CAR_Public/140423.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 23, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 80

                             Headlines


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces "Sears" Securities Suit in New York
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Suit v. BioSante Now Concluded
BALL BOUNCE: Sued for Improperly Rounding Starting/Stopping Times
BANK OF AMERICA: Failed to Timely Show Mortgage Proof, Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $772MM Card Add-On Settlement With CFPB

BANK OF THE OZARKS: Ark. High Court Ruling Expected in Q2 or Q3
BLUE CROSS: Chiropractors Win Permanent Injunction
CONVERGYS CORP: Faces Indemnity Claim From Hyundai Motor
DANIELS NORELLI: Faces "Yusewitz" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
DRIL-QUIP: Plaintiff in Personal Injury Suit Wants Case Remanded

EXCLUSIVE GETAWAY: Class Seeks Damages Over Illegal Phone Calls
FAMILY DOLLAR: "Premo" OT Class Action Returns to Superior Court
FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Says
LA FIESTA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Appropriate Wages, Suit Claims
GRAHAM HOLDINGS: To Administer Settlement of BAR/BRI Suit in 2014

HSBC HOLDINGS: "Jaffe" Defendants Appeal $2.46 Billion Judgment
HSBC HOLDINGS: Settlements of Madoff-Related Claims Reached
HSBC HOLDINGS: N.Y. Court Hears Dismissal Motion in Libor Lawsuit
HSBC HOLDINGS: Process to Dismiss Euroyen-Related Suit Ongoing
HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces U.S. Litigation Related to Euribor

HSBC HOLDINGS: Filing of Amended Complaint Ordered in Forex Suit
HSBC HOLDINGS: Excluded in Amended Credit Default Swaps Lawsuit
INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment Motion in Pentium 4 Suit Denied
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over "Junk" Faxes
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Cal. Court Certifies Five Labor Suit Classes

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Labor Litigation in Illinois Court
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 96,000 Pounds of Oscar Mayer Wieners
LIME ENERGY: Settlement Final Approval Hearing on May 13
LUCKY BRAND: Accused of Not Owning Blind-Accessible POS Devices
LVNV FUNDING: Faces "Salvatore" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations

M-QUBE INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Cullan" Class Action
MICHAEL RYAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Taft" Suit
MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Leips" Class Action
MONARCH RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Practices Act
MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Kenny" Securities Suit in California

NDG COFFEE: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Wages to Cooks
NEW JERSEY: Gibson Dunn Releases Bridgegate Witness Interviews
NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters Fund Files Motion to Reconsider
NRG ENERGY: High Court Ruling Ends One Natural Gas Suit v. GenOn
NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Emissions Suit Stayed Pending Writ Request

NRG ENERGY: Settlement of Six Suits v. Energy Plus Now Final
NRG ENERGY: Del., Tex. Lawsuits Over GenOn Merger Now Concluded
PASSAT LAUNDRY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
PFIZER INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Agrees to Settle Neurontin Class Action for $190MM

PLAINS ALL: DuckPond Trust Lawsuit Over PNG Merger Dismissed
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
RANJHA CLEANERS: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
RIDDELL INC: Sued by Buyers of Revolution Brand Football Helmets
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Approval of Santarus Suit Accord

SEALED AIR: Manitoba Court Dismisses Grace in Asbestos Lawsuits
SEALED AIR: Litigations Over Cryovac Transaction Remain Stayed
SEALED AIR: Canada Unit Still Faces Asbestos Complaints
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Burge" Suit in Kentucky Over Shape Up Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes

SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Shape Up Toning Shoes, Suit Claims
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Hamilton" Suit
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Unit Still Faces Suit Over Google Phone Calls
UNION SECURITY: Sued Over Denial of Accidental Death Benefits
UNITED PARCEL: Sells Nonexistent & Pricey Air Service, Class Says

UNITED PARCEL: One Canadian Case Remains Over Brokerage Services
UNITED PARCEL: Wants Remaining Claims in Forwarding Suit Junked
UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Claims by Franchisees Who Rebranded
UNITED SERVICES: District Court Dismisses "Allen" Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Mini Butter Croissants Over Allergen

WINTRUST FIN'L: Expects Half of FLSA Class Members to Be Excluded
YAHOO! INC: Shareholders Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: Class Cert. Bid in "Jones" Suit Denied

* Alaska Legislature Passes Medical Malpractice Bill
* Constitutional Changes Sought Regarding Malpractice Suits


                             *********


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces "Sears" Securities Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
David Sears, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., Barry D.
Zyskind and Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr., Case No. 1:14-cv-00945-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants, who
purchased AmTrust securities between February 15, 2011, and
December 11, 2013, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

AmTrust is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
AmTrust offers insurance coverage to policyholders, including
property/casualty, workers' compensation, special risk and
warranty insurance, and extended service plans.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Gregory Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica Perry Corley, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP (GA)
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7374
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: jessica.corley@alston.com

               - and -

          Todd R. David, Esq.
          John Dalgarno Roesser, Esq.
          Joseph Gerard Tully, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP (NYC)
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (404) 881-7357
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: todd.david@alston.com
                  john.roesser@alston.com
                  joe.tully@alston.com

               - and -

          Louis Arnold Russo, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP (NY)
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-5310
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: louis.russo@alston.com


ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Suit v. BioSante Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder lawsuit filed by Thomas Lauria against BioSante
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois is now concluded, according to ANI
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

On February 3, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the caption Thomas Lauria, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Stephen M. Simes naming the Company and its former
President and Chief Executive Officer, Stephen M. Simes, as
defendants. The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's
disclosures relating to the efficacy of LibiGel and its
commercial potential were false and/or misleading and that such
false and/or misleading statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the price of the Company's securities resulting in
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Although a substantially similar complaint was filed in the same
court on February 21, 2012, the complaint was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in April 2012. The plaintiff sought to
represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities between February 12, 2010 and December 15, 2011, and
sought unspecified compensatory damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and reasonable costs, expert fees and
attorneys' fees on behalf of such purchasers. On November 6,
2012, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
December 28, 2012, the Company and Mr. Simes filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On September 11,
2013, the Illinois district court judge granted defendants'
motions to dismiss, without prejudice, and gave plaintiffs 28
days to file an amended complaint.  The plaintiffs did not file
an amended complaint and the matter has been concluded.


BALL BOUNCE: Sued for Improperly Rounding Starting/Stopping Times
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Adkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ball, Bounce and Sport, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00336-
KSM (N.D. Ohio, February 14, 2014) is instituted as a result of
the Defendant's alleged practice and policy of improperly
rounding the starting and stopping times of its non-exempt
employees, including the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ashland County, Ohio-based Ball, Bounce and Sport, Inc., is a
manufacturer and marketer of play and sport balls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Sonia M. Gassan, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Douglas Drushal, Esq.
          Peggy J. Schmitz, Esq.
          CRITCHFIELD, CRITCHFIELD & JOHNSTON
          225 North Market Street
          P.O. Box 599
          Wooster, OH 44691
          Telephone: (330) 264-4444
          Facsimile: (330) 263-9278
          E-mail: ddrushal@ccj.com
                  schmitz@ccj.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Failed to Timely Show Mortgage Proof, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dereck Whittenburg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 7:14-cv-00947-VB
(S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) seeks to redress the Defendant's
alleged systematic failure to timely present to the county clerks
of New York proof that mortgages have been satisfied.

Bank of America, N.A., is a full-service interstate bank that
operates throughout the United States, including New York.  The
Bank, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a subsidiary
of Bank of America corporation, which is the largest banking
Company in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
          Shin Young Hahn, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, PACKMAN, NEALON, SCIALABBA & BAKER P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 517-5000
          Facsimile: (914) 517-5055
          E-mail: gblankinship@mpnsb.com
                  jfrei-pearson@mpnsb.com
                  tgarber@mpnsb.com
                  shahn@mpnsb.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott Harris Kaiser, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP (NY)
          1290 Avenue of Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 541-1195
          Facsimile: (212)-541-13
          E-mail: scott.kaiser@bryancave.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $772MM Card Add-On Settlement With CFPB
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced it came
to a $772 million deal with Bank of America to settle allegations
it deceptively marketed products and illegally billed customers,
according to Michael Lacy -- michael.lacy@troutmansanders.com --
and Scott Kelly -- scott.kelly@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman
Sanders.  They report the bank is set to refund $727 million to
its customers and pay fines totaling $45 million to the CFPB and
the Comptroller of the Currency.

The allegations date back to actions taken by the bank from 2010
to 2012, when BofA actively marketed two credit-card payment-
protection products, explain Messrs. Lacy and Kelly.  These
products allowed customers to request the bank to cancel some of
their debt, if certain hardships occurred.  However, the CFPB
found the telemarketers selling these products had misstatements
in their scripts, and also allegedly went off script in order to
make sales.

For example, one product being offered supposedly allowed
consumers to cancel up to 18 months of their minimum balance
payment if they were admitted to the hospital, even only for a
night, say Messrs. Lacy and Kelly.  But, in reality, people were
given only one month of benefits, and that was after navigating
the claims process, explains Richard Cordray, the director of the
CFPB.  The authors note more than 1.4 million card members were
affected by this practice and that this is the fifth in a series
of actions the CFPB is taking against card providers.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Ark. High Court Ruling Expected in Q2 or Q3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks expect a ruling
from the Arkansas Supreme Court in the second or third quarter of
2014 regarding the issue on the dismissal and arbitration of
Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the
Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks, No. CV-2011-777, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on December
21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and complaint filed
on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v. Bank of the
Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043. The complaint in each case
alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the plaintiffs,
current or former customers of the Bank, by improper, unfair and
unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive overdraft
fees from the plaintiffs. According to the complaints, plaintiffs
claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software to automate
its overdraft system, and that this system unfairly and
inequitably manipulates and alters customers' transaction records
in order to maximize overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing
a practice of posting of items in "high-to-low" order, despite
the actual sequence in which such items are presented for
payment. Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with
customers do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft
assessment policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and
misleading. The complaint in each case alleges that these actions
and omissions constitute breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable
conduct, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The complaint in the
Walker case also includes a count for conversion. Each of the
complaints seeks to have the cases certified by the court as a
class action for all Bank account holders similarly situated, and
seeks a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful nature of the
Bank's overdraft fee policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid
by the plaintiffs and the putative class (defined as all Bank
customers residing in Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited
in the complaints, disgorgement of profits as a result of the
alleged wrongful actions and unspecified compensatory and
statutory or punitive damages, together with pre-judgment
interest, costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed
the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis. On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel
of the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
ruling and remanded the case to the trial court for the purpose
of entering an order compelling arbitration. On October 7, 2013,
the plaintiffs filed petitions for reconsideration and review
before the Arkansas Court of Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court,
respectively. On October 30, 2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration. In January
2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition
for review. The Company and Bank expect a ruling from the
Arkansas Supreme Court in the second or third quarter of 2014.
During the pendency of the appeal and review process, the
plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the proceedings
in that case. The Company and Bank believe the plaintiffs' claims
are unfounded and intend to defend against these claims.


BLUE CROSS: Chiropractors Win Permanent Injunction
--------------------------------------------------
In PENNSYLVANIA CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, NO. 09 C
5619, (N.D. Ill.), associations representing the interests of
individual chiropractors sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association (BCBSA) and a number of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS)
entities for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA). BCBSA is a national umbrella organization
that facilitates the activities of individual BCBS entities,
which insure and administer health care plans for Blue Cross and
Blue Shield members (BCBS insureds) in various regions.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that
plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and the Court would be unable
to grant the injunctive relief that plaintiffs sought. The Court
denied defendants' motion, concluding that plaintiffs had
associational standing and that there were forms of declaratory
and injunctive relief that it could potentially order in the
case. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the basis that
defendants had uniform practices regarding post-payment audits
and repayment demand policies that disregarded ERISA's
requirements. The Court denied plaintiffs' motion, finding that
genuine factual disputes remained regarding what each entity's
policies or approaches were.
After the Court's November 2013 summary judgment ruling, nearly
all of the remaining claims were settled. Only one set of claims
remains, specifically, the claims of Pennsylvania Chiropractic
Association (PCA) against Independence Blue Cross (IBC), a BCBS
entity operating in certain parts of Pennsylvania. PCA alleges
that IBC violated, and continues to violate, notice and appeal
requirements allegedly owed to PCA members under ERISA. PCA has
asked the Court for prospective injunctive relief, namely
requiring IBC to reform its policies in connection with post-
payment audits and seeking repayment from chiropractic care
providers.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated March 28, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/T6RiTCfrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly found in favor of PCA on its
claims against IBC and concludes that PCA is entitled to an
appropriate permanent injunction. Because the parties have not
yet briefed the question of the precise contours the injunction
should take, the Court ordered further briefing in that regard.
Plaintiff was orderd to submit a proposed form of injunction and
a supporting memorandum; defendant must reply by no later than
April 21, 2014. The case is set for a status conference, to be
conducted by telephone, on April 24, 2014 at 8:45 a.m.
Plaintiff's counsel is to get defendant's counsel on the
telephone and then call chambers (312-435-5618).

Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association, Plaintiff, represented by
Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul
Firm, P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian
Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman &
Gilbert, LLP, John William Leardi, Buttaci & Leardi, LLC, Joseph
P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks,
LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman
Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP,
Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc, Paul Donald Werner, Buttaci &
Leardi, LLC, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP & Vincent N
Buttaci, Taylor, Colicchio & Silverman, LLP.

New York Chiropractic Council, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S.
Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm,
P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert,
LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Association of New Jersey Chiropractors, Plaintiff, represented
by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Association of New Jersey Chiropractors, on their own behalf and
in a representational capacity on behalf of their members and,
Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Jay Korsen, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Ian Barlow, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Christopher M.
Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P.
Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf,
Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar,
Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley Drake &
Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Jeffrey P. Leri, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Michelle M Askar, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S.
Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm,
P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert,
LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Mark Barnard, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Barry A Wahner, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Anthony Fava, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

David R Barber, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Larry Miggins, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLP,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Andrew Reno, D.C., on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S.
Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm,
P.C., Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert,
LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP, Kimberly A. Driggers,
Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Peri Dwyer, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP & Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP.

Florida Chiropractic Association, Plaintiff, represented by Jason
S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm,
P.C., Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP.
Eric Thompson, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., Leigh Handelman Smollar,
Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP.

Katherine Hopkins, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C.,
Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP & Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP.

International Chiropractors Association, Plaintiff, represented
by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The
Maul Firm, P.C., D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
LLP.

Brenda Tomanek, D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., D.
Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Leigh Handelman Smollar,
Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP.

Extended Care Treatment, Inc. d/b/a/ Transitions Recovery
Program, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C., D. Brian
Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Leigh Handelman Smollar,
Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Amy Graham Doehring, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP,
Bryan Matthew Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, John Andrew
Litwinski, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, John Friedrich Zabriskie,
Foley & Lardner, Martin J. Bishop, Foley & Lardner, Michael M.
Conway, Foley & Lardner, Michael J Tuteur, Foley & Lardner LLP &
Rebecca R. Hanson, Foley & Lardner.

Excellus Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Pope, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Amy Graham
Doehring, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew Webster,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Christopher Mac Neil Murphy,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Elizabeth Brooke Herrington,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, John Andrew Litwinski, McDermott,
Will & Emery LLP & Michael M. Conway, Foley & Lardner.

Independence Blue Cross, Defendant, represented by Charles Clark
Jackson, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Amy Graham Doehring,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew Webster, McDermott,
Will & Emery LLP, Charis A. Runnels, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
Deborah S. Davidson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jay H. Calvert,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John Andrew Litwinski,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Kirsten Ann Milton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Michael M. Conway, Foley & Lardner.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by
Amy Graham Doehring, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew
Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, John Andrew Litwinski,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Joseph A. Fink, Dickinson Wright
PLLC, Michael M. Conway, Foley & Lardner & Patrick B. Green,
Dickinson Wright Pllc.

Anthem Ohio, Defendant, represented by Michael M. Conway, Foley &
Lardner, Bryan Matthew Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP,
Martin J. Bishop, Foley & Lardner, Michael J Tuteur, Foley &
Lardner LLP & Rebecca R. Hanson, Foley & Lardner.

Miggins & Miggins, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Katherine Hopkins, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian
Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Tri3 Enterprises LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP.

Miggins & Miggins, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Leigh
Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz
LLP.

Larry Miggins, D.C., Counter Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D.
Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo,
Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott Scott LLP,
Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster &
Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick
Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley
Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Miggins & Miggins, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Robert
J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.

Larry Miggins, D.C., Counter Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Christopher M. Burke, ScottScott LLP, D.
Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, David W Stanley, Cuneo,
Waldman & Gilbert, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, ScottScott LLP,
Kimberly A. Driggers, Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster &
Gwartney, P.A., Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick
Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick J Sheehan, Whatley
Drake & Kallas, Llc & Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP.


CONVERGYS CORP: Faces Indemnity Claim From Hyundai Motor
--------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is facing a contractual
indemnity claim from Hyundai Motor America, according to
Convergys Corporation's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients,
Hyundai Motor America ("Hyundai"), tendered a contractual
indemnity claim to Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., a
subsidiary of the Company, relating to a putative class action
captioned Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class
and subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor
America, Orange County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-
2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai
violated California's telephone recording laws by recording
telephone calls with customer service representatives without
providing a disclosure that the calls might be recorded.

Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order certifying the
suit as a California class action, statutory damages, payment of
attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. Convergys
Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a defendant in the
lawsuit. On March 5, 2012, the court sustained a demurrer filed
by Hyundai to one of the Plaintiff's causes of action, but
overruled the demurrer as the Plaintiff's other cause of action.
On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Hyundai
answered the amended complaint on April 16, 2012, by generally
denying the allegations and asserting certain affirmative
defenses. On February 5, 2013, the court denied a motion filed by
Hyundai for summary judgment based on Hyundai's claim that an
exemption under the California recording laws was intended to
exempt the type of recording done by Hyundai's call centers.
Hyundai sought appellate review and, on September 18, 2013, the
Supreme Court of the State of California denied Hyundai's
petition to grant review. Discovery had been stayed while the
court's ruling was under appellate review, but the stay was
lifted on October 22, 2013. Hyundai, Convergys Customer
Management Group Inc. and Plaintiff have agreed to attend a
mediation session scheduled for March 13, 2014. On February 3,
2014 the Court issued an order staying discovery until March 20,
2014. A status conference was scheduled for March 25, 2014.

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as
to whether Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. will be
required to indemnify Hyundai. The Company believes Convergys
Customer Management Group Inc. has meritorious defenses to
Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are
meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit.


DANIELS NORELLI: Faces "Yusewitz" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Yusewitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Daniels Norelli Scully & Cecere, P.C., Case
No. 2:14-cv-01011-SJF-WDW (E.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) accuses
the Company of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


DRIL-QUIP: Plaintiff in Personal Injury Suit Wants Case Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit that was consolidated
in the Deepwater Horizon Incident MDL Proceeding against Dril-
Quip, Inc. has filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to the
Texas state court, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig
known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP sank after an
explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. The company was
named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class
action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon
incident. In 2012, the judge presiding over various lawsuits and
proceedings dismissed all claims asserted against the company in
those proceedings with prejudice.

One of the lawsuits against the company consolidated in the MDL
Proceeding was a personal injury lawsuit initially filed in a
Texas state court. The plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the
lawsuit back to the Texas state court. If the lawsuit is remanded
to the Texas state court, the Company intends to vigorously
defend that lawsuit and does not believe it will have a material
adverse impact on the company's results of operations.


EXCLUSIVE GETAWAY: Class Seeks Damages Over Illegal Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florencio Pacleb, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Exclusive Getaway Vacations, Does 1 through
10 inclusive and each of them, and The Coral Resorts, Case No.
2:14-cv-01159-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) seeks
damages and other remedies resulting from the Defendant's alleged
illegal actions in negligently, knowingly, or willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his
privacy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.c.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          L. Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN, IV
          8730 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel M. Benjamin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101-8494
          Telephone: (619) 696-9200
          Facsimile: (619) 696-9269
          E-mail: benjamind@ballardspahr.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Premo" OT Class Action Returns to Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PREMO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF MASSACHUSETTS,
INC. AND FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-
11279-TSH, (D. Mass.) alleges one count for violation of the
Massachusetts Overtime Law, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151 Section1A, in
Worcester County Superior Court, Massachusetts.  Defendants
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on the grounds that federal
jurisdiction was proper under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section1332(d)(2).

In a Memorandum of Decision and Order entered on March 28, 2014,
District Judge Timothy S. Hillman allowed the Plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend his complaint.  The Court further allowed the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and the case will be returned to the
Worcester Superior Court.  A copy of the ruling is available at
http://is.gd/VywLwafrom Leagle.com.

David Premo, Plaintiff, represented by Richard E. Hayber, Hayber
Law Firm, LLC & Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C..

Family Dollar Stores Of Massachusetts, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, John A
Ybarra, Littler Mendelson, P.C., William F. Allen, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Christopher B Kaczmarek, Littler Mendelson &
Kristin G. McGurn, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L.
Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, John A Ybarra, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., William F. Allen, Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Christopher B Kaczmarek, Littler Mendelson & Kristin G. McGurn,
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP.


FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Reverdes, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. FMS, Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv-00089-
ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LA FIESTA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Appropriate Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Flores, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. La Fiesta Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a La Fiesta
Restaurant & Cantina), Eloy Ramales and Guadalupe Ramales, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00953-JPO (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) alleges that
the Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40
per week that he worked.

The Defendants have owned, operated, and controlled a Mexican
Restaurant located in New York City under the name "La Fiesta
Restaurant & Cantina."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Hugh G. Jasne, Esq.
          JASNE & FLORIO
          30 Glenn Street, Suite 103
          White Plains, NY 10603
          Telephone: (914) 997-1212
          Facsimile: (914) 682-8692
          E-mail: HGJ@Jasne-Florio.com


GRAHAM HOLDINGS: To Administer Settlement of BAR/BRI Suit in 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement reached in a suit filed by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar
review courses against Graham Holdings Company's subsidiary was
approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in September 2013 and is expected to be administered
in 2014, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 6, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses, from July 2006
onward, alleging antitrust claims against Kaplan and West
Publishing Corporation, BAR/BRI's former owner. On April 10,
2008, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, a decision
that was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
November 7, 2011. The Ninth Circuit also referred the matter to a
mediator for the purpose of exploring a settlement. In the fourth
quarter of 2012, the parties reached a comprehensive agreement to
settle the matter. The settlement was approved by the District
Court in September 2013 and is expected to be administered in
2014.


HSBC HOLDINGS: "Jaffe" Defendants Appeal $2.46 Billion Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et
al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893) have filed a Notice of Appeal of the
partial final judgment against them in the amount of
approximately US$2.46 billion, according to HSBC Holdings plc's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International and certain former officers were named as
defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household
International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893), filed
August 19, 2002 in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The complaint asserted claims under Section
10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false
and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household
International's Consumer Lending operations, including
collections, sales and lending practices, some of which
ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts
relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement.
Ultimately, a class was certified on behalf of all persons who
acquired and disposed of Household International common stock
between July 30, 1999 and October 11, 2002.

A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in
favor of the plaintiffs. Various legal challenges to the verdict
were raised in post-trial briefing.

In December 2011, following the submission of claim forms by
class members, the Court-appointed claims administrator to the
District Court reported that the total number of claims that
generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate
amount of these claims was approximately US$2.2 billion. The
defendants filed legal challenges regarding the presumption of
reliance as to the class and compliance with the claims form
requirements, which the District Court in September 2012 rejected
for the most part. The District Court directed further
proceedings before a court-appointed Special Master to address
certain claim submission issues.

On October 4, 2013, the District Court denied the defendants'
additional post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or,
in the alternative, for a new trial, and granted plaintiffs'
motions for a partial final judgment and awarded pre-judgment
interest at the Prime rate, compounded annually. Subsequently, on
October 17, 2013, the District Court entered a partial final
judgment against the defendants in the amount of approximately
US$2.46 billion. In addition to the partial judgment that has
been entered, there also remain approximately US$527 million in
claims, prior to imposition of prejudgment interest, that still
are subject to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by
the District Court.

The defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal of the partial final
judgment. The defendants have also filed a Supersedeas Bond in
the approximate amount of the judgment (US$2.46 billion) in order
to stay execution on the judgment pending appeal. Despite the
jury verdict, the various rulings of the District Court, and the
partial final judgment, the company continues to believe that it
has meritorious grounds for appeal. The timing and outcome of the
ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Settlements of Madoff-Related Claims Reached
-----------------------------------------------------------
Settlements were reached in respect of claims related to Bernard
L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC by Thema International Fund
plc and AA (Alternative Advantage) Plc respectively against HSBC
Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited in the Irish High
Court, according to HSBC Holdings plc's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Plaintiffs (including funds, fund investors, and the Madoff
Securities trustee) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings
against numerous defendants in a multitude of jurisdictions.
Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in suits in
the US, Ireland, Luxembourg and other jurisdictions. Certain
suits (which include US putative class actions) allege that the
HSBC defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and
breached various duties to the funds and fund investors.

In December 2011, claims against HSBC and other defendants by
fund investors in three related putative class actions pending in
the US District Court for the Southern District of New York were
dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. In September 2013,
the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the claims. The plaintiffs have requested a
rehearing of their appeal, and that request remains pending.

In July and December 2013, settlements were reached in respect of
the claim by Thema International Fund plc and AA (Alternative
Advantage) Plc respectively against HSBC Institutional Trust
Services (Ireland) Limited in the Irish High Court.


HSBC HOLDINGS: N.Y. Court Hears Dismissal Motion in Libor Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York held
oral argument on the motions to dismiss amended complaints filed
against HSBC Holdings plc in relation to US dollar Libor,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

HSBC and other panel banks have been named as defendants in a
number of private lawsuits filed in the US with respect to the
setting of US dollar Libor. These lawsuits include individual and
putative class actions, most of which have been transferred
and/or consolidated for pre-trial purposes before the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints in
those actions assert claims against HSBC and other US dollar
Libor panel banks under various US laws including US antitrust
and racketeering laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA'), and
state law.

In March 2013, the US District Court Judge overseeing the
consolidated proceeding that encompasses a number of pending
actions related to US dollar Libor issued an opinion and order in
the six oldest actions dismissing the plaintiffs' federal and
state antitrust claims, racketeering claims, and unjust
enrichment claims in their entirety, but allowing certain of
their CEA claims that were not barred by the applicable statute
of limitations to proceed. Some of those plaintiffs have appealed
the dismissal opinion and order to the US Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals has dismissed those
appeals on the grounds that they are premature and plaintiffs'
subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. Other
plaintiffs have filed amended complaints in the District Court to
assert additional allegations, and the defendants have filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The District Court
held oral argument on the motions to dismiss in February 2014,
and it has stayed proceedings with respect to all other actions
in the consolidated proceeding pending its decision on the
motions to dismiss.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Process to Dismiss Euroyen-Related Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc is on the process of having a lawsuit related
to euroyen dismissed, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

HSBC and other panel banks have also been named as defendants in
a putative class action filed in the US on behalf of persons and
entities who transacted in euroyen futures and options contracts
related to the euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate ('Tibor').
The complaint alleges, amongst other things, misconduct related
to euroyen Tibor, although HSBC is not a member of the Japanese
Bankers Association's euroyen Tibor panel, as well as Japanese
yen Libor, in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity
Exchange Act, and state law. In April 2013, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint which the defendants moved to dismiss in
June 2013. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled
for March 2014.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces U.S. Litigation Related to Euribor
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc is facing a lawsuit filed in the U.S. on behalf
of persons who transacted in futures contracts and other
financial instruments related to Euribor, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In November 2013, HSBC and other panel banks were also named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in the US on behalf
of persons who transacted in futures contracts and other
financial instruments related to Euribor. The complaint alleges,
amongst other things, misconduct related to Euribor in violation
of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act, and state
law. HSBC has not yet responded to the complaint and an amended
complaint was expected by the end of March 2014.  HSBC expects to
file a motion to dismiss thereafter.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Filing of Amended Complaint Ordered in Forex Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court Judge handling the case filed against
HSBC Holdings plc on behalf of persons who executed foreign
currency trades that settled on the basis of foreign exchange
rates published by WM/Reuters ordered the plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint, according to the company's Feb.
28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In late 2013 and early 2014, HSBC and a number of other banks
were named as defendants in various putative class actions filed
in the US on behalf of persons who executed foreign currency
trades that settled on the basis of foreign exchange rates
published by WM/Reuters or that otherwise occurred during the
time periods when the WM/Reuters rates were being set. The
complaints allege, amongst other things, that the defendants
conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters foreign exchange rates in
violation of US antitrust laws. In February 2014, the US District
Court Judge appointed interim lead class counsel and ordered the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. HSBC has not
yet responded, but intends to do so at the appropriate time set
by the court.

According to HSBC, based on the facts currently known, it is not
practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution of
these private lawsuits, including the timing and potential impact
on HSBC.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Excluded in Amended Credit Default Swaps Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended, consolidated complaint was filed in In re Credit
Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2476 on January 31,
2014, and names HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Bank, but not HSBC
Holdings plc, as defendants, among others, according to HSBC
Holdings plc's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Holdings and HSBC Bank have been named as
defendants, among others, in numerous putative class actions
filed in federal courts located in New York and Chicago. These
class actions allege that the defendants, which include ISDA,
Markit and several financial institutions, conspired to restrain
trade in violation of the federal anti-trust laws by, among other
things, restricting access to credit default swap pricing
exchanges and blocking new entrants into the exchange market,
with the purpose and effect of artificially inflating the bid/ask
spread paid to buy and sell credit default swaps in the US. The
plaintiffs in these suits purport to represent a class of all
persons who purchased credit default swaps from or sold credit
default swaps to defendants primarily in the US.  On October 16,
2013, the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ordered
that all cases be consolidated in the Southern District of New
York as In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2476.  On December 5, 2013, the District Court held its Initial
Pretrial Conference, at which time it selected Lead Interim Class
Counsel and set a schedule for the filing of an amended,
consolidated complaint and motions to dismiss that complaint.

According to Holdings, based on the facts currently known, it is
not practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution
of these lawsuits, including the timing and potential impact on
HSBC.


INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment Motion in Pentium 4 Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Santa
Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan issued a tentative
ruling on April 10 denying Intel Corp.'s motion for summary
judgment in an unfair-competition class action that accuses the
tech giant of manipulating performance tests to raise the value
of its Pentium 4 processor.

Intel's counsel had argued plaintiffs couldn't prove Pentium 4
users paid more as a result of Intel's performance reviews.

"The court finds there are triable issues as to whether a causal
connection exists between Intel's benchmarking practices and
higher P4 prices," Judge Kirwan wrote.

Plaintiffs lawyers, led by Girard Gibbs partner Eric Gibbs --
ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- are seeking about $300 million on behalf
of consumers nationwide who purchased computers equipped with the
Pentium 4 processor for personal use in the two and a half years
following its launch in November 2000.

In a recent court filing, plaintiffs lawyers chided Intel's
defense for its dogged, eleventh-hour campaign to unravel the
case, which relies heavily on internal Intel presentation slides
and emails, some of which instruct the recipients to "do not
forward" and "delete after Friday's meeting."

"Intel has sought dismissal of the case at least six times;
deposed plaintiffs, their families and coworkers, and over 100
class members; and petitioned the court of appeals and California
Supreme Court to find plaintiffs' case unsuitable for a class
action trial," the plaintiffs' brief states.  "Now with only a
month until the trial begins, Intel asks the court to conclude
that plaintiffs case is so lacking in merit that the long-awaited
trial is not even necessary."

Intel has turned to Munger Tolles & Olson partners Gregory Stone
-- Gregory.Stone@mto.com -- and Daniel Levin --
Daniel.Levin@mto.com -- in Los Angeles, along with Miriam Kim --
Miriam.Kim@mto.com -- in the firm's San Francisco office.

The Munger Tolles team challenged Judge Kirwin's tentative ruling
in court on April 11.   However, with a trial date set for May 5,
the judge seemed unlikely to change his mind.

"Those arguments should be made at trial," he said.  "Ultimately,
it's going to be the plaintiffs' burden to show the damages."

                         In-Box Evidence

The Pentium 4 microprocessor has long been obsolete, but
plaintiffs argue it was a poor product from the time it hit the
market.  Class lawyers accuse Intel of engineering tests to boost
its interindustry performance scores, when in reality, they
contend, the new chip couldn't compete with the Pentium 3, much
less competitors' products.

One email obtained by plaintiffs refers to a performance analysis
conducted by computer maker Dell Inc.  "[T]he results were
dismal," an Intel executive wrote in the May 2000 email.  "I was
hoping Dell made a mistake [with] the measurements, but it turns
out that they are accurate."

In response, Intel executives designed two new benchmark tests
that would favorably rate the Pentium 4, plaintiffs allege.  The
company hid its involvement to make the tests seem unbiased,
according to plaintiffs' complaint.

"Between you and me, it is important that you understand that
Intel has been the catalyst, the driving force, as well as the
developer of this benchmark," an Intel executive wrote in an
August 2000 email.  Another internal email states: "This
benchmark is probably as close as we can get to a marketing tool
dream, but we must proceed cautiously."

According to plaintiffs' complaint, the company also adopted a
strategy known as the "dirty dozen" program, distributing a dozen
Intel-written applications that would give Pentium 4 high ratings
when used in existing benchmark tests.  One commonly used
benchmark scored Pentium 4's performance as 10 percent lower than
Advanced Micro Device's rival processor before the new
applications, but 13 percent higher after, plaintiffs argue.

"Few more of these and we will be in cruise control," an Intel
executive wrote in July 2001, according to court records.
The Munger Tolles attorneys accuse plaintiffs of resting their
case on a handful of emails written in "blunt or hyperbolic"
language.  They insist plaintiffs have no hard evidence to
suggest consumers were influenced by performance test results or
that those results drove up prices for end products containing
Pentium 4 processors.

"No matter how provocative the tone of some of these documents
may be, such evidence is immaterial to the core question
presented by this motion: whether plaintiffs can meet their
burden of proving that the alleged unfair conduct actually caused
any cognizable consumer harm," Intel's motion states.  "They
cannot."

Girard Gibbs partner Geoffrey Munroe says his team has uncovered
additional documents showing Intel's use of misleading benchmarks
extends beyond the Pentium 4.  "It's something they've continued
to do and the group responsible for it has expanded," Mr. Munroe
said.  Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Intel and
compensation under California's Unfair Competition Law.

Defense counsel referred questions to an Intel spokesman, who
declined comment.

                          A Legal Odyssey

Skold v. Intel, 05-39231, initially filed in April 2004, has
slogged through the courtrooms of five judges.  Three attempts to
certify a class of Pentium 4 users met rejection before the Sixth
District Court of Appeal demanded another look in 2011.  Former
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg finally
certified a class in 2012 covering residents of all states except
Illinois.

At that juncture, Intel replaced its defense lawyers from
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom with the Munger Tolles team,
who are now making their own stab at dismantling the class
action.  Then Intel followed up its bid for summary judgment with
a motion for class decertification, insisting that after years of
litigation plaintiffs still can't make their case that the
company's alleged manipulation of benchmarks raised the costs of
computers.

"[M]ost of the class never saw or heard of benchmarks," the
motion states.  "They ask the court to ignore this glaring
deficiency and assume that the challenged benchmarks must have
misled some people -- exactly whom they cannot say -- and that
these unidentified people in turn misled consumers."

The defense attacks statistical models prepared by plaintiffs'
expert, economist Russel Lamb, saying they cannot show whether or
how much consumers overpaid for computers.  Any increase in the
price of Pentium 4 processors likely would have been absorbed by
manufacturers, the defense claims.

Mr. Lamb has estimated Intel's illicit gains at $216 million to
$318 million.  However, Mr. Munroe acknowledged there is
uncertainty as to the direct impact on customers' wallets.
"[Lamb] knows the amount consumers paid is higher," Mr. Munroe
said at a hearing.  "He doesn't know how much higher."

That could be an obstacle for plaintiffs, said Venable partner
Angel Garganta, a class action defense lawyer who is not involved
in the Pentium 4 case, though his firm represents Intel in other
matters.

"It doesn't sound like it's possible to demonstrate damages on a
classwide basis," he said, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court's
2013 ruling in Comcast v. Behrend, which found that an economic
model designed to measure overpayment could not support class
certification unless it measured damages specifically resulting
from the alleged injury.

It's a case that Munger Tolles also cites in its motion to
decertify the class of computer purchasers.  For his part,
Mr. Munroe is looking forward to finally arguing that issue in
court, after a decade of what he described as "motion upon
motion."

"I was maybe fresh out of law school when it was filed, but I've
been working on the case for seven years," Mr. Munroe said, "and
never imagined it would last this long."


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over "Junk" Faxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. faces a suit in the United States
federal district court for the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division, over "junk" faxes, according to the company's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 6, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States federal district court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, against the company and one
of the company's subsidiaries.  The lawsuit, styled Pines Nursing
Home, et al., v. Polaris and RehabCare Group, Inc., et al.,
alleges that one of the company's subsidiaries sent "junk" faxes
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.  The complaint seeks
damages, statutory fines and penalties, attorneys' fees and an
injunction prohibiting such conduct in the future.  The company
disputes the allegations in the complaint and will defend this
lawsuit vigorously.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Cal. Court Certifies Five Labor Suit Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The federal district court for the Central District of California
conditionally certified five classes of the seven total classes
sought for certification for discovery purposes in labor lawsuits
filed against Kindred Healthcare, Inc., according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Four wage and hour class action lawsuits are currently pending
against the Company in federal district court for the Central
District of California, and are being addressed together by the
court. Each case pertains to alleged errors made by the Company
with respect to regular pay and overtime pay calculations,
waiting times, meal period waivers and wage statements under
California law. On March 13, 2013, the court conditionally
certified five classes of the seven total classes sought for
certification for discovery purposes and declined to certify two
others. Notice of class action certification and class members'
right to opt out of the lawsuit was mailed to all of the
Company's current and former California hospital employees. The
Company intends to vigorously defend these claims.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Labor Litigation in Illinois Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour lawsuit filed against Kindred Healthcare, Inc. in
federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois has
been settled in principle by the Company's agreement to pay $0.7
million to claimants, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

A wage and hour class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of federal and state wage and hour laws is pending in
federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois.
This lawsuit pertains to the Company's previous automatic meal
break deduction practice for non-exempt employees in the
Company's hospitals located outside California. The court granted
conditional class certification in part on June 11, 2013. This
lawsuit has been settled in principle by the Company's agreement
to pay $0.7 million to claimants from the Company's five Illinois
hospitals, plaintiffs' attorney's fees and certain administrative
costs, subject to reaching a written settlement agreement and
obtaining court approval.


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 96,000 Pounds of Oscar Mayer Wieners
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Kraft Foods is recalling 96,000
pounds of its Oscar Mayer wieners because they may mistakenly
contain cheese.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service said Sunday that Kraft's "Oscar Mayer Classic Wieners"
may instead contain the company's "Classic Cheese Dogs."

The agency said the product labels are incorrect and do not
reflect the ingredients associated with the pasteurized cheese in
the cheese dogs.  Those products were made with milk, a known
allergen, which is not declared on the label.

It said the problem was discovered by a consumer who notified
Kraft on April 18.  The company alerted the USDA the following
day, according to the statement.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service said it has not received
reports of adverse reactions.  A representative for Kraft Foods
Group Inc., Joyce Hodel, said in an email that the hot dogs were
made in a plant in Columbia, Mo.

The products were made in early March and bear the number "Est.
537H" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  People with questions
about the recall are being asked to contact Kraft's consumer
relations department at (855) 688-4386.

The recall applies to:

  -- 16-ounce individual consumer packages of "Classic Wieners
Made with Turkey & Chicken, Pork Added," with a "USE BY 16 Jun
2014" date and product code "044700000632."

  -- Cases of 16-ounce packages that were distributed to
retailers of "Classic Cheese Dogs Made with Turkey & Chicken,
Pork Added, and Pasteurized Cheese Product," with "USE BY 16 Jun
2014" date and case code "00447000005300."

Those cases may contain packages that are mislabeled as "Classic
Wieners," according to Ms. Hodel.


LIME ENERGY: Settlement Final Approval Hearing on May 13
--------------------------------------------------------
Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-5704 (N.D.
Ill.), is a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Lime
Energy Co.'s securities between May 14, 2008 and December 27,
2012, inclusive.  Following an announcement by the Company dated
July 17, 2012, four separate putative class actions were filed
alleging violations of the federal securities laws and naming as
Defendants the Company and three of its officers, John O'Rourke,
Jeffrey Mistarz and David Asplund.  The four cases were
consolidated.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), on October 26, 2012, the Court
appointed Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on January 18, 2013, alleging that
Defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning
Lime's revenues during the class period and thereby artificially
inflated our stock price.

On January 21, 2014, following several months of arm's length
negotiations, the Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement under which this matter would be fully
and finally settled.  As part of the settlement, Defendants
agreed to cause $2.5 million to be paid into a settlement fund,
which $2.5 million has been provided by the Company's directors
and officers liability insurers.  On January 28, 2014, Judge Sara
Ellis entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class
action settlement and notice to the settlement class in the
matter.  The settlement remains subject to final approval by the
court.  The final approval hearing has been set for May 13, 2014.

Lime Energy stated in a Feb. 28, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Adam Procell, the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, gave an
interview to John Downey of the Charlotte Business Journal on
February 26, 2014.

The Company said Mr. Procell's reference in the interview to the
judge's acceptance of the settlement in the class action refers
to the preliminary acceptance.  According to the Company, Mr.
Downey has agreed to keep the information in the interview
confidential until 9:00 am February 28, 2014.  The Company
understands that the Charlotte Business Journal would publish an
article based on the interview.

A transcript of the interview is available at http://is.gd/Oem865


LUCKY BRAND: Accused of Not Owning Blind-Accessible POS Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lucky Brand Dungarees Stores, Inc., d/b/a Lucky Brand
Jeans, Case No. 1:14-cv-20574-UU (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014)
alleges that the Defendant fails to design, construct, and own or
operate Point of Sale Devices that are fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, blind people, like the Plaintiff.

Lucky Brand Dungarees Stores, Inc., doing business as Lucky Brand
Jeans, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in North Bergen,
New Jersey.  The Company owns, leases, or operates a place of
public accommodation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott Stephan Allen, Esq.
          Mendy Halberstam, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131-1802
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          E-mail: allens@jacksonlewis.com
                  mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com


LVNV FUNDING: Faces "Salvatore" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Salvatore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00090-
ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 14, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ranen S. Schechner, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          321 South Main Street, Suite 301
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 751-0842
          Facsimile: (401) 751-0072
          E-mail: rschechner@hinshawlaw.com


M-QUBE INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Cullan" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CULLAN AND CULLAN LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. M-QUBE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; CF ENTERPRISES PTY., LTD., an Australian Company;
and JOHN DOES 1-200, Defendants, RICHARD GEIER, Intervenor, NO.
8:13CV172, (D. Neb.) is before the court on its own motion.
There is presently pending a motion for preliminary approval of a
purported class-action settlement.  Consideration of the
defendants' motions to dismiss and/or compel arbitration has been
held in abeyance pending resolution of the class-action
settlement issue.

According to District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, for docket
control purposes, the motions to dismiss and/or compel
arbitration will be dismissed without prejudice to reassertion
after resolution of the motion to approve the amended settlement
agreement.

In an order dated March 28, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/m1LLDHfrom Leagle.com, the Court denied defendants'
motions to dismiss and/or to compel arbitration without prejudice
to reassertion.

Cullan and Cullan LLC, Plaintiff, represented by

   Ben Barnow, Esq.
   Erich P. Schork, Esq.
   BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM
   1 N La Salle St # 4600
   Chicago, IL 60602
   United States
   Telephone: (312) 621-2000

Mitchell L. Burgess -- mitch@burgessandlamb.com -- BURGESS, LAMB
LAW FIRM, Ralph K. Phalen -- phalenlaw@yahoo.com -- PHALEN LAW
OFFICE, Richard J. Schicker -- rich@teamschick.com -- SCHICKER
LAW FIRM & Sharon A. Harris, BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM.

M-Qube, Defendant, represented by Ari N. Rothman, VENABLE LAW
FIRM, John P. Passarelli, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM, Molly T. Cusson,
VENABLE LAW FIRM & Paul R. Gwilt, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM.

Mobile Messenger Americas, Defendant, represented by Ari N.
Rothman, VENABLE LAW FIRM, John P. Passarelli, KUTAK, ROCK LAW
FIRM, Molly T. Cusson, VENABLE LAW FIRM & Paul R. Gwilt, KUTAK,
ROCK LAW FIRM.

CF Enterprises Pty., Defendant, represented by Carrie S. Dolton,
GOBER, HILGERS LAW FIRM & Michael T. Hilgers, GOBER, HILGERS LAW
FIRM.

Richard Geier, Movant, represented by Matthew J. Zuchetto, SCOTT
LAW GROUP, Renae D. Steiner, HEINS, MILLS LAW FIRM & Toby J.
Marshall, TERRELL, MARSHALL LAW FIRM.

David Hanson, Intervenor, represented by Elizabeth A. Ryan,
BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, KRONENBERGER,
BURGOYNE LAW FIRM, John J. Roddy, BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, Karl
S. Kronenberger, KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM & William L.
Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Kristian Kunder, Intervenor, represented by Elizabeth A. Ryan,
BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, KRONENBERGER,
BURGOYNE LAW FIRM, John J. Roddy, BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, Karl
S. Kronenberger, KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM & William L.
Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.


MICHAEL RYAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Taft" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In DAVID L. TAFT, JR., Plaintiff, v. DR. MICHAEL RYAN, ERVIN
WHITEHEAD, STEVE McQUEEN, Defendants, NO. 11-CV-4021-DEO, (N.D.
Iowa.), before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 Complaint should be dismissed. In his Complaint, Mr.
Taft, who is an involuntarily committed patient at the Civil
Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders (CCUSO) in Cherokee, Iowa,
argues that he should be given a hearing, pursuant to Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), when disciplinary incidents
negatively impact his progression through CCUSO's treatment
levels.

Mr. Taft originally filed the present Complaint in March of 2011.
In June of 2011, the Complaint was consolidated with Taft et al.
v. Turner et al., 05-CV-4065-DEO, a then pending class action
case in which Mr. Taft was the named Plaintiff and CCUSO staff
members were the named Defendants.  On April 25, 2012, the Court
accepted a settlement in 05-CV-4065-DEO.  However, Mr. Taft's
present issue, regarding Wolff v. McDonnell, was not addressed by
the settlement. Consequently, on May 22, 2012, the Court entered
an Initial Review Order allowing Mr. Taft's Wolff v. McDonnell
claim to proceed independent from the class action.

In a March 28, 2014 ruling, a copy of which is is available at
http://is.gd/hYQDRhfrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge Donald
E. O'Brien granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
and dimissed the Plaintiff's Complaint.  Judge O'Brien said the
Court is persuaded that Mr. Taft's Complaint must be dismissed on
the merits.

David L Taft, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E Ingram --
mearslaw@mearslawoffice.com -- Mears Law Office.

Dr Michael Ryan, Defendant, represented by Gretchen Witte
Kraemer, Department of Justice.

Ervin Whitehead, Defendant, represented by Gretchen Witte
Kraemer, Department of Justice.

Steve McQueen, Defendant, represented by Gretchen Witte Kraemer,
Department of Justice.


MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Leips" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sue L. Robinson dismissed the case captioned CLARK
LEIPS, Derivatively on Behalf of MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated shareholders of MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff,
v. RAOUF Y. HALIM, MICHAEL T. HAYASHI, MING LOUIE, THOMAS A.
MADDEN, JERRE L. STEAD, ROBERT J. CONRAD and DWIGHT W. DECKER,
Defendants, and MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Nominal defendant,
CIV. NO. 13-15-SLR, (D. Del.)

Mindspeed Technologies filed the motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. Individual defendants also filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The court granted Mindspeed's motion to dismiss on the issue of
standing. The Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended
complaint on or before April 30, 2014. The individual defendants'
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied as
moot.

In his March 28, 2014 Memorandum, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/RvH5Wpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Robinson held that
faced with Mindspeed's challenge to his standing, Plaintiff could
have provided the court with the appropriate information in his
responsive briefing. As he did not do so, the court is without
the necessary information to determine whether Plaintiff meets
the standing requirement.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Practices Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Santilli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-00088-ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 14, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Kenny" Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Kenny, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Montage Technology Group Limited, Howard C. Yang,
Stephen Tai and Mark Voll, Case No. 3:14-cv-00722-SI (N.D. Cal.,
February 14, 2014) is a securities class action on behalf of all
persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Montage between September 26, 2013, and February 6,
2014, inclusive, against Montage and certain of its officers and
directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Montage is a global fabless provider of analog and mixed-signal
semiconductor solutions addressing the home entertainment and
cloud computing markets.  The Company's analog and radio
frequency solutions, digital signal processors and high speed
interfaces serve as the foundation for its technology platform.
Montage has a corporate office in San Jose, California.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602-1592

The Defendants are represented by:

          Seth A. Aronson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: saronson@omm.com

Movant Martin Graham is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


NDG COFFEE: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Wages to Cooks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Casiano and Luis Alberto Galindo, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. NDG Coffee Shop Inc.
(d/b/a Big Nick's Burger & Pizza Joint Too), Pizza Joint Too Inc.
(d/b/a Big Nick's Burger & Pizza Joint Too), Dimitrios
Galanopoulus and Niko Galanopoulus, Case No. 1:14-cv-00955-PAE
(S.D.N.Y.,
February 14, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they worked.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cook and pizza
maker.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a fast food restaurant
located in New York City under the name "Big Nick's Burger &
Pizza Joint."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NEW JERSEY: Gibson Dunn Releases Bridgegate Witness Interviews
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has publicly released summaries of its
interviews of 75 witnesses as part of its investigation of Gov.
Chris Christie's administration's potential involvement in the
Bridgegate affair.

The people interviewed by the New York firm, which Christie
commissioned to conduct the internal investigation, included the
governor himself and members of his inner circle.

Gibson Dunn produced the same memoranda for the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of New Jersey and the New Jersey
Legislative Select Committee on Investigation.  The committee had
demanded that the documents be turned over.

The interviews touched on last fall's abrupt closures of George
Washington Bridge local access lanes and on Hoboken Mayor Dawn
Zimmer's claim that allocation of Hurricane Sandy relief funds
was tied to Hoboken development projects proposed by the
Rockefeller Group, a developer represented by West Orange's Wolff
& Samson.

Not interviewed were three key players in Bridgegate: former
Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly, Christie's two-time campaign
chairman, Bill Stepien, and David Wildstein, the former director
for interstate capital projects at the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey, which operates the bridge.

Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien have invoked their Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination and are seeking immunity in
exchange for testifying.  Mercer County Assignment Judge Mary
Jacobson ruled on April 9 that they need not comply with the
committee's subpoenas for documents.

Mr. Wildstein has turned over documents to the committee but has
declined to answer questions.  A contempt charge has been
referred to the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office.  News reports
say he has met with federal prosecutors to discuss possible
immunity.

Also not interviewed was Wolff & Samson partner David Samson, who
stepped down on March 28 as chairman of the Port Authority.

Those interviewed included Lt. Gov. Kimberly Guadagno; Chief of
Staff Kevin O'Dowd; Regina Egea, the director of the Authorities
Unit; Deborah Gramiccioni, the deputy executive director of the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; and Marc Ferzan, the
executive director of the Office of Recovery and Rebuilding
Most of those interviewed did not have their own attorneys
present.  They were given warnings that Gibson Dunn represented
the administration and that the statements they made might be
revealed to third parties.

The interview memos released are not transcripts but
reconstructions based on the attorneys' notes and memories.
Gibson Dunn partner Randy Mastro and two other firm lawyers
interviewed Gov. Christie three times -- on Feb. 12, Feb. 28 and
March 14.  They concluded, "Gov. Christie had no role in the lane
realignment and had no knowledge of anyone's participation in the
lane realignment."

But they also depicted Gov. Christie as "agitated and
disappointed" by the news coverage of Bridgegate.  At a Dec. 13
senior staff meeting, Gov. Christie entered the room, slammed the
door and stood the entire time and at one point said "this is a
mess, and now I have to clean it up."  He said that he was about
to hold a press conference and that if anyone knew anything about
the closures they had 45 minutes to speak to Mr. O'Dowd or
Charles McKenna, then the chief counsel.  No one did. Gov.
Christie then told reporters at the conference that no one in his
administration was involved in Bridgegate.

The memo says Mr. O'Dowd told Gov. Christie that Ms. Kelly was
crying when she "swore up and down that she had no knowledge of
it."  The memo also relates a senior staff meeting at
Drumthwacket, the governor's mansion, held on Jan. 8 shortly
after Gov. Christie read a story in The Record of Hackensack that
discussed Ms. Kelly's possible involvement.

The memo says Gov. Christie "got emotional, with tears in his
eyes" and said the administration "could not get sandbagged
again."  It was then that he decided to fire Ms. Kelly and
replace Mr. Stepien.

Another memo relates Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak's
account of the Dec. 13 senior staff meeting, saying Gov. Christie
was angry because the governor's office had "taken a beating"
nationally because of the controversy.

Mr. O'Dowd, who had been tapped last year to be the state
attorney general, was interviewed on Jan. 19 and on March 8.  At
the second interview, he was accompanied by former First
Assistant Attorney General Paul Zoubek, now with the Cherry Hill
office of Montgomery McCracken.

The memo relates that Mr. O'Dowd said Ms. Kelly on Dec. 13
unequivocally denied to him any involvement in lane closures and
that he was inclined to give her "the benefit of the doubt."  He
said he did not know of Ms. Kelly's alleged involvement until
Jan. 8.  "O'Dowd was angry that Kelly had lied to him," the memo
says.

The committee's co-chair, Assemblyman John Wisniewski,
D-Middlesex, says he is reviewing the memos and so far, "They
seem to be particularly sparse, especially in terms of
recollection."  He says the memos do not answer the "fundamental
questions," such as whether Ms. Kelly thought her actions would
be appropriate.  "Did somebody talk to her? Did somebody above
her talk to her? We don't know the answers to these questions.
The Gibson report gives us no enlightenment," he says.


NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters Fund Files Motion to Reconsider
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc., disclosed in its Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
in a suit filed by New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund against its
subsidiary, the plaintiff has filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated
defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16,
2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated
sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans
that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims,
which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011,
and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29,
2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended
complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court
reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the
case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower
court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as
a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in
securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate
court remanded the case back to the lower court for further
proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum
with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier
dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which
plaintiff was not invested.


NRG ENERGY: High Court Ruling Ends One Natural Gas Suit v. GenOn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, thereby
ending one of five Natural Gas Litigation against GenOn Energy,
Inc., according to NRG Energy Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the
resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to
increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar
laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution
and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of
energy companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, which is handling four
of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases.
The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. On August 26,
2013, GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed
a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging
the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 2, 2013, the United
States Supreme Court requested the views of the U.S. Solicitor
General on the petition for certiorari. In September 2012, the
State of Nevada Supreme Court, which is handling the remaining
case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court
for Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn.
In February 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nevada case filed a
petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013,
the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari,
thereby ending one of the five lawsuits. GenOn has agreed to
indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these
lawsuits.


NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Emissions Suit Stayed Pending Writ Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
stayed further proceedings in the case against GenOn Energy,
Inc., over emissions from the Cheswick generating facility,
pending a decision on the petition for writ of certiorari in
relation to the reversal of the dismissal of the case, according
to NRG Energy, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
GenOn in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating
facility have damaged the property of neighboring residents. The
Company disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs have brought
nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims
seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek to
certify a class that consists of people who own property or live
within one mile of the Company's plant. In July 2012, the Company
removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. In October 2012, the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 20, 2013,
the Third Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court. On
September 3, 2013, the Company filed a petition for rehearing
with the Third Circuit which was subsequently denied. In February
2014, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review and reversal of the Third
Circuit Decision. The District Court has stayed further
proceedings in the case pending a decision on the petition for
writ of certiorari.


NRG ENERGY: Settlement of Six Suits v. Energy Plus Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of lawsuits against Energy Plus Holdings in New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania became final and non-
appealable in October 2013, according to NRG Energy, Inc.'s Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Energy Plus Holdings was sued in six purported class action
lawsuits, two in New York, two in New Jersey, and two in
Pennsylvania. On February 28, 2013, Energy Plus Holdings entered
into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs to resolve all of the
claims in the six pending suits, subject to court approval.  On
September 17, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered an order approving the settlement.
This settlement became final and nonappealable on October 27,
2013. Energy Plus Holdings continues to cooperate with the
Connecticut Office of Attorney General and Office of Consumer
Counsel and the State of New York Office of Attorney General to
resolve certain issues related to Energy Plus Holdings sales,
marketing and business practices.  Energy Plus Holdings and the
Connecticut Office of Attorney General and Office of Consumer
Counsel have been involved in settlement discussions and their
efforts to reach a resolution continue.


NRG ENERGY: Del., Tex. Lawsuits Over GenOn Merger Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits in Delaware state court and Texas state and federal
courts over NRG Energy, Inc.'s acquisition of GenOn Energy, Inc.
has now ended, according to NRG's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

NRG was named as a defendant in eight purported class actions in
Texas and Delaware related to its announcement of its agreement
to acquire all outstanding shares of GenOn. These cases were
consolidated into one state court case in each of Delaware and
Texas and a federal court case in Texas. The plaintiffs generally
alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well as conspiracy, aiding
and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs generally
sought to: be certified as a class; enjoin the merger; direct the
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties; rescind the
acquisition; and be awarded attorneys' fees costs and other
relief that the court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs also demanded
that there be additional disclosures regarding the merger terms.
On October 24, 2012, the parties to the Delaware state court case
executed a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the Delaware
purported class action lawsuit. In March 2013, the parties
finalized the settlement of the Delaware action. On June 3, 2013,
the court approved the Delaware class action settlement thereby
ending the Delaware lawsuit. The remaining Texas state and
federal court cases were dismissed in July 2013 and August 2013,
respectively, thereby ending these matters.


PASSAT LAUNDRY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Kirkland, on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated v. Passat Laundry Systems, Inc. d/b/a Kannegiesser USA,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00577-N (N.D. Tex., February 14, 2014)
alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to him in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Specifically, the Defendant misclassified him as an exempt
employee and did not pay time-and-a-half of his regular rate of
pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
Mr. Kirkland contends.

Passat Laundry Systems, Inc., doing business as Kannegiesser USA,
Inc., is a for-profit corporation authorized to do business, and
is doing business, in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy A. Anderson, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation;
and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-cv-00489-JAM-DAD (E.D.
Cal., 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:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


PFIZER INC: Agrees to Settle Neurontin Class Action for $190MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that Pfizer Inc
has agreed to pay $190 million to settle a class action lawsuit
alleging the pharmaceutical company took steps to delay market
entry of generic versions of its epilepsy drug Neurontin,
according to court documents filed on April 21.

Lawyers representing a class of Neurontin purchasers disclosed
the terms of the settlement in a motion seeking approval of the
deal that was filed in New Jersey federal court.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2002, alleged that Pfizer took
multiple steps to maintain its exclusivity on the sale of
Neurontin, including sham patent infringement lawsuits and
promotion of the drug for unapproved uses.

Buyers of Neurontin claimed that Pfizer's activity forced them to
pay inflated prices for the drug.  Pfizer, which did not admit to
liability or wrongdoing, said in a statement that the settlement
"reflects a desire by the company to concentrate on its business
and the needs of patients and prescribers, while also reducing
the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation."

"We're happy with the result after a long and hard litigation,"
said Robert Kaplan, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

In 2004, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to federal and state
governments and pleaded guilty to criminal charges of illegally
marketing Neurontin, a drug the company obtained with its 2000
acquisition of Warner Lambert Corp.

The case is In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-1390,
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.


PLAINS ALL: DuckPond Trust Lawsuit Over PNG Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The suit DuckPond Trust, et al., v. PAA Natural Gas Storage, LP.,
et al., 4:13-cv-03170 (S.D. Tex.) was dismissed in February,
according to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.'s Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of PNG unitholders
challenging the PNG Merger.  Two lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2013 and were
consolidated under the caption In re PAA Natural Gas Storage,
Limited Partnership Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8908-VCL
(which the company refers to as the Consolidated Delaware
Action).  Two lawsuits were filed in Texas state court in
September 2013 and were consolidated under the caption Vicars v.
PNGS GP, LLC, et al., Cause No. 2013-52687 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Harris
County) (which the company refers to as the Consolidated Texas
Action).  Four lawsuits were filed in Texas federal court in
October 2013 and were consolidated under the caption The DuckPond
Trust, et al., v. PAA Natural Gas Storage, LP., et al., 4:13-cv-
03170 (S.D. Tex.) (which the company refers to as the
Consolidated Federal Action).

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action generally allege
that (i) the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed
to PNG unitholders by allegedly approving the merger agreement at
an unfair price and through an unfair process and by agreeing to
certain deal protection devices; and (ii) the PNG Merger unfairly
benefits certain members of PNG's board of directors.  Plaintiffs
also allege that PNG's general partner, PNG and other of the
company's affiliates aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary
breaches by the individual defendants.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Texas Action generally allege that
(i) the individual defendants breached their duties owed to PNG's
unitholders under PNG's partnership agreement as well as the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are engaging
in self-dealing; and (ii) PNG's general partner, PNG and other of
the company's affiliates have aided and abetted the defendant
directors for the purpose of advancing their own interests and/or
assisting such directors in connection with their breaches of
their respective duties.  In addition, the Consolidated Texas
Action includes purported derivative claims on behalf of PNG
based on the alleged breaches of duties by the individual
defendants.

In February 2014, the Consolidated Federal Action was dismissed.
Plaintiffs in the remaining actions generally seek, among other
relief, to enjoin the transaction, rescission in the event the
transaction is consummated, an order directing defendants to
account to plaintiff and other members of the putative class for
all damages caused by their breaches, money damages and an award
of costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees.


PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco J. Bruno and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Professional Service Industries, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-20570-KMM (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Professional Service Industries, Inc. is a foreign corporation
that regularly transacts business within Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          K. David Kelly, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                  david.kelly38@rocketmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Luis E. Ordonez, Esq.
          QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
          9300 South Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 670-1101
          Facsimile: (305) 670-1161
          E-mail: LOrdonez@QPWBLaw.com


RANJHA CLEANERS: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Navarrete, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Ranjha Cleaners, Inc., (d/b/a Ranjha Cleaners), Soho
Cleaners Inc.,(d/b/a Soho Cleaners), Mulberry Street Cleaners
Inc. (d/b/a Mulberry Cleaners), Ranjha Mott Cleaners Inc. (d/b/a
Mott Cleaners), Mulberry Subway Inc. (d/b/a Subway), Worth Subway
Inc. (d/b/a Subway), Shahid Razza and John Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00954-VSB (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any
of the hours that he worked.

Ranjha Cleaners Inc. is a New York corporation headquartered in
New York City.  The Defendants own, operate and control a chain
of full service dry cleaners and Subway franchises around lower
Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIDDELL INC: Sued by Buyers of Revolution Brand Football Helmets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Galvan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Riddell, Inc.; All American Sports
Corporation d/b/a Riddell/All American; Riddell Sports Group;
Easton-Bell Sports, Inc.; Easton-Bell Sports, LLC; EB Sports
Corporation; RBG Holdings Corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00359-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) is
brought on behalf of California consumers, who purchased Riddell
Revolution brand football helmets.

The Revolution helmet was marketed based on the Defendants'
uniform false or misleading representations that the helmet would
prevent or substantially reduce the incidence of concussion
compared to traditional and lower-cost football helmets, Mr.
Galvan alleges.

The Defendants, either individually or collectively, have all
operated as a business through designing, developing,
manufacturing, selling, or distributing football equipment,
including helmets, in one entity form or another, since 1922.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          10200 Willow Creek Rd., Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          D. G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0557
          Facsimile: (205) 314-0757
          E-mail: dpantazisjr@wcqp.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 612-0243
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          E-mail: ekirkwood1@cs.com


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Approval of Santarus Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. awaits final approval of a settlement
reached in shareholder lawsuits over its acquisition of Santarus,
according to Salix's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Beginning on November 12, 2013, eleven putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Santarus seeking to
challenge the company's proposed acquisition of Santarus, which
was announced on November 7, 2013. Nine of these actions were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, one was filed in
California Superior Court (San Diego County) and one was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
These actions generally allege that the members of the Santarus
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Santarus's
shareholders by failing to maximize the value of Santarus and by
making inadequate or misleading disclosures regarding the
proposed merger, and that Santarus, the company and certain of
its subsidiaries aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint in the action pending in California federal
court also asserts causes of action on behalf of the individual
plaintiff for alleged violations of certain sections of the
Exchange Act. These actions generally sought, among other things,
to enjoin the merger, unspecified damages and fees.

On December 9, 2013, Santarus and its directors filed a motion to
stay the action pending in California Superior Court. On December
11, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the nine
actions pending in that court, appointed lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, and designated the amended complaint filed by
plaintiff Imad Ahmad Khalil on December 9, 2013 as the operative
complaint in the consolidated Delaware litigation.

On December 20, 2013, the parties in the Delaware litigation
reached an agreement in principle, subject to full documentation,
to resolve the plaintiffs' claims in that action in exchange for
certain supplemental disclosures that Santarus included in an
amended Schedule 14D-9 it filed on that date. The company
completed the company's merger with Santarus on January 2, 2014.
The parties in the Delaware litigation executed a Memorandum of
Understanding reflecting the terms of their agreement in
principle on January 17, 2014 and are currently drafting full
settlement documentation and engaging in confirmatory discovery.
The settlement of the Delaware litigation will be subject to
approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiffs'
counsel in the Delaware litigation has also indicated that the
plaintiffs intend to request an award of an unspecified amount
attorneys' fees from the Delaware Court of Chancery. On January
23, 2014, Santarus and its directors filed a renewed motion to
stay the action pending in California Superior Court, and the
company filed a separate motion to stay that action in favor of
the Delaware litigation. On February 12, 2014, the parties in the
action pending in California federal court filed a joint motion
to stay that action pending a decision by the Delaware Court of
Chancery regarding final approval of the proposed settlement of
the Delaware litigation, and the California federal court granted
that motion on February 13, 2014. The company is vigorously
defending the action pending in California Superior Court and
attempting to finalize the settlement of the consolidated
Delaware litigation.


SEALED AIR: Manitoba Court Dismisses Grace in Asbestos Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two actions over W.R. Grace & Co.'s alleged marketing,
manufacturing or distributing of asbestos or asbestos containing
products were dismissed by the Manitoba court as against the
Grace parties and it is anticipated that the remaining actions
will now also be dismissed, according to Sealed Air Corporation's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since November 2004, the Company and specified subsidiaries have
been named as defendants in a number of cases, including a number
of putative class actions, brought in Canada as a result of W.R.
Grace & Co.'s alleged marketing, manufacturing or distributing of
asbestos or asbestos containing products in Canada prior to the
Cryovac transaction in 1998. Grace has agreed to defend and
indemnify the company and the company's subsidiaries in these
cases. A global settlement of these Canadian claims to be funded
by Grace has been approved by the Canadian court, and the Plan
provides for payment of these claims. The company does not have
any positive obligations under the Canadian settlement, but it is
a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in favor of
the Grace parties (including us) became operative upon the
effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United
States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the Plan
contemplates that the claims released under the Canadian
settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section 524(g) of
the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court entered the Bankruptcy
Court Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011 and the Clarifying
Order on February 15, 2011 and the District Court entered the
Original District Court Confirmation Order on January 30, 2012
and the Amended District Court Confirmation Order on June 11,
2012. The Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011
recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court's
Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of Canada in
accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms.
The Plan became effective on February 3, 2014. In accordance with
an order of the Canadian court, on the Effective Date the actions
became permanently stayed until they are amended to remove the
Grace parties as named defendants. Two actions were dismissed by
the Manitoba court as against the Grace parties on February 19,
2014 and it is anticipated that the remaining actions will now
also be dismissed.


SEALED AIR: Litigations Over Cryovac Transaction Remain Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class actions and a number of personal injury lawsuits
against Sealed Air Corporation as a result of the Cryovac, Inc.
transaction remained stayed as a result of W.R. Grace & Co.'s
bankruptcy filing, according to Sealed Air's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since the beginning of 2000, the company was served with a number
of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac
transaction, the company becomes responsible for alleged asbestos
liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were
also named as co-defendants in some of these actions. Among these
lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of
personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages for
personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product. Neither the former Sealed Air
Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the
asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these
cases. None of these cases has reached resolution through
judgment, settlement or otherwise.  Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding stayed all of these cases and the orders confirming
Grace's plan of reorganization enjoin parties from prosecuting
Grace-related asbestos claims against the Company.


SEALED AIR: Canada Unit Still Faces Asbestos Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary still faces suits as a
result of W.R. Grace & Co.'s marketing, selling, processing,
manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or
asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac, Inc.
Transaction, according to Sealed Air's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in
the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
(File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. were also
named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a
putative class proceeding and sought recovery for alleged
injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the
course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing, selling,
processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering
asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the
Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff filed another proceeding in
January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench naming the
Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter
proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of
Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No.
CI05-01-41069), sought the recovery of the cost of insured health
services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the
members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.
In October 2005, the company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and
its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie,
as well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R.
Grace & Co. - Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except
with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing
and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in
Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace &
Co. - Conn. agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and
expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions.


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Burge" Suit in Kentucky Over Shape Up Shoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helga Burge, 19109 Cherry Rose Circle, Lutz, FL 33558 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00131-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Trujillo, 74 Houston Street, Buffalo, NY 14220 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00126-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Shape Up Toning Shoes, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Jefferson, 1805 SE 9th St., Moore, OK 73160 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00133-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Hamilton" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARINA HAMILTON f/k/a LISA MONTI and DAVID S. WIEDER on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC., QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and
STERLING NATIONAL INSURANCE AGENCY f/k/a QBE FIRST INSURANCE
AGENCY, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-60749-CIV-COHN/SELTZER, (S.D.
Fla.), is before the Court on separate motions to dismiss a third
amended complaint filed by (i) QBE Specialty and QBE First, and
(ii) SunTrust Mortgage Inc.  SunTrust, alternatively asked the
Court to abstain from hearing Ms. Hamilton's Claims.

District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., issued an order denying the
QBE defendants' motion to dismiss, saying the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that the QBE Defendants caused them harm.
A copy of the March 28, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/gNNIsAfrom Leagle.com.

In a separate ruling dated March 25, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/8tu2H7from Leagle.com, District Judge
James I. Cohn denied SunTrust's motion to dismiss, or
alternatively, for the Court to abstain from hearing Plaintiff
hamilton's claims.  Judge Cohn held that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that SunTrust acted capriciously to
contravene their reasonable contractual expectations. To find
otherwise at this stage of the proceedings would, in effect,
eliminate any reasonable limit on the amount of force-placed
insurance that SunTrust may lawfully charge to its borrowers.
This, the Court declines to do, he said.

Carina Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst
-- apodhurst@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Catherine E.
Anderson -- canderson@gslawny.com -- Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson
& Stewart, LLP, Eric D. Holland, Hollan, Groves, Schneller &
Stolze, LLC, Gerard B. Schneller, Holland, Groves, Schneller &
Stolze, LLC, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Margery
Ellen Golant, Margery E. Golant, P.A., Matthew Weinshall,
Podhurst Orseck, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Randall
Seth Crompton, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, Robert J.
Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin
& Throckmorton, Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Dyanne Elyce Feinberg, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Howard
Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Lance August Harke,
Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J Neary,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin
Throckmorton & Jeffrey N. Golant.

David Wieder, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland, Hollan,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, Gerard B. Schneller, Holland,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, Rachel Sullivan, Randall Seth
Crompton, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, Robert J. Axelrod,
Pomerantz LLP, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A., Dyanne Elyce Feinberg, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.,
Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton & Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Suntrust Mortgage Inc., Defendant, represented by Marc Jonathan
Gottlieb -- marc.gottlieb@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt &
Eidson, William Patrick Heller -- william.heller@akerman.com --
Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, Christopher Stephen Carver --
christopher.carver@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt & Nathaniel
Dwight Callahan -- nathaniel.callahan@akerman.com -- Akerman
Senterfitt & Eidson.

Sterling National Insurance Agency, Defendant, represented by
Robyn C. Quattrone -- rquattrone@buckleysandler.com -- Buckley
Sandler, LLP, Ross E. Morrison -- rmorrison@buckleysandler.com --
BuckleySandler, LLP, Stephen M. LeBlanc --
sleblanc@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler, LLP, Brian W. Toth
-- brian.toth@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight & Marc Jonathan
Gottlieb, Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson.

QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robyn
C. Quattrone, Buckley Sandler, LLP, Ross E. Morrison,
BuckleySandler, LLP, Stephen M. LeBlanc, BuckleySandler, LLP,
William Newton Shepherd, Holland & Knight LLP, Brian W. Toth,
Holland & Knight & Marc Jonathan Gottlieb, Akerman Senterfitt &
Eidson.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Unit Still Faces Suit Over Google Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of TeleTech Holdings, Inc. continues to face a
lawsuit alleging it violated California Penal Code Section 632 by
recording telephone calls made on behalf of Google Inc.,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In the fourth quarter of 2012, a class action complaint was filed
in the State of California against a TeleTech subsidiary and
Google Inc. ("Google"), as co-defendants. The action alleges that
the defendants violated California Penal Code Section 632 by
recording telephone calls made on behalf of Google to residents
in California without disclosure. Pursuant to its contractual
commitments, the Company has agreed to indemnify Google for costs
and expenses related to the complaint.


UNION SECURITY: Sued Over Denial of Accidental Death Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fallon Logan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Union Security Insurance Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01174-DMG-E (C.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) is an individual and
class action lawsuit brought by a beneficiary under an employee
benefit plan for the improper denial of accidental death benefits
by the plan's insurer and administrator, Union Security Insurance
Company.

Union Security has uniformly and improperly denied accidental
drug overdose claims by relying on erroneous applications of a
"drug exclusion" in its accidental death and dismemberment
policies, the Plaintiff contends.

Fallon Logan is the named beneficiary of an accidental death and
dismemberment policy issued on the life of her fiance, Tabias
Bryant, formerly an employee of Ipayment, Inc.

Union Security is a life insurance company licensed to do
business in California and domiciled in Kansas.  The Company
underwrites, administers, and decides claims under accidental
death and dismemberment policies issued to employers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Jully C. Pae, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  jully.pae@gmlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allison Anne Vana, Esq.
          James J. Moak, Esq.
          MESERVE MUMPER AND HUGHES LLP
          800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2611
          Telephone: (213) 620-0300
          Facsimile: (310) 625-1930
          E-mail: avana@mmhllp.com
                  jmoak@mmhllp.com


UNITED PARCEL: Sells Nonexistent & Pricey Air Service, Class Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Flores, and Mary Lee, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; United Parcel Service, Inc.; an Ohio
Corporation; United Parcel Service General Services Co., a
Delaware Corporation; and United Parcel Service Co. d/b/a United
Parcel Service Co. (Air), a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:14-
cv-01182-GW-PJW (C.D. Cal., February 14, 2014) arises from UPS's
alleged unfair and deceptive practice of selling customers
nonexistent, expensive air service and charging them for aviation
fuel on letters and packages.

UPS, under the names "Next Day Air" and "2nd Day Air," sells its
customers alleged expensive "air" shipping services for domestic
letters and packages.  UPS's domestic package business consists
of air and ground shipment of small packages (up to 150 pounds in
weight) and letters to and from all 50 states.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
          MCNULTY LAW FIRM
          827 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 471-2707
          Facsimile: (310) 472-7014
          E-mail: peter@mcnultylaw.com

               - and -

          Kirk D. Tresemer, Esq.
          Darren A. Natvig, Esq.
          IRWIN & BOESEN, P.C.
          4100 E. Mississippi Ave., Suite 1900
          Denver, CO
          Telephone: (303) 999-9999
          Facsimile: (303) 321-1915
          E-mail: ktresemer@coloradolawyers.com
                  dnatvig@coloradolawyers.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Neal, Esq.
          Kathleen H. Goodhart, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 843-5182
          Facsimile: (650) 857-0663
          E-mail: nealsc@cooley.com
                  kgoodhart@cooley.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Geragos, Esq.
          GERAGOS LAW GROUP
          150 S Los Robles Avenue, Suite 665
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 449-8700
          Facsimile: (626) 449-8702
          E-mail: matthew@geragoslaw.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Alanis, Esq.
          Loren S. Ostrow, Esq.
          ALANIS & OSTROW
          150 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 665
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 356-1188
          Facsimile: (626) 345-1164
          E-mail: palanis@a-olaw.com
                  lostrow@a-olaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan H. Waller, Esq.
          WALLER LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 900
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 33-7330
          E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com


UNITED PARCEL: One Canadian Case Remains Over Brokerage Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. continues to defend one outstanding
case in Ontario over allegations of inadequate disclosure
concerning the existence and cost of its brokerage services,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against
the company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec
(2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure
concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided
by the company under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
the company's favor. The Ontario class action was certified in
September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to the
company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The
complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is
being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate
disclosure were granted and the company is appealing that
decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a
class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012;
there was no appeal, which ended that case in the company's
favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. The
company denies all liability and are vigorously defending the one
outstanding case in Ontario.


UNITED PARCEL: Wants Remaining Claims in Forwarding Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objections of United Parcel Service, Inc.'s to the retention of
some claims in the Third Amended Complaint in a suit over price-
fixing activities filed against it relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services are currently pending before the
court, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In
July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming
numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS
Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the
amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint in October 2010, which the company moved to dismiss. In
August 2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss
all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with
leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in
November 2012. The company filed another motion to dismiss. On
September 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the Court
that UPS be dismissed from one of the claims in the Third Amended
Complaint, with prejudice, but recommended that UPS's motion to
dismiss with respect to other claims in the Third Amended
Complaint be denied. UPS and other defendants filed objections to
the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to the extent they
recommended denial of UPS's motion to dismiss. Those objections
are currently pending before the Court.


UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Claims by Franchisees Who Rebranded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The claims of a certified class of all United Parcel Service,
Inc. franchisees who did rebrand their UPS Store franchises
remain pending, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

UPS and the company's subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are
defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the
rebranding of The UPS Store franchises.  In the Morgate case, the
plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand
to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who
did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees
described in (1), the trial court entered judgment against a
bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January
2012.  In March 2013, the company reached a settlement in
principle with the remaining individual plaintiffs who did not
rebrand.  The company believes this settlement will not have a
material adverse effect on the company's financial condition,
results of operations or liquidity.  The trial court granted the
company's motion for summary judgment against the certified
class, which was reversed in January 2012.  The company has not
reached a settlement with this class of franchisees, and the
claims of the class remain pending.


UNITED SERVICES: District Court Dismisses "Allen" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge M. Casey Rodgers dismissed the case
captioned JAMES R. ALLEN and DIANE Z. ALLEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, CASE
NOS. 3:13CV143-MCR/CJK, 3:13CV582-MCR/CJK, (N.D. Fla.).

James R. Allen and Diane Z. Allen filed this putative class
action against their insurer, United Services Automobile
Association (USAA) claiming that USAA increased their homeowner's
law and ordinance insurance coverage without a written selection,
in violation of Fla. Stat. Section 627.7011(2).  They sought
monetary damages for breach of contract as well as declaratory
and injunctive relief. USAA filed the Motion to Dismiss, arguing
that the statute does not provide a private cause of action and
the Allens have otherwise failed to state a cause of action.

A copy of Judge Rodgers' March 30, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/zqMbRxfrom Leagle.com.  The Order also applies to
the complaint in the consolidated Schall file, No. 3:13 cv582-
MCR-CJK, which involves the same issues and thus likewise suffers
from the same defect of failure to state a claim and is dismissed
for the same reasons.

Judge Rodgers directed the Clerk of Court to close both files.
Costs to be taxed against the Plaintiffs in each case. All other
pending motions were denied as moot.

JAMES R ALLEN, Plaintiff, represented by:

   James Nixon Daniel, Esq.
   Russell Frank Van Sickle, Esq.
   TERRIE DIDIER, Esq.
   BEGGS & LANE RLLP
   501 Commendencia Street
   Pensacola, FL 32502
   Telephone: (850)432-2451
   Facsimile: (850)469-3331

DIANE Z ALLEN, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES NIXON DANIEL,
BEGGS & LANE RLLP, RUSSELL FRANK VAN SICKLE, BEGGS & LANE RLLP &
TERRIE DIDIER, BEGGS & LANE RLLP.

MATTHEW J SCHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES NIXON DANIEL,
BEGGS & LANE RLLP, RUSSELL FRANK VAN SICKLE, BEGGS & LANE RLLP &
TERRIE DIDIER, BEGGS & LANE RLLP.

JUDITH A SCHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES NIXON DANIEL,
BEGGS & LANE RLLP, RUSSELL FRANK VAN SICKLE, BEGGS & LANE RLLP &
TERRIE DIDIER, BEGGS & LANE RLLP.

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by
STEPHEN E GOLDMAN -- sgoldman@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE LLP,
WYSTAN MICHAEL ACKERMAN -- wackerman@rc.com --   ROBINSON & COLE
LLP, and:

   Charles Franklin Beall, Jr., Esq.
   Thomas Larry Hill, Esq.
   MOORE HILL & WESTMORELAND PA
   220 West Garden Street, 9th Floor
   Pensacola, FL 32502-5702
   Telephone: (850)434-3541
   Facsimile: (850)435-7899


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Mini Butter Croissants Over Allergen
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Whole Foods Markets is
recalling mini butter croissants sold in Texas, Oklahoma,
Arkansas and Louisiana because they contain eggs, an undeclared
allergen.

The recalled item is sold with a Whole Foods market scale label
reading "mini butter croissants" in six-pack plastic containers
with a "Best by" date of April 21 through April 23.  It also has
a uniform product code of 2 28719-00499-1 on the scale label.

A company statement says the issue arose after one illness was
reported.  That's the only illness reported so far, but persons
with an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume
the pastry.

Austin-based Whole Foods Markets' Southwest Region distributed
the pastry to 26 While Foods Market stores in the regions four
states.


WINTRUST FIN'L: Expects Half of FLSA Class Members to Be Excluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation anticipates that about half of new
class members designated in a Fair Labor Standards Act class
action lawsuit filed against Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its
subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company will ultimately be excluded
from the class, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by
Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and
its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a
Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "FLSA
Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company
violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and challenges the
manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company classified its loan
originators and compensated them for their work. The suit also
seeks to assert these claims as a class. On September 30, 2013,
the Court entered an order conditionally certifying an "opt-in"
class in this case. Notice to the potential class members was
sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily informing the
putative class of the right to opt-into the class and setting a
deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice recipients
joined the class. However, the Company anticipates that about
half of these new class members will ultimately be excluded from
the class.


YAHOO! INC: Shareholders Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation are
appealing the dismissal of the case, according to the company's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
and directors of the Company by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin
Cities Pipe Trades Pension Trust. In October 2011, the District
Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo!
Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. In a consolidated
amended complaint filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff
purports to represent a class of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock between April 19, 2011 and July 29, 2011,
and alleges that during that class period, defendants issued
statements that were materially false or misleading because they
did not disclose information relating to Alibaba Group's
restructuring of Alipay. The complaint purports to assert claims
for relief for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
seeks unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, fees,
and costs. On August 10, 2012, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs
have appealed.


YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: Class Cert. Bid in "Jones" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Jones, Nicole Steels, Kavon Ward, and Iona Toles filed a
lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated
employees of the National Council of Young Men's Christian
Associations of the United States of America, alleging claims of
race discrimination and retaliation against the YMCA and Elinor
Hite, the former director of the YMCA's human resources
department.

Before the Court are the parties' respective objections to the
Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
issued on September 5, 2013.  Judge Keys has recommended that the
Court: (i) grant the defendants' motion to strike the report and
testimony of one of the plaintiffs' proffered experts, Dr.
Anthony G. Greenwald; (ii) deny the defendants' motion to strike
the report and testimony of another expert proffered by the
plaintiffs, Dr. Mark Killingsworth; (iii) deny the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification; and (iv) grant the defendants'
motion to deny class certification.

District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. issued a memorandum opinion and
order overruling the parties' objections to Magistrate Judge
Keys' thorough and persuasive Report, and adopts the Report's
recommendations in full.  The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was denied.  A copy of the March 31, 2014 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/LOok3gfrom Leagle.com.

The case is JAMES JONES, NICOLE STEELS, KAVON WARD, AND IONA
TOLES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ("YMCA of the USA"),
an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and ELINOR HITE, former
Senior Vice President of YMCA of the USA, Defendants, NO. 09 C
06437, (N.D. Ill.).

James Jones, Plaintiff, represented by James Bryan Wood --
bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com -- The Law Office of J. Bryan Wood,
Jessica Judith Fayerman -- jfayerman@prinz-lawfirm.comv -- The
Prinz Law Firm, P.C. and:

   Johanna J. Raimond, Esq.
   Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd.
   431 South Dearborn, Suite 1002
   Chicago, IL 60604
   Telephone: (312)235-6959
   Facsimile: (312)469-8302

Nicole Steels, Plaintiff, represented by James Bryan Wood, The
Law Office of J. Bryan Wood.

Nicole Steels, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Judith Fayerman,
The Prinz Law Firm, P.C. & Johanna J. Raimond, Law Offices of
Johanna J. Raimond Ltd..

Kavon Ward, Plaintiff, represented by James Bryan Wood, The Law
Office of J. Bryan Wood & Johanna J. Raimond, Law Offices of
Johanna J. Raimond Ltd..

Iona Toles, Plaintiff, represented by Johanna J. Raimond, Law
Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd..

National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of the
United States of America, Defendant, represented by:

   Richard Patrick McArdle, Esq.
   Aleka Lenette Jones, Esq.
   Brianne M. Gruszka, Esq.
   David Donald Kadue, Esq.
   David Bennett Ross, Esq.
   Gerald L. Pauling, Esq.
   Jay C. Carle, Esq.
   Kyle R. Hartman, Esq.
   Tracy Marie Billows, Esq.
   William Francis Dugan, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw LLP
   2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
   Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
   Telephone: (310) 277-7200
   Facsimile: (310) 201-5219

Elinor Hite, Defendant, represented by Richard Patrick McArdle,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Aleka Lenette Jones, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Brianne M. Gruszka, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, David Donald Kadue,
Seyfarth Shaw Llp, David Bennett Ross, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gerald
L. Pauling, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jay C. Carle, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Tracy Marie Billows, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William Francis Dugan,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


* Alaska Legislature Passes Medical Malpractice Bill
----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Alaska Legislature has
passed a bill that would make expressions of apology or
compassion inadmissible as evidence in medical malpractice cases.

HB250, from Rep. Kurt Olson, has been labeled the "I'm sorry"
bill.  In his sponsor statement, Mr. Olson said the bill was
intended to clear up a "gray area" that exists between apologies
and admissions of negligence.  He said a goal was to improve
doctor-patient relationships.

HB250 passed the Senate unanimously on April 16, after clearing
the House.

Sens. Donny Olson and Cathy Giessel declared conflicts but were
required to vote. Donny Olson is a doctor and Giessel a nurse.

Under the bill, if an expression of apology or sympathy were made
with an admission of liability or negligence, the admission of
liability or negligence could still be admissible.


* Constitutional Changes Sought Regarding Malpractice Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Miller, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
following a Florida Supreme Court decision that struck down caps
on certain awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, the members of
a 2002 task force that supported those caps are calling for a
constitutional amendment that would place the caps on solid
footing.

The task force appointed by then-Gov. Jeb Bush recommended a cap
for individuals on non-economic damages, such as pain and
suffering, and the legislature passed it in 2003.  The five
people who served on that task force wrote to Senate President
Don Gaetz and House Speaker Will Weatherford on April 9, asking
for the proposed amendment.  It would have to be approved by
voters.

However, officials in both chambers say the request comes too
late in this year's legislative session for any action.

The panel members in 2002 compiled a 345-page report that
resulted in legislation in 2003 placing a $500,000 lid for
individuals on non-economic damages.  The five members who signed
the letter wrote that the court decision left them in a
"disheartening" position.  They included task force president
John Hitt, president of the University of Central Florida, and
Donna Shalala, the former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human
Services who now serves as president of the University of Miami.

In the letter, the five asked legislative leaders to consider
putting a constitutional amendment before voters that would give
the malpractice caps constitutional authority and remove
questions about their constitutionality.

Last month, Florida's high court ruled that the caps violate the
equal protection guarantee in the state's constitution.

The lawsuit limits had been part of a law that Bush pushed in an
effort to lower the cost of malpractice insurance rates and to
keep doctors from moving out of state.  Supporters at the time
called skyrocketing insurance rates a crisis.

"Because we are eager to give the court the benefit of the doubt,
we can only conclude that they made an egregious mistake,"
concluded the letter, signed by the panel.

The idea that the Senate would consider the issue at this point
in the session, with about two weeks left, is "unlikely," a Gaetz
spokeswoman said.

On the House side, subcommittees are no longer meeting, which
would hinder any consideration at this point, a spokesman said.


                             *********

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  * * *