CAR_Public/140422.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 79

                             Headlines


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Prof. Leamer Allowed to Testify in "No Poach" Case
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Tech Firms Face $9BB in Claims in "No Poach" Suit
ALPROSE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Chocolate Due To Undeclared Milk
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Cardholders Lose Antitrust Class Action
ARMARY CORP: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime

ASAP REPORTING: Ontario Lawyers Mull Suit Over Transcript Fees
AVNET INC: Files Claim in LCD Flat Panel Displays Suit Settlement
BALFOUR BEATTY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over 2012 Data Breach
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seeks Dismissal of Mirena IUD Lawsuits

BEAVEX INC: Class Certification Bid in "Costello" Suit Denied
BONDUELLE AMERICAS: Recalls Beans Due To Undeclared Mustard
BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Faces Class Action Over Radioactive Materials
BURNBRAE LTD: Recalls Egg Products Due To Undeclared Milk
CABLEVISION CORP: Suit Over 2010 Fox Blackout Gets Class Status

CASTLE CHEESE: Recalls Breakfast Wraps Due To Listeria Risk
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Facing Consolidated Suit Over Queso Merger
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
COMCAST CORP: Awaits Ruling on New Class in Philly Cluster Suit
COMCAST CORP: Accord in Suit Over Set-Top Boxes Awaits Approval

CONOCOPHILLIPS: Class Certified in Property Damage Action
CONTOUR NAILS: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Claims
CSX CORP: Certification Briefing in Antitrust Suit to End May
DART CHEROKEE: Supreme Court Grants Review of CAFA Removal

DAVID COPPERFIELD: Accused of Not Paying for Overtime Work
DIRECTBUY INC: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Claims in TCPA Suit
DSI FOOD: Recalls Egg and Wheat Due To Undeclared Allergens
E&E BAGELS: Liable for Unpaid and Underpaid Overtime, Suit Claims
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Sued for Violating Consumer Protection Acts

FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Latham" Message Privacy Action in Canada
FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces Securities Class Suit in S.D. New York
FAIRWAY GROUP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in NY
FIRST HEALTH: Class Wants Chartis to Cover $150MM Settlement
FUTONS FOR LESS: Recalls Mattresses Due To Fire Hazard

GAHANNA, OHIO: 6th Cir. Affirms Dist. Ct. Ruling in Laborde Suit
GENERAL CABLE: "Doshi" Suit Transferred From New York to Kentucky
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Deighan" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Baker" Suit in Canada Over Ignition Switch
GENERAL MOTORS: Lawsuits Pile Up Amid Regulatory Scrutiny

GODADDY.COM LLC: Wins Dismissal of "Revenge Porn" Class Action
HAIN CELESTIAL: Sued in SD Fla. Over "All Natural" Products Claim
HEALTHPORT INC: Arkansas High Court Tosses Class Action
HOSPIRA INC: Has Settlement in Illinois Securities Lawsuit
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, NV: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Seizures

IMPERVA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $1.2MM in Vaginal-Mesh Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Gas Tax
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Faces Lawsuits Over Mindspeed Tender Offer
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Has MoU in Del. Suit Over Mindspeed Merger

MEDLEY METAL: Suits Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MERCK & CO: Deadline Looms for NuvaRing Settlement Approval
MERIN HOTELS: Faces Suit in Florida Over Alleged FLSA Violations
METLIFE AUTO: Sued for Not Paying Work Above 40 Hours
NAT'L HOCKEY: Faces LaCouture et al Suit Over Head Trauma

NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on New Class for Antitrust Suit
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Accord in Set-Top Boxes Suit Awaits Approval
OCALA, FL: Files Motion to Dismiss Class Action Over Fire Fees
OLIVE HILL, KY: Judge Orders Consolidation of Electricity Suits
OMNICOM GROUP: Court Okays Filing of Amended Securities Complaint

PEPSICO INC: "Langley" Suit Says Pepsi Has Carcinogen
PFIZER INC: Faces "Crow" Suit in West Virginia Over Lipitor Drug
PREMIERE TRADE: Bid to Dismiss "Rivera" Case Denied
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: High Court Won't Review 401(k) Plan Appeal
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Bars Appeal in PUSPSA Suit

PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: 7th Cir. Revives Bid to Remand Class Action
SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss "Kaplan" Suit Denied
ST JOSEPH MEDICAL: Settles Suit Over Unnecessary Heart Stent
STERLING BANCORP: Has MoU to Settle Shareholder Litigations
STEWART MORTENSEN: Trial Ct. Order in "Brown" Suit Upheld

TOWER GROUP: Consolidation of Shareholder Actions Sought
TOWER GROUP: Faces Shareholder Suit Over ACP Merger Agreement
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals $366MM Award in Hepatitis C Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: 5th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Odle" Suit
WEATHERFORD INT'L: July 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

* Employment Discrimination Suits Down for First Two Months 2014


                             *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Prof. Leamer Allowed to Testify in "No Poach" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
attorneys in the Silicon Valley "no poach" class action have
overcome their last obstacle to bringing the case to trial next
month.  U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California denied a defense motion to sideline a critical
plaintiffs expert.  Judge Koh ruled on April 4 that UCLA
economics and statistics professor Edward Leamer can testify that
skilled employees of technology companies, including Google and
Apple, lost out on $3.06 billion in compensation due to a web of
anti-recruitment agreements.

At a March 27 hearing in San Jose, defense counsel attempted to
poke holes in Mr. Leamer's analysis.  But while some of the
defendants' points may weaken Mr. Leamer's arguments, Judge Koh
ruled, that doesn't render his testimony inadmissible.

"It will then be up to the jury to assess the credibility of the
experts," she wrote.

Judge Koh also rejected a related motion for summary judgment.
Defense counsel had argued that without Mr. Leamer's testimony,
plaintiffs could not prove they were harmed.

Plaintiffs accuse Google Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe
Systems Inc. of colluding to drive down employee wages by
entering pacts not to recruit each other's workers.

Judge Koh's latest ruling comes on the heels of a March 28
decision that also denied summary judgment for the defense.  In
that ruling, she allowed plaintiffs to pursue claims that the
alleged "no poach" agreements were not isolated business
agreements but part of an industrywide conspiracy.  In shooting
down the two motions, Judge Koh has eliminated the last
possibilities for summary judgment before trial.

"We have passed a significant milestone," colead plaintiffs
attorney Joseph Saveri said in an email. "We are busy preparing
the case for the trial beginning May 27."

Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. and Pixar Animation Studios Inc. have
already settled for a combined $20 million.  At last month's
hearing, plaintiffs lawyer Kelly Dermody, a partner at Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, told Judge Koh that settlement
talks with the remaining four defendants were ongoing.

Mr. Leamer asserts that recruiting job candidates through cold
calling provides employees with more information about outside
opportunities and leverage to negotiate for higher salaries.  He
came up with his $3.06 billion damages calculation through a
regression analysis using the companies' internal compensation
data.

But counsel for the defense argued Mr. Leamer's findings were
flawed.  In particular, defense lawyers attacked the analysis for
falling short of statistical significance, failing to distinguish
between damages suffered as a result of legal noncompete
agreements and the alleged illegal agreements, lumping together
plaintiffs impacted by one or more agreements, and failing to
prove that every class member would have been injured.

"The rules of evidence do not allow the jury to 'live with' Dr.
Leamer's statistical 'uncertainty' resulting in billions in
alleged damages because he has nothing 'better' to offer,"
defense counsel wrote in a joint Daubert motion challenging Mr.
Leamer's testimony.

O'Melveny & Myers represents Apple; Jones Day is counsel to
Adobe; Munger, Tolles & Olson is defending Intel; and Keker & Van
Nest and Mayer Brown jointly represent Google.

Judge Koh, who relied on Mr. Leamer's analysis when she certified
a class, again concluded the professor's research is
statistically robust, supported by economic literature and
capable of calculating classwide damages.

Judge Koh did side with defense lawyers on one matter: Mr. Leamer
will not be allowed to make an argument he released late in the
game to rebut defense criticism that his data is not
statistically significant.

"Simply put," Judge Koh wrote, "Dr. Leamer's theory is untimely
disclosed because he could have and should have included this
theory in his opening merits report to allow defendants the
opportunity to respond."


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Tech Firms Face $9BB in Claims in "No Poach" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gothard, writing for Computing.co.uk, reports that an
ongoing anti-poaching class-action lawsuit filed by around
100,000 tech industry personnel against a number of top Silicon
Valley firms is now thought to be worth around $9 billion to
those seeking recompense for lost earnings.

Companies mentioned in the lawsuit -- which alleges that
collusion took place as far back as 2005 to restrict hiring
opportunities between the firms -- include Apple, Google, Intel
and Adobe.

Late co-founder and CEO of Apple Steve Jobs is said to have
threatened Google co-founder Sergey Brin with "war" if the web
company attempted to headhunt staff from Apple.   Mr. Jobs is
said to have sent similar communications to Palm, whose former
CEO Edward Colligan in 2013 denied entering into an agreement
over a "hands-off" list, saying such a thing would be "likely
illegal".

An internal email from Mr. Brin to other Google staff reads, "So
I got another irate call from Jobs today.

"I don't think we should let that determine our hiring strategy
but I thought I would let you know.  Basically, he said, 'If you
hire a single one of these people that means war'.

"I said I could not promise any outcome but I would discuss it
with the executive team again."

Mr. Brin also suggests a "compromise" in Google's attempts to
hire "essentially a whole team" from Apple, stating that he feels
Google should not offer the rest of the team outside one
individual new roles at his company "unless they get permission
from Apple".

The suit is set to go to trial in San Jose in May, but many
parties involved are already engaged in out-of-court settlements
to further discuss the projected $9bn bounty.

The US Department of Justice already settled a suit with Apple,
Adobe, Pixar, Intel, Intuit and Google in 2010 for similar anti-
poaching accusations.


ALPROSE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Chocolate Due To Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 31, 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: --
Distribution: Possibly National
Extent of the product
distribution: Consumer

Industry is recalling Alprose and Chocolat Alprose brand dark
chocolate products from the marketplace because they may contain
milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy
to milk should not consume the recalled products described below.

The following products may have been sold in Canada and these
products may have been sold as part of gift baskets.

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 allergic reactions associated with
the consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in the United States. 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/IbKJaN

The Photos of the affected products is available at:

    http://is.gd/8yAynG
    http://is.gd/QoPCVX
    http://is.gd/oCZMN4


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Cardholders Lose Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that consumers
suffered a setback on April 10 as three big credit card issuers
won the dismissal of U.S. lawsuits accusing them of colluding to
require that disputes be settled in arbitration rather than class
action lawsuits.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan said cardholders
failed to show that American Express Co., Citigroup Inc. and
Discover Financial Services conspired to violate the Sherman
antitrust law.

The plaintiffs had argued that the conspiracy ran from May 1999
to October 2003, when 10 card-issuing banks and their lawyers
held 28 meetings to discuss how to impose mandatory arbitration
clauses in cardholder agreements.

Judge Pauley said his decision in the decade-old case was a close
call, given the "conscious parallel action" among the biggest
card issuers to include the clauses.

"It was only by a slender reed that plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate that the lawyers who organized these meetings had
spawned a Sherman Act conspiracy among their clients," Judge
Pauley wrote in a 92-page decision, following a 2013 non-jury
trial.

Class action litigation can allow consumers to pool resources and
obtain greater recoveries at lower cost than individual
arbitrations.

"This is a big dent for consumer rights," said Curtis Arnold, a
consumer advocate and founder of CardRatings.com in Little Rock,
Arkansas.  "Class action lawsuits have over the years kept this
industry in check.  Individuals don't have much recourse taking
on card giants by themselves."

Cardholders had sought to force American Express, Citigroup and
Discover to remove arbitration clauses from their cardholder
agreements for eight years.

Merrill Davidoff, a partner at Berger & Montague representing the
plaintiffs, said his clients were "obviously disappointed" and
strongly disagreed with Judge Pauley's decision.  He said it is
premature to address whether there will be an appeal.

Robert Sperling, a partner at Winston & Strawn representing
Discover, said the cardholders "never came close to proving
collusion."  Citigroup spokeswoman Emily Collins said that the
bank is pleased with the decision.

American Express, Citigroup and Discover collectively held about
31.1 percent of U.S. outstanding credit card balances in 2013,
according to the Nilson Report.

                        Avoiding A Backlash

In April 2010, Bank of America Corp, Capital One Financial Corp,
HSBC Holdings Plc and JPMorgan Chase & Co settled with the
plaintiff cardholders by agreeing to remove their arbitration
clauses for 3-1/2 years.

The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimated in
December that just over 50 percent of outstanding credit card
loans remain subject to the clauses.  It said the percentage
would have been 94 percent absent the earlier settlements.  Other
industries also use arbitration clauses.  The U.S. Supreme Court
in 2011 upheld contracts used by AT&T Inc requiring consumers to
arbitrate disputes individually.

In his decision, Judge Pauley noted that of the 10 banks that had
been part of the litigation, just two had mandatory arbitration
clauses at the start of the alleged collusion.  He found
"compelling evidence" that cardholders would have little economic
incentive to fight alleged abuses absent class actions, and said
that the banks' "need to parry consumer backlash and temper any
'rogue' players" established a motive to conspire.

"A motive to conspire, however, does not mean that a conspiracy
existed," he said.  "This court is convinced that the evidence is
just as consistent with legitimate activity in furtherance of the
issuing banks' independent self interests."

Judge Pauley said the case also offered a "cautionary lesson" to
lawyers, given that the banks' cost to defend against the
lawsuits offset potential savings from the arbitration clauses.

"In retrospect, the issuing banks' short-term goal of lowering
litigation costs eluded them," he wrote.

The cases are in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York.  They are Ross et al v. American Express Co et al, No.
04-05723; and Ross et al v. Bank of America NA et al, No. 05-
07116.


ARMARY CORP: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Balvina Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Armary Corporation, a Florida corporation,
and Armando Perez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20582-JAL (S.D.
Fla., February 15, 2014) seeks for the Plaintiffs unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fee and
costs from the Defendants.

Armando Perez owns and operates Armary Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          The Yankee Clipper Law Center
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


ASAP REPORTING: Ontario Lawyers Mull Suit Over Transcript Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olesia Plokhii, writing for iPolitics, reports that a pair of
Ontario lawyers are exploring whether to pursue a class action
lawsuit against a court reporting company that overcharged the
federal government for transcripts.

Ottawa lawyer Michael Crystal and Toronto lawyer Jean-Marc
Leclerc are looking for a lead plaintiff to help build a bigger
case against ASAP Reporting Services Inc, a court reporting
company that provides stenographers to Ontario's tax and federal
courts.

After two years of providing court reporters to the Courts
Administration Service, ASAP had their contract terminated last
November after it was found to have overcharged the federal
agency for transcripts by allegedly inflating margins and
tinkering with the number of lines on each page.

The company's competitors argue the company also likely
overcharged lawyers and others who purchased transcripts of court
proceedings.

"We are in the process of assessing individuals who were the
subject of an overcharge," Mr. Crystal, of Crystal & Associates,
said by telephone on April 9.  "We are reviewing the matter with
a view to a potential class action."

ASAP is already the subject of a Canadian International Trade
Tribunal complaint that the company's competitors lodged against
CAS for rewarding ASAP a new $3.6-million contract after the
company was fired for the overcharging.

ASAP likely charged in the "hundreds of thousands" of extra pages
per year, the company's competitors alleged in documents filed
with the trade tribunal.

While the exact sum of overcharging is unknown, CAS acknowledged
last summer ASAP owed them money and that the agency would
consider taking the firm to court to recover the losses.  But
because Justice Canada lawyers, private lawyers and individuals
representing themselves also likely bought transcripts from ASAP
between 2011 and 2013 -- the duration of the first contract -- it
is possible they were also overcharged.  When federal procurement
ombudsman Frank Brunetta investigated the overcharging, CAS told
Brunetta the agency would take "action" on the issue of
reimbursement to third parties.

It is unknown whether ASAP has reimbursed CAS -- or external
parties -- for any overcharging that may have occurred.  Both CAS
and ASAP have refused to comment on the issue, citing legal
barriers.  A decision to go ahead with the class action will
depend on whether or not ASAP is already reimbursing -- or plans
to reimburse -- parties it overcharged.

CAS was expected to reply to the allegations in the trade
tribunal complaint.  A decision will come down in June.


AVNET INC: Files Claim in LCD Flat Panel Displays Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avnet, Inc. filed a proof of claim in the settlement of a class
action proceeding that sought damages from certain manufacturers
of LCD flat panel displays, according to the company's Jan. 24,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2013.

A settlement was reached in the proceedings and in the first
quarter of fiscal 2014 the federal district judge overseeing the
proceeding issued an order approving the first distribution of
settlement funds to the class claimants. In the first quarter of
fiscal 2014, the Company received an award payment of $19.1
million, which is classified within "gain on legal settlement,
bargain purchase and other" in the consolidated statements of
operations. The court has deferred distribution of a portion of
the settlement and the Company may receive up to an additional
$4.0 million from the undistributed settlement fund.


BALFOUR BEATTY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miesa Bland and Claudia Moreno, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Balfour Beatty Communities LLC, Case
No. 5:14-cv-00138-XR (W.D. Tex., February 14, 2014) seeks damages
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated employees, seek to recover unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, statutory liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Balfour Beatty Communities LLC is a Texas Corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq.
          MELISSA MORALES FLETCHER, P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: melissa@themoralesfirm.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Telecopier: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. DePonte, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          111 Congress Ave., 13th Floor
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 362-7100
          Facsimile: (512) 362-5574
          E-mail: depontem@jacksonlewis.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over 2012 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that Bank of America
Corp. was hit with a putative class action in California court on
April 8 alleging the company is liable for identity theft and
fraud for allowing customers' personally identifiable information
to be stolen in a 2012 data breach.

Lead plaintiff Andrew King alleges that Bank of America's
negligence in disclosing his and numerous other customers'
personal information to third parties in March and April 2012
lead to the compromising of his credit report, debit cards and
personal information, according to the complaint.

"The compromising of plaintiff's name, address, Social Security
number, phone number, account numbers, account balances, driver's
license number, date of birth and mother's maiden name was
proximately caused by defendant's negligence and its failure to
keep his personal and/or private financial information secure,"
the complaint said.

Following the breach, the bank informed Mr. King that an employee
provided customers' personal information to third parties in
order for them to conduct fraud and that the fraud was the result
of an unauthorized disclosure.

Mr. King said that as a result of the data breach, he suffered
numerous instances of fraud and identity theft, according to the
complaint.  His credit report was obtained without his consent,
an unauthorized replacement debit card was issued and stolen, and
unauthorized credit card applications were submitted, among other
fraudulent transactions.

The following year, despite the freezes he put on his credit
reports and the fraud alerts he issued, Mr. King learned that a
fraudulent driver's license and loan were issued in his name.

According to the complaint, the information Bank of America lost
its "'as good as gold' to identity thieves, in the words of the
Federal Trade Commission."  Mr. King said that consumers choose
to bank with Bank of America and pay higher fees because of their
belief that the company keeps their personal information private
and secure, the complaint said.  Mr. King alleges violations of
the California Unfair Competition Law, negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty and invasion of
privacy, among other claims.

Mr. King is represented by Bradley K. King --
bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Robert Ahdoot --
RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- and Theodore W. Maya --
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC.

The case is Andrew King v. Bank of America Corp., case number
BC541291, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seeks Dismissal of Mirena IUD Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. has moved to dismiss
some of about 450 lawsuits filed over its Mirena intrauterine
contraceptive device on ground that the cases exceed the
applicable statute of limitations.

The motion, filed on April 9, came as U.S. District Judge Cathy
Seibel, who is overseeing the litigation in White Plains, N.Y.,
gave both sides until June 3 to select a dozen cases each that
would serve as an "initial disposition pool" with the goal of
going to trial.

The next hearing is scheduled for May 14.

Litigation over the Mirena IUD was coordinated before Seibel last
year.  The suits allege that the Mirena, which a doctor implants
into a woman during an office visit, can dislodge, tearing the
uterine wall and requiring surgical removal.

Bayer has insisted that the device's packaging labels, which warn
of risks of uterine perforation, are adequate.

In its dismissal motion, Bayer asserts that the claims by
plaintiff Amanda Truitt are barred by the statute of limitations
in Texas, where she brought her case, and in Indiana, where she
lives.  Ms. Truitt, who suffered nausea and vomiting after the
device migrated out of her uterus, causing ovarian cysts,
underwent surgery to remove it in 2011.  But she didn't sue until
more than two years later, the motion says.  Claims for products
liability and personal injury are barred in both states after two
years.

Bayer said its dismissal motion would serve as an "exemplar" on
the issue of statute of limitations.  Bayer attorney Shayna Cook,
-- scook@goldmanismail.com -- a partner at Chicago's Goldman
Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum, in a Jan. 2 letter to the judge,
estimated that 15 percent of the cases could be dismissed on
statute of limitations grounds.

"An early statute of limitations ruling would streamline
discovery in many of those cases and would likely lead to
voluntary dismissal by many plaintiffs and deter future filing of
similarly time-barred cases," she wrote.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Diogenes Kekatos --
dkekatos@seegerweiss.com -- disagreed that Bayer's motion in a
single case could determine the outcome of the others. In his own
Jan. 8 letter to the judge, he noted that each state has
different statutes of limitations.

Ms. Cook declined to comment, and Mr. Kekatos, a partner at New
York's Seeger Weiss, did not respond to a request for comment.

More than 700 additional lawsuits over Mirena are pending in New
Jersey state courts.


BEAVEX INC: Class Certification Bid in "Costello" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Costello, Megan Baase Kephart, Osama Daoud, and the class
they seek to represent, worked for BeavEx, Inc., a courier
company, as delivery drivers. The Plaintiffs brought a three-
count Complaint on January 11, 2013, alleging that BeavEx
unlawfully classified its delivery drivers as "independent
contractors" when they should have been deemed "employees" under
both Illinois statutory and common law. This misclassification
allegedly resulted in (1) deprivation of overtime wages in
violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"); (2) illegal
deductions taken from the Plaintiffs' wages in violation of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"); and (3)
unjust enrichment of BeavEx. Specifically in Count II, the
Plaintiffs allege that BeavEx unlawfully took deductions from
their pay in order to fund uniforms, cargo insurance, workers'
accident insurance, administrative fees, scanner fees, and
cellular phone fees in violation of the IWPCA that would not have
occurred were the Plaintiffs properly classified as "employees."
BeavEx moved for summary judgment claiming that the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 ("FAA")
preempts the IWPCA because the FAA expressly preempts a State
from enacting or enforcing a law related to a price, route, or
service of any motor carrier. The Plaintiffs filed for summary
judgment on Count II claiming that BeavEx cannot satisfy the
IWPCA independent contractor exception to wage deductions based
on the undisputed facts while concurrently moving the Court to
certify this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
23.

District Judge Virginia M. Kendall, in a memorandum opinion and
order dated March 31, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/n9S83Bfrom Leagle.com, denied BeavEx's motion for
summary judgment and the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
Count II is granted as to the named plaintiffs, she added.

The lawsuit is captioned THOMAS COSTELLO, MEGAN BAASE KEPHART,
AND OSAMA DAOUD, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. BEAVEX INC., Defendant, NO. 12
C 7843, (N.D. Ill.).

Thomas Costello, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Tully --
etully@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-riordan, P.C., Harold L.
Lichten, Lichten & Liss-riordan, P.C. and:

   Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
   Bradley S. Manewith, Esq.
   Madeline Kate Engel, Esq.
   Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd.
   Two Prudential Plaza 180
   North Stetson, Suite 3150
   Chicago, Illinois 60601
   Telephone:(312) 540-1230
   Facsimile:(312) 540-1231

Megan Baase Kephart, Plaintiff, represented by Marc J. Siegel,
Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd, Bradley S Manewith, Caffarelli & Siegel
Ltd, Elizabeth Tully, Lichten & Liss-riordan, P.c., Harold L.
Lichten, Lichten & Liss-riordan, P.c. & Madeline Kate Engel,
Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd..

Osama Daoud, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley S Manewith,
Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd & Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-
riordan, P.c..

Beavex, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian E. Spang --
bspang@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Kevin M. Duddlesten
-- kduddlesten@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Teri L.
Danish -- tdanish@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods Llp.

Beavex, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Brian E. Spang,
McGuireWoods LLP, Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-riordan,
P.c., Kevin M. Duddlesten, McGuireWoods LLP & Teri L. Danish,
Mcguirewoods Llp.

Megan Baase Kephart, Defendant, represented by Marc J. Siegel,
Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd, Bradley S Manewith, Caffarelli & Siegel
Ltd, Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-riordan, P.c. & Madeline
Kate Engel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd..

Thomas Costello, Counter Defendant, represented by Marc J.
Siegel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd, Bradley S Manewith, Caffarelli &
Siegel Ltd & Madeline Kate Engel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd..

Beavex, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Brian E. Spang,
McGuireWoods LLP, Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-riordan,
P.c., Kevin M. Duddlesten, McGuireWoods LLP & Teri L. Danish,
Mcguirewoods Llp.

Megan Baase Kephart, Defendant, represented by Marc J. Siegel,
Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd, Bradley S Manewith, Caffarelli & Siegel
Ltd, Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-riordan, P.c. & Madeline
Kate Engel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd..

Thomas Costello, Counter Defendant, represented by Marc J.
Siegel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd, Bradley S Manewith, Caffarelli &
Siegel Ltd & Madeline Kate Engel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd..

Beavex, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Brian E. Spang,
McGuireWoods LLP, Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-riordan,
P.c., Kevin M. Duddlesten, McGuireWoods LLP & Teri L. Danish,
Mcguirewoods Llp.

Megan Baase Kephart, Defendant, represented by Marc J. Siegel,
Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd, Bradley S Manewith, Caffarelli & Siegel
Ltd, Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-riordan, P.c. & Madeline
Kate Engel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd..

Thomas Costello, Counter Defendant, represented by Marc J.
Siegel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd, Bradley S Manewith, Caffarelli &
Siegel Ltd & Madeline Kate Engel, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd..

Osama Daoud, Counter Defendant, represented by Bradley S
Manewith, Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd.


BONDUELLE AMERICAS: Recalls Beans Due To Undeclared Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 27, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Bonduelle Americas
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution: Consumer
CFIA reference number: 8742

Bonduelle Americas is recalling Safeway brand bean products from
the marketplace because they contain mustard which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard should
not consume the recalled products described below.

If you have an allergy to mustard, 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 recalled products
from the marketplace.

The table of the affected products is available at :

    http://is.gd/j3v3VC

The photos of the affected products is available at :

    http://is.gd/tTOx1E
    http://is.gd/EDYdLa
    http://is.gd/zy0IiC
    http://is.gd/K4XLaw
    http://is.gd/po2MIN
    http://is.gd/p6LY4q

CFIA Media Relations

613-773-6600

Sophie Leroux, Quebec Regional Director of Quality
Tel: 450-469-3159 X 10303
sophie.leroux@bonduelle.com


BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Faces Class Action Over Radioactive Materials
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KMOX reports that a class action lawsuit filed on April 11
alleges radioactive materials have migrated offsite from the West
Lake Landfill in Bridgeton and onto private property.  The suit
was filed on behalf of a 72-year-old man who has lived in the
Spanish Village area for decades.

Attorney Daniel Finney of the Finney Law Office expects others
living within a three-mile radius of the landfill to join the
class action case.  Mr. Finney says the suit does not allege any
ill health effects from the landfill.

"It's a property damage claim . . . in which we're alleging the
property has been adversely affected because of the presence of
radioactive material," Mr. Finney explained.

The suit claims the nuclear contamination is no longer under a
tarp behind the fence.

Richard Callow, a spokesperson for Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, said,
"EPA has determined and recently confirmed that nobody can be
exposed to radiation from West Lake outside the barbed-wire fence
that surrounds the site.  We have not seen the off-site testing
data Mr. Finney claims to possess, and therefore cannot comment
on it.  We have now seen the Complaint he filed, and expect to
move to dismiss it for failure to state a legally-sufficient
claim."


BURNBRAE LTD: Recalls Egg Products Due To Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 1, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Burnbrae Farms Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 8753

Affected products

                                     Code(s) on
  Brand name    Common name  Size    product           UPC
  ----------    -----------  ----    ----------        ---
Burnbrae Farms  Dried        22.7 kg  Lot # 0863  10065651003012
                Whole Eggs

Media enquiries

CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600


CABLEVISION CORP: Suit Over 2010 Fox Blackout Gets Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Rumsey, writing for Long Island Press, reports that a
federal court in New York City has granted class action status to
a suit filed on behalf of Cablevision subscribers demanding that
the company give them credit for the two weeks in October 2010
that they couldn't watch any of the Fox Network's shows because
of a service blackout stemming from a contract dispute between
the cable company and the programming provider.

On March 31, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Joanna Seybert ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which
was brought on behalf of Cablevision's nearly 3 million
subscribers in the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut area.
But only customers who had contracts with Cablevision prior to
Oct. 16, 2010, when the blackout began, could be included in the
suit if they so chose.

The court rejected each of Cablevision's arguments against the
class certification and concluded that the plaintiffs had met all
of the requirements for it.  In one instance, Cablevision had
contended that its contract with its customers precluded class
action status because it had dutifully notified the subscribers
about the service interruption.

Two years ago, Judge Seybert rejected Cablevision's contention
that the Fox Television blackout was beyond its control.  The
affected channels, which were in the basic bundle and the "iO"
premium package, included "Fox 5," "My9 Channel," "Fox 29", Fox
Business Network, National Geographic Wild and Fox Deportes.  One
of the biggest reasons for the customers' displeasure at the time
was that sports fans could not watch the World Series or the
Giants football games during the service disruption, which lasted
until Oct. 30, 2010, when Cablevision and News Corp., Fox
Television's owner, reached a new retransmission agreement.

The plaintiffs' attorneys -- Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua; Stone
Bonner & Rocco LLP in Manhattan; and Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
in Manhattan -- allege that Cablevision breached the contract
with its cable customers by not giving subscribers a pro rata
credit on their monthly subscriber fees or providing alternative
programming on the Fox channels during the blackout.

As Judge Seybert wrote in her decision, "At this stage, it is not
the Court's task to determine whether Plaintiffs are correct.
Rather, the Court must only assess whether the claim presents
common issues of fact and law sufficient for class
certification."

That narrow interpretation was reiterated by Cablevision.

"The Court's ruling concerns class certification issues and does
not address the merits of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, which we
believe is baseless," said Lisa Anselmo, a Cablevision
spokeswoman.  "We will continue to defend against it vigorously."

And so the suit continues.


CASTLE CHEESE: Recalls Breakfast Wraps Due To Listeria Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 1, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Creekside Market, Super Valu
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8756

The food recall warning issued on March 26, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information identified during the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety
investigation. The following products are being recalled because
they were made from or contain shredded cheese products
voluntarily recalled by Castle Cheese Inc. due to Listeria.

Industry is recalling Belich's Market and Creekside Market brands
Breakfast Wraps from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

This recall was triggered by the company. 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 recalled products
from the marketplace.

The table of the affected products is available at:

    http://is.gd/uP6AcZ

The photo of the affecfed product is available at:

    http://is.gd/jz9Sm0

Media enquiries

CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Facing Consolidated Suit Over Queso Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in four actions pending in Kansas against CEC
Entertainment, Inc. over a merger deal with Queso Holdings Inc.
have determined to pursue a consolidated action, according to
CEC's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 29, 2013.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had
entered into the Merger Agreement, five putative shareholder
class actions were filed on behalf of purported stockholders of
the Company against the Company, its directors, Apollo Global
Management, LLC ("Apollo"), Parent, and Merger Sub in connection
with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated
thereby. Four of the actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas. The first purported class action, which
is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No.
14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The
second purported class action, which is captioned John Solak v.
CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed
on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The third purported
class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January
24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management
VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon
Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned
Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank,
et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the
"LMPERS Action"). The fifth purported class action, which is
captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B,
was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February
7, 2014 (the "McCullough Action") (together with the LMPERS,
Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions").

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an
inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the
Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement
that allegedly make it less likely that the Board will be able to
consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon, and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a
conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon, and LMPERS
Actions further allege that the Board was subject to material
conflicts of interest in approving the Merger Agreement or that
the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly
conflicted members of management to negotiate the transaction.
The Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together
with the exhibits and annexes thereto, as it may be amended or
supplemented, the "Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22,
2014, which allegedly contained material misrepresentations and
omissions.

Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and
abetted the Board's breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and
Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such
breaches, and the Solak, LMPERS and McCullough Actions further
allege that Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such
actions. The LMPERS and McCullough Actions further allege that
Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.
aided and abetted such actions.

The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, an injunction
to prevent consummation of the Tender Offer and subsequent
Merger, rescission of these transactions (to the extent already
implemented), damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs,
and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.
On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an
amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"); furthermore,
on January 30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an
amended complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together with
the Coyne Amended Complaint, the "Amended Complaints"). The
Amended Complaints incorporate all of the allegations in the
original complaints and add allegations that the Board approved
the Statement which omitted certain material information in
violation of their fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaints
further request an order directing the Board to disclose such
allegedly omitted material information and, if necessary, extend
the closing of the Tender Offer to permit such information to be
disseminated to the Company's stockholders. Additionally, the
Solak Amended Complaint adds allegations that the Board breached
its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly conflicted
financial advisor and management to lead the sales process.

On January 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Coyne and Dixon
Actions jointly filed a motion in each action for a temporary
restraining order, expedited discovery, and the scheduling of a
hearing for the plaintiffs' anticipated motion for temporary
injunction seeking expedited discovery and a hearing date in
anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction.  CEC and the
individual defendants filed responses to those motions on January
31, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the plaintiff in the LMPERS Action filed a
motion to join the January 28 motion, and the plaintiff in the
Solak Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings in
anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
four actions pending in Kansas withdrew their respective motions
and determined to pursue a consolidated action for damages after
the Tender Offer closes.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Soto and Raul Soto, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Citimortgage, Inc.; Gladstone Law
Group, P.A., a Florida professional corporation; and Nusrat
Mansoor, individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-00263-JA-DAB (M.D. Fla.,
February 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          N. James Turner, Esq.
          N. JAMES TURNER, LLC
          37 N Orange Ave., Suite 500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (888) 877-5103
          E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com

Defendant Citimortgage, Inc. is represented by:

          Marisa Elizabeth Rosen, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2900
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 422-6600
          Facsimile: (407) 841-0325
          E-mail: mrosen@bakerdonelson.com

Defendant Gladstone Law Group, P.A., is represented by:

          David P. Hartnett, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 400
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6044
          Telephone: (305) 358-7747
          Facsimile: (305) 577-1063
          E-mail: dhartnett@hinshawlaw.com


COMCAST CORP: Awaits Ruling on New Class in Philly Cluster Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denied a motion by Comcast Corporation to strike a motion by a
plaintiff in the so-called Philadelphia Cluster antitrust case to
certify a new, smaller class, on procedural grounds, and a
decision on the plaintiffs' motion is expected in 2014, according
to the company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The company is a defendant in two purported class actions
originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District
Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. The potential class in the Massachusetts case,
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is the company's customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case
is the company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages
under antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers
were certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively.
The company appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia
Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the class certification in August 2011. In June 2012,
the U.S. Supreme Court granted the company's petition to review
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and in March 2013, the
Supreme Court ruled that the class had been improperly certified
and reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit. The matter has
been returned to the District Court for action consistent with
the Supreme Court's opinion. In August 2013, a plaintiff in the
Philadelphia Cluster case moved to certify a new, smaller class.
The District Court denied the company's September 2013 motion to
strike the plaintiffs' motion on procedural grounds, and a
decision on the plaintiffs' motion is expected in 2014. The
plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed
pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims.


COMCAST CORP: Accord in Suit Over Set-Top Boxes Awaits Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23 cases alleging
that Comcast Corp. improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes
to the provision of premium cable services was submitted to the
US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
preliminary approval, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In addition, the company is a defendant in 22 purported class
actions filed in federal district courts throughout the country.
All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial
proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009
on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the
plaintiffs allege that the company improperly "tie" the rental of
set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various
state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in
California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a
claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a
nationwide class of the company's premium cable customers and on
behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from
California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington.

In January 2010, the company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In
September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses
in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico and West Virginia.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their unjust
enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on behalf of
the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In June 2011,
the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging only
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust
law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in
California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf
of a nationwide class of the company's premium cable customers
and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers
from California and Washington. In July 2011, the company moved
to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs' claims and to
stay the remaining claims pending arbitration. The West Virginia
Attorney General also filed a complaint in West Virginia state
court in July 2009 alleging that the company improperly "tie" the
rental of set-top boxes to the provision of digital cable
services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and the
West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney
General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution.
The company removed the case to the United States District Court
for West Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multidistrict litigation.

In June 2013, a comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23
cases was submitted to the District Court for preliminary
approval.


CONOCOPHILLIPS: Class Certified in Property Damage Action
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a Missouri federal court has certified
a class of plaintiffs alleging benzene-related property damage
against ConocoPhillips caused by a petroleum pipeline leak,
saying that trying the claims separately would result in "great"
repetition.

However, in the March 31 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri refused to certify a medical
monitoring class, opining that the plaintiffs failed to present
evidence of actual exposure to benzene and other petroleum
products.

The plaintiffs allege that a nearby petroleum leak from a
pipeline system caused them to be exposed to benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylene.


CONTOUR NAILS: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Chanel Spaulding v. Contour Nails By Fanit Panofsky, Inc, Case
No. 0:14-cv-60366-WJZ (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties as a front desk clerk
for the Defendant in Plantation, Florida.  Contour Nails By Fanit
Panofsky, Inc., owns and operates a salon and maintains a
corporate office in Plantation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          2501 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 100
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 921-9994
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicole M. Wall, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT, & KISSANE, P.A.
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., 2nd Floor
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 383-9236
          Facsimile: (561) 683-8977
          E-mail: Nicole.Wall@csklegal.com


CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Marks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00348-JAH-BLM
(S.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) results from the alleged illegal
actions of Crunch in negligently contacting the Plaintiff and
others on their cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading their privacy.

Crunch San Diego, LLC, is a limited liability corporation whose
state of incorporation is Delaware and is headquartered in New
York.  The Defendant is a company that owns and operates gyms in
California, Washington, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Florida,
Texas, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

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


CSX CORP: Certification Briefing in Antitrust Suit to End May
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered
briefing on class certification in the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation against CSX Corporation to be completed by the end of
May 2014, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2013.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated and are now pending in federal court
in the District of Columbia. The suit seeks treble damages
allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims, rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to
seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for
permission to appeal the District Court's class certification
decision. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
vacating the class certification decision and remanded the case
to the District Court to reconsider its class certification
decision. In October, 2013, the District Court held a case
management conference to determine the scope and schedule of the
remand proceedings. The District Court has ordered briefing on
class certification to be completed by the end of May 2014.  In
the interim, the District Court has delayed proceedings on the
merits of the case.


DART CHEROKEE: Supreme Court Grants Review of CAFA Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan D. Grotzinger, Esq. -- grotzingerj@gtlaw.com -- at
Greenberg Traurig, LLP reports that consumer products companies
are frequently the targets of nationwide class actions, and a
common defense strategy includes removing these cases to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. "CAFA"
provides federal jurisdiction over certain class actions where
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.  See 28 U.S.C.
Secs. 1332(d)(2), (5).  On April 7, 2014, the Supreme Court
granted review of a 10th Circuit case that was removed under CAFA
and then remanded based on a lack of evidence supporting the
amount in controversy.  The Supreme Court, thus, appears poised
to clarify what is required of a defendant removing a case under
CAFA (or on other grounds for that matter).

The case is Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 730
F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2013), in which the Tenth Circuit declined
to overturn a Kansas District Court opinion granting a motion to
remand a case removed to federal court by Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co. under CAFA.  Although Dart's Notice of Removal
explained why the Plaintiff's royalty claims raised the amount in
controversy above $5 million, the District Court granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand because the Notice of Removal was
not supported by evidence, "such as an economic analysis . . . or
settlement estimates" supporting Dart's amount in controversy
estimate.  Id. at 1234.  When Dart proffered supporting evidence
in opposition to the motion to remand, the Court held that it was
too late based on the requirement that removal papers are
generally due within 30 days of the filing of the complaint.

An en banc panel declined review, and the dissenting opinion
explained that "nothing in the removal statutes or Supreme Court
decisions, or any holdings of this court, require the submission
of such evidence before the jurisdictional allegations are
challenged." Id. at 1235. In fact, the dissent noted, Supreme
Court precedent holds that, "[w]hen challenged on allegations of
jurisdictional facts, the parties must support their allegations
by competent proof." Id. at 1236, quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
559 U.S. 77, 96-97 (2010) (emphasis added). Prior to such
challenge, all that should be required is "a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal."  730 F.3d at 1235, quoting
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(a). "The burden imposed by the district court
on Petitioners was excessive and unprecedented." 730 F.3d at
1237.

The Supreme Court's grant of review may signal a reversal, and
its decision should clarify what a removing defendant must allege
(or proffer) and when in order to satisfy the requirements for
removal jurisdiction.  Predecent suggests that evidence will not
be required with removal papers, but perhaps the Court will
require more than a "short and plain statement" along the lines
of the "plausibility" standard applicable to complaints as set
forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and related
cases.  Consumer products companies defending potentially
removable cases should watch for this decision as it will provide
useful guidance.


DAVID COPPERFIELD: Accused of Not Paying for Overtime Work
----------------------------------------------------------
Jaroslaw Jastrzebski; Zachary England; Daniel Berro; Christopher
Oberle; Seth Duhy; Robert Smith; and Shane Engle individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. David Copperfield;
Christopher Kenner; David Copperfield's Disappearing Inc., a
Nevada Corporation; Backstage Employment and Referral, Inc., a
Nevada Corporation,; and Imagine Nation Company, a foreign
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00250-GMN-CWH (D. Nev., February
15, 2014) alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for overtime
worked and unlawfully retaliated against the Plaintiffs in
response to their demand for overtime pay.

David Copperfield is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, engaged in
production and performance of his own magic show.  He is a well-
known artist, who became known for his unparalleled talents in
magic and illusion.  He invents, designs and directs his
theatrical illusions that are the subject of The Magic of David
Copperfield show.  DCDI is a Nevada corporation wholly owned and
controlled by Mr. Copperfield, engaged in production and
performance of his magic show.  Backstage is a Nevada corporation
directly or indirectly controlled by Mr. Copperfield and engaged
in production and performance of his show.

Christopher Kenner is a resident of Nevada and an officer and the
chief executive officer of Backstage.  He holds a significant
ownership interest with significant operational control of
Backstage.  Imagine Nation is a foreign corporation wholly owned
and controlled by Mr. Copperfield.  Imagine Nation is engaged in
production and performance of Mr. Copperfield's show.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of production and
performance of The Magic of David Copperfield show.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jakub P. Medrala, Esq.
          Nicolas R. Donath, Esq.
          DONATH & MEDRALA, PROF. LLC
          7866 West Sahara Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Telephone: (702) 475-8884
          Facsimile: (702) 938-8625
          E-mail: jmedrala@domelaw.com
                  ndonath@domelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bryan J. Cohen, Esq.
          KAMER ZUCKER ABBOTT
          3000 West Charleston Blvd., Suite 3
          Las Vegas, NV 89102-1990
          Telephone: (702) 259-8640
          Facsimile: (702) 259-8646
          E-mail: bcohen@kzalaw.com


DIRECTBUY INC: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Claims in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Sojka, Daniel Hartowicz, and Kenyatta Gilliam, on
behalf of three putative classes, and Mark Sojka, individually,
allege that DirectBuy, Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., by making
telemarketing calls and sending text messages to Plaintiffs and
other persons without their prior consent.  Count I of the
operative complaint alleges that DirectBuy made unsolicited
telephone calls to the Sojkas, Hartowicz, Gilliam, and other
members of the putative "RoboCall class" using an artificial or
pre-recorded voice, in violation of Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and
(b)(1)(B). Count II alleges that DirectBuy sent unsolicited text
messages to Gilliam and other members of the putative "Text
Message class" using an automated dialing system, in violation of
Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  Count III alleges that DirectBuy made
more than one call within a twelve-month period to the Sojkas and
other members of the putative "Do Not Call class" who had
registered their phone numbers on the federal "do-not-call"
registry, in violation of Section 227(c)(5).

DirectBuy moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to
dismiss Counts I and II.  The motion states, and the initial
supporting memorandum confirms, that DirectBuy preferred that the
court rule on its motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a), before taking up the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

After discovery and briefing, District Judge Gary Feinerman, in
his memorandum opinion and order dated March 31, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/KkVXijfrom Leagle.com, denied
the Section 1404(a) motion.  The court denied the Rule 12(b)(6)
motion as well and directed Defendants to answer the second
consolidated amended complaint by April 21, 2014.

The consolidated suit is styled STEPHANIE SOJKA, DANIEL
HARTOWICZ, and KENYATTA GILLIAM, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and MARK SOJKA, Plaintiffs, v.
DIRECTBUY, INC., an Indiana corporation, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, NO. 12 C 9809, CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 13 C 1710, NO.
13 C 2786, (N.D. Ill.).

Stephanie Sojka, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas J Campion, Law
Offices of Douglas J Campion, Jay Edelson, Edelson PC, Marron A.
Ronald -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices Of Ronald A.
Marron, APLC, and:

   Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
   Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
   Heather A. Kolbus, Esq.
   James O. Latturner, Esq.
   Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
   120 S. La Salle Street #1800
   Chicago, Illinois 60603
   Telephone: (312) 739-4200
   Facsimile: (312) 419-0379

Mark Sojka, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Douglas J Campion, Law Offices
of Douglas J Campion, Jay Edelson, Edelson PC, Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Heather A. Kolbus,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, James O. Latturner,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC & Marron A. Ronald, Law
Offices Of Ronald A. Marron, APLC.

Daniel Hartowicz, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris
Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Douglas J
Campion, Law Offices of Douglas J Campion, James O. Latturner,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Jay Edelson, Edelson
PC, Christopher Lillard Dore, Edelson PC, Eve -Lynn J. Rapp,
Edelson P.C., Marron A. Ronald, Law Offices Of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC & Stefan Louis Coleman -- law@stefancoleman.com -- Law
Offices of Stefan Coleman, LLC.

Kenyatta Gilliam, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas J Campion,
Law Offices of Douglas J Campion, James O. Latturner, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Jay Edelson, Edelson PC,
Benjamin Harris Richman, Edelson P.C. & Marron A. Ronald, Law
Offices Of Ronald A. Marron, APLC.

DirectBuy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas Justin
Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, C
Joseph Yast -- jyast@directbuy.com -- DirectBuy, Inc., Martin
Wojslaw Jaszczuk -- mjaszczuk@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP &
Tamra Jane Miller -- tjmiller@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord Llp.


DSI FOOD: Recalls Egg and Wheat Due To Undeclared Allergens
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 28, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: DSI Food Corporation
Distribution: Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8743

                                     Code(s)
  Brand name  Common name     Size   on product    UPC
  ----------  -----------     ----   ----------    ---
  DSI         Ham Style       1 kg   None        6 76457 00059 9
              Product Veggie


E&E BAGELS: Liable for Unpaid and Underpaid Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Crisanto, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. E & E Bagels Inc., Evita Alexiadis, and
Eleni Karounos, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00935-RA
(S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Defendants are
liable to the Plaintiff for unpaid or underpaid (1) overtime
compensation, (2) spread-of-hours wages, (3) uniform maintenance
pay, and other relief available by law.

E & E Bagels Inc. is a New York business corporation with its
office in New York County.  The Defendants' business is a
limited-service restaurant doing business as The Corner Cafe and
located in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
shareholders, officers, or managers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  nyjg@aol.com


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Sued for Violating Consumer Protection Acts
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Martin Kearney; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, a Delaware
corporation dba Shell Oil Products US, and Shell Oil Company, a
foreign corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00254-HZ (D. Or., February
14, 2014) seeks money damages and injunctive relief based on the
Defendants' alleged acts and omissions.  The lawsuit includes
claims for breach of contract for all class members, and relief
for a state of Oregon subclass based on violations of state
consumer protection acts.

Equilon Enterprises LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Texas, and doing business
as Shell Oil Products US.  Equilon owns and operates a number of
company-owned Shell branded service stations within the Class
States.  Shell Oil Company is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Texas, and doing
business in each of the Class States.  Shell Oil owns and
operates a number of company-owned Shell branded service stations
within each of the Class States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rick Klingbeil, Esq.
          RICK KLINGBEIL, PC
          2300 SW First Ave., Suite 101
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 473-8565
          E-mail: rick@klingbeil-law.com

               - and -

          Brady H. Mertz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRADY MERTZ
          2285 Liberty Street, NE
          Salem, OR 97301
          Telephone: (503) 385-0121
          Facsimile: (503) 763-3543
          E-mail: brady@bradymertz.com

               - and -

          Brooks F. Cooper, Esq.
          BROOKS COOPER, AAL
          2300 SW First Ave., Suite 101
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (971) 645-4433
          Facsimile: (503) 296-5703
          E-mail: brooks@bcooper-law.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Latham" Message Privacy Action in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene and David McAfee, writing for Law360, report that a
Canadian woman filed a putative class action in Ontario Superior
Court on April 9, demanding Facebook pay punitive damages for
allegedly breaching consumer protection laws by scanning private
messages and using the gathered data to boost advertising
revenue.  Lavinia Latham, a Facebook user since 2006, says the
network's alleged practice of reading user's private messages not
only goes counter to the company's stated privacy policy but also
makes her unwittingly complicit in the network's falsifying of
advertising reach, according to the complaint.

Ms. Latham claims Facebook's own data use policy says its private
messaging function is on the cutting edge of privacy and that
users' messages to one another aren't read by the corporation or
advertisers, but it betrayed that policy until at least October
2012.

"Facebook intercepted its users' private messages for its own
commercial gain and has never acknowledged or apologized for its
behavior," Joel Rochon, an attorney for Ms. Latham, said in a
statement on April 9.  "Social networking sites such as this need
to be held publicly accountable.  Surreptitious surveillance of
private communications cannot be tolerated in a democratic
society."

According to the complaint, Latham has been a user of Facebook
for eight years, but her privacy concerns led her to set her
security settings very high.  She doesn't allow other users to
post on her public "wall" or "timeline," and she posts there only
in limited ways, her suit said.

Instead, she communicated with her friends on the site's private
messaging feature, a chat- or email-style function that, Facebook
says, isn't mined for data the way wall or timeline posts are,
according to the suit.  But a news report revealed that until at
least October 2012, Facebook had been reading the messages that
contained links to other websites, according to the suit.

Facebook would track the links and count the user as having
"liked" or personally endorsed the brand connected with the
linked website, according to the suit.  It would thus use pumped-
up numbers to show advertisers that it had a vast audience of
users who could see the site's targeted advertising, according to
the suit.

The policy violates Ontario law, Ms. Latham alleged in the suit.

"Contrary to its data use policy, Facebook systematically
intercepted 'private' messages for commercial gain," Ms. Latham
alleged in the suit.  "Facebook systematically violated
consumers' privacy by reading and scanning their users' personal,
private Facebook messages, and using and storing the content of
those messages for their own commercial gain, without their
users' explicit or implied consent."

Ms. Latham seeks to represent a class of Canadian users whose
privacy rights she says were violated by Facebook's like-boosting
policy, according to the complaint.

There are 18 million Canadian Facebook users, and about three-
quarters of them log in to the site every day, Mr. Rochon noted
in the statement.

Ms. Latham is represented by Joel Rochon and Suzanne Chiodo --
schiodo@rochongenova.com -- of Rochon Genova LLP.

Counsel information for Facebook could not be immediately
determined.

The case is Lavinia Latham v. Facebook Inc. et al., in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.


FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces Securities Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Renee Blumstein, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Fairway Group Holdings Corp., Herbert
Ruetsch, Edward C. Arditte, and Kevin Mcdonnell, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00950-LAK (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) is a federal
securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased or
acquired Fairway securities between April 16, 2013, and February
6, 2014.

Fairway Group Holdings Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located in New York City.  The
Company and its subsidiaries operate in the retail food industry,
selling fresh, natural and organic products, prepared foods and
hard to find specialty and gourmet offerings along with a full
assortment of conventional groceries.  The Company operates 14
stores in the Greater New York metropolitan area, three of which
include integrated Fairway Wine & Spirits locations.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          50 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq.
          Stacy Nettleton, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP (NYC)
          767 Fifth Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 833-3148
          E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com
                  stacy.nettleton@weil.com


FAIRWAY GROUP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 11 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Fairway Group Holdings Corporation and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 14-cv-0950 is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Fairway between April 16, 2013 and February 6,
2014, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Fairway securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 15, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Fairway Group Holdings Corp. and its subsidiaries operate in the
retail food industry, selling fresh, natural and organic
products, prepared foods and hard to find specialty and gourmet
offerings along with a full assortment of conventional groceries.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fairway's same
store sales were declining; (2) the Company's direct store
expenses were increasing; (3) the Company's financial forecasts
were wholly unrealistic; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Fairway's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On February 6, 2014, Fairway reported earnings that severely
missed analysts' estimates including disappointing same store
sales, as well as increased direct store expenses.  Moreover, the
Company reported a substantial miss in EBITDA growth for the
third quarter, as EBITDA grew 3.2% over the same period in the
prior year compared to growth of 20% - 25% that management had
forecast.

On this news, shares of Fairway fell $3.19 per share, more than
27.91%, on intraday trading, to a price of $8.24 on February 7,
2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


FIRST HEALTH: Class Wants Chartis to Cover $150MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Chiappardi and Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, report
that a coalition of health care providers who resolved a class
action against First Health Group Corp. in Louisiana for $150
million tried to convince the Delaware high court on April 9 to
reverse a trial court's decision that insurer Chartis Specialty
Insurance Co. does not have to cover the settlement amount.

In oral arguments before the Delaware Supreme Court in Dover,
attorneys for the settlement class argued that the trial court in
New Castle County erred when it ruled that the settlement funds,
which stemmed from a Louisiana state lawsuit lodged by the
providers, accusing First Health of illegally scrimping on
payments, were penalties and not damages, and thus excluded from
coverage under First Health's insurance policies.

The settlement class argued that the Louisiana statutory language
that ought to control how the funds are considered with respect
to insurance coverage intentionally describes "damages" instead
of "penalties," and the trial court erroneously relied on
dictionary definitions and cases regarding policies in other
jurisdictions to come to its conclusion.

"The trial court was in the unenviable position of having to
construe a foreign law," settlement class attorney Somer G. Brown
of Cox Cox Filo Camel & Wilson LLC told the justices.  "There is
no reason for this court and this state to be bogged down with a
question that has already been answered."

Ms. Brown told the panel that law in Louisiana is based mostly on
civil law, such as the legal systems in continental Europe, and
that legal system, in most cases, prohibits judges from
interpreting statutes.

Because the trial court drew from sources other than the statute
when making its determination, it did not properly come to its
decision, thus the high court should reverse the decision and
remand the case to the Superior Court, Ms. Brown argued.

But attorneys for Chartis argued that the law and statutory
language in Louisiana is actually irrelevant to the case and that
the trial court properly came to its decision.

The contract for insurance coverage in question was drafted under
Delaware law, and the parties involved agreed that Delaware law
would be the controlling authority, Chartis attorney Agelo L.
Reppas of Nicolaides Fink Thorpe Michaelides Sullivan LLP told
the justices.

But even if Louisiana law were taken into account, Chartis argues
that the settlement class's contentions about statutory language
is incorrect because, under Louisiana law, statutory awards are
not automatically considered "damages" simply because a statute
contains that word.

Moreover, the appeal is not properly before the Delaware Supreme
Court anyway, because the settlement class filed it as its motion
for reargument before the trial court was still pending.

The case stems from an insurance coverage dispute that was filed
in Delaware state court in 2009, shortly after the Louisiana
lawsuit was settled.

In the Louisiana action, a group of health care providers had
sued First Health in 2004, accusing the provider network of
failing to give notice under the Pelican State's Preferred
Provider Organization Act before discounting payment for
services.

The health care providers had originally won a $261 million
judgment in the action, but First Health challenged the decision
and the parties settled for $150 million before the appeals court
could rule, according to court records.

Primary insurer Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Co. filed the
suit for a declaratory judgment in Delaware related to coverage
of the settlement funds shortly after the parties reached a deal,
and named excess insurers Chartis, RLI Insurance Co. and Homeland
Insurance Co. of New York as nominal defendants.  All the other
insurers resolved their claims with First Health, leaving just
Chartis and the settlement class in the dispute, court records
state.

When Superior Court Judge Jerome O. Herlihy issued his ruling
May 7, he found that Chartis was not obligated to provide
coverage because the policy had an exclusion for "fines,
penalties or multiplied damages."

Justices Randy J. Holland, Jack B. Jacobs and Henry duPont
Ridgely sat on the panel.

The First Health settlement class is represented by Kevin G.
Abrams, John M. Seaman -- Seaman@AbramsBayliss.com -- and Steven
C. Hough -- Hough@AbramsBayliss.com -- of Abrams & Bayliss LLP,
Thomas A. Filo and Somer G. Brown of Cox Cox Filo Camel & Wilson
LLC and Arthur M. Murray of The Murray Law Firm.

Chartis is represented by Timothy Jay Houseal --
thouseal@ycst.com -- Jennifer M. Kinkus -- jkinkus@ycst.com --
and William E. Gamgort -- wgamgort@ycst.com -- of Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor LLP, as well as Matthew J. Fink --
mfink@nicolaidesllp.com -- Charles A. Hafner --
chafner@nicolaidesllp.com -- and Agelo L. Reppas --
areppas@nicolaidesllp.com -- of Nicolaides Fink Thorpe
Michaelides Sullivan LLP.

The appellate case is The First Health Settlement Class v.
Chartis Specialty Insurance Co., case number 498, 2013, in the
Delaware Supreme Court.

The lower court case is Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Co. v.
First Health Group Corp. et al., case number 09C-09-027, in the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County.


FUTONS FOR LESS: Recalls Mattresses Due To Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 31, 2014
Posting date: March 31, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-38707

All futon mattresses manufactured by Futons For Less Ltd.

This recall involves all futon mattresses manufactured by Futons
For Less Ltd.  The recalled futon mattresses have a white 100%
polyester outer casing with a white plastic zipper extending on
three sides of the mattress perimeter and polyester tufting
(stitching).

The recalled futon mattresses are available in the following
sizes:

     * Single (twin)
     * Double (full)
     * Queen
     * King
     * Loveseat with Ottoman

Futons For Less Ltd. is voluntarily recalling these products
after Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program determined
that these futon mattresses pose a flammability hazard.
The Hazardous Products (Mattresses) Regulations require that all
mattresses, including futons, resist ignition when tested with a
smouldering cigarette ignition.

Neither Health Canada nor Futons For Less Ltd. has received any
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 1,080 futon mattresses were sold by Futons For Less
Ltd. at their retail location in Calgary, Alberta.

The recalled futon mattresses were sold from October 2009 to
February 2014.

Manufactured in Alberta.

Manufacturer     Futons For Less Ltd.
                 Calgary
                 Alberta
                 CANADA

The photo of the affected product is available at :

     http://is.gd/Se0xBl

Consumers should immediately stop using these futon mattresses
and contact the company for repair.

For more information, consumers may contact Futons For Less by
telephone at 1-403-270-8299 or by email, Monday to Friday, 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or Sunday
12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.


GAHANNA, OHIO: 6th Cir. Affirms Dist. Ct. Ruling in Laborde Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
a district court ruling in the lawsuit captioned Douglas P.
LABORDE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
and Karla J. Laborde, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CITY OF
GAHANNA, REGIONAL INCOME TAX AGENCY, and JENNIFER TEAL, in both
her individual capacity and as Finance Director of the City of
Gahanna, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-3731.

In this putative class action brought by taxpayer residents of
the City of Gahanna, Ohio, Douglas and Karla LaBorde filed a
nine-count complaint in state court. Gahanna moved to dismiss the
unconstitutional takings claims (counts 5 and 6) for failure to
state a claim, and the claim seeking injunctive relief (count 7)
as barred by the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), 28 U.S.C. Section
1341. The Regional Income Tax Agency (RITA), the tax
administrator for Gahanna, moved to dismiss the federal claims as
barred by the TIA, and asked the district court to relinquish
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.  The district
court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss counts 5, 6 and
7, recognized that the state-law claims for declaratory relief
asserted in counts 1, 2 and 3 were also barred by the TIA, and
remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court.  The
Labordes appealed the judgment of the district court dismissing
some of their claims and remanding others to the state court from
which the action was removed.

In its opinion dated April 1, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the district court ruling dismissing counts 5, 6 and 7, and
remanding the remaining state-law claims asserted in counts 1, 2,
3, 4, 8 and 9 to state court.

A copy of the Circuit Court's April 1, 2014 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/SUjS65from Leagle.com.


GENERAL CABLE: "Doshi" Suit Transferred From New York to Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Doshi v. General Cable
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-07409, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The Kentucky District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
00022-WOB-CJS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of securities laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley Frank Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROME & GROSS LLP
          Ten S. LaSalle Street, No. 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
          Marc Sonnenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5740
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: kpohlmann@morganlewis.com
                  msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Bernard J. Garbutt, III, Esq.
          David Abraham Snider, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP (NY)
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6273
          E-mail: bgarbutt@morganlewis.com
                  dsnider@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          David F. Fessler, Esq.
          FESSLER, SCHNEIDER & GRIMME
          14 N. Grand Avenue
          Ft. Thomas, KY 41075
          Telephone: (859) 291-9075
          Facsimile: (859) 291-9165
          E-mail: dfessler@fsgattorneys.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Deighan" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports
that an Allegheny County woman joined a growing national list of
people filing class-action lawsuits against General Motors for
failing to disclose problems with its ignition switches.

Kathleen Deighan, whose age and address were unavailable, claims
in the lawsuit that she would not have bought a used 2004 Saturn
Ion in 2011 if she had known about the defective switch.  Alfred
Yates, Ms. Deighan's lawyer, said he anticipates her lawsuit will
be consolidated with other class-action lawsuits being filed
across the country.

GM in February announced the recall of 1.6 million small cars and
admitted it had known about the defect for 11 years.  At least 12
fatalities have been linked to the defective switches.

The Justice Department and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration are investigating the company's actions.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Baker" Suit in Canada Over Ignition Switch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP on April 10 disclosed that a national class
action has been commenced on behalf of all Canadian owners,
operators, lessors and passengers of GM vehicles that have been
the subject of recent recalls for ignition switch and power
steering defects.

The claim has been brought by the family of Nick Baker, a
Cornwall man who was just 22 years old when he lost control of
his 2006 Saturn Ion, crossed the centre line and was involved in
a head-on collision.  The airbags did not deploy and Nick was
killed in the crash.

On March 31, 2014, 18 months following his fatal accident,
Nick's parents, Suzanne and Danny Baker, received a recall notice
from GM. Nick's vehicle was subject to an ignition switch recall,
linked to at least 13 deaths in North America.

The class action alleges that GM Canada and other defendants knew
of the problem with the ignition switches since at least 2001,
but failed to do anything about it until this year.  GM has been
subject to a U.S. Congressional probe for its handling of the
recall.

Russel Molot -- info@delaneys.ca -- of Delaney's Law Firm in
Ottawa, who represents the Baker family, said that GM's failure
to implement a recall sooner, especially when replacing the
ignition switch would have cost just 57 cents per vehicle, is
inexcusable.  "Given the timing of what should have been a much
earlier recall, GM appears to have put their own interests ahead
of their customers' safety," he said.

Another recall, issued on March 31, 2014, relates to dangerous
power-steering defects which are also at issue.  The claim
alleges that the ignition switch and power-steering defects led
to personal injury, wrongful death, psychological injury,
property damage and economic loss. Punitive damages are also
claimed.

The defendants named in the lawsuit are General Motors of Canada
Ltd., General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, General
Motors Corporation and General Motors Company, as well as Delphi
Automotive PLC and DPH-DAS LLC (formerly Delphi Automotive
Systems LLC), who manufactured the ignition switches.

Joel P. Rochon -- jrochon@rochongenova.com -- a partner at Rochon
Genova LLP who has issued the claim in Toronto, stated:
"Canadians are understandably distraught that GM substantially
delayed notifying the public of these dangerous defects".

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.  The plaintiffs and the proposed class members are
represented by Delaney's Law Firm, Rochon Genova LLP and Kim Orr
Barristers PC.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawsuits Pile Up Amid Regulatory Scrutiny
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that General Motors Co.'s legal troubles have shifted into
overdrive, with plaintiffs lawyers insisting that drivers of
recalled cars are risking their lives by getting behind the
wheel.

GM, which has recalled 2.6 million Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn
model cars over a faulty ignition switch linked to 13 deaths,
faces multiple lawsuits plus regulatory fines.  The scrutiny has
left their owners, most of whom haven't been able to get their
vehicles fixed, wondering whether their cars are safe to drive.

"I personally have dozens of scared clients who don't want to
drive these cars," said Robert Carey, a partner in the Phoenix
office of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

The recalls are designed to fix defective ignition switches that
could prevent air bags from deploying in accidents.  On April 10,
GM announced it also would replace the ignition lock cylinders.
In its recall notice, GM assured drivers that their cars are safe
as long as drivers remove all items from their key rings except
the ignition key.

Critics question those assurances, especially since GM has
acknowledged the defect could also shut off engines under "rough
road conditions or other jarring" events.  During hearings on
Capitol Hill, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., specifically
asked chief executive officer Mary Barra: "Doesn't that recall
notice tell you that cars should not be driven?" Ms. Barra
disagreed, citing scientific tests.

Plaintiffs lawyers aren't convinced.

"Nobody should be driving," said attorney Robert Hilliard, who
seeks an injunction that would force GM to instruct customers to
park their cars pending repair.  "There's simply not a safe way
to drive them, because every city in the United States has
potholes."

Hilliard, of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi brought
his March 24 motion on behalf of a Texas couple who have stopped
driving their 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt.  In an April 2 response, GM
called the request unprecedented.  Its attorneys said the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration holds authority
over recalls and that GM is offering rental cars to customers
until their vehicles can be fixed.

"Plaintiffs have no evidence that the recall vehicles are unsafe
to operate if drivers follow the instructions in the recall
notice and remove all items from the key ring," wrote Darrell
Barger --  dbarger@hdbdlaw.com -- a partner in the Corpus Christi
office of Dallas-based Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, and David
Balser, a partner at Atlanta's King & Spalding.

U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the Southern District
of Texas held a hearing on the motion on April 4.

In the Central District of California, a nationwide class action
seeks an injunction requiring GM to notify customers that they're
entitled to rental cars pending repair of the recalled vehicles.
The plaintiffs claim that GM has failed to inform its customers
of the replacement option in violation of warranty laws in at
least three states: California, Connecticut and Virginia.

"If you've made a decision to allow your customers to have a
rental car, then you have to notify them all," said Mr. Carey,
whose firm brought the motion.  "You can't do it if they only
come in and complain and ask for one."

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for May 5.

GM, which has retained Kirkland & Ellis to handle consumer class
actions, hasn't responded to the motion.  GM spokesman Greg
Martin declined to comment on the litigation but noted that more
than 21,000 cars had been loaned to customers affected by the
recalls.

In a separate class action in the Northern District of
California, plaintiffs moved on April 7 for immediate discovery
of safety-related information.  They claim the materials,
including documents that GM has submitted to regulators and
Congress, could show whether an injunction is needed to expand
the recalls or remove vehicles from the road.

                     'Jumpstart the Process'

Plaintiffs attorney Lance Cooper, whose separate wrongful-death
case against GM brought the defect to the public's attention,
said replacing the ignition switches wouldn't make the cars
entirely safe.  "We know they're not fixing the cars adequately,
even if they do replace the switches," said Cooper, founding
partner of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Ga.  "We're just trying
to jump-start the process."  His motion will be heard April 25.

Meanwhile, on April 8 GM was named in another lawsuit, this time
by a driver who lost control of her 2007 Pontiac Solstice, which
slid off a highway and slammed into a tree.  According to the
suit, filed in Harris County, Texas, District Court, the car's
airbags failed to deploy due to the ignition-switch defect.

"She lost her power steering and power brakes, which makes the
car very difficult to control," said Todd Walburg, a partner at
San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein who represents
driver Tiffany Adams.  As a result of the Dec. 23 accident,
Ms. Adams broke her neck and had both legs amputated.  Her
parents are caring for her, Mr. Walburg said.

The suit also names the parent company of Delphi Automotive
Systems LLC, which made the switch, and the Houston dealership
that sold the car.

Federal safety regulators on April 8 fined GM $28,000 for missing
an April 3 deadline to provide certain information.  Officials
are looking into why GM waited more than a decade to recall
vehicles with known defects and have said they would levy an
additional $7,000 per day until the company complies with the
request.

Meanwhile, GM confirmed on April 10 that two engineers had been
placed on paid leave as part of its internal investigation.
Mr. Barra called it a "difficult decision" that comes "as we seek
the truth about what happened."  Mr. Martin wrote in an email
that GM has produced almost 21,000 documents.  "We will continue
to provide responses and facts as soon as they become available
and hope to go about this in a constructive manner," he said.


GODADDY.COM LLC: Wins Dismissal of "Revenge Porn" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas appeals
court on April 10 freed GoDaddy.com from a class action launched
by a group of women who claim a so-called "revenge porn" website
posted sexually explicit pictures of them without their
permission, ruling that GoDaddy, which hosted the site, is immune
from the claims under the Communications Decency Act.

A three-judge panel for the Ninth District of Texas in Beaumont
reversed a lower court's order denying GoDaddy's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims as barred under section 230 of the
CDA.  The panel found that GoDaddy, as a provider of interactive
computer services, can't be held liable for the offending content
posted on the website Texxxan.com.

"Because GoDaddy acted only as an interactive computer service
provider and was not an information content provider with regard
to the material published on the websites, plaintiffs cannot
maintain claims against GoDaddy that treat it as a publisher of
that material," Judge Charles Kreger wrote for the panel.
"Moreover, plaintiffs cannot circumvent the statute by couching
their claims as state law intentional torts."

The plaintiffs' attorney, John S. Morgan of the Morgan Law Firm,
said he would appeal the Ninth District's ruling to the Texas
Supreme Court and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We respectfully disagree with the Ninth District's ruling,"
Mr. Morgan said.  "There is nothing in the law that would protect
illegal activities under section 230.  We feel that this a very
important constitutional issue."

GoDaddy's general counsel, Nima Kelly, said in a statement that
"we are pleased with the court's decision and always believed in
our case."

Seventeen women are listed as named plaintiffs in the suit, which
was filed in Orange County, Texas, in January 2013.  The
complaint named "all subscribing members" among the defendants in
addition to GoDaddy.com and Texxxan.com.

The website in question is dedicated not only to publishing
intimate photos of young Texan women, but also providing private
identifying information about those women in a willful bid to
cause "severe embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress,"
the complaint said.  The lower court in Orange County granted a
temporary injunction blocking the website's operations in April
2013.

The plaintiffs did not sue GoDaddy.com for any cause of action
under federal law, but instead pursued claims against it under
the doctrine of civil conspiracy for its role in hosting the site
and profiting from the violation of the plaintiffs' rights,
according to the complaint.

The lower court denied GoDaddy's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the claims are barred by the
CDA, prompting the web hosting company to seek permission to file
an interlocutory appeal in the Ninth District.  The appeals court
granted GoDaddy's request.

On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the content posted on
Texxxan.com is not protected by the First Amendment and,
therefore, the website's owners aren't entitled to immunity under
the CDA.  They further argued that the CDA doesn't preempt their
state law tort claims.

The appellate panel noted that all of the plaintiffs' claims
against GoDaddy stem from the hosting service's publication of
the contested content, its failure to remove the content or
alleged violations of Texas law for the same conduct.

"Allowing plaintiffs to assert any cause of action against
GoDaddy for publishing content created by a third party, or for
refusing to remove content created by a third party, would be
squarely inconsistent with section 230," Judge Kreger wrote.

The panel rejected the plaintiffs' argument that GoDaddy cannot
claim immunity under the CDA because the site's content doesn't
qualify for First Amendment protection, pointing out that no
provision in the statute limits application to suits involving
constitutionally protected material.

"[T]he plain language of the statute contemplates application of
immunity from civil suit under section 230 for interactive
computer service providers even when the posted content is
illegal, obscene or otherwise may form the basis of a criminal
prosecution," Judge Kreger wrote.

"Plaintiffs' contention that GoDaddy is not entitled to immunity
from plaintiffs' state law claims because of the alleged obscene
or unlawful nature of the material posted on the websites is
without merit," the judge added.

The panel declined to allow the plaintiffs to replead their case
to add claims that GoDaddy violated its own internal policies
prohibiting the use of websites for any illegal purpose.

"Because we have held that GoDaddy is entitled to immunity from
suit for its alleged conduct as an interactive computer service
provider, plaintiffs' request to replead their claims against
GoDaddy, as indicated in their brief, would be futile," Judge
Kreger wrote.  "Were plaintiffs allowed to amend their petition
to assert a further cause of action against GoDaddy for allegedly
violating the terms of its service agreement, such claims would
likewise be precluded by section 230."

GoDaddy is represented by Aaron M. McKown --
amckown@wrennbender.com -- and Paula L. Zecchini --
PZecchini@wrennbender.com -- of Wrenn Bender LLLP and Mark Simon
-- mark.simon@solidcounsel.com -- of Scheef & Stone LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by John S. Morgan of the Morgan
Law Firm.

The case is GoDaddy.com LLC v. Hollie Toups et al., case number
09-13-00285, in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of
Texas at Beaumont.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Sued in SD Fla. Over "All Natural" Products Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Batalla as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80246-DMM (S.D. Fla., February 15,
2014) alleges that the Defendant has unlawfully, fraudulently,
unfairly, misleadingly, and deceptively represented that its (1)
Sensible Portions Garlic and Chive Pita Bites, (2) Sensible
Portions Black Olive Feta Pita Bites, and (3) Sensible Portions
Original Sea Salt Pita Bites are "All Natural," when they are
not, because they include unnatural, synthetic, and artificial
ingredients, including corn maltodextrin and hydrolyzed soy and
corn protein.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Lake Success, New York.  The Defendant
manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells the Products as
being "All Natural" on the front packaging of the Products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1920 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 1
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 634-4355
          Facsimile: (954) 634-4342
          E-mail: JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com

               - and -

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


HEALTHPORT INC: Arkansas High Court Tosses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that class action plaintiffs suing over the charges
levied to get copies of their medical records are not exempt from
taxes, the Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled.

Putative class representative Theresa Holbrook unsuccessfully
argued that Arkansas' gross-receipts tax doesn't apply to
patients attempting to obtain their medical information and that
the Arkansas Access to Medical Records Act exempts the fees
patients pay to access their medical information from any taxes
or-charges.

Ms. Holbrook's request for her medical records from an Arkansas
clinic was handled by defendant Healthport Inc., which has a
contract with the clinic to fulfill such requests.

Arkansas law allows patients to obtain copies of their medical
records in contemplation of legal proceedings, and Arkansas law
also limits the charges patients pay to a maximum cost for each
photocopy, a maximum fee for labor charges and the actual cost of
any required postage.  But that Arkansas statute does not contain
any exclusion from taxes and other assessments required by
Arkansas' tax regime, the court said.

The Arkansas Gross Receipts Act of 1941 levies taxes on any sales
of tangible personal property, and it was not in error for the
trial court to find that "Healthport's transfer of the paper
copies of Holbrook's medical records for money was a sale of
tangible personal property and subject to sales tax," the court
said.

The court found it highly persuasive that the Department of
Finance and Administration, which administers the Gross Receipts
Act, has decided the collection of taxes on copies of medical
records paid for by patients is consistent with Arkansas law.

Ms. Holbrook alleged that Healthport and other defendants
violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practice Act, that
Healthport illegally collected sales tax on the charges it levied
for retrieving and copying her health records and that Healthport
was unjustly enriched.


HOSPIRA INC: Has Settlement in Illinois Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. reached a settlement in a lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, according
to the company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Hospira and certain of its corporate officers and former
corporate officers are defendants in a lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Hospira, Inc., F. Michael Ball, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy,
Jr., and Christopher B. Begley, amended complaint filed June 25,
2012 and pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit alleges, generally,
that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding Hospira's financials and business prospects
and failed to disclose material facts affecting Hospira's
financial condition. The lawsuit alleges a class period from
February 4, 2010 (announcement of fourth quarter, 2009 financial
results) through October 17, 2011 (Hospira announced preliminary
financial results for third quarter 2011 on October 18, 2011).
The lawsuit seeks class action status and damages including
interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The parties have reached a
tentative agreement to settle this matter. It is anticipated that
the settlement will be fully funded by insurance proceeds.


HUMBOLDT COUNTY, NV: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Seizures
-------------------------------------------------------------
MyNews4.com & KRNV report that a new lawsuit has been filed
regarding possible illegal seizures by Humboldt County sheriffs.

In February, News 4 investigated a claim by Tan Nguyen of
California, saying that Humboldt County Sheriff Lee Dove seized
$50,000 during a routine traffic stop, despite not being arrested
or charged with a crime.

Humboldt County settled with Mr. Nguyen and one other man last
month.  Within one week of that settlement, more than 20 other
forfeiture cases were filed by Humboldt County, reviewing
instances where people who were subject to alleged illegal
searches while traveling along Interstate 80 through Winnemucca.

"Interestingly enough, they were stopped by in Utah by Utah
troopers who searched the car, and didn't find any drugs, didn't
charge them with anything and let them go," said John Ohlsen.
"Five hours later, they were stopped in Winnemucca, and they took
their money."

Criminal Defense Attorney John Ohlsen is describing what happened
to his client, a young man enroute from Madison, Wisconsin, who
was pulled over for speeding as he headed west through Winnemucca
on Interstate 80.  His car was searched, and a large sum of money
was found.  That money was then taken by the officer, and the
young man was sent on his way.

"What they're doing is profiling. They think they're stopping
people who are on their way to California to buy drugs, and then
bring them back to the Midwest or the Eastern states, and then
sell them," said Mr. Ohlson.

Mr. Ohlson confirmed to News 4 that a class action lawsuit has
been sent to Humboldt County on behalf of at least 20 of these
individuals.  Most individuals are young men, with out-of-state
license plates, who were pulled over while driving through
Winnemucca.

In the majority of these instances, none of the individuals
pulled over were arrested. In fact, most of them were not even
cited for speeding.  However with all of them, members of law
enforcement took their money, saying that they were passing
through Winnemucca with the intent of buying or selling drugs.

While Mr. Ohlson waits for a response from Humboldt County and a
federal court judge on the merit of the class action suit, the
District Attorney in Winnemucca who was supervising the
investigation has filed to run for judge.


IMPERVA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 11 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Imperva, Inc. publicly traded securities during the
period between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 11, 2014.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/imperva/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Imperva and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Imperva provides data security solutions focused on providing
visibility and control over business data across systems within
the data center.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations and business and its financial results.  As
a result of defendants' false statements, Imperva securities
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
with its stock price reaching a high of $65.53 per share on March
6, 2014, and the Company's top officers and directors were able
to sell $25.9 million worth of their Imperva stock at inflated
prices, including $11.8 million worth of stock sold by the Chief
Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer.

On April 9, 2014, the Company issued a press release announcing
its preliminary first quarter 2014 financial results.  The
Company reported preliminary total revenue in the range of $31.0
to $31.5 million, which was below the Company's prior guidance of
$36.0 to $37.0 million for the first quarter of 2014.
Additionally the Company reported an expected net loss per share
in the range of $(0.40) to $(0.44), below its prior guidance of
$(0.33) to $(0.37) and a $(0.35) consensus estimate.  The Company
blamed "'extended sales cycles on deals over $100,000,'"
especially in the U.S., and stated that "'intensifi[ed]
competition for large orders'" and sales execution issues
contributed to the lengthy sales cycles.  As a result of this
news, Imperva's stock plummeted $21.73 per share to close at $28
per share on April 10, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 44% on
volume of 10.9 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Imperva publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $1.2MM in Vaginal-Mesh Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a
Texas jury to pay $1.2 million to a woman who alleged one of the
company's lines of vaginal-mesh implants to treat incontinence
was defectively designed, in the first verdict against the
company over those devices.

Jurors in state court in Dallas concluded the design of the TVT-O
mesh sling implanted in Linda Batiste was flawed and the 64-year-
old woman deserved $1.2 million in compensatory damages, her
lawyers said.  They argued Ms. Batiste suffered pelvic pain when
the device eroded inside her.

J&J, based in New Brunswick, faces more than 12,000 lawsuits
accusing its Ethicon unit of making improperly designed vaginal
inserts, such as the slings, that damaged women's organs and made
sex painful.  Most of the cases have been consolidated before a
federal judge in West Virginia for pretrial information exchanges
while other cases are being heard in state courts.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ordered J&J, C.R. Bard
Inc. and 31 other vaginal-implant makers to study rates of organ
damage and complications linked to the implants after
manufacturers faced a wave of lawsuits over the devices.

Doctors inserted more than 70,000 mesh devices in the U.S. in
2010 alone, threading them through incisions in the vagina to
fortify pelvic muscles that failed to support internal organs or
to treat incontinence, according to court filings.

                         Appeal Planned

J&J officials noted the Dallas jury rejected Ms. Batiste's claims
that Ethicon didn't provide proper warnings about the slings'
health risks and declined to award punitive damages.

"The jury's verdict on design defect is disappointing, and we
believe we have strong grounds for appeal," Matthew Johnson, an
Ethicon spokesman, said on April 3 in an e-mailed statement.

J&J officials decided in 2012 to stop selling some lines of
vaginal-mesh implants after being hit with a wave of lawsuits
over the devices.  The TVT-O sling Batiste, a former nurse,
received is still on the market, Thomas Cartmell, one of her
lawyers, said in a phone interview.

"This verdict represents the first time an impartial jury had the
opportunity to decide whether Ethicon's sling products are
defective and they found exactly that," Bryan Aylstock, a
plaintiffs' lawyer helping to oversee cases gathered before U.S.
District Judge Joseph Goodwin in West Virginia, said in a phone
interview.  "We believe this is the first of many more verdicts
to come over this dangerous product," he added.

                            NJ Verdict

Last year, a New Jersey jury ruled J&J must pay $11.1 million in
damages to a woman who blamed a Prolift device for her injuries
in the first case over any of the company's implants to go to
trial. The Prolift implants help support sagging organs.

Lawyers for J&J, the world's biggest maker of medical products,
argued in court papers that the TVT-O slings are safe and
effective and the company properly warned consumers about their
risks.

In February, Judge Goodwin threw out a woman's claims that
another line of the company's sling inserts was defective.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Gas Tax
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that the city of Los
Angeles on April 11 was hit with a putative class action alleging
the city has ripped off $30 million from half a million residents
by illegally using nongas-related fees when calculating its gas
utility user tax, thus improperly inflating the charge.

The suit, filed on behalf of named plaintiff Alexandra Lavinsky,
alleges that despite the city municipal code defining the gas tax
as requiring from all city residents using gas a 10 percent cut
"of the charges made for such gas," the city's calculation also
includes the state regulatory fee and public purpose surcharge
that are applied to gas bills.

"At all times mentioned herein, the [public purpose surcharge]
was not a 'charge made for such gas' as provided in . . . the
[utility user tax] ordinance," Ms. Lavinsky says.  "Instead, the
PPS was a charge made to fund low-income programs, energy
efficiency and conservation activities."

Ms. Lavinksy is seeking $30 million in damages or the total
amount that the city collected that it should not have, had it
applied the 10 percent utility user tax only to the "total gas
charges" listed on customers' bills provided by Southern
California Gas and other utility companies instead of calculating
it off a subtotal that includes the SRF and PPS.

Ms. Lavinksy contends that the city has been overcharging
residents since the PPS was imposed in January 2001.

The SRF and PPS are applied at a rate of $0.00068 and $0.097,
respectively, per therm, a unit of heat energy used to measure
gas use, compared to a rate of $0.78 per therm for the gas
itself, according to Lavinsky's December gas bill.  Ms. Lavinsky
paid $11.50 for gas that month, plus $0.79 for the SRF and PPS,
thus alleging that on her specific bill, she was overcharged 8
cents and paid the city $1.23 instead of $1.15.

In December, Ms. Lavisnky mailed a government claim to the city
seeking a refund of all illegal gas utility user taxes, but as of
the filing of her suit, she has not been given a written notice
of any city action on her claim, according to the complaint.

The complaint states that although the exact number of class
members is unknown, Ms. Lavinsky believes there are roughly
500,000 residents who have been overcharged. The vast majority of
class members is easily discovered through the billing records of
SCG and other gas providers, Ms. Lavinksy said.

Ms. Lavinsky is seeking declaratory relief that the gas tax is
illegal, injunctive relief that the city change its calculation
of the gas tax and causes of action for constructive trust,
accounting and violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul G. Kerkorian.

The case is Alexandra Lavinsky v. City of Los Angeles, case
number BC542245, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Faces Lawsuits Over Mindspeed Tender Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. faces lawsuits over
its execution of a definitive agreement with Mindspeed
Technologies, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 12, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 3, 2014.

Following the company's November 2013 announcement of the
execution of a definitive agreement between the company and
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. ("Mindspeed") contemplating a tender
offer by the company for all outstanding shares of common stock
of Mindspeed and thereafter a merger with Mindspeed ("Merger"), a
number of plaintiffs filed purported class action lawsuits
against Mindspeed, its directors, the company's merger subsidiary
and the company in either the Delaware Court of Chancery or the
California Superior Court for Orange County. Those cases were
captioned Marchese v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 30-2013-00686181-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty.,
Nov. 7, 2013) (the "Marchese Action"); Iacobellis v. Decker, et
al., Case No. 30-2013-00686796-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange
Cnty., Nov. 7, 2013); Pogal v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 9076-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 12, 2013); Hoffman v.
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00687029-
CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 12, 2013); Swain
v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-
00687498-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov. 12,
2013); Miller v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
30-2013-00687951-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty., Nov.
13, 2013); Durand v. Decker, et. al., Case No. 9080 (Del. Ch. Ct.
Nov. 14, 2013); Tassa v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 9096 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 15, 2013); Feuerstein v.
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 9101 (Del. Ch. Ct.
Nov. 18, 2013); Hoffman v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 9105 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 19, 2013) (the "Hoffman
Action"); and Vinciguerra v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 9107 (Del. Ch. Ct. Nov. 20, 2013).

The complaints allege, generally, that the Mindspeed director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Mindspeed
stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted
such breaches, by seeking to sell Mindspeed through an allegedly
defective process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms. The
lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief that would
enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger, rescission of the
proposed Merger (to the extent the proposed Merger has already
been consummated), damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.


M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Has MoU in Del. Suit Over Mindspeed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' and plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware Actions
over a definitive merger agreement of M/A-COM Technology
Solutions Holdings, Inc. with Mindspeed Technologies, Inc.
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Delaware
Actions, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Jan. 3, 2014.

On November 22, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the
Hoffman Action (Hoffman v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 30-2013-00687029-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange
Cnty., Nov. 12, 2013)) pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The amended complaint includes similar allegations to the
original complaint, along with claims that the Mindspeed Schedule
14D-9 filed in connection with the Merger included misstatements
or omissions of material facts. On November 25, 2013, a motion
for preliminary injunction was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery in the Hoffman Action. On December 3, 2013, all of the
complaints filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery were
consolidated.

On December 4, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery set a
schedule for the briefing of the preliminary injunction motion in
the Delaware Actions and a hearing was scheduled for December 11,
2013. On December 6, 2013, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions
filed their brief in support of a motion to enjoin the proposed
Merger. While the Defendants deny the allegations made in the
lawsuits and maintain that they have committed no wrongdoing
whatsoever, to permit the timely consummation of the Merger, and
without admitting the validity of any allegations made in the
lawsuits, the Defendants concluded that it was desirable that the
Delaware Actions be resolved.

On December 9, 2013, the Defendants' and plaintiffs' counsel in
the Delaware Actions entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle the Delaware Actions and to resolve all allegations
which were brought or could have been brought by the purported
class of Mindspeed shareholder plaintiffs. The proposed
settlement, which is subject to confirmatory discovery and court
approval, provides for the release of all claims against the
Defendants relating to the proposed Merger. In exchange for the
releases, Mindspeed agreed to provide additional supplemental
disclosures concerning the tender offer as reflected in Amendment
No. 3 to the Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on December 10,
2013, which supplement the information provided in the Schedule
14D-9. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be
finalized or that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the
settlement. After the parties entered into the memorandum of
understanding, the motion for a preliminary injunction was
withdrawn and the hearing vacated in the Delaware Actions. The
Merger closed on December 18, 2013.


MEDLEY METAL: Suits Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Rodriguez v. Medley Metal Recycling, Llc, Harvey
Schneider, and Jesse Schneider, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
20551-UU (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) is brought for overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as amended.

Medley Metal Recycling, LLC, is a limited liability company
managed, owned or operated by the Individual Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 305
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 726-0060
          Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron Behar, Esq.
          AARON BEHAR, P.A.
          1840 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 1
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 688-7642
          Facsimile: (954) 332-9260
          E-mail: ab@aaronbeharpa.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Dean Popritkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. POPRITKIN, P.A.
          11575 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 102
          Coral Springs, FL 33076
          Telephone: (954) 791-7240
          Facsimile: (954) 791-7331
          E-mail: lpopritkin@ldplaw.net


MERCK & CO: Deadline Looms for NuvaRing Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
plaintiff lawyers were optimistic on April 9 as a deadline loomed
for approval of a $100 million national settlement of lawsuits
against Merck & Co. over NuvaRing, a contraceptive linked to risk
of blood clots.

Merck offered the settlement in February to settle on the
condition that 95 percent of claimants, estimated at 3,800
nationwide, opt in.  A deadline was originally set for March 10
but was extended to provide more time to communicate the
settlement to claimants.

Plaintiffs lawyers were meeting in Las Vegas on April 9 to
discuss whether the threshold has been met.  The pact calls for
compensation of each claimant to be determined by a committee of
plaintiff counsel using a formula that adds points based on the
severity of injuries and subtracts points for users who are
smokers or overweight.

The average settlement payment is expected to be about $58,000.
Plaintiff lawyer Paul Rheingold, of New York's Rheingold, Valet,
Rheingold, McCartner & Guiffra, says he expects the 95 percent
participation level will be reached, noting that all but one of
his 400 clients in the case opted in.

Another plaintiff lawyer, Stefanie Walsh --
scolella-walsh@stark-stark.com -- of Stark & Stark in
Lawrenceville, says she and co-counsel Martin Schrama --
mschrama@stark-stark.com -- "have every reason to believe 95
percent will be reached."  Her firm's clients had a 100 percent
opt-in rate, she says, adding, "we think the settlement was fair
and is the best these girls are going to see."

Merck spokeswoman Lainie Keller said the percentage of opt-ins
would not be immediately known as their reports have to be
processed by the claims administrator.  In addition, some
claimants and counsel have requested additional time to finalize
submissions.

Defense lawyers either declined to comment or did not return
calls.

The settlement would end about 1,500 suits in the Eastern
District of Missouri and another 200 in New Jersey.  It would
also cover plaintiffs in suits pending in other state courts and
claimants who have not yet filed suit.

NuvaRing, introduced in 2001, is a flexible plastic ring that
releases hormones and is inserted once a month by users.  It is
marketed as providing greater convenience than oral
contraceptives.

A 2011 Food & Drug Administration report said users are at a
heightened risk of blood clots.  The suits claim the manufacturer
failed to give adequate warnings about the hazard.  Some claims
are on behalf of users who died of clots.  Other users allegedly
suffered pulmonary embolisms and deep-vein thrombosis.

The federal Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation
transferred NuvaRing cases to U.S. District Judge Rodney Sipple
in St. Louis in August 2008.  No trials have been held.

In March 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared NuvaRing a
mass tort and consolidated all cases with Superior Court Judge
Jonathan Harris and then with Judge Brian Martinotti in Bergen
County.  The first trial had been scheduled for this month but it
was put on hold due to the settlement.

Mr. Rheingold says the NuvaRing deal is less generous than one
reached in 2012 with Bayer, maker of birth control pills Yaz,
Yasmin and Ocello.  Bayer has set aside $1 billion for
settlements nationwide related to Yaz and related drugs, and
average settlements in that case have been estimated at least
$200,000.

The latest settlement is less generous because Merck's liability
in the NuvaRing cases is less clear than that of Bayer in the Yaz
litigation, but as a result, many NuvaRing claimants won't
recover enough to pay off their medical costs, says Mr.
Rheingold.

The settlement was reached in mediation with Wayne Andersen, a
former federal judge in Chicago now with JAMS.

NuvaRing's original maker, Organon, merged with Schering-Plough,
which Merck later acquired.  The product brought $686 million in
sales worldwide in 2013, up 10 percent from 2012.


MERIN HOTELS: Faces Suit in Florida Over Alleged FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wideline Jusma v. Merin Hotels, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-20550-JEM
(S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Merin Hotels,
LLC, for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff performed non-exempt labor duties on behalf of the
Defendant in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 305
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 726-0060
          Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arthur Cholodofsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR CHOLODOFSKY, P.A.
          1000 Fifth Street, Suite 200
          Miami Beach, FL 33139
          Telephone: (305) 704-3230
          Facsimile: (305) 735-2842
          E-mail: ac@cholodofskylaw.com


METLIFE AUTO: Sued for Not Paying Work Above 40 Hours
-----------------------------------------------------
Shane Harris, an individual; Garian Carter, an individual; Denise
Haddix, an individual; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MetLife Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc.,
a foreign corporation; Metropolitan Property & Casualty
Insurance, Inc., a foreign corporation; a Nevada corporation;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a foreign corporation; Does
I through V, inclusive; and Roe corporations I through V,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-00244-RCJ-CWH (D. Nev., February 14,
2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act for its misclassification of and consequent
failure to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiffs, and all others
similarly situated, for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in
individual work weeks.

The Plaintiffs were "claims adjusters" in the Defendants'
insurance-based businesses for auto, home, life, property and
casualty.

MetLife Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc. and Metropolitan
Property & Casualty Insurance Inc. are foreign corporations
conducting business in Nevada.  The true names of the Doe and Roe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew L. Rempfer, Esq.
          Jamie S. Cogburn, Esq.
          COGBURN LAW OFFICES
          2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
          Henderson, NV 89052
          Telephone: (702) 384-3616
          Facsimile: (702) 943-1936
          E-mail: alr@cogburnlaw.com
                  jsc@cogburnlaw.com


NAT'L HOCKEY: Faces LaCouture et al Suit Over Head Trauma
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Stubits, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that a second
lawsuit against the National Hockey League from a collection of
former players was filed in a US District Court in New York.
This suit is similar to the first -- which has more than 200
plaintiffs now -- in that it is a class-action complaint against
the NHL seeking damages for the league's treatment of players and
more specifically the dangers that of head trauma.

The case as of now stands as Dan LaCouture, Dan Keczmer, Jack
Carlson, Richard Brennan, Brad Maxwell, Michael Pelus, Tom
Younghans, Allan Rourke and Scott Bailey vs. the NHL.  In the
introduction of the suit they spell out the thrust of the
complaint.

The plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
National Hockey League.  Plaintiffs seek damages, including
punitive damages, and equitable relief on behalf of a class of
all former and current NHL players as a result of the NHL's
unlawful exploitation of its players.  Through the sophisticated
use of extreme violence as a commodity, from which the NHL has
generated billions of dollars, the NHL has subjected and
continues to subject its players to the imminent risk of head
trauma and, as a result, devastating and long-term negative
health consequences.  The NHL has failed and continues to fail to
warn its players of these risks and consequences of head trauma,
concealing material scientific and anecdotal information from its
players.  The NHL has failed to institute policies and protocols
that could have and will protect its players from suffering or
exacerbating head trauma sustained during practice or in games.

In the entire document they detail ways in which the NHL is
culpable with regard to head trauma and its "exploitation" of
players.


NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on New Class for Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denied a motion by Comcast Corporation to strike a motion by a
plaintiff in the Philadelphia Cluster antitrust case to certify a
new, smaller class, on procedural grounds, and a decision on the
plaintiffs' motion is expected in 2014, according to NBCUniversal
Media, LLC's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The company is a defendant in two purported class actions
originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District
Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. The potential class in the Massachusetts case,
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is the company's customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case
is the company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages
under antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers
were certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively.
The company appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia
Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the class certification in August 2011. In June 2012,
the U.S. Supreme Court granted the company's petition to review
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and in March 2013, the
Supreme Court ruled that the class had been improperly certified
and reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit. The matter has
been returned to the District Court for action consistent with
the Supreme Court's opinion. In August 2013, a plaintiff in the
Philadelphia Cluster case moved to certify a new, smaller class.
The District Court denied the company's September 2013 motion to
strike the plaintiffs' motion on procedural grounds, and a
decision on the plaintiffs' motion is expected in 2014. The
plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed
pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims.


NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Accord in Set-Top Boxes Suit Awaits Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23 cases alleging
that Comcast Corp. improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes
to the provision of premium cable services was submitted to the
US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
preliminary approval, according to NBCUniversal Media, LLC's Feb.
12, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In addition, the company is a defendant in 22 purported class
actions filed in federal district courts throughout the country.
All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial
proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009
on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the
plaintiffs allege that the company improperly "tie" the rental of
set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various
state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in
California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a
claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a
nationwide class of the company's premium cable customers and on
behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from
California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In
January 2010, the company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In
September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses
in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico and West Virginia.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their unjust
enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on behalf of
the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In June 2011,
the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging only
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust
law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in
California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf
of a nationwide class of the company's premium cable customers
and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers
from California and Washington.

In July 2011, the company moved to compel arbitration of most of
the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the remaining claims pending
arbitration. The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a
complaint in West Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that
the company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the
provision of digital cable services in violation of the West
Virginia Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act. The Attorney General also alleges a claim for
unjust enrichment/restitution. The company removed the case to
the United States District Court for West Virginia, and it was
subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the
multidistrict litigation.

In June 2013, a comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23
cases was submitted to the District Court for preliminary
approval.


OCALA, FL: Files Motion to Dismiss Class Action Over Fire Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Latham Carr, writing for Ocala.com, reports that the $49
million class-action lawsuit claiming that the city of Ocala's
fire fees are illegal is heating up.  The city has filed a motion
to dismiss the suit brought by Discount Sleep of Ocala LLC and
Dale W. Birch in the Fifth Circuit Court in Marion County.  In
asking the court to dismiss the suit, George Franjola, the
attorney representing the city, wrote that plaintiffs Discount
Sleep and Birch have exceeded the four-year statute of
limitations, or time limit for bringing the suit, and that the
claim is not a bona fide one.

City Attorney Patrick Gilligan said the city conducted multiple
workshops and public hearings when the fire fee was being
considered and residents did not oppose it.  "It was a huge
public democratic process to enact user fees in 2006," Mr.
Gilligan said.

The city has collected the fire fees, amounting to roughly $49
million, since 2007.  Mr. Franjola, who is Mr. Gilligan's
partner, said the fact that the fee has been collected for seven
years undermines any argument that there is a present need for
relief, and Discount Sleep and Birch have to establish there is
an actual present need for the court to give that relief.  He
also said the plaintiffs have paid the fire fees, but did not
state in the complaint if they still were paying them.  Mr.
Gilligan said he suspects the plaintiffs did not seek out the law
firm but, rather, the law firm sought the clients.

Derek Schroth, a Eustis attorney who represents the plaintiffs,
said he has filed a motion to strike portions of the city's
motion to dismiss that, he said, are not pertinent to the case.
He said the city's motion points out that Mr. Schroth has worked
on other similar cases and also alleges that the people filing
the suit may have had some financial problems.  He said the issue
is whether it is legal to charge the fire fees, not whether he
made money on another similar case.  He said it is true he is an
attorney and works on cases for money.  As far as the statute of
limitations running out, he said, the fees can still be
challenged.

Mr. Schroth not only is challenging the city on behalf of his
clients, but also has intervened on behalf of the Marion County
School Board's case regarding the fire fees.  The city has sued
the School Board for not paying the fire fees, which the city
claims it is owed.  This case is different from the Discount
Sleep case in that the School Board claims it does not have to
pay the fire fees because is has no contract with the city for
the services and has sovereign immunity and cannot be sued for
the fees.


OLIVE HILL, KY: Judge Orders Consolidation of Electricity Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Hart, writing for The Independent, reports that a judge
has issued an order consolidating a pair of class-action lawsuits
alleging the city of Olive Hill overcharged its residents for
electricity.

The recent ruling by Carter Circuit Judge Rebecca Phillips merges
two complaints filed last year against the city into a single
suit.  According to the ruling, the number of class members could
potentially grow to more than 4,500.

Judge Phillips also appointed attorney Jim Deckard of Lexington
and his partner, Matthew Malone, as lead counsel for the class.
Attorneys Michael Fox and Reid Glass of Olive Hill, who filed one
of the two original suits, also had sought to represent the
plaintiffs.

However, the judge denied a request by Messrs. Deckard and Malone
to add Patrick Flannery -- who initially filed a complaint
himself before bringing Deckard on board -- as co-counsel for the
class.  Her reason for doing so, according to the ruling, had to
do with Mr. Flannery's position as Carter County attorney.

"While local counsel may be desirable for purposes of
convenience, the court is concerned that Mr. Flannery may have a
conflict of interest that would make him unsuitable to serve in
the capacity as local counsel or co-counsel," Judge Phillips
wrote.

Given the potential size of the class, Judge Phillips deemed it
"highly unlikely" that one or more of its members would not be
involved in legal matters also involving the county attorney's
office, be they district court criminal prosecutions, child
support collection issues or cases in family court.

The lawsuits came about in the week of a January 2013 report
issued by the Kentucky Attorney General's Office's Office of Rate
Intervention. In that report, ORI Director Jennifer Black Hans
concluded Olive Hill's electric rate ordinance, which was adopted
in 2000, violated a state law requiring city-owned utilities to
hold public hearings before increasing electricity rates.

The suits allege that, among other violations, the city defrauded
its electrical customers and violated the Consumer Protection act
by not following established state law in setting and adjusting
its electricity rates, and that it sought to evade public
hearings on proposed rate increases.

A motion currently pending before Phillips seeks to add former
City Clerk Cheri James and former Utility Director Derrick Jones
as defendants in the suit.


OMNICOM GROUP: Court Okays Filing of Amended Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court approved parties' stipulation requiring plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint in In re Omnicom Group Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652737/2013, according to the
company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

A putative class action challenging the Business Combination of
the Company and Publicis Groupe S.A. was filed on August 5, 2013
on behalf of Omnicom shareholders in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County. The action, entitled Ansfield
v. Wren, et al., names as defendants Omnicom and its board of
directors, as well as Publicis and HoldCo. It alleges that the
members of the Omnicom board breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, approving a merger that is purportedly
detrimental to Omnicom's shareholders. The action also alleges
that Publicis aided and abetted the Omnicom board's breach of
their fiduciary duties. The action seeks an injunction barring or
rescinding the Business Combination, damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Two additional purported class actions were subsequently filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County: Lee
v. Omnicom Group, et al., filed on August 14, 2013, and Fultz v.
Crawford et al., filed on August 20, 2013. Both of these actions
name as defendants Omnicom and its board of directors, as well as
Publicis, and make substantially the same allegations and seek
substantially the same relief as the Ansfield case.

On August 19, 2013, plaintiffs in the Ansfield and Lee actions
filed a motion to consolidate those actions with each other and
with all subsequently filed or transferred actions arising out of
the same facts and circumstances, to select plaintiffs as lead
plaintiffs and to approve plaintiffs' selection of counsel as co-
lead counsel. On October 3, 2013, plaintiffs in all three cases
asked the Court to consolidate the three cases, and to approve
lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' selection of counsel as co-lead
counsel.

On October 24, 2013, the Court approved plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Ansfield, Lee, and Fultz actions with each other
and with all subsequently filed or transferred actions arising
out of the same facts and circumstances under the caption: In re
Omnicom Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652737/2013,
and in the same order appointed co-lead counsel. On October 29,
2013, the Court approved the parties' stipulation requiring
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within three weeks after
HoldCo files a preliminary proxy statement/prospectus.


PEPSICO INC: "Langley" Suit Says Pepsi Has Carcinogen
-----------------------------------------------------
Regina Langley, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pepsico, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00713-EMC (N.D. Cal.,
February 14, 2014) alleges that the Company's Pepsi One and Diet
Pepsi contained a known carcinogen, 4-methylimidazole, in
quantities known by the state of California to risk cancer, birth
defects or other reproductive harm, but Pepsi knowingly and
intentionally failed to warn the Plaintiff and California
consumers that its drinks would expose them to cancer or
reproductive toxicity.

PepsiCo, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation headquartered in
Purchase, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
          One Market
          Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
          E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Crow" Suit in West Virginia Over Lipitor Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy A. Crow, 2577 Middle Grave Creek Rd., Moundsville, West
Virginia 26041 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York,
New York 10017, Case No. 5:14-cv-00018-FPS (N.D. W. Va., February
14, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and
labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin
Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          120 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-5508
          Facsimile: (304) 345-5548
          E-mail: tom@wilsonlawpllc.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


PREMIERE TRADE: Bid to Dismiss "Rivera" Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. issued a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit captioned GILBERT RIVERA and JAMES HALL, for
and on behalf of over 100 Jane and John Does, Plaintiffs, v.
PREMIERE TRADE SOFTWARE, LLC and JAMES DICKS, Defendants, NO. 12
C 06032, (N.D. Ill.)  A copy of the March 31, 2014 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/q0vAymfrom Leagle.com.

This putative class action, removed from state court, alleges
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligent failure to
supervise, and a violation of the Illinois Consumer and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. ("ICFA") against
Premiere Trade Software, LLC, and James Dicks. The defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint on numerous grounds, or in the
alternative, to transfer the case, and also moved for sanctions
against the plaintiffs' counsel.

"The Court agrees that the complaint is inadequate, but for a
reason that the defendants have not advanced: the Court does not,
based on the allegations of the present complaint, appear to have
subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims," held
Judge Tharp.  "The Court therefore denies the pending motions
without prejudice and grants the parties leave to file
supplemental briefs addressing the Court's jurisdiction."

In the absence of any submission by either party, the case will
be remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Judge Tharp
added.

Gilbert Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Terrence Buehler --
tbuehler@touhylaw.com -- Touhy, Touhy & Buehler, LLP & Thomas F.
Burke -- tburke104@att.net -- Attorney at Law.

James Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Terrence Buehler, Touhy,
Touhy & Buehler, LLP & Thomas F. Burke, Attorney at Law.

Premiere Trade Software, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
E. Kopiwoda -- jkopiwoda@fvldlaw.com -- Funkhouser Vegosen
Liebman & Dunn Ltd. & Seth Aaron Stern -- sstern@fvldlaw.com --
Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd..

James Dicks, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Kopiwoda,
Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd. & Seth Aaron Stern,
Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: High Court Won't Review 401(k) Plan Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari
following an appellate court's refusal to certify a class in a
suit alleging Principal Financial breached its alleged fiduciary
duties while performing services to 401(k) plans, according to
Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties
while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose,
or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the
fact that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from
mutual funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans"
and allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of
the services provided to the plans. Plaintiff sought to certify a
class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life was a
service provider and for which Principal Life received and
retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds. On June 13,
2011, the court entered a consent judgment resolving the claims
of the plaintiff. On July 12, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal related to the issue of the denial of class certification.
On February 13, 2013, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on
October 7, 2013.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Bars Appeal in PUSPSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification in In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation
was denied by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on,
according to Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s Feb. 12, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against us; Principal Life; Principal Global Investors, LLC;
Principal Management Corporation; and Principal Real Estate
Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants"). The lawsuits
alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the
Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best
interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze"
on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to
honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available. The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed
complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and
are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account
Litigation. Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the
denial of class certification was denied by the U.S. Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals on December 31, 2013. The
Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are aggressively defending the
lawsuit.


PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: 7th Cir. Revives Bid to Remand Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh Circuit
on April 9 revived a debt collector's bid to move to federal
court a putative class action alleging it fraudulently filed more
than 1,000 small claims suits against borrowers, saying an
Illinois federal judge must determine how much money is at stake.

The plaintiffs swore in court they were seeking only $3.5 million
in damages and attorneys' fees, keeping it well below the $5
million threshold required for federal jurisdiction, according to
court records.  But this vow isn't enough to keep the case in
state court, the panel found.

Reviewing on interlocutory appeal U.S. District Judge Charles P.
Kocoras' decision to remand the suit to state court, the panel
found that Pushpin Holdings LLC's claim -- that it filed many
more small claims suits than were counted by the plaintiffs and
that, therefore, the plaintiffs' claims would exceed $5 million
-- carried as much weight as the plaintiff's promise to not ask
for more.

"The judge will have to determine anew whether the amount in
controversy reaches the statutory minimum, thus barring remand,
or does not, thus requiring remand," the panel wrote in the
decision.  "We don't have enough information to be able to make
that determination ourselves."

Lead plaintiff Michael B. Johnson filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court, seeking to represent a class of borrowers who say
Pushpin breached Illinois state consumer protection laws,
according to court records.

Pushpin in October had the case removed to Illinois federal
court, according to court records.  To keep it there, Pushpin
would have to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $5
million, according to the decision.

Pushpin had filed some 1,100 small claims suits in state courts,
all of which, the debtors say, were fraudulent.

But the class is seeking only $1.1 million in actual damages and
$2 million in punitive damages, with attorneys' fees capped at
$400,000, according to the suit.  At $3.5 million, the class
argued, the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the suit.

The district court agreed, remanding the suit to state court,
according to court records.

Pushpin, meanwhile, argued that there were actually 1,300 small
claims suits, and that the total claims would exceed $5 million.
These claims, the appellate court found, were just as plausible
as the plaintiffs'.

The panel's decision mulled what it would mean for the plaintiffs
to cap their claims.  The plaintiffs could, the court reasoned,
sign an affidavit agreeing to accept a set claim amount.  But
some class members might prefer to chance having the suit tried
in federal court, presumably a less-friendly forum for this case,
in favor of having more winnings to go around, the panel wroteS.

The panel seized on a term chosen by the district court in its
ruling to remand the suit: The district judge said the suit would
remain in federal court unless the plaintiffs showed that
recovering more than $5 million was "legally impossible."  They
did so successfully at the district court level by arguing that
their claims would not rise to more than $3.5 million, according
to the suit.  But on interlocutory appeal, the appellate panel
was unswayed.

"Neither 'legal impossibility' nor 'legal certainty' seems
descriptive of what is after all just a party's commitment not to
seek damages above an amount specified by him, whether to avoid
removal or for some other reason," the panel wrote on April 9.

Mr. Johnson is represented by David M. Duree of David M. Duree &
Associates PC and Stacy M. Bardo of The Consumer Advocacy Center
PC.

Pushpin is represented by Scott E. Silberfein --

ssilberfein@mosessinger.com -- of Moses & Singer LLP and
Christina E. Lutz -- celutz@lplegal.com -- of Levenfeld
Pearlstein LLC.

The case is Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings LLC et al., case number
14-8006, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss "Kaplan" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael A. Shipp denied a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit captioned LAURENCE KAPLAN, on behalf of himself,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, RONALD C. RAK, an
individual, SUSAN BALLESTERO, an individual, GARRICK STOLDT, an
individual, and JOHN and JANE DOES, each an individual, 1-20,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2941 (MAS)(TJB) (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiff brought this putative class action on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Saint Peter's Healthcare
System Retirement Plan (the Plan), alleging that the Plan is
being improperly maintained by SPHS as a "church plan" under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1001 et seq.  This case requires the Court to determine
the metes and bounds of ERISA's church plan exemption, as defined
in 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(33). The Court, in particular, must
determine whether a non-profit healthcare corporation may
establish and maintain a church plan if it is controlled by or
associated with a church. If answered in the affirmative, the
Court must then determine whether this interpretation of the
church plan definition violates the Establishment Clause of the
United States Constitution.

After carefully considering the Parties' submissions and hearing
oral argument on March 27, 2014, Judge Shipp held that, as a
matter of law, SPHS's employee pension Plan is not a church plan.
Therefore, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.

A copy of the District Court's March 31, 2014 memorandum opinion
is available at http://is.gd/8TGCHCfrom Leagle.com.


ST JOSEPH MEDICAL: Settles Suit Over Unnecessary Heart Stent
------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Valcourt, writing for WJZ, reports that thirty-seven
million dollars.  That's how much the former owners of St. Joseph
Medical Center have agreed to pay out in settlement to hundreds
of patients who say they were given an unnecessary medical
procedure there.

Derek Valcourt has details on the settlement made public on
April 7.  The sweeping agreement brings to a close all but a
handful of the hundreds of stent lawsuits filed against the
former owners of St. Joseph Medical Center.

The allegations against world-renowned cardiologist Dr. Mark
Midei first surfaced in 2009 when hundreds of St. Joseph Medical
Center patients received a letter warning that artery opening
stents might have been unnecessarily placed in their bodies.
Many like Vicki Mars filed suit, saying Dr. Midei lied about how
blocked their arteries really were.

"Dr. Midei said it was 90 percent and after they reviewed
everything they said it was 10 percent," Ms. Mars said.

"What I did is what I would want for myself," Dr. Midei said in
2009.  He denied wrongdoing, but the state revoked his medical
license.
And now the hospital's former owner, Catholic Health Initiatives,
has agreed to pay a $37 million settlement shared among the 273
plaintiffs in the last outstanding class action suit in the case.

For its part, Catholic Health Initiatives says it agreed to the
sweeping settlement to avoid the costs and uncertainties that
come with continued litigation without having to admit to any
liability.

"Overall it's a great deal for the insurance company that's
paying all of these claims," said Steve Silverman, attorney.
Mr. Silverman represented clients who have already agreed to
confidential stent settlements.  He argues juries might have
awarded multi-million dollar verdicts had some of the cases gone
to trial

"You multiply that times 100, times 200, times 500, you are
talking about potentially a billion dollars in damages and the
insurance company is getting out of this -- at least for these
200 plus plaintiffs -- for $30 million -- that's not a bad deal
for them," Mr. Silverman said.

While both sides have agreed on the settlement, state and federal
judges will still have to sign off on the agreement.

Last year, the hospital's owners also reached confidential
settlements with dozens of other former Midei patients.


STERLING BANCORP: Has MoU to Settle Shareholder Litigations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp entered into a memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement of shareholder lawsuits filed against
it, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 9, 2013, the first of seven actions, captioned Altman v.
Sterling Bancorp, et al., Index No. 651263/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. County, 2013), was filed in the New York State Supreme
Court, New York County, on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders against legacy Sterling, its directors, and the
Company.  On May 17, 2013, the seven actions were consolidated
under the caption In re Sterling Shareholders Litigation, Index
No. 651263/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, 2013). On June 21,
2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class
action complaint alleging that legacy Sterling's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Merger
transaction described in Note 2 and by failing to disclose all
material information to shareholders. The consolidated and
amended complaint also alleged that the Company aided and abetted
those alleged fiduciary breaches. The action sought, among other
things, equitable relief and/or money damages.

On June 5, 2013, a substantially similar litigation was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Miller v. Sterling Bancorp, et al., No. 13-3845
(S.D. N.Y. 2013), against legacy Sterling, its directors, and the
Company on behalf of the same putative class of legacy Sterling
shareholders. The complaint alleged the same breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting claims against defendants, and also
alleged defendants' preliminary proxy statement was inaccurate or
incomplete in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

In terms of material developments on the status of proceedings,
on September 12, 2013, the Company and the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of the
lawsuits under which each of the actions will be dismissed with
prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
Merger.


STEWART MORTENSEN: Trial Ct. Order in "Brown" Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One
affirmed a trial court order in ROBERT BROWN et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. STEWART MORTENSEN, Defendant and Respondent,
NO. B243846.

Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and his two daughters, Kirsten and
Kayla Brown, brought a putative class action against Stewart
Mortensen for allegedly disclosing plaintiffs' and class members'
confidential medical information to third parties in violation of
the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. After nine years,
the trial court on its own motion, issued an order to show cause
why the action should not be preemptively "decertified," i.e.,
deemed unsuitable for class treatment, because plaintiffs'
attorneys, Brown and Lyle F. Middleton, were unsuitable counsel
for the proposed class and the Browns were inadequate proposed
class representatives. After notice, two rounds of briefing, and
a hearing, the court issued an order in which it "decertified"
the action.  On appeal, plaintiffs contend the trial court: (1)
lacked jurisdiction to foreclose class treatment absent a motion
by the defense and before any class discovery had been conducted;
(2) erred in concluding Brown and Middleton were unsuitable
proposed class counsel; (3) erred in concluding plaintiffs would
be inadequate class representatives; (4) failed to afford
plaintiffs an opportunity to replace class counsel or find
substitute class representatives; and (5) abused its discretion
by striking class allegations without notice to the class.

The Calif. Appeals Court concluded that the trial court order is
affirmed insofar as it deems plaintiffs to be unsuitable class
representatives. The order is reversed insofar as it disqualifies
class counsel and precludes discovery and amendment of the
complaint to name new class representatives. The matter is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.
Both sides are to bear their own costs on appeal.

A copy of the Appeals Court's April 1, 2014 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/XHCJ7Ufrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs and Appellants:

   Lyle F. Middleton, Esq.
   Law Offices ofLyle F. Middleton
   21243 Ventura Blvd., Suite 226
   Woodland Hills, CA 91364
   Telephone: (818) 219-8221

         - and -

   Robert A. Brown, Esq.
   Law Offices of Robert A. Brown
   1125 East Broadway, No. 116
   Glendale, CA 91205
   Telephone: (626) 205-3931
   Facsimile: (626) 205-3947

Carlson & Messer, Charles R. Messer -- messerc@cmtlaw.com --
David J. Kaminski -- kaminskd@cmtlaw.com -- and Stephen A.
Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


TOWER GROUP: Consolidation of Shareholder Actions Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
A number of motions were filed seeking to consolidate shareholder
class actions against Tower Group International, Ltd. into one
matter, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 20, 2013, Robert P. Lang, a purported shareholder of
Tower Group International Ltd. ("Tower"), filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Lang Complaint") against Tower and certain
of its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The Lang Complaint
alleges that Tower and certain of its current and former officers
violated federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.
On September 3, 2013, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed by Dennis Feighay, another purported Tower
shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set forth in
the Lang Complaint (the "Feighay Complaint"). On October 4, 2013,
a third complaint was filed by Sanju Sharma (the "Sharma
Complaint"). The Sharma Complaint names as defendants Tower and
certain of its current and former officers, and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Tower stock
between May 10, 2011 and September 17, 2013. On October 18, 2013,
an amended complaint was filed in the Sharma case (the "Sharma
Amended Complaint"). The Sharma Amended Complaint alleges
additional false and misleading statements, and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Tower stock
between March 1, 2011 and October 7, 2013.

On October 21, 2013, a number of motions were filed seeking to
consolidate the shareholder class actions into one matter and for
appointment of a lead plaintiff. The Company believes that it is
not probable that the Lang and Feighay Complaints and the Sharma
Amended Complaint will result in a loss, and if it would result
in a loss, that the amount of any such loss cannot reasonably be
estimated.


TOWER GROUP: Faces Shareholder Suit Over ACP Merger Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Group International, Ltd. faces a shareholder lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York over its entry into the ACP Re Merger Agreement, according
to the company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2013.

On January 14, 2014, Derek Wilson, a purported shareholder of
Tower, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Wilson
Complaint") against Tower, certain of its current and former
directors, ACP Re Ltd. ("ACP Re"), London Acquisition Company
Limited ("Merger Sub"), and AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.
("AmTrust") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Wilson Complaint alleges that the
members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of Tower under Bermuda
law by approving Tower's entry into the ACP Re Merger Agreement
and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Tower to its
public shareholders, and that Tower, ACP Re, Merger Sub, and
AmTrust aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Wilson Complaint also alleges, among other things, that the
proposed transaction undervalues Tower, that the process leading
up to the ACP Re Merger Agreement was flawed, and that certain
provisions of the ACP Re Merger Agreement improperly favor ACP Re
and discourage competing offers for the Company. The Wilson
Complaint further alleges oppressive conduct against Tower's
shareholders in violation of Bermuda law. The Wilson Complaint
seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the proposed
transaction, rescission of the ACP Re Merger Agreement to the
extent already implemented, and other forms of equitable relief.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals $366MM Award in Hepatitis C Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated filed a notice of appeal against
an overall award of $366 million in a suit related to an outbreak
of hepatitis C, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in
compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against
a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory
that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of
an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent
physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an
outbreak of hepatitis C. In September 2013, the trial court
reduced the overall award to $366 million following post-trial
motions, and in December 2013, the Company filed a notice of
appeal. Company plans are party to 41 additional individual
lawsuits and two class actions relating to the outbreak.


WAL-MART STORES: 5th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Odle" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In STEPHANIE ODLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES,
INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-10037, Plaintiff-
Appellant Stephanie Odle was an original member of the class of
plaintiffs in Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., "one
of the most expansive class actions ever" certified in the United
States.  After many years of litigation over class certification,
the Supreme Court decertified the Dukes class in June 2011.  Ms.
Odle then filed the instant putative class action in the Northern
District of Texas. That court dismissed Ms. Odle's individual
claims, concluding that they had ceased to be tolled and thus
were time barred.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in an opinion
dated March 31, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/C49m0Xfrom Leagle.com, held that the relevant
statute of limitations remained tolled when Ms. Odle filed her
complaint in this case.  The district court ruling is, therefore,
reversed, and the case is remand for further proceedings.


WEATHERFORD INT'L: July 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP 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 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, 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


* Employment Discrimination Suits Down for First Two Months 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Karabin, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that with
so much legal news focusing on employment-related discrimination
lawsuits, it might appear that such claims are going up.  But,
according to Patrick Dorrian on Bloomberg BNA's Labor and
Employment Blog, the number of new federal court filings charging
these violations actually dipped to less than 1,000 a month for
the first two months of the year -- for the first time since
2006.  He cites a recent report by Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonpartisan research organization
associated with Syracuse University, which shows federal courts
clocking 838 new employment civil filings during January and 862
filings in February.

Various federal statutes are invoked in the cases, ranging from
sex, race and age discrimination, to retaliatory practices and
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

In addition, Mr. Dorrian says the number of employment lawsuits
filed in general has been declining since topping out in 2010 and
2011, and is currently 15.1 percent lower than a year ago and
12.9 percent lower than in February 2009.  He breaks down the
court districts that saw the most employment-suit action:

The District of Washington, D.C., was the most active through
2014.

The Northern District of Florida ranked second.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania was third.


                             *********

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  * * *