain
of their affiliates (collectively, the "Purchasers"), will be
canceled and converted automatically into the right to receive a
cash payment equal to (i) $7.50 per Unit, plus (ii) a pro rata
share of the settlement payment of $7,401,487 less fees, expenses
and an incentive award payable to plaintiffs' counsel, if any, as
awarded by the Court.  The cash payment will not be due or owing
under the Settlement, however, until, among other things, the
Court has finally certified the members of the class action; the
Court, after holding a hearing, has entered its order and final
judgment approving the material terms of the Settlement and such
judgment shall have become final and non-appealable; the Court
has approved various releases among the plaintiffs, class members
and defendants (the "Releases"); orders dismissing the Kentucky
Action and the Delaware Action with prejudice have become final
and are no longer subject to appeal; and the merger has become
effective.

The Settlement is conditioned upon the fulfillment of certain
conditions including, among others, the following:

     (i) Plaintiffs' determination, following completion of
         confirmatory discovery, that the Settlement is fair,
         reasonable and adequate (which determination was made
         on February 6, 2014);

    (ii) Plaintiffs' approval of the form of the final
         information statement to be issued by the Company
         and certain other defendants relating to the merger;

   (iii) the approval of the merger by the holders of a majority
         of the Units of the Company;

    (iv) the Purchasers agreeing and committing to vote in
         favor of the approval of the merger;

     (v) dismissal with prejudice of the Kentucky Action and
         Delaware Action;

    (vi) the entry of a final judgment in the Kentucky Action
         approving the proposed Settlement and providing the
         dismissal with prejudice of the Kentucky Action and
         approving the grant of the Releases;

   (vii) the inclusion in the final judgment of the Actions a
         provision enjoining all members of the class from
         asserting any of the settled claims; and

  (viii) such final judgment and dismissal of the Actions being
         finally affirmed on appeal or such final judgment and
         dismissal not being subject to appeal by lapse of time
         or otherwise.

The Company expects to obtain approval of the merger by the
holders of a majority of the Units of the Company by written
consent of the Purchasers in lieu of a special meeting.  Pursuant
to the Settlement, the Purchasers, who as of December 31, 2013,
owned approximately 62% of the outstanding Units and
approximately 59.3% of the total voting power of Units, have
agreed to vote in favor of the Merger Agreement.  No other votes
will be required or necessary under applicable law, the Merger
Agreement or otherwise to approve the Merger Agreement, and none
are being solicited.

The company expect that the merger and the transactions
contemplated thereby and by the Settlement will be completed in
the first half of 2014.


ORBITAL INSULATION: Faces Suit Alleging FLSA Violations in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Allen Hamilton, et al. v. Orbital Insulation Corp., Case
No. 1:14-cv-00055-MAC (E.D. Tex., February 10, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is one of the numerous lawsuits filed under the FLSA and
consolidated under Case No. 1:12-cv-00388-RC in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  On February 10, 2014,
the lawsuit was severed from the Consolidated Case, filed by the
Plaintiffs against a particular employer, and reassigned to the
docket of Judge Marica Crone, still in the Eastern District of
Texas.

According to the complaint, 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.

The Plaintiffs are Shawn Allen Hamilton, Jonathan A. Aceves, Mark
Anthony Aguilar, Ronnie Joseph Allen Jr., Victoriano Alonso
Jaramillo, Eugenio Alejandre Alvarez, Jose M. Alvarez-Torres,
Jose Luis Alvarez, Julio Medrano Amaro, Ernest A. Anderson III,
Nancy Andrio, Adan Olalde Angel, Louis Alberto Aquilar, Macedonio
Armendariz Jr., Laurencio Banda Avila, David Jackson Ayers Sr.,
Neal W. Barrett, Claude Vashon Bateaste, Fred R. Becerra, Elisa
Josefina Benavides, Eloy Benavides-Villarreal, Oziel V.
Benavides, Bincy Bennachen, Gerard Kevin Horde Bihm, Shawn
Boutte, James Louis Bowen, Kenya Marie Bradley, Victor Manuel
Briseno, Victor Manuel Briseno Jr., Clifton Paul Broughton,
Shanissa Latrell Syo Brown, Dale Ross Bruno, Greg James Bruno,
Abraham Buenrostro, Bear Gilory Burton, Dana Keith Butcher, Leroy
Butler Jr., Angela Champagne Cain, Juan Elias Calles, Jose
Calzoncinth, Narsiso Camargo Jr., George Robert Campbell, Abiel
Cantu, Hector Nereo Cantu Jr., Jesus G. Carabajal Jr., Jose E.
Cardona, Baldomero C. Castillo, Gildardo Castellanos, Jose
Mendoza Castellanos, Timoteo Paez Castaneda, Edgar Alberto
Cavazos, Sergio Guada Cavazos, Francisco J. Cepeda, Edgar Oswaldo
Cervantes, Ivan Benancio Cervantes Sanchez, Jaim Cervantes Bejar,
Joseph Paulose Chakkungal, Kendeus Paul Channell, Gustavo Davis
Chavarria, Jesus Chavez-Figueroa, Jesus Chavez-Figueroa, Jose
Dejesus Chavez Herrera, Pablo Chavez, Brice Delaine Christian,
Mario Cisneros, Jeron Dewarn Clayton, Shermain Ruth Collins, Jose
Colon-Caraballo, Julia Azeneth Contreras, Gerson Geovany Cornejo,
Adan Coronado, Juan Delourdes Covarrubia, Nelson A. Cruz, Pedro
Cruz, Rufino Martinez Cruz, Mariana Davila, Rene Nieto Davila,
Servando Davila, Shirley M. Davis, Wesley Wendell Davis, Adriana
M. Delacruz, Cleal Patrick Derry Jr., Kevin Allan Dicken, Dario
Duarte, Genaro Duque Castillo, Julio Sesar Duran, Terra Devon
Duriso, Jarvis Lee Eaglin, Melvin Javier Elvir, Pedro Lazcano
Espinoza, Roberto Figueroa Jr., Adan Guzman Flores, Antonio
Flores Jr., Herminio Flores, Israel Flores, Marcelo Vazquez
Flores, Rafael Vazquez Flores, Dennis Ruben Forte, James Randy
Fowler Jr., Rondell Francis, Fernando Medina Galvan, Benjamin
Garcia-Becerra, Benjamin Gutierrez Garcia, Eduardo Becerra
Garcia, Ivan Garcia, Julio Garcia Martinez, Rogelio Garcia Jr.,
Rolando Garcia, Terry Garrett, Carlos Puente Garza, Felix Garza,
Fernando Garza-Lozano, Joaquin Gonzalez Garza, Julian Garza Jr.,
Frank Charles Gilbert, Arthur Ray Gillespie, Robert Lee
Gillespie, Oscar Fernando Godinez, Evan Everett Golden, Angel
Guadalupe Gomez, Juan Antonio Gonzalez, Kevin Zuresh Gonzalez,
Marco A. Gonzalez, Marco Antonio Gonzalez, Rodrigo Garcia
Gonzalez, Ruben Gonzalez, Kotie Ray Gradnigo, Sandra Margarita
Grijalva, Garrett Clay Gros, Benigno Guadian Cardoza, Leonardo
Guadian Jr., Rudy Guerra, Khristopher Ron Keit Guillory, Jose
Ignacio Gutierrez, Juan M. Gutierrez Ramos, Mario Alfonso
Gutierrez, Mario Omar Gutierrez, Miguel A. Gutierrez Martinez,
Joel Eliv Guzman, Dennis Martin Hammett Jr., Dorothy Marie
Hanson, Trelonda Patrice Hartley, Orrin Bernard Hayes, Huey Paul
Hebert, Julio Cesar Hermosillo, Hector S. Hernandez, Jose Angel
Hernandez, Juan Carlos Hernandez, Juan G. Hernandez, Juan Jose
Hernandez Jr., Juan Manuel Hernandez, Miguel Angel Hernandez,
Roque F. Hernandez-Barraza, Jorge Luis Hinojosa, Roderick Jovonne
Howard, Shannon Lucas Howard, Barnie C. Howell Jr., Gregory Wayne
Hudson, Benito Huerta, Zachary Scott Hulet, Cecilia Hilario
Hyden, Victor Izaguirre Camargo, Gil S. Jackson, Gualberto
Jaimes, Iju James James, Christopher Andrew Jordan, Herman Joyas-
Robinson, Randy Lebouf, Dewayne Keith Lecompte Sr., Armando
Estrada Llanos, Ricardo Lopez, Alexandro Lozano, Rodrigo Luna
Jr., Cristian Valencia Magana, Gerardo Manzo Alvarez, Benjamin
Herrera Marron, Cesar Morales Marroquin, Alex Pineda Martinez,
Alfredo Martinez, Humberto Avalos Martinez, Jose Angel Martinez
Barajas, Jorge Gonzalez Martinez, Maria Marina Martinez, Maynor
Martinez Velazquez, Sabas Lira Martinez, Raymond Massey, Terrence
Lamont Mayes, Michael Charles Mcgallion, Elvin Dewayne Mcneely,
Melesio Galvan Medina, Salvador Barajas Medina, David Minix,
Mario Cesar Minjares, Roberto Minjares Jr., Stpehen Horace
Minton, Keidrick Rodon Mitchell, Jorge Luis Molina Jr., Alfredo
Moncada, Arnulfo Garcia Mondragon, Jesus Rangel Monjaraz, Jeremy
Paul Monk, Necia Mccartney Monk, Antonio Apolinar Morales Jr.,
Aldo Moreno Garcia, Amado Guerra Moreno, Johnnie Glover
Mukherjee, Bayardo Jose Munguia, Tomas Reyna Narvaez Jr., Cruz
Hernandez Navarro, Isaias I Navarro, Gerardo Morales Negrete,
Adrian Nevarez, Javier Sandoc Nunez-Sandoval, Jose Guadalupe
Nunez, Roberto Carlos Obregon, Aurelio Ayala Oceguera, Juan Pablo
Oceguera, Gaitan Octavio, Eric Damian Ortega, Juan Gregorio
Ortega, Jeremy Anthony Ortiz, Juan Ortiz, Esperanza L. Padron
Hueta, Julio Palma, Francisco Javier Paz, Jose J. Pedroza, Angel
Perez Jr., Luis Antonio Perez, Jacob Alex Perritt, Robert Glenn
Perritt, Khanh Huy Pham, Khuong Minh Pham, James Edward Phillips
II, Andre Price, Jesus Silva Pulido, Jose Jesus Pulido, Roberto
Pulido-Chavez, Carlos Omar Quintanilla, Jaime Omar Quintanilla,
Jesus Guadalupe Quintanilla, Jose Rogelio Quintanilla, Miguel A.
Quintanilla, Angel Flores Ramirez, Eduardo Ramirez Garcia, Martin
Hernan Ramirez, Javier Rangel, Mario Maldonado Rangel, Harold
Edward Rankin, Jose Alberto Reyes, Reymundo Mendoza Reyes,
Rodolfo Rosas Reyes, Raul G. Reynoso, Arthur Lee Richardson II,
Alberto Rios-Cantu, Federico Valladares Rios, Raudel Quintanilla
Rios, Juan C. Rivera, Miguel Angel Rivera-Santos, Jesus
Rodriguez, Jose Luis Rodriguez, Victor Rodriguez, Edgar Omar
Roque-Figueroa, Pablo Sablon, Jose Ramon Salazar, Juan Enrique
Salazar Jr., Julio C. Salazar, Eberardo Salinas, Arturo Vasquez
Sanchez, Hilario Sanchez, Isai Sanchez-Casas, Fernando J.
Saucillo, Tomas Estrada Sauceda, Akeem Jarrard Scott, Gustavo E.
Sepulveda-Chapa, Abelardo V. Silva, Raul Limon Silva, Ricardo
Silva, Joshua Caylin Simmons, Anthony Layne Smart, Sedrick Demond
Stallworth, Philip Elias Steffey, Alfred Lee Stewart Jr.,
Kantrelle Deon Stewart, Patrick Wade Stout, Antonio Bernard Teal,
Sherry Darlene Terry, Andrew Thomas, Charles Wayne Thomas,
Eduardo Trigo, Itelio Salvador Turcios, Ellis Patrick Tyler,
Jesus M. Urbano-Blanco, Nychriston Raysharon Ursin, James Allen
Varner, Scott Vega, Sergio Quintanilla Vega, Juan M Villanueva,
Deanna Merrill Washington, Warren Jackson West, Aaron Lamont
Williams, Stevie Deon Worlds, Juan Francisco Zamarron, Daniel Lee
Harvey, Michael David Stuntz, Tucker Shane Steele, Andres
Figueroa Jr., Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Shawanda Thibodeaux
Smith, Pedro A. Mercedes, Pamela Yvonne Fontenot, Joey Lee Cantu,
Roy Lee Daniels Jr., Jorge E. Salinas, Issac Joseph Louis Jr.,
Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Melvin Lamar White, Rodolfo Bear,
Cynthia Lynn Dyson, Pedro A. Mercedes, Luis Garcia-Andrade, James
Milton Thomas, Daviun Ramond Julien, Alonzo Knatt Jr., Howard
Eugene Leblanc Jr., Jose Alfredo Zamora-Cardenas, Jose Rolando
Muniz, Shawanda Thibodeaux Smith, Roberto Saucedo, Olga Lidia
Valladares, Martin Ramirez-Castaneda, Martha Elva Trujillo,
Gerardo Lopez, Efrain Aguilar Cisneros, Rodney Louis Williams,
Roberto Valencia Figueroa, Miguel Asiel Gonzalez Jr., Jose Mario
Martinez Jr., Martin Adrusbel Vela, Latricia Evangline Garner,
Marterya Queshan Young-Aguilar, Fernandez Rodriguez, Ernesto Diaz
Rodriguez, Emilson Rodriguez Rodriguez, William Ros Ado,
Francisco Valentin-Avino, Roy Dean Clark, Jacob Mcgrew, Robert M.
Rutland, Francisco J. Colon Villodas, Julio Luis Colon Villodas,
Lucio Anton Lara-Escarpita, Paul Allen Simons, Latricia Evangline
Garner, Jose Edgar Cantu, Jorge E. Salinas, Tucker Shane Steele,
Manboad Shivram, Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Alvin Shinette,
Salvador Alvarez Jr., Susanna Kate Cochran, Quincy Devon
Thompson, Juan Vazquez Lara, Jorge Alfonso Gaona, Juan C.
Maldonado-Santos, Rafael Garcia-Rangel, Gerardo Lopez, Juan Jose
Garcia Rangel, Pamela Yvonne Fontenot, Joey Lee Cantu, Luis E.
Zelaya, Bernardo Leal Jr., Martin Becerra Hernandez, Ralph
Aleman, Oswaldo Figueroa Torres, Ismael Arce Jr., Josue Saenz,
Juan Humberto Muniz-Alejo, Jose Guadalupe Saenz Jr., Roberto
Valencia Figueroa, Cristobal Torres, Jesus Herrera, Faustine
Margaret Manaway, Andres Figueroa Jr., Francisco J. Colon
Villodas, Nicholas James Figueroa, Juan Sandoval, Sandra Faye
Doyle Stelley, Doris M. Martin, Narsiso Camargo, Jr., Pedro A.
Mercedes, Miguel Martinez Rivera, Jeffery Michael Hays, Adolfo
Pascual Antonetti, Ashford A. Ballantyne, Christopher Bouley,
Juan J. Camacho, Alfonso Guerrero Chapa, Terry Ray Cherry,
Williams Joseph Clark, Charles J. Comeaux, Tina M. Comeaux, Jaime
Diaz, Victor Hugo Garza, Dickie Gee, Damian Ledoux, Nicole
Carolynn Mcdaniel, Jorge Medina, Olga Thaisha Melendez, Jerry
Lanell Miller, Hirosi Gomez Nakao, Charles Newton, Baudelio
Nunez, Tony G. Polanco, Hector Rios, Jesse Rojas, Cinthia Acosta
Torres, Robert M. Turner, Jr., Aniceto Lopez Valdez, Juan Velez,
Marcos Verdin, James Edward Yarber, Donald R. Young, Juan Zamora,
Hector Olivarez, and Daniel Eduardo Chapa.

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:

          James E. Wimberley, Esq.
          MCPHERSON HUGHES BRADLEY WIMBERLEY, STEELE
          & CHATELAIN, LLP
          3120 Central Mall Drive
          Port Arthur, TX 77642
          Telephone: (409) 724-6644
          Facsimile: (409) 724-7450
          E-mail: jwimberley@mhbwsc.com


PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MoU to Settle Merger Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Technologies Incorporated entered into a memorandum
of understanding to settle lawsuits related to its merger,
according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As disclosed in the company's definitive merger proxy statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
January 15, 2014 (as amended or supplemented from time to time,
the "proxy statement"), on December 19, 2013, Albert C. Banfe,
Jr., a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative
class action complaint against Performance Technologies,
Incorporated ("PT"), members of PT's board of directors and
management, Sonus Networks, Inc. ("Sonus") and Purple Acquisition
Subsidiary, Inc. in connection with the proposed merger. On
January 23, 2014, Mr. Banfe filed an amended complaint in the
action captioned Albert C. Banfe, Jr. v. Performance Technologies
Services, Inc. et al. Case No. 13/14391, which is pending in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Monroe County (the "Banfe
Action"). As amended, the complaint in the Banfe Action alleges
that the defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach
of their fiduciary duties to PT's stockholders, by seeking to
sell PT through an allegedly unfair process and allegedly for an
unfair price and on unfair terms. In addition, the complaint
alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by PT with the
SEC on December 31, 2013 contains material omissions. The
complaint seeks, among other things, equitable relief that would
enjoin the merger, damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

Memorandum of Understanding to Settle the Actions

On February 7, 2014, PT, the individual defendants, Sonus, and
Purple Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the Banfe Action and the
previously disclosed actions titled, Mordecai and Bradleigh Kolko
v. Performance Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. 9171, pending
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, where it was
brought on December 18, 2013 (the "Kolko Action") and John Solak
v. Performance Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 9239, pending
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, where it was
brought on January 10, 2014 (the "Solak Action," and, together
with the Kolko Action and the Banfe Action, the "Actions").

Pursuant to the MOU, PT, the individual defendants, Sonus and
Purple Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc. agreed to resolve all
disputed legal claims in all of the Actions and to make certain
supplemental disclosures regarding the merger.

The MOU is expected to be memorialized in a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary terms and
conditions, including court approval, and will include an
agreement by the plaintiffs in the Actions, on behalf of their
respective classes of PT stockholders, to provide a release of
claims of PT stockholders against PT, Sonus, Purple Acquisition
Subsidiary, Inc., and their respective officers and directors.

This additional disclosure should be read in conjunction with the
proxy statement.


PROTECTION ONE: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling in "Jaquez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In SEAN JAQUEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PROTECTION ONE ALARM
MONITORING, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B245829.
Sean Jaquez appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered after
the trial court sustained a demurrer to his first amended
complaint without leave to amend.  Mr. Jaquez challenges the
early termination fee charged by Protection One Alarm Monitoring,
Inc. on the grounds it is a fraudulent and deceptive practice and
violates the Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code,
Section 17200), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ.
Code, Section 7150).

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Eight, found that Mr. Jaquez has alleged facts sufficient to
state a claim for fraud. Accordingly, the Court reversed and
remanded the case.

According to the Appeals Court's March 12, 2014 ruling, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/TKE9ixfrom Leagle.com, the
judgment is reversed insofar as the trial court sustained the
demurrer as to the first and second causes of action for
violation of the UCL based on fraudulent business practices and
the fourth cause of action for fraud and deceit. The judgment is
otherwise affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on
appeal.

The Law Office of Minh T. Nguyen and Minh T. Nguyen --
minh@nguyenlawyers.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Kirkland & Ellis, C. Robert Boldt -- rboldt@kirkland.com -- and
Alexander M. Bastian -- alexander.bastian@kirkland.com ;
Buchalter Nemer, and Mark T. Cramer -- mcramer@buchalter.com --
for Defendants and Respondents.


PYRAMID HOTELS: Removed "Vitale" Class Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Vitale v. Pyramid
Hotels and Resorts, L.P., et al., Case No. 37-2013-00077890-CU-
OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00315-CAB-NLS to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Ashley Vitale is represented by:

          Diane Elizabeth Richard, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: drichard@robbinsarroyo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com


RMF NOOTER: Class Alleges Violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Allen Hamilton, et al. v. RMF Nooter, A Subsidiary of
Nooter Construction Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00059-MAC (E.D.
Tex., February 10, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The case is one of the numerous lawsuits filed under the FLSA and
consolidated under Case No. 1:12-cv-00388-RC in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  On February 10, 2014,
the lawsuit was severed from the Consolidated Case, filed by the
Plaintiffs against a particular employer, and reassigned to the
docket of Judge Marica Crone, still in the Eastern District of
Texas.

According to the complaint, 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.

The Plaintiffs are Shawn Allen Hamilton, Jonathan A. Aceves, Mark
Anthony Aguilar, Ronnie Joseph Allen Jr., Victoriano Alonso
Jaramillo, Eugenio Alejandre Alvarez, Jose M. Alvarez-Torres,
Jose Luis Alvarez, Julio Medrano Amaro, Ernest A. Anderson III,
Nancy Andrio, Adan Olalde Angel, Louis Alberto Aquilar, Macedonio
Armendariz Jr., Laurencio Banda Avila, David Jackson Ayers Sr.,
Neal W. Barrett, Claude Vashon Bateaste, Fred R. Becerra, Elisa
Josefina Benavides, Eloy Benavides-Villarreal, Oziel V.
Benavides, Bincy Bennachen, Gerard Kevin Horde Bihm, Shawn
Boutte, James Louis Bowen, Kenya Marie Bradley, Victor Manuel
Briseno, Victor Manuel Briseno Jr., Clifton Paul Broughton,
Shanissa Latrell Syo Brown, Dale Ross Bruno, Greg James Bruno,
Abraham Buenrostro, Bear Gilory Burton, Dana Keith Butcher, Leroy
Butler Jr., Angela Champagne Cain, Juan Elias Calles, Jose
Calzoncinth, Narsiso Camargo Jr., George Robert Campbell, Abiel
Cantu, Hector Nereo Cantu Jr., Jesus G. Carabajal Jr., Jose E.
Cardona, Baldomero C. Castillo, Gildardo Castellanos, Jose
Mendoza Castellanos, Timoteo Paez Castaneda, Edgar Alberto
Cavazos, Sergio Guada Cavazos, Francisco J. Cepeda, Edgar Oswaldo
Cervantes, Ivan Benancio Cervantes Sanchez, Jaim Cervantes Bejar,
Joseph Paulose Chakkungal, Kendeus Paul Channell, Gustavo Davis
Chavarria, Jesus Chavez-Figueroa, Jesus Chavez-Figueroa, Jose
Dejesus Chavez Herrera, Pablo Chavez, Brice Delaine Christian,
Mario Cisneros, Jeron Dewarn Clayton, Shermain Ruth Collins, Jose
Colon-Caraballo, Julia Azeneth Contreras, Gerson Geovany Cornejo,
Adan Coronado, Juan Delourdes Covarrubia, Nelson A. Cruz, Pedro
Cruz, Rufino Martinez Cruz, Mariana Davila, Rene Nieto Davila,
Servando Davila, Shirley M. Davis, Wesley Wendell Davis, Adriana
M. Delacruz, Cleal Patrick Derry Jr., Kevin Allan Dicken, Dario
Duarte, Genaro Duque Castillo, Julio Sesar Duran, Terra Devon
Duriso, Jarvis Lee Eaglin, Melvin Javier Elvir, Pedro Lazcano
Espinoza, Roberto Figueroa Jr., Adan Guzman Flores, Antonio
Flores Jr., Herminio Flores, Israel Flores, Marcelo Vazquez
Flores, Rafael Vazquez Flores, Dennis Ruben Forte, James Randy
Fowler Jr., Rondell Francis, Fernando Medina Galvan, Benjamin
Garcia-Becerra, Benjamin Gutierrez Garcia, Eduardo Becerra
Garcia, Ivan Garcia, Julio Garcia Martinez, Rogelio Garcia Jr.,
Rolando Garcia, Terry Garrett, Carlos Puente Garza, Felix Garza,
Fernando Garza-Lozano, Joaquin Gonzalez Garza, Julian Garza Jr.,
Frank Charles Gilbert, Arthur Ray Gillespie, Robert Lee
Gillespie, Oscar Fernando Godinez, Evan Everett Golden, Angel
Guadalupe Gomez, Juan Antonio Gonzalez, Kevin Zuresh Gonzalez,
Marco A. Gonzalez, Marco Antonio Gonzalez, Rodrigo Garcia
Gonzalez, Ruben Gonzalez, Kotie Ray Gradnigo, Sandra Margarita
Grijalva, Garrett Clay Gros, Benigno Guadian Cardoza, Leonardo
Guadian Jr., Rudy Guerra, Khristopher Ron Keit Guillory, Jose
Ignacio Gutierrez, Juan M. Gutierrez Ramos, Mario Alfonso
Gutierrez, Mario Omar Gutierrez, Miguel A. Gutierrez Martinez,
Joel Eliv Guzman, Dennis Martin Hammett Jr., Dorothy Marie
Hanson, Trelonda Patrice Hartley, Orrin Bernard Hayes, Huey Paul
Hebert, Julio Cesar Hermosillo, Hector S. Hernandez, Jose Angel
Hernandez, Juan Carlos Hernandez, Juan G. Hernandez, Juan Jose
Hernandez Jr., Juan Manuel Hernandez, Miguel Angel Hernandez,
Roque F. Hernandez-Barraza, Jorge Luis Hinojosa, Roderick Jovonne
Howard, Shannon Lucas Howard, Barnie C. Howell Jr., Gregory Wayne
Hudson, Benito Huerta, Zachary Scott Hulet, Cecilia Hilario
Hyden, Victor Izaguirre Camargo, Gil S. Jackson, Gualberto
Jaimes, Iju James James, Christopher Andrew Jordan, Herman Joyas-
Robinson, Randy Lebouf, Dewayne Keith Lecompte Sr., Armando
Estrada Llanos, Ricardo Lopez, Alexandro Lozano, Rodrigo Luna
Jr., Cristian Valencia Magana, Gerardo Manzo Alvarez, Benjamin
Herrera Marron, Cesar Morales Marroquin, Alex Pineda Martinez,
Alfredo Martinez, Humberto Avalos Martinez, Jose Angel Martinez
Barajas, Jorge Gonzalez Martinez, Maria Marina Martinez, Maynor
Martinez Velazquez, Sabas Lira Martinez, Raymond Massey, Terrence
Lamont Mayes, Michael Charles Mcgallion, Elvin Dewayne Mcneely,
Melesio Galvan Medina, Salvador Barajas Medina, David Minix,
Mario Cesar Minjares, Roberto Minjares Jr., Stpehen Horace
Minton, Keidrick Rodon Mitchell, Jorge Luis Molina Jr., Alfredo
Moncada, Arnulfo Garcia Mondragon, Jesus Rangel Monjaraz, Jeremy
Paul Monk, Necia Mccartney Monk, Antonio Apolinar Morales Jr.,
Aldo Moreno Garcia, Amado Guerra Moreno, Johnnie Glover
Mukherjee, Bayardo Jose Munguia, Tomas Reyna Narvaez Jr., Cruz
Hernandez Navarro, Isaias I Navarro, Gerardo Morales Negrete,
Adrian Nevarez, Javier Sandoc Nunez-Sandoval, Jose Guadalupe
Nunez, Roberto Carlos Obregon, Aurelio Ayala Oceguera, Juan Pablo
Oceguera, Gaitan Octavio, Eric Damian Ortega, Juan Gregorio
Ortega, Jeremy Anthony Ortiz, Juan Ortiz, Esperanza L. Padron
Hueta, Julio Palma, Francisco Javier Paz, Jose J. Pedroza, Angel
Perez Jr., Luis Antonio Perez, Jacob Alex Perritt, Robert Glenn
Perritt, Khanh Huy Pham, Khuong Minh Pham, James Edward Phillips
II, Andre Price, Jesus Silva Pulido, Jose Jesus Pulido, Roberto
Pulido-Chavez, Carlos Omar Quintanilla, Jaime Omar Quintanilla,
Jesus Guadalupe Quintanilla, Jose Rogelio Quintanilla, Miguel A.
Quintanilla, Angel Flores Ramirez, Eduardo Ramirez Garcia, Martin
Hernan Ramirez, Javier Rangel, Mario Maldonado Rangel, Harold
Edward Rankin, Jose Alberto Reyes, Reymundo Mendoza Reyes,
Rodolfo Rosas Reyes, Raul G. Reynoso, Arthur Lee Richardson II,
Alberto Rios-Cantu, Federico Valladares Rios, Raudel Quintanilla
Rios, Juan C. Rivera, Miguel Angel Rivera-Santos, Jesus
Rodriguez, Jose Luis Rodriguez, Victor Rodriguez, Edgar Omar
Roque-Figueroa, Pablo Sablon, Jose Ramon Salazar, Juan Enrique
Salazar Jr., Julio C. Salazar, Eberardo Salinas, Arturo Vasquez
Sanchez, Hilario Sanchez, Isai Sanchez-Casas, Fernando J.
Saucillo, Tomas Estrada Sauceda, Akeem Jarrard Scott, Gustavo E.
Sepulveda-Chapa, Abelardo V. Silva, Raul Limon Silva, Ricardo
Silva, Joshua Caylin Simmons, Anthony Layne Smart, Sedrick Demond
Stallworth, Philip Elias Steffey, Alfred Lee Stewart Jr.,
Kantrelle Deon Stewart, Patrick Wade Stout, Antonio Bernard Teal,
Sherry Darlene Terry, Andrew Thomas, Charles Wayne Thomas,
Eduardo Trigo, Itelio Salvador Turcios, Ellis Patrick Tyler,
Jesus M. Urbano-Blanco, Nychriston Raysharon Ursin, James Allen
Varner, Scott Vega, Sergio Quintanilla Vega, Juan M Villanueva,
Deanna Merrill Washington, Warren Jackson West, Aaron Lamont
Williams, Stevie Deon Worlds, Juan Francisco Zamarron, Daniel Lee
Harvey, Michael David Stuntz, Tucker Shane Steele, Andres
Figueroa Jr., Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Shawanda Thibodeaux
Smith, Pedro A. Mercedes, Pamela Yvonne Fontenot, Joey Lee Cantu,
Roy Lee Daniels Jr., Jorge E. Salinas, Issac Joseph Louis Jr.,
Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Melvin Lamar White, Rodolfo Bear,
Cynthia Lynn Dyson, Pedro A. Mercedes, Luis Garcia-Andrade, James
Milton Thomas, Daviun Ramond Julien, Alonzo Knatt Jr., Howard
Eugene Leblanc Jr., Jose Alfredo Zamora-Cardenas, Jose Rolando
Muniz, Shawanda Thibodeaux Smith, Roberto Saucedo, Olga Lidia
Valladares, Martin Ramirez-Castaneda, Martha Elva Trujillo,
Gerardo Lopez, Efrain Aguilar Cisneros, Rodney Louis Williams,
Roberto Valencia Figueroa, Miguel Asiel Gonzalez Jr., Jose Mario
Martinez Jr., Martin Adrusbel Vela, Latricia Evangline Garner,
Marterya Queshan Young-Aguilar, Fernandez Rodriguez, Ernesto Diaz
Rodriguez, Emilson Rodriguez Rodriguez, William Ros Ado,
Francisco Valentin-Avino, Roy Dean Clark, Jacob Mcgrew, Robert M.
Rutland, Francisco J. Colon Villodas, Julio Luis Colon Villodas,
Lucio Anton Lara-Escarpita, Paul Allen Simons, Latricia Evangline
Garner, Jose Edgar Cantu, Jorge E. Salinas, Tucker Shane Steele,
Manboad Shivram, Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Alvin Shinette,
Salvador Alvarez Jr., Susanna Kate Cochran, Quincy Devon
Thompson, Juan Vazquez Lara, Jorge Alfonso Gaona, Juan C.
Maldonado-Santos, Rafael Garcia-Rangel, Gerardo Lopez, Juan Jose
Garcia Rangel, Pamela Yvonne Fontenot, Joey Lee Cantu, Luis E.
Zelaya, Bernardo Leal Jr., Martin Becerra Hernandez, Ralph
Aleman, Oswaldo Figueroa Torres, Ismael Arce Jr., Josue Saenz,
Juan Humberto Muniz-Alejo, Jose Guadalupe Saenz Jr., Roberto
Valencia Figueroa, Cristobal Torres, Jesus Herrera, Faustine
Margaret Manaway, Andres Figueroa Jr., Francisco J. Colon
Villodas, Nicholas James Figueroa, Juan Sandoval, Sandra Faye
Doyle Stelley, Doris M. Martin, Narsiso Camargo, Jr., Pedro A.
Mercedes, Miguel Martinez Rivera, Jeffery Michael Hays, Adolfo
Pascual Antonetti, Ashford A. Ballantyne, Christopher Bouley,
Juan J. Camacho, Alfonso Guerrero Chapa, Terry Ray Cherry,
Williams Joseph Clark, Charles J. Comeaux, Tina M. Comeaux, Jaime
Diaz, Victor Hugo Garza, Dickie Gee, Damian Ledoux, Nicole
Carolynn Mcdaniel, Jorge Medina, Olga Thaisha Melendez, Jerry
Lanell Miller, Hirosi Gomez Nakao, Charles Newton, Baudelio
Nunez, Tony G. Polanco, Hector Rios, Jesse Rojas, Cinthia Acosta
Torres, Robert M. Turner, Jr., Aniceto Lopez Valdez, Juan Velez,
Marcos Verdin, James Edward Yarber, Donald R. Young, Juan Zamora,
Hector Olivarez, and Daniel Eduardo Chapa.

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:

          Brian Peter Pezza, Esq.
          Vincent D. Reese, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE & FINGERSH LC
          600 Washington Avenue
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-7656
          Facsimile: (314) 612-7656
          E-mail: bpezza@lewisrice.com
                  vreese@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Stephen W. Schueler, Esq.
          WINSTEAD PC - HOUSTON
          1100 JPMorgan Chase Tower
          600 Travis Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 650-8400
          Facsimile: (713) 650-2400
          E-mail: sschueler@winstead.com


ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES: "Fariasantos" Suit Dismissal Bid Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIO FARIASANTOS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant.
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV543 is before the Court on defendant
Rosenberg & Associates, LLC's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
class action complaint.

Plaintiff, Claudio Fariasantos, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, brought this action against Defendant
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. 1692, et seq.

Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne, in a March 10, 2014
Memorandum Opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/DrFoFQfrom Leagle.com, concluded that the
Plaintiff's Complaint states a plausible claim for relief and
allows the Court to make a reasonable inference that the
Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. For this reason,
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action
complaint will be denied, the judge said.


STATE FARM: 7th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Golden" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Golden brought a purported class action suit against her
auto insurer State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.  Ms.
Golden attacks State Farm's practice of using its own in-house
attorneys to defend its insureds against third-party claims,
alleging that State Farm owes its insureds a duty to explain in
its policies that such house counsel may be used.  Ms. Golden's
policy provides that in the event of an accident, State Farm will
pay "attorney fees for attorneys chosen by us to defend an
insured who is sued" for damages. The district court dismissed
Ms. Golden's complaint, concluding that Indiana law creates no
obligation for an insurer to provide advance notification to an
insured that it uses house counsel to defend its insureds. The
court also denied Ms. Golden's request to certify to the Indiana
Supreme Court the question of whether advance notification is
required. Ms. Golden appealed.

In an opinion dated March 11, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/BPsHvVfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court
of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision dismissing Golden's complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and denied her motion to certify
questions of state law to the Indiana Supreme Court.

"[W]e reject Golden's request to certify the question of policy
disclosure to the Indiana Supreme Court. . . . Nor do we believe
this case presents a "matter of vital public concern" worthy of
certification to the Indiana Supreme Court," ruled the Seventh
Circuit.

The case is CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. NO. 12-
3901.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Agrees to Pay $5.5 Million to Settle U.S. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. ("Swisher") (NASDAQ: SWSH) (TSX: SWI), a
provider of essential hygiene and sanitizing products and
services, entered into a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement
(the "Settlement") with the Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S., according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Pursuant to the Settlement, which remains subject to Court
approval, the Company has agreed to pay $5.5 million (the
"Settlement Payment") to a Settlement Fund.  The Settlement
Payment is reimbursable by Swisher's insurer.  Plaintiffs acting
on their behalf and on behalf of all Class Members, have agreed
to dismiss all claims in the class action against Swisher and the
individual defendants with prejudice.  The Lead Plaintiff and its
Claims Administrator will manage the administration and
distribution of the Settlement Fund among the Class Members and
the payment of expenses therefrom, subject to Court approval.

"While we have been well represented by our counsel and confident
of our litigation position, we believe putting this matter behind
the company is in the best interest of our customers, employees
and shareholders so that we can remain focused on our business,"
said Richard L. Handley, Chairman of the Board of Swisher.


TETON: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Allen Hamilton, et al. v. Teton, a PCL Company, Case No.
1:14-cv-00058-MAC (E.D. Tex., February 10, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is one of the numerous lawsuits filed under the FLSA and
consolidated under Case No. 1:12-cv-00388-RC in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  On February 10, 2014,
the lawsuit was severed from the Consolidated Case, filed by the
Plaintiffs against a particular employer, and reassigned to the
docket of Judge Marica Crone, still in the Eastern District of
Texas.

According to the complaint, 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.

The Plaintiffs are Shawn Allen Hamilton, Jonathan A. Aceves, Mark
Anthony Aguilar, Ronnie Joseph Allen Jr., Victoriano Alonso
Jaramillo, Eugenio Alejandre Alvarez, Jose M. Alvarez-Torres,
Jose Luis Alvarez, Julio Medrano Amaro, Ernest A. Anderson III,
Nancy Andrio, Adan Olalde Angel, Louis Alberto Aquilar, Macedonio
Armendariz Jr., Laurencio Banda Avila, David Jackson Ayers Sr.,
Neal W. Barrett, Claude Vashon Bateaste, Fred R. Becerra, Elisa
Josefina Benavides, Eloy Benavides-Villarreal, Oziel V.
Benavides, Bincy Bennachen, Gerard Kevin Horde Bihm, Shawn
Boutte, James Louis Bowen, Kenya Marie Bradley, Victor Manuel
Briseno, Victor Manuel Briseno Jr., Clifton Paul Broughton,
Shanissa Latrell Syo Brown, Dale Ross Bruno, Greg James Bruno,
Abraham Buenrostro, Bear Gilory Burton, Dana Keith Butcher, Leroy
Butler Jr., Angela Champagne Cain, Juan Elias Calles, Jose
Calzoncinth, Narsiso Camargo Jr., George Robert Campbell, Abiel
Cantu, Hector Nereo Cantu Jr., Jesus G. Carabajal Jr., Jose E.
Cardona, Baldomero C. Castillo, Gildardo Castellanos, Jose
Mendoza Castellanos, Timoteo Paez Castaneda, Edgar Alberto
Cavazos, Sergio Guada Cavazos, Francisco J. Cepeda, Edgar Oswaldo
Cervantes, Ivan Benancio Cervantes Sanchez, Jaim Cervantes Bejar,
Joseph Paulose Chakkungal, Kendeus Paul Channell, Gustavo Davis
Chavarria, Jesus Chavez-Figueroa, Jesus Chavez-Figueroa, Jose
Dejesus Chavez Herrera, Pablo Chavez, Brice Delaine Christian,
Mario Cisneros, Jeron Dewarn Clayton, Shermain Ruth Collins, Jose
Colon-Caraballo, Julia Azeneth Contreras, Gerson Geovany Cornejo,
Adan Coronado, Juan Delourdes Covarrubia, Nelson A. Cruz, Pedro
Cruz, Rufino Martinez Cruz, Mariana Davila, Rene Nieto Davila,
Servando Davila, Shirley M. Davis, Wesley Wendell Davis, Adriana
M. Delacruz, Cleal Patrick Derry Jr., Kevin Allan Dicken, Dario
Duarte, Genaro Duque Castillo, Julio Sesar Duran, Terra Devon
Duriso, Jarvis Lee Eaglin, Melvin Javier Elvir, Pedro Lazcano
Espinoza, Roberto Figueroa Jr., Adan Guzman Flores, Antonio
Flores Jr., Herminio Flores, Israel Flores, Marcelo Vazquez
Flores, Rafael Vazquez Flores, Dennis Ruben Forte, James Randy
Fowler Jr., Rondell Francis, Fernando Medina Galvan, Benjamin
Garcia-Becerra, Benjamin Gutierrez Garcia, Eduardo Becerra
Garcia, Ivan Garcia, Julio Garcia Martinez, Rogelio Garcia Jr.,
Rolando Garcia, Terry Garrett, Carlos Puente Garza, Felix Garza,
Fernando Garza-Lozano, Joaquin Gonzalez Garza, Julian Garza Jr.,
Frank Charles Gilbert, Arthur Ray Gillespie, Robert Lee
Gillespie, Oscar Fernando Godinez, Evan Everett Golden, Angel
Guadalupe Gomez, Juan Antonio Gonzalez, Kevin Zuresh Gonzalez,
Marco A. Gonzalez, Marco Antonio Gonzalez, Rodrigo Garcia
Gonzalez, Ruben Gonzalez, Kotie Ray Gradnigo, Sandra Margarita
Grijalva, Garrett Clay Gros, Benigno Guadian Cardoza, Leonardo
Guadian Jr., Rudy Guerra, Khristopher Ron Keit Guillory, Jose
Ignacio Gutierrez, Juan M. Gutierrez Ramos, Mario Alfonso
Gutierrez, Mario Omar Gutierrez, Miguel A. Gutierrez Martinez,
Joel Eliv Guzman, Dennis Martin Hammett Jr., Dorothy Marie
Hanson, Trelonda Patrice Hartley, Orrin Bernard Hayes, Huey Paul
Hebert, Julio Cesar Hermosillo, Hector S. Hernandez, Jose Angel
Hernandez, Juan Carlos Hernandez, Juan G. Hernandez, Juan Jose
Hernandez Jr., Juan Manuel Hernandez, Miguel Angel Hernandez,
Roque F. Hernandez-Barraza, Jorge Luis Hinojosa, Roderick Jovonne
Howard, Shannon Lucas Howard, Barnie C. Howell Jr., Gregory Wayne
Hudson, Benito Huerta, Zachary Scott Hulet, Cecilia Hilario
Hyden, Victor Izaguirre Camargo, Gil S. Jackson, Gualberto
Jaimes, Iju James James, Christopher Andrew Jordan, Herman Joyas-
Robinson, Randy Lebouf, Dewayne Keith Lecompte Sr., Armando
Estrada Llanos, Ricardo Lopez, Alexandro Lozano, Rodrigo Luna
Jr., Cristian Valencia Magana, Gerardo Manzo Alvarez, Benjamin
Herrera Marron, Cesar Morales Marroquin, Alex Pineda Martinez,
Alfredo Martinez, Humberto Avalos Martinez, Jose Angel Martinez
Barajas, Jorge Gonzalez Martinez, Maria Marina Martinez, Maynor
Martinez Velazquez, Sabas Lira Martinez, Raymond Massey, Terrence
Lamont Mayes, Michael Charles Mcgallion, Elvin Dewayne Mcneely,
Melesio Galvan Medina, Salvador Barajas Medina, David Minix,
Mario Cesar Minjares, Roberto Minjares Jr., Stpehen Horace
Minton, Keidrick Rodon Mitchell, Jorge Luis Molina Jr., Alfredo
Moncada, Arnulfo Garcia Mondragon, Jesus Rangel Monjaraz, Jeremy
Paul Monk, Necia Mccartney Monk, Antonio Apolinar Morales Jr.,
Aldo Moreno Garcia, Amado Guerra Moreno, Johnnie Glover
Mukherjee, Bayardo Jose Munguia, Tomas Reyna Narvaez Jr., Cruz
Hernandez Navarro, Isaias I Navarro, Gerardo Morales Negrete,
Adrian Nevarez, Javier Sandoc Nunez-Sandoval, Jose Guadalupe
Nunez, Roberto Carlos Obregon, Aurelio Ayala Oceguera, Juan Pablo
Oceguera, Gaitan Octavio, Eric Damian Ortega, Juan Gregorio
Ortega, Jeremy Anthony Ortiz, Juan Ortiz, Esperanza L. Padron
Hueta, Julio Palma, Francisco Javier Paz, Jose J. Pedroza, Angel
Perez Jr., Luis Antonio Perez, Jacob Alex Perritt, Robert Glenn
Perritt, Khanh Huy Pham, Khuong Minh Pham, James Edward Phillips
II, Andre Price, Jesus Silva Pulido, Jose Jesus Pulido, Roberto
Pulido-Chavez, Carlos Omar Quintanilla, Jaime Omar Quintanilla,
Jesus Guadalupe Quintanilla, Jose Rogelio Quintanilla, Miguel A.
Quintanilla, Angel Flores Ramirez, Eduardo Ramirez Garcia, Martin
Hernan Ramirez, Javier Rangel, Mario Maldonado Rangel, Harold
Edward Rankin, Jose Alberto Reyes, Reymundo Mendoza Reyes,
Rodolfo Rosas Reyes, Raul G. Reynoso, Arthur Lee Richardson II,
Alberto Rios-Cantu, Federico Valladares Rios, Raudel Quintanilla
Rios, Juan C. Rivera, Miguel Angel Rivera-Santos, Jesus
Rodriguez, Jose Luis Rodriguez, Victor Rodriguez, Edgar Omar
Roque-Figueroa, Pablo Sablon, Jose Ramon Salazar, Juan Enrique
Salazar Jr., Julio C. Salazar, Eberardo Salinas, Arturo Vasquez
Sanchez, Hilario Sanchez, Isai Sanchez-Casas, Fernando J.
Saucillo, Tomas Estrada Sauceda, Akeem Jarrard Scott, Gustavo E.
Sepulveda-Chapa, Abelardo V. Silva, Raul Limon Silva, Ricardo
Silva, Joshua Caylin Simmons, Anthony Layne Smart, Sedrick Demond
Stallworth, Philip Elias Steffey, Alfred Lee Stewart Jr.,
Kantrelle Deon Stewart, Patrick Wade Stout, Antonio Bernard Teal,
Sherry Darlene Terry, Andrew Thomas, Charles Wayne Thomas,
Eduardo Trigo, Itelio Salvador Turcios, Ellis Patrick Tyler,
Jesus M. Urbano-Blanco, Nychriston Raysharon Ursin, James Allen
Varner, Scott Vega, Sergio Quintanilla Vega, Juan M Villanueva,
Deanna Merrill Washington, Warren Jackson West, Aaron Lamont
Williams, Stevie Deon Worlds, Juan Francisco Zamarron, Daniel Lee
Harvey, Michael David Stuntz, Tucker Shane Steele, Andres
Figueroa Jr., Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Shawanda Thibodeaux
Smith, Pedro A. Mercedes, Pamela Yvonne Fontenot, Joey Lee Cantu,
Roy Lee Daniels Jr., Jorge E. Salinas, Issac Joseph Louis Jr.,
Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Melvin Lamar White, Rodolfo Bear,
Cynthia Lynn Dyson, Pedro A. Mercedes, Luis Garcia-Andrade, James
Milton Thomas, Daviun Ramond Julien, Alonzo Knatt Jr., Howard
Eugene Leblanc Jr., Jose Alfredo Zamora-Cardenas, Jose Rolando
Muniz, Shawanda Thibodeaux Smith, Roberto Saucedo, Olga Lidia
Valladares, Martin Ramirez-Castaneda, Martha Elva Trujillo,
Gerardo Lopez, Efrain Aguilar Cisneros, Rodney Louis Williams,
Roberto Valencia Figueroa, Miguel Asiel Gonzalez Jr., Jose Mario
Martinez Jr., Martin Adrusbel Vela, Latricia Evangline Garner,
Marterya Queshan Young-Aguilar, Fernandez Rodriguez, Ernesto Diaz
Rodriguez, Emilson Rodriguez Rodriguez, William Ros Ado,
Francisco Valentin-Avino, Roy Dean Clark, Jacob Mcgrew, Robert M.
Rutland, Francisco J. Colon Villodas, Julio Luis Colon Villodas,
Lucio Anton Lara-Escarpita, Paul Allen Simons, Latricia Evangline
Garner, Jose Edgar Cantu, Jorge E. Salinas, Tucker Shane Steele,
Manboad Shivram, Howard Eugene Leblanc Jr., Alvin Shinette,
Salvador Alvarez Jr., Susanna Kate Cochran, Quincy Devon
Thompson, Juan Vazquez Lara, Jorge Alfonso Gaona, Juan C.
Maldonado-Santos, Rafael Garcia-Rangel, Gerardo Lopez, Juan Jose
Garcia Rangel, Pamela Yvonne Fontenot, Joey Lee Cantu, Luis E.
Zelaya, Bernardo Leal Jr., Martin Becerra Hernandez, Ralph
Aleman, Oswaldo Figueroa Torres, Ismael Arce Jr., Josue Saenz,
Juan Humberto Muniz-Alejo, Jose Guadalupe Saenz Jr., Roberto
Valencia Figueroa, Cristobal Torres, Jesus Herrera, Faustine
Margaret Manaway, Andres Figueroa Jr., Francisco J. Colon
Villodas, Nicholas James Figueroa, Juan Sandoval, Sandra Faye
Doyle Stelley, Doris M. Martin, Narsiso Camargo, Jr., Pedro A.
Mercedes, Miguel Martinez Rivera, Jeffery Michael Hays, Adolfo
Pascual Antonetti, Ashford A. Ballantyne, Christopher Bouley,
Juan J. Camacho, Alfonso Guerrero Chapa, Terry Ray Cherry,
Williams Joseph Clark, Charles J. Comeaux, Tina M. Comeaux, Jaime
Diaz, Victor Hugo Garza, Dickie Gee, Damian Ledoux, Nicole
Carolynn Mcdaniel, Jorge Medina, Olga Thaisha Melendez, Jerry
Lanell Miller, Hirosi Gomez Nakao, Charles Newton, Baudelio
Nunez, Tony G. Polanco, Hector Rios, Jesse Rojas, Cinthia Acosta
Torres, Robert M. Turner, Jr., Aniceto Lopez Valdez, Juan Velez,
Marcos Verdin, James Edward Yarber, Donald R. Young, Juan Zamora,
Hector Olivarez, and Daniel Eduardo Chapa.

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:

          Fritz Barham Lewis, Jr., Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART-HOUSTON
          500 Dallas Street, Suite 3000
          Houston, TX 77002-4709
          Telephone: (713) 655-0855
          Facsimile: (713) 655-0020
          E-mail: barham.lewis@odnss.com


TJX COMPANIES: Merchandising Managers Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Burns, Keri Dickey, Angela Ramirez and Diana Santillan,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Marmaxx Operating
Corporation d/b/a Marmaxx Group, and Marshalls of MA, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-10306-MBB (D. Mass., February 10, 2014) is brought on
behalf current and former merchandising managers, employed by the
Defendants in the United States.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to, inter alia: (i)
unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek, as
required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the
FLSA.

The Defendants are Delaware corporations with their principal
places of business in Framingham, Massachusetts.  According to
its Web site, Marmaxx Group is the largest off-price retailer of
apparel and home fashions in the U.S., with more than 900 retail
stores nationwide.  The Defendants maintain control, oversight,
and discretion over the operation of their retail stores,
including their employment practices with respect to the
Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Mathew A. Parker, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          E-mail: Mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  Charles@hgrlawyers.com
                  david@hgrlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory C. Keating, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          One International Place, Suite 2700
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 378-6003
          Facsimile: (617) 737-0052
          E-mail: gkeating@littler.com


TOWERS WATSON: Accord in Suit by Former Towers Perrin Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court preliminarily approved a proposed $10 million
settlement of a suit filed by certain former shareholders of
Towers Perrin, according to Towers Watson & Co.'s Feb. 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

A putative class action lawsuit filed by certain former
shareholders of Towers Perrin (the "Dugan Action") previously was
reported in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form
S-4/A (File No. 333-161705) filed on November 9, 2009 by the
Jupiter Saturn Holding Company (the "Registration Statement"). As
reported in the Registration Statement, the complaint was filed
on November 5, 2009 against Towers Perrin, members of its board
of directors, and certain members of senior management in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in this action are former members of Towers Perrin's
senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various times
between 1995 and 2000. The Dugan plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of former Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from
service on or after January 1, 1971, and who also meet certain
other specified criteria. The complaint does not contain a
quantification of the damages sought.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin
of a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action.
Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain a
quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement
demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on
December 8, 2009 and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a
payment of $800 million to settle the action on behalf of the
proposed class. Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin
communicate the settlement demand to Watson Wyatt.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May
or June 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class
in the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the
"Allen Action") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in
substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.
A fifth plaintiff joined this action on August 29, 2011. These
plaintiffs are proceeding in their individual capacities and do
not seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 when
Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the
creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO ("eHRO"),
commenced a separate legal proceeding (the "Pao Action") in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially the same
form as those alleged in the Dugan Action. Towers Perrin
contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions ("TPAS")
business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) of
eHRO. Pao seeks to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service in connection with Towers
Perrin's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who are
excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action. Towers
Watson is also named as a defendant in the Pao Action.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by all
plaintiffs were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value when
these individuals separated from employment. The complaints
allege variously that there either was a promise that Towers
Perrin would remain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action)
or that in the event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs
would receive compensation (Allen and Pao Actions). Plaintiffs
allege that by agreeing to sell their shares back to Towers
Perrin at book value upon separation, they and other members of
the putative classes relied upon these alleged promises, which
they claim were breached as a result of the consummation of the
Merger between Watson Wyatt and Towers Perrin. The complaints
assert claims for breach of contract, breach of express trust,
breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, quasi-
contract/unjust enrichment, and constructive trust, and seek
equitable relief including an accounting, disgorgement,
rescission and/or restitution, and the imposition of a
constructive trust. On January 20, 2010, the court consolidated
the three actions for all purposes.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties. By order dated September 30,
2010, the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim
for a constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to
all other claims alleged. Pursuant to the court's September 30,
2010 order, defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs'
complaints on October 22, 2010. The parties have completed fact
discovery. Neither the plaintiffs in Dugan nor the plaintiff in
Pao have moved for class certification. Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment on all claims in all actions on December 23,
2011. The court heard argument on June 19, 2012, and on December
11, 2012 granted defendants' motion, and entered judgment in
favor of defendants on all claims. On January 10, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a joint notice of their intent to appeal the
court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. On February 13, 2013, the parties were notified that the
appeal had been assigned for mediation pursuant to the Third
Circuit's mediation program. During the mediation held on May 7,
2013, the parties reached agreement on settlement terms that
include payment of an aggregate $10 million to an agreed
settlement class estimated to potentially include more than 1,000
former Towers Perrin shareholders, which payment would also cover
legal fees of plaintiffs' attorneys, as determined by the court,
and expenses incurred to administer the settlement.

On September 24, 2013, the court preliminarily certified the
settlement class and preliminarily approved the parties' proposed
settlement. The settlement remains subject to several conditions,
including sufficient participation of the individual settlement
class members and final judicial approval of the settlement
terms.


TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS: Privacy Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
In late 2012, a hacker launched a cyber-attack on the South
Carolina Department of Revenue (SCDOR). In their initial
disclosure of the attack, state officials announced that
approximately 3.6 million Social Security numbers, 387,000 credit
and debit card numbers, and tax records for 657,000 businesses
had been exposed. Media reports called it potentially "the
largest cyber-attack ever on a state government," putting "other
states on high alert."

Before the Court is a class action suit asserting claims arising
from this cyber-attack. The plaintiff, Amber Strautins, has sued
Trustwave Holdings, Inc., a Chicago-based data security company.
According to its website, Trustwave "helps businesses fight
cybercrime, protect data and reduce security risk." One of
Trustwave's clients is the SCDOR.  Ms. Strautins alleges that
Trustwave inadequately protected her personal identifying
information (PII), which was kept in the SCDOR's database.
Trustwave filed a Motion to Dismiss Strautins' Amended Class
Action Complaint.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2014,
District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., concluded that Ms. Strautins'
claimed injuries are insufficient to establish standing for
Article III of the United States Constitution purposes.
Alternatively, in the event that the Court's conclusion about Ms.
Strautins' standing is in error, the Court concluded that her
complaint fails to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, the
complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff was
granted leave to replead within 28 days of the entry of the
Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/iB2Uv2from
Leagle.com

The case is AMBER J. STRAUTINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS,
INC., Defendant, NO. 12 C 09115, (N.D. Ill.).


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Court Yet to Rule on Bid to Junk Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California held a hearing on a motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities suit against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., and its decision
is pending, 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.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two shareholder class action
complaints were filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. On January 30, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, which alleges
claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a purported class of
those who purchased the Company's common stock between October
14, 2011 and August 9, 2012 and/or acquired the Company's stock
pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement for the
initial public offering. The Amended Consolidated Complaint
alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing false or misleading statements regarding the sale of
counterfeit Company products.  The consolidated complaint seeks,
among other things, damages and interest, rescission, and
attorneys' fees and costs. On March 26, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  On August 27, 2013, the court
held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and its decision is
pending.


UNION PACIFIC: No Hearing Yet in Suit Over Rail Fuel Surcharge
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court has not set a date for hearing arguments on the class
certification issue in a suit filed against Union Pacific
Corporation over rail fuel surcharge cases, 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.

As reported in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2007, 20 rail shippers (many of whom are
represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical
antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against the
company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently,
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) and three other Class I
railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit. The original
plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District
Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of complaints
reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the named
railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel
surcharges for certain rail traffic.

In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and sought to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges. These
complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel
surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following numerous hearings
and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the
indirect purchasers, which the indirect purchasers appealed. On
April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect
purchasers' claims based on various state laws.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the
class certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to
exclude evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011,
Judge Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision, which
certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff
representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers
that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant
railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1,
2003, through December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling,
which did not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs
and does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to
disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012,
the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court
review the class certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a
panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred
the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues
in the petition and to address whether the district court
properly granted class certification. The Circuit Court heard
oral arguments on May 3, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit
Court vacated the class certification decision and remanded the
case to the district court to reconsider the class certification
decision in light of a recent Supreme Court case and incomplete
consideration of errors in the expert report of the plaintiffs.
On October 31, 2013, Judge Friedman approved a schedule agreed to
by all parties for consideration of the class certification issue
on remand. The schedule, which includes dates for briefs, expert
reports and depositions, concludes in June 2014. The court has
not set a date for hearing arguments on the class certification
issue or any other aspect of this litigation.


VAN RU CREDIT: Final Hearing on "Ritchie" Suit Deal Set for July
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Stephen M. McNamee entered an order on
March 12, 2014, granting preliminary approval of a class cction
settlement in Nivea Ritchie, Plaintiff, v. Van Ru Credit Corp. et
al., Defendants, NO. CV-12-1714-PHX-SMM, (D. Ariz.).  A copy of
the ruling is available at http://is.gd/rqs5AUfrom Leagle.com.

The Court said the Lawsuit is preliminarily certified, for
settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of a class
of 9,042 Plaintiffs defined as: All persons and entities
throughout the United States to whom Van Ru made or caused to be
made one or more calls between January 1, 2012, through May 31,
2012, directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone
service, by using an automatic telephone dialing system where Van
Ru's records show the person's or entity's cellular telephone
number was obtained from a skip trace vendor.

The Court preliminarily certified Plaintiff Nivea Ritchie as the
Class Representative and Michael L. Greenwald and James L.
Davidson of Greenwald Davidson PLLC as Class Counsel.

The Court will conduct a final approval hearing on July 21, 2014,
at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 401, Sandra Day O'Conner U.S.
Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003.


WAL-MART: 5th Cir. Reinstates "Odle" Gender-Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge erred in finding that the statute of limitations
bars individual claims from one of the original plaintiffs in the
gender-bias suit against Wal-Mart, the 5th Circuit ruled.

Stephanie Odle, of Lubbock, Texas, had been an original member of
the class action Dukes v. Wal-Mart, but the 9th Circuit tossed
"former employees" like her in 2010, concluding that they lacked
standing to pursue injunctive relief.

A year later, the U.S. Supreme Court famously decertified the
class of current employees on the basis of insufficient
commonality.

Odle filed a separate class action in October 2011, four months
after the Supreme Court decision, alleging that female workers
face "gender discrimination as a result of specific policies and
practices in Wal-Mart's regions located in whole or in part in
Texas."  She accused Wal-Mart of denying women equal
opportunities for promotion to management-track positions, as
well as equal pay for hourly retail positions and salaried
management positions.

Wal-Mart allegedly fired Odle from her assistant manager soon
after she was transferred to a Texas store and asked to be
considered for future management positions.

U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Dallas dismissed even Odle's
individual claims, however, under the statute of limitations.
That ruling said Odle should have filed her suit by Jan. 28,
2011, within 90 days of a 9th Circuit's ruling on the Dukes case.

A three-judge panel with the 5th Circuit reversed and remanded
for reconsideration of Odle's individual claims.  The relevant
statute of limitations remained tolled when Odle sued, the New
Orleans-based federal appeals court found.  It emphasized that,
in finding that former employees like Odle lacked standing to
pursue class injunctive relief alongside current employees, the
9th Circuit had noted "that 'this does not mean that former
employees are ineligible to receive any form of relief' because
'they may be eligible to receive back pay and punitive damages.'"

Upon remand, the Dukes trial court in San Francisco extended the
tolling of the statute of limitations and extended deadline for
filing subsequent suits to October 28, 2011.

Odle filed her federal complaint in Dallas on this deadline date.

"The court 'grant[ed] this limited period of additional tolling
in the interest of justice and to avoid any confusion that [may
have] exist[ed] among former class members regarding when the
time limit for them to take action expire[d]," Judge Jacques
Wiener Jr. wrote for the appellate panel.

Wal-Mart failed to show that the 9th Circuit's ruling was the
"final adverse determination" in Dukes, according to the ruling.
Rather than "akin to a denial," the 9th Circuit's ruling merely
"continued proceedings on the certification issue" for the former
employees of Wal-Mart, the court found.

"Thus, the appeals court's ruling in Dukes was not a final,
adverse resolution of class certification for former employees,"
Wiener wrote.  "Until the California District Court determined on
remand whether the class of former employees could and should be
certified under Rule 23(b)(3), no court had expressly or
impliedly ruled that the former Wal-Mart employees had
'officially lost their status as a class.'"

To rule Odle's claim as untimely would require the former class
members to file "duplicative, needless individual lawsuits before
the court could resolve the class certification issue
definitively," Weiner added.


* CPSC Says ASTM Needs to Make Stiffer Standards
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that stroller manufacturers must
meet stiffer testing standards to prevent fatalities and serious
injuries, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The agency has issued required new safety standards for
strollers, which contain provisions that strengthen the
industry's voluntarily adopted standards established by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).  Most of the
requirements concern new methods to test the safety on nearly
every part of a stroller.  The buckles, cords, straps, seats and
hinges must be tested more thoroughly to address stability
problems, and in extreme cases, to prevent amputations and
strangulations.

The new standards were prompted by a high number of stroller
accidents, injuries and deaths.  From data reported to the
agency, there were four stroller-related fatalities from 2008-
2012 and another 1,203 accidents that caused 359 injuries,
according to the new regulation.  The agency also considered data
collected by its National Electronic Injury Surveillance System,
which surveys the number of injuries treated in the nation's
hospital emergency rooms, according to the agency's May 20, 2013
proposed rule.

The 2008-2012 incident data reported to the CPSC prompted the
identification of hazard patterns involving wheels, parking
brakes, locks, restraints, hinges, sharp edges, stability issues
and more.

In the first six months of 2013, an additional 90 incidents and
32 injuries were reported to the CPSC.  Nearly one-quarter of the
incidents had to do with wheels and parking brakes, the agency
noted.

The CPSC consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade
organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups and
consultants on the development of the new standards.

The ASTM first published safety standards for strollers in 1983
and they have been revised more than 20 times.  The current
standard was approved Nov. 1, 2013.

The CPSC's revised standards require a new method to test
hazardous cords and straps that could cause strangulation, new
test methods for hinges to make sure they don't easily fold up
and cause finger amputations or pinch adults or children, and a
new method to test the safety of buckles on child safety seats to
ensure children cannot release them on their own.

There are 85 known suppliers of strollers and carriages in the
United States and nearly all new mothers own at least one.

The rule is effective Sept. 10, 2015.


                             *********

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  * * *