CAR_Public/140415.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 74

                             Headlines


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ADT LLC: Illegally Contacts Class Members' Phones, Suit Claims
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: State Law Claims Stayed in "Taylor" Action
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Junk Stock Suit
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Gains $21MM From 2013 Class Suit Deals

BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Lawsuits Over Acquisition of SHFL
BECTON DICKINSON: Pays $45MM to Settle Antitrust Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Records $22MM Charge for Antitrust Suit in N.J.
BECTON DICKINSON: To Appeal Verdict in RTI's Non-Patent Claims
BUSH ROSS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Says

CHINA GREEN: Preparing Settlement Papers in Securities Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Partially Dismisses "Thomas" Action
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Maranda" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
CREDIT PROTECTION: Court Denies Motion to Strike in "Peters" Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Removed "McCoy" Suit to C.D. California

DFC GLOBAL: No Certification Yet in Suit v. NMM, Dollar Financial
DFC GLOBAL: Appeal to Pursue Arbitration Under Advisement
DFC GLOBAL: Has C$21.6MM Accrued Liabilities in Canadian Suits
DFC GLOBAL: Expects Lead Plaintiff Named in Penn. Securities Suit
DIAMOND FOODS: Warrant Exercise Accord Excludes Settlement Shares

DLJ MORTGAGE: Court OKs Bid to Modify Certified Class
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Motion to Junk Retirement System Suit Heard
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Penn. Court Stays "Bushansky" Litigation
ELCO LANDMARK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: No Certification Yet in Securities Lawsuit

FONALITY INC: Fails to Provide Proper Pay Check Stubs, Suit Says
FRESH & EASY: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminarily Okay
HAIN CELESTIAL: Calif. Lawsuit Over JASON Brand in Discovery
HALLWOOD GROUP: Has Agreement to Settle Merger Lawsuit
IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces N.Y. Suit Due to Financial Restatement

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Motiva Labor Suits
INTL FCSTONE: Settlement of Shareholder Suit to Cost $265,000
INTL FCSTONE: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Federal Court
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Malpractice Claims in "Moll" Suit Tossed
IQ DATA: Sued in N.M. Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations

JBI INC: Funds Earmarked for Claims Admin. Too High, Court Says
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Ellis" Plaintiffs' Discovery Bid Denied
KLEENCO MAINTENANCE: Class Suit Seeks Full Back Pay and Damages
LAMPS.COM INC: Removed "Awbrey" Class Suit to C.D. California
LG ELECTRONICS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs Can't Join Class Settlements

MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Jallo" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
MILANEZZA LLC: Accused of Refusing to Pay Minimum Wages to Class
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Nichols" Class Suit in Illinois
NATIONAL CORRECTIVE: Faces "Wynn" Class Suit in Pennsylvania
NATIONAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

NATROL INC: Wants 3 Glucosamine Suits Consolidated in California
NATURE'S PATH: Court Rejects "Leonhart" Misbranding Class Action
PARAMETRIC SOUND: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Nevada
PLAZA RECOVERY: Faces "McDonald" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
PQ NEW YORK: Le Pain Quotidien Ex-Servers Sue Over Unpaid Wages

SEMPRIS LLC: Motion to Dismiss "Kist" 1st Amended Suit Denied
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Understaffing Suit Settlement Funds Disbursed
SPACE MARKET: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
SPRINT CORP: Faces "Jahoda" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
TBK 82 CORP: Ex-Cooks Seek to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Reserves $495MM to Settle Provigil Suits
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Briefing to End Aug. in Suit Over 1997 Deal
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Venlafaxine
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Affirms Dismissal of Lamotrigine Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Jury Trial in Esomeprazole Suit Has Begun

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Suit Over Niaspan in Penn. Court
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suits Over Off-Label Promos Still Pending
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suit Filed Over Fentora Off-Label Promotion
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued by Shareholders in New York Court
TOBACK BERNSTEIN: Court Certifies Class in "Torres" Suit

UNILIFE CORP: Securities Suit Plaintiff Files Voluntary Dismissal
VOCERA COMM: Securities Suit Case Management Conference Continues
WALMART STORES: "Wasilewski" Suit Removed to NJ District Court
WASHINGTON: Social Health Dept Sued for Civil Rights Violations
WHOLE FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in "Pratt" Misbranding Suit

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Discovery in "Brenner" Must Be Completed June
WILSON SONSINI: Faces Class Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
ZOLTEK COMPANIES: Reaches Accord in Shareholder Litigation


                             *********


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mahala A. Church, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Accretive Health, Inc., aka, dba, Medical
Financial Solutions, Case No. 1:14-cv-00057-WS-B (S.D. Ala.,
February 11, 2014) is a class action lawsuit for statutory
damages, costs and attorney's fees brought pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Accretive Health, Inc., doing business as Medical Financial
Solutions, was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in
Kalamazoo, Michigan.  Accretive was engaged in business within
the state of Alabama, including the collection of debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sandy G. Robinson, Esq.
          CABANISS, JOHNSTON, GARDNER, DUMAS & O'NEAL
          P. O. Box 2906
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 415-7308
          Facsimile: (251) 415-7350
          E-mail: sgr@cabaniss.com


ADT LLC: Illegally Contacts Class Members' Phones, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Bostani, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services, Inc. and
Defender Security Company d/b/a Defender Direct, Inc. and Protect
Your Home, Case No. 3:14-cv-00322-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal., February
11, 2014) is brought for damages and other remedies resulting
from the Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

ADT LLC, doing business as ADT Security Services, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located
in Boca Raton, Florida.  Defender is an Indiana corporation with
its principal place of business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          Alison E. Wilson, Esq.
          Karen E. Nakon, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-1040
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com
                  awilson@slpattorney.com
                  knakon@slpattorney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin Dale Rising, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          E-mail: kevin.rising@btlaw.com


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: State Law Claims Stayed in "Taylor" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto issued an order in NATHANIEL J.
TAYLOR and HARRY L. HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY
SERVICES LP; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-
CV-01613-AWI-SKO, (E.D. Cal.) granting defendant's motion to stay
six state-law claims and denying motion to stay a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) claim.  The April 1, 2014 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/qNX11Qfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint sets forth seven causes
of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages and/or overtime wages
under California Labor Code (CLC) Section 510 and 1194; (2)
failure to provide employees with accurate information on pay
stubs under CLC Section 226; (3) failure to provide rest breaks
under CLC Sections 226.7 and 512 and the California Industrial
Welfare Commission's (IWC) Wage Order 4 (Wage Order 4); (4)
failure to provide meal breaks under CLC Sections 226.7 and 512
and Wage Order 4; (5) failure to pay minimum wages and/or
overtime wages under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); (6)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL),
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.;
and (7) civil penalties under CLC Section 2698 et seq., the
Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA).

AlliedBarton filed a Motion to Stay.

Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto granted AlliedBarton's Motion
to Stay regarding Plaintiffs' Claim One through Four (1-4), Six
(6), and Seven (7).  The motion to stay was denied as to
Plaintiffs' Claim Five (5). The Court ordered the parties to
provide status updates to the Court as to the pendency of the
prior filed actions every 90 days from the date of the Order.

Nathaniel J. Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by David Scott Harris
-- dsh@northbaylawgroup.com -- North Bay Law Group, David S
Zelenski  -- david@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group & Abigail
Ameri Zelenski -- abigail@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group.

Harry L. Harrison, Plaintiff, represented by David Scott Harris,
North Bay Law Group, David S Zelenski, Jaurigue Law Group &
Abigail Ameri Zelenski, Jaurigue Law Group.

AlliedBarton Security LP, Defendant, represented by Robin E.
Largent -- rlargent@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante &
Freudenberger LLP.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Junk Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
No hearing is currently scheduled on the Motion to Dismiss
Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al.,
Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to AMAG
Pharmaceuticals' Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on March
18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG
Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and
was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010. The
second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010
alleged that  the company and  the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the
then-members of the company's Board of Directors, or Board, and
certain underwriters in  the company's January 2010 offering of
common stock violated certain federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and that  the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer
violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain
alleged omissions in a registration statement filed in January
2010. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
pursuant to the company's common stock offering on or about
January 21, 2010.

On August 11 and 15, 2011, respectively, the District Court
issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On
September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11,
2012. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part
and reversed in part the District Court's Opinion and Order and
remanded the case to the District Court.

On February 19, 2013, the company filed a Petition for Panel
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on March 15,
2013. On March 22, 2013, the company filed a Motion to Stay the
Mandate remanding the case to the District Court pending review
by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals' February 4,
2013 decision. The Court of Appeals granted the Motion to Stay
the Mandate on April 8, 2013.

On June 13, 2013, the company filed a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari, or the Petition, with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking
review of the Court of Appeal's decision and to have that
decision overturned. On October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court
denied  the company's Petition, resulting in the case's return to
the District Court for further proceedings relative to the SAC's
surviving claims.

On November 6, 2013, the company filed a renewed Motion to
Dismiss the SAC's surviving claims. On December 6, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to  the company's Motion
to Dismiss and  the company filed a reply brief in support of the
company's Motion on December 27, 2013. The plaintiffs are seeking
leave of court to file a sur-reply in further opposition to the
company's Motion to Dismiss. No hearing on the Motion to Dismiss
is currently scheduled.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Gains $21MM From 2013 Class Suit Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Amerisourcebergen Corporation recognized gains of $21.0
million and $12.3 million relating to settlements of lawsuits
over allegations it took improper actions to delay or prevent
generic drugs from entering the market, 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.

Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain
brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the
manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper
actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the
market.  The Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of
these class actions, but has been a member of the direct
purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly
from these pharmaceutical manufacturers).  None of the class
actions have gone to trial, but some have settled in the past
with the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds.
The Company recognized gains of $21.0 million and $12.3 million
relating to the mentioned class action lawsuits in the three
months ended December 2013 and 2012, respectively.  These gains,
which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments due to
other parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold
in the Company's consolidated statements of operations.


BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Lawsuits Over Acquisition of SHFL
-----------------------------------------------------------
A number of putative class actions and shareholder derivative
actions challenging the acquisition of SHFL entertainment, Inc.
by Bally Technologies, Inc. have been filed, according to Bally's
Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

A number of putative class actions and shareholder derivative
actions challenging the Company's acquisition of SHFL have been
filed against the Company, Manhattan Merger Corp., SHFL, and
SHFL's directors in various jurisdictions that generally allege
breach of fiduciary duties and that the entity defendants aided
and abetted those alleged breaches, and seek, among other relief,
declaratory judgment and an injunction against the transaction.
The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with any
certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a
material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the
Company. The Company believes that the claims asserted against it
in the lawsuits are without merit and is defending against them
vigorously. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the
transaction may be filed in the future.


BECTON DICKINSON: Pays $45MM to Settle Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company has paid $45 million in exchange
for a release by all potential class members of the direct
purchaser claims in the suit "In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust
Litigation," according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The Company was named as a defendant in five purported class
action suits brought on behalf of distributors and other entities
that purchase the Company's products (the "Distributor
Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated federal
antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for
the Company's products to the plaintiffs and other purported
class members. These actions were consolidated under the caption
"In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation." Pursuant to a
settlement agreement the Company entered into with the
Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions on April 27, 2009 and
following approval by the District Court (on a preliminarily
basis in November 2012 and on a final basis in April 2013), the
Company has paid $45 million in exchange for a release by all
potential class members of the direct purchaser claims under
federal antitrust laws related to the products and acts
enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal of the case with
prejudice, insofar as it relates to direct purchaser claims.


BECTON DICKINSON: Records $22MM Charge for Antitrust Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company recognized the $22 million charge
from a pending litigation settlement with the Hospital Plaintiffs
in the third quarter of fiscal year 2013, according to the
company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The Company is named as a defendant in the following purported
class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
the Company's products, such as hospitals and retailers (the
"Hospital Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated
federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for the Company's products to the plaintiffs and
other purported class members.

Case:             Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton
                     Dickinson & Company
Court:            U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee
Date Filed:       June 3, 2005
                  ------------------

Case:             Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton
                  Dickinson and Company
Court:            U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey
Date Filed:       January 17, 2006
                  ------------------

Case:             Medstar v. Becton Dickinson
Court:            U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey
Date Filed:       May 18, 2006
                  ------------------

Case:             The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale
                  v. Becton Dickinson and Company
Court:            U.S. District Court, Southern District of
                  New York
Date Filed:       March 28, 2007

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits
seek monetary damages. These antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.

On July 30, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with the
Hospital Plaintiffs, which agreement has been preliminarily
approved and is subject to final approval by the court following
notice to potential class members, providing for the payment by
the Company of $22 million, which amount has been deposited into
a settlement fund, in exchange for a release by all potential
class members of the indirect purchaser claims related to the
products and acts enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal of
the case with prejudice. The Company recognized the $22 million
charge from this pending litigation settlement in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2013. The Company currently cannot
estimate the range of reasonably possible losses with respect to
these class action matters beyond the $22 million settlement.


BECTON DICKINSON: To Appeal Verdict in RTI's Non-Patent Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company plans to appeal the jury's verdict
with respect to certain non-patent claims filed against it by
Retractable Technologies, Inc., according to Becton's Feb. 10,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In June 2007, Retractable Technologies, Inc. ("RTI") filed a
complaint against the Company under the caption Retractable
Technologies, Inc. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action
No. 2:07-cv-250, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas).
RTI alleges that the BD IntegraTM syringes infringe patents
licensed exclusively to RTI. In its complaint, RTI also alleges
that the Company engaged in false advertising with respect to
certain of the Company's safety-engineered products in violation
of the Lanham Act; acted to exclude RTI from various product
markets and to maintain its market share through, among other
things, exclusionary contracts in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws; and engaged in unfair competition. In January
2008, the court severed the patent and non-patent claims into
separate cases, and stayed the non-patent claims during the
pendency of the patent claims at the trial court level. RTI seeks
money damages and injunctive relief. On April 1, 2008, RTI filed
a complaint against BD under the caption Retractable
Technologies, Inc. and Thomas J. Shaw v. Becton Dickinson and
Company (Civil Action No.2:08-cv-141, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas). RTI alleges that the BD IntegraTM
syringes infringe another patent licensed exclusively to RTI. RTI
seeks money damages and injunctive relief. On August 29, 2008,
the court ordered the consolidation of the patent cases.

On November 9, 2009, at a trial of these consolidated cases, the
jury rendered a verdict in favor of RTI on all but one of its
infringement claims, but did not find any willful infringement,
and awarded RTI $5 million in damages. On May 19, 2010, the court
granted RTI's motion for a permanent injunction against the
continued sale by the Company of its BD IntegraTM products in
their current form, but stayed the injunction for the duration of
the Company's appeal. At the same time, the court lifted a stay
of RTI's non-patent claims. On July 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court judgment that
the Company's 3ml BD Integra  products infringed the asserted RTI
patents and affirmed the District Court judgment of infringement
against the Company's discontinued 1ml BD Integra products. On
October 31, 2011, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied
RTI's request for an en banc rehearing. In January 2013, RTI's
petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court was denied. BD's
motion for further proceedings on damages was denied by the
District Court on the grounds that the Court did not have
authority to modify the $5 million damage award. BD has appealed
this ruling to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 19, 2013, a jury returned a verdict against BD with
respect to certain of RTI's non-patent claims. The verdict was
unfavorable to BD with respect to RTI's Lanham Act claim and
claim for attempted monopolization based on deception in the
safety syringe market. The jury awarded RTI $113.5 million for
its attempted monopolization claim (which will be trebled and
attorneys' fees added to under the antitrust statute). The Court
will determine whether to award equitable relief under the Lanham
Act including disgorgement. The jury's verdict rejected RTI's
monopolization claims in the markets for safety syringes,
conventional syringes and safety IV catheters; its attempted
monopolization claims in the markets for conventional syringes
and safety IV catheters; and its claims for contractual restraint
of trade and exclusive dealing in the markets for safety
syringes, conventional syringes and safety IV catheters. In
connection with the verdict, the Company recorded a pre-tax
charge of approximately $341 million in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2013. The Company plans to appeal the jury's verdict.


BUSH ROSS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Roundtree, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Bush Ross, P.A., Case No. 8:14-cv-00357-JDW-AEP (M.D.
Fla., February 11, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com
                  mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale Thomas Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC
          201 N Armenia Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 251-5500
          Facsimile: (813) 251-3675
          E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com

               - and -

          Edward O. Savitz, Esq.
          BUSH ROSS, PA
          1801 N Highland Ave.
          PO Box 3913
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-9255
          Facsimile: (813) 223-9620
          E-mail: esavitz@bushross.com


CHINA GREEN: Preparing Settlement Papers in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a securities suit filed against China Green
Agriculture, Inc. are currently in the process of documenting a
$2.5 million settlement, according to the company's Feb. 10,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the
"Nevada Federal Court") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 12, 2009 and September 1, 2010.
The current version of the complaint alleges that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, by making material misstatements and omissions in the
Company's financial statements, securities offering documents,
and related disclosures during the class period.  On October 7,
2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and
to strike portions of it.

On November 2, 2012, the Nevada Federal Court issued an order
dismissing the claims for violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants and
dismissing certain individual defendants from the complaint and
allowing the claims for violations of section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to continue with respect to
the Company and certain of the individual defendants.  The Nevada
Federal Court also denied the defendants' motion to strike.  The
parties to the securities class action held mediation on March 7,
2013, which led to an agreement in principle to settle the case
for a payment of $2.5 million by the Company's insurers in
exchange for a release of all claims against all defendants. The
parties are currently in the process of documenting the
settlement.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Partially Dismisses "Thomas" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss the case styled KAREN THOMAS and LISA
LIDDLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLSALE CORPORATION, Defendant,
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-02908-EJD, (N.D. Cal.)

Karen Thomas and Lisa Liddle filed this putative class action
against Cotsco alleging that several of the Defendant's food
products have been improperly labeled so as to amount to
misbranding and deception in violation of several California and
federal laws.  The Plaintiffs argued that the following
representations on the packaging of Defendant's food products
were unlawful and/or misleading: (1) nutrient content claims; (2)
claims about antioxidant content; (3) "no sugar added" claims;
(4) health claims; (5) "0 grams trans fat" or "no trans fat"
claims; (6) "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") claims; (7) synthetic
chemical content omissions; (8) "preservative free" claims and
omissions about preservative content; and (9) slack-filled
packaging.

Plaintiff Thomas' claim is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff
Liddle's claim regarding evaporated cane juice is dismissed with
leave to amend, ruled Judge Davila in his March 31, 2014 Order, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/6MD8RHfrom
Leagle.com.

Karen Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt
& Associates, David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Don Barrett, P.A. &
Guy Gladstone Fisher.

Lisa Liddle, Plaintiff, represented by David Malcolm McMullan,
Jr., Don Barrett, P.A., Guy Gladstone Fisher & Ben F. Pierce
Gore, Pratt & Associates.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda L.
Groves, Winston & Strawn LLP, Luciona Johnson, Winston & Strawn
LLP & Sean D. Meenan, Winston and Strawn.


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Maranda" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Maranda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Credit Control, LLC and Bureaus Investment Group
Portfolio No. 15, Case No. 1:14-cv-00081-ML-PAS (D.R.I.,
February 11, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C.
          681 Smith St., Suite 201
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 272-2177
          Facsimile: (401) 537-9185
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William R. Landry, Esq.
          BLISH & CAVANAGH, LLP
          30 Exchange Terrace
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 831-8900
          Facsimile: (401) 490-7640
          E-mail: wrl@blishcavlaw.com


CREDIT PROTECTION: Court Denies Motion to Strike in "Peters" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Peters, Plaintiff, v. Credit Protection Association
LP, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-767, (S.D. Ohio) is a putative
class action filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the FCC rules promulgated under that Act. Mr. Peters alleges
that CPA, a debt collector, violated the law by making artificial
voice or prerecorded voice calls to him, and others similarly
situated, without obtaining prior express consent. Previously,
Mr. Peters filed a motion to strike affirmative defenses set
forth in CPA's original answer to the complaint. In its pretrial
order issued December 4, 2013, the Court granted CPA leave to
file an amended answer and mooted the motion to strike. On
December 5, 2013, CPA filed an amended answer. On December 26,
2013, Mr. Peters filed a second motion to strike.

In a March 17, 2014 Opinion and Order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/uTL7DOfrom Leagle.com,  Magistrate
Judge Terence P. Kemp concluded that the Court is not persuaded
that Mr. Peters will be faced with a significant discovery burden
if the motion to strike is not granted. Accordingly, the second
motion to strike is denied.

Michael R Peters, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Robert Freytag
-- dfreytag@meyerwilson.com -- & Kendra Lynn Carpenter.

Credit Protection Association LP, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey Charles Turner, Surdk Dowd & Turner Co LPA, Jennifer
Kirby, Surdyk Dowd & Turner, Co. LPA & Justin Penn --
jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


CVS PHARMACY: Removed "McCoy" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Donatus McCoy v. CVS Pharmacy
Inc., Case No. BC532815, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01070-PSG-PJW to
the proceeding.

The case alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY AND SMITH LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark Easton Earnest, Esq.
          Robert A. Naeve, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
          E-mail: mearnest@jonesday.com
                  rnaeve@jonesday.com


DFC GLOBAL: No Certification Yet in Suit v. NMM, Dollar Financial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cases filed against National Money Mart Company and Dollar
Financial Group, Inc. in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from NMM in Alberta, Canada have not been certified as
class actions, according to DFC Global Corp.'s Feb. 10, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2003 and 2006, purported class actions were brought against
NMM and Dollar Financial Group, Inc. in the Court of Queen's
Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who
obtained short-term loans from NMM in Alberta, alleging, among
other things, that the charge to borrowers in connection with
such loans was usurious under Canadian federal law (the "Alberta
Litigation"). The actions seek restitution and damages, including
punitive damages. In April 2010, the plaintiffs in both actions
indicated that they would proceed with their claims. Demands for
arbitration were served on the plaintiff in each of the actions,
and NMM has filed motions to enforce the arbitration clause and
to stay the actions. NMM's motions to compel arbitration and to
stay the actions were dismissed. Money Mart appealed those
decisions and in July 2013, the Court of Appeal dismissed NMM's
appeal. In September 2013, Money Mart filed an application for
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but on January
30, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the application for
leave to appeal. To date, neither case has been certified as a
class action. The Company is defending these actions vigorously.


DFC GLOBAL: Appeal to Pursue Arbitration Under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------
The court is taking under advisement an appeal by DFC Global to
pursue arbitration in lawsuits filed against National Money Mart
Company and Dollar Financial Group, Inc. in Manitoba on behalf of
a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term loans,
according to DFC's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In 2004, an action was filed against NMM in Manitoba on behalf of
a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from
NMM. In early February 2012, a separate action was filed against
NMM and Dollar Financial Group, Inc. in Manitoba on behalf of a
purported class of consumers which substantially overlaps with
the purported class in the 2004 action. In April 2013, NMM filed
a motion to enforce the arbitration/mediation terms in the second
action. In July 2013, the Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration. The Company is evaluating an appeal to the appellate
court. In October 2013, Money Mart filed an appeal with the
appellate court. The appellate court held a hearing on January
10, 2014 on Money Mart's appeal and is taking the matter under
advisement. The allegations in each of these actions are
substantially similar to those in the Alberta Litigation and, to
date, neither action has been certified as a class action. The
Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.


DFC GLOBAL: Has C$21.6MM Accrued Liabilities in Canadian Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, an aggregate of approximately C$21.6
million is included in the accrued liabilities of DFC Global
Corp. relating to the purported Canadian class action proceedings
pending in Alberta and Manitoba and for the settled class actions
in Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland that were settled by the Company in 2010, according
to DFC's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The settlements in those class action proceedings consisted of a
cash component and vouchers to the class members for future
services. The component of the accrual that relates to vouchers
is approximately C$11.5 million, the majority of which is
expected to be non-cash. Although the company believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the claims in the purported class
proceedings in Alberta and Manitoba and intend vigorously to
defend against such remaining pending claims, the ultimate cost
of resolution of such claims may exceed the amount accrued at
December 31, 2013 and additional accruals may be required in the
future. During the three and six months ended December 31, 2013,
the Company applied C$6.4 million and C$9.3 million,
respectively, of credits awarded under the class action
settlements against defaulted loan balances, which resulted in a
corresponding decrease to the provision for loan losses.


DFC GLOBAL: Expects Lead Plaintiff Named in Penn. Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DFC Global Corp.'s expects the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to appoint a lead plaintiff
in a securities suit filed against it, according to the company's
Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In November 2013, the Company was served with a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit filed against it and certain of
its senior executives in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"). The complaint,
which purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 28, 2011
and August 22, 2013, alleges violations of federal securities
laws regarding disclosures made by the Company with respect to
its compliance with U.K. regulatory requirements, U.K. lending
practices, and its earnings guidance during the relevant period.
The deadline to file motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in
the purported class action lawsuit was January 21, 2014. As of
that date, three separate plaintiffs filed motions for lead
plaintiff status. On or about March 1, 2014, it is expected that
the Court will appoint a party as lead plaintiff. The complaint
seeks unspecified monetary and other relief. The Company believes
that the complaint is without merit and intends to defend against
it vigorously.


DIAMOND FOODS: Warrant Exercise Accord Excludes Settlement Shares
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods, Inc. entered into a Warrant Exercise Agreement
that provides that the Purchaser agree not to acquire or
beneficially own more than 30% of the outstanding Common Stock of
Diamond, including the shares issuable upon exercise of the
Warrant and the shares to be issued pursuant to the settlement of
the private securities class action under the caption In re
Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litigation, Master File No. 11-
cv-05386 WHA, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In connection with Diamond Foods, Inc.'s planned refinancing of
its senior unsecured notes due 2020 ("Notes") and existing
indebtedness outstanding under its senior secured credit facility
("Refinancing"), on February 9, 2014, Diamond entered into a
Warrant Exercise Agreement ("Agreement") with OCM PF/FF
Adamantine Holdings, Ltd. (a subsidiary of Oaktree Capital
Management, L.P.) ("Purchaser"), pursuant to which Purchaser
agreed to exercise in full its warrant to purchase an aggregate
of 4,420,859 shares of Diamond Common Stock ("Warrant") by paying
in cash the exercise price of approximately $44.2 million less a
cash exercise and contractual modification inducement fee of
$15.0 million. Diamond intends to apply the net proceeds of
approximately $29.2 million to repay the Notes and other
indebtedness. The Warrant was issued to Purchaser in connection
with the Securities Purchase Agreement, dated May 22, 2012
("Securities Purchase Agreement"), under which Diamond issued the
Notes.

In addition, the Agreement provides that:

(i) So long as Purchaser and/or its affiliates hold at least 10%
of Diamond's outstanding Common Stock, Purchaser will have the
right to nominate one member of Diamond's Board of Directors.

(ii) Until the later of (a) twelve months after the Purchaser no
longer has the right to nominate a member of Diamond's Board of
Directors or (b) twelve months after any director nominated by
Purchaser under the Agreement or the Securities Purchase
Agreement no longer serves as a director, Purchaser and its
affiliates agree not to: acquire or beneficially own more than
30% of the outstanding Common Stock of Diamond, including the
shares issuable upon exercise of the Warrant and the shares to be
issued pursuant to the settlement of the private securities class
action under the caption In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 11-cv-05386 WHA; commence or support
any tender offer for Diamond Common Stock; make or participate in
any solicitation of proxies to vote or seek to influence any
person with respect to voting its Diamond Common Stock; publicly
announce a proposal or offer concerning any extraordinary
transaction with Diamond; form, join or participate in a group
for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting or disposing of any
Diamond securities; take any actions that could reasonably be
expected to require Diamond to make a public announcement
regarding the possibility of such an acquisition, tender offer or
proxy solicitation; enter into any agreements with a third party
regarding any such prohibited actions; or request Diamond to
amend or waive such provisions. Purchaser and its affiliates may,
confidentially and in good faith, propose transactions to
Diamond's Board of Directors or officers and Purchaser's designee
on Diamond's Board of Directors may, confidentially and in the
good faith performance of his duties as a director, discuss
proposals made by Diamond or a third party concerning any
extraordinary transaction involving Diamond, its securities or
assets. If Purchaser or its affiliates transfer Diamond shares
issued upon exercise of the Warrant which would result in the
transferee, its affiliates or any group in which it or they is a
member holding more than 20% of the outstanding Common Stock of
Diamond, then such transferee, as a condition to such transfer,
must deliver a written agreement to Diamond confirming that it is
subject to the prohibitions described in this paragraph.

(iii) Upon the closing of the transactions contemplated by the
Agreement, the Securities Purchase Agreement, and Diamond's
obligations thereunder, will terminate.

(iv) Subject to customary closing conditions, the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement will close simultaneously with, and
contingent upon, the Refinancing.

The Common Stock issuable to the Purchaser upon exercise of the
Warrant will be issued in a private placement pursuant to
exemptions from the registration requirements of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act") in reliance on the
exemption provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.
Diamond will rely on this exemption from registration based in
part on the representations made by the Purchaser in the
Agreement. The Common Stock issuable upon exercise of the Warrant
is covered by a Registration Rights Agreement entered into on May
29, 2012 in connection with the Securities Purchase Agreement,
which agreement is described in Diamond's Current Report on Form
8-K filed on May 23, 2012 and is filed as Exhibit 4.4 to
Diamond's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 29, 2012.


DLJ MORTGAGE: Court OKs Bid to Modify Certified Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, On
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., CREDIT SUISSE MANAGEMENT, LLC, f/k/a
CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION,
ANDREW A. KIMURA, THOMAS ZINGALLI, JEFFREY A. ALTABEF, MICHAEL A.
MARRIOTT, EVELYN ECHEVARRIA, and CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA)
LLC, Defendants, NO. 08 CIV. 5653 (PAC), (S.D. N.Y.),  Lead
Plaintiff New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund moved to modify the
previously certified class of plaintiffs by adding purchasers of
Home Equity Mortgage Trust (HEMT) Series 2007-2 Certificates.
Defendants objected on the grounds that the 2007-2 Offering was a
"fundamentally different deal" from the one already certified,
and because individual questions such as investor knowledge and
loss causation would predominate over common questions.

District Judge Paula A. Crotty, in an Opinion and Order entered
on March 17, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/SVHjgsfrom Leagle.com, granted the motion to modify
the certified class.

"Securities cases easily satisfy the superiority requirement of
Rule 23," notes Judge Crotty. "The Court's prior analysis of
superiority remains apt for this motion:

The amounts at stake for some potential class members is not
enough to justify an individual action -- as a result, such
class
members have an interest in moving forward as a class. In
addition, neither party has identified any other pending
litigation regarding this controversy, nor is there any reason
to
believe that the Southern District of New York is not a
desirable
forum for such a class action. Lastly, as securities actions
such
as this are commonly brought as class actions, there does not
seem to be any particular difficulty in administering such an
action."

The addition of the claims regarding the 2007-2 Offering does not
alter this analysis, Judge Crotty held. Accordingly, the Court
found pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) that "a class action is superior
to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy."

New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, Lead Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel Brett Rehns, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C.,
Kenneth Mark Rehns, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C.,
Richard A Speirs, Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, Christopher
Lometti, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Joel Paul
Laitman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Matthew B.
Kaplan, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michael Benjamin
Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Stephen
Douglas Bunch, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Steven
Jeffrey Toll, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Andrew A. Kimura, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Q. Smith,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Jennifer Hurley McGay, Bingham McCutchen
LLP, Scott E. Eckas, Bingham McCutchen LLP & Susan Louise
Hoffman, Bingham McCutchen LLP.

Thomas Zingalli, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Q. Smith,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Jennifer Hurley McGay, Bingham McCutchen
LLP, Scott E. Eckas, Bingham McCutchen LLP & Susan Louise
Hoffman, Bingham McCutchen LLP.

Jeffrey A. Altabef, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Q. Smith,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Jennifer Hurley McGay, Bingham McCutchen
LLP, Scott E. Eckas, Bingham McCutchen LLP & Susan Louise
Hoffman, Bingham McCutchen LLP.

Michael A. Marriott, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Q. Smith,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Jennifer Hurley McGay, Bingham McCutchen
LLP, Scott E. Eckas, Bingham McCutchen LLP & Susan Louise
Hoffman, Bingham McCutchen LLP.

Evelyn Echevarria, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Q. Smith,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Jennifer Hurley McGay, Bingham McCutchen
LLP, Scott E. Eckas, Bingham McCutchen LLP & Susan Louise
Hoffman, Bingham McCutchen LLP.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA), LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey Q. Smith, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Jennifer Hurley McGay,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Scott E. Eckas, Bingham McCutchen LLP &
Susan Louise Hoffman, Bingham McCutchen LLP.

DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Q.
Smith, Bingham McCutchen LLP & Susan Louise Hoffman, Bingham
McCutchen LLP.

Credit Suisse Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Q. Smith, Bingham McCutchen LLP & Susan Louise Hoffman, Bingham
McCutchen LLP.

Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System, Intervenor
Plaintiff, represented by James Abram Harrod, III, Wolf Popper
LLP, Matthew Tucker Insley-Pruitt, Wolf Popper LLP & Robert Scott
Plosky, Wolf Popper LLP.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Motion to Junk Retirement System Suit Heard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Pennsylvania state court held a hearing on the defendants'
supplemental motion to dismiss the case Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et al., according to
Education Management Corporation's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court
located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Company is named as a nominal
defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's violation of the U.S.
Department of Education's prohibition on paying incentive
compensation to admissions representatives, engaging in improper
recruiting tactics in violation of Title IV of the HEA and
accrediting agency standards, improper classification of job
placement data for graduates of its schools and failure to
satisfy the U.S. Department of Education's financial
responsibility standards. The Company previously received two
demand letters from the plaintiff which were investigated by a
Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and found
to be without merit.

The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the
same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012.
The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 17, 2012. On July 16, 2013, the
Court dismissed the claims that the Company engaged in improper
recruiting tactics and mismanaged the Company's financial well-
being with prejudice and found that the Special Litigation
Committee could conduct a supplemental investigation of the
plaintiff's claims related to incentive compensation paid to
admissions representatives and graduate placement statistics. The
Special Litigation Committee filed supplemental reports on
October 15, 2013 and January 9, 2014, finding no support for the
incentive compensation and graduate placement statistic claims.
The Court held a hearing on the defendants' supplemental motion
to dismiss the case on January 29, 2014.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Penn. Court Stays "Bushansky" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted a motion by Education Management Corporation to stay the
case Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. in light of the
ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss an Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System case, according to the company's
Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action
captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed
against certain of the directors of the Company in federal
district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The
Company is named as a nominal defendant in the case. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary
obligations to the Company's shareholders due to the Company's
use of improper recruiting, enrollment admission and financial
aid practices and violation of the U.S. Department of Education's
prohibition on the payment of incentive compensation to
admissions representatives. The Company previously received a
demand letter from the plaintiff which was investigated by a
Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and found
to be without merit. The Company believes that the claims set
forth in the complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. The Company and the named director
defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the
resolution of the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System
shareholder derivative case or, alternatively, dismiss the case
on October 19, 2012. On August 5, 2013, the Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the case in light of the ruling on the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System case.


ELCO LANDMARK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiha Glaster, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees v. ELCO Landmark Residential Management, LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00245-MHH (N.D. Ala., February 11, 2014) alleges
that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked
in excess of 40 hours per week and the Defendant did not pay him
and the proposed class overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ELCO Landmark Residential Management, LLC, owns and manages three
separate apartment properties, and is a corporation doing
business in Jefferson County and Shelby County, Alabama.  The
Defendant's three apartment complexes in Alabama are located in
Magnolia Glen, Deerfield and Lancaster Place.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Scott Harwell, Esq.
          HARWELL LAW FIRM LLC
          1063 Narrows Way, Suite A
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 980-1445
          Facsimile: (205) 408-1226
          E-mail: Scott@HarwellLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anna Curry Gualano, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          420 20th Street N, Suite 2300
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 421-4783
          Facsimile: (205) 449-9816
          E-mail: agualano@littler.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: No Certification Yet in Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
No class has been certified in the suit Smith v. The First
Marblehead Corp. et al., Civ. A. No. 13-cv-12121-PBS filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 28, 2013, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against FMD, Daniel Meyers, FMD's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the FMD Board of Directors, and Kenneth Klipper,
FMD's Chief Financial Officer and one of FMD's Managing
Directors. The action is entitled Smith v. The First Marblehead
Corp. et al., Civ. A. No. 13-cv-12121-PBS (D. Mass.). The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in various SEC filings, press releases and other
public statements concerning  the company's corporate income tax
filings. The complaint alleges various claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such other
relief as the court may deem just and proper. No class has been
certified in the action.


FONALITY INC: Fails to Provide Proper Pay Check Stubs, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Napolitano, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fonality, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01061-R-RZ (C.D. Cal., February 11,
2014) accuses the Company of failure to provide proper pay check
stubs, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Napolitano was employed as a "Tier II Technical Support
Engineer," whose primary job duty was troubleshooting and
customer support of the Defendant's product lines.

Fonality, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business in the
County of Los Angeles, state of California.  The Company is
headquartered in Plano, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
          Megan E. Ross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-9171
          Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
          E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com
                  mross@michaeltracylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Marc Paley, Esq.
          Christopher A. Crosman, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: apaley@seyfarth.com
                  ccrosman@seyfarth.com


FRESH & EASY: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminarily Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered an
order:

   i) preliminarily approving the settlement agreement between
Old FENM Inc, et al., and the California Wage and Hour Class
Plaintiffs;

  ii) certifying a class of wage and hour employee claimants for
settlement purposes only;

iii) appointing The Cooper Law Firm P.C. and Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as co-lead class counsel; and the law firms
of (a) The Carter Law Firm, (b) Aegis Law Firm, P.C., (c) Mahoney
Law Group, and (d) Jose Garay, APLC as class counsel; and

  iv) appointing Deanna Weatherspoon, Rene F. Lina, Yessenia
Martinez and Dandre Jackson as class representatives.

The Class is comprised of all non-exempt, non-managerial employee
who worked at or reported to any of the Debtors' California
Retail Stores or the Debtors' Food Production Facility, Campus
Kitchen Facility or Distribution Center in Riverside, California
between April 9, 2006 and Nov. 26, 2013 and who will not timely
request to opt out of the Class.

Objections and other responses to the final approval of the
settlement agreement, attorney's fees, costs and expenses and
class representative enhancements must be submitted by May 15.

If a class member choose not to be bound by the settlement
agreement, hid or her completed and executed opt out form must be
file by May 15.  Prior to the fairness hearing, counsel for the
debtors will file a declaration attesting to the service of
notice of the settlement agreement to the appropriate federal and
state officials.  No final order approving the settlement
agreement will be entered until all applicable statutory notice
periods gave expired.

The Court will conduct a fairness hearing on June 26, at 2:00
p.m.

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc., and its affiliate filed
Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 13-12569 and
13-12570) on Sept. 30, 2013.  The Debtors closed, on or about
Nov. 26, 2013, the sale of about 150 supermarkets plus a
production facility in Riverside, California, to Ron Buckle's
Yucaipa Cos.  Pursuant to the sale terms, the bankruptcy company
changed its name, and the name of the case, to Old FENM Inc.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Calif. Lawsuit Over JASON Brand in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated suit filed against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California over the JASON brand personal care products is at the
discovery phase, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit
organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County against the Company. The complaint
alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics brand and
JASON brand personal care products used prior to the Company's
implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated
certain California statutes. Defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed
putative class action containing substantially identical
allegations concerning only the JASON brand personal care
products. The consolidated actions seek an award for damages,
injunctive relief, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. These
consolidated lawsuits are currently at the discovery phase.


HALLWOOD GROUP: Has Agreement to Settle Merger Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The Hallwood Group Incorporated entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement in a suit related to its planned merger, according to
the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 23, 2013, Gary L. Sample ("Plaintiff") filed a
purported class and derivative action in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware (the "Court") against the parties to the
Merger Agreement and certain directors and officers of the
Company (collectively, the "Defendants"), asserting, among other
things, that the Original Merger Consideration was unfair and did
not reflect the true value of the Company and all of its assets
(the "Litigation").

On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff and the Defendants (together, the
"Parties") entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the
"Stipulation"), by and through their respective attorneys,
whereby the Parties agreed that, in order to resolve the
Litigation, the parties to the Merger Agreement would, among
other actions, amend the Merger Agreement to increase the Merger
Consideration by $3.00 per share, from $10.00 per Share to $13.00
per Share, less any incentive fee and attorneys' fees that may be
awarded by the Court to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel in
accordance with the Stipulation (the "Increased Merger
Consideration"). The Defendants specifically deny that they have
engaged in any wrongdoing, deny that they committed any violation
of law, deny that they breached any fiduciary duties, and deny
liability of any kind to Plaintiff, the Company, or its
stockholders. The Increased Merger Consideration will be paid if
the settlement set forth in the Stipulation (the "Settlement") is
approved by the Court and the Merger is consummated pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement as amended by the Second
Amendment to the Merger Agreement, which was entered into by the
Company, Parent, and Merger Sub as of February 7, 2014 (the
"Second Amendment").

The Board of Directors of the Company, by affirmative vote of all
of the members of the Board of Directors of the Company other
than Mr. Gumbiner, acting upon the unanimous recommendation of
the Special Committee, has (i) reaffirmed its original
determination that the Merger is substantively and procedurally
fair to the Company's minority and unaffiliated stockholders;
(ii) declared that it is advisable and in the best interests of
the Company and its minority stockholders that the Increased
Merger Consideration be accepted in connection with the
Settlement in order to resolve the Litigation and as an
additional benefit to the Company's minority stockholders if the
Settlement is approved by the Court and the Merger is consummated
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement as amended by the
Second Amendment; (iii) approved the execution, delivery and
performance of the Second Amendment; and (iv) resolved to
recommend adoption by the stockholders of the Company of the
Merger Agreement as amended by the Second Amendment.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court, all known and unknown
claims against the Defendants relating to the Litigation, the
Merger, the Settlement, and investments in securities issued by
the Company between November 6, 2012 and the date of the Merger
will be released, including derivative claims. If the Court does
not approve the Settlement, the Settlement and any actions to be
taken with respect to the Settlement will be of no further force
or effect and will be null and void, provided, however, that any
amendment to the Merger Agreement entered into by the parties
thereto shall remain in effect. In the event that the Court does
not approve the Settlement, the parties to the Merger Agreement
have agreed to proceed with the consummation of the Merger based
on the Original Merger Consideration of $10.00 per Share, without
the $3.00 per Share increase to the Merger Consideration
contemplated by the Second Amendment, which would involve the
resolicitation of stockholder approval at such price.

The Company has filed a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC
relating to the holding of a special meeting of its stockholders
for the adoption of Merger Agreement. In the near future, the
Company expects to file with the SEC, and subsequently mail to
its stockholders, a definitive proxy statement, and currently
expects that the special meeting of stockholders will be held in
March or April 2014.


IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces N.Y. Suit Due to Financial Restatement
-------------------------------------------------------------
IEC Electronics Corp. faces an amended complaint in a
consolidated shareholder class action pending in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, according
to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27,
2013.

The Company restated its financial statements.  In connection
with the restatement, the Audit Committee conducted an
independent review of the underlying facts and circumstances, and
the Company is responding to a formal investigation by the staff
of the SEC relating to the restatement and other matters and an
amended complaint in a consolidated shareholder class action
originally filed June 28, 2013 in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and its
CEO and CFO seeking unspecified compensatory damages. While the
Company believes the complaint is without merit, it is too early
to determine the potential outcome.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Motiva Labor Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. is positioning cases filed
against it in relation to contract work in the Port Arthur, Texas
Motiva plant to obtain a dismissal of all claims, according to
the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The Company is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking
class action certification that were filed between August 29,
2012 and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas. Each of these cases is among several
others filed by Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors working
in the Port Arthur, Texas Motiva plant on various projects over
the last few years. The claims are based on alleged failure to
compensate for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning
safety wear and other activities.

It does not appear the Company will face significant exposure for
any unpaid wages. In a separate earlier case based on the same
allegations, a federal district court ruled that the time spent
traveling on the busses is not compensable.

On January 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit upheld the district court's ruling finding no liability
for wages for time spent bussing into the facility, and on
October 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review
plaintiffs' appeal of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of their claims
for compensation for time spent bussing to the facility,
effectively reducing the Company's risk of liability on this
issue in its cases.  The company's investigation indicates that
all claims for time spent on other activities either were
inapplicable to the Company's employees or took place during
times for which the Company's employees were compensated. The
company filed responsive pleadings and, following initial
discovery, are positioning the cases to obtain a dismissal of all
claims. As of December 31, 2013, the company has not recorded a
reserve for this matter, as it believes the likelihood of  the
company's responsibility for damages is not probable and a
potential range of exposure is not estimable.


INTL FCSTONE: Settlement of Shareholder Suit to Cost $265,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement entered by INTL FCStone Inc. in a suit consolidated
with the complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County,
Missouri, if finally approved, would result in the Company
incurring a legal cost of $265,000 after consideration of
expected insurance coverage, according to the company's Feb. 10,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In August 2008, shareholders filed a derivative action against
FCStone and certain directors of FCStone in the Circuit Court of
Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Shareholders
subsequently filed an amended complaint in May 2009 to add claims
based upon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a
customer energy trading account. In July 2009, the same plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to amend the existing case to add a
purported class action claim on behalf of the holders of FCStone
common stock.

In July 2009, plaintiffs filed a purported shareholder class
action complaint against FCStone and its directors, as well as
the Company in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The
complaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in
connection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the
Company. This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated
complaint which does not assert any claims against the Company.

This complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone's and
the Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone's current and
former directors and officers and directly against the same
individuals. The Company, FCStone, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on multiple grounds. The parties to the
litigation have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter. This agreement was provisionally approved by the court on
December 4, 2013, and is expected to be finally approved on March
19, 2014. The agreement, if finally approved, would result in the
Company incurring a legal cost of $265,000 after consideration of
expected insurance coverage.


INTL FCSTONE: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. faces a securities suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On January 13, 2014, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, and claims that the Company has issued false and misleading
information concerning the Company's business and prospects. The
action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's shares between February 17, 2010 and
December 16, 2013. The Company believes the case is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Malpractice Claims in "Moll" Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In CHRISTIE MOLL v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., ET AL., SECTION "L"
(2), CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6086, (E.D. La.), before the Court is
Defendant Ochsner Health System's motion to dismiss based on
prematurity and Plaintiff Christie Moll's motion to remand.

District Judge Eldon E. Fallon granted Ochsner's motion to
dismiss and ordered that Ms. Moll's claims against Ocshner be
dismissed.
Ms. Moll's motion to remand was denied.

Judge Fallon, in his April 1, 2014 Order and Reasons, pointed out
that the face of the petition alleges claims of malpractice
against Ochsner.  He said those claims are premature because Ms.
Moll has not first complied with the applicable requirements of
the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA).  Ms. Moll cannot
state a claim against Ochsner at this time, and accordingly,
Ochsner was improperly joined, ruled Judge Fallon.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/Zy3Oh8from
Leagle.com.

Christie Moll, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andre Phillip LaPlace --
alaw@andrelaplace.com -- Law Offices of Andre P. LaPlace.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Defendant, represented by Quentin F.
Urquhart, Jr., Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Jessica
Davidson Miller, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, John
H. Beisner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Jonathan
D. Phelps, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Kelly G.
Juneau, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC.


IQ DATA: Sued in N.M. Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Jones, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., and The Reliant Group,
LLC dba The Courtyards, Case No. 1:14-cv-00130-KBM-RHS (D.N.M.,
February 11, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com

               - and -

          Anita Marie Kelley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANITA M. KELLY
          913-A Fifth Street NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 750-0265
          Facsimile: (505) 213-7258
          E-mail: amk@anitakelleylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer G. Anderson, Esq.
          MODRALL SPERLING ROEHL HARRIS & SISK PA
          PO Box 2168
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 848-1800
          Facsimile: (505) 848-1889
          E-mail: janderson@modrall.com

               - and -

          Kevin D. Pierce, Esq.
          MODRALL, SPERLING, ROEHL, HARRIS & SISK, PA
          500 Fourth Street NW, Suite 1000
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 848-1853
          Facsimile: (505) 848-9710
          E-mail: kdp@modrall.com


JBI INC: Funds Earmarked for Claims Admin. Too High, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones denied preliminary approval of a
settlement in HOWARD L. HOWELL, Lead Plaintiff, ELLISA PANCOE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JBI, INC., f/k/a 310 HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN
BORDYNUIK, and RONAL BALDWIN, JR., Defendants, NO. 3:11-CV-00545-
RCJ-WGC, (D. Nev.).

This securities fraud case arises out of Defendant JBI, Inc.'s
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934.  Lead Plaintiff Howard L. Howell and
Plaintiff Ellisa Pancoe brought suit on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all individuals damaged by these alleged
violations, and the Parties have reached a settlement.  The
Plaintiffs filed a motion to enter a proposed order (1) granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement; (2)
provisionally certifying the proposed settlement class; (3)
approving the proposed method and form of notice; and (4)
scheduling a final approval hearing.

In his order dated April 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/kmYA0Dfrom Leagle.com, Judge Jones denied the
request saying the Parties must justify the proposed allocation
of $200,000 (or 12.3% of the total Settlement Fund) for claims
administration.  He said an allocation for claims administration
is appropriate in this case.  However, the amount allocated must
be reasonable under the circumstances.  The judge said the
$200,000 appears unreasonably high.  Moreover, even if this is an
appropriate amount, the Court has no way of knowing it, because
the Parties have failed to even acknowledge, let alone justify,
the allocation in any of their moving papers, said Judge Jones.
Accordingly, to the extent that the Parties intend to amend their
filings to properly list the proposed allocation of
administrative expenses, they must also justify the amount
sought, said the Court.

Ellisa Pancoe, Plaintiff, represented by David C OMara, The OMara
Law Firm, P.C., Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy, GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, Michael M.
Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Robert V. Prongay,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Howard L. Howell, Plaintiff, represented by David C OMara, The
OMara Law Firm, P.C., Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP & Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Tim Amos, Movant, represented by Laurence M Rosen, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. & Patrick R. Leverty -- pat@levertylaw.com -- Leverty
& Associates, Chtd..

JBI, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard G. Campbell, Jr.,
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Bret F Meich, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP,
Katherine W. Wittenberg, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Michael R.
MacPhail, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

John Bordynuik, Defendant, represented by Richard G. Campbell,
Jr., Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Bret F Meich, Armstrong Teasdale,
LLP, Katherine W. Wittenberg, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Michael
R. MacPhail, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

Ronald Baldwin, Jr., Defendant, represented by Bret F Meich,
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Katherine W. Wittenberg, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, Michael R. MacPhail, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &
Richard G. Campbell, Jr., Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Ellis" Plaintiffs' Discovery Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned DIANA ELLIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 12-CV-03897-YGR (JCS), (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs Diana Ellis,
James Schillinger, and Ronald Lazar requested the production of a
letter that Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. sent to Chase's vendors on December 18, 2013. The
Vendors are not parties to this action. This discovery dispute
was initially presented to the judge presiding in this case,
Judge Gonzalez Rogers, in a joint letter brief dated January 14,
2014. Judge Gonzalez Rogers subsequently referred the matter to a
magistrate judge.  Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
ordered additional briefing.  Plaintiffs filed an opening brief,
which serves as a Motion to Compel.

In an order dated April 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Spero denied
the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel saying the Dec. 18 Letter is
irrelevant, and it is protected by the attorney work product and
common interest privileges. To the extent that the parties make
any other requests in their briefs on this issue, these requests
were also denied as moot.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/741JtEfrom
Leagle.com.

Diana Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Philip Pifko, Baron &
Budd, P.C., Andrew Cvitanovic, Cossich, Sumich, Parsiola and
Taylor, Charles B. Colvin, Daniel Alberstone, Baron Budd, P.C.,
David Allen Parsiola, John Van Nguyen, Kingsmill Riess, LLC,
Marguerite K. Kingsmill, Philip F Cossich, Jr & Roland K. Tellis,
Baron Budd, P.C..

James Schillinger, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Charles B. Colvin, Daniel Alberstone, Baron
Budd, P.C., John Van Nguyen, Kingsmill Riess, LLC, Marguerite K.
Kingsmill & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C..

Ronald Lazar, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Philip Pifko, Baron
& Budd, P.C., Charles B. Colvin, Daniel Alberstone, Baron Budd,
P.C., John Van Nguyen, Kingsmill Riess, LLC, Marguerite K.
Kingsmill & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C..

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jee Young You, Arnold & Porter LLP & Peter
Obstler, Arnold & Porter LLP.

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Jee Young
You, Arnold & Porter LLP & Peter Obstler, Arnold & Porter LLP.
Chase Home Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Jee Young You, Arnold & Porter LLP &
Peter Obstler, Arnold & Porter LLP.


KLEENCO MAINTENANCE: Class Suit Seeks Full Back Pay and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Trogdon, on behalf of himself and all Individuals
similarly situated v. Kleenco Maintenance & Construction, Inc.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-05057-PKH (W.D. Ark., February 11, 2014) seeks
full back pay, liquidated damages, interests, attorney's fees and
expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kleenco Maintenance & Construction, Inc., is a foreign for profit
corporation registered in Arkansas.  The Company is headquartered
in Alexandria, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristin L. Pawlik, Esq.
          George M. Rozzell, IV, Esq.
          KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, PLLC
          224 S. Second Street
          Rogers, AR 72756
          Telephone: (479) 621-0006
          Facsimile: (866) 559-9690
          E-mail: kpawlik@arkattorneys.com
                  grozzell@arkattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolyn B. Witherspoon, Esq.
          Melissa McJunkins Duke, Esq.
          CROSS, GUNTER, WITHERSPOON & GALCHUS, P.C.
          500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 371-9999
          Facsimile: (501) 371-0035
          E-mail: cspoon@cgwg.com
                  mduke@cgwg.com


LAMPS.COM INC: Removed "Awbrey" Class Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Kyle Awbrey v.
Lamps.com Inc., et al., Case No. BC530082, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
01046-MMM-VBK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan S. Fife, Esq.
          Sheldon E. Eisenberg, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 203-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1285
          E-mail: ryan.fife@dbr.com
                  sheldon.eisenberg@dbr.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs Can't Join Class Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL NO.
1917, CASE NO. C-07-5944-SC, (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs Old Comp
Inc., RadioShack Corp., Unisys Corp., and ViewSonic Corp., all
plaintiffs that had opted out of various settlement classes, have
moved to retract their exclusion from those settlement classes in
order to participate in the settlements. They "seek to streamline
this litigation by including their claims in the direct and
indirect purchaser settlement classes in the above-captioned
matter, thus avoiding additional costly opt-out actions against
the Defendants." The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) opposed
the request.

Senior District Judge Samuel Conti on April 1 declined to grant
the Movants' motion, because the Court finds that doing so in
this particular MDL could up-end the existing settlements and
derail those to come. Granting the Motion would encourage
uncertainty and disrupt the class action process, though the
Court notes that it finds no bad faith or gamesmanship in the
Movants' conduct in this case so far.  Moreover, the Court says
it is keenly aware of the drain on resources that opt-out cases
create. But the Movants consciously chose to pursue separate
litigations, and the Court declines to risk the collapse of the
parties' careful settlements at this point in the case.

The Court encouraged the parties to pursue settlements of their
own.

The April 1, 2014 ruling, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/jMEDFmfrom Leagle.com, relates to all direct
purchaser actions.

Crago, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Ashlei
Melissa Vargas, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Christopher Wilson,
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw LLP, Daniel D. Owen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.,
Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Esther L
Klisura, Sher Leff LLP, Jonathan Mark Watkins, Pearson Simon
Warshaw & Penny LLP, Patrick John Brady, Polsinelli Shughart,
P.C., Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, a California business,
Plaintiff, represented by Betty Lisa Julian, Cadio R. Zirpoli,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell, Nelson,
Schrimp, Pallios, Pache & Silva, Fred A. Silva, Damrell Nelson
Schrimp Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri
& Saveri Inc., Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Saveri & Saveri, Guido
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Kathy Lee Monday, Damrell, Nelson,
Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Richard Alexander Saveri,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Roger Martin Schrimp, Damrell Nelson
Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist
Vennum, PLLP.

Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R.
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Joseph W.
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Niki B. Okcu, AT&T
Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer
Richardson & Renick LLP, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Adam C.
Belsky, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP, Monique Alonso, Gross & Belsky LLP, Sarah Crowley, Gross
Belsky Alonso LLP & Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.
Jeffrey Figone, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law
Offices of Brian Barry, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph
M. Patane, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott,
LLP, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP & Veronica
Besmer, Besmer Law Firm.

Chad Klebs, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP,
Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Qianwei Fu, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Richard M. Hagstrom, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason &
Gette LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Lee
Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella
Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC, Lindsey H.
Taylor, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC,
Marisa C. Livesay, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
Francis M. Gregorek, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Carmen Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by James McManis, McManis
Faulkner, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Marwa Elzankaly, McManis, Faulkner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Samuel J. Nasto, a Nevada resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard,
Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Craig Stephenson, a New Mexico resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard,
Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

David G. Norby, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard,
Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

John Larch, a West Virginia resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard,
Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Gary Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson
& Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane,
Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law
Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch
Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis
Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch,
Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof,
Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Margaret Slagle, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Karon,
Goldman Scarlato and Karon, PC, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law
Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo
Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Mary Gilmore Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick &
Goldborough PLLC, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Barry Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Alioto, Sr.,
Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Daniel
R. Karon, Goldman Scarlato and Karon, PC, Daniel Joseph Mulligan,
St. James Recovery Services, P.C., Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki
LLP, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut & Cambronne, Joseph Michelangelo
Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut &
Cambronne & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Brian A. Luscher, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Alioto-
Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto
Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Robert James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC, Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Steven Ganz, a California resident, Plaintiff, represented by
John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper,
Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper &
Kirkham PC.

Dana Ross, a California resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law Group, Susan Gilah
Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Brigid Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth, Mansfield
Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M.
Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro
Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore & Brewer, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Southern Office Supply, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur
Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
Donna F. Solen, Mason Law Firm-Washington, Drew A. Carson, Miller
Goler Faeges, Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, Krishna B. Narine,
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler Faeges, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Meijer, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox
LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC,
Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K
Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan
Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers
& Masini PC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP,
Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Kevin Bruce Love,
Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Studio Spectrum, Inc., is a California business, Plaintiff,
represented by Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
David Nathan-Allen Sims, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn
Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Kory Pentland, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman
Law Corp, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Andrew J. Morganti, Milberg
LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jessica Lynn
Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J.
Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Brady Lane Cotton, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina
Diane Crow, Jinks, Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin &
Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Colleen Sobotka, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Christopher William Cantrell, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt, Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C.,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Robert Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C., Robert G. Methvin,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr,
McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Lynn W. Jinks,
Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson
PC.

Daniel Riebow, a Hawaii resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist &
Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer,
Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Travis Burau, a Iowa resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Andrew Kindt, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

James Brown, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Alan Rotman, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Ryan Rizzo, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Charles Jenkins, a Mississippi resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J.
Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael
Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum,
Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Daniel R. Hergert, a Nebraska resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Adrienne Belai, a New York resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Joshua Maida, a North Carolina resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Rosemary Ciccone, a Rhode Island resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Frank Warner, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Albert Sidney Crigler, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff,
represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric
D. Hoaglund, McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman
Horsley, King, Horsley & Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M.
Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock,
Hausfeld LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jayne Ann Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer
Lowenthal, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Daniel D. Cowen,
Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist &
Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer,
Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP & P.
John Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel
Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Craig C. Corbitt,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper &
Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph
Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Judith A. Zahid,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, KAG Law Group, Tracy
R. Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher Thomas
Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, David Nathan Lake,
Law Offices of David N. Lake, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of
Joseph M. Patane, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason &
Gette, LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

State of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael
Kerwin, Washington State Attorney General's Office, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Benjamin Daniel
Battles, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, James
M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Benjamin Daniel
Battles, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, James
M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by
Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, James
M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike
McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori
Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP,
Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos,
Perkins Coie, Joren Surya Bass, Perkins Coie LLP, Nicholas H.
Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Steven Douglas Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP, William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Peterson,
Susman Godfrey LLP, John Pierre Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny
William Carter, Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, N/A,
Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff
Stern LLP, Michael Lloyd Tuchin, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert J. Pfister, Klee, Tuchin,
Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, H. Lee
Godfrey, Susman Godfrey LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist &
Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer,
Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP &
Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Department of Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia
A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of
the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney
General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff, represented by
Patricia A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer,
Office of the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the
Attorney General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney
General, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James
M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura
Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon
Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi,
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig
Wildfang & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi
L.L.P..

Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David
Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth
Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang & Roman
M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Best Buy.com LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan,
Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T
Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter
PA, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A.
Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA,
Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner.

Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny
Nachwalter PA, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine
Garcia, James T Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny
Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner & Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA.

Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

Giovanni Constabile, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart
Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Gio's Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Schultze Agency Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski,
Kirby McInerney LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price
& Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Sharp Electronics Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Craig A
Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A.
Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Stephen E.
Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP.

Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP,
Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph
J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP.

Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston
& Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth
Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, Matthew D. Kent, Alston & Bird LLP, Melissa Mahurin
Whitehead, Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP,
Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James Matthew Wagstaffe,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn
Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird
LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Matthew D. Kent, Alston & Bird LLP,
Melissa Mahurin Whitehead, Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny,
Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James
Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P..

Sharp Corporation, Petitioner, represented by Colin C. West,
Bingham McCutchen LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., Defendant, represented by Joel
Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Austin Van Schwing,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.

Hitachi, Ltd., is a Japanese company, Defendant, represented by
Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Irico Group Corp., ("IGC") is a Chinese entity, Defendant,
represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.

Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., ("IDDC") is a Chinese entity,
Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

LG Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles &
Olson LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,
Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan
Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD &
PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP & William
David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Eva W. Cole,
Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo
A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Andrew R. Tillman, Paine
Tarwater Bickers & Tillman, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, David E. Yolkut,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges, Douglas L Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph Richard Wetzel, King &
Spalding, Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne
Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Molly M
Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant,
represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Aya
Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP,
Douglas L Wald, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White &
Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP,
Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case
LLP.

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Terry Calvani, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US
LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP,
Christine A. Laciak, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Craig
D. Minerva, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP.

LG Eletronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Hojoon Hwang, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & William David Temko,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L
Wald, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Stephen M. Ng,
Baker Botts LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,
Tiffany B. Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Charles M Malaise & Erik T.
Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, David Kendall Roberts,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin
Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, David Roberts, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP & Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian
T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny &
Meyers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin
Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, David Roberts, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and
McGee, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White
& Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C.
Cleveland, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Aya Kobori, White and
Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald,
Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J.
Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster,
White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland,
Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP,
Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent
Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and
Case LLP, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White
and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius
Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP,
Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Samuel J.
Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, Charise Naifeh,
White & Case LLP & Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L
Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory D. Hull, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn LLP, Steven
A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP & Molly M
Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP.

Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Aya Kobori, White and
Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent
Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and
Case LLP, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White
and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, David E.
Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn
LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara
Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne
Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly
Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf
LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn LLP, Steven
A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., ("Hitachi Displays") is a Japanese
company also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented
by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James
Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland
and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented by David Michael Lisi, Reed Smith LLP, Ethan E.
Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP & Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian
Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary
L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David
Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian
Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott
A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant,
represented by Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus
Deringer US LLP.
Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik &
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James
Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., "KPNV", Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Stephen M. Ng,
Baker Botts LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,
Tiffany B. Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Charles M Malaise & Erik T.
Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L
Wald, William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary
Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich,
Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles
and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin,
Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP & Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter
LLP.
MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil,
Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,
Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F.
Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B.
Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Eva
W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon
D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn
LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Diana
Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, James F.
Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara
Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello,
Winston & Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP.

Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Charles M Malaise & Erik
T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary
L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David
Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian
Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. LTD., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian
Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Samuel J.
Sharp.
Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas
L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius
Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White
and Case LLP, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig,
White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J.
Sharp, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White &
Case LLP.
Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White
and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E.
Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp & Charise
Naifeh, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White
and Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard
Lau, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent
Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC & Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP.

Technologies Displays Americas LLC, formerly known as Thomson
Displays Americas LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark C. Dosker,
Squire Sanders (US) LLP & Nathan Lane, III, Squire Sanders (US)
LLP.

Technicolor S.A, formerly known as Thomson S.A., Defendant,
represented by Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &
Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

Technicolor USA, Inc., formerly known as Thomson Consumer
Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by
Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC.
Viewsonic Corporation, Movant, represented by Daniel Allen Sasse,
Crowell & Moring LLP & Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring
LLP.

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC.
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC.
Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Interested Party, represented
by Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Calvin Lee Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker
Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Ryan M.
Hurley, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

Thomson S.A., Interested Party, represented by Calvin L. Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, Kathy L.
Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Ryan M. Hurley, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP.

State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio
Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office.
Douglas A. Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Company,
Inc. and related entities, and as Receiver for Petters Company,
LLC and related entities, Miscellaneous, represented by James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P..

Douglas A. Kelley, Miscellaneous, represented by Jessica Lynn
Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP.

Douglas A. Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Company,
Inc. and related entities, and as Receiver for Petters Company,
LLC and related entities, Miscellaneous, represented by William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

John R. Stoebner, Miscellaneous, represented by James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Jessica Lynn Meyer, Kelly
Laudon, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General, Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office
of the Illinois Attorney General & Blake L. Harrop, Office of the
Illinois Attorney General.

State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord,
Oregon Department of Justice.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Jallo" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Jallo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00325-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal., February 11,
2014) is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 South Doheny Drive, Suite 415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron R. Goldstein, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: agoldstein@perkinscoie.com


MILANEZZA LLC: Accused of Refusing to Pay Minimum Wages to Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Soley Davis, Juan Pablo Chavez Callau, Luis Cesar David Carbajal,
Eduardo E Cerrud, Jorge Esteban Suarez Acosta, Juliana Delancey
Trivino, Barbara Lisbetty Rodriguez Rojas, Branko Tomicic and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Milanezza,
LLC, Maximiliano D. Waicman and Marcos Moreno, Case No. 1:14-cv-
20521-JAL (S.D. Fla., February 11, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiffs' minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Milanezza, LLC is a limited liability company that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  The Individual Defendants
are corporate officers, owners or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          Christopher Nathaniel Cochran, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                  DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com
                  cnc02g@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert William Brock, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Nichols" Class Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Nichols, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00962 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2014) alleges
personal injury.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@kamberedelson.com
                  meisen@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 North LaSalle Street, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com


NATIONAL CORRECTIVE: Faces "Wynn" Class Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Wynn, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Corrective Group, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-00200-NBF (W.D. Pa., February 11, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard S. Rubb, Esq.
          434 Oliver Road
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Telephone: (412) 741-3021
          E-mail: bernierubb@aol.com


NATIONAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher McDonald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-00082-ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 11, 2014) alleges viola of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C.
          681 Smith St., Suite 201
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 272-2177
          Facsimile: (401) 537-9185
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com


NATROL INC: Wants 3 Glucosamine Suits Consolidated in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natrol, Inc. asked the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer three class action cases,
and any subsequently filed similar actions, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California before the
Honorable John F. Walter for consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The three cases are:

   (1) Mary Nowicki v. Natrol, Inc., No. 13-cv-03882 (N.D. Ill.),
       (Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr.), filed on May 24, 2013;

   (2) Linda Dao v. Natrol, Inc. d.b.a. Delaware Natrol, Inc.,
       No. 13-cv-2433 (S.D. Cal.), (Hon. Roger T. Benitez), filed
       on October 9, 2013; and

   (3) Troy Eisner v. Natrol, Inc., No. 13-cv-05831 (E.D.N.Y.),
       (Hon. Joanna Seybert), filed on October 23, 2013.

The consolidated case will be known as In Re Natrol, Inc.
Glucosamine Marketing Class Actions, MDL No. 2528.

Natrol contends that all of the actions involve complex questions
of fact, specifically, whether Natrol violated various state laws
relating to consumer fraud or unfair or deceptive business
practices, in the marketing and advertising of the health
benefits of Natrol's joint care products containing glucosamine
and chondroitin.  All of the complaints involve claims that
Natrol misrepresented the joint health benefits of its
Glucosamine Supplements.

The Central District of California is the most suitable location
for transfer because Natrol's headquarters is located in that
District, in Chatsworth, California, according to a brief filed
by the Company in support of its motion to transfer.  Natrol adds
that Judge John F. Walter in the Central District has the
experience necessary to handle the litigation since he presided
over a similar action, with similar allegations regarding
glucosamine products in Mojdeh Moheb v. Nutramax Laboratories,
Inc., No. 12-cv-3633, filed on April 26, 2012.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian A. Procel, Esq.
          Gene F. Williams, Esq.
          Diana F. Biason, Esq.
          MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-4400
          E-mail: bprocel@millerbarondess.com
                  gwilliams@millerbarondess.com
                  dbiason@millerbarondess.com


NATURE'S PATH: Court Rejects "Leonhart" Misbranding Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the case captioned
SUSAN LEONHART, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATURE'S PATH FOODS, INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-0492-EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

Nature's Path filed the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike.

Susan Leonhart filed the putative class action against Defendant
alleging that several of Defendant's products have been
improperly labeled so as to amount to misbranding and deception
in violation of several California and federal laws.

In his March 31, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Bp8Oswfrom Leagle.com, Judge Davila granted
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss saying the Plaintiff's claims are
dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff wishes to further
amend the complaint, the Court ordered that it be pled in
compliance with the pleading standards of Rules 8 and 9 and filed
within 15 days of the date of the order.

Susan Leonhart, Plaintiff, represented by Colin Harvey Dunn --
chd@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates & Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates.

Nature's Path Foods, Inc, Defendant, represented by William Lewis
Stern, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Morrison Foerster LLP.


PARAMETRIC SOUND: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The suit Vasek v. Parametric Sound Corp., Case No. 2:13-cv-02148-
JAD-GWF continues in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Following the Company's filing of a preliminary proxy statement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on November
4, 2013, amended consolidated complaints were filed on November
14, 2013 in the Nevada State Court Action and on November 19,
2013 in the California Action. These amended complaints
reiterated the same claims and sought the same relief as asserted
and sought in the original complaints.

On November 20, 2013, Shana Vasek, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, under the caption
Vasek v. Parametric Sound Corp., Case No. 2:13-cv-02148-JAD-GWF,
naming the same defendants, asserting substantially the same
allegations and seeking substantially the same relief as asserted
in a referenced consolidated action pending in Nevada state
court. In addition to asserting substantially the same claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting as asserted in
the consolidated action pending in Nevada state court, the
plaintiff in the federal court action asserts a claim for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9. The plaintiff in Vasek has not
yet served any of the defendants with process.


PLAZA RECOVERY: Faces "McDonald" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher McDonald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Plaza Recovery, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00083-ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 11, 2014) is brought pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C.
          681 Smith St., Suite 201
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 272-2177
          Facsimile: (401) 537-9185
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com


PQ NEW YORK: Le Pain Quotidien Ex-Servers Sue Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Mahalick, Anthony Scarsella and Stephan Ortiz, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PQ New York,
Inc., PQ Licensing S.A., PQ 933 Broadway, PQ Lincoln Square,
Inc., PQ UN, Inc., PQ Sixth Ave, Inc., PQ 550 Hudson, Inc., PQ
West 72nd, Inc. and John Does #1-47 d/b/a/ Le Pain Quotidien,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00899-WHP (S.D.N.Y.,
February 11, 2014) is brought on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former Le Pain Quotidien servers in the United States
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to them
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are former servers at the Defendants' Le Pain
Quotidien restaurants throughout New York City.

The Le Pain Quotidien restaurants are owned and operated by the
Defendants.  Le Pain Quotidien's headquarters is located in New
York City.  The Defendants operate together as a single business
enterprise consisting of approximately 53 Le Pain Quotidien
locations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Alison G. Lobban, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
                  lobban@peltonlaw.com
                  graham@peltonlaw.com


SEMPRIS LLC: Motion to Dismiss "Kist" 1st Amended Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark L. Wolf entered on April 1, 2014, an order in
MARCELLA KIST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SEMPRIS, LLC and DIGITAL RIVER, INC.,
Defendants, CIV. A. NO. 13-10262-MLW, (D. Mass.), a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/kQB9xVfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Wolf's order held, among other things, that:

1. Defendant Sempris, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III, IV
   and V of the First Amended Complaint and defendant Digital
   River, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
   Complaint, or, in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite
   Statement are denied.

2. By April 18, 2014, the parties must, as to individual
plaintiff
   Marcella Kist only, provide the automatic disclosures required
   by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and Rule 26.2(a)
of
   the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
   District of Massachusetts.

3. By May 12, 2014:

   (a) The parties must confer, discuss settlement, and submit a
       joint statement concerning a proposed pretrial schedule.

   (b) The parties must confer and will report, jointly if
       possible but separately if necessary, their respective
       positions concerning the appropriate deadline for any
       further amendment of the class action complaint, including
       any amendment to add other plaintiffs as putative class
       representatives, and whether they have reached an
agreement
       to settle this case and, if not, whether they wish to go
to
       mediation before this court or before a magistrate judge.

4. A scheduling conference will be held on May 27, 2014, at 3:00
   p.m.

Marcella Kist, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Alicia E. Hwang, Edelson
P.C., Christopher Dore, Edelson P.C., Rafey S. Balabanian,
Edelson PC, Steven L. Woodrow, Edelson LLC, and:

   David Pastor, Esq.
   Pastor Law Office, LLP
   63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Boston, MA 02110
   Telephone: (617) 742-9700
   Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
   Toll Free: (888) 999-1947

Sempris, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Brienne M. Letourneau, Jenner & Block LLP, Craig
C. Martin, Jenner & Block LLP, David Jimenez-Ekman, Jenner &
Block LLP, Gary R. Greenberg, Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Matthew R.
Devine, Jenner & Block LLP.

Digital River, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Christopher P. Sullivan, Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P., Lisa A. Furnald, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
L.L.P., Michael A. Geibelson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
L.L.P. & Morgia D. Holmes, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Understaffing Suit Settlement Funds Disbursed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An additional $1.0 million was distributed to the Humboldt County
District Attorney's Office and the remaining $3.0 million was
distributed to the class settlement fund in accordance with a
September 2010 settlement of a class action against Skilled
Healthcare Group, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In connection with the September 2010 settlement of the class
action litigation against Skilled and certain of its subsidiaries
related to, among other matters, alleged understaffing at certain
California skilled nursing facilities operated by Skilled's
subsidiaries (the "Humboldt County Action"), Skilled and its
defendant subsidiaries (collectively, the "Defendants") entered
into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs and intervenor and
agreed to an injunction. The settlement was approved by the
Superior Court of California, Humboldt County on November 30,
2010.

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant
entities deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts
to cover settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments, including $5.0 million to settle certain
government agency claims and potential government claims that may
arise. Of the $5.0 million provided for such government claims,
$1.0 million has been released by the court to the Humboldt
County Treasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the
State of California for their release of the Defendants. The
remaining $4.0 million is available for the settlement and
releases by the California Attorney General and certain other
District Attorneys. However, in the event that any of these
government authorities were to instead file certain actions
against the Defendants by the second anniversary of the effective
date of the settlement agreement, which occurred in February
2013, the entire $4.0 million would have reverted to the
Defendants upon their request to the Settlement Administrator. No
such actions were filed, however, resulting in an additional $1.0
million distribution to the Humboldt County District Attorney's
Office and the remaining $3.0 million was distributed to the
class settlement fund, as required by the settlement agreement.

In addition to the payments to the Humboldt County Treasurer-Tax
Collector on behalf of the People of the State of California, the
court also approved payments from the escrow of up to
approximately $24.8 million for attorneys' fees and costs and
$10,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs.  Pursuant to the
injunction, the twenty-two Defendants that operated California
nursing facilities were required to provide specified nurse
staffing levels, comply with specified state and federal laws
governing staffing levels and posting requirements, and provide
reports and information to a court-appointed auditor. The
injunction was to remain in effect for a period of twenty-four
months unless extended for additional three-month periods as to
those Defendants that may be found in violation. Defendants
demonstrating compliance for an eighteen-month period that ended
September 30, 2012 were permitted to petition for early
termination of the injunction. The Defendants were required to
demonstrate over the term of the injunction that the costs of the
injunction met a minimum threshold level pursuant to the
settlement agreement, which level, initially $9.6 million, was
reduced by the portion attributable to any Defendant in the case
that no longer operated a skilled nursing facility during the
injunction period.


SPACE MARKET: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Diaz Iglasias, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Space Market of Noho Corp., dba Space Market, and Bok
Yo Lee, Case No. 1:14-cv-00893-PGG (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2014)
alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid
minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime compensation; (3) liquidated
damages; (4) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (5)
attorneys' fees and costs.

Space Market is a business entity organized under the laws of New
York, with a principal place of business in New York City.  Bok
Yo Lee, is the owner, officer, director or managing agent of
Space Market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


SPRINT CORP: Faces "Jahoda" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sprint Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00197-LPL (W.D.
Pa., February 11, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauren D. Godfrey, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          500 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-7000
          Facsimile: (973) 360-1100
          E-mail: lauren.godfrey@dbr.com


TBK 82 CORP: Ex-Cooks Seek to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Rodriguez, Juan Paz, Mario Hernandez, Hermenegildo
Mercenario and Miguel Flores, individually and on behalfofothers
similarly situated v. TBK 82 Corp. (d/b/a Calista Superfoods),
and TBK 49 Corp. (d/b/a Calista Superfoods), Howard Chung and
Jennifer Chung, Case No. 1:14-cv-00906-VEC (S.D.N.Y., February
11, 2014) seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages and
liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law, and associated rules and regulations.

The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks and ostensibly employed as
deliverymen, but they were required to spend several hours of
their delivery time each day performing non-tipped duties
unrelated to deliveries, including food preparation, cutting
vegetables, and dishwashing, according to complaint.

The Defendants own, operate or control two health food
restaurants located in New York City under the name Calista
Superfoods.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Reserves $495MM to Settle Provigil Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited recorded a provision of
$495 million in the financial statements in the second quarter of
2013 for settlement reached with certain retail chain pharmacies
representing approximately half of the direct purchases of
Provigil from Cephalon Inc., according to Teva's Feb. 10, 2014,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case alleges that the
settlement agreements involving finished modafinil products (the
generic version of Provigil) that Cephalon, Inc., a Teva
subsidiary ("Cephalon") entered into with various generic
pharmaceutical companies in late 2005 and early 2006 were
unlawful because they had the effect of excluding generic
competition. The first lawsuit was brought by King Drug Company
of Florence, Inc. on behalf of itself and as a proposed class
action on behalf of any other person or entity that purchased
Provigil  directly from Cephalon from January 2006 until the
alleged unlawful conduct ceases. The first generic modafinil
product was launched in March 2012. Similar allegations have been
made in a number of additional complaints, including those filed
on behalf of proposed classes of direct and indirect purchasers,
by an individual indirect purchaser, by certain retail chain
pharmacies and by Apotex, Inc. Annual sales of Provigil  were
approximately $500 million at the time of the settlement
agreements, and approximately $1 billion when the first generic
modafinil product was launched in March 2012.

In February 2008, following an investigation, the FTC sued
Cephalon, alleging that Cephalon violated Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in the marketplace, by unlawfully maintaining a
monopoly in the sale of Provigil  and improperly excluding
generic competition. In March 2010, the District Court denied
defendants' motions to dismiss the federal antitrust claims and
some of the related state law claims. Because the FTC lawsuit
does not currently seek monetary damages, and no fines or
penalties have been asserted against Cephalon, no provision has
been recorded for this matter. On December 9, 2013, the FTC filed
a motion seeking to add Teva as a defendant and indicated that it
intends to seek disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy,
although it has not yet amended its complaint to include a
request for disgorgement. Teva contends that the FTC is not
entitled as a matter of law to seek disgorgement.

In May 2010, an independent pharmacy in Ohio filed suit with the
same allegations. This case has been transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Teva has settled with certain of the retail chain pharmacies
(representing approximately half of the direct purchases of
Provigil from Cephalon) and, given the significant similarities
in the claims asserted and damages claimed by certain other
purchaser plaintiffs, has concluded that a provision for certain
other parts of the litigation is warranted. Accordingly,
management recorded a provision of $495 million in the financial
statements in the second quarter of 2013 for these matters.
Management expects that the settlement demands of the remaining
parties could be significantly higher, and there can be no
assurance that Teva will be able to reach settlements with the
remaining parties on these terms.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Briefing to End Aug. in Suit Over 1997 Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In lawsuits over a January 1997 patent litigation settlement
agreement entered by Barr Laboratories, Inc., a subsidiary of
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, class certification
briefing will be concluded by August 22, 2014 in Kansas and
supplemental briefs are due in California by April 24, 2014,
according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

Barr Laboratories is a defendant in actions in California,
Florida and Kansas alleging that a January 1997 patent litigation
settlement agreement between Barr and Bayer Corporation was
anticompetitive and violated state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. An earlier federal multidistrict action
regarding the same settlement agreement was effectively ended by
a final court decision in the company's favor.

In the California case, the trial court granted defendants'
summary judgment motions, and the California Court of Appeal
affirmed in October 2011. The plaintiffs petitioned for review by
the California Supreme Court, which decided to hear the appeal,
but then suspended the case before completion of briefing,
pending the United States Supreme Court's disposition of the
AndroGel case. The trial court granted final approval for a $74
million class settlement with Bayer and the California Supreme
Court has requested supplemental briefs by April 24, 2014
addressing the effect of the AndroGel case on plaintiffs' appeal
of the grant of summary judgment for the remaining defendants in
this case, and for any amicus briefs.

Based on the plaintiffs' expert testimony in the now-terminated
federal multidistrict litigation, estimated sales of
ciprofloxacin in California were approximately $500 million
during the alleged damages period.

The Kansas and Florida actions are in relatively early stages. In
the Kansas action, class certification briefing will be concluded
by August 22, 2014; no schedule has been set in the Florida
action.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Venlafaxine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is trying to get an
antitrust lawsuit filed against it over the settlement of patent
litigation involving extended release venlafaxine dismissed,
according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva
for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with
their settlement of patent litigation involving extended release
venlafaxine (generic Effexor ER) entered into in November 2005.
The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers,
by a purported class of indirect purchasers and by certain chain
pharmacies. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement
between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry. Teva
filed motions to dismiss in April 2012. The case was stayed
pending the decision in the AndroGel case, and has now been re-
opened. The defendants' motions to dismiss were heard on
September 10, 2013. Annual sales of Effexor ER were approximately
$2.6 billion at the time of settlement and at the time generic
versions were launched in July 2010.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Affirms Dismissal of Lamotrigine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district court affirmed the original dismissal of the
antitrust cases filed by direct purchasers against Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited over the settlement of patent
litigation involving lamotrigine, according to the company's Feb.
10, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs sued GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") and Teva for alleged
violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their
settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic
Lamictal) entered into in February 2005. In August 2012, a
purported class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a nearly
identical complaint against GSK and Teva. The plaintiffs claim
that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry
and seek unspecified damages. In December 2012, the District
Court dismissed the cases. The plaintiffs' appeal was stayed
pending the decision in the AndroGel case and was remanded for
further proceedings. On January 24, 2014, the District Court
denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration and affirmed its original dismissal of the cases.
The direct purchaser plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of
this ruling. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion is still
pending. Annual sales of Lamictal were approximately $950 million
at the time of the settlement, and approximately $2.3 billion at
the time generic competition commenced in July 2008.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Jury Trial in Esomeprazole Suit Has Begun
--------------------------------------------------------------
A jury trial on liability in a suit over Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Limited's settlement agreements to resolve the
esomeprazole (generic Nexium) patent litigation was scheduled
to begin in March 2014, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Starting in September 2012, plaintiffs in 11 cases, including
overlapping purported class actions, sued AstraZeneca and Teva,
as well as Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy's, for violating the antitrust
laws by entering into settlement agreements to resolve the
esomeprazole (generic Nexium) patent litigation. Teva entered
into its settlement agreement in January 2010. These cases have
been consolidated and transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants' motions
to dismiss were denied on April 18, 2013. Summary judgment
motions were heard on January 21, 2014. The judge denied
defendants' motion regarding an overarching conspiracy and took
the other motions under advisement. A jury trial on liability,
which is expected to last approximately six weeks, was scheduled
to begin in March 2014. If the jury returns a verdict of
liability, a separate trial on damages will be scheduled.

Annual sales of Nexiumwere approximately $6.3 billion at the time
the Teva settlement agreement was entered into, and annual sales
are currently approximately $6 billion.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Suit Over Niaspan in Penn. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face a
consolidated suit over a settlement agreement to resolve patent
litigation over Niaspan, according to the company's Feb. 10,
2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of and end
payors for Niaspan (extended release niacin) sued Teva and Abbott
for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a settlement
agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation over the
product. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Annual sales of Niaspan were approximately $416
million at the time of the settlement and approximately $1.1
billion at the time generic competition commenced in September
2013.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suits Over Off-Label Promos Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc. continues to defend against putative class action
and other complaints relating to allegations of off-label
promotion, according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's
Feb. 10, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Cephalon is a defendant in a putative class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in which plaintiffs, third party payors, allege
approximately $700 million in losses resulting from the promotion
and prescription of Actiq for uses not approved by the FDA
despite the availability of allegedly less expensive pain
management drugs that were more appropriate for patients'
conditions. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was held on July 24, 2013. If the court grants
certification, a jury trial will be scheduled.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suit Filed Over Fentora Off-Label Promotion
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2013, a putative class action on behalf of third
party payors was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging off-label promotion
of Fentora, according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's
Feb. 10, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Cephalon is defending a separate law suit with similar off-label
claims involving Provigil and Gabitril. Cephalon is also a
defendant in a lawsuit filed by the State of South Carolina
alleging violations of the state's unfair trade practices law and
common law in connection with the alleged off-label promotion of
Actiq, Provigil and Gabitril.

On January 8, 2014, Teva received a civil investigative demand
from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New
York seeking documents and information from January 1, 2006 to
the present related to sales, marketing and promotion of Copaxone
and Azilect. The demand states that the government is
investigating possible civil violations of the federal False
Claims Act. Teva is in the process of complying with the
subpoena.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued by Shareholders in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited faces a shareholder
litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 18, 2013, a putative class action securities lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities
between January 1, 2012 and October 29, 2013. The complaint
alleges that Teva and certain directors and officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and that the individual defendants violated
Section 20 of the Exchange Act, by making false and misleading
statements that failed to disclose the existence of significant
internal discord between Teva's board of directors and senior
management concerning execution of Teva's strategies, including
implementation of a cost reduction program. The plaintiff is
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for
litigation expenses.


TOBACK BERNSTEIN: Court Certifies Class in "Torres" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis adopted a report and
recommendation that (1) the class be conditionally certified as
two sub-classes for the purpose of settlement, and (2) Plaintiffs
counsel be appointed as Class Counsel, are adopted with
modifications in the case styled as, LEILANI TORRES, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOBACK,
BERNSTEIN & REISS LLP, LORAINE CAMPBELL, ARTHUR M. TOBACK, BRIAN
K. BERNSTEIN, LEONARD S. REISS, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants,
NO. 11-CV-1368 (NGG)(VVP), (E.D.N.Y.).

Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky issued the Report and
Recommendation on March 14, 2014.

Judge Garaufis adopted the R&R in a March 31, 2014 order.

Judge Garaufis also held that as for the R&R's recommendations
that (3) preliminary approval of the proposed settlement be
granted, and (4) the class notice be approved, the court adopts
the findings of the R&R but reserves decision pending the
parties' submission.

The parties to the lawsuit were directed by the District Court to
file by April 11, a revised settlement, class notice, and
conditional order addressing the modifications discussed in the
R&R and the Order.

A copy of the March 31 order is available at http://is.gd/LRo26I
from Leagle.com.

Leilani Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz --
Ahmad@NewYorkConsumerAttorney.com -- The Law Offices of Ahmad
Keshavarz; and

   Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
   Bromberg Law Office, P.C.
   40 Exchange Place Suite 2010
   (Corner of William Street)
   Manhattan, NY 10005
   Telephone: (212) 248-7906

Toback, Bernstein & Reiss LLP, Defendant, represented by Ahmad
Keshavarz, The Law Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz, Marian C. Rice --
mrice@lbcclaw.com -- L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, L.L.P.
& Matthew J. Bizzaro -- mbizzaro@lbcclaw.com -- L'Abbate, Balkan,
Colavita & Contini, LLP.

Loraine Campbell, Defendant, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz, The
Law Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz, Marian C. Rice, L'Abbate, Balkan,
Colavita & Contini, L.L.P. & Matthew J. Bizzaro, L'Abbate,
Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP.

Arthur M Toback, Defendant, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz, The
Law Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz, Marian C. Rice, L'Abbate, Balkan,
Colavita & Contini, L.L.P. & Matthew J. Bizzaro, L'Abbate,
Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP.

Brian K Bernstein, Defendant, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz, The
Law Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz, Marian C. Rice, L'Abbate, Balkan,
Colavita & Contini, L.L.P. & Matthew J. Bizzaro, L'Abbate,
Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP.

Leonard S Reiss, Defendant, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz, The
Law Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz, Marian C. Rice, L'Abbate, Balkan,
Colavita & Contini, L.L.P. & Matthew J. Bizzaro, L'Abbate,
Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP.


UNILIFE CORP: Securities Suit Plaintiff Files Voluntary Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit against Unilife Corporation in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without
Prejudice, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On November 1, 2013, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported stockholder of
the Company and all other similarly situated stockholders who
purchased the Company's securities between July 13, 2011 and
September 9, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The complaint was mainly
based on the meritless allegations made by Mr. Smith in his
complaint and generally alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which allegedly caused the plaintiff
and other members of the purported class to purchase the
Company's securities at inflated prices during the Class Period.
The lawsuit sought unspecified damages. There were no additional
filings by parties seeking to be designated as the lead plaintiff
by the required December 31, 2013 deadline, and the plaintiff
filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice on
January 7, 2014, so this matter has concluded.


VOCERA COMM: Securities Suit Case Management Conference Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed off on a stipulation
continuing case management conference and scheduling a motion
concerning the use of information that defendants maintain is
confidential and/or subject to certain agreements in IN RE VOCERA
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 3:13-
CV-03567 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

The court-approved stipulation provides that:

* the Lead Plaintiff will file the Motion on or before April 22,
  2014; Defendants will file an opposition on or before May 22,
  2014; and Lead Plaintiff will file a reply on or before June 5,
  2014. The Motion will be noticed for hearing on July 10, 2014.

* pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2, the Initial Case Management
  Conference scheduled for April 24, 2014 is vacated, along with
  any associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil
  Procedure and Local Rules, and is rescheduled for a date that
is
  30 days after entry of a Court order ruling on Defendants'
  anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the consolidated complaint, or
  such other date as the Court determines to be appropriate; and
  all associated ADR Multi-Option Program deadlines likewise be
  deferred.

A copy of the April 1, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/APPEosfrom Leagle.com.

SHAWN A. WILLIAMS, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Post
Montgomery Center, San Francisco, California, Liaison Counsel for
Lead Plaintiff.

JOSEPH A. FONTI (Pro hac pending), LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, New
York, New York, Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Baltimore County,
Employees' Retirement System and, Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System.

FENWICK & WEST LLP, Jennifer C. Bretan, Esq. --
jbretan@fenwick.com -- San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Vocera Communications, Inc., Robert J., Zollars, Brent D. Lang,
Martin J. Silver, William R., Zerella, Brian D. Ascher, John B.
Grotting, Jeffrey H., Hillebrand, Howard E. Janzen, John N.
McMullen, Hany M. Nada, and Donald F. Wood.

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, Simona G. Strauss, Esq., Palo
Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co., Incorporated, William
Blair & Company, L.L.C., Wells, Fargo Securities, LLC, and
Leerink Swann LLC.


WALMART STORES: "Wasilewski" Suit Removed to NJ District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Wasilewski v. Walmart Stores, Inc., et al.,
Case No. HUD-L-05898-13, was removed from the New Jersey Superior
Court, Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Newark).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-00871-FSH-MAH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance D. Brown, Esq.
          LANCE BROWN AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
          1 AAA Drive, Suite 205
          Robbinsville, NJ 08691
          Telephone: (609) 587-5100

The Defendants are represented by:

          N. Ari Weisbrot, Esq.
          Lauren Jill Talan, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP
          75 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 200
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (201) 881-7016
          E-mail: aweisbrot@foxrothschild.com
                  ltalan@foxrothschild.com


WASHINGTON: Social Health Dept Sued for Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Centeno, Mary Hoffman, Susan Routh and Janice Wilen, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Department
of Social and Health Services of the State of Washington, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00200-MJP (W.D. Wash., February 11, 2014) alleges
violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Wright A. Noel, Esq.
          CARSON & NOEL PLLC
          20 Sixth Avenue Northeast
          Issaquah, WA 98027
          Telephone: (425) 837-4717
          E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey I. Tilden, Esq.
          GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Suite 4000
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 467-6477
          E-mail: jtilden@gordontilden.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Logerwell, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          PO Box 40145
          Olympia, WA 98504-0145
          Telephone: (360) 664-4177
          E-mail: AndrewL1@atg.wa.gov


WHOLE FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in "Pratt" Misbranding Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila, on March 31, 2014, granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the case
captioned ROBERT PRATT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA,
INC.; MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOODS MARKET INC.; WFM-WO, INC.; and
WFM PRIVATE LABEL, L.P., Defendants, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-05652-EJD,
(N.D. Cal.).

Mr. Pratt filed this putative class action against Whole Foods
alleging that several of Whole Food's products have been
improperly labeled so as to amount to misbranding and deception
in violation of several California and federal laws.  The
Plaintiff argued that these representations on the packaging of
the Defendants' food products were unlawful and/or misleading:
(1) "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") claims; (2) "natural" claims;
and (3) "no sugar added" claims.

Plaintiff's claims regarding evaporated cane juice and unjust
enrichment are dismissed with leave to amend, ruled Judge Davila.
If Plaintiff wishes to further amend the complaint, the Court
ordered that it be pled in compliance with the pleading standards
of Rules 8 and 9 and filed within 15 days of the date of the
Court's order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/JQ1lZNfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Pratt, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt
& Associates, Edward Downs Fisher & W Michael Hamilton, Provost
Umphrey Law Firm.

Whole Food Market, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph J.
Orzano, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jay W. Connolly, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Giovanna A. Ferrari, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP & Joseph J. Orzano, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Mrs. Gooch's Natural Foods Market, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jay W. Connolly, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Giovanna A. Ferrari,
Seyfarth
Shaw LLP & Joseph J. Orzano, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

WFM-WO, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay W. Connolly, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Giovanna A. Ferrari, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Joseph J.
Orzano, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

WFM Private Label, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jay W.
Connolly, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Giovanna A. Ferrari, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP & Joseph J. Orzano, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Discovery in "Brenner" Must Be Completed June
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE BRENNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Defendant, NO. 13-
10931-MLW, (D. Mass.), alleges violations of Massachusetts
General Laws chapters 93 and 93A based upon Williams-Sonoma's
collection of customer ZIP codes, which were then used for
targeted advertising by mail.

Discovery in this matter has not yet begun. However, Williams-
Sonoma has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the
undisputed facts show that Ms. Brenner cannot establish two
elements of her chapter 93A claim.  Ms. Brenner opposed the
motion for summary judgment and has requested limited discovery.
In their earlier request for an extension of time, the parties
requested about 90 days for discovery on the matters raised in
the motion for summary judgment, with the plaintiff's opposition
due thirty days after the conclusion of the first phase of
discovery.

In a Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/aYQn6tfrom Leagle.com, District
Judge Mark L. Wolf allowed the Joint Motion for an Extension of
Time.  The Court also allowed entry of a Joint Motion for Entry
of Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order as to Confidential
Information.  The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was
denied without prejudice.

According to the ruling, discovery concerning the motion for
summary judgment must be completed by June 27, 2014.

Any renewed motion for summary judgment must be filed by July 31,
2014. Any opposition must be filed by August 29, 2014. Any reply
must be filed by September 15, 2014.

A hearing on any motion for summary judgment and, if necessary, a
scheduling conference, will be held on October 14, 2014, at 4:00
p.m.

Jacqueline Brenner, Plaintiff, represented by D. Greg Blankinship
-- gblankinship@mpnsb.com -- Meiselman, Packman, Nealon,
Scialabba & Baker P.C..

Williams-Sonoma,Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth S.
Barcohana, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Nicholas C.
Theodorou, Foley Hoag LLP, Brian R. Blackman, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Craig Cardon, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Creighton K. Page, Foley Hoag LLP & Kathryn Hines,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.


WILSON SONSINI: Faces Class Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Sally Gillette, on behalf of herself all others similarly
situated v. The Wilson Sonsini Group Welfare Benefit Plan; CIGNA
Corporation; Connecticut General Life Insurance Company; Cigna
Healthcare of California; Betty Lyddon, in her capacity as
fiduciary to the Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Group Welfare
Plan; and Donald E, Bradley, in his capacity as fiduciary to the
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Group Welfare Plan, Case No.
3:14-cv-00222-BR (D. Or., February 11, 2014) alleges violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Ms. Gillette is a participant in the Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati Welfare Benefit Plan.  She seeks relief due to ERISA
violations allegedly committed by the Cigna Defendants that have
caused, and continue to cause, harm to her and other participants
and beneficiaries of the WSGR Plan.

The WSGR Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan.  Don Bradley
was at all relevant times general counsel to Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati LLP, a Silicon Valley law firm.  Mr. Bradley is
a fiduciary of the WSGR Plan because he has decision-making
authority with respect to Plan assets.

Cigna Corporation is a registered public "global health service
company" with over 14 million customers worldwide.  Through its
brokers and subsidiaries, Cigna offers commercial insurance
products to "sponsors of ERISA plans."  Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company, a subsidiary of CIGNA, is the holder of a
Certificate of Authority issued by the Insurance Commissioner and
is authorized to transact the business of insurance in
California.  Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc., a subsidiary
of CIGNA, was at all relevant times licensed to operate health
service plans licensed by the California Department of Managed
Healthcare.  Betty Lyddon was a Legal Coordinator for CHC.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


ZOLTEK COMPANIES: Reaches Accord in Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Agreements entered in In Re: Zoltek Companies, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Cause No. 13-SL-CC-3419 were memorialized in a
stipulated Order and Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In September and October 2013, a total of 13 purported class
actions arising out of the execution of the merger agreement were
filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri against
Zoltek and Zoltek's directors by purported shareholders of
Zoltek. All but one of the lawsuits also named Toray and/or
Merger Sub as defendants. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri consolidated the actions under the caption In Re: Zoltek
Companies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Cause No. 13-SL-CC-3419,
on November 26, 2013 (the "Consolidated Action").

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

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


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante,
Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *