CAR_Public/140421.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 78

                             Headlines


AAA SECURITY: Ex-Armed Security Officer Seeks to Recover Wages
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Illegally Called Plaintiff's Phone, Suit Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Suit Over Cars That Excessively Burn Oil
ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Sued Over POS Devices Not Usable by Blinds
ATLAS CARPET: Class Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid Wages

BAJA MINING: Provides Update on Class Action Litigation
CAL-MAINE FOODS: September 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Victims of Pedophile Priests Mull Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Scout Petroleum Seeks Refund in Royalty Suit
CONAGRA FOODS: Hebrew National Hotdog Suit Belongs to State Court

CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Loses Bid to Halt Derailment Class Action
DART CHEROKEE: Case to Have Implications on Class Actions
DIRECTV INC: Court Won't Send "Imburgia" Action to Arbitration
DYSON: Recalls Heaters Due To Fire Hazard
ENTERPRISE RENT: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles

FARO SERVICES: Removed "Castellanos" Class Suit to C.D. Cal.
FIFTH THIRD: Sued in Florida for Reporting Inaccurate Information
FOSSIL INC: Sued for Violating Americans with Disabilities Act
FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Action in California Over Unpaid Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: To Ask NY Judge to Enforce Bankruptcy Order

GENERAL MOTORS: Two Engineers Put on Leave Amid Recall Probe
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Van Pelt" Suit in Ga. Over Ignition Switch
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Groman" Suit in N.Y. Over Ignition Switch
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "DePalma" Suit in Pa. Over Ignition Switch
GENERAL MOTORS: Halfshaft Defect Prompts Recall in Canada

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in New York
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Dismisses Laffen's ESOP Class Suit
HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Snack Bars Due To Undeclared Milk
HUNTING POINT: Regulators Face Residents' Ire Over Asbestos
HUSSONG MANUFACTURING: Recalls About 16,00 Gas Fireplaces

INFINITY INSURANCE: Removed "Ramos" Class Suit to C.D. California
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Montantes" Class Suit in C.D. California
KINDRED SPIRITS WHOLESALE: Recalls Shot Glasses Due To Lead
LENOVO INC: Recalls ThinkPad Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard

MARIAH RESOURCES: Failed to Pay for All Hours Worked, Suit Claims
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Investors File Class Action Amid Patent Suit
MIRACO FOOD: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Peanut Allergy
MIRACO FOOD: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Peanut Allergy
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Wildlife Expert Testifies in Moose Suit

NNW LLC: Misrepresented "Healthy 100% Whey" Product, Suit Claims
PIE PLACE: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Undeclared Milk
PIERRE BELVEDERE: Recalls Toys Due To Mislabelling
PIPELINE CARRIERS: Removed 1st "Concho" Suit to C.D. California
PIPELINE CARRIERS: Removed 2nd "Concho" Suit to C.D. California

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR a Defendant in 5,131 Engle Progeny Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Still Facing DeLoach Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial Date Set in 9 Lawsuits v. RJR Tobacco
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,572 Broin II Cases Still Pending in Florida
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Subsidiaries Face Eight Collective Suits in US

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. Trial in Camel Cash Certificates Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Tobacco, B&W Still Face Lights Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Stayed Pending Compliance in "Scott"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Asbestos Suit v. Subsidiaries Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Unit Still Faces 7 Canadian Lawsuits

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Smith" Suit Await Appeal Ruling
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of Tobacco Growers' Claim Sought
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Villarreal" Age Bias Suit Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Tatum" Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
SHOWMARK MEDIA: Removed "Bontrager" Suit to C.D. California

SKINNY CRISPS: Removed "Agazanof" Class Suit to C.D. California
SOCIETE DES ALCOOLS: Recalls Chartreuse Products
SPRINT CORP: Settles Action Over Use of Right-of-Way Easements
SUNRISE BAKERY: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Undeclared Milk
TARGET CORP: Removed "Velarde" Suit to C.D. California

TYSON FOODS: FDA Recalls 75,320 Pounds of Chicken Nugget Products
WAL-MART: Faces Class Action Over Owing Workers Sick Time Wages
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: July 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set


                             *********


AAA SECURITY: Ex-Armed Security Officer Seeks to Recover Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Rosario, Individually and on behalf of himself and all
Others similarly situated v. AAA Security Protection, Inc., a
Florida profit corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-00391-JDW-AEP (M.D.
Fla., February 13, 2014) is brought by the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated against their former employer for unpaid
wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff
seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs.

Mr. Rosario was employed by AAA as an armed security officer.

AAA Security Protection, Inc. is a Florida profit corporation
with its principal place of business located in Brandon, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis A. Creed, III, Esq.
          FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
          501 N. Reo Street
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Illegally Called Plaintiff's Phone, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Couser, on behalf of herself all other similarly situated
v. AMC Entertainment Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 5:14-cv-00284-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.,
February 13, 2014) accuses the Defendants of illegally contacting
the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

AMC Entertainment Inc. was incorporated and headquartered in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          369 South Doheny Drive, Suite 415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  NBontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          Joshua M. Briones, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
          E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@dlapiper.com
                  joshua.briones@dlapiper.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Suit Over Cars That Excessively Burn Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Honda has agreed to a settlement in a
class action lawsuit filed by consumers who claimed some of its
vehicles excessively burned oil.  The excessive oil burning
caused engine misfiring and premature spark plug degradation, the
consumers claimed in their 2012 class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Consumers who purchased 2008-2012 Honda Accord, 2008-2013 Honda
Odyssey, 2009-2013 Honda Pilot, 2010-2011 Honda Accord Crosstour
or 2012 Honda Crosstour equipped with a 6-cylinder engine with
Variable Cylinder Management are eligible to receive compensation
for repairs or a warranty extension.  The parties agree there are
no safety concerns with the vehicles named in the litigation,
according to court documents.

Honda has denied the allegations in the class action lawsuit.

Honda says it agreed to the class action settlement in order to
avoid the costs of a trial.

On Oct. 9, District Judge Susan Illston approved the proposed
class action settlement.

A final order of judgment was filed on March 27.  The court
awarded a named plaintiff's incentive award of $1,000 to Vince
Eagen.

Attorneys received counsel fees and expenses in the amount of
$800,000, according to the final order of judgment.  The total
amount of the settlement has been sealed, according to a sealing
order filed March 19.  Those who are eligible will receive full
reimbursement of out-of-pocket repair expenses, plus a warranty
extension.

To receive full compensation for vehicle repairs, class members
must submit a valid claim form with a copy of an original repair
invoice or receipt plus proof of payments for repairs or
replacement of parts on a settlement class vehicle by Thursday.

Class members do not need to take any action to obtain the
warranty extension, which will cover repairs for the affected
vehicles within eight years of the original purchase or lease
date of the vehicle, with no mileage limitation.

Mr. Eagen was represented by Beth E. Terrell and Kimberlee
Gunning of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC; Steven N. Berk
-- steven@berklawdc.com -- and Matthew J. Bonness --
matt@berklawdc.com -- of Berk Law PLLC; Shanon Jude Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- and
Eugene Tompkins -- gtompkins@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague PC;
and Karl Olson and Michael Francis Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com --
of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Honda was represented by Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Michael Lawrence
Mallow -- mmallow@loeb.com -- Michael Brian Shortnacy --
mshortnacy@loeb.com -- and Denise A. Smith-Mars -- dmars@loeb.com
-- of Loeb & Loeb LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 3:12-cv-01377


ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Sued Over POS Devices Not Usable by Blinds
-------------------------------------------------------------
David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthropologie, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20546-MGC (S.D.
Fla., February 13, 2014) alleges that the Company fails to
design, construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices that
are fully accessible to, and independently usable by blind
people, like the Plaintiff.

Anthropologie, Inc., is a corporation incorporated in
Pennsylvania and headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Boese, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Anderson, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE LLC
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com
                  tanderson@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Courtney Blair Wilson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2 Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131-1804
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: 603-2552
          E-mail: CWilson@littler.com


ATLAS CARPET: Class Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Portillo, Juan Montanaro, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Atlas Carpet Center Co., Inc., d/b/a Atlas Carpet
And Tile Co. and Claudio Garcia, individually, and Christian J.
Garcia, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20549-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
February 13, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
wages under the laws of the United States.

Atlas Carpet Center Co., Inc., doing business as Atlas Carpet and
Tile Co., is a Florida Profit Corporation, having its place of
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiffs
worked for Atlas.  The Individual Defendants are officers,
directors, managers or owners of Atlas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter Neil Andresky, Esq.
          THE ANDRESKY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          9121 N. Lake Park Circle
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 348-4546
          Facsimile: (954) 342-1988
          E-mail: pandresky@andreskylawfirm.com


BAJA MINING: Provides Update on Class Action Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Baja Mining Corp. on April 9 provided an update on the proposed
class action proceeding previously reported on July 27, 2012.

A hearing was held on April 8, 2014 in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice with respect to certification of the proceeding as a
class action and leave to proceed with claims under the Ontario
Securities Act, and ancillary relief.  A further announcement
will be made once the court's decision has been released.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: September 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC on April 7 issued a statement
regarding the In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation.

Legal Notice

If you purchased shell eggs or egg products produced in the
United States directly from any producer from January 1, 2000
through February 28, 2014, you could be a Class Member in a
proposed class action settlement.

This legal notice is to inform you of the proposed Cal-Maine
Settlement reached in the class action lawsuit, In re Processed
Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-md-02002, pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and also inform you of an amendment to the Sparboe
Settlement.

Who is included in the Cal-Maine Settlement & Sparboe Amendment?
The Cal-Maine Settlement "Class" includes all persons and
entities in the United States that purchased shell eggs and egg
products, in the United States directly from any producer from
January 1, 2000 through February 28, 2014.  Due to the Cal-Maine
Settlement, the prior Sparboe Settlement, approved by the Court
in 2012, is amended to add to the Sparboe Settlement Class direct
purchases of shell eggs and egg products from October 24, 2009
through February 28, 2014, expanding the Class Period to make it
comparable to the Cal-Maine Class.

What is this case about?
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants conspired to limit the supply of
shell eggs and egg products, which raised the price of shell eggs
and egg products and, therefore, violated the Sherman Antitrust
Act, a federal statute that prohibits agreements that
unreasonably restrain competition.  Cal-Maine and Sparboe deny
all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

What does the Cal-Maine Settlement provide?
The Cal-Maine Settlement is with Cal-Maine only; the case is
continuing against the remaining defendants.  Plaintiffs will
release all claims against Cal-Maine.  In exchange, Cal-Maine
will provide the Class with $28,000,000 from which claims can be
paid. Cal-Maine will also provide Plaintiffs with information
that Plaintiffs' attorneys believe will aid in their analysis and
prosecution of this Action.

What does the Sparboe Settlement provide?
There is no monetary relief under the Original or Amended Sparboe
Settlement.  Sparboe agreed to provide substantial and immediate
cooperation to Plaintiffs, which the Court already found
conferred substantial benefits upon the Class.  The amendment
merely conforms the Sparboe Class to the Cal-Maine Class.

What do I do now?
If you are a Class Member your legal rights are affected, and you
now have a choice to make.  Participate in the Settlements: No
action is required to remain part of the Cal-Maine Settlement or
the amended Sparboe Settlement.  If the Court grants final
approval to the Cal-Maine Settlement and the Sparboe Amendment,
the Cal-Maine Settlement and Amended Sparboe Settlement will be
binding upon you and all other Class Members. By remaining part
of the Cal-Maine Settlement, you will give up any potential
claims that you may have against Cal-Maine relating to the claims
alleged in this lawsuit.  You may be eligible to receive a
payment from the Cal-Maine Settlement if you submit a completed
claim form (postmarked no later than August 1, 2014).  Ask to be
excluded: If you wish to exclude yourself from the Sparboe
Settlement as amended (if you had no purchases before October 24,
2009) and/or the Cal-Maine Settlement and wish to retain your
rights to pursue your own lawsuit relating to the claims alleged
in this lawsuit, you must formally exclude yourself from one or
both Classes by sending a signed letter to the Claims
Administrator postmarked on or before August 1, 2014. Object: You
may notify the Court that you object to the Cal-Maine Settlement
and/or Sparboe Amendment by mailing a statement of your
objection(s) to the Court, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Defense
Counsel postmarked by August 1, 2014.  Detailed instructions on
how to participate, opt out or object are on the settlement
website.

Who represents you?
The Court appointed Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff &
Asher LLC; Michael D. Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP; Stanley D.
Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard LLP; and Stephen D. Susman of
Susman Godfrey LLP as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel. You do not
have to pay them or anyone else to participate. You may hire your
own lawyer at your own expense.

When will the Court decide whether to approve the Cal-Maine
Settlement and/or the Sparboe Amendment?
At 2:00 p.m. on September 18, 2014, at the United States District
Court, James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797, the Court will hold a hearing to
determine the fairness and adequacy of the Cal-Maine Settlement
and the Sparboe Amendment, and consider a motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs. You may
appear at the hearing, but are not required to do so.
Please note that the Court may change the date and/or time of the
Fairness Hearing without further notice.  Settlement Class
members are advised to check www.eggproductssettlement.com for
any updates.

How can I learn more?
This notice is only a summary.  For more information, visit
www.eggproductssettlement.com.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Victims of Pedophile Priests Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker and Mark Russell, writing for The
Age, reports that victims of one of Australia's most notorious
pedophile priests, Gerald Ridsdale, are preparing a landmark
class action against the Catholic Church in what will be the
first test of Cardinal George Pell's recent commitment to make
the church less hostile to litigation from sex abuse victims.

Lawyer Vivian Waller said at least 20 victims had instructed her
to launch claims against the Diocese of Ballarat and argue that
the church's negligence or cover-ups allowed Mr. Ridsdale to
remain as a priest after it was known he was a sexual predator.

It is understood the church could be forced to pay out millions
in compensation if the cases succeed.

On April 8, Mr. Ridsdale, who admitted to abusing at least 53
children between 1961 and 1982, was sentenced to eight more
years' jail, after he pleaded guilty to 39 new charges involving
sex offences against 11 boys and three girls, he having already
been jailed in previous court cases.

County Court Chief Judge Michael Rozenes said Mr. Ridsdale's
"unfettered sexual deviance" had been a blatant breach of trust.

He abused one young girl in the confessional box after ordering
her to say the prayer "Forgive me Father for I have sinned" and
told a nine-year-old boy the abuse was "the Lord's work".

One victim, who was in court on April 8, said Mr. Ridsdale's
sentencing amounted to "winning a battle but not the war".

"There are other people who should be made be accountable because
they [the church] knew what Ridsdale was doing," said the victim,
who asked not to be named.

"There will not be full closure until those people are made
responsible for their action."

The victim is one of Ms Waller's clients.

Ms. Waller said Cardinal Pell's recent appearance before the
royal commission into sexual abuse suggested the church would no
longer rely on legal technicalities to avoid proper compensation.

"I hope that the Archdiocese of Ballarat will abide by the
indication of George Pell that the church won't employ certain
defences to defeat sexual abuse claimants," she said.

On April 8, Judge Rozenes said it was disturbing that one of
Mr. Ridsdale's victims believed another priest was present when
Mr. Ridsdale abused her when she was aged 10 or 11.

Judge Rozenes said victim impact statements tendered to the court
collectively revealed "a feeling of being exploited; feeling
trapped, powerless, worthless and humiliated; anger at, and
distrust of, the Catholic church; loss of faith and innocence;
loss of the enjoyment of childhood; a sense of bewilderment and
disbelief; and the fracturing of family relationships".

The judge said that, tragically, many thought themselves to blame
for Mr. Ridsdale's actions.

"To me, one of the most tragic comments I heard was that 'if I
had 'taken my turn' maybe my little brothers would have had
happier lives'."

Mr. Ridsdale, 79, who has been in prison since 1994 and is in
poor health, had been due for release on June 29, 2019.  He will
now not be released, unless granted parole, until 2022 and is
expected to die in prison.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Scout Petroleum Seeks Refund in Royalty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive.com, reports that a company
that has interests in Marcellus Shale natural gas leases wants an
arbitration panel to order a full refund for what it alleges have
been improper deductions from royalty payments by Chesapeake
Appalachia.

Scout Petroleum of Nicholson has asked the American Arbitration
Association to declare its demand a class action to include all
those who have entered into what are known as paid-up oil and gas
leases.

Chesapeake, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy, on
April 7 filed in U.S. Middle District Court a request for an
injunction to prevent class-action status it claims could involve
thousands of landowners.  It contends leases do not provide for
class-action arbitration and further argues only a judge can
approve such a status.

Besides class action and refund demands, Scout, whose interests
primarily are in Bradford, Sullivan, Susquehanna and Wyoming
counties, is seeking a declaration Chesapeake has breached its
leases.

The filings are the latest in the controversy involving the 1979
Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act that states leaseholders are to
receive a minimum of 12.5 percent of the sale price of the gas
produced.

One Bradford County farmer reported receiving royalty checks for
as little as $1.10 and 10 cents.

Chesapeake has been accused of taking deductions not permitted by
the law or leases.  Scout alleges, for example, Chesapeake
reduces the volume on which royalties are paid by deducting gas
used by compressors.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane last month told state Sen. Gene
Yaw, R-Lycoming, her office was reviewing complaints that
property owners are not getting their entitled royalties.

Gov. Tom Corbett has written Chesapeake President Robert D.
Lawler telling him he had received complaints about practices
that "strike many as unfair and perhaps illegal."

On April 7, the state Senate approved three bills introduced by
Yaw aimed at expanding the rights of landowners with natural gas
leases:

     -- One bill would allow inspection of natural gas companies'
records to verify proper royalty payments.  It also would require
payments to begin within 60 days of a well going into production.

     -- The second measure would prohibit a gas company from
retaliating, by terminating a lease or ceasing development
because the accuracy of royalty payments was questioned.

     -- The third bill would require a gas company to record
within 30 days of the expiration, termination or forfeiture of a
lease a document with the county register of deeds that releases
its interests in the oil and gas.

The bills now move to the House.


CONAGRA FOODS: Hebrew National Hotdog Suit Belongs to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal appeals panel, acting as the "higher authority" to
which the maker and consumers of Hebrew National hotdogs must
answer, has ruled that a proposed consumer class action
challenging the product's kosher status belongs in state, not
federal, court.

On April 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
remanded Melvin Wallace v. ConAgra Foods Inc., reversing the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota's dismissal and
ordering the lower court to toss the matter back to Minnesota's
state courts, for jurisdiction reasons.

The complaint alleges that, contrary to the label proclaiming
that the hot dogs contain 100 percent kosher meat, the company's
production quotas mean the franks actually are only about 70
percent kosher.

The plaintiffs' concern is not a religious one.  Instead, they
objected to paying a premium price for the hotdogs, which they
bought because they believed the product to be healthier than
cheaper franks because they contained no artificial ingredients.
But Eighth Circuit Chief Judge William Riley wrote that the
plaintiffs did not allege that all or even most Hebrew National
products are not kosher, "which means the particular packages of
processed beef they purchased may have been -- and indeed more
than likely were -- prepared in accordance with minimum kosher
standards."

Furthermore, Riley wrote for the panel, the consumers did not
show the particular packages they purchased were fraudulently
labeled and marketed, meaning they and their case had no standing
in federal court.

"It is pure speculation to say the particular packages sold to
the consumers were tainted by non-kosher beef, while it is quite
plausible ConAgra sold the consumers exactly what was promised: a
higher quality, kosher meat product," Judge Riley wrote.

On Hebrew National's website, a statement leads the home page,
noting, "In light of the recent lawsuit, we want to assure our
fans that we stand behind our kosher status."

Along with Judge Riley, Eighth Circuit judges Roger Wollman and
James Loken heard the case.


CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Loses Bid to Halt Derailment Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Green, writing for South Jersey Times, reports that a federal
judge has thwarted efforts to stop a class action suit concerning
the November 2012 Paulsboro train derailment and chemical spill.

U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler denied a motion by Conrail and
other companies to keep more than 100 individuals and businesses
from combining their complaints into a class action.  The ruling
doesn't mean those 100-plus -- who seek damages for financial
losses -- will definitely be able to pursue their case.  A court
still must decide whether to certify the class action suit, based
on evidence that they can do so legally.

The failed motion by Conrail and the others was merely an attempt
to stop that before it even got to the certification stage.

In their motion, the companies argued that the court cannot
verify that the plaintiffs were all truly affected by the
derailment -- and therefore have legal standing to sue in this
case -- without extra encumbering hearings.

But Judge Kugler said in part that the evacuation and shelter-in-
place areas designated after the derailment were defined, and the
plaintiffs' home and business addresses are verifiable.

To stop the class action at this point, the companies would have
to prove that identifying the plaintiffs who can truly sue would
bring on complicating hearings and defeat the very purpose of a
combined suit.

The companies didn't do that, Judge Kugler ruled, and the
plaintiffs should have the opportunity to go through the
certification process.  There, the court will more closely
examine their reasons for forming the class action.

On Nov. 30, 2012, an 84-car train derailed over the Jefferson
Street Bridge as it entered Paulsboro.  Seven tanker cars on the
southbound train left the track.

Three of them ended up in the water of Mantua Creek below, and
one of those cars was punctured in the accident, spilling
thousands of pounds of vinyl chloride gas -- a toxic chemical
used in making vinyl floors and PVC pipe -- into Paulsboro's air.


DART CHEROKEE: Case to Have Implications on Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Zach Warren, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court granted one new case on April 7, and it's one that
in-house counsel should pay attention to for its implications on
class action lawsuits.

In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, a group
of royalty owners sued Dart Cherokee over unpaid royalties on the
company's oil and gas wells.  The plaintiffs originally filed
suit in Kansas state court, where the wells were located, but the
Michigan-based Dart Cherokee sought to have the case moved to
federal court.

Here's where the Supreme Court ruling comes in: The Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005 allows transfers of cases involving
more than $5 million in damages from state to federal court.  The
plaintiffs did not seek a specific damage amount in their initial
filing, but the defendant claimed that damages would be well over
$5 million in its filing to change forum.

The district court ruled against Dart Cherokee's motion to move
the case to federal court, and the 10th Circuit upheld that
decision, saying in a split en banc decision that the company did
not offer enough evidence to back up its $5 million claim.

However, Judge Harris L. Hartz of the 10th Circuit said in a
dissent, joined by three other judges, that the burden of proof
the courts were imposing sets "an evidentiary burden on the
notice of removal that is foreign to federal-court practice and,
to my knowledge, has never been imposed by a federal appellate
court (Owens does not cite to any such case).  Unfortunately,
this may be the only opportunity for this court to correct the
law in our circuit."  He went on to argue that "a defendant
seeking removal under CAFA need only allege the jurisdictional
amount in its notice of removal and must prove that amount only
if the plaintiff challenges the allegation."

Now, the Supreme Court will get its shot at the case.  If the
Court rules in Dart Cherokee's favor, then defendants of class
action lawsuits may only need to prove damages north of $5
million if the plaintiff challenges their bid to move to federal
court.  If a case is being tried in an unfavorable forum, this
ruling could be a godsend to in-house counsel looking for a leg
up.


DIRECTV INC: Court Won't Send "Imburgia" Action to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni and Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, report that a
California appeals court on April 7 refused to send to
arbitration a consumer class action accusing DirecTV Inc. of
failing to disclose early termination fees, finding that a waiver
of class claims in the company's arbitration agreement with
customers was unenforceable under state law.

A three-judge panel agreed with a lower court that the language
of the arbitration agreement included in DirecTV's service
contracts deferred to state law, including the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which bars waiving the right to
bring class claims, according to an opinion penned by Justice
Frances Rothschild.

"The class action waiver is unenforceable under California law,
so the entire arbitration agreement is unenforceable," the
opinion said.  "The superior court therefore properly denied the
motion to compel arbitration."

The ruling ensures that five-year-old allegations that DirecTV
ripped off California consumers will move forward in state court
as a class action, rather than being decided on a case-by-case
basis by arbitrators.

Amy Imburgia and Marlene Mecca sued DirecTV in September 2008,
claiming the satellite provider entered into contracts with its
customers over the phone or in-person after satellite
installation but did not disclose the stiff termination fees
associated with canceling the service before the end of the
contract.

In upholding the lower court's decision on April 7, the panel
rejected DirecTV's argument that the arbitration agreement passed
muster under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility
v. Concepcion, a ruling that cleared the way for companies to
insert class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements.

During oral arguments last month, the company relied on the Ninth
Circuit's 2013 ruling in Murphy v. DirecTV Inc., which held that
a similar arbitration agreement was enforceable under Concepcion
because the high court's decision preempted any state law to the
contrary.

But the panel found the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Murphy
"unpersuasive," rejecting the federal appeals court's finding
that the parties' contract interpretation arguments were "largely
irrelevant"  because the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state
law.

"[I]nsofar as the court reasoned that contract interpretation is
irrelevant because the parties are powerless to opt out of the
FAA by contract, we are aware of no authority for the court's
position," Justice Rothschild wrote.

"Rather . . . if the customer agreement expressly provided that
the enforceability of the class action waiver 'shall be
determined under the (nonfederal) law of your state without
considering the preemptive effect, if any, of the FAA,' then that
choice of law would be enforceable; Murphy cites no authority to
the contrary," the judge added, quoting from the arbitration
agreement.

Melissa Ingalls -- melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, who represents DirecTV, blasted the decision on
April 8, saying the company intends to appeal.

"The decision is wrong, and clearly contravenes the Federal
Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent, as well as the Ninth
Circuit's published Murphy v. DirecTV opinion, which already
ruled on this exact issue of federal law," she wrote in an email.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias certified a
class in the case in April 2011.  A month later, after the
Concepcion decision was handed down, DirecTV moved to decertify
the class and either dismiss or stay the case so it could be sent
to arbitration.  But Judge Elias denied that motion, ruling that
Concepcion did not apply, prompting DirecTV's instant appeal.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul D. Stevens, Mayo L.
Makarczyk and Shireen Mohsenzadegan of Milstein Adelman LLP.

DirecTV is represented by Melissa D. Ingalls, Robyn E. Bladow --
rbladow@kirkland.com -- and Shaun Paisley --
shaun.paisley@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Imburgia et al. v. DirectTV Inc., case number
B239361, in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District.


DYSON: Recalls Heaters Due To Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: April 1, 2014
Posting date: April 1, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-38697

Affected products

Dyson Hot and Dyson Hot+Cool heaters

This recall involves two Dyson heaters: Dyson Hot and Dyson
Hot+Cool heaters, sold under the model numbers AM04 and AM05. The
heater's serial number is on the base of the machine. No other
models are involved in the recall.

The AM04 and AM05 heaters are made up of a round base and
lozenge-shaped looped body that contains an aperture with no
blades. Each machine comes with a remote control to set airspeed,
oscillation and temperature. Available colours: blue and grey,
black and grey, white and silver, grey. The heaters measure 58
centimetres (23 inches) high, 20 centimetres (8 inches) deep and
20 centimetres (8 inches) wide (with base fitted).

The heaters can develop an electrical short and overheat, posing
a fire hazard to the consumer.

Dyson is aware of 82 confirmed incidents worldwide of the
recalled heaters short-circuiting and overheating, in which four
cases have led to contained burning within the machine. No
injuries or property damage have been reported in any of these
incidents.

To date, neither Health Canada nor Dyson have received any
confirmed incidents of injury related to the use of these heaters
in Canada.

Approximately 1,000,000 machines were sold globally including
about 43,000 heaters in Canada and about 338,000 heaters in the
United States.  In Canada, the heaters were sold at Sears,
Canadian Tire, Future shop, Best Buy, The Bay, Home Outfitters,
Costco, Home Hardware, Leon's, Corbeil, www.dysoncanada.ca, Bed
Bath & Beyond, The Shopping Channel, Walmart, Lowe's, The Brick,
Home Depot, Staples, Target, various incentive suppliers, and
independent retailers.

The recalled heaters were sold from July 2011 to March 2014 in
Canada and from September 2011 to March 2014 the United States.

Manufactured in Malaysia.

Manufacturer    ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd
                Johor Bharu
                MALAYSIA
Distributor     Dyson Canada Limited
                Toronto
                Ontario
                CANADA

Photo of the affected product is available at:

    http://is.gd/ByDHRi

Consumers should immediately stop using the heaters and register
their machines for a free repair at dyson's recall website.

Consumers can also register their heater for repair by calling
Dyson toll-free at 1-866-876-0749, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST
Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST Saturday.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.


ENTERPRISE RENT: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Enterprise Rent a Car stiffs
workers for overtime, a man claims in a class action in Superior
Court in Los Angeles.


FARO SERVICES: Removed "Castellanos" Class Suit to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard Castellanos, et al. v.
FARO Services Inc., et al., Case No. BC509830, 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-01150-FMO-RZ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael John Carras, Esq.
          Bridget C. McGuire, Esq.
          Daniel A. Conforti, Esq.
          CONFORTI AND CARRAS APC
          151 N Kraemer Blvd., Suite 204
          Placentia, CA 92870
          Telephone: (714) 577-1071
          Facsimile: (714) 577-0711
          E-mail: mike@cocalaw.com
                  bridget@cocalaw.com
                  dan@cocalaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
          Janelle Christine Carney, Esq.
          Jason T. Hatcher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
          14758 Pipeline Avenue, 2nd Floor, Suite E
          Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 303-0233
          Facsimile: (909) 393-0471
          E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com
                  jcarney@antonellilaw.com
                  jhatcher@antonellilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: bmckelvey@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Bruce M. Timm, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Lucia, Esq.
          Michael E. Chase, Esq.
          BOUTIN JONES INC.
          555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 321-4444
          Facsimile: (916) 441-7597
          E-mail: btimm@boutinjones.com
                  klucia@boutinjones.com
                  mchase@boutinjones.com


FIFTH THIRD: Sued in Florida for Reporting Inaccurate Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Frost on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-00083-JES-CM (M.D. Fla.,
February 13, 2014) accuses Fifth Third of reporting false or
inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies.

Fifth Third Bank, N.A., is an Ohio banking corporation
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven E. Martin, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Bierfeld, Esq.
          Dustin Michael Butler, Esq.
          MARTIN LAW FIRM, PL
          3701 Del Prado Blvd.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 443-1094
          Facsimile: (239) 443-1168
          E-mail: esmartin@martinlawfirm.com
                  jonathan.bierfeld@martinlawfirm.com
                  dustin.butler@martinlawfirm.com


FOSSIL INC: Sued for Violating Americans with Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
David New v. Fossil, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20545-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
February 13, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Benjamin Boese, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE LLC
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK, & STEWART, P.C.
          100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 289-1247
          Facsimile: (813) 289-6530
          E-mail: kevin.zwetsch@ogletreedeakins.com


FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Action in California Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
FPI Management Inc. was slapped with a putative wage-and-hour
class action on April 3 by a current employee who claims the
California property manager failed to pay her and other workers
overtime as well as provide meal and rest breaks in accordance
with California employment law.

The filing in California Superior Court is the latest employment
class action against FPI Management, which recently settled a
wage-and-hour misclassification suit.

"After going through all that, they didn't learn their lesson,"
Edwin Aiwazian, counsel for the plaintiff, who also represented
FPI Management in the recently settled suit, told Law360 in an
interview on April 8.  "It was wage theft before and it's wage
theft now.  This is just obnoxious. This is on the stratosphere
of meritoriousness."

In February, a California Superior Court judge approved a
$775,000 settlement in a suit brought against FPI Management by a
class of 108 individuals, according to court documents.  As part
of that settlement, brought on behalf of plaintiffs who claimed
they should be eligible for overtime pay, FPI reclassified
employees as hourly.

At issue now is that hourly employees at the company claim they
aren't receiving overtime pay.

"Defendants engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of
wage abuse against their hourly paid or nonexempt, on-site
employees within the state of California," the complaint states.
"Defendants knew or should have known that defendants had to keep
complete and accurate payroll records . . . but, in fact, did
not."

The class in the current case is estimated to comprise more than
350 individuals, and includes individuals who worked for FPI
Management in California at any point over the past four years.
Named plaintiff Iffat Khan lives in Los Angeles County and has
worked at FPI since August 2013.

The complaint alleges a "scheme" behind FPI's purported failure
to pay employees for overtime work and failure to provide
required meal and rest breaks.

California employees are entitled to a 10-minute rest period for
every four hours worked.  Employees whose shifts are a at least
six hours are not required to work more than five hours before
taking a meal break of at least 30 minutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for off-the-clock hours
missed and pay for short, missed or interrupted breaks. They are
also seeking reimbursement for business-related expenses.

Mr. Aiwazian told Law360 that his client may also seek punitive
damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edwin Aiwazian of Lawyers for
Justice PC.

FPI Management is represented by James M. Nelson --
nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Khan v. FPI Management Inc., case number BC541747, in
the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County.


GENERAL MOTORS: To Ask NY Judge to Enforce Bankruptcy Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
General Motors revealed in court filings late on April 15 that it
will soon ask a federal bankruptcy judge to shield the company
from legal claims for conduct that occurred before its 2009
bankruptcy.

The automaker's strategy is in a motion filed in a Corpus
Christi, Texas, federal court case, and in other cases across the
nation that involve the defective ignition switches that have led
GM to recall 2.6 million small cars.

The motion asks U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos to delay
action on the lawsuit until the bankruptcy court rules and other
federal courts decide if the case should be combined with other
lawsuits.  But GM says it's not asking to halt action on a motion
to force GM to tell customers not to drive their cars that are
being recalled.

GM has said at least 13 deaths have been linked to the switch
problem.  The switch can unexpectedly slip out of the "run"
position, shutting down the engine, knocking out power-assisted
steering and power brakes, and disabling the air bags.  GM admits
knowing about the problem for at least a decade, but it didn't
start recalling the cars, including Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn
Ions, until February.

The company's motion says GM will ask the bankruptcy court in
New York to enforce an order made during the 2009 bankruptcy case
that split GM into a new company and an old company.  Claims from
before the bankruptcy would go to "Old GM," called Motors
Liquidation Co., while claims after the bankruptcy would go to
the new General Motors Co.

"Just like the other 'ignition switch actions' that other
plaintiffs have filed in the wake of public reports regarding the
outstanding recall, this case relates to a vehicle designed,
manufactured, originally sold and advertised by Old GM," the
company's motion says.

GM's motion says more than 30 cases have been filed against the
company since February.

With the motion, GM is trying to limit its legal liability in the
cases while at the same time it considers compensation for
families of crash victims.  GM has hired Kenneth Feinberg -- who
handled the fund for the victims of 9/11, the Boston Marathon
bombing and the BP oil spill -- to explore ways to compensate
victims. No decision has been made.

Attorney Robert Hilliard filed the Texas lawsuit on behalf of
Charles and Grace Silvas.  It claims they are stuck with a
defective 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt and seeks repairs, compensation
for loss of value and alternative transportation.

Hilliard called GM's motion to send the case to the bankruptcy
court a "long shot" and accused GM CEO Mary Barra of directing
lawyers to hide behind the bankruptcy.  He said he expects a
ruling soon on the request for an order for GM to tell owners to
keep the recalled cars off the road.

GM has said owners can continue safely using the cars if
precautions are taken.


GENERAL MOTORS: Two Engineers Put on Leave Amid Recall Probe
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Woodall, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors
Co. Chief Executive Mary Barra said she "agonized" over last
week's decision to put two GM engineers on paid leave pending the
outcome of an investigation into faulty ignition switches linked
to at least 13 deaths.

Ms. Barra's comments, made to reporters on April 15 after an
industry conference ahead of the New York Auto Show, referred to
Ray DeGiorgio and Gary Altman, two engineers involved in the
development of the defective switches, which are being replaced
in 2.6 million recalled GM vehicles.

"There was a lot of attention, and we agonized over that
decision, but we felt it was right for the individuals and right
for the company at this time," she said of Mr. DeGiorgio, who
designed the switch, and Altman, who was the program engineering
manager for the recalled cars.

GM has not explained why the men were suspended, and the two have
not responded to Reuters requests for comment.

In the wake of the recall, announced in several waves in February
and March, Ms. Barra said on April 15 that GM is creating a new
global product integrity organization that will focus on product
safety and quality.  It will report to Jeff Boyer, who was named
the chief of vehicle safety in mid-March, and Mark Reuss, GM's
global product development chief.

"This new way of developing vehicles will provide the highest
levels of safety, quality, and customer service, and ensure that
a situation like the ignition-switch recall doesn't happen
again," Ms. Barra said in New York.

The automaker is on track to complete its own investigation of
the recall by the middle to the end of May, Ms. Barra said.  The
internal probe is being headed by Anton Valukas, chief executive
of Chicago law firm Jenner & Block, which has done legal work for
GM for more than 10 years.

"When Mr. Valukas has completed his investigation, we will then
take the appropriate actions and then, as I've said, we will be
transparent.  So that's where we're at," Ms. Barra said.

Congress also is investigating the recall, and a group of U.S.
lawmakers on April 15 wrote to Delphi Automotive, asking whether
the parts maker had pushed back when the automaker apparently did
not accept a proposed fix to the ignition switch.

Ms. Barra said a team at GM is working around the clock to answer
questions asked by the U.S. National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration on the ignition switch defect issue.

NHTSA has said GM did not answer more than a third of the 107
questions the safety regulator asked.  GM faces a $7,000-per-day
fine since the April 3 deadline for not responding to all
questions.

She said GM may wait for the completion of Mr. Valukas'
investigation before answering some of NHTSA's questions.

Ms. Barra spoke at an auto industry conference held by the
National Automobile Dealers Association and J.D. Power.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Van Pelt" Suit in Ga. Over Ignition Switch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that parents of a Georgia teenager
who suffered a severe brain injury in a 2009 car crash say
General Motors knew of a defect in her car but took steps to
conceal it.

In a federal lawsuit filed on April 11 in U.S. District Court,
Alexina and William Van Pelt of Evans say a defective key system
in their daughter Haley's 2003 Saturn Ion caused the key to move
from the "run" to "accessory/off" position, shutting the engine
off and causing her to lose control and smash into a tree.

The lawsuit adds that Haley has incurred more than $1 million in
medical bills.

Ignition switch defects are at the center of a congressional
subcommittee's investigation into how GM handled safety issues.

GM has admitted knowing about the switch problem for more than a
decade, but failed to recall the cars until February.

"More than eight years before Haley's injuries, GM knew about the
safety-related defects in the Saturn Ion, and did nothing to
recall or fully remedy the defects or warn users about them," the
lawsuit said.

"Rather, GM intentionally, purposely, fraudulently, and
systematically concealed the defects from Haley, the Van Pelts,
the National Highway Safety Administration, and the driving
public."

GM says a heavy key ring or jarring from rough roads can cause
the ignition switch to move out of the "run" position and shut
off the engine and electrical power.  That can knock out power-
assisted brakes and steering and disable the front air bags.

In Haley's crash, the airbags failed to deploy when she struck
the tree, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit cited several similar deadly crashes involving faulty
key switches in GM's Chevy Cobalts: Brooke Melton was driving her
2005 Cobalt on a two-lane highway in Paulding County, northwest
of Atlanta, when her key moved from the run position to
"accessory/off," causing her engine to shut off, the lawsuit
said. Her car veered into another lane, and she was killed by an
oncoming car.

GM CEO Mary Barra has said that she only become aware of the
ignition switch issues in December.  She has distanced herself
from GM's slow action on safety issues in the past, saying she's
trying to install a culture that is focused on consumer
protection.

GM has said that it is deeply sorry for the losses suffered by
its customers, and that it will work to regain their trust.

"Ensuring our customers' safety is our first order of business,"
GM North America President Alan Batey said in a statement earlier
this year.  "We are deeply sorry and we are working to address
this issue as quickly as we can."


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Groman" Suit in N.Y. Over Ignition Switch
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that General
Motors Co., which recalled more than 2.59 million small cars for
faulty ignition switches linked to 13 deaths, was sued in a
proposed class action in Manhattan federal court, adding to more
than a dozen similar cases filed across the country.

Vehicle owners in the cases seek compensation for the lost value
of their cars stemming from the unreliable switches, which can
cut power to the engine and airbags when jostled by keys.  A
federal judge in Corpus Christi, Texas, is considering a request
that she order GM to tell owners of the recalled vehicles not to
drive them until they can be repaired.

Steven Groman, who said he owned a 2008 Chevrolet HHR, claimed GM
falsely advertised its cars as safe and reliable.  Instead, his
car experienced at least four engine shutdowns, prompting him to
trade it in at a loss in 2011, he said in his complaint.

"GM knew that the defective design of the ignition switches in
these vehicles presented serious safety issues," Mr. Groman said.
"GM consciously chose to conceal it and not address the problem."

Mr. Groman, who seeks to represent a nationwide group of people
who owned or leased defective GM vehicles since 2002, is asking
for unspecified damages.  His lawsuit joins at least 15 federal
suits against GM over the ignition switches filed throughout the
U.S.

The case is Groman v. General Motors LLC, 12-cv-02458, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "DePalma" Suit in Pa. Over Ignition Switch
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports
that a federal class-action lawsuit filed on April 8 against
General Motors offers a possible explanation: It was the car, not
the driver, at fault.

Austin DePalma's family just thought he was a lousy driver.  How
else, they wondered, could the 21-year-old Scranton man be
involved in four crashes within the past two years?

Mr. DePalma, the owner of a 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt, is among four
lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to recover damages for
economic harm caused to owners of GM vehicles identified as
having a faulty ignition switch that caused the cars to
unexpectedly shut off while driving.

The defect, which led GM recently to recall 2.6 million cars, has
been blamed for causing crashes that killed at least 13 people
nationwide.  The lawsuit, filed by several law firms, including
Dougherty, Levanthal & Price in Scranton, does not seek any money
for physical harm caused to owners, however.  It focuses on
recovering consequential damages they suffered, including repair
and towing costs, lost resale value and increases in insurance
premiums resulting from accidents caused by the defect, said
attorney Paul Oven of Scranton, one of the lead attorneys in the
case.

"The consequential damages is the most pervasive problem," said
Mr. Oven.  "Jacked insurance rates, towing and repair costs.
Property damage claims . . . We are looking to recover all those
damages for people."

Mr. Oven joined with attorneys from two Philadelphia law firms to
file the suit against GM and Delphia Automotive, the manufacturer
of the switch.  GM has acknowledged the switch could be jostled
into the accessory position while driving, causing the car to
lose electrical power that would disable the power brakes,
steering and air bags.

The lawsuit names Mr. DePalma, Bob and Dorothy McCann, of
Philadelphia, and Paul Pollastro, of Coraopolis, as the lead
plaintiffs.  The attorneys are seeking to certify the complaint
as a class action that could include as many as 2.6 million
Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn car owners whose vehicles have been
identified as possibly having the defect.

Mary DePalma, grandmother of Austin DePalma, contacted the
attorneys after receiving notice of the recall on March 18.  She
was relieved to have another possible explanation for the
crashes, she said.  Mrs. DePalma said her grandson struck four
vehicles, the last being in January, after he said the car's
engine shut off, causing him to lose his power brakes and
steering.  The rash of crashes led his insurance company to
cancel his policy.  She finally found another firm to insure him,
but his premium doubled from about $130 to $262 a month, she
said.  She also spent several thousand dollars to cover some
damages she did not submit to insurance out of fear he would be
cancelled again, she said.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Harrisburg, is a scathing
rebuke to GM, alleging the automaker knew of the ignition problem
as early as 2001, but concealed that information to avoid the
cost of replacing a part GM acknowledged cost 57 cents.

"GM instructed service shops to provide defective vehicle owners
with a new key ring if they complained about unintended shut
down, rather than admit what (it) knew -- that the ignition
switches were dangerously defective," the suit states.

The suit seeks damages for breach of warranty and violations of
federal and state consumer protection laws, including
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law.
Those statutes would allow owners to recover as much as three
times the actual damages they incurred.

Mr. Oven said one of the key issues the vehicle owners face now
is the loss of resale value of their cars.

"Who is going to buy these cars even with the remedy? They truly
are damaged goods in every sense of the word," he said.

Mrs. DePalma said she immediately called GM after getting the
recall notice.  It took some pressing, but the company agreed
immediately to take the car in for repair and provide her
grandson a rental vehicle.

Kelly Ruddy, 21, of Scranton, was killed in 2010, when her
Chevrolet Cobalt veered inexplicably off the highway and crashed.

Mrs. DePalma said GM has not yet told her if it confirmed the
switch in her grandson's car was defective.  She is sure it was,
given that the air bag never deployed in any of the crashes, all
of which were front-end collisions.  She said she hopes the
lawsuit will help bring awareness to the public of their rights,
and that she and her grandson will some day be fully reimbursed
for their expenses.

"He has to carry these accidents on his record for three years.
I just want them to pay off his debt and make him happy," she
said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Halfshaft Defect Prompts Recall in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 31, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Powertrain
Units affected: 26757
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2014100
TC ID number: 2014100
Manufacturer recall number: 14079

On certain vehicles, the passenger side halfshaft could fracture
and separate. If this were to occur while the vehicle is being
driven, it could result in a loss of motive power. If this were
to occur while the vehicle is parked on an incline without the
parking brake applied, it could result in unintended vehicle
movement. Both situations could increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will
replace affected halfshafts. Note: This recall supersedes recalls
2013323. Some vehicles that were inspected and/or repaired under
the previous recall will need to be re-inspected and repaired if
necessary.

Makes and models affected

  Make           Model          Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----          ----------------------
CHEVROLET      CRUZE               2013, 2014


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Genworth
Financial, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Genworth
securities between February 3, 2012 and April 17, 2012,
inclusive.

Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888)
773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

Genworth is a financial services company and provides insurance,
including life insurance, long-term care insurance and fixed
annuity products, and investment and financial solutions in the
United States and internationally.  The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose that:

   -- The Company was not adequately accounting for its loss
reserves related to its Australian mortgage insurance unit, in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

   -- Genworth had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and
defaults than it had previously disclosed for its Australian book
of business related to insurance written in the Queensland
coastal area and insurance written in 2007 and 2008 to small
business and self-employed borrowers.

   -- The Company failed to disclose known trends and
uncertainties concerning an increase in claims and delinquencies
associated with its Australian unit in the second half of 2011.

The Complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company and its outlook, including
statements about the stability and outlook of the Company's
Australian mortgage insurance unit or the Company's ability to
complete an initial public offering of its Australian business
unit in the second quarter of 2012.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move
the Court no later than June 3, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff,
if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this
action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh,
Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street,
Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-
mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Dismisses Laffen's ESOP Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge has thrown out claims that Hewlett-Packard
Co. should have suspended employee investments after
mismanagement destroyed stock prices.

The December 2012 class action claimed that fiduciaries had the
power to stop spending employee retirement funds on a tanking
company, but continued to do so to the detriment of tens of
thousands of retirement plans.  With some 300,000 employees, HP
has been mired with legal troubles, including a 2011 class action
that said former CEO Leo Apotheker misled shareholders about
corporate operations before he was fired.  The company agreed to
pay $57 million to settle the lawsuit.

HP is also facing securities fraud and derivative lawsuits filed
on behalf of shareholders for the disastrous $10.3 billion
acquisition of the British software company Autonomy Corp., which
led to a nearly $9 billion write-down of HP's assets in 2012.  HP
claims it is the victim of fraud by former Autonomy management
members, Bloomberg reported.

Mike Laffen is the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer dismissed.  He had claimed that those
entrusted with investing funds from the Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (ESOP) should have suspended investment in HP in light of
the company's troubles and the freefall of stock prices that
ensued.

"The plan's fiduciaries were aware or should have been aware of
internal and external warnings indicating HP had engaged in a
series of strategic management blunders, wasting nearly $20
billion, which has destroyed HP's market position and
credibility, and brought it to the verge of collapse, causing its
stock price to fall approximately 76 percent," the complaint
stated.

Breyer nevertheless concluded that HP had an obligation to
continue to invest the funds, citing the Moench presumption of
prudence.  In Moench v. Robertson, the 3rd Circuit addressed "to
what extent" fiduciaries are liable for ESOPs under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

"The court concluded that only 'in limited circumstances, ESOP
fiduciaries can be liable under ERISA for continuing to invest in
employer stock according to the plan's direction," Breyer wrote.
"Thus, when an employee benefit plan requires or encourages
investment in employer's stock, plan fiduciaries are entitle to a
strong presumption that they satisfied ERISA's prudence mandate
by permitting plan participants to invest in their employer's
stock."

Laffen failed to duck the Moench presumption by saying because
HP's ESOP does not "require or strongly encourage investment in
the stock fund."

"The plan requires that the HP Stock Fund be an ESOP offered as
an investment option for plan participants," he wrote.  "The
argument hinges on plaintiffs' reading of the plan as providing
the IRC 'the power to terminate, hold purchases of, or transfer
assets out of the stock fund."

Though HP's Investment Review Committee (IRC), which consist of
top executives, does have that power, it does not apply to ESOPs,
according to the ruling.

"The funds other than the HP Stock fund are addressed in [the
plan], which gives the IRC broad discretion to add, remove, or
modify the investment funds available," he wrote.  "Section 9(b),
which applies to just the HP Stock Fund, provides no such
discretion to the IRC and instead mandates that the 'stock fund
shall be invested and reinvested primarily in [HP] stock.'  Read
together, these two sections unequivocally provide the IRC with
broad discretion as to all investment funds offered under the
plan, except for the HP Stock Fund."

Breyer dismissed the action without prejudice.


HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Snack Bars Due To Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 28, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Horizon Distributors Ltd., Karma Nutritionals
Distribution: National
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8744

The food recall warning issued on March 20, 2014 has been updated
to include additional codes.

Industry is recalling Zing brand snack bars from the marketplace
because they contain milk which is not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled
products described below.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a trade complaint. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.

The table of the affected products is available at :

    http://is.gd/6WWaut

The photos of the affected products is available at :

    http://is.gd/rwOoDE
    http://is.gd/4FGCx6

CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600


HUNTING POINT: Regulators Face Residents' Ire Over Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Sullivan, writing for Washington Post, reports that
residents of one of Alexandria's largest affordable apartment
complexes grilled federal regulators, local authorities and their
landlord on April 5 over the discovery of asbestos during
renovations of their homes, angrily asking why it took three
months for officials to halt the work.

Owners of the 530-unit Hunting Point on the Potomac, formerly
Hunting Towers, received a rare stop-work order from the
Environmental Protection Agency after inspectors discovered
asbestos in the floors, doors and windows.  The agency also found
that workers were not taking legally required precautions.

During four visits to the 63-year-old complex since the beginning
of the year, EPA officials found crumbling asbestos in
apartments, halls and trash areas where windows and floor tiles
are being replaced.  No notice of the danger was posted, the EPA
said, and workers did not seal the area to protect residents.  No
certified supervisor was on the job, nor were workers certified
in the task of removing hazardous materials.  The EPA has ordered
testing for airborne asbestos fibers.

The stop-work order is an unusual action by the EPA; only five a
year are typically issued, and they rarely involve occupied
apartment buildings, an EPA spokeswoman said.

The crowd of more than 100 that gathered at Alexandria's Lee
Center to hear the EPA's explanations was angry and mistrustful
of the buildings' owners and contractors.  Some responses offered
by officials drew scoffs and catcalls.

"All the units should be sampled," said resident Crystal Kilby,
who is a nurse.  "I live there.  I don't want my health
compromised."

"The thing I find most disconcerting is it was necessary for a
resident to bring this to your attention," Doug Meckes said.
"I'd like to know where the town of Alexandria was."

"This isn't even negligence -- this is recklessness," said
Stephanie Ackerman, who said she has been threatened with
eviction for refusing to let contractors in her apartment to
replace windows.  Several parents testified that they worried
about children who have crawled on or touched contaminated
surfaces.

Steve Boyack, senior vice president of the Laramar Group, the
part-owner that manages the complex, said the company had been
unaware that the buildings had asbestos in them until the EPA's
stop-work notice arrived.  Laramar immediately complied, he said,
and will follow EPA regulations to resume work.

Residents have been complaining about the renovations, possible
asbestos and lead-paint contamination and rising rents for the
past year, ever since the two eight-story buildings were sold by
the Virginia Department of Transportation for $81 million to
Laramar and the investment fund Lubert-Adler.  The residents say
that the city failed to take their complaints seriously.

"Why, instead of responding to citizens and saving several months
of exposure to asbestos and neurotoxins . . . why did you wait
for the federal government to come in and do your job?" Chuck
Benagh asked.

City inspectors who checked the plumbing work at Hunting Point
last summer found no evidence of asbestos because there was no
insulation around the pipes, said John Catlett, the city's
director of code enforcement.

The city did no other inspections because it lacks the authority,
spokesman Craig Fifer said.  He added that the city referred
residents to state and federal authorities that can perform the
inspections.

Other tenant complaints, lodged with the city's landlord-tenant
office, focused on a lack of notice given by workers who sought
access to apartments.  Tenants' attempts to get the city to stop
the construction failed; city officials said their hands were
tied because of Virginia laws that favor property owners.

The tenants also have been fighting rent increases, which they
fear will force them out of the high-rises and into a rental
market where more than 12,000 affordable apartments have
disappeared since 2000.  Some, upset that they now must pay
utilities in addition to rent, opted for the insecurity of month-
to-month agreements rather than signing a long-term lease with a
higher rent.  They accused Laramar of trying to force them out.

"I realize that the owner has a right to improve the property and
raise rents," said Maurice Barboza, a tenant since 1995 whose
rent for an efficiency apartment rose from $795 to $1,096 per
month. "My problem is that these buildings are not yet in market-
rate condition.  They are substandard in the middle of major
renovations."

Mr. Boyack acknowledged that there have been rent increases but
said the 100 to 150 people most affected had not had increases
since 2002, when VDOT froze rents in consideration of the
disruption caused by the construction of the adjacent Woodrow
Wilson Bridge.  Sixty-two percent of tenants renewed their leases
in 2013, Mr. Boyack said.

"The intent is not to turn this into a new building," Mr. Boyack
said in an interview. "It's more geared toward making it . . . a
decent, safe and affordable place to live."

On April 5, residents did not believe him.

"This is a sham!" some shouted from the audience.  "One lie after
another!"


HUSSONG MANUFACTURING: Recalls About 16,00 Gas Fireplaces
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Hussong Manufacturing Co. Inc. is recalling
about 16,000 gas fireplaces and fireplace inserts after nine
reports of explosions and two injuries, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission said.

The Lakefield, Minn., company is recalling 22 models sold under
the brands Kozy Heat Fireplaces, Ambiance Fireplaces and Stellar
Hearth Products, the agency said in a statement.

Hussong has received nine reports of gas being released
prematurely and exploding, causing minor property damage.  There
have been two reports of abrasions, it said.

The gas fireplaces and fireplace inserts use American Flame brand
control modules.  They were manufactured in the United States
between October 2009 and April 2013.

The products were sold in Canada and the United States for
between $1,450 and $3,325, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
said.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireplaces
and fireplace inserts, turn off the gas to the units and contact
the dealer where the unit was purchased or Hussong Manufacturing
to have the ignition board on the fireplace main control module
replaced free of charge.


INFINITY INSURANCE: Removed "Ramos" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Jose Ivan Ramos, et al. v. Infinity
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. BC497863, 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-01151-JFW-CW to the proceeding.

The case asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          Laura M. Cotter, Esq.
          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          CLARK AND MARKHAM LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321
          Facsimile: (619) 239-5888
          E-mail: jtreglio@clarklawyers.com
                  lcotter@clarklawyers.com
                  cclark@clarklawyers.com

               - and -

          Sergio Feria, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SERGIO FERIA
          625 Broadway, Suite 600
          San Diego, CA 92101-5040
          Telephone: (619) 234-8787
          Facsimile: (619) 234-8509
          E-mail: sergioferia@ferialaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marc J. Feldman, Esq.
          Peter H. Klee, Esq.
          MCKENNA LONG AND ALDRIDGE LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-3372
          Telephone: (619) 236-1414
          Facsimile: (619) 645-5389
          E-mail: mfeldman@mckennalong.com
                  pklee@mckennalong.com


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the law firm of Nexsen Pruet,
LLC for the In re International Textile Group, Inc. Merger
Litigation settlement.

LEGAL NOTICE OF CLASS AND DERIVATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT IN IN RE
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE GROUP, INC. MERGER LITIGATION

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

This "Notice of Settlement" relates to the proposed settlement in
the lawsuit called In re International Textile Group, Inc. Merger
Litigation, C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346.  The Action is pending in
the Court of Common Pleas in Greenville, South Carolina.  The
Action involves the merger on October 20, 2006, of two companies,
Safety Components International, Inc. and the former
International Textile Group, Inc., that Plaintiffs allege were
controlled by Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., the investment company, W.L.
Ross & Co., LLC, and certain of their affiliates.  After the
Merger, SCI was renamed the new International Textile Group, Inc.
(or "NITG"; ticker: "ITXN").  This is a legal publication notice
summarizing the terms of the Settlement.  For a more
comprehensive description of the Settlement, please refer to the
Notice of Settlement approved by the Court at
www.ITGMergerLitigation.com
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this publication notice
have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Notice.

Plaintiffs allege that the Merger was not "entirely fair" to the
SCI minority shareholders, that Mr. Ross and his affiliates
breached their fiduciary duties to, and/or aided and abetted
others in breaching their fiduciary duties to, SCI's minority
shareholders and to NITG.  Plaintiffs also allege gross
negligence and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against RSM EquiCo Capital Markets LLC.  Defendants denied all
material allegations against them, and have asserted various
affirmative defenses in the Action.

The portion of the Action involving these claims on behalf of the
SCI minority shareholders as of the date of the Merger is the
"Class Action." The portion of the Action involving these claims
on behalf of NITG is the "Derivative Action."

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement by Order dated
February 19, 2014.  The Court will hold a hearing on June 23,
2014, at 9:30 A.M. at the Greenville County Courthouse to
determine (1) whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate for the Class and for NITG and should be granted final
approval, (2) whether the Court should enter the proposed
judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice, (3) whether the
Court should grant Class/Derivative Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees and expenses for the Class and Derivative Actions
or award some other amount, and (4) whether the Court should
grant incentive awards to the Class Representatives and, if so,
in what amounts.

If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, it will enter a
judgment dismissing the Action, including both the Class and
Derivative Actions, with prejudice, and all claims related to the
Actions will be released.

The Settlement has two parts:

First, the "Class Action Settlement" relates to the settlement of
the Class Action on behalf of the minority shareholders of SCI as
of October 20, 2006.  The proposed Class Action Settlement
provides the Class with $10 million.  Should the Court approve
the Class Action Settlement, Class Counsel intend to request an
attorneys' fee award totaling $3.5 million and reimbursement of
expenses totaling $306,375.29 for a total of $3,806,375.29.
Should the Court approve Class Counsel's request for fees and
expenses, those funds would leave a balance of $6,193,624.71 for
the Class.  Certain fees of the Claims Administrator will also be
deducted from the Class Action Settlement.  The remaining
balance, which Class Counsel estimates will be approximately $6
million, will be distributed to Class Members in accordance with
the procedures discussed in the Notice.

In addition, Class Counsel will also ask the Court to award
$90,000 in incentive payments to the four Class Representative
groups to compensate them for their time, effort, and services on
behalf of the Class.  These payments are in addition to benefits
they will receive under the Class Action Settlement.  The
incentive payments will be paid out of the attorneys' fees
awarded for the Class Action.

Second, the "Derivative Action Settlement" relates to the
settlement of the Derivative Action on behalf of NITG.  The
proposed Derivative Action Settlement provides $26 million cash
and additional non-cash consideration to NITG.  The non-cash
consideration consists of the cancellation of certain debt and
preferred stock, which the parties other than RSM agree has a
value to NITG of $45 million.

Should the Court approve the Derivative Action Settlement,
Derivative Counsel intend to request an attorneys' fee award
totaling $24.85 million and reimbursement of expenses totaling
$2,246,752.13 for a total of $27,096,752.13.  Should the Court
approve this request, they would be paid from the $26 million in
cash included in the Derivative Action Settlement Fund.  To the
extent the Court awards more than $26 million in fees and
expenses to Derivative Counsel, Derivative Counsel intend to
request the Court to order NITG to pay such amounts.

The two parts of these settlements are interdependent.  There
will be no Settlement unless both parts are approved.  The
details of the Class and Derivative Action Settlements, including
the consideration provided and the scope of the releases to be
granted, can be found at www.ITGMergerLitigation.com

WHO'S INCLUDED IN THE CLASS?

The Class is defined as: "all persons who were minority
stockholders of SCI as of the Merger of FITG into SCI on
October 20, 2006, excluding Defendants and persons or entities
affiliated with Defendants, and excluding all persons who would
otherwise be members but whose damages do not exceed one hundred
dollars -- i.e., all minority stock holders of [pre-merger] SCI
(non-WLR affiliated stockholders) with damages in excess of
$100."

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS AS A CLASS MEMBER?

Class Members have the following options: (i) do nothing; (ii)
submit a Proof of Claim to be eligible to receive a share of the
Class Action Settlement Fund; (iii) object or comment on the
Class Action Settlement, and/or; (iv) hire their own counsel at
their own expense.

If you believe that you may be a Class Member and want to submit
a Proof of Claim in the Class Action lawsuit, you must submit to
the Claims Administrator by June 16, 2014 a Proof of Claim.
There are several requirements for completing and filing a valid
Proof of Claim, which can be found at www.ITGMergerLitigation.com
No Proof of Claim will be honored if submitted after the Claims
Deadline unless special permission is granted.

If you are a Class Member, you will be bound by any judgment or
other disposition of this Action, even if you do not submit a
Proof of Claim and even if your Proof of Claim is denied, in
whole or in part, for any reason.

The Claims Administrator will review your Proof of Claim and
supporting documentation for timeliness and completeness and
determine whether and to what extent you qualify for distribution
from the Net Class Action Settlement Fund.

If you are a Class Member, you also have the right to file an
objection to, or a comment in support of, the proposed Class
Action Settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
and expenses regarding the Class Action, or the proposed payment
of incentive awards to the Class Representatives. If you are a
current shareholder of NITG, you also have the right to file an
objection to, or comment in support of, the Derivative Action
Settlement and Derivative Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
and expenses regarding the Derivative Action.  You must file your
objection or statement with the Court by June 12, 2014.  If you
wish to be heard at the Settlement Hearing regarding an objection
or comment, you must submit your objection or comment in writing.

If the Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by the
terms of the Settlement.

You also have the right, either personally or through an attorney
retained by you, at your own expense, to seek to intervene in the
Class Action.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS AS A CURRENT SHAREHOLDER OF NITG?

Current shareholders of NITG have the following options regarding
the proposed Derivative Action Settlement: (i) do nothing; (ii)
object or comment on the Derivative Action Settlement, and/or;
(iii) hire your own counsel at their own expense.

If you are a current shareholder of NITG, you have the right to
file an objection to, or a comment in support of the proposed
Derivative Action Settlement, or the proposed award of attorneys'
fees and expenses regarding the Derivative Action. You must file
your objection or statement with the Court by June 12, 2014. If
you wish to be heard at the Settlement Hearing regarding an
objection or comment, you must submit your objection or comment
in writing and include in your comments a statement that you wish
to be heard at the Settlement Hearing.

If you have any questions, or would like more information, please
contact the Claims Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box
3065, Faribault, MN 55021-2665.  The telephone number and website
are (866) 403-5449 and www.ITGMergerLitigation.com


INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Montantes" Class Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Montantes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon
Natural Foods, Case No. 2:14-cv-01128-MWF-RZ (C.D. Cal., February
13, 2014) is brought on behalf of a proposed class of all persons
situated in California, who place calls to Inventure that
secretly have been, and are, recorded.

Inventure Foods, doing business as Boulder Canyon Natural Foods,
is an Arizona corporation with its headquarters in Goodyear,
Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
          MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC
          1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 542-3555
          Facsimile: (949) 606-9690
          E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com

               - and -

          Rose F. Luzon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          401 A Street, Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          Facsimile: (619) 234-7334
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Monica D. Scott, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
          E-mail: monica.scott@dlapiper.com


KINDRED SPIRITS WHOLESALE: Recalls Shot Glasses Due To Lead
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 1, 2014
Posting date: April 1, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-38737

Affected products

Collage Shot Glasses imported by Kindred Spirits Wholesale
Product description

This recall involves four styles of shot glasses imported and
distributed by Kindred Spirits Wholesale. The shot glasses are 2
Oz in size and contain a collage of images from various outdoor
scenes.

Each glass has lettering indicating one of the following:

  Product Description         Item Number
  -------------------        -----------
Prince Edward Island           75039
Nova Scotia                   400008
Nova Scotia                   300008
New Brunswick                 600008

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
the recalled products contain lead and cadmium in excess of the
allowable limits. These products were tested and determined to be
non-compliant with the Glazed Ceramics and Glassware Regulations
(GCGR) requirements for heavy metals.

Lead and cadmium are known to be very toxic metals, especially
for children. A range of serious health effects have been
associated with exposure to lead and cadmium, including anemia,
vomiting, diarrhea, serious brain injury, convulsions, coma, as
well as effects related to the liver, kidneys, heart and immune
system. In extreme cases, there have been deaths.

Neither Health Canada nor Kindred Spirits Wholesale has received
reports of incidents or illnesses related to the use of these
products.

For more information on the risks and symptoms of lead exposure,
visit the Healthy Canadians page called Reduce your exposure to
lead. Consumers may also visit Health Canada's Glazed Ceramics
and Glassware Regulations - Dealer Information for information
regarding the heavy metals in glazes.

Number sold

Approximately 616 of the recalled shot glasses were sold at
various retailers in Canada.

Time period sold

The recalled products were sold from August 2013 to March 2014.

Place of origin

Manufactured in China.

Companies
Distributor Kindred Spirits Wholesale
Kensington
Prince Edward Island
CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
contact Kindred Spirits Wholesale for a refund.

For additional information, consumers may contact Kindred Spirits
Wholesale at 1-800-665-2663 between 8:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m AST
Monday through Friday, or by email.


LENOVO INC: Recalls ThinkPad Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 27, 2014
Posting date: March 27, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-38643

This recall involves Lenovo battery packs sold with the following
ThinkPad notebook computers: the Edge 11, 13 and 14 series, the
T410, T420, T510 and W510 series, and the X100e, X120e, X200,
X201 and X201s series. The battery packs were also sold
separately.

Recalled battery packs have one of the following part numbers
starting with the fourth digit in a long series of numbers and
letters printed on a white sticker below the bar code on the
battery pack: 42T4695, 42T4711, 42T4798, 42T4804, 42T4812,
42T4822, 42T4828, 42T4834, 42T4840 and 42T4890. The battery packs
measure between 20 to 28 centimetres (8 to 11 inches) long, 2.5
to 7.5 centimetres (1 to 3 inches) wide and about 2.5 centimetres
(1 inch) high.

The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Lenovo has received two reports in the United States of the
battery packs overheating, resulting in damage to the computer,
battery pack and nearby property.  No injuries have been
reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product.

Approximately 2,900 units of the battery packs were sold in
Canada and about 34,500 units in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from April 2010 to April 2011 in
Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor  Lenovo (Canada) Inc.
             North York
             Ontario
             CANADA

The photos of the affected product is available at :

    http://is.gd/IMgrV5
    http://is.gd/xWyUJ1
    http://is.gd/DqAM6G
    http://is.gd/7sZaq6

Consumers should immediately turn off their ThinkPad notebook
computer, remove the battery pack and contact Lenovo for a free
replacement battery pack.  Consumers can continue to use their
ThinkPad notebook without the battery pack by plugging in the AC
adapter and power cord.

For more information, consumers can contact Lenovo toll-free at
1-800-426-7378 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST Monday through
Friday or Lenovo's website and select Support at the top of the
page, then click on the link to the recall page in the News and
Alerts section at the bottom right of the page for more
information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.


MARIAH RESOURCES: Failed to Pay for All Hours Worked, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Kursar v. Mariah Resources Inc., a California Corporation;
Cory Kasinger, as an individual, James Kasinger, as an
individual, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-00484-
KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff
was misclassified as an exempt employee and was not paid for all
hours worked beyond eight hours a day and 40 hours a week.

Because of her misclassification as a salaried exempt employee,
Plaintiff was unaware, and never told, she was entitled to take
meal and rest periods, Ms. Kursar contends.

Mariah Resources Inc. is a California Corporation and the owner
and operator of an industry, business and facility doing business
in the state of California.  The Defendants operate a business
that works on wind turbine power generators throughout the United
States and other countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Cassandra D. Shaft, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
                  jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com
                  cshaft@shimodalaw.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Investors File Class Action Amid Patent Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that with
Marvell Technology Group facing a $1 billion patent infringement
judgment, shareholders filed a class action derivative complaint
against the company and seven officers and directors.

Founded in 1995 by defendant brothers Sehat and Pantas Sutardja,
Marvell designs and develops semiconductors for major brands such
as Hitachi, Toshiba and Samsung. Its stock is traded on the
NASDAQ exchange under the ticker MRVL.  Its headquarters is in
the Silicon Valley, but it is a Bermuda company.

Lead plaintiff Lee Voss claims that the defendants unjustly
enriched themselves through fraud, wasted corporate assets and
damaged shareholders by jeopardizing their dividends. Voss seeks
restitution for the class, shareholder representation on
Marvell's board and strengthened oversight, audits and other
procedures.

The 70-page complaint lists a litany of problems at Marvell,
culminating in a 2012 judgment of $1.17 billion for patent
infringement against Carnegie Mellon University. Marvell staff
referring to its own chips as "coffee warmers" because of their
ineffectiveness, and used Carnegie Mellon's technology without
licensing it, according to the judgment.

The jury awarded Carnegie Mellon the huge sum because Marvell
willfully infringed for nearly a decade, ignoring warnings from
its own engineers, requests from Carnegie Mellon to negotiate a
license for the patents, and even concerns and questions from a
customer.

In all, Marvell sold 2.34 billion chips, at a profit margin of
more than $2 per chip, using Carnegie Mellon's technology.  The
$1.17 billion judgment could be tripled because it was willful;
the amount has yet to be determined.

According to the complaint, Sehat Sutardja, the company
president, and his co-defendant wife Weili Dai, the vice
president and corporate secretary, who drives a Ferrari F430,
live lavishly and have a history of financial misdealing.

In 2001, Jasmine Networks, a competitor, claimed Marvell tried to
steal its trade secrets and sued.  Jasmine lost, and has
appealed.

In 2006, the Securities Exchange Commission found that Marvell's
executives and directors had backdated stock options, illegally
pocketing about $760 million.  As a result of the SEC
investigation, stock in Marvell dropped by 53 percent, from
$35.32 a share on Jan. 27, 2006, to $16.37 on May 21, 2007, a
loss of $10 billion.  A suit filed by shareholders was settled
for $55 million.

After settling with the SEC, Dai paid a civil penalty of $500,000
and agreed not to serve as a director or officer in a public
company for five years.  A Marvel special committee recommended
stripping CEO Sehat Sutardja of his chairman duties, but the
board of directors didn't do it, according to the complaint.

Despite the SEC ban, Dai received more than $15 million in
compensation from Marvell in 2007 and 2008, and more than $6
million in 2012, the complaint states. In 2013, after the ban had
expired, Dai was given a $400,000 bonus and a $10,000 raise to
her annual base salary of $510,000.

According to the lawsuit, the $3.5 billion Marvell may have to
pay in damages is close to the company's current market value of
$4.2 billion.

Furthermore, Marvell is required to make 50-cent royalty payments
on all infringing chips its sells, which is estimated to reduce
the company's profits by 25 percent.

Defendant board members Juergen Gromer, John Kassakian, Randhir
Thakur and Arturo Krueger failed to prevent this and also are
defendants, according to the complaint.

Voss seeks class certification and damages for breach of
fiduciary duty, failure to maintain adequate controls, and unjust
enrichment and breach of duty of honest services against the
Sutardjas and Dai.

He is represented by Francis Bottini Jr. with Bottini & Bottini,
of La Jolla.


MIRACO FOOD: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Peanut Allergy
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 28, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Miraco Euro Food Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8690

The table of the affected products is available at :

    http://is.gd/nCXk1o

Media enquiries

CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600


MIRACO FOOD: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Peanut Allergy
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 28, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Miraco Euro Food Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8690

The table of the affected products is available at :

    http://is.gd/nCXk1o

Media enquiries

CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600


NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Wildlife Expert Testifies in Moose Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Bailey, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that other
jurisdictions cut moose-vehicle crashes with highway fencing but
Newfoundland and Labrador urged drivers to slow down, a wildlife
expert testified on April 8 in a class-action lawsuit against the
province.

In Quebec, Alaska and Sweden, fencing "has been effectively
keeping moose off the highway and has been effective in reducing
moose-vehicle collisions," Tony Clevenger told provincial Supreme
Court.

Research on the success of moose fencing has been around for more
than 10 years yet the province has instead relied on public
awareness campaigns, roadside brush cutting and highway signs, he
said.

Moose collision lawsuit alleges Newfoundland was negligent
Clevenger said he could find no evidence that the province
tracked how well those measures worked.

"It's extremely important that there be monitoring and research
around these mitigation efforts to make proper decisions in
future," he told Judge Robert Stack.

Clevenger, a Montana State University wildlife ecologist based in
Alberta, specializes in how to prevent vehicle collisions with
animals. For example, he cited 60 kilometers of highway fencing
between Quebec City and Saguenay, and 365 kilometers installed in
New Brunswick, along with underpasses for moose and deer.

He also referred to a 1996 article in the Wildlife Society
Bulletin, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, that was based
on a survey of state transportation agencies across the U.S.
It found that 91 per cent of respondents believed highway fencing
was successful in preventing highway collisions.  That compared
to 63 per cent for underpasses or overpasses, 24 per cent for
public awareness efforts and 17 per cent for "habitat
alteration," which may include brush cutting.  Just seven per
cent thought warning signs were successful and zero per cent said
lower driving speeds or highway lighting worked.

Brush clearing can have the unintended consequence of actually
attracting wildlife to roadways, Clevenger testified.
The lawsuit is led by victims of moose-vehicle crashes. It
involves 135 plaintiffs, including at least 15 estates of those
killed in collisions since 2001.

The class was limited to injuries that required hospital
admission.  Plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages as they
seek to prove the province is liable for not doing more to limit
risks created after the government introduced moose, a non-native
species, to the island of Newfoundland more than a century ago.

Clevenger said Newfoundland now has the highest moose density
rate in North America with an average of 1.7 moose per square
kilometer.  Up to seven moose will be found per square kilometer
in the most populated regions, he said.

Clevenger said an average of about 660 moose-vehicle collisions
happen each year. He said the latest research advises prevention
efforts, such as fencing, be focused on "hot spots" where the
most crashes occur. Such statistics can be drawn from
transportation reports of animal road kill and police responses
to accident scenes, he said.

The province is defending its prevention efforts, including a
limited fencing pilot project, more hunting licenses, brush
cutting, public awareness campaigns and roadside warning devices.
Plaintiffs say those measures weren't enough.

Proceedings started on April 2 with testimony from Ben Bellows,
who became a quadriplegic after his car hit a moose in 2003, and
Jennifer Pilgrim, whose husband Roy died in 2009 when his vehicle
collided with a moose.

Adult moose weigh between 360 and 450 kilograms.  The top-heavy
animals tend to race onto roads with little or no warning and
often crash over the hoods of vehicles into the windshield.
The case is expected to be heard over three weeks.


NNW LLC: Misrepresented "Healthy 100% Whey" Product, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Ruhlman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NNW, LLC and Hy-Vee, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03039 (D.
Neb., February 13, 2014) is brought on behalf of consumers, who
purchased a whey protein product from Hy-Vee from 2009 until 2013
called NNW Healthy 100% Whey.

Whey protein is a highly popular product given its ability, among
other things, to aid in building and maintaining muscle mass,
weight management, immune support, and bone health.

The complaint alleges that Hy-Vee actively participated in the
dissemination of the nutritional misrepresentations set forth on
the Healthy 100% Whey label on its Web site, through its
dieticians and in-store demonstrations, and on television.

NNW, LLC is a Nebraska limited liability company headquartered in
Gretna, Nebraska.  Hy-Vee, Inc. is an Iowa corporation
headquartered in West Des Moines, Iowa.  Hy-Vee has at least 235
retail stores located in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rod Rehm, Esq.
          REHM, BENNETT & MOORE, P.C., L.L.O.
          3701 Union Drive, Suite 200
          Lincoln, NE 68516
          Telephone: (402) 474-2300
          Facsimile: (402) 420-1508
          E-mail: rodrehm@rehmlaw.com


PIE PLACE: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:  April 1, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: The Pie Place
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Consumer
CFIA reference number: 8749

The Pie Place is recalling various cookie products from the
marketplace because they contain milk, wheat and soy which are
not declared on the label. People with allergies to milk, wheat,
or soy should not consume the recalled products described below.

If you have an allergy to milk, wheat, or soy do not consume the
recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported allergic reactions associated with
the consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a
food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing the recalled
product from the marketplace.

A list of the affected products is available at:

     http://is.gd/wo6MLG

Photos of the affected products are available at:

    http://is.gd/YAuqTi
    http://is.gd/zLE2kv

Media enquiries

CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600

For more information

The Pie Place, Embro ON: theschuts@pieplace.com


PIERRE BELVEDERE: Recalls Toys Due To Mislabelling
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 2, 2014
Posting date: April 2, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys, Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-38695

Affected products

Clementoni(R) "Chemistry" Kit and Clementoni(R) "Chimie" Kit

Products affected by this recall:

  Product Name           Product number/SKU        UPC
  ------------           ------------------        ---
  Chemistry                  618415              8005125618415
  Chimie                     624386              8005125624386

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
the recalled kits contain hazardous chemicals and have been sold
in Canada without the required safety warning statements and
labels. These labels direct the user to important safety
information regarding use of the chemicals provided with the
product.

Neither Health Canada, nor Pierre BelvedŠre Inc. have received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians
related to the use of these products.

Approximately 302 of the recalled "Chemistry" kits (English
version) and 1157 of the "Chimie" kits (French version) were sold
in Canada.

The recalled science education sets were sold from May 2012 to
March 2014.

Manufactured in Italy.

Distributor       Pierre BelvedŠre Inc.
                  LaSalle
                  Quebec
                  CANADA

Photos of the affected products are available at:

    http://is.gd/DwMkX3
    http://is.gd/C2FEZ6

Consumers should immediately take the recalled kits away from
children and return it to the store where purchased to obtain a
credit. For further information, consumers may contact Pierre
BelvedŠre Inc. at 1-514-286-2880 or 1-800-561-2358.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.


PIPELINE CARRIERS: Removed 1st "Concho" Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jerry Concho, et al. v.
Pipeline Carriers Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00649600-CU-0E,
was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Santa
Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00232-
DOC-AN to the proceeding.

The case accuses the Defendants of failing to, among other
things, pay all wages and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron A. Bartz, Esq.
          Ross E. Shanberg, Esq.
          SHANBERG STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP
          19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-5444
          Facsimile: (949) 622-5448
          E-mail: abartz@ssbfirm.com
                  rshanberg@ssbfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Keith Allen Fink, Esq.
          Sarah E. Hernandez, Esq.
          FINK AND STEINBERG
          11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 316
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 268-0780
          Facsimile: (310) 268-0790
          E-mail: kfink@finksteinberg.com
                  shernandez@finklawfirm.com


PIPELINE CARRIERS: Removed 2nd "Concho" Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jerry Concho, et al. v. Pipeline
Carriers Inc., et al., Case No. 30201300649600CUOE, was removed
from the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District pf California (Riverside).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00289-JGB-DTB to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron A. Bartz, Esq.
          Ross E. Shanberg, Esq.
          SHANBERG STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP
          19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-5444
          Facsimile: (949) 622-5448
          E-mail: abartz@ssbfirm.com
                  rshanberg@ssbfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Keith Allen Fink, Esq.
          Sarah E. Hernandez, Esq.
          FINK AND STEINBERG
          11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 316
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 268-0780
          Facsimile: (310) 268-0790
          E-mail: kfink@finksteinberg.com
                  shernandez@finklawfirm.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR a Defendant in 5,131 Engle Progeny Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, RJR Tobacco was a defendant in 5,131
Engle Progeny cases in both state and federal courts in Florida.
These cases include approximately 6,323 plaintiffs. Many of these
cases are in active discovery or nearing trial, according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

In Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class-action filed in
Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, the class consisted of
Florida citizens and residents, and their survivors, who suffer
from or have died from diseases or medical conditions caused by
an addiction to smoking. The action was brought against the major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc.  Trial began in July 1998.  In July
1999, the Engle jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other
defendants in the initial phase of the trial, which addressed
alleged common issues related to the defendants' conduct, general
causation, the addictiveness of cigarettes, and potential
entitlement to punitive damages.

On July 14, 2000, in the second phase of the trial, the jury
returned a punitive damages verdict in favor of the class of
approximately $145 billion, including verdicts of $36.3 billion
and $17.6 billion against RJR Tobacco and B&W, respectively.

On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2006
that, while determining that the case could not proceed further
as a class action, permitted members of the Engle class to file
individual claims, including claims for punitive damages, through
January 11, 2008.  The decision preserved several of the Engle
jury findings for use in adjudicating these subsequent individual
actions, which are now known as Engle Progeny cases.

Specifically, the Florida Supreme Court preserved a number of
findings from Phase I of the trial, including findings that
cigarettes can cause certain diseases, that nicotine is
addictive, and that defendants placed defective cigarettes on the
market, breached duties of care, and concealed health-related
information about cigarettes.  The court authorized former class
members to file individual lawsuits within one year, and it
stated that the preserved findings would have res judicata effect
in those actions.

In all Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has
been the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco
has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual
elements of claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment)
is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, both the Florida
Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit rejected that argument.

The Engle Progeny cases have resulted in increased litigation and
trial activity, including an increased number of adverse
verdicts, and increased expenses.  To date, RJR Tobacco had paid
$20,708,000 in compensatory damages and $62,380,000 in punitive
damages, for a total of $83,088,000 in these cases. In addition,
outstanding jury verdicts in favor of the Engle Progeny
plaintiffs had been entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of
$111,459,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the
amount of $120,965,000 in punitive damages, for a total of
$232,424,200. All of these verdicts are in various stages in the
appellate process.  Although RJR Tobacco cannot currently predict
when or how much it may be required to pay, RJR Tobacco will
likely be required to pay additional judgments as the litigation
proceeds.

According to the Company, an accrual of $11 million has been
recorded in its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
2013 for nine Engle Progeny cases -- Jimmie Lee Brown, Sherman,
Koballa, Ward, Duke, Walker, Hiott, Kirkland and Sury. This
amount includes $5.4 million for compensatory and punitive
damages and $5.6 million for attorneys' fees and statutory
interest through December 31, 2013.  During the fourth quarter of
2013, a payment of $305,000 was made in satisfaction of the
adverse judgment in the Douglas case.  Finally, payment in Ward,
of $2.4 million was made on January 31, 2014.

RAI also disclosed that various legal proceedings or claims,
including litigation claiming cancer and other diseases, as well
as addiction, have resulted from the use of, or exposure to,
RAI's operating subsidiaries' products, and seeking damages in
amounts ranging into the hundreds of millions or even billions of
dollars, are pending or may be instituted against RJR Tobacco,
American Snuff Co. or their affiliates, including RAI or RJR, or
indemnitees, including B&W.  Unfavorable judgments have been
returned in a number of tobacco-related cases and state
enforcement actions.  As of December 31, 2013, RJR Tobacco had
paid approximately $114 million since January 1, 2011, related to
unfavorable smoking and health litigation judgments and $139
million related to an unfavorable smoking cessation case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Still Facing DeLoach Case
------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc., disclosed in its Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013, that in 2004, RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc. separately settled the antitrust case
DeLoach v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., which was brought by a
unique class of plaintiffs: a class of all tobacco growers and
tobacco allotment holders. The plaintiffs asserted that the
defendants conspired to fix the price of tobacco leaf and to
destroy the federal government's tobacco quota and price support
program. Despite legal defenses they believed to be valid, RJR
Tobacco and B&W separately settled this case to avoid a long and
contentious trial with the tobacco growers. The DeLoach case and
the antitrust case currently pending against RJR Tobacco and B&W
involve different types of plaintiffs and different theories of
recovery under the antitrust laws than the smoking and health
cases pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and
indemnitees.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial Date Set in 9 Lawsuits v. RJR Tobacco
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are nine cases, exclusive of the Engle Progeny cases,
scheduled for trial as of December 31, 2013 through December 31,
2014 for RJR Tobacco, including one class action, according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are
dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco and other
cigarette manufacturers will have an increased number of tobacco-
related trials in 2014.  There are nine cases, exclusive of Engle
Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of December 31, 2013
through December 31, 2014, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and
indemnitees: two non-smoking and health cases, six individual
smoking and health cases and one class action. There are 65 Engle
Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco and/or Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. set for trial through December 31, 2014, but it is
not known how many of these cases will actually be tried.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,572 Broin II Cases Still Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc., disclosed in its Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013, that as of Dec. 31 there were 2,572
Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II
trials since 2007.

RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. and other
cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin v. Philip Morris,
Inc. in October 1997.  This case had been brought in Florida
state court on behalf of flight attendants alleged to have
suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in
airplane cabins.  The settlement agreement required the
participating tobacco companies to pay a total of $300 million in
three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the
companies by market share, to fund research on the early
detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It
also required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for
the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco's
portion of these payments was approximately $86 million; B&W's
portion of these payments was approximately $57 million. The
settlement agreement bars class members from bringing aggregate
claims or obtaining punitive damages and also bars individual
claims to the extent that they are based on fraud,
misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud or
misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other
alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed
that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the
defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether
ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred
to as "general causation."  With respect to all other issues
relating to liability, including whether an individual
plaintiff's disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in
airplane cabins, referred to as "specific causation," the
individual plaintiff will have the burden of proof.

On Sept. 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the
settlement. The Broin II cases arose out of the settlement of
this case.

On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable
to all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement
agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to
prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or
negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption
in the plaintiffs' favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs
bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health
effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, that is, specific causation.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Subsidiaries Face Eight Collective Suits in US
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, eight class-action cases were pending in
the United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v.
American Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-
wide class of persons whose claims related to alleged addiction
to tobacco products. Since this ruling by the Fifth Circuit, most
class-action suits have sought certification of state-wide,
rather than nation-wide, classes. Class-action suits based on
claims similar to those asserted in Castano or claims that class
members are at a greater risk of injury or injured by the use of
tobacco or exposure to ETS are pending against RJR Tobacco and
its affiliates and indemnitees in state or federal courts in
California, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and West Virginia. All
pending class-action cases are discussed.

The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates
or indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the
term "lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices
under state law or violates the federal RICO statute. Such suits
are pending in state or federal courts in Illinois and Missouri
and are called the 'Lights' Cases.

Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost
recovery actions in the form of class actions. These cases are
called "Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases."

Few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if
certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts,
including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have
considered the issue have rejected class certification in such
cases. Apart from the Castano case, only two smoker class actions
have been certified by a federal court -- In re Simon (II)
Litigation, and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and ultimately decertified.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. Trial in Camel Cash Certificates Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled for November 4, 2014, in a case filed against
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. on behalf of all persons who tried
unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege
that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue
redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like
the plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for
merchandise and that the defendants, however, did not have any
merchandise to exchange for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege
unfair business practices, deceptive practices, breach of
contract and promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, actual damages, costs and expenses.

In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February
2010. The class definition changed to a class consisting of all
persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem
Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before
the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs also
brought the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass,
consisting of all California residents meeting the same criteria.
In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and,
alternatively, for failure to state a claim was granted with
leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to
dismiss in September 2010.

In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court,
and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, in January 2011. In
July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of
contract. RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc
was denied in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the
plaintiffs' third amended complaint in December 2012. Trial is
scheduled for November 4, 2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Tobacco, B&W Still Face Lights Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois (2) and Missouri
(2), according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs
allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims
that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or
were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The
cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection
and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In
that "lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.
Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12
billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case. On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment.
The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day.

In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from
judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good
v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009.
In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an
order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a
petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the
trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18,
2006. The appellate court therefore found that the petition was
timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the
case for further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for
leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On September 28,
2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition
for leave to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial court denied the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from the judgment. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth
Judicial District. Oral argument occurred on October 23, 2013. A
decision is pending.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of
the Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in
July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of
Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order
request. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the
court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and
remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status conference is
scheduled for May 28, 2014.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed
in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a
judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case. The plaintiffs appealed
this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.
There is currently no activity in the case.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December
2003. In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status
conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Stayed Pending Compliance in "Scott"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana entered an order
staying the case Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. pending the
implementation of the smoking cessation program ordered by the
court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
(B&W), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR, on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who,
though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the
defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that
exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2013, the court
entered an order staying the case, including all discovery,
pending the implementation of the smoking cessation program
ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Asbestos Suit v. Subsidiaries Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., which names RJR Tobacco and
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), was stayed after three
defendants filed bankruptcy petitions, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking
to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on
behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and
cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of
tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to
develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.

In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Unit Still Faces 7 Canadian Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The following seven putative Canadian class actions were filed
against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in
courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs'
counsel have been actively pursuing only the action pending in
British Columbia at this time:

     (i) In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have
suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after
having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by the
defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion
challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court. A
decision is pending.

    (ii) In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement
of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly
caused by the use of tobacco products.

   (iii) In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased
or smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as
restitution of profits and reimbursement of government
expenditure for health care benefits allegedly caused by the use
of tobacco products.

    (iv) In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
individuals, including their estates, dependents and family
members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed,
manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the
period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period
as set by the court, as well as restitution of profits and
reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care costs
allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

     (v) In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case
filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff,
the heir to a deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was
addicted to and suffered emphysema resulting from the use of
tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of
revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the
date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have
filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia
court. A decision is pending. The plaintiff filed a motion for
certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in
August 2013.

    (vi) In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case
filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart
disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered,
or who currently suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its
affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
British Columbia court. A decision is pending.

   (vii) In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after
having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the
defendants, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement
of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly
caused by the use of tobacco products.

In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty"
to children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action,
unjust enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation
of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its
current or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Smith" Suit Await Appeal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the antitrust suit Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.,
await a decision from the court regarding plaintiffs appeal of a
decision granting summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, in
federal and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers
combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in
violation of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business
practices statutes.

In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the
lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons who
purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of
the defendants. As of December 31, 2013, all of the federal and
state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been
dismissed.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an
opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims. On
July 18, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. A hearing
on the appeal occurred on December 11, 2013, and the parties
await a decision from the court.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of Tobacco Growers' Claim Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss has been filed in a Statement of Claim filed
by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board
against JTI Macdonald Corp., according to Reynolds American
Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

By purchase agreement dated March 9, 1999, amended and restated
as of May 11, 1999, referred to as the 1999 Purchase Agreement,
RJR and RJR Tobacco sold the international tobacco business to
Japan Tobacco Inc. (JTI). Under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR
and RJR Tobacco retained certain liabilities relating to the
international tobacco business sold to JTI. Under its reading of
the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement,
JTI has requested indemnification for damages allegedly arising
out of these retained liabilities. As previously reported, a
number of the indemnification claims between the parties relating
to the activities of Northern Brands in Canada have been
resolved.

In one matter for which JTI has requested indemnification for
damages under the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase
Agreement:

JTI has sought indemnification relating to a Statement of Claim
filed on April 23, 2010, against JTI Macdonald Corp., referred to
as JTI-MC, by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing
Board, referred to as the Board, Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick,
Ron Kichler, and Aprad Dobrenty, proceeding on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of Ontario tobacco producers
that sold tobacco to JTI-MC during the period between January 1,
1986, and December 31, 1996, referred to as the Class Period,
through the Board pursuant to certain agreements. The Statement
of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly incurred by the
class representatives and the putative class for tobacco sales
during the Class Period made at the contract price for duty free
or export cigarettes with respect to cigarettes that, rather than
being sold duty free or for export, purportedly were sold in
Canada, which allegedly breached one or more of a series of
contracts dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996. A motion
to dismiss has been filed.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Villarreal" Age Bias Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's motion to certify for immediate appeal a trial
court's prior dismissal of plaintiff's disparate impact and time-
barred claims in Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
is pending, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
June 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint
against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Pinstripe, Inc., and
CareerBuilder, LLC, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of Georgia. The complaint alleges unlawful discrimination with
respect to the hiring of individuals to fill entry-level regional
sales positions in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (29 U.S.C. Section 621, et seq.). Although the
complaint is currently a single plaintiff case, the complaint
seeks collective/class action status. RJR Tobacco's and
Pinstripe's motion for partial dismissal was granted on March 6,
2013, thereby eliminating the plaintiff's disparate impact claim
and limiting the relevant time period for both the plaintiff's
claims and potential class claims. RJR Tobacco and Pinstripe
filed answers to the remaining disparate treatment claim on March
20, 2013. Defendant CareerBuilder was dismissed with prejudice on
September 25, 2012. The plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
complaint on March 28, 2013, which was denied by the court on
November 26, 2013. Discovery is currently proceeding. The
plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) motion to certify for immediate
appeal trial court's prior dismissal of plaintiff's disparate
impact and time-barred claims is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Tatum" Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal against the dismissal of
the suit Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, according
to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee
Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee,
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff
complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco
Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings
Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating
NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-
off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to
be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco
and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k)
plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies
involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp.,
referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k)
plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff
asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment")
that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k)
plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the
defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after
January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such
discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the
plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require
the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and
Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for
further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.
In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class. A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached. The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law
on February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice. On March 8, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument was scheduled
for March 18, 2014.


SHOWMARK MEDIA: Removed "Bontrager" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Nicholas Bontrager v. Showmark
Media LLC, et al., Case No. BC532628, was removed from the
Superior Court of the state of California, 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-01144-MMM-E to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN IV
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (323) 207-3885
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD LLP
          150 Post Street Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
          E-mail: jeff@KRInternetlaw.com
                  karl@KRInternetlaw.com


SKINNY CRISPS: Removed "Agazanof" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Asaf Agazanof v. Skinny Crisps,
Inc., Case No. BC532760, was removed from the Superior Court of
the state of California for Los Angeles County to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
01125-DDP-SH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN IV
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (323) 207-3885
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Megan Hayati, Esq.
          Samuel Y. Edgerton, III, Esq.
          EDGERTON & WEAVER LLP
          2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 300
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (310) 937-2066
          Facsimile: (310) 937-2064
          E-mail: mhayati@edgertonweaver.com
                  sedgerton@edgertonweaver.com


SOCIETE DES ALCOOLS: Recalls Chartreuse Products
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 28, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Societe des Alcools Du Quebec
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8728

  Brand name  Common name        Size   Code(s) on product  UPC
  ----------  -----------        ----   ------------------  ---
  Chartreuse  Chartreuse(Green)  375 ml      L929353      3
023480

110370

Media enquiries

CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600

For more information, consumers and industry can contact the CFIA
by filling out the online feedback form.


SPRINT CORP: Settles Action Over Use of Right-of-Way Easements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Some 60,000 present and past Texas landowners on some 3,200 miles
of land stand to receive millions of dollars in cash and other
benefits as a result of a class action settlement agreement with
three of the nation's largest telecommunications companies.

In return, Sprint, Qwest and Level 3 Communications will be able
to resolve difficult real estate problems and potential liability
arising out of their installation of fiber-optic-cable networks
in Texas without the consent of the landowners.  The case is
pending in the federal court in Beaumont, Texas, where both sides
have filed briefs and presented oral arguments requesting
preliminary approval of the class settlement by U.S. District
Judge Ron Clark.

The landowners' announcement of this settlement follows the
recent U. S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Marvin M.
Brandt Revocable Trust, et al. v. United States, which defined
the limits on permitted uses of railroad right-of-way easements.
According to the landowners' lawyers, the Texas settlement is an
application of the Brandt Court's reasoning.

In Brandt, the Court explained that the "essential features of
easements . . . are well settled as a matter of property law,"
and "granting an easement merely gives the grantee the right to
enter and use the grantor's land for a certain purpose."  The
landowners' lawyers say the same analysis supports this
settlement.  All qualified landowners who file claims will be
paid without regard to any railroad's claim that it owns broader
rights than railroad use.

The settlement will end nearly fifteen years of litigation over
real estate rights and alleged trespass and unjust enrichment
claims.  It follows approval of similar settlements by federal
courts in 40 other states. Like the 40 other settlements, the
Texas settlement terms require the defendant companies to pay
farmers, ranchers, homeowners, businesses and other landowners
for past use of the land and for future use of portions of the
land that will be subject to limited easements that the companies
will receive.  Thus, the companies will benefit from removal of a
threat to their ability to maintain their fiber-optic-cable
networks in Texas.

Paul Drawhorn of Beaumont, Texas filed the class action in 1999
and is named as a class representative.  He said that some people
call his lawsuit a "David and Goliath battle," but he says it has
been "more like a war than a battle."  Mr. Drawhorn explains, "we
had to fight three Goliaths, not just one."  "Besides," he says,
"in the biblical story, David's battle probably lasted a few
minutes with the sling of a single stone, not fifteen years of
slinging arguments in courts.  I wish we could have reached this
settlement years ago."

According to the lawyers, most of the nearly fifteen years of
delay were caused by procedural motions, appeals and other
disputes in related cases across the nation.  But the lawyers are
concerned that landowners are facing additional delays in Texas.
Statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts show that the Eastern District of Texas federal court has
the third heaviest caseload per judge of all 94 U.S. district
courts.  Also, two of the eight judgeship positions in the
district are vacant.

Delays are a concern where judges face so many demands on their
time, the lawyers said.  However, now that the causes for delays
in other states have been resolved, the lawyers believe this case
can proceed efficiently.  Both Judge Clark and federal judges in
40 other states have heard arguments about the same issues of
fairness, notice and claims administration, involving the same
kinds of claims by landowners against the same defendants.  In
all of those 40 cases, federal courts have approved the
settlements.

The next step necessary for conclusion of the settlement will be
for Judge Clark to issue an order of preliminary approval so that
notices may be sent to the Texas landowners.  Any class members
who wish to opt out of the settlement and retain their individual
rights may do so.  Also, any class members who wish to do so may
object and appear at a final fairness hearing to voice their
concerns.  After considering any additional filings or objections
that may be made, the Court may grant final approval.

Only when the process is completed will Texas landowners receive
just compensation, say the landowners' lawyers, and only then can
the defendant companies be secure in the future use of their
fiber-optic-cable networks.


SUNRISE BAKERY: Recalls Cookie Products Due To Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 31, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sunrise Bakery Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly
National, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Consumer
CFIA reference number: 8748

Sunrise Bakery Ltd. is recalling Sunrise Bakery brand Macaroon
Cookies from the marketplace because they contain milk which is
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should
not consume the recalled product described below.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There has been one reported allergic reaction associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products

  Brand name   Common name       Size  Code(s) on product  UPC
  ----------   -----------       ----  ------------------  ---
Sunrise Bakery Macaroon Cookies  227 g     R009 and R0    55138
                                                          03581 3

The photo of the affected products is available at:

    http://is.gd/AGLhcY

Media enquiries

CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600

For more information

Sunrise Bakery Ltd., (QA/HACCP Coordinator):
liz@sunrise-bakery.com


TARGET CORP: Removed "Velarde" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hector Velarde v. Target
Corporation, Case No. BC533554, 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-
01149-GAF-FFM 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


TYSON FOODS: FDA Recalls 75,320 Pounds of Chicken Nugget Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fashion Times reports that plastic bits were reportedly found by
consumers in chicken nugget products of Tyson Foods Inc.
resulting to the recall of approximately 75,320 pounds of the
product among stores.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced the recall on April 11 saying the food
company's fully cooked chicken nugget products may be
contaminated with extraneous materials.

According to Food Safety News, the following products were
subjected to the USDA recall:

5-lb. bags of "Tyson Fully Cooked White Meat Chicken Nuggets -
16142-928" with a "Best if Used By" date of "Jan 26 2015" or
Feb 16 2015."  The manufacturer codes "0264SDL0315 through 19"
and "0474SDL0311 through 14" can also be found on the bags.
These products were made Jan. 26, 2014, or Feb. 16, 2014, and
shipped nationwide to Sam's Clubs.

Included also were 20-lb. bulk packs of "Spare Time Fully Cooked
Nugget-Shaped Chicken Breast Pattie Fritters w/Rib Meat - 16142-
861" with identifying case codes of "0264SDL0315 through 19" and
"0474SDL0311 through 14."  These products were made Jan. 26 and
Feb. 16, 2014, and were shipped for institutional use in Indiana
and to a Tyson Foods company store in Arkansas.  The product bags
bear the establishment number "P-13556."

The contamination came to attention when the company received
consumer complaints that pieces of plastic were found in the food
product.  The problem was traced by the USDA to a product scraper
inside the blending machine, International Business Times
reported.

Reports of minor oral injury associated with consumption of the
contaminated products were received by the company.  They advised
anyone who had experienced any injury or illness due to their
product consumption, to contact a healthcare provider.

Dan Fogelman, Tyson Foods spokesman, sent out release on April 11
noting that the affected product lots were produced on two days
on a single line at one of the company's 40 chicken production
facilities and that product in smaller packages or at any other
retailer, are not affected by the recall.

Mr. Fogelman also added that anyone owning a bag of the affected
product should discard the product, cut the UPC and date code
from the back of the bag, and mail it to Tyson Foods- CP631, P.O.
Box 2020, Springdale, AR, 72765-9989.

"Tyson Foods has inspected all lines at the production facility
to ensure product quality standards are being met and has
implemented corrective measures at all of its facilities to
prevent similar occurrences from happening," he stated.

The FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to
validate that recalling establishments notify their costumers of
the recall, and that steps are taken to ensure that the defective
product is no longer available to consumers.


WAL-MART: Faces Class Action Over Owing Workers Sick Time Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart stiffs workers for
sick time wages owed, a class action claims in Superior Court in
Los Angeles.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: July 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on April 9 issued a statement
regarding the In Re Weatherford International Securities
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LITIGATION,
11 Civ. 1646 (LAK) (JCF)
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED WEATHERFORD
INTERNATIONAL LTD. ("WEATHERFORD") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN APRIL 25,
2007 AND MARCH 1, 2011, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED
THEREBY (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS").  CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED
FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, AS SET FORTH IN
DETAIL IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation ("Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class
action for the purposes of settlement only and that a settlement
has been proposed for $52,500,000 in cash.  A hearing will be
held in Courtroom 21B before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007 at 4:00 p.m. on July 8, 2014 to, among
other things: determine whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the settlement proceeds should be approved as
fair and reasonable; and consider the application of Lead Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT,
AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you
do not receive a copy of the full printed Notice of Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing
and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice"), with the attached Claim Form, you may
obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator:  In re Weatherford International Securities
Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10038, Dublin, OH 43017-6638, (877)
900-6750.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.WeatherfordSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com,
or from Lead Counsel's website www.ktmc.com.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
you must submit a Claim Form postmarked on or before August 19,
2014.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in
this Action.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion such that it is received no later
than June 8, 2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the Notice.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by
the judgment entered by the Court in this Action, including the
releases provided for in the judgment, whether or not you submit
a Claim Form.  If you submit a request for exclusion, you will
have no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement and
will have to pursue any claims against the defendants
independently.  Lead Counsel offers no advice and no opinion on
whether you will be able to maintain such claims.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class and counsel for the defendants
such that they are received no later than June 13, 2014, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or
Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
Jennifer Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 400-3000
www.ktmc.com

By Order of the Court


                             *********

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  * * *